Comments by Kevin Barron

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steven… enough of that reasonable rhetoric now. Sharpen up kid. I’m with ya on the Top 10 reading.  My dreams are filled with riding the 1 into the Tom Lantos tunnel as exit onto the Gina Papan Bridge, unto to Lou Papan Highway…

Half Moon Bay Review reporters last about a year on the job

I know first-hand many/most here despise the HMB Review… but Barry...taking 7 paragraphs, to finally elude to lack of veteranship and the quality of journalistic heed thereof…

Come on, just come out and say next time. Let me do it for you here:

“I know we all despise the Review, and here is another point that they have a bunch of rookies that are either young, short-breathed on topics that “we” care about, and you can never trust them, but Clay, don’t take it personally”.

It’s a shame the Coastsider can’t seem to maintain a sense of neutrality. Seriously. Sorry to lay it out there Mr Parr.

Opinion: Review’s coverage of AB 1991 is biased and incomplete

Ken… welcome to the everyday life of how the other half lives. You are ranting about how opinionated the HMB Review is… well Ken, welcome to how 50% of the American populous feels about NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, et al… the choice of what to cover, how to color it, and what not to include, much how to bend/paint statistic in your private opinion espoused on the public readership point of view has been relevant for decades in what you probably think as “unbiased” mainstream media. Welcome to other side on what is “non-debatable” amongst the coastal enviro-nazism (excuse the term, but it’s close). What seems to be doctrine and righteous vs. what is filled with folly is laughable.  When a media outlet isn’t on the same side of the fence as you, you seem to decry biased journalism. I’ve yet to find one media outlet in ANY format (especially Coastsider) that provides clear, unbiased, factual, and subjective journalism. Sorry to offend, but you can’t be that naive.

Ken… if I cared enough, I could close my eyes, click my mouse on this (and many other blogs) and find one in a nanosecond… you’ve just been drinking the coastal Kool-Aid so long, you can’t even recognize the artificial biased sweetener anymore. Course you might lambast me ... and make me clarify my meaning of what “the” means…

Kudos to the Review, for swinging the pendulum back to an iota of neutrality and reasonability.

Opinion: Review’s coverage of AB 1991 is biased and incomplete

Coastsider postings on AB1991 are biased and incomplete. Yawn.

HMB’s Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English

Carl, ... Jerry Bruckheimer needs a new doomsday script, and I think you’ve got a calling here. 3/4 of San Mateo County itself is uninhabited… much less the state.

Success, survival, peak fossil fuel and other crunches will be upon it before it can change course and redesign

The best thing we can do is continue to use fossil fuels at exorbitant rates. Then ingenuity (perhaps American) will kick in, and the almighty dollar will drive a viable solution.

Increasing global misery? Wow, the glass is half full, at least.

High Country News????

Wait, your whole past was sarcasm… got it. Back to AB1991 please.

HMB’s Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English

Barry wrote: “The rule of law is a meaningless concept if you can get yourself released from it in exchange for money.”

I agree with that as a core value, but an already overzealous law doesn’t warrant it as unquestionable law or doctrine. Slavery was legal (perhaps far too reaching analogy I know, sorry), or legal precedent to not allow to women to vote… required landmark contrarian actions (whether local thru federal civics).

The money, the actual land itself, the acts and environmentalist precedent thereof… there’s many factors going on… this is just silly. It is also a great time to swing this proverbial pendulum back towards the “reasonability” side. There should be dismissal and review of these type of very debatable laws, acts, commissions on a case-by-case basis, anyways. This isn’t a developer with $25 million additional for legal fees to fight everyone on a Fitzgerald Marine Reserve landfill with 50 condo units, and leveraging some “in”. Sure, the city tripped up here, but granted ... tripped by the very “wires” they helped to set and support into place over the past decades. Of course, the “pitchforks” and “torches” of their enviro-extremist constituenc loomed on the streets, so they HAD to espouse and practice to gain the support from their “witch hunt” constituency). Too much digression, opinion… moving on.

Half of me would love to see this fail. If you grew up here in the late 70’s/early 80’s, you’ll remember the removal of so many services via “Prop 13”. I can see it now circa 2015 as social and public services decay in HMB, and “Beachwood” is blamed for it… although I can see the remnants of the AB1991 will have already moved to Del Norte County or Montana by then to escape what they couldn’t overcome.  Many blame the city 100%, I also blame McCarthy-like environmental strongholds and witch hunts that got the city into this mess. What could of been a developer coming back to the city and saying clean up this mess, and eat the $25K bill, it’s at a legal/moral impasse.

How serendipitous it would be to cast a “deserves you right”, yet realize the innocent (youth, poor, etc) take the brunt. Thanks folks, this was bound to happen, and will continue to happen.

Also, good to see so many non-HMB residents (a-hem) lashing out at 1991 here on ol’ Coastsidah, easy to fight for “undebatable” precedent vs. personal impact. Maybe we can get AB1991 amended to require all Beachwood residents to drive Hybrids and use clean nuclear energy to power their homes, in case it does pass… too late ;-)

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steve wrote: “I have observed over the years how well organized these groups are in championing their positions.”

And that doesn’t even touch it… it was never more apparent when Barry was able to blast dozens of organizational symbols supporting the anti-AB stance. Then when I saw someone from Clear Air whatever speak out in Sacramento against it… I am continually convinced these “organizations” ... (some of which need to fold and consolidate for taxation/revenue purposes (sepearte thread)) just band together and rub each other’s backs in order to show opposition en force. Was waiting for Code Pink to make some cameo at the meeting in Sacto.

Makes more sense to stop housing here ... an already low pollution area with great natural ventilation, and let them “eat pollution cake” in the East Bay hills where gorgeous rolling golden hills are fair game [hypocrites] and pollution is highest in the bay area, since that’s the bastion for housing supply, where it’s a non-issue. Quite NIMBY, ...send the dirty air elsewhere.

HMB’s Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English

Fantastic piece here… covers quite a bit amidst the 2,322 words (thanks to Mozilla Firefox for the word count, 11,738 characters for those interested in more breakdown).

As always, I appreciate a more “palatable” serving on the spin, as it’s always good to revisit context. However, I do see some of this “swung” back to anti-1991 side of this pendulous matter, vs plain and simple clarity. It’s opinionated clarity, which is fine, but noted for what it pretends. For instance… the rhetoric of “all permits"… does that include building permits, secondary infrastructure permits, fire/safety et. al. ... sounds frighteningly all-inclusive when it’s put that way. I know what was meant, but color can provide as much as, sometimes more, than content… ask the ‘mainstream media’ espousing as “un-biased”.

I understand (at last I think I do) the passion about holding fast to what has been so often fought hard for (as an on/again off/again 38 year resident in these parts). But does everyone just want the city to take it on the chin, and prove what??? I’ll repeat my blather, in that I look at this as pretty much farm land, with converted farm land on each side, on the east side of a major arterial, nee state highway. Bite the bullet, save the millions, take the lesson learned. Good to see this unrelenting 100% sticking to thine’s ideals, but I just see so many folks whom would rather have a lose-lose vs a consolatory lose-win in this situation… all in the name of already overzealous protectionism.

The passing of the bill will not be a slippery slope that will end up turning the midcoast into the San Clemente hillsides, or Oakland (gotta like that reference… whomever threw that out in another thread, love the conspiracy that a city council would some how band together, meet in the catacombs under Main St, and have a secret ideal to turn a sleepy coastal town vehemently locked in by POST and no-growthers into a major MSA… the Half Moon Bay A’s… I like it).

Besides, I have complete confidence in the deft and unrelenting no-growthers here on the Coast coming in on the next project and sealing a development’s fate for failure.

It just seems some unintended evil came out of good intentions from the get-go. Good intentions backed by ideals that I somewhat already disagree with, but for this sake can console with (a la lose-win vs lose-lose). I see no difference, nor harm in what Beachwood will/could/should become vs the subdivisions that are next to it.

Watch AB1991 committee hearing live TODAY at 1:30pm

Ken I understand your passion, but indirectly offending me with that jibe is unwarranted. It’s sophomoric at best. Maybe the 2:32AM time stamp speaks volumes.

I was talking about the CCC rep whom spoke at the meeting as I watched the video Barry so graciously gave us the heads up on. Thusly my verbiage clearly stated as:

[shocking to see a rep from the CCC, lay claim]

See, not read.

Regardless, driving by again this AM, 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. Bite the bullet, save the millions, take the lesson learned. This is a small concession, although that seems sacrilege to many here… I’ve yet to see a coherent fiscally sound solution.

The passing of the bill will not be a slippery slope that will end up turning the midcoast into the San Clemente hillsides, I have complete confidence in the deft and unrelenting no-growthers here on the Coast coming in on the next project and sealing a development’s fate for failure.

/Clueless in Montara

“ Comment by Ken Johnson on May 03 at 2:32am • All my comments •

Kevin Barron,

I agree with your self characterization that you “have no clue”! Did you ignore or simply lacked the knowledge to understand that the quotation didn’t come from the California Coastal Commission? “

Senator Yee withdraws as a co-author of Beachwood settlement bill

Moreover, what can the city of HMB do with the parcel/subdivision… at this point it MUST be flipped towards commercial/residential development… to re-coup.

Watch AB1991 committee hearing live TODAY at 1:30pm

No Ken, I don’t think I was directing at you, given I have no clue whom you are. Or at least I didn’t have you personally in mind.

It was just not shocking to see a rep from the CCC, lay claim… like they do on EVERY measure that comes across their desk to say this would be unprecedented ... many of us think it’s about time to break the spell, so to speak.

Then it was good to see a bunch of lawyers “personally speaking” in a very jocular fashion about how this debate/bill keeps lawyers employed.

Devil’s Slide closed for cliff rescue

Asked if he had any regrets, he said, “well, life’s a learning experience … I probably won’t do the same, but I don’t really regret anything.”

Shocker. Well, lad, once you do start contributing vs drawing off of services… we hope to… nevermind.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Thing are looking up for AB1991, as well as land owners not being bullied by environmental agencies banding together outside of their edicts.

Watch AB1991 committee hearing live TODAY at 1:30pm

“exemptions of the scope set forth in this bill from so many different statutes are unprecedented.”

let’s provide disclosure on where this rhetoric came from…

anyone notice the mention of “waiver of affordable housing”.... me thinks the hypocrites of the coast would block this even more if this whole subdivision was allocated towards affordable housing. that’s what POST if for.. lock in, errr lock out any development that requires “affordable” housing…

also, i’m a bit validated on the mention of (and I think it was by two or three assemblypersons) that “this is why laywers find 100% employment”,… epic.

Watch AB1991 committee hearing live TODAY at 1:30pm

Same theme I saw with the environmentalists showing up.
Same reason why someone on Clean Air showed up, yeah… let’s send the would-be citizens to the East Bay, or better yet to the back of the LA Basin… that makes for much better air quality.

do all these hacks just rub each others backs to show numbers en force, like the plastering of logos on a posting here???

So far, so good on this bill.

HMB release says dozens of citizens headed to Sacramento to support AB1991

This is no different than busing, feeding, then registering disenfranchised voters in Hunter’s Point, nee Slick Willie Brown.

Devil’s Slide closed for cliff rescue

I saw the third gentlemen, and I certainly didn’t think “transient”. Regardless, this was immense cost on services, and these folks should be billed, whether they can afford now or later. We bill people thousands of dollars for other uses of inappropriate behavior and the taxing on services, but only because it’s politically correct.

Photo: Little car, little kids, at Dream Machines

So what do you do with the battery when it no longer holds a charge?

Devil’s Slide closed for cliff rescue

Indeed, closed as of 4:30’ish… just got this:

5:21PM ***SIG ALERT UPDATE*** AN ETO OF APPROX 4 HOURS TO RE-OPEN SR1 AT DEVILS SLIDE

Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

The Beachwood subdivision… such a shame, but looks like the typical action/re-action that Steve indirectly refers to has bit back for once. And this was a hard bite.

“Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.”

This rhetoric and idealism has provided no-growth pundits to arm themselves with the CCC, Coastal Act, et. al. with this undeniable doctrine to execute NIMBY to the hilt. I call it as I have seen it for years now here on the coast.

I see too often the leveraging of the Coastal Act, and so on by defining and executing their awarded powers to the “interpretable” maximum (often on wetlands stipulations). That’s absolute folly. Might be time to amend for reason and realism. I think what was intended to inhibit careless filling of coastal lagoons with cement at will, has devolved into leveraging them for finding any excuse to stop development. There are quite a few among us that aren’t as staunch, but it’s almost as if there is no argument and everyone abides.

Meanwhile, environmental, civic, and development lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. I wonder if they switch off hosting each other’s Christmas parties each year? Regardless, they’ll raise their flutes and nibble on pumpkin pie ;-)

Congrats, you are keeping your “small town"… nee “small poor town”. Maybe downtown HMB will get this sorta rundown Flint, Michigan sorta vibe to it. Makes for compelling photography subjects.

On the other hand, it can do wonders for existing real estate values, so guys like Steve pull in the same coin, by moving less but more profitable inventory.

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >