Comments by Brian Ginna

A note to the readers on objectivity and Coastsider

Need to clarify Mr. King’s post.

I have no connection to Coast Community First other than being on their mailing list.  Have never been to a meeting.  Have met a few of the folks involved and can say that they are some of the nicest, most genuine people around.  I also think they have a great approach.  Educate with great transparency.  You know who is behind the movement and they make their points very directly.

I represent something that Mr. King fears greatly - independent political thought on the Coastside.

Ocean Colony art show will support beautification of Hwy 1 medians

They mostly feature the moat and drawbridge.

Is Coastsider Orwellian?

It is very interesting, and a great point of discussion.  I think the steps that lead to the County’s involvement are more germain to this particular discussion.

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/1354/

“Alarms were raised Monday evening when a bulldozer was seen spreading truckloads of dirt on the property.”

What caused the alarms?  Where did they go off?  Who set them off?  What do they sound/look like?

“Work continued Tuesday.”

“The California Coastal Commission’s enforcement division began looking into the matter on Tuesday...”

After that, the County is involved and ultimately finds nothing amiss.

I too want codes and laws enforced, but this is not enforcement.

Is Coastsider Orwellian?

“I’m not aware of any any activity was halted with no justifiable basis.”

How about Farmer Iacopi at Big Wave.  Was there ever any followup to see how much the delay cost him?

Is Coastsider Orwellian?

“But don’t forget that we have some local people who like to throw their weight around. “

Do you own any mirrors, Mr. Lansing?

There are more than a few elected officials who do “throw their weight around” and the people that elected them seem to not have a problem with that.

There are also a few appointed commission members, not officials, mind you, that like to do the EXACT same thing.  Problem is those folks have never been before the electorate.

“Sometimes an appeal to an outside regulatory authority is the only recourse to ensure compliance with the law.”

Appeals are one thing, and they are part of the process, however, anonymous complaints that disrupt private activities with no justifiable basis (and no, one frog is not a justifiable basis) are not fine, and if you were on the receiving end, you would agree.

The SEC is not a very good example of your picture of ensuring compliance in this situation - the SEC did nothing until Enron imploded.

The Arthur Anderson analogy, which Barry also invoked in some Wavecrest disking posts, is more apt.  That case, along with Mr. Quattrone’s recent success, involved overzealous prosecution.  The Arthur Anderson case was overturned and all actions against Mr. Quattrone have been dismissed.

Is Coastsider Orwellian?

“Reporting suspected property crimes in a democracy is good citizenship.”

On one hand, you do not allow anonymous posters on your site and you do screen comments, both here and on TownHall, ostensively to protect yourself and maintain a “clean” site.

On the other hand, you tolerate and even seem to encourage anonymous reports made to authorities about “suspected property crimes,” regardless of the reports being made by credible sources.

Can you explain how these seemingly divergent approaches to property can be supported at the same time?

How is your (self) treatment justified (the ability to maintain and improve your property) while at the same time, real property owners have a lessened sense of “security.”

for the Wikipedia fans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_enjoyment

it nicely re-directs you to “Nuisance.”

Letter:  Wither the LCP?

Thanks for teeing that one up (no pun intended here as I will refrain from the obvious wardrobe selection references that I could make here).

Actually nominating Mr. Ferreira (why do you not use him name?  Is the LCP that split?) for that commission post was FAR more polarizing than the NO votes.  Does Grady still think it was a good idea?  A smart one?

Rock concert to stop Pacifica’s Measure L will be held Oct 6

“Imagine 3000 + additional car trips a day”

How is that figured derived?  Seems awful high.

Letter:  Wither the LCP?

I will forgive Ken for finding someone’s tone “negative.” That is truly funny.  I think surly does sound more appealing, though.  Is Ken the PR person for LCP or just a “supporter?”

I also think “confused” is actually an apt description.  I did put forth a number of questions that remain unanswered and I am not quite sure what to make of “need to improve.” Are you going to drop the blue, white and red theme from the billboards?  I did not call them “environmentalists.” Barry, you first “coined” the term in the Measure S analysis.  At the time, I thought that was a clever little bit of positioning.  I believe no group on the Coastside should appropriate the “environmentalist” label for itself.

I honestly think Carl hits the nail on the head and I am honored he came down off the mountain to grace with me his feedback, most of which is assertations about stuff he BELIEVES I wrote or know/do not know or represent, but not what I wrote (if my letter is a rant, what are Carl’s missives?)

“Since when is a PAC supposed to be a shadow government?”

They are not supposed to be, but I shudder to think what might have been.

Coastal Commission asks Wavecrest owners about their plans for farming

Right now, they are conducting DEVELOPMENT at a loss, so why not farming?

That implication, that CCC can act in that manner (adversarial actions to a failure to respond to idiotic questions to their delight), can have an impact on a landowner’s plans, is astonishing.  Not surprising, as this is something people or agencies without effective checks and balances can do.  Think IRS.  Has nothing to do with either the spirit or letter of the law.  All about uneven, unwarranted and often times, unfair enforcement.

Why is it that the abandonment angle is never pursued in these discussions?  Because folks are hoping it happens?

Coastal Commission asks Wavecrest owners about their plans for farming

Ray,

The CCC should not care how much it cost to have a security guard.  They are simply asking lots of questions because they feell they can.  How fully Concar has to answer them is debatable.  They could argue that the security arrangements are none of the CCC’s business (they are Concar’s and Concar’s alone).

“I called Jo Ginsberg, but she declined to discuss an ongoing investigation.”

Barry - I hope you figured that was going to be the answer.  It would be truly astounding if Ms. Ginsberg did not treat any and all questions in that manner.

Will Wavecrest be disked over the long weekend?

“It is expressly forbidden”

Really?  How is that so?

Note:  That is a rhetorical question.  I know that disking is NOT expressly forbidden by any stretch of the imagination.

Was that 4 carloads of Fish & Game that I saw parked on Seymour this morning at 7AM?

Will Wavecrest be disked over the long weekend?

“UPDATE: The equipment, which was parked on the Wavecrest site earlier Friday was moved sometime Friday afternoon to Main Street, near the Fire Station.”

Actually, it was moved to the ACTIVE FARMLAND between James Ford, Main Street and SR1.  That ACTIVE FARMLAND, upon which pumpkins were grown in 2005, has been cleared of some brush over the past month or so.

Were the disks placed strategically (provocatively?) on the Wavecrest property on Friday (48 hours or so ago) to elict this kind of reaction?

Will Wavecrest be disked over the long weekend?

“I would strongly suggest that the owners of either of two properties mentioned in the above article think twice before they embark on actions that would violate federal law.”

I would strongly suggest that you have absolutely no business telling anyone what they should be doing.

Do you walk down to the beach and tell kids not to light joints too?

Opinion: Thursday’s fire board meeting is critical

“Links to PDFs of the proposals were in a previous article on Coastsider, and Kathryn repeated them in this article.”

The links were added by Barry after the fact.

“Brian, you have misread this article.”

No, the inconsistent bullet points were my source of confusion (which is now gone).

Opinion: Thursday’s fire board meeting is critical

Something does not make sense here.

“California Dept of Forestry (CDF) proposal: $6,906,766 ($395,718 under budget)”

“Capital Improvements:...If the CDF proposal is accepted, the difference between the current HMB budget and the CDF proposal can be used for capital improvements, equipment purchases, or tax rebates.”

If the revenues from CDF are less than the expenses, how is there anything left for Capital Improvements?  Did you mean CSM (option 2)?  That begs another potentially scary question - how big is the existing reserve?

anyone have pdfs of the proposals that Barry could link to?

Perhaps Vince Williams (one of the most consistent, well-versed posters on any topic) can fill in some holes here.

Opinion: City Council to HMB kids: Drop dead

Mike,

Let me first say that I think the City Council should not have spent any time on this issue.  They have much, much more important things to do.

However, “Drop dead” is simply offensive and unnecessarily caustic as their actions could not be construed as anything remotely in that ballpark (no pun intended).  “Shilling real estate?” That comment shows your obvious lack of knowledge of their occupations.

I do note that searching for the word “driveway” in your article comes up with “Not found.” Is there a reason those are not being used for the nets?  As a father of three, I find those pesky driveways very convenient for avoiding those nasty cars propelling themselves down those inconvenient roads.  “Personal freedom”?  Get serious.

How about “negligence?” Would you rather have the city sued because a kid gets hit by a car?  Furthermore, just because the city sent a warning does not mean that the fine would be enforced.  Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and test their resolve?

Our hoop is attached over our garage doors.  While it is not very accomodating for Dominique Wilkins-style double-clutch reverse tomahawks (not that I could do that on an 8-foot hoop), it does the trick.

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Joel,

I get the feeling you were referring to something different than what is being served up by Ken at the following URL:

http://coastsider.com/comments/1680_0_1_0_C/

Based on the posting activity there, I would give that a big DOA.

Any reason why that person should be trusted to develop something that represents anything but his own views?

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Barry,

First off, the manner in which you accept criticism is admirable.  You want to continue the debate, not attempt to cut off opposing view.

“you would need to demonstrate a negative correlation between votes for Jo Chamberlain and votes for Measure S.”

I am not sure I agree.  If they had an effect, there should be some evidence to support an effect.

“...slight positive correlation between votes for Jo and for Measure S (Measure S did a little better where Jo did well), but nothing to write home about.

I was going to do the chart myself, but knew it would look like that.  The 30-35% “Jo” range is all over the map.  I cannot draw a conclusion either way, so I think the data proves that any influence a particular group may have had would be tough to locate.

I think my point may not have been as clear, and perhaps Ms. Bordi cleared it up.  The group that you labeled and used in the analysis is not a reasonable extrapolation to make from the group referred to in Ms. Ascher’s editorial.  Using environmental regulations as a means to an end (to effect control over city affairs) does not make someone an “environmentalist.”

If Gordon was such a shoo-in, why did Ms. Chamberlain run?  Just to take pot shots at Mr. Gordon?  I find the tone and tenor of her remarks quite fascinating.

http://coastsider.com/comments/1496_0_1_0_C/

Is the direction in Coastside politics going to continue to be the “identification” of extreme groups and ideas (on both “sides") so others look moderate in comparison?  Seems more like creation than identification.

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Going to need to challenge the “conventional wisdom” which seems to be the basis for this “investigative” piece.

First off, comparing these two separate elections in this manner is not a valid comparison.  The major reason is due to the respective turnouts.  The November 2005 election saw a roughly 55%.  This election saw a 48% turnout with only 45% casting a vote on Measure S.  Additionally, the apples to oranges comparison of Measure S to HMB City Council voting is not suitable for drawing links when the overlap is less than 50% of the total votes.

A more suitable comparison, and possible proof of the conventional wisdom, would be to compare the Board of Supervisors race between Ms. Chamberlain and Mr. Gordon. (Hickey left out for these purposes).  If the “environmentalists” came out to vote, they would have surely voted for Ms. Chamberlain over Mr. Gordon.

Start with precinct 3301/2 in Montara (67.4% Yes on S).  Ms. Chamberlain received 26.7% of the votes and Mr. Gordon 59.7%.  Hmmm…not a lot of environmentalists in that precinct, so how do we know they were voting Yes?  3310 in El Granada (69.1% Yes on S) – 33.8% for Chamberlain and 55.0% for Gordon.  Again, much larger support for Gordon, large support for S.  Ms. Chamberlain received 47.5%, her highest, in 3312 / El Granada.  Yes votes?  63.0% Not real strong support.  Were they voting No?  We cannot tell.

“Precinct 3327… and Precinct .3320. These were the LCP’s two strongest precincts. They received a whopping 57% of the votes in Precinct 3327 and 53% of the votes in 3320.”

3327 - 32.6% for Chamberlain and 52.7% for Gordon; 3320 – 35.3% for Chamberlain and 49.4% for Gordon.  Yes on S?  65.9 in both.  LCP candidates did well (relatively), S did well, but Chamberlain did not.  Environmentalists having an effect?  Who knows?

% by area - Chamberlain / Gordon
Half Moon Bay – 32.0% / 50.5%, El Granada 34.2% / 53.1% and Montara / Moss Beach – 34.3% /53.0% Higher support for both as you move north from HMB, but still not very “green.” I believe that the conventional wisdom is more wishful thinking.  Very mixed bag of results which offer no proof that “environmentalists” had a large effect.

I think the most likely reason mentioned here for Measure S failure was that the “No” votes showed up while the “Yes” votes may not have.  The clipped section of Ms. Ascher’s editorial is void of the context of her entire article.  She is referring to “obstructionists” intent on controlling city affairs, not solely development.  The obstructionists used very powerful tools of environmental regulations and friendly authorities to effect such control.  Extrapolation to making her against “environmentalists” or “community concerns” is a big reach and furthers the divide. 

Kevin - if her letter is politically-motivated diatribe, how should we label your comment?

Page 3 of 8 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »