Oh. I thought this quote from the clip was from the preceding Beachwood development post:
“...huge alien creatures, large packs of invading cannibalistic predators, seemingly from another world. Nobody knows exactly where they came from, what they’re doing here, or how long they’ll stay.”
=P
George: I’m glad you posted your initial link so that I could gain an understanding of what supporters of the proposed bill are thinking. My limited imagination is frequently unable to encompass how anyone could be opposed to the conservation of our coast.
What my comment asked above is that what Mr. Zumbrun described and what SB 1295 proposes are separated by degrees. If there is an issue with how signatures are obtained, and someone can propose a better way, then by all means, propose it. But the proposed SB seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing the right to appeal by the CCC.
Barry: I didn’t see you as repackaging Zumbrun, but rather you placed the Zumbrun remarks directly into this thread, rather than linked. I also appreciate the discussions your site allows for, as I have read the hmbreview site’s comments and it’s all silly playground fighting, what with the name-calling and finger-pointing. And the user names are relics of AOL 1996. Silly.
Which is why I took exception to Greg’s name-calling, and particularly so, its historical and emotional context. I think name-calling in these discussions is a waste of time and never allows people to hear each other out and, hopefully, reach solution/compromise.
Barry and George:
Yes, exactly all of that which you summarize as the arguments from Mr. Zumbrun’s post - but - isn’t then SB 1295 (Ducheny) like throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I mean, unless the legal tactic here is to ask for a mile, in order to gain an inch, why not first simply propose corrections to the current way of doing things?
I’m not intimately involved with the Coastal Commission, but surely I.T. may be improved within the process, so that electronic zigging & zagging of notice and signatures may be achieved, which could also fulfill regulatory requirements? I’ll look into this. :)
So first, let us start with regulating the appeal process, a sort-of compliance standard, if you will, rather than just tossing out the right-to-appeal of the Coastal Commission completely?
_____
As for Greg - I could choose to let this drop, I know that I do have this choice, but - I can’t. Refuting your comparison of ecological-minded, California coastline conservatives to Nazi Germans, is then, I guess, tantamount to you saying that you feel like a Jew during the Holocaust?
Really? “Berlin, 1939,” eh?
The California Coastal Act, enacted to not only limit the mass-development, and provide access to, our precious State’s coastline, but to also provide thoughtful, conscientious planning of development, makes you feel like your windows are broken at home? That you must wear a yellow Star of David? That your neighbors shun you, turn a blind eye, and allow you and your family to starve? You feel like those who had to move from a comfortable home, to an overcrowded ghetto? Lose your possessions? You feel like you’ve been locked in a cattle car for hours and days on end, tightly pressed up against other bodies, only able to sleep upright, no food, no water, only to arrive at a camp separated from your family? Starvation - Disease - and ultimately, what the Nazi Germans want, death?
Really?
Greg Ward, you’re no Jew, nor gay, nor Commie, nor any type that the Nazis were out to destroy. You may be a victim, but that is your choice. I’ve read the minutes from Commission hearings and there are far more “Allowed with conditions” than there are any proposals outright declined. If you are against the appeal taking place “until the locals have done it,” then step up and communicate how you think it should be handled, rather than irresponsibly equating this to an incomparable “Berlin 1939.”
We are not ECO-Nazis. We are not eco-terrorists. We are not even eco-hooligans. Nor are we a espousing ecologic hysterics. (These are all the name-calling choices since 1970.) We are concerned citizens hoping to retain the beauty of this landscape for our kids, and grandkids, children who will attend school with yours.
Read J. Smeaton Chase’s “California Coastal Trails” to gain an appreciation of all that’s been lost, and what little of it remains. Or, drive southbound from Santa Monica to see what the entire coastline of California may become, had we not benefitted from 1972’s passage of the Coastal Conservation Act.
_____
Get involved. Stay Positive. Do something about it - no matter what “side” you are on.
Wow. “ECO-Nazis?”
That’s just absolutely out of line if you really sit down to consider what is meant by your flippant comment Greg. You just reduced to a playground hissy fit, what could have been a meaningful discourse on your view versus our view.
I take great offense at the term “nazi.” You should apologize to everyone.
On another note, the original post in particular, it is my belief that this proposed bill arose over the defeated toll road down south at San Onofre. Folks who wanted to freeway through California’s dwindling wilderness didn’t get their way, when the estimated count of 5,000 people showed up to protest the toll road at the Coastal Commission hearing, so now we have to battle those same folks in batting down this nonsensical bill proposal.
California State Parks are on the outs due to the Governator not wanting to provide funding, and as a solution to the constant traffic problem, folks want to build more freeways. Jeez, what next? :(
Instead of the image of a girl putting a flower in the gun barrel, how about an image of me putting a flower in a tail pipe?
I wondered what was going on when I drove past that so late last night. Thanks for posting Cheri!
At this point, eating vegetarian is not a silly fad, but a necessity.
Oops. The link takes one only to Yee’s home page, so here is the original article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/18/MNR5S7S4V.DTL&hw=Digging+begins+on+tunnel+at+Devil+Slide&sn=001&sc=1000
Sorry for commenting again, however…
I found this exchange which pretty much settles the debate on the proposed naming of Devil’s Slide Tunnel to “The Tom Lantos Tunnel.” Tom doesn’t want the designation.
From the September 17th, 2007 ceremony, kicking off the tunnel’s digging:
“State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said the tunnel is an example of the public will prevailing over bureaucracy.
“This is about a community that felt it knew better,” he said.
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, surprised (Lennie) Roberts by calling her to the podium and telling her she would start the hole through the mountain. As a leader in the push for a tunnel, he said, she deserved the honor.
“This will be the people’s tunnel,” he proclaimed.”
Just for grins and trivia:
The naming of the tunnel as “Caldecott” is due more to the Mayor’s service as president of Joint Highway District 13 which oversaw the 1930’s construction of the multi-bore tunnel. Previously, while it was a single-hole bore, that tunnel had been known for 47 years as the “Broadway Tunnel.”
:)
One other thought: If we *need* a new name, let’s call it the “San Pedro Mountain Tunnel,” eh? Mmm, still, not quite as catchy as “Devil’s Slide Tunnel,” but it is fitting.
There should be no surprise that this suggestion would stir up much debate, given the location’s history. Too many years and too many people involved make this location not fitting for a single name. Additionally there is the aversion that many people feel for monument markers on our state highway structures.
Our comments are merely voicing community support, as part of our larger democratic freedom, in opposition to a proposed legislation. Without a memorial sign, the tunnels remain simply as tunnels, much like the Gaviota Gorge Tunnel or the Cuesta Pass Grade. The California landscape remains as the indicator to one’s route.
Our Governor voiced his opposition to the possibility of “an undesired plethora” of named-for signs when he vetoed SB 652 this past October:
“BILL NUMBER: SB 652
VETOED DATE: 10/10/2007
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 652 without my signature. This bill makes a credible effort to clarify the often contradictory and confusing guidelines for the naming of state highways and structures. However, the process outlined in this bill essentially cedes control of the placement of these types of signs on the state highway system to local officials based on the desire of just one state legislator who requests a sign. This method could result in an undesirable plethora of signs throughout our state. Since these are state highways, any process devised must have the final authority for the placement of these signs reside at the state level, either in a full vote of the state Legislature or by actions taken by the Executive Branch. I encourage the Legislature to work on the development of guidelines that clarifies the naming process while maintaining the ultimate authority for the placement of these signs with the State of California.
Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger”
From
“CalTrans 2006 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances In California”
Page 5:
“Committee Policy on Resolutions for Naming Highways or Structures
Recommended Policy:
Regarding resolutions introduced on or after April 26, 2004, the Committee will consider
only those resolutions proposing to name or designate state highways or highway structures
which meet specific minimum criteria. The criteria shall include the following conditions:
a) Any person being honored must have provided extraordinary public service or some
exemplary contribution to the public good and have a connection to the community
where the highway is located;
b) The naming must be done without cost to the state: costs for signs and plaques must be
paid by local or private sources and there must be a small additional amount, as
determined by Caltrans but not to exceed 10% of the installation cost, donated to cover
ongoing maintenance costs;
c) The author or co-author of the resolution must represent the district in which the facility
is located and the resolution must identify the specific highway segment or structure
being named;
d) The proposed designation must reflect a community consensus;
e) The proposed designation may not supercede an existing designation unless the sponsor
can document that a good faith effort has uncovered no opposition to rescinding the prior
designation; and
f) When a resolution names a highway or structure in honor of an individual, the designee
must have been deceased for at least 18 months, except in the instance of elected
officials, in which case they must be out of office.”
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/2006_Named_Freeways.pdf
Dan’s http://www.cahighways.org write-up on Named-For Highways & Structures, includes an inventory of all State Highway tunnels (scroll to bottom of page): http://www.cahighways.org/stats1.html
In all the State of California, there are only three named-for tunnels: MacArthur, McClure, and Waldo, and yes, they are less-known as their “official name, but more often referred to as the Presidio, Santa Monica, and Rainbow.
Please let’s just leave it as Devil’s Slide Tunnel.
Yes to all of this well-deserved recognition for MWSD and SAM!
If I may please add, that on that gray day when the rain blew sideways in that Fresh, Strong, and occasional Gale Force Wind, all of our uniformed officers seemed to be out-and-about. These people ensured everyone’s safety by slowing and directing traffic around deep water and blown-down tree branches, clearing away the debris, and providing their presence to be as available as possible.
I don’t mean to take away or divert any of the good words mentioned in this original post, I merely wanted to recognize the efforts of our Police, Fire, and Sheriff.
The question that should first be asked is, “Why name the tunnel?”
or,
“Does this tunnel, or set of tunnels, require a name?”
Why not leave it as “Devil’s Slide Tunnel?” Or better, “The Devils’ Slide Tunnel?” hahahahahaha, I like the second choice better.
Granted, it’s a heck of project to drive by and regard, but all the work and landslides that led up to its inception to now the consideration of naming it, lead us back to its original name as its most fitting honorific.
Surely there is a more meaningful way to honor Congressman Lantos than his name on a green sign next to a tunnel?
I don’t have any ideas to offer for consideration, just criticism that this particular action would not match his many contributions.
Woo-hoo!
The question asked by Michaele:
“And how, by the way, did a little stretch of Highway One get named for Lou Papan?”
Answer:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/acr_234_bill_20020916_chaptered.pdf
In case of interest, there are other sections of State Route* 1, (originally Roosevelt Highway) named for people:
General Douglas MacArthur Tunnel (San Francisco)
Robert E. McClure Tunnel (Santa Monica “father of the Santa Monica Freeway")
CHP Officer John Pedro Memorial Freeway (Watsonville)
and then various Veterans’ groups claim portions of State Route 1 in So Cal.
I’m a bit of a Route 1 enthusiast, so, sorry if this comment is over the top!
Named-for signs along Highway 1 seem to go in contrast to the Scenic Highway regulations, such as: “Prohibit billboards and regulate on-site signs so that they do not detract from scenic views.” But then again, not all of Route 1 is considered Scenic Highway.
To me, named-for signs serve more as a headstone than as a monument marker.
*Leonard! I’m using State Route instead of Highway! :)
Tim, your letter is funny, “I am feeling very Comcastic at the moment!” :)
Bob, Good Luck!
Ken, Good information that I had no idea about. I just need more time to rig it all up. In the meantime, I guess I’m paying a convenience fee for Comcast services...one way to look at it, I guess. Competition would be nice.
What else can we use besides Comcast coastside?
I’m so fed up with their service, and customer service, that I’m ready to go without cable entirely. I’ll use DSL for internet and then read Coastsider.net all day long. ;)
Seriously though, what other providers bring internet and/or cable service Coastside? I could only find Earthlink for internet connectivity as an option. I don’t recall if DirecTV is over here?
Hi Dot:
Yes, failure analysis is valuable, but we were commenting on the finger-pointing, blame-game occurring.
I thought of your comment while listening to this report yesterday on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16245002
The double hull question is turned down as a solution, due to it being too expensive to rebuild the world fleet. (!) My question is, How expensive is the price to protect our beautiful world? Another question is, Can we ever get off our oil dependency?
I only have questions, no answers. :(
How are the invitees chosen?
Yes, real nice. Some folks are already pointing fingers when we need to deal with the mess. That was Surfrider’s quote about reserving judgement, not mine. An email from Barbara Boxer hit my inbox this morning publishing her letter to the Coast Guard for an explanation as “to why it took an entire day to determine the gravity of this spill.”
Me, I see it as the Coast Guard was, perhaps, attempting to assess the situation during that day. All efforts were towards analysis, not publicity and communication yet. Seems reasonable. But I’m not personally involved, so who knows?
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 4 9:50am comment by Kevin J. Lansing, Ken Johnson has it right. Why is an elected school board member like Charles Gardner more occupied with things like…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 3 10:43pm comment by Ken Johnson, Yes Paul, Charlie Gardner has an 'agenda' - do to MWSD what he accomplished at CUSD. He has been on…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 3 5:57am comment by Paul Perkovic, Charlie, Do you have any MWSD agendas, staff reports, minutes, letters, etc. - i.e., some actual documentation - that supports…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 10:44pm comment by Carl May, Mr. Gardner: Why an intertie with the NCCWD? You say "and only use the water when we need it." Do…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 10:22pm comment by Ken Johnson, Charlie Gardner, You are good at asking questions and making unsupported claims - you are not very reliable at answering…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 8:46pm comment by Charlie Gardner, Paul, What has MWSD done to investigate the possibility of an inter-tie to the north with Pacifica? Is it true…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 5:31pm comment by Paul Perkovic, The analysis is very useful to Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) customers, too. One of the misplaced attacks that…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 1:47pm comment by Todd McGee, I'm sure Paul's analysis is correct and very useful to the CCWD customers. And I will readily admit that he…
Letter: Alternatives to July 4th fireworks?, Jul 2 12:29pm comment by Leonard Woren, What would the 2 sides be in a 2008 tug-of-war?
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 12:25pm comment by Leonard Woren, Every new CCWD customer increases the water cost for all existing CCWD customers. This is simple arithmetic, which "engineer" Jim…
