Comments by Brian Ginna

HMB mayor, attorney say Coastal Commission staff is lying to legislature

Ms. Drouillard,

Your lack of command of basic facts of the entire Beachwood matter along with a misreading of my comment (in addition to the dozens you have misread over the past weeks) are actually pretty funny.

Defend Ms. Christie all you want - just be sure to google her name along with San Luis Obispo Grand Jury.  While you are checking out her record of conflicts, please take a look at Mr. Lansing’s record of being on the wrong side of the truth too (Coverdale lot sale, historical signficance of Cunha MS, Pastorino appeal to CCC, Church St. house, etc.  The list is long).

HMB mayor, attorney say Coastal Commission staff is lying to legislature

Add me to the list.

It is very clear that Coastal Commission staff, particularly Ms. Christie, are presenting misleading and often conflicting facts and, many times, omitting important facts that hurt their case.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

“It’s just dishonest to say that land that can be developed with 19 to 30 or more houses is worthless.”

So, are you saying Bob Mitton is lying?

“I took my best shot at estimating the value and no one has seen fit to refute it.”

Not in the least.  Since you have zero background in valuing development properties, your best shot has no bearing on anything.

“Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on the city, not on opponents of AB1991. They have yet to prove the land has no value. They can’t.”

I will repeat again what I have said elsewhere - Half Moon Bay has absolutely *zero* responsibility to explain the situation to you.

You are doing your best to make it seem that you or some “concerned citizens” are being “kept in the dark” according to some devious motive (something Grady tried unsuccessfully to argue last week).  The fact is, and this is something you know to be true, the City’s actions and the basis for those actions is the City’s business - not yours.  They must keep this confidential for very simple reasons, and you are well aware of them.

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

“You can’t put a price on simply ignoring your own laws...”

Absolutely correct.  All of them, including the laws that support your right with respect to your own property.  You cannot pick and choose which laws you want to uphold.

Your ongoing cynical criticism of the City Council has once again turned full-circle.

When did the minimum become sufficient?

“abusive toward other users.”

much like this site is abusive towards the current HMB CC majority, and, as an extension, staff (they do the dirty work) and many residents.

Are readers to believe that HMB has gone so far downhill since the 2005 election that nothing positive can be proffered?  Was I on vacation when those stories ran?

I guess I can offer to apologize when you do the same for the “Man Shoots Dog” nonsense.

You present something positive, I will stand corrected.  Unless you want all posters to simply agree with your opinions and buy your version of events…

When did the minimum become sufficient?

“I offfered a simple solution to the problem I’ve identified.”

What you actually did was reduce City Hall to a cartoon, and it is not appreciated.

I would search the archives here for stories on 144 Kelly, but alas, there are none.  If the activities regarding the “conservation easement” debacle that occurred there (even putting aside the Grady angle for a moment) were undertaken by the current CC majority, you would be howling in disagreement.

The lack of “reporting” here supports my case.  Should I link “ALL THE ‘NEWS’ THAT FITS THE SCRIPT” or should we all just google it?

This is my story, and I am sticking to it, unless, of course, “Coffee with Marina” is in the production stages…

When did the minimum become sufficient?

“I don’t remember you getting all sarcastic...”

that is surprising

“ when Jim Larimer, Terry Gossett, Charlie Gardner, or the Pellegrinis speak up about problems they see in your city.”

You forgot Joel Farbstein, Mary Bordi & Don Bacon, to name a few.

I guess the difference is I usually see them offering up solutions and seeking discussion, not just pointing out flaws and shutting it down.

When did the minimum become sufficient?

“You also seem to resent folks from the Midcoast poking into the city’s business. “

Not at all.

I resent your continual abuse of the City, its Council Members and Staff.

When did the minimum become sufficient?

I, for one, apologize that our City is falling so short, in your eyes, on so many fronts.

We’ll try to do better.

I would be careful with the “hide” and “cloud” allegations.  The glass house here has very thin walls.

Exclusive video:  HMB City Council prepares to kill Pilarcitos Creek park site

“That’s why you keep changing the subject.”

I changed the subject?

1.  I suggested that the City at least try to get the $3.1MM knocked down here: 

http://coastsider.com/index.php/townhall/viewthread/125/

That was ignored for a discussion on what other properties the city has.

“… avoidable debacle in the making.”

Like purchasing the land in the first place, but the former city council majority did not listen to many constituents.  Do not forget that Fraser voted against it.

Where is the full, unredacted due diligence report????  Can you post that?

Exclusive video:  HMB City Council prepares to kill Pilarcitos Creek park site

“could have” should have, would have.  They probably expected to remain “in control.”

“They have also shut the citizens out of the process of deciding what to do about their parks.”

The same could be said for the many people who spoke out against the original purchase of the property in question.  Those people far outnumbered those in favor of the purchase.

Mike Ferreira Apologists Unite!!

Exclusive video:  HMB City Council prepares to kill Pilarcitos Creek park site

“The current Council majority is thinking narrowly and short-term.”

As opposed to the former Council majority?

POST and Nurseryman’s sale was effective June 2004.  Ferreira was in office until December 2005.

What financing and/or park development plans were formulated during that time frame?  Were any in place at the time of the purchase?

Does Barry have a copy of the extension agreement between POST and the City?  If so, can he post it?

“...the city could wind up owing interest to POST...”

Other than litigation, how is POST going to force the city to pay the whole amount?  Do you honestly think POST is going to want to sue the City?  The City has the upper hand here, folks.  They need to force the issue.

Martial arts instructor gets a year in jail, HMB cop not charged

Definitely a judgement call, but this is no DUI or domestic disturbance.

Due to the small size of the department and the very public fact that an investigation was ongoing (for weeks), full closure is important.  Knowing the particular officer that was involved is very material to public interest, charges or not.  This is compounded by the Chief’s situation.

I agree - the Review is not at fault.  The Daily Journal?  Not exactly a paragon of journalistic fortitude - their policy means little to me.  I think the real question is why the district attorney’s office confirmed or released the fact that an investigation was ongoing.  They put the department and all officers under a cloud of suspicion and it would not seem reasonable for it to just end in a “nothing happened, no charges filed” situation.  If they had used more discretion or ended the investigation sooner, the choice of not disclosing the name would have been easier. 

Thanks.

Martial arts instructor gets a year in jail, HMB cop not charged

“The Daily Journal decided to withhold the officer’s name because no charges were filed, but the officer’s name has been released by the Review.”

Perhaps its just me, but the way you have worded that comment leads me to believe you have an opinion regarding the Review’s decision to “release” the officer’s name last week.  If that is the case, would you mind sharing it with your readers?

Thanks.

Video: Montara workshop on 7-unit subdivision near Farallone View

I’d give this video 3 out 4 stars.  Still trying to figure out which is the funnier of the two - the developer or the self-important “local experts.” Like they say “Nice neighborhood, except for the neighbors.”

Why get so worked up about something that will never be built?

Best line of the night - “This community is not anti-development.” That is a true classic.

Pacifica sinkhole caused by waves undermining Beach Blvd

“It is about time that developers started working *with* nature, not against it.”

Developers?  Ummm...this is the Pier, not that nasty housing or commercial stuff.

Would the Coastal Commission have a problem if a mountain’s worth of boulders are dropped there so the pier can ensure “access?” I doubt it.

Video Column: Right Here In The Middle

Mr. Lansing makes a statement that, on its face, looks like some sort of universally accepted fact.

“...the MidCoast LCP (the local implementation of the Coastal Act) says that the project (Big Wave) does not qualify for priority water.”

Does it really say that or is that simply Mr. Lansing’s interpretation and he is presenting his interpretation as fact (to perhaps quote himself someday?) ?

He must have missed the discussion of Coastal Act priorities that Mary Bordi originated here:

http://coastsider.com/index.php/townhall/viewthread/80/

Does not seem so cut and dried and solid as Mr. Lansing makes it appear, does it?

“shadow-government” - is that like self-appointed government watchdogs who do not run for office but act like they did?

Letter: City council working at cross purposes?

Mr. Lynch,

Please elaborate on your efforts to solve the “severe deficiency of parks and playing fields for our youth and adults.”

Letter: City council working at cross purposes?

“John has raised a significant question, but you’ve ignored it.”

I’VE IGNORED IT?

I do not need to produce here a bunch of links to all of the glowing stories Barry wrote in 2004 and 2005 about the park purchase - people can find them for themselves.

What they cannot find here is a story about how much that lovely park would cost the taxpayers of HMB.  News blackout.  What we do see presented is videos titled “The Great Giveaway.”

Mr. King’s and Mr. Lynch’s rhetoric is simply provided in an effort to discredit the current City Council, not solve problems.  That much is very obvious to me - just making sure others are reading between the lines.  Perhaps my mocking of his argument did not come through very clearly (I also feel no need to address his “opinion").

These guys should take a cue from Mr. Lansing - his use of rhetoric is clever BUT matched by fairly solid arguments, not this kind of obvious hit piece.

Letter: City council working at cross purposes?

“I’m very concerned that this kind of isolated decision making, this reactive no recognition of consequences, is, sadly, the order of the day.”

“...or someone is planning to stick the taxpayers with the bill.”

Oddly reminiscent of October 2004 decision by the City Council to spend $3.2MM on “Community Park” land.  How are we taxpayers going to pay that bill, Mr. Lynch?

Page 1 of 8 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »