Comments by Carl May

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

Leonard pretty much nails it: the big newspapers, media corporations, editorial photo agencies, and wire services (AP being one of the best known) frequently do not credit photographers by name. Indeed, in some instances of exposes of wartime activities or government malfeasance, the photographer would be placed at risk or have their cover blown by being named.

Carl May

VIDEO: HMB City Council considers Terrace Ave plan, no-light alternative

Hey, I’m for the horrendous no-project (no-light, no-widening)alternative. Unless people are smacked in the face with the consequences of overgrowth and overpopulation, most will never “get it.”

But let’s not be so ignorant as to think a momentary, illusory switching of stereotyped roles with respect to the “environment” (whatever the definition of local choice for that term may be) is what it seems to be on the surface. The overheated hell, for residents, of the Terrace Avenue intersection with another 60+ homes feeding cars into it would provide a seemingly great argument for later infrastructure expansion after the developer is off the hook for the costs. Like the cooked-up road suggested by the sign just a few yards north on Highway 1?

Carl May

Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

Here’s the deal, kids. If you are on public property or adjacent private property where you have permission to be, you can take pictures of private property, even over objections of the private property owners or people conducting activities on the private property. Heck, you can even sell those pictures for editorial (educational/informational) uses, though you may not sell them for advertising or other promotional uses. You may not, however, go onto private property without permission to take pictures of that same private property.

The same basic rule applies to taking pictures of people in public or from public places.

This is First Amendment stuff, well worked out over the years for editorial photography, including journalistic photography.

Carl May

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

Advocating “growth” and “infrastructure expansion” on the midcoast equals, among other destructive consequences, additional hardscaping ("paving over"). No two ways about it.

Obviously, our weak conservation laws, such as the California Coastal Act, have not been able to protect the coastside--and here I mean the entire California coast, not just the S.M. County midcoast. But for those with dollar signs in their eyes who lament how long it takes to wheedle development schemes through the political and bureaucratic processes, here’s a suggestion. Try starting with a project that clearly complies with all laws, including all zoning and the LCP’s for our communities. This instead of trying to push the limits of what the law allows, buying politicians to use semantics to say “up” is “down” during the protracted approval processes, asking for variances, trying to change laws through the political process, trying to change laws through the initiative process, etc. Now, greedseeds have a perfect right to try all of this kind of stuff, but they don’t have a right to complain about the time their shenanigans take to work through the process. It takes time to cook government according to their recipes.

Carl May

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

But, of course, I do like some of what is left of the midcoast and most of what I advocate is stopping people from wrecking it. Why should someone who opposes damaging changes and overpopulation that cannot be supported with local resources be the one to leave? Want a paved over landscape, including multi-lane freeways? You know where to find them.

The sad thing is that thanks to greedy destructionists and the politicians they own, much quicker, easier, cheaper answers to the landslide on Devil’s slide have always been dismissed through the political process. One was called the “Modified Marine Disposal Alternative.” Another, more recent one, was called “dewatering.” These are the kind of answers that could have been built in a couple of years with minimal negative environmental impacts (unavoidable environmental impacts being one reason big, destructive projects take so long to get going).

But those better alternatives would never have been more than the two-lane road *required* by the California Coastal Act for scenic rural areas, so the politicians at the behest of their developer buddies would never favor anything but the biggest, most expensive road. Which, of course, plays right into the hands of the money-loving bureaucrats at Caltrans. Want the answer to why a more stable road on Devil’s Slide was not built long ago and why the current mega-sized project is taking so long? Look no farther than the combine of those who want to overdevelop the midcoast even more (and need bigger roads to serve their schemes) with the bureaucrats of a money/power-grubbing state agency. Taxpayers lose and those who care about the positive features of the coastside lose.

Carl May

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

Barry,

The “Part B” cannot be considered anything but overhead for the tunnel construction. It is money that will be spent for that part of the project and cannot be separated from the cost of the whole.

Funny how Part B for the tunneling alone would probably have covered the complete cost of dewatering and roadbed stabilization on the current alignment. Sorta lets one realize that it’s all about the money and not the actual problem with the highway.

Carl May

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

Anyone who followed the realities of the above-ground bypass in the 80’s and early 90’s knows Caltrans lowballed it for years in an attempt to make it look good by comparison. Then, as the minimizing was no longer necessary after various rounds of approvals were in hand, the estimated costs jumped dramatically with each round. Time and again. Caltrans is all about maximizing expenditures through whatever rationalizations the agency can muster. That is how the agency, like all agencies, gets its power and position in state government. The annual budget of Caltrans is greater than the *entire* budgets of more than half the states in the U.S.

Independent estimates in years past had the 5-6 lane bypass to be blasted through Montara Mountain coming in higher than any other alternative. Figure on the same budget jacking for the bypass as for the tunnels over the years, and the cost would be as high or higher than the probable half billion for the tunnel. And the bypass was a very long construction project, not something that could be knocked out in a year or two. All this excess for a project that would have wrecked two coastal communities, spurred even greater and faster overdevelopment throughout the midcoast than that which has occurred anyway (according to Caltrans’s own study), and destroyed a precious and rare remnant of mostly natural open space on Montara Mountain--all with many violations of various sections of the Coastal Act that were squirreled through by the politicians serving their developer buddies. Both taxpayers and all those who appreciate what remains of the more natural features and small-community character of the midcoast owe those who fought the bypass a huge debt of gratitude. There were no savings to be had at any stage of the game through building the bypass--only losses, both financial and in the physical environment.

But, of course, the fact that the above-ground bypass would have been worse for our lives and pocketbooks does not excuse the grossly unnecessary twin-tunnel messes, both financial and physical. Caltrans resistance to the bypass fell off in direct proportion to the amount of money they could con for the tunnels, much of this coming by way of getting people to go for a grossly oversized project. After the Measure T landslide, Caltrans managed to wheedle financial victory from the jaws of defeat. (Or the representatives of the public managed to seize partial defeat from the jaws of victory, pick your angle.) To hear some of the politicians and Caltrans bureaucrats nowadays, you would think the tunnels were their idea.

By the way, the red-legged frog was not even listed when the bypass controversy was going on.

Carl May

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

Leonard,

We’re on Caltrans time and Caltrans accounting now. Questioning any of it is just sending vibrations off into the ozone.

The main construction currently going on is for the bridges on the north end. Nothing done on the tunneling for months, other than to remove brush from the area of the south portals, and from the bids it doesn’t look like anything will fire up for more months. It’s an expensive rape, but not a quick one.

Carl May

Tunnel to be done sooner, but to cost more

And the figures being reported are only the “A” parts of the bids. Go to the video to see the “B” parts that add almost another 10 percent to the cost.

Carl May

Caltrans to open Devils Slide bids Tuesday

Up, up, up she goes. Where she peaks, nobody knows. The *lower* bid of slightly under $300 million for just the tunneling phase of the project should remind many of the heady Measure T campaign when one tunneling firm estimated about $60 million for the same work. (Of course, that was before the unnecessary doubling of the tunnels from one to two.)

Before it is done, the two tunnels under Devil’s Slide will rewrite the definition of “fiscal flatulence.” Or at least they would if there was not the distraction of the even worse financial mess surrounding the eastern span of the Bay Bridge. Anyone still think the $half billion ballpark figure some of us have been tossing out for several years for the entire project is silly? It’s beginning to look like that will be on the low end of the possible cost range.

It’d be laughable if it wasn’t so disgusting.

Carl May

School Board candidates square off Monday, Oct 30

Looks like someone doesn’t know that some houses in Miramar were built callously and greedily (to say nothing of being in violation of zoned lot size requirements)in a tsunami hazard zone. Why would someone wish to respect the feelings of someone who knowingly does something stupid like that? They set themselves up for a little sarcastic ribbing, don’t they?

Carl May

Harbor Village to open in May

A “tasteful addition”? Oops, too late.

Carl May

HMB fire board responds to union critics

Gee, if it takes five engine stations for fire protection and emergency services, I guess all the little one-horse towns and rural areas beyond throughout the West should just throw in the towel and let their communities burn. (And, no, not all of these turn operations over to CDF in California.)

Carl May

Bob Ptacek is running for CUSD as a write-in candidate

So, is there a specific format in which Bob’s name must be written-in for the vote to count?

Carl May

Pacifica considers widening Hwy 1 near quarry

Stella and Bob Pilgrim, as Pacifica citizens, have been involved with Highway 1 in this stretch for decades, quite without prompting from the Sierra Club.

Why would this particular piece of Highway 1 be studied for widening when it is already the width of the highway on both ends, namely two lanes in each direction? Quite bizarre. One must ask, who, specifically, benefits?

In the several previous widening schemes, a number of small businesses on the east side would have had the front part of their property cut away, destroying the businesses. (Geesh, just when the Shell station finally started to sell gas at a competitive price!) For those businesses and several residences, widening is lose-lose.

The traffic problem at Rockaway and Vallemar is due to the lights, not the width of the highway. No lights, no jams. So the real thrust will be to take out those lights with a freeway-style road. But that won’t sound as good as “widening” to the citizens of Pacifica, given all the negatives of the freeway on Highway 1 through the northern part of the city.

Pacifica is already built out for its land and resources. Its commute traffic is due to too many cars on the highway during certain hours, testimony to the failure of the city government of decades past and to the county government for the midcoast (which provides the component of cars that causes the jams in Pacifica--witness the no-jam situation in Pacifica when the highway is out at Devil’s Slide) to plan for a population appropriate to the two areas.

Widening highways to relieve traffic never has more than a very short-term effect in growing regions of California. Then the problems with traffic become bigger than before due to the additinal growth rationalized by the momentary extra road capacity. It’s much wiser and less costly to provide therapy for growth junkies, figure out ways to make current highways work better, and figure out ways to reduce the number of automobiles on roads.

Carl May

School Board candidates square off Monday, Oct 30

Barry wrote:
“I support either eliminating funding from all non-human entities (including PAC’s, unions, and businesses) or limiting them to the same contribution as individuals.”

What the heck are you trying to do, Mr. Parr, start a democracy? Next thing we know you’ll be trying to limit the contributions of candidates to their own campaigns to the limit that anyone else is allowed to donate. These represent steps toward an unAmerican denial of the right to buy and fix elections.

Carl May

Opinion: Highlights (and lowlights) from the Supervisor’s Midcoast LCP hearing

I don’t know if it was Rain or Kulda, but one of my favorite moments was the woman who asked for a greater percentage of coverage by hardscaping because of pesky gophers.

The local Farm Bureau almost always comes out in favor of developing close-in properties. Protecting their members’ “rights” to raise the “final crop,” I suppose.

The LCP revision for the midcoast is all about how to go urban, not about planning to conform locally to the requirements of the Coastal Act. With a lot of work, people who are gluttons for punishment might be able to improve it slightly at the Coastal Commission.

Carl May

Opinion: Highlights (and lowlights) from the Supervisor’s Midcoast LCP hearing

Pacifica’s Measure L is a pig in a poke.

But Peebles and the PR people he has conducting this latest campaign to get Pacifica voters to change the zoning for the quarry area are slicker and much more thorough than those conducting the campaigns of previous promoters. And they are also boosting candidates for City Council who will favor their schemes for all the additional steps and clearances necessary for the project in the future.

They are even debating this stuff in the schools. There’s a good little “No on L” contingent picketing at the traffic jam at Vallemar every evening; but beyond that, everyplace I look, including the Fog Fest, the “No” side seems to be outgunned in terms of campaign effort.

Buying elections with PR niceties and misrepresentations works much of the time with our electorate in the U.S. How much can Pacifica voters be trusted not to fall for the campaign hyper-fluff this time?

Carl May

Photo: Surfing at Kelp Cove

In addition to the midcoast, there have been some great examples of geolologic ignorance and stupidity in development of private property and infrastructure on the coastlines of Pacifica and Daly City over a bit more than the past half century--the period energized by the “full steam ahead” of the contrived growth ethic. Some will remember several periods when the bluff of the RV and mobile home parks along Palmetto fell off in big chunks, causing loss of the properties and all sorts of tries at bluff stabilization through revetments and sea walls (most of which lasted only a few years before they failed and had to undergo expensive repair, redesign, and/or rebuilding.

Then, just north of this stretch along the Esplanade, almost an entire block of homes in the Pacific Manor area lost what was left of its bluff in a couple of storms, causing parts of houses to break off and fall onto the beach (and providing me with over a dozen photo sales, one of which ended up in the entrance to an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History and was remarked on in the Pacifica paper by a local citizen who saw it in a visit to New York). What is really great is to look at pictures of these houses along the Esplanade when they were first built. Some look to my eye like they had 75 feet of bluff in back of the houses--so much that there were many feet of bluff in back of the fences on the oceanside property lines of the houses. All gone.

And so on through a littany of examples up through Daly City. Because what is going on is known (making ignorance no excuse), building on retreating bluffs is stupid. But the beaches below typically endure if there is no bluff armoring. Accelerating the erosion of unarmored bluffs with adjacent armoring (which damages neighboring property, at least until it eventually fails) is irresponsible, with the added damage to the beach inexcusable.

Carl May

Photo: Surfing at Kelp Cove

But it’s not necessary to compare differing bluffs for the situation in question. Look at historic photos of the cove for the north-facing, retreating bluff in question. The line of retreat was fairly consistent along the face of the bluff. Now there is a concave bite out of the bluff between the rip-rapped bluffs on either side. Some component of storm wave energy is being deflected laterally from the armored areas rather than being dissipated by the rip-rap or reflected back toward the ocean, and this component adds to the wave energy that is eroding the bluff “anyways.”

So in addition to doing a taking of the public beach, the private property owners have done a taking of their neighbor’s property.

Though some are, not all places are as sold out or remain as sold out to real estate interests as ours.  Some have allowed building on retreating bluffs but have forbidden bluff armoring to protect beaches and to treat blufftop properties equally. In these cases, the building is allowed with the tacit understanding that the private property owner is making a mistake and cannot look to government to subsidize their mistake. Some may require that any development that ends up on the beach must be removed by the property owner.

Advancing from this, and making matters much easier on themselves for the immediate future, some coastal jurisdictions are requiring setbacks from the edges of retreating shorelines (remember, this is 85 percent of the California coastline) for any hard development, usually based on something like a 50, 75, or 100 year span for average yearly bluff retreat to reach the development. But this must also be done with strong caveats and a similar requirement of responsibility for the private property owner. Many stretches of bluffs will retreat only a few centimeters, if at all, in many years, then lose 25 or more feet in a very short period of storms with high-energy waves that reach the bluffs and rains that saturate the bluffs. A couple of El Ninos in a five-year period, as in the late 90’s, and 50 feet of bluff may be gone from some places--and the back rooms, decks, and patios of houses may quickly be falling off or hanging over the edge. Tough luck that the average rate of retreat was misleading, but the private property owner is still responsible for their own fate and responsible for cleaning up any mess they have made on the beach. Ignorance and stupidity are not defenses or reasons for tax money from the rest of us to be spent on private property mistakes.

Carl May

Page 11 of 17 pages « First  <  9 10 11 12 13 >  Last »