Comments by Leonard Woren

Letter: What can be done about power outages in Montara?

Brian, why do you think there’s any connection between power and perceived deficiencies in other infrastructure?  Which elected “do nothings” do you think have anything to do with our local power reliability problems?  I, for one, would certainly fix the power if I could.  We don’t have to have third-world power in order to keep our rural ambiance.

Our problems are specifically because there are no elected officials responsible.  While the CPUC could probably do something, they’re not elected, and I’m sure they don’t care.  Power is a monopoly run by a private company concerned only about their bottom line.

A few years ago I suggested forming a MUD (Municipal Utilities District) for the Coastside.  The silence was deafening.

BTW, where in El Granada are you located?

Anita—as I’ve mentioned on the Midcoast-L mailing list, I am convinced that the problem is the way that the power system is set up:  if it detects a short, it drops power for a second and brings it back up to see if the short has cleared.  It does this 3 times and then leaves the power off.  A tree branch waving in the breeze could cause the power to go off due to 3 momentary shorts, but when the PG&E crew comes around, they won’t find any problem other than the power is off and they just reset the circuit.  Without solving the underlying problem, this is going to keep happening forever.  And due to the byzantine wiring that Brian mentions, the outage may not be where the underlying problem is.  Consider this:  telephone and cable TV/Internet are on the same poles (below the power).  Why is only the power affected by this constantly recurring problem?

I am not budging from my position that undergrounding the utilities is the only reasonable solution.

Comcast says it will upgrade HMB’s cable

Darin wrote

“Very happy except when Comcast is down.”

Which is why I won’t be looking at VOIP unless/until I can get DSL.

Instead of adding a bunch of channels that nobody watches and services that nobody cares about, I’d rather that they just give us a good picture on the channels that we already have, and also fix their reliability issues.

In particular, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I get Comcast’s phone service.

Photos:  Pillar Point Boat Lighting

I gave Barry all of the photos I took, but many were not as good as I’d hoped so he selected some good ones.  What I didn’t factor in when I was steadying the camera on objects on the dock is that the boats and the dock are both moving, and not in sync.  That’s why the blue lights are streaked, but it does make an interesting effect.

The pelican was in the cabin on the Fulmar, the new research vessel for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

The middle two photos are two shots of one boat, taken without and with flash.

Next year I’ll try different camera settings and maybe I’ll be able to get usable photos with shorter exposure times.

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

Ray Olson wrote ”What if the owner was truly a farmer that raised crops each year on this property.”

Yes, what if?  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  If the owner’s intent truly was farming for the long term, this discussion would not be taking place.

The reason that this comment thread is so long is that it’s painfully transparent what’s going on here.

”Would the owners actions be under a microscope like what we are seeing right now?”

Of course not, and that’s the whole point, which you obviously know.

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

Terry Gossett asks:

How many times can you cite, given your statement “Has POST ever refused to sell to a farmer? “

Terry, notice the question mark at the end?  That makes it a question, not a statement.  What I’m asking is for you to produce data showing that someone wanted to buy land in order to farm it and that POST refused to sell to them, since it was your original statement that I was responding to.

Mary Bordi asks

Isn’t logging sort of like farming?

Well, that depends.  Did the YMCA plant and grow the trees that they want to cut down?  The tree farms along SR 92 are in fact farms—they plant the trees, they grow them, and then they harvest them.  That’s farming.  It’s extremely disingenuous to liken mass cutting of old trees to farming.

For decades I have said that timber harvesting should only be allowed to cut down trees which were planted for the purpose of timber production.  I.e., no mass cutting of old growth trees.

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

A more appropriate question would be “Has POST ever refused to sell land to a farmer?”

POST does not buy land to hold it—they buy land as a stop-gap to keep it from getting developed because they can act faster than government agencies.  When POST buys land, it is always their intent to sell it to another entity which will keep it open, so that POST can recycle the money for another acquisition.  If a farmer wants to buy land which has had the development rights stripped by POST via a permanent ag / open space easement, it is inconceivable to me that POST would not sell.

Most likely, the tenant farmers just can’t afford to buy the land, so POST leases it to them.

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

I think that disking of idle ag land should be allowed with a condition placed on it:  no applications for development can be accepted or processed until 20 years after the most recently planted crop is harvested and sold.  This would keep true ag land in production.  Does anybody think that the Wavecrest “farmers” would agree to this?

Darin is absolutely correct about those trying to change the topic.

Dan Blick hits the nail on the head with his description of the federal administration and his implication that the same thing is happening here on a local basis.

Terry, you have (probably intentionally) missed my point.  (And what it has to do with being from L.A. is beyond me.) I’m guessing that in Los Altos Hills, you didn’t have people flouting the law as is done here (it’s harder to do in an incorporated city!), and therefore didn’t have the canary issue there.  BTW, in L.A. developers can’t get away with ignoring the law, so they just buy politicians.  OTOH, here they just fund their campaigns… (Little-known fact:  the campaign manager for long-time L.A. Mayor Bradley built the library tower in downtown L.A., which I heard was then the tallest building west of the Mississippi.)

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

A written statement’s credibility depends almost solely on the reputation of the author, so author names make sense for posting.  A photo speaks for itself.

Consider TV news.  There are named anchors.  There are anonymous TV crews.  I’ve seen some TV news stories which were narrated by the anchor because there was only a camera-person on site.  The camera-person is never named.  Ever seen a print newspaper photo captioned something like “AP News”?  The Half Moon Bay Review does not credit all of their photos.

So how are unattributed photos on Coastsider.com any different?

I remain totally convinced that this fixation on knowing who took the photos is for the sole purpose of intimidating people who might take photos.  Nothing in this discussion has given any other real reason.  I’ve personally been maliciously intimidated twice for taking photos, once by a call from a Half Moon Bay police officer.  Given what I know now, I should have filed a formal “abuse of authority” complaint when that happened.

As to Terry’s complaint about all the anonymous canaries lurking about making life difficult, if you are following the law in both letter and spirit, maybe those canaries would have better things to do than complain.  I propose that there are more complaints here because there are more people here who try to push the County-fostered “wild west” anything-goes envelope.

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

Years ago, I took a shortcut across idle ag land to take some photos of questionable activity.  (The land hadn’t been farmed for years, in hopes of developing it.  Those hopes have been permanently killed, and since then it’s again being farmed continuously.) When I got home there was a threatening message from the property owner on my answering machine, which was interesting because he was not around that property.  He was more upset by my taking photos of suspicious activities than by my trespass.  He threatened to take my camera, which as I read the article at the link supplied by Cheri, would be a significant crime, unlike the trespass.

BTW, under trespass law, given the circumstances which existed at the time and place referred to above, if they had called the sheriff the sheriff could have done nothing other than ask me to leave the property immediately.  A refusal to leave would lead to trouble, however.

Supervisors approve LCP Update

Under the current COSC zoning, the minimum parcel size is 2 acres.  That has not slowed down the County from accepting development applications and trying to railroad them past many many obstacles.  In most of the unincorporated Midcoast, the residential zoning minimum is 5000 sq ft, yet the County gleefully approves applications to build on parcels as small as half that.  In short, in San Mateo County, zoning minimums aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.  The change from a 2 acre minimum to a 3.5 acre minimum is a red herring.

Contrary to Don’s characterization, the new zoning does not prohibit all development.  There are still many allowed uses.  Just because the property owners all have the hope and expectation of making a killing building houses on their property doesn’t mean squat.

The February memo from County Counsel which Don quotes this from “provide a reasonable economic return to property owners.” is simply wrong.  Yeah, I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.  Seriously, a long memo regarding takings case law, written by a top land use lawyer in California, was submitted to the BoS and refutes the claims in the February County Counsel memo.  Simply put, if any viable economic use remains, it’s not a takings.  Even if the property owner can’t sell it for what they paid, it’s not a takings.  As long as any use remains for which someone might come forward and buy the property, it’s not a takings.  That’s settled California case law, like it or not.  Therefore, the new zoning cannot result in a successful takings claim.  Property owners may win in SMC Superior Court, but they will lose on appeal.  The appeals court uses different standards.  And different judges.

Mark—sure, properties could be merged, but it doesn’t happen as long as the County will approve anything, regardless of how non-conforming the parcel size is.  Same problem in the 5,000 (and 10,000) sq ft minimum zoning districts—2 2,500 sq ft parcels side by side, different owners, neither is willing to buy or sell to the other because each knows that the County will approve both of their applications.

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

It’s been stated that CalTrans isn’t interested in small projects.

This reminds me of one of the stories in Sam Levinson’s book “Everything But Money” about growing up poor in New York City in the early 20th century.  Sam wrote about trying to get the landlord to fix a hole in the wall.  The response:  “It’s not worth fixing a hole that small.” So they made it big enough to be worth fixing.

What was the range of bids?  Did the firm which earlier estimated $60M submit a bid?

By the way, when Measure T passed, didn’t we hear that the tunnel would be open in about 2004?  Since I always thought and still think that the current alignment can be permanently repaired, I haven’t followed the tunnels saga, so I have to ask:  What’s up with the schedule?  Why aren’t they even starting until well after the original completion date?

Q: Why are Coastside school board elections so vicious?  A: Because the stakes are so small.

I don’t hear anyone griping that El Granada only has 1 “token” board member.  And I’m not sure, but isn’t John the only CUSD board member from El Granada in a very long time?

And let’s not forget the period of Ken Jones (HMB), Marina Stariha (HMB? or south), Ruth Palmer (HMB? or south).

Considering that the northernmost board member is the most vociferous proponent of moving the middle school to the south end of town (Wavecrest), I don’t see much point in dwelling on which communities the board members reside in.

Coastsider endorses Pam Fisher for CUSD board

Upon rereading my recent post, it occurs to me that it might be possible to misinterpret my intended meaning in one particular sentence, so I’d like to adjust that sentence as follows:

I will never support anyone’s claim that they have a right to litter my car just because it’s parked somewhere where they can reach it.

(The original wording could have allowed the interpretation that I wouldn’t support someone in general just because they believed that littering car windshields is ok.  That was not my intent, hence the above rewording.)

School Board candidates square off Monday, Oct 30

Regarding the post a few days ago about campaign contributions, it seems that 83% of Kirk Riemer’s contribution dollars were from just two people.  It would be instructive to know how many people contributed to Pam Fischer’s “second place” dollar total.  I’m betting that it’s spread out a lot more than 83% from two people.

Jonathan Lundell wrote: Counting Riemer, the incumbents are guaranteed a minimum of three of the five board seats. Do they deserve all five? I think not.

Hello?  I’ve seen at least two reports that Bob Ptacek is running as a write-in.  So anyone who isn’t interested in more-of-the-same actually has 3 new people to vote for.  (Amusing that all 3 have 3 letter nicknames—Pam, Ken, Bob.)

Coastsider endorses Pam Fisher for CUSD board

Todd McGee wrote Did she place “no parking” fliers on windshields in the neighborhood? If so is it her position that it is lawful for her to do so? I would have thought that it was not but I have to admit to not being up on finer points of traffic control.

I don’t have time to research it now, but years ago, it was up to each local jurisdiction, so you’d need to check with Half Moon Bay.  I used to live in a large city which made it illegal to flyer cars but allowed the pizza places to litter our front steps.  My parents lived in a nearby city which didn’t outlaw flyering cars but made it illegal to litter front steps.  Go figger.

Barry Parr wrote: I would strongly object (on first amendment grounds) to any law that prohibited leafletting parked cars on a public street. Such a law is indefensible on its face.

I believe that the access point under contention is private property that is prominently posted “No Trespassing”.

Ok, everyone, watch this, maybe a first.  I totally disagree with Barry regarding flyering cars.  The street may be public but the car is not.  I consider it trespassing.  It has nothing to do with the first amendment.  It has everything to do with people touching other people’s property without permission.  It’s no different than someone walking up to you and stuffing their flyer in your pocket.  Who would put up with that?

Would it be ok for someone to break into your car to leave a flyer?  No, what if the car is unlocked?  No, what if the window is open?  Still no.  Ok, so why is ok to leave something under the windshield wiper, possibly breaking it in the process?  Come to think of it, I used to know someone who put vaseline all over the windshield wiper arm to try to annoy people who did that.  Would it be ok for me to coat my wiper arms with wet permanent black ink to reward those who touch my car without permission?  I say yes.  Would be ok for me to do that to a public bus bench?  No!  See the difference?

A significant fraction of debris left on cars ends up on the street because people are annoyed with it.  Therefore, people placing things on cars should be charged with littering if any of them end up on the public street.

I don’t care whose cause, or how good the cause, I will never support anyone claiming a right to litter my car just because it’s parked somewhere where they can reach it.

And I still have no opinion regarding this particular cause.

That said, have the incumbents really done anything to warrant re-electing them and their annointed replacement?

Pacifica considers widening Hwy 1 near quarry

Consideration of whether something is growth inducing is fundamental in California Law—look at the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  CEQA isn’t exactly “new”.

Given the excess of people over housing in California, there isn’t a substantive difference between “require” and “facilitate”.  If you build it, they will come.

School Board candidates square off Monday, Oct 30

I haven’t had time yet to watch the video.  Did anyone ask when construction of the new middle school at Cunha is actually going to start?  Throwing a spade of dirt doesn’t count.  I fear that they’re waiting until after the election, and still hoping that they can build at Wavecrest.  Didn’t the Superintendent show a very quick timetable for this?  Hasn’t a good part of his timetable passed with essentially nothing happening?  What exactly is the status of the rebuild?  When is actual construction going to start?

On a side note, which shouldn’t have anything to do with this at all but apparently in some people’s minds it does, I happened across a copy of the October 4, 2005 (Vol 1, Edition 2) Voice of the Coast which I kept because it has a map of where on the Coastside are lots of things that we keep discussing.  On page 2, column 1 immediately below the fold is a 2.5” x 3.5” box, with font sizes the same or larger than the articles.  In the box:

Voice of the Coast
Publisher
San Mateo County League
for Coastside Protection
Editor
Scott Boyd
Contributing editors
Ken King
Jonathan Lundell

and email and snailmail addresses, then

ID 1234363

Doesn’t look to me like they were trying to hide anything.

HMB fire board responds to union critics

Mr. Hawkins: If you are so confident of your solutions, please put together a budget for operation of the Coastside fire districts.  For each shared service, which is where you seem to think all the savings will come from, show your estimate of those costs and some suggestions regarding who would provide each service.  I’m sure that you can arrange with the editor of Coastsider.com to put it up as a file, since it may not be practical to include it in a text post.

Or, to make it easier on you and us, go through the current year HMBFPD budget and show just the lines where money can be saved, and clearly explain the method of savings and amount of savings for each such line item.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to answer these questions:

1. If contracting out to CDF is “selling out” or “shutting down the department” and is so bad, why is it ok to contract out with SMFD?  How is that different?
2. What about the line-staff problems described in Bonano’s memo?

HMB fire board responds to union critics

(part 2 of 2) (As in part 1, italics are quotations from Ed Hawkins.)

“The Half Moon Bay Fire Board is practicing back room politics at its worst.”
What exactly was done in the “back room”?

“LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) recommended San Mateo County Fire Departments merger [sic] with each other 30 years ago.”
Why is that relevant?  Q: What did they recommend this year?  A: contracting out to CDF.

Ed Hawkins also says that doing this “is an extraodinary [sic] event”.  It can’t be that “extraordinary” because CDF has hundreds of contracts just like this one.

“We know that brining [sic] in the state is a bad idea for many reasons.”
Enumerate those reasons, please.

“It is irresponsible of the fire board to make such a significant and far reaching decision without allowing the taxpayers of the district to say what they want for their money.”
Again, we elect governing boards to make these decisions.  If we don’t like their decisions, we elect different people to the board.

A quarter of a century ago, the City of Half Moon Bay, the Granada Sanitary District, and the Montara Sanitary District (now the Montara Water and Sanitary District) turned over sewer plant operations and collection system maintenance operations to the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) Joint Powers Authority (JPA).  HMB, GSD, and MWSD are still alive and well, and in complete control of the functions which are performed for them by SAM under contract.  This was not a “shutting down” of the agencies.  It did not give up local control.  And by the way, it wasn’t put to a vote of the ratepayers, and I’m not aware that there was any uproar over the decision.

BTW, who cares that the union hasn’t “sued any agency for 15 years.”?  It’s firefighter lawsuits which are the problem.

Mr. Hawkins seems to have forgotten to respond to a couple of important issues I raised in a previous post, so I’ll ask again:
1. If contracting out to CDF is “selling out” or “shutting down the department” and is so bad, why is it ok to contract out with SMFD?  How is that different?
2. What about the line-staff problems described in Bonano’s memo?

HMB fire board responds to union critics

(In two parts due to length)

The inflammatory terminology that Ed Hawkins persists in using is really irritating, in addition to being just plain wrong (all italicized text is quotations from Mr. Hawkins):
- “surrender the fire department to state control”
- “give up their responsiblity [sic] for running a fire department and hand over that responsibilty [sic] to the State of California”
- “The fire board is hell-bent to sell out the fire department and stick it to their employees.”
- “a sellout to CDF”
- “Shutting down a 117 year old fire department”

What’s clear is that Ed Hawkins is running a campaign based on emotion instead of facts/logic.  He hopes to appeal to the emotions of the voters, when he knows that he doesn’t have facts on his side.

“It is our belief, and the belief of some of the board members, that there should be broad based public involvement in a decision of that magnitude.  If the taxpayers vote for a state fire department then the deal will be final.”

All local agencies on the Coastside contract for outside legal counsel.  Is that a “selling out” or a “shutting down” of the agency?  No, it’s simply the most cost-effective method of getting good service.  Contracting with CDF is no different.  GSD, HMB, and MWSD save money by contracting with SAM for services.  (More on this below, in part 2.)

Few voters are interested in following the machinations of special districts.  That’s why we elect governing boards.  In a well-planned smear campaign, the whole HMBFPD board was replaced in the elections of 2003 and 2005, and yet the union still isn’t happy.

Putting the question to the voters might be reasonable if the voters could make the decision based on complete information.  But this is a complex situation and few voters can spend the time to get complete information on this, which gives the advantage to an appeal to emotion.  Other than firefighters and their families and close friends, how many citizens have spoken at meetings or otherwise made their feelings known?  I believe most of the ones who aren’t family and friends have supported contracting out to CDF.  A reasonable theory is that the voters elected a new fire board to clean up the mess, and they want that board to do so, not come back and ask the voters what to do.

(continued)

Page 6 of 15 pages « First  <  4 5 6 7 8 >  Last »