Comments by Leonard Woren

Opinion: Downtown in a downturn

Another part of this that the powers-that-be in Half Moon Bay can’t seem to understand is that *every* traffic signal they install on SR 1 north of SR 92 causes more lost business for HMB.  The signal at Frenchman’s Creek is a disaster; even a councilmember who strongly supported it admitted publicly that it’s a disaster.  Why?  Because it was done without adding lanes.  And I’m not supporting adding lanes, I’m opposing adding signals.  We simply do not need any signals on SR 1—for all the problems which people propose signals as the solution, there are alternative solutions without signals.

I live in the western corner of El Granada, next to Clipper Ridge ("Princeton By The Sea").  During commute time, I can go to BofA, Safeway, whatever, in HMB, in 25-30 minutes.  Or I can drive twice as far in half the time and go to the Linda Mar shopping center in Pacifica.  Same for weekends.  The only time that it doesn’t take *longer* to go the shorter distance to HMB is during really “off” traffic periods.  The only signal between me and Linda Mar is the one *at* Linda Mar.  Existing signals between me and HMB:  Capistrano, Coronado, Frenchman’s Creek, North Main, SR 92.  Proposed signals between me and HMB:  Roosevelt, Terrace.  And the proposed signal at Roosevelt is being proposed as the same disastrous configuration as at Frenchman’s Creek.  Not to mention that some people have suggested a signal at Medio.

The bottom line is that everyone wants a signal at their street so they can turn left to go southbound onto SR 1, and nobody cares about the impact to those north of their own street.  It turns out that these left turns can be facilitated without signals.  I think I’ll write an Opinion piece on how to do that, rather than try to squeeze it in here.

Letter: Power out in Moss Beach yet again

Due to the Byzantine wiring of El Granada, there are some small areas in El Granada which suffer many more outages and much longer outages than the rest of El Granada.  It can be pretty bad on those blocks (I happen to live on one), although apparently this winter it’s worse in some part of Moss Beach.

However, a few weeks ago I couldn’t even count how many power flickers there were one night.  Each one of them causes an “oh, no, the power’s out AGAIN” groan.

As I wrote on the Midcoast-L mailing list recently:  when are we going to realize the cost of overhead wires, and underground the utilities?  Overhead wires in the 21st century is just STUPID.  Overhead wires in a scenic coastal zone is just STUPID.  The up-front costs may be high but over the long term I’m sure at some point it’s cheaper.

Maybe PG&E could fund part of the undergrounding by selling their tree-butchering machines and laying off those crews.

CUSD will put $175 parcel tax on June ballot

In the past, CUSD stated that they’re “in the business of education, not transportation.” I still want to know:  how can kids be educated if they can’t get to school?  For some students in this district, it’s much more serious than simply inconvenience for their parents.  I can’t even guess how some of the students are getting to school now.

I agree that including a guarantee that transportation would be restored likely would have made it a slam dunk.  Perhaps people should consider carefully the last paragraph of Ken Johnson’s comment above.  And what’s wrong with the suggestion mentioned by John Lynch?  Maybe CUSD is worried that the transportation measure would pass but the larger general one wouldn’t?  If so, they need to introspectively consider why that’s a risk.

I have mixed feelings regarding the lower assessment for undeveloped parcels.  They don’t receive as much benefit, plus assessing them at the full rate increases the pressure to develop.  Paying a lot of tax on vacant land is a loser for most property owners.  HOWEVER, every legally developable parcel should be assessed, regardless of contiguous common ownership.  If the owners don’t like that, they can always merge their parcels.

HMB City Council video is no longer available on Coastsider

DCMA is incontrovertible proof that we have the best government that money can buy, and MPAA has a lot of money and can buy a lot of government with it.  (Of course, if you look at the fact that most or all county boards of supervisors are bought and paid for by the building trades industry, my comment applies equally well there.  Whether this is now the case in HMB is left as an exercise to the reader.)

Regarding Dianne being the author of DCMA… Democratic electeds once upon a time represented the people and protected them from big business and sometimes from government oppression.  Now they’re supporting DCMA, the USA Patriot Act, and on and on.  Something went wrong somewhere.

HMB City Council video is no longer available on Coastsider

Taking my previous thought a half step further, what if I *loan* a personal copy to the public library for checkout?  As long as it’s made clear that it’s my personal copy and I want it back eventually (such that it’s not a transfer of ownership), and as long as I’m not charging for that loan, and the library isn’t charging for lending it, I’d like to see MCTV stop that.  If I bought a rare book which happened to still be under copyright protection, couldn’t I loan it to the library for public lending?  How would a video recording be any different?  Come to think of it, does anything change if the book or the video is donated to the library instead of loaned to them?

Any IP lawyers out there who can comment on this idea?

HMB City Council video is no longer available on Coastsider

I suspect the real reason is that MCTV charges a lot for making copies of their tapes and they don’t want to lose the possible revenue if people can get the recording without paying MCTV a copying charge.

Can they stop someone from loaning their personal copy recorded from the normal playback?  My guess is that they can’t.

Must-See MCTV: City Council détente breaks down

Can’t everyone see that the bitter divisiveness is caused by the current majority at any given time taking revenge for being ignored when they were the minority, and steamrollering over the current minority?

I think (and I hope) that after HMB voters see the damage that two years of the current regime can do to the city, that they’ll wake up and flip things over again.  The only problem is that it takes 10 years to undo that two years worth of damage.  And some things can’t be undone, like the disgusting wart on the EL Granada waterfront (which through 1959 sleaze happens to immorally be in the City of Half Moon Bay.) To this day, the HMBCC people responsible for approving that wart don’t see anything wrong with it.  The depressing thing is that the people who elected the current majority probably don’t either.

Must-See MCTV: City Council détente breaks down

While watching it on MCTV, somehow I missed the explanation of what happened to the previously-announced agreement regarding planning commission appointments?  Fundamentally implicit in that agreement is that each council member would be able to appoint whomever they wanted.  Bonnie reneged on that deal by voting against Jim Grady’s nomination.

Coastside power outage started in San Bruno

I have so many power flickers here in northwest El Granada that I just don’t remember whether it flickered here or not that night.  (It didn’t go out.) I will be setting up an electronic version of a chart recorder to track the line voltage.  Maybe I’ll cook up some way to put it up on a web page.

But the real reason for this comment is regarding a line in the linked-to article on cbs5.com:  “The outage flooded local police and fire departments with calls from concerned residents”.  Why do people call the police or fire department when there’s a power outage?  Call the power company.  Memorize their 800 number.  PG&E:  1-800-743-5000.

How good a neighbor is Mavericks?

I don’t know how to do it, but somehow we need to get the major media who have created the problem in the first place to also report on how bad the congestion/parking is and the environmental damage caused by a huge excess of visitors.  I.e., discourage people from attending in person.

Personally, I looked out my window at how my street (east of SR 1 near Clipper Ridge) was all parked up, and decided that even though I could walk there from my house, I wasn’t going to bother due to the crowds.

The recount is over, and Bonnie McClung is the victor

“Smart growth” is an oxymoron.

Just out of curiosity, is there any location within the city limits of Half Moon Bay where a park could be located without some neighbors objecting?  I’m not saying that the location near Cypress Cove is good or bad, but I’d really like to know where such a park should go in HMB.

Of course, if there were more and sufficient parks, no one park location would be such an issue.  How much park land did the City acquire during Naomi’s previous 16 years on the Council?  For those of you who moved here after Naomi started on the Council 20 years ago, I believe the answer is “not a square inch.” She was too busy approving new housing subdivisions.

The recount is over, and Bonnie McClung is the victor

As I pointed out at the last Council meeting, apparently to deaf ears, a razor-thin margin that changes the balance of power on the Council is NOT a “mandate” for a sea change.

While some course adjustment may be justifiable, a U-turn is not.

Those who continue to say “the people have spoken” are reading more into the election outcome than is appropriate.  To the people in the Terrace and Kehoe subdivisions who tipped the election because they’re blaming Mike for their problems, well, be careful what you ask for.  You have now gotten it.  Don’t be surprised if Naomi pushes to increase the number of houses in Pacific Ridge.  And I hope everybody heard both Naomi and Marina state that Foothill Blvd is even less of a possibility now than it ever was.  (Interesting that they didn’t say that BEFORE the election!) Foothill Blvd could never have been a solution to the Terrace subdivision residents’ concerns regarding Pacific Ridge because Foothill Blvd could never have been built, at least not after the Coastal Act was passed.  Foothill has always been a grand delusion of the developers.  The real issue as I’ve stated before is that the Pacific Ridge subdivision never should have been approved at all, and that was done on Naomi’s watch.

I just hope that the damage two years from now isn’t so bad that it can’t be undone when the scale tips back the other way.  You don’t suppose that’s why the new majority is rushing so fast into gutting the Planning Commission?  They’ve got to get as much done in 2 years as they possibly can…

Supervisors’ vision for the Midcoast: double the number of houses (and cars)

Barbara commented regarding the County’s Sensitive Habitats Map. We did in fact update it in a manner close to what she suggests.  But the County is apparently shelving the map update for some reason.  I guess they didn’t like the fact that a lot of sensitive habitats got added to the map, which as Barbara states, is pretty much “blank” now.

Supervisors’ vision for the Midcoast: double the number of houses (and cars)

Lorraine’s comment reminded me of something I forgot to include in my earlier comment:  At one of the County Planning Commission hearings on the LCP update, one Commissioner, in arguing for a lower growth rate cap, said “The Coastside is headed for a train wreck and I don’t see any reason to speed towards it.”

As to Lorraine’s question of what can be done, one thing to do is that EVERYONE who is concerned about this needs to send email to or make phone calls to or make appointments with and speak to as many of the supervisors as possible BEFORE the decisions are made.  I guarantee that the developer/real-estate lobby is doing exactly that.  The supervisors need to hear just as stridently from the other side.  And even though it’s been scheduled such that it’s difficult for working people to attend, a large turnout at the 2pm-5pm December 6 hearing can’t hurt.  I believe the location has been announced as the Adcock Center in Half Moon Bay.

Supervisors’ vision for the Midcoast: double the number of houses (and cars)

When you read through and think about the draft recommendations, one thing becomes crystal clear:  the main priority is maximizing the number of housing units.  The next priority is facilitating other development.  What I don’t see in the actual proposed changes is anything that improves environmental protection, and the only thing that I see which would improve visitor access is 4-laning of SR 1, which would completely destroy the semi-rural ambience, and may not happen in our lifetimes due to lack of funding.

My thought after reading the document is “why do they (BoS) hate us so much?  Jealousy perhaps?

The Coastside is already suffering from too much being built, and too quickly.  So why are they proposing setting the rate limit higher than not only the historical average rate, but also higher than the recent rates?  And why exempt affordable units from the rate?  The CCC staff took exception to that.  What should be done is guarantee that affordable will not be denied a permit due to the limits, but they should still be counted.  I.e., put them at the front of the queue, even if it means “borrowing” from the next year’s quota.  For example, if the limit is 52 and 50 have already been issued and an application is received to build a 4 unit affordable building, issue the permit and take the excess 2 from next year’s quota.  Simple.

Another critically important issue is that under the current COSC zoning, it’s extremely difficult to build houses on the Burnham Strip fronting El Granada.  The Supervisors are so bent on allowing housing anywhere that it can possibly be built that they are now proposing rezoning to RM/CZ which will remove all existing limitations and protections for the Strip, resulting in a solid wall of oversized houses there.  (Many of the parcels are in the half acre range.  After RM/CZ setbacks are factored in, there could still be 12,000 sq ft houses there under the proposed rezoning!) Consider that in the case of the single existing house, there is total view blockage for the complete frontage of that property, even with the existing COSC 10% lot coverage limit.

McClung leads Ferreira by 13 votes, McKimmie leads King by 2; results still incomplete

“Remade”???  Huh?  What does that mean?  That concerns me.  Remember the controversy over “pregnant chad”.  This could undermine my very high confidence factor in the accuracy and integrity of SMC Elections department.

Coastsider now requires real names and prior review of all comments

I agree that Open Line is a big problem.  Scott wrote “it provides a home for cowardly attacks.” While that’s true, I’d add that—maybe more significantly—it provides a home for baseless, unsupported, and unsupportable attacks.

Thanks for posting the NYT link.  It’s a good article.  I guess we won’t see the Review adopting those policies…

Somebody please explain to me what the difference is between the Review and the way that Voice of the Coast was characterized by some people?  Both have a clear agenda, and both are selective in what “news” they report.  And the Review’s slant is much more blatant.  VotC is needed for that very reason:  to give a voice to the viewpoints that the Review ignores and/or disparages.

Coastsider now requires real names and prior review of all comments

I think there are 2 reasonable setups:
1) Unmoderated, real name required, people are held responsible for what they post.  Subscribers must be vetted (real name verified) before they’re allowed to post.
2) Moderated, real name optional, moderator tosses back unacceptable anonymous posts.  Moderator may still require that the real name be known to the moderator.

Since I was old enough to read a newspaper I’ve never understood why (print) newspapers won’t print anonymous letters.  After all, they are screening what they print.

Newspapers that require real names and then on top of that edit what’s submitted and sometimes change the meaning, intentionally or unintentionally, are out of line.  The Review does this routinely. (*) If it’s my name on the letter, it needs to be printed as I wrote it. (**) If the editor has a problem with what’s submitted, they should kick it back for revision.

So Coastsider’s new policy doesn’t fall into either of my “reasonable setups.” While I assume that approved posts will be put up unedited, I still think that the moderator should allow some anonymous posts.  I wouldn’t allow any anonymous attacks, even on government agencies, because that’s just an underhanded way of attacking the people running those agencies.  Yes, it’s a fuzzy line between legitimate criticism and attacks.  That’s why moderating can be difficult.

(*) An example of the Review tweaking a letter and royally screwing up the meaning is a letter that was submitted using the term “CQx”, which I invented in some private email after CQP turned into CQL (or was it the other way around?).  (Clearly the recipients of that private email understand CQx since one of them used in the letter to the Review.) The Review changed it to whichever the current name was, which destroyed the point of writing “CQx”.

(**) An example of unacceptable editing of something with my name on it was a submission from me containing “CSD”.  The Review changed my letter by spelling out what CSD stands for and then inserting “(known by the acronym CSD)”.  Well, unpronouncable initials are NOT “acronyms”, and I actually got an anonymous phone call from a retired teacher who was miffed enough about the misuse of “acronym” to call me to straighten me out about it.  I had to explain that I understood that and it wasn’t the way I wrote it.

Mendocino residents are fighting Caltrans to keep a coastal bridge scenic and pedestrian-friendly

This isn’t the first time that CalTrans has tried this stupidity.  A year or two ago when I was at a Coastal Commission meeting to videotape an item of local interest, a preceeding agenda item was regarding another location in Northern California where CalTrans was trying to replace a small bridge with a big ugly view-blocking bridge at a very scenic harbor.  If I recall correctly, the CCC told them to take a hike.  (If you follow the link in this story you can read about another location where CalTrans tried this—I think it’s the one that I was present for.) CalTrans puts zero value on views, so even though this current one is not local, it’s important that we support the people fighting it.  CalTrans uses questionable studies for their safety claims regarding railing style.  The opposition supplied data showing that other states use different railing styles without any of the safety problems that CalTrans claims.

Coastsider endorses Paul Perkovic, Bob Ptacek, Jim Harvey for Montara Water board

I just read Peggy’s page on Smartvoter via the link in this story.  I’m going to go take a Tylenol now.

Page 13 of 14 pages « First  <  11 12 13 14 >