Comments by Leonard Woren

Hwy 1 one-way-only until about 6:30pm

KCBS radio reported rocks “the size of soccer balls” on the roadway.  “One way traffic control” was a mis-statement—it was mostly “no-way”.  Every now and then they let some cars through.  The location is about 0.2 miles south of Linda Mar blvd.—way past the slide.

It appears that in a few hours today, they built a brand new retaining wall at the spot.  (Too bad they’re not motivated to move at that speed to get the tunnel built...)

I was northbound there at the worst possible time.  I got some pictures which I’ll send to Coastsider’s editor momentarily.  Some are a bit blurry because of the difficultly of taking photos from inside the car, so Barry may decide not to put up all of them.

It should be noted that even if the tunnel was complete and open, today’s problem would still have been as it was—I think the tunnel bridge will join the existing highway somewhat south of where this problem occurred.

N.B.  I would have written “Fassler (Rockaway Beach)”.  Sea Bowl?  What’s that?  I guess Pacifica Residents know what that is.  I don’t.

Video: Elephant Seals at Año Nuevo

Darin, maybe that was developers and bought-and-paid-for elected officials?

Video Column: Right Here In The Middle

Mr. Ginna:  In the Town Hall thread that you cite, I provided the actual text from the San Mateo County LCP regarding what’s eligible for priority water.  Would you please indicate which language in the LCP allows Big Wave to get priority water?  If Big Wave isn’t one of the enumerated uses, then even though the LCP doesn’t contain the words “Big Wave is not eligible for priority water”, it’s not eligible for priority water.  If it was, the proponents wouldn’t be requesting an LCP amendment to allow it.

In addition, the proponents want two other requirements waved for this project:  1) priority water is only allowed for the part of the project which is the priority use, and in this case that’s a small fraction of the whole project.  2) priority water has to be relinquished if the priority use ends.

The second element is critical.  I don’t really want to have to spell out why.

While Big Wave may be a worthy project, it’s not appropriate to pick tear-jerker projects for sensitive habitat land and then attack opponents for being against the project.  This is essentially the same approach which the County LCP pulls by locating all the “affordable housing sites” in wetlands and other difficult-to-develop areas.  Then the opponents are accused of being against “affordable housing” when they argue for protection of the sensitive habitats or view corridors or whatever.

My recollection is that Big Wave wasn’t a project looking for a site, but rather a site in search of an approvable project.  I’ve lost track of who’s who, but it wasn’t all that long ago that a property owner of that land tried to get approval for massive grading without specifying what the eventual use would be.  Even the County staff told him to come back when he had an actual project.  A few years later, Big Wave pops up.

Video Column: Right Here In The Middle

A contributing factor to high land prices here is that the allowed house size is the second largest on the Peninsula, and the highest in unincorporated San Mateo County.  Big houses also cost more to build.  Double whammy.  Want lower-cost housing?  Reduce the size that’s allowed.

So what does the County propose in the LCP update?  Giving a “size bonus” for building “affordable housing”.  I have yet to see an explanation of how building a bigger house helps make it “affordable”.

But of course Mary Ascher’s position ignores the fundamental issue—there are more people living on this Coastside than the area can support.  The lot merger requirement is a feeble attempt to slightly reduce the buildout population.

In a recent email to me, a local real estate agent tried to argue for housing in a commercial zone by stating that “there’s a shortage of housing in this price range”.  Yeah, let’s do the math.  Say there’s a shortage of 100,000 units on the Peninsula.  Say we destroy the Coastside by wedging in another 100 housing units.  There’s still a shortage of 99,900.  So why ruin the Coastside for a quick buck for a few people, and not even dent the problem?  I guess a past comment of Carl’s needs repeating—he once wrote “We don’t have a shortage of water, we have a longage of people.” Ditto for housing.  And the Coastside absolutely cannot be the solution to any perceived “housing shortage.”

Miramar could have been an incredibly nice place, if the house size on 10,000 sq ft had been limited to the same as what could be built on 5,000 sq ft.  The large parcel size was intended to preserve views, openness, and allow sensitive areas to be protected.  In 1980, people weren’t building 5,000 sq ft houses on 10,000 sq ft parcels, so nobody thought about the side effect (5,000 sq ft monster houses) that has destroyed Miramar over the last 8 years.

Coastsider fights for the right to stream clips from MCTV

Responding to both Darin and Carl --

In the absence of a contract stating something to the contrary, I’m still reasonably certain that whomever commissioned the work and paid for it is assumed to own the copyright.  I assume that wedding photographers (an exception that I knew about) make you sign a contract stating that they own the originals (a crock if I ever heard one, but people do sign it.) So of course there can be a contract altering the situation.

At my last salaried position they wanted me to sign a contract stating that they owned everything I wrote while employed there.  No dice.  For me, they had to modify the contract language to only include what I wrote for them.

Darin, I assume that Coastsider is not paying you for what you provide to Coastsider, so it seems clear to me that absent other agreements, you own the copyright.  I don’t see that as relevant to my argument.  I don’t know what your commercial work is.  If you are an independent contractor, then yes you own the copyright unless there’s a contract to the contrary.  Different situation, different rules.  Note that newspapers always own the copyright to photos taken by staff photographers.  Suppose that I send a TV station a video that I took and allow them to run it?  Who owns the copyright?  Lacking a written contract to the contrary, I own the copyright.  What if they call me and say “go record x and we’ll pay you for your recording.” Now who owns the copyright?  I stand firm that they own it.

In writing and rereading the above, I’ve convinced myself it’s not quite as clear-cut as I originally presented it, but I still believe that MCTV cannot claim copyright ownership of public meeting recordings they were paid to make.  So the question somewhat comes down to “what’s right?” Is there anybody here not affiliated with MCTV who thinks MCTV is right regarding this issue?

And of course, all of this is pretty much academic for the situation that the original article is about; the overriding consideration is spelled out in Darin’s third paragraph:  it’s all public money.

MCTV has long forgotten that they are a public benefit corporation.

I understand that Pacifica’s public access operates as if they were subject to the Brown Act.  To my knowledge, MCTV does not allow outsiders at their board meetings, does not publish agendas, minutes, meeting notices, or even a list of who’s on the board.  And who gets to vote on board members?  Who picks who gets to run for the board?  Who counts the votes?  Does MCTV do anything right?

I have a unique video that I think coastsiders would like to see.  I haven’t offered it to MCTV simply because I think that Connie won’t run it because it’s mine.  Public benefit?  Hah.

Coastsider fights for the right to stream clips from MCTV

I’m not a copyright lawyer, although I used to do consulting work for one and therefore have a bit more insight than many non-lawyers.  Also, being a programmer, I’ve put serious time into looking at copyright law.

My understanding of copyright law is that if you are paid to create a copyrightable work, unless there is explicit contract language to the contrary, the employer owns the copyright.  Since MCTV is paid to tape meetings, MCTV does not own the copyright.  For City Council meetings, MCTV is in fact paid by virtue of getting franchise fees, and (I believe) a contract requirement that MCTV’s taping of HMBCC and MCC meetings is included under those franchise fees.  Other agencies such as CCWD, CUSD, GSD, MWSD pay MCTV directly and it should be even more clear that those agencies own the copyrights to their own meeting tapes.

I would like to see counterexamples to my point— someone who was paid to create a copyrightable work owning the copyright.  I can’t think of any.

I have complete faith that if Coastsider.com takes this to court that Coastsider.com will prevail.  The problem is that MCTV has an in-house lawyer who likes to send threatening letters.

Unless MCTV’s policy has changed (fat chance), another comment in the SMCT article is wrong:  MCTV will not “give” anyone a copy of the tape for personal use.  They’ll sell you one, and the charge is pretty steep.  MCTV makes money selling copies of meeting tapes which they were paid to make, and may not have rights to in the first place.  What’s wrong with this picture?  This is very likely the true underlying reason why MCTV is trying to restrict use of “their” meeting recordings—they want the income from selling copies.

MWSD considering rate increase

Carl, I haven’t followed this closely enough to know what the upgrades to the treatment plant are about, but in regards to the first two projects you ask about—increases in storage capacity—how could they possibly facilitate more development?

It has been repeatedly suggested to CCWD that they increase storage capacity to address (the straw man of) fire safety.  To the best of my knowledge they have refused to consider it.  Why?  Because it doesn’t forward their unstated goal of facilitating new development.

Letter: Wavecrest—sixty years and still counting.

I see that the HMB Review’s proofreading standards were the same then as now.

Reminder: Montara and El Granada community parks meetings this week

Because there are no recreational services and minimal parks facilities in the unincorporated area, many residents of the unincorporated area utilize Half Moon Bay’s recreation services.  That would explain why one of the Commission positions is reserved for a non-resident.

There’s also a “sphere of influence” consideration which is way beyond the scope of this reply.

As to the Midcoast Park Lands board, to my knowledge there is no residency requirement at all.

MWSD considering rate increase

Before objecting to MWSD’s high water rates, one might want to examine MWSD’s budget and consider the deficiencies in the system that MWSD inherited from the absentee prior owners of the system.  Do you want the system fixed?  It takes money to bring the system up to decent standards.  Without money to improve the system, the water will remain “barely potable”.  From what I see when I watch the televised MWSD meetings, the Board has an ambitious plan to upgrade the system.  At some point I would expect the rates to be more in line with other areas once the improvements are completed.

It should also be noted that CCWD’s customers (Half Moon Bay and El Granada) will be getting significant rate increases annually to pay for the upgrade of the Hetch-Hetchy system.

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

For a few years now, all new houses in the unincorporated Midcoast have been required to have underground utilities.  In the COSC zoning district (primarily the Burnham Strip in El Granada), underground utilities have always been required, and that area probably has one of the highest water tables in the area.

When installed properly, underground utilities are in sealed conduits, so water should be a non-issue.  My next-door neighbor has underground utilities, and this area floods during sustained heavy rain.  (That house was built in 1984.  I’ve heard that in the 82/83 El Nino, there was 4 feet of water where the street is now.)

The Clipper Ridge ("Princeton by the Sea") subdivision has underground utilities.  Supposedly, in 82/83 the only way in and out of there was via canoes and rowboats.

The water table issue sounds like a red herring to me, likely started by someone who doesn’t want to spend money on undergrounding.  See FUD.

Photo: A tree falls in Montara

Did it make a sound?

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

Kevin, you seem to be in the minority here.  Notice that Brian Dantes and I are largely in agreement on this issue!  Get with the program.  Maybe you don’t have power problems where you live in Half Moon Bay, but in the unincorporated areas just to the north of you it’s a major problem.

And by the way, moving to “one of those urban centers” isn’t the answer.  During the severe weather in winter 1995/1996 (I think it was), my supervisor who lived in a regular suburban area in Mountain View was without power for 4 days straight.  I really take issue with any attempt to blame power problems on living on the Coastside.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks that power outages are no big deal should try not using any water at all until the power is back on.  Then tell me if you still think it’s not a problem.  Well pumps require power.

Years before moving to the Bay Area I remember reading a comment from someone who bought a VCR-Plus (remember those?) because it didn’t lose its programming every time the power went out.  He mentioned that he lived in PG&E;territory and it was a big problem.

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

Well, no amount of tree trimming is going to keep animals off the lines.  If you believe that story at all.  Repeat after me:  Undergrounding.  (I’ve heard that rats can run down overhead wires into your house if the entry isn’t properly sealed.)

Years ago when Stanford had a long outage affecting Forsythe Hall (where the mainframes and many other servers are), the power people blamed it on a squirrel getting into the system.  Someone remarked that the power guys “keep a supply of freeze-dried squirrels for when they can’t explain an outage.”

BTW, I did get a t-shirt:  a picture of squirrel with the legend “I survived the Stanford power outage.” At least my boss had a sense of humor about it.

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.

Page 5 of 14 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »