Years ago the CCC approved the project, allowing 19 houses to be built on the portion of the property which they determined wasn’t wetlands. The developer didn’t like that (his net profit would only be $10M instead of $40M on the whole deal) so he sued (I think the CCC and HMB). Regardless, the project has already received approval for a 19 house version. Does that count as “stated in the law”? Oh and by the way, that’s not “deciding that 20 homes can be built on the wetland”—the reason the CCC cut it down to 19 was that’s all that fit on the part that isn’t wetlands.
Ray, the Coastal Commission is not “dictating” anything—they are nothing more than the executive body for the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act was passed by the Legislature in 1976 in order to continue the protections implemented by a popular vote of the people of California when they passed the Coastal Initiative in 1972.
The Coastal Initiative was passed specifically to preserve California’s coast for all people of California, not just those of us lucky enough to be able to live here. Think of it as a tradeoff—in order to be able to own land here, develop here, or live here, you have to make concessions. They’re reasonable concessions considering that the value of land / developing / living here is so much higher than the rest of the state.
(As Carl May has mentioned, it’s time to do another Coastal Initiative to close the loopholes that have been bored through the Coastal Act over the years. And I have confidence that it would pass as easily as it did the first time. One thing that I’d insert this time is Constitutional protection for the CCC’s funding, which would actually benefit developers since the CCC would have enough staff, resulting in time frames shortening to something reasonable.)
Steve Hyman wrote “This like so many other projects here are 10-20 year battles with millions spent on lawyers and endless studies.”
I propose the following rule of thumb: If you need to hire lawyers to ramrod a project through, maybe the project shouldn’t be built in the first place. What fraction of the total number of projects built require lawyers? It’s a vanishingly small percent.
Later, Steve wrote ”But in all seriousness, its so sad to see massive amounts of money and time being wasted on this infill parcel.” It’s only infill due to earlier leapfrog development which likely trampled other sensitive areas. So Steve’s “infill” argument devolves to simply “we’ve already ruined most of the land in the area, so let’s just complete the destruction.” “The attorney fees alone already have exceeded the value of the land.” Thank you very much Steve for demonstrating how outrageous the judgment is. At worst, the City should have been required to pay Keenan the value of the land, which you’ve just put some upper limit on, far below even the $18M.
Steve, you dodged answering my question (no surprise). Please describe where there are wetlands that you think should be protected. Please do not refer to any location that you think shouldn’t be protected.
Also note that regardless of whether what’s growing there are “weeds”, a pejorative that you use to denigrate those who believe there is valuable habitat there, some of the “weeds” aren’t necessarily the most important part—they are an indicator of the presence or possible presence of wetlands. Wetlands are a complicated ecosystem, which is part and parcel of why they’re biologically valuable.
Everyone is ignoring HMB’s attorney’s answer to a question I asked at the appeal workshop. My question was “What happens if the City simply refuses to pay?” The answer, from the attorney, was essentially “Nothing—they can’t take money that the city needs for provision of city services.” Since HMB’s budget (as nearly all government budgets) is basically hand-to-mouth, there is no extra money beyond what’s needed to provide services, therefore the judgment would have been a hollow victory. Under the Chapter 9 bankruptcy provisions, the developer may never have seen a dollar.
Steve Hyman, since you don’t think that any wetlands on “infill” properties are worth protecting, could you please identify the location of some wetlands that you think are worth protecting?
And to those who say or imply that limitations on development due to the Coastal Act are unconstitutional, that’s simply untrue. It’s been litigated and settled. The Coastal Act has been upheld.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s position is that a takings has only occurred when no viable use remains on the property. Are all of you anti-environmentalists prepared to argue that 19 houses isn’t a viable use? Under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, even a downzoning that reduces the property value to less than the original purchase price is not a takings as long as some value remains such that there is someone, somewhere, who is willing to pay a non-zero amount for the property.
Vince, one of Connie’s arbitrary and capricious “rules” is that MCTV will only run content recorded by MCTV employees using MCTV equipment. For quite a while GSD paid one of our own employees to do the recording and just paid MCTV a $50 playback fee. When PMFPD was being asked to video their meetings and they were griping about the cost, I suggested that PMFPD do it GSD’s way. Connie’s immediate response was to change the rules. This pretty much proves that it’s a profit center for MCTV.
Oh, and by the way, the rule only applies when it suits Connie to apply it. I can name at least one ongoing exception which is allowed because it benefits MCTV to ignore their own arbitrary and capricious rules when it suits them.
Maybe the 4 wanted to lock in the 129 houses just in case they don’t get re-elected, to make sure that a future city council can’t stop the houses? I think that’s a key reason for the $18M poison pill.
I’m still trying to understand how giving the developer everything he wanted and more is a negotiated settlement. What tangibles does the city get from this settlement? A relatively piddly amount of money (the net profit from 3-5 of those houses) that might cover most of the city’s near-term costs when the houses are built?
One reason that HMB is in bad financial condition and always getting worse is that houses, starting a few years after they’re built, are a net revenue loss because the required municipal services for a house cost more to provide than a city receives in property tax from that house. That’s why well-run cities fight for revenue-generating businesses.
In Steve Hyman’s Apr 7 1:21 comment he wrote “My guess on the larger number of homes granted was that the City was at fault and had to remedy Mr. Keenan. Plus with the wetlands on his property, how could he get his 83 homes?”
Wait a second here. My understanding of the special legislation is that it overrules environmental laws and allows all 83 houses to built even on known wetlands. Please explain in what reality you think all 83 houses won’t be built at Beachwood, plus the Glencree addition?
MCTV has come up with a new way to be annoying. It’s not bad enough that they insist on claiming copyright to meetings that they are paid to record (a claim that they have no moral right to), now they’ve placed an irritating MCTV logo in the lower corner, just like the big guys who don’t care about the viewers.
On a side note, since MCTV got automated playback equipment a while ago, why is it that playback now almost always starts either 3 minutes early or 3 minutes late, but virtually never on time?
MCTV’s web site schedule page is non-functional more often than not, and they expect us to believe that they have the in-house expertise to manage all of the material if they ever get around to putting it up on their web site. (The schedule page doesn’t work because they’re hosting part of it on their own cable Internet connection, in direct violation of Comcast’s Terms of Service.)
Greg seems to think that appeals are filed just to delay projects. While I personally have filed very appeals (due to the excessive appeal fees), I can state that none of mine and none that I’m aware of were filed just to delay a project. Every appeal that I know of was a legitimate gripe that the appellant felt had merit for stopping the project, not simply delaying it. What good does it do to delay a project? Why would anyone want to spend money just to annoy the applicant with a delay that won’t stop the project? I suppose the reason that Greg thinks that appeals are just delaying tactics is that most Boards of Supervisors, including ours in San Mateo County, pretty much never saw a project they didn’t like and therefore virtually all appeals are denied at the BoS level. If the law was always upheld, appeals wouldn’t look simply like delays.
Greg, are you going to answer the question in my 1:59 post? I’ll repeat it here so that you don’t strain yourself scrolling back to find it:
Why should requesting that the law (zoning, LCP, Coastal Act) be followed be any different from requesting that any other law be followed? Does the police department ask you to pay to enforce the law against somebody who robs you or who assaults you?
Greg wrote “I feel that if someone has an issue with a Project, they should be willing to put their money where there feelings are.”
Why should requesting that the law (zoning, LCP, Coastal Act) be followed be any different from requesting that any other law be followed? Does the police department ask you to pay to enforce the law against somebody who robs you or who assaults you?
Appeal fees should be capped at a $5 paperwork submittal fee. The County’s current appeal fee is downright punitive and arguably a denial of due process to those who can’t afford it. It’s clearly intended primarily to strongly discourage appeals.
The fact that appeal fees exist at all just proves that most local governments are dominated by development interests.
MCTV is a community access station. MCTV should run anything that is submitted to them which won’t get them in legal trouble for running it. (Think SNL’s “Wayne’s World.") Instead, everything which doesn’t meet Connie’s “standards” is summarily rejected. The rule that MCTV only runs stuff made on their equipment by their paid staff is arbitrary and capricious, and ignored when it suits Connie to ignore it.
Fundamentally, there’s nothing wrong with MCTV which can’t be cured by replacing the management and maybe much of the board of directors. The problem is how can that be done when the board meetings are closed and secret, no agendas or minutes are published, the candidates for board are hand-picked, the people who vote are selected via some secret process, etc. Altogether a scenario which would make certain long-dead Russian dictators proud.
Contrast the above to what I’ve been told about Pacifica’s public access channel—they run things as if they were subject to the Brown Act, even though they aren’t legally required to do so. (The Brown Act is California’s open meeting law, requiring everything done by government to be done out in the open, subject to public scrutiny.) By the way, there’s a provision in the Brown Act which does in fact require MCTV to comply with it due to MCTV receiving government money to operate. (The franchise fee is a tax that the City and the County collect and then choose to give some part of it to MCTV, therefore it’s government money.)
As Coastsider’s unofficial proofreader, and also being the author of the MCC agenda item, I must point out that the word “information” above is supposed to be “informal.” These meetings are “Town Hall” format rather than a traditional meeting with council members on one side of a table and the rest of the community members as the “audience.”
The official agenda, such as it is, is available on the Agendas tab at http://mcc.sanmateo.org
To receive agendas and other MCC announcements, anyone may sign up for the Google group MCC-Agendas here: http://groups.google.com/group/mcc-agendas?hl=en
I ran across an interesting editorial in the L.A. Times regarding copyright:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-healey18feb18,0,5092348.story
At the end it refers to Article I of the Constitution. I located the relevant part: Section 8 “Patents and Copyrights”—To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (Apparently when Congress extended copyright to the author’s lifetime + 50 years and allowed heirs to renew it, they as usual forgot to check the Constitution first.)
I fail to see how MCTV claiming copyright to a government meeting that they were paid to record comes anywhere near the copyright purpose as set out in Article I section 8 of the Constitution.
The L.A. Times editorial’s closing sentence begins “Achieving that goal means balancing the interests of content creators against the public’s,”. It seems that nearly everyone not associated with MCTV can see that the public’s interest outweighs MCTV’s in the situation under discussion.
It is ludicrous that an entity paid with public money should claim a restrictive exclusive copyright to those recordings. Isn’t MCTV a “public benefit corporation”? They are not acting in the public interest.
One claim that was made at the Fire board meeting is that the charges don’t pay the full cost. Really? Prove it! The camera operator is paid basically minimum wage or close to it, from the almost $300 which the local agencies are charged for the recording. Playback is via automated equipment, so playback costs are very low. Throw in $10 for tapes, and we’re still nowhere near that $300.
For discussion purposes, let’s temporarily accept the bogus claim that the above fee doesn’t pay the full costs. Where does the rest of the money come from? The franchise fee allocation that the City and the County receive from Comcast! That’s just a different form of public money—it’s a line item tax on your cable TV bill.
If the fees don’t pay the full costs, why is MCTV so desperate to keep all the local agency business? “We sell at a loss, but we make it up in volume.” Of course they’re making a profit on this.
So one way or another, essentially the whole cost is paid from public money. Therefore, the public should own the copyright. The appropriate way to do that is to have each agency retain full rights, and license those rights via something like Creative Commons where anyone can do as they wish with the material except restrict use of the material.
One more thing: What about MCTV’s usurious $50 charge for a copy of a meeting recording? I can make a DVD on a high quality blank (around $0.40) with a few minutes of my time. Even if I did nothing but stare at the machine the whole time it’s reading the original and burning the copy, that’s still a fraction of the $50 at my billing rate which I’m sure is much higher than what anyone at MCTV gets paid. There’s simply no possible way that $50 for a DVD isn’t nearly pure profit.
The MCC Planning and Zoning Committee hasn’t met in quite some time. The Council has discussed committees, but no firm decisions have been made yet. Stay tuned and/or express your opinion to the Council. Councilmember contact information is on a page at http://mcc.sanmateo.org , or you can come to a Council meeting and speak to the Council.
We’re still getting up to speed on the minutes. Minutes from this year are pending approval. I am planning on putting approved minutes up on the MCC web site. Potentially they could also be emailed out via the Google Groups list for MCC-Agendas. Since posting to that list is restricted to the MCC chair and vice-chair, opinions can be posted here as to whether that list should also be used for distribution of approved minutes.
Since I became webmaster for the MCC website around a year ago I think I’ve been pretty good about getting the agendas online. http://mcc.sanmateo.org
While it has been suggested that we host forums there, there are technical and logistical reasons why that’s probably not going to happen. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to use Town Hall on Coastsider for any such discussions.
For those (like me) who don’t want to have to remember to go check the web site periodically for agendas , I have set up a Google group called MCC-Agendas for distribution of the agendas. I had to work out a problem with it, but I think it may be ready to use. You can subscribe to it here: http://groups.google.com/group/mcc-agendas?hl=en
It’s announcement only—posting is restricted to MCC members posting MCC agendas (and possibly other MCC-related announcements.)
There are additions planned to the MCC web site which should improve visibility and public participation. Stay tuned.
Kevin, you might want to ask how many times per year the Coastside Fire Protection District actually has to unroll hoses and squirt water on a fire. Hint: the vast majority of their calls are medical.
Since our firefighters are “making a salary that allows them the opportunity to live in the community they serve”, why do approximately half of them live elsewhere, some as far away as Utah? And from looking at the numbers, they’re clearly making more far more than the average of those who live here.
It just hit me why some government agencies subsidize local housing for their employees instead of paying them more so that they can afford local non-subsidized housing.
KNTV 11 pm news reported that the slide was “opened 2 hours ago” which would have been 9 pm.
BTW, their reporter made reference to a posting which is clearly Linda C.’s [first] comment here on this story. Coastsider.com is a reference for TV news reporters!
I lived in Southern California for 39 years, drove through the McClure Tunnel many hundreds of times, and never knew that that was the McClure Tunnel, although I had heard the name. That goes to the core of my argument that public facilities should be named after the location. I bet that only a tiny fraction of a percent of the people driving through the McClure Tunnel know its official name.
Another reason for not naming public facilities after people is that more often than not it’s controversial, as we can see here. Other than those who want it named after Lantos, I haven’t seen anything written against naming it the “Devil’s Slide Tunnels”.
Page 1 of 13 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Anneliese Agren: Understood Ken. It’s important to give definition to the difference of genuine debate here, versus… Posted 05/17 at 5:35am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ken Johnson: Anneliese, Maybe you are right - I always thought of him as a turnip. But… Posted 05/17 at 1:51am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Carl.. I’m just reading more pretentious discourse from someone that may not be living in… Posted 05/16 at 10:36pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: Ray, Let’s pretend you are as confused about the basics of ecological matters as your… Posted 05/16 at 10:16pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Anneliese Agren: Ray Olson is a troll. Posted 05/16 at 8:40pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Oh Carl, it only took you a day for to write your VERY verbose, pompous,… Posted 05/16 at 8:33pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: It doesn’t hold true in all cases, but damage to natural features and values in… Posted 05/16 at 7:11pm in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
Carl May: Ray, You are flailing. Of course I have seen these definitions. I have even written… Posted 05/16 at 6:31pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Jim Sullivan: Dave Holland moving on, I hope not.... for awhile anyway. I absolutely support Measure O.… Posted 05/16 at 8:57am in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
Leonard Woren: Years ago the CCC approved the project, allowing 19 houses to be built on the… Posted 05/16 at 5:38am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
