“I guess if something is said over and over again by the press and by a handful of individuals it takes on the appearance of truth.”
The same can be said for Mr. King’s and your statements, no? Why was the famous “Community Park” due diligence report so heavily redacted? Something about litigation strategy? Sounds like a City Council convincing a City Attorney that they were on shaky ground (literally). Who knows - happened behind closed doors. Hmmm…
“It saddens me that land for recreational use has become such a political football. Our families and young people deserve better.”
And it appears that you threw a screen pass there, hopefully you have a few lineman who can pull out to block for you.
Since HMB has a very energetic and capable Park & Rec. staff, hopefully those families LIKE MINE and young people LIKE MY KIDS can get closer to getting fields without the continued obstruction of a few vocal opponents. Maybe a reformed Park n Rec commission can move things forward. I keep checking those agendas and see very little movement on the Community Park in the last year, if any.
Could you please give your reason(s) for why the Sewer Plant road, which the City already owned, is not suitable? It surely is available.
“Making this issue into a political game...” It has been, for a long time, Mr. May.
“Oh well, Patridgee (sic) knows how to exercise power.”
So do the folks who mortgaged the City’s future by purchasing a $3.2MM piece of land the City clearly did not need and for which the City clearly overpaid. Was the City Council “inclusive” then? Silly stuff.
Clearly, just rhetoric to continue to try to make her look bad.
“We should have no doubt that our canny mayor already has someone in mind, else this would not have come up at this point in time.”
And potentially leave one of Mr. King’s and Mr. Lansing’s political friends on the outside, looking in? That is probably how it will go down.
I figured there must be a reason for the sudden interest in non-HMB residents serving on HMB Commissions. How about we replace Mr. Lansing on the Planning Commission with non-resident. Can we nominate Jim Larimer? Would you guys like it going the other way?
Why is it that Mr. King feels that Half Moon Bay’s city code should make it a “requirement” that a spot on a City commission be filled by a non-resident? Optional is not good enough? Clever wordsmithing though, using “assured” instead of required.
Does Mr. King also feel that the Planning Commission should have spots that are required to be filled by non-residents? Highly doubtful. Why is he so suddenly concerned about the rights (?) of non-residents to serve on HMB City Commissions? Simply a chance to take a shot at Mrs. Patridge?
The actual language for the agenda item is: Ordinance Amending Half Moon Bay Municipal Code 2.26, “Parks and Recreation Commission”, not the rhetoric-laden description Mr. King feels the need to use.
The existence of a requirement that a non-resident spot be filled can only serve to turn away interested HMB applicants.
How many non-CUSD, non-San Mateo County facilities outside Half Moon Bay fill active recreational needs on the Coastside? Perhaps only the Moss Beach playground and Quarry Park? Speaking of representation, are Half Moon Bay residents assured a spot on MidCoast Park Lands board?
“trample environmental laws”
Did they REALLY do this? When was it?
Why are YOU so fixated on our fixation? People are being nosy (and this is not news-y - it is NOT in the local newspaper), so why is the fact that some might be nosy a problem?
Are you standing beside YOUR soapbox or on it?
Mrs. Parr,
1. You have mistakenly assumed that I think intimidation, by any means is appropriate. I believe I am entitled to an apology for your inference that my actions or words would cause some sort of intimidation that leads to a desire for anonymity. I did say that I would wonder why someone would “stand by and just wave,” not that they would resort to something threatening.
2. I did not label anyone a canary, others did. I quoted.
3. I have no animosity in this regard, nor towards any of my neighbors. Oddly, your interpretation of my opinion is pretty much your opinion (and nothing factual either). My opinion is simply stated as having photographs with no credit is a journalistic misstep (this is only tangentaly related to the link you provided - which is, surprise, another opinion!). Perhaps that is not a problem here.
I could care less who the person is. Makes no difference to me.
The point is - you cannot simply defend the position that publishing anonymous photos of private activities is not a serious breach of journalistic principles.
You would not have the burden of trying to protect someone’s anonymity if you simply took a higher road and decided to not use anonymous photographs. The burden is borne because you have decided that you think pretty pictures are more valuable than something else. I would vote for something else.
“It doesn’t surprise me that some people feel intimidated.”
Does not surprise me either. If a person is doing something on their privately-owned land and another party is taking their picture without their approval, why would the person just stand by and wave?
I fail to see why privacy (personal or ordinary property rights - remember “quiet enjoyment?") gets sidetracked here for the sake of “reporting.” There is absolutely no overriding public need here (especially not for one that is doing farming).
yes, we have seen anonymous photos before, and I think many of us think you should replace them with your own, no matter the quality. I think it improves the “quality” as a whole.
I find these statements odd:
“I’ll always give credit to myself or anyone else who wants it.”
Not the “credit to myself” part. You deserve credit for the hard work.
Any “news” source that is going to at least try to remain objective HAS to credit a photo or not run it. That is simply a journalistic principle and not one that is subject to any interpretation or
“Interestingly, these photos came from two different sources who prefered to keep their privacy. I took some photos, but there weren’t as good as these.”
Keep “THEIR PRIVACY??” They took pictures of an activity on privately owned land, did they not?
I think the word you were looking for was “anonymity.” That said, the “canary” should be ashamed that they lack the fortitude to stand up and be accounted for.
“We might now guess why CCF placed Wilson’s name last: they want him to lose!”
Readers should ask themselves why Mr. King insists on consistently mistating a fact he knows very well - the signs are the work of PCF, not CCF. They are different organzations (and I belong to neither). Why Mr. King brought it up in the first place is a mystery, but I find it funny that he once again resorts to his “let’s twist the logic of the original argument to fit my funny retort” argument style. Hopefully after the election you can send the Review a few more pointers on arguing styles so the electorate can be more informed. Lord knows you are not going to inform them on the important issues (like how much support you are giving to a particular candidate).
“We absolutely deserve the government we get.”
And I can say to Mr. Ptacek is that I am glad you have given me an opportunity to not for for you. I thought I would have to live in Montara to get that. Why the elected officials in Montara act the way they do is astounding.
Mr. King is quick to “forget” the LCP’s Blue/Red/White (so patriotic) Grady-Ferreira-Skinner signs, almost all of which had Skinner at the bottom, coincidentally where Mr. Skinner finished, taking valuable votes from Ferreira.
Trying to grab three City Council seats but only winning one - now that is some fine campaign strategy!
The two posts above mine seem awfully desparate. Makes me think the polling for Fisher is not going so well.
Johnson gets short shift again from most. Dedication does mean a lot, and in Fisher’s case, we know there has been none (quite the opposite!)
Speaking of campaign contributions, did anyone notice that following “Riemer was fellow challenger Pamela Fisher whose total fund-raising hit $3,432.”
http://hmbreview.com/articles/2006/11/04/news/local_news/story10.txt
No details were provided, but since I have a copy of her filings, here are some facts to match up against Mr. King’s recitation of Mr. Reimer’s funding
The $3,432 included a $1,500 loan to her campaign from herself (no problem with that) as well as $500 from Leland Yee’s campaign. I keep asking myself - Why is Mr. Yee contributing to a school board race?
Does anyone know if Mr. Yee and Ms. Fisher have met in person?
Mysteriously, the reports, which covered the period ending 10/26/06, did not include costs for the two Review ads, the second of which reads as a Who’s Who of the LCP (kind of strange that the organization did not endorse her). Oversight? Judging by the handwriting on the reports, I wonder if it was unintentional.
Sorry, Barry, but I am merely pointing out that the arguments against the two are seriously flawed mainly because they are out of context.
Are you still leaning against having PACs on the Coastside?
Is former mayor Jim Grady seriously for “reform?” If so, how is Leland Yee a part of “grassroots” campaigns?
Granted, these questions reach well beyond the CUSD race, but they are all having an effect on it.
Again, more talk, and none of it about how great Ms. Fisher is.
“...that provided them with cover until the election was over.”
Smells an awful lot like LCP spending $23K (mostly) on the HMB City Council elections and not having to file details until the following January. HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT?
Half of the “articles” in the Voice of the Coast do not have “authors” names attached to them. How are there “letters to the editor” of a three (or four?) edition faux newspaper?
My point is clearly that the tactics are no different.
“A lot of people have been making a big deal over Pam Fischer’s involvement with litigation against the school district.”
Seems that most people who are “behind” Fisher spend an awful lot of time and words on why the other candidates are so bad. My 30 out of 500 something calculation was just that - not very much on how Ms. Fisher is “so great” but a lot of how the others are not.
From the “Coastsider endorses Pam Fisher for CUSD board” comments:
“Otherwise your posts risk looking like nothing more than a smear campaign. --Darin”
Darin,
What am I to make of the post above? Looks like me to be a smear campaign.
All of the candidates and voters are people first, and Ms. Fisher does not seem to treat other people very well. That makes the discussions of her character here very relevant.
On another point, why is it that people keep bringing up the “anonymous attack ad on Jonathan Lundell” conveniently leaving out the part that he was one of the people behind the the Voice of the Coast “faux newspaper disguised as campaign materials” -or- “faux campaign materials disguised as a newspaper.”
The domain voiceofthecoast.com is registered in Mr. Lundell’s name. Are you trying to tell me that his actions were any different?
“Brian, you seem to be saying that the lack of evidence support from the LCP is prima facie evidence of LCP support.”
Not at all.
If they are not going to PUBLICLY endorse her, are they supporting her in private? Just a question. One of many.
Did they give her funds? In-kind support? Time will tell.
Did LCPers do lots of little things for her that collectively might constitute support but which might not be characterized the way most people would think they should? That’s the tricky part.
The latin term I would use is “alter ego.”
Again, silence might be golden, especially for people whose tendency is to respond to every letter to the editor.
“What kind of support do you think she’s getting from the LCP?”
Do you want me to draft up a compliance checklist? To whom should I send the bill for my services?
“I haven’t heard anything about her from them.”
Yes, and that alone is a little suspicious. In this case, silence is probably a better course of action rather than some kind of blanket denial. Lots of tedious little bits of evidence would probably work against the denial. That compliance and disclosure stuff is really tricky.
Question - if this is a “personal” site and you charge for ads, at what point can this “endorsement” be considered and “in-kind” contribution?
526 words, and about 30 of them devoted to her “qualifications.”
“It would be refreshing to have at least one person on the board who is genuinely independent.”
Is that truly true?
Is she getting any support from LCP?
“Once we acquire the Strip as a public park...”
Who exactly is we? Is it the Burnham Strip Committee? or MPL itself? Are they going to buy the land/hold title?
http://savethestrip.org/aboutus.html
“Some of the current committee members are...”
Is that all of them? If not, why not all of them?
What does MPL do with its funds? How are they spent? Accounted for? Is there any oversight?
Cairns in Princeton Harbor?, Aug 29 7:51pm comment by Kevin J. Lansing, Deb, it seems you may have uncovered something of extreme archeological importance: "The Druids taught the existence of one god,…
MWSD residents invited to 50th anniversary celebration, Sunday, Aug 29 4:28pm comment by Paul Perkovic, Montara Water and Sanitary District's 50th Plus 5th Anniversary Celebration was a tremendous success, thanks to the many community residents…
Editorial: Senator Yee's SB863 gets it right, Aug 29 3:11pm comment by Sofia Freer, Barry thanks for a great editorial. My husband and I posted a message on Senator Yee's website on Aug. 21…
Editorial: Senator Yee's SB863 gets it right, Aug 28 9:21pm comment by Kevin J. Lansing, Many thanks to Senator Yee. It is instructive to contrast Senator Yee's efforts to strike a compromise bill that addresses…
Editorial: Senator Yee's SB863 gets it right, Aug 28 2:25pm comment by Steven Hyman, Glad to hear that the appraisal issue was anticipated. Everybody would sure hate to have this blow up in our…
Editorial: Senator Yee's SB863 gets it right, Aug 28 1:49pm comment by Mike Ferreira, It might be wiser to read the bill before popping off. It's for "acguisition and associated park and trail development"…
Editorial: Senator Yee's SB863 gets it right, Aug 28 1:15pm comment by Steven Hyman, I too am glad that this long running nightmare may be coming to an end. Although, as you all know,…
Overnight: Patchy fog. Otherwise, cloudy, with a low around 53. WSW wind between 7 and 9 mph.
Saturday: Patchy fog before 11am. Otherwise, cloudy, then gradually becoming mostly sunny, with a high near 63. West wind between 9 and 17 mph.
Saturday Night: Patchy fog after 11pm. Otherwise, increasing clouds, with a low around 53. WNW wind between 16 and 18 mph, with gusts as high as 22 mph.
Sunday: Patchy fog before 11am. Otherwise, cloudy through mid morning, then gradual clearing, with a high near 62. Breezy, with a NW wind between 18 and 23 mph.
Sunday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 52. Breezy, with a NW wind between 17 and 23 mph, with gusts as high as 29 mph.
Labor Day: Sunny, with a high near 69.
Monday Night: Clear, with a low around 54.
Tuesday: Sunny, with a high near 69.
Tuesday Night: Patchy fog after 11pm. Otherwise, partly cloudy, with a low around 54.
Wednesday: Patchy fog before 11am. Otherwise, mostly sunny, with a high near 70.
Wednesday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 55.
Thursday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 71.
Thursday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 54.
Friday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 69.
PFC: 6:30pm; AFD: 10:45pm
