Comments by Carl May

Watch AB1991 committee hearing live TODAY at 1:30pm

“I realize this land is not overlooking the bluff on Fitzgerald Reserve (truly the type of parcels that the CCC/Act were designed for). It’s pretty much farm land, with converted farm land on each side, on the east side of a major arterial.”

A reading of Proposition 20 and the weaker Coastal Act of 1976 it spawned will show the above quote to be grossly false on a number of fronts. All kinds of coastal property and enterprise in the coastal zone are involved. Trying to create revisionist history won’t cut it until all of us who can read, who know the locations and issues that inspired Prop. 20, and who know some of those who drafted Prop. 20 are gone.

AB 1991 is just the latest in a long series of assaults on the Coastal Act. But it achieves a higher rank on the disgust scale than most of the others because it also tries to trash almost all other areas of regulation and environmental laws in the state in the sweeping exemptions it requests. (Nope, not falling for the crudely contrived spin that implies the bill is not a model for getting around environmental laws. Asking people to be naive, gullible, and ignorant of how the game is played in Sacramento and the rest of California only shows disrespect.)

What the AB 1991 dustup shows, once again, is the need for a new set of strong, clear, objective environmental regulations in California, including a new Coastal Act. The old ones had too many compromising weaknesses to begin with, are out of date for the current California and with its much reduced natural environment and its bloated population, are too full of the legal loopholes that have been blown in them, and (as AB 1991 demonstrates with a local situation) are too subject to capricious political gameplaying and the influence of big money.

Carl May

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

“But its too early to start popping the champagne cork yet because the opposition is so well funded and organized.”

Most of the opposition to AB 1991 is not even allowed to spend more than a small amount on trying to influence legislation.

The opposition to AB 1991, as shown in the listed groups for and against the bill, is very poorly funded compared to the rich interests in favor of it. A person simply cannot make such a statement and know anything about the groups and constituencies involved. I haven’t done it, but it would be an interesting exercise to add up the paid lobbyists for those in favor and those against.

What is more, the few bigger environmental groups listed against the bill are spread thin over multiple issue areas nationally, whereas the groups favoring it are mostly concentrated on making money out of real property. The money is on the side of the developers, and they are the side that favors AB 1991. One wonders if people making statements about “well-funded” environemntalists have the first clue what the budgets of such organizations are like. For those not familiar with where to look for such information, Guidestar is a start.

In their fervor for obtaining wealth, anti-environment people seldom bother to reflect on the fact that those trying to prevent the trashing of our surroundings have nothing to gain financially, whereas those who favor environmental degradation alost always do it for the money to be made.

Carl May

Meet the Democratic assembly candidates tonight

Will you Democrats be asking them how they stand on AB 1991, and why? Do they understand the nature of the precedent for the rest of us who do not live in HMB?

Will you be asking them how they stand on consolidation of special districts on the coastside,and why?

Do they believe communities of all kinds should be sustainable? If so, how would the unincorporated communities that would result from the revised LCP (which Hill has had a part in creating) be sustained in terms of basic resources and the physical and social infrastructure needed for support?

Carl May

Watch AB1991 committee hearing live TODAY at 1:30pm

“I don’t think I was directing at you, given I have no clue whom you are.”

Ken Johnson,

Pardon me for asking about something that may be nothing more than a construct of a bad memory, but weren’t you involved in some of the first attempts to create an LCP for HMB? Can you offer a bit of perspective on the time and the several attempts to draft an LCP that were rejected? It’s a leading question, but was the city government of HMB of the time anxious to fulfill its obligations under the new Coastal Act?
HMB dragged its feet on creating an LCP and was years and years late in sending one to the Coastal Commissions and finally getting it certified. During this time, in the early 80’s through 1990 is when the initial mistakes (which determined much of what was to come) were made on Beachwood by the staff and City Council. But why HMB was recalcitrant, why it failed to behave as it was required to do in managing its coastal environment, is seldom heard. That “why” has a great deal to do with the City Council’s current attitude and would be well worth exposing to the many citizens of the city who were not here or were not paying attention at the time.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

“’Why did the HMB City Council agree to such a large expenditure of $18 million without seeking voter consent?’ Probably because the arrogant HMB City Council believed they could avoid paying $18 million by trampling over every state environmental law on the books.”

Wouldn’t the more simple answer be, “Because they could”?

I thought Pete Price and Sarah Christie were particularly concise and well-spoken--clear on the matter of precedent for all of California. Christie was especially impressive in her direct, factual answers and points in the back and forth questioning. She had obviously done her homework. It’s a shame it’s more about politics than anything else in Sacramento.

Carl May

Coastal Commission legislative director answers HMB’s “misinformation and inaccuracies”

“If this bill passes, we will know there is some serious corruption going on in Sacramento. AB 1991 is simply nuts.”

Kevin,

Allow me to remind you this is California. Anything can happen, and does. Best to express oneself vigorously and not be too certain of any outcome before it happens.

Anyone who objects to the destructive potential of AB1991 should e-mail or phone the members of the Assembly committee to weigh in. You can be sure the other side is doing so to the best of its ability.

We already know there is some serious corruption in Sacramento.

Carl May

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

“And I’d be willing to give them a huge discount on my commission should they list their properties with me.  You see, not all pro-grow people are evil and greedy.”

Of course they are not. One would not want to think altruistic realtors in HMB would try to make an opportunistic buck selling off the city’s property assets.

Maybe the discount real estate sales office in Montara could be consulted on how to structure a real savings on sales commissions?

Carl May

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Always speculative to count a silent majority before it has been heard from. When the citizens of HMB recognize how they were prematurely sold out, how they might be taxed to pay for the sellout, and how the settlement attempts to abandon major categtories of environmental protections for the city and load on more effects of unmanageable overpopulation, many of them may well have feelings very different from the vocal, developer-friendly, environment-disdaining, “property rights” minority.

The above nascent attempts to use Beachwood as a wedge issue, a stalking horse for avoidance of state and national environmental regulations elsewhere in the city, and an inhibition on future enforcement of environmental regulations were predicted. It was so obvious this would be a tactic by overdevelopment interests in that long-misguided city.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Leonard:

A bunch of messages above I wrote:

“Essentially, all uses must have been stripped from a property for a true takings to have taken place. Yet the City of HMB eventually allowed for 19 dwellings on the property in question, conforming to the presence of the ‘wetlands’ as it did so.”

That was based on the same very well known Supreme Court decision that you refer to. Was this argued in HMB’s appearance before Judge Walker? Amazing legal incompetence if it was not brought up. And amazing ignorance on the part of HMB government if they do not know about the current operating definition of a “taking.” If it was argued, the judge’s ruling was obviously contrary to a prior Supreme Court decision, which should have made an appeal on this matter alone a slam dunk. But I’m not an attorney and don’t understand any legal manuevering that may have nullified this matter.

The whole business of possible takings and coastal wetlands under the Coastal Act has been litigated ad nauseum in several prominent cases in Southern California. It has not escaped notice that HMB government its real estate greedseeds ("greedseed" = a hayseed more interested in the final crop than agricultural products) is behaving very much like SoCal coastal towns and counties dominated by right-wingers and real estate profiteers.

Which gets to another matter, which is that the Beachwood decision by Walker may be used to peck away at the current definition of a “taking.” This is constantly a pursuit of “property rights” law firms. So the City Council of HMB and its law firms might be responsible for a precedent that will have ramifications even beyond California. And they wonder why people outside HMB are slamming the sleazy settlement?

Carl May

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

AB1991 was a huge mistake. Suddenly the settlement became the problem of all Californians, as the city got Mullin to carry foul water for it in the state legislature. People who previously did not give a damn about how HMB handled its problem suddenly did because their ox was now being gored.

One can only guess at the reasons something so stupid is being tried. Ignorance of the many elsewhere in California who would be drawn in? Inherent disdain for coastal regulations in general? Arrogance, thinking they could lay off any failure of such legislation to go through on “obstructionists” who would forget history and abandon principles? Hope that the stupidity would succeed in spite of all, as other stupidities sometimes do in politicized California. The possibilities go on...but not on to one good reason why this bill should not be aborted for the good of all.

Carl May

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Francis,

Don’t be disuaded by the self-interested spinners who refuse to take off the feedbag and admit how HMB has blundered in a manner that will have ramifications up and down the state. Do you live in Mendocino County? Doesn’t matter, but if you do, there are those of us who realize some of what your supervisors inland in Ukiah have done to try to weaken the Coastal Act over the years. There is reason for concern no matter where private attacks on the public interest are launched.

Unfortunately, the entire California coastline is a commons, and that subjects it to the sort of potential tragedies Garrett Hardin wrote about in his famous editorial.

You wrote: “Regarding private property rights: Owners that have been denied any access or any use of their land by the commission must be compensated for their land. However, such “takings” are rarely the case.”

And are not the case here, though the City of Half Moon Bay decided not to press the issue. Essentially, all uses must have been stripped from a property for a true takings to have taken place. Yet the City of HMB eventually allowed for 19 dwellings on the property in question, conforming to the presence of the “wetlands” as it did so. That was less than the poor little multi-millionaire developer wanted out of his relatively small, speculative, initial investment; and he figured the chances for a greater profit through lawyering up were more attractive. He was right about that, luckily getting a far-right judge on “property rights.”

It’s all about the money, and the City of HMB, now with a city council that itches to appease developers (some of this has to do with “Old Guard” agricultural landowners wanting to be free to sell off for the “final crop") had no stomach for sticking up for government’s regulatory powers. (Perhaps they were a bit afraid they might actually succeed on appeal, but I have no way of knowing that.) They took the first deal their attorneys could drum up to create a payoff for the developer. They got out of the effort a well-pursued appeal would have required; and they managed to throw in another property they want developed. They probably also figured the $18 million that the city might have to pay could be absorbed without bankrupting the city and could be offset partially by selling off that portion the land on which development could be allowed. Any simpleton could scheme that out. And it becomes more plausible if your have lived around here for a few decades and see how the factions (predictably) work.

Don’t imagine for a moment that the four council people in HMB cared a whit about the possible effects of their oddball legislative manuever involving Assemblyman Mullin on the rest of the state’s heavily pressured coastline. As you can see by the messages, people going for the money locally care only about the here and now.

Hang in there with your to-the-point, logical, and objective messages. Daylight drives our local coastal vampires crazy.

Carl May

HMB lawyers issue city’s statement on AB 1991

Yup. AB 1991 would go into the developer’s primer on how to get around Coastal Act regulations--where it would join past such circumventions. People like Wan on the Coastal Commission clearly understand this. One is left to wonder if this law firm has any experience at all with California coastal controversies or if they just used a boilerplate snow job in the message trying to justify the naive required legislation.

Love the justification for Glencree: “Regarding the inclusion of the 12-acre Glencree parcel that is adjacent to Beachwood, the developer required the inclusion of that parcel in the settlement agreement.” Looks more and more like the mandate to the attorneys was: “get a fast settlement, any settlement.” People outside HMB should remember this kind of repeated incompetent screwup when the calls to annex to the city come up.

Carl May

Carl May

Coastsider Farmers’ Market Field Notes: Preface #1

Pacifica opening? Remember, some of us shop up there, and last year’s location at Rockaway was convenient.

Coastal Commission votes unanimously to oppose Beachwood settlement bill

Common sense would suggest a settlement that did not demand exemptions from a number of applicable laws. Do the city council members of Half Moon Bay imagine they are somehow separate from the rest of the state? As Wan said, it is a terrible precedent. Previous legal erosion of this sort--a lessening of Coastal Act regulations on one property being used to justify the same kind of act-busting activities on other properties--is one of the reasons the Coastal Act has become so feeble.

Comments displaying ignorance of the well-established environmental science involved do nothing to demean the facts and principles of the situation. A property does not have to be in pristine natural condition to have coastal characteristics worthy of protection. If development had not already destroyed roughly 95 percent of California’s coastal wetlands, there might be more of a basis for compromise. But there isn’t. If we, as a society, invested more in understanding the various kinds of wetlands and how to restore them after assaults on their integrity, there might be possibilities for mitigation off-site. But we haven’t.

Politics and the power of money might yet prevail to let the Beachwood settlement happen, but if it needs to get by on the facts on the ground, it’s dead. Only time will tell how Half Moon Bay’s blunder of almost a quarter of a century ago will play out.

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

“Which of the folks who have lived here since before 1984 think that there were no wetlands on the Beachwood property until after the city constructed a drainage project for the Terrace development?”

Dennis,

This is exactly what has some of us giggling in the background--gotta keep it in the background because the potential consequences are real and serious for more recently arrived people who had no part in creating the problem.

Bottom line: The property was DRAINED for development in those heady days of the early 80’s, a time when the City of Half Moon Bay was still coming to grips with the need to give at least an appearance of complying with the requirements of the Coastal Act. It wasn’t dust they were draining. But they botched the job and some of the water hanged around during ensuing wet periods and formed new wetlands.

(And, yes, other wetlands in Half Moon Bay and the midcoast were also drained and/or filled for residential development in that era. A particularly irritating one for me was a little marsh off of Roosevelt, near where I had an office at the time.)

Carl May

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

“I’m a long-time conservative Republican and I’m deeply dismayed by the contempt that the California Republican Party holds for environmental laws and the Coastal Commission in particular. They fail to recognize that others like me can find fiscally and socially conservatives Democrats to support, but nary an environmentally conservative Republican.”

Pete McCloskey said something similar recently when he helped a Democratic candidate for the House and then announced he was going to register as a Democrat after being a life-long Republican. Wish he hadn’t done that. His kind of integrity makes for a great independent. Or a potential founder of the Realist Party.

Carl May

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

“Even though the Godmother. Dolores Mullins, died in the mid-nineties her sphere of influence is still with us. Why?
“Assemblyman Gene Mullin, sponsor of AB 1991, is her godson.”
....
John Lynch

And, John, do you recall who was selected by her gang to replace her on the HMB City Council?

Six degrees? We don’t need no stinking six degrees to make connections.

Carl May

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

With Migden’s personal problems already working against her and Yee stumbling on this environmental sell-out, it could get more interesting if Nation or a conservationist Republican in the mold of Mel Lane can spin it into a campaign issue.

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

“Yee and Mullin are the real bad guys here. The local polticos who agreed to this ripoff settlement are just clueless. Yee and Mullin know very well what they are doing.”

Got to disagree, Kevin. “Saving the city” and sliding all this in on greased skids is a big win for the pro-development HMB City Council. And you know better than I the chilling effect this will have on trying to uphold growth limitations, the HMB LCP, and the Coastal Act on other properties in the city. It’s a classic Old Guard win. And let’s not forget this is what the voters of HMB said they wanted when they put in this City Council.

Whatever makes you think a “D” after someone’s name means they are good for the built or unbuilt environment?

Stop SB 1295: Defend Coastal Commission

Yeah, right, so that is one reasson why I posted Mauz’s appeal letter. It is obviously to the point and specific as to the violations alleged.

So who would you have as this great arbiter of appeals that would conform to the wishes of developers?

By the way, Greg, my academic training is as a biologist. Degree in that from a reputable university. Post-degree field research. Worked for one of the top few recognized population biologists dealing with human populations. Almost four decades of working on college-level educational materials in the area, continuing to present. Most recently provided photographic illustrations for a new college ecology text from one of the top few college science publishers in the U.S. Not at all unusual among the people I know concerned with environmental issues. You might be surprised at the credentials of the people you consider to be unworthy commentators.

Carl May

Page 4 of 17 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »