My intent here isn’t to knock Carl May off his soap box. I just don’t want anyone seriously involved with AB1991 issue to run off with misinformation. CFD’s are complex, I don’t have all the information on CFPD’s actual regulation or the history of Beachwood and HMBFPD, but here is what I know:
Beachwood is in the HMBFPD service zone of CFPD. Big commercial, multiple residential and probably large housing subdivisions are subject to a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District(CFD) in the HMBFPD service zone of CFPD. CFD is a structure to recapture the cost of the existing Fire infrastructure the development would benefit from over and above property taxes. Given the Beachwood saga has dragged on so long, it’s hard to say whether Beachwood or Glencree were grandfathered as far as HMBFPD and CFPD. Mello-Roos was enacted in 1982 and I don’t know when HMBFPD enacted their CFD regulations under Mello-Roos. I don’t know whether HMBFPD accepted any prior subdivision plans form Keenan. I suspect, the 129 homes on Beachwood and Glencree as far as CFPD is concerned would be a new development, because that combination did not exist before the HMB/Keenan settlement. CFPD is a separate entity from the City of HMB. I wouldn’t expect CFPD to be bound by any agreement between the City of HMB and Keenan.
PMFPD and now the PMFPD service zone in CFPD doesn’t have CFD’s. Developments in PMFPD get a free ride on the existing Fire infrastructure. At some point, CFPD needs to get the two service zones to have similar regulations. Hopefully, that will mean CFD’s in the Point Montara service zone.
A call to Chief Cole or Chief Jolley at CFPD could clear this issue up. I don’t know if they could answer off the top of their heads or would have to do some research.
Congratulations to the Coastside Board and their attorneys for winning this case.
Looking at the ruling that Barry linked to, the Appellate Panel pretty much said there was no legal excuse for Local 2400’s attorneys to omit the Board’s whole resolution on the CalFire contract in their petitions. The ruling said the Board had been careful and prudent and held numerous public meetings to deliberate the CalFire contract resolution. Local 2400’s attorneys decision to not include the whereas clauses of the original resolution was a fatal legal mistake. Further, it was an attempt to make it look like the Board had acted without proper deliberation and care. The Board resolution was not all that long. Previous case law had required including the whole resolution and contract. The attempt of Local 2400 attorneys to make it appear that there were discrepancies between different section of the election code and that the law had changed were all dealt with point by point in the ruling. I see nothing but praise for how the Board approached their resolution on CalFire in this ruling. By implication the petition Local 2400’s attorneys developed and put out for voter signatures was misleading. Finally, there is no new case law here. I’d speculate the careful way the ruling responded to Local 2400’s convoluted arguments, would make a California Supreme Court appeal difficult.
Finally, thanks to the Coastside Chiefs, the Coastside Firefighters, the CalFire Chiefs and the CalFire Firefighters for providing us an invaluable service, while this contentious issue was being settled.
Barry,
Thanks for the investigation and article.
A slight simplification of the pie charts is that the local governments are paying near the cost of the expenses and salaries of the people actually doing the work to record and broadcast their meetings. The rest of the revenue is mostly from The City of HMB and San Mateo County(SMC) public funds going to the Executive Director, volunteer expenses and office expenses.
The local government agencies should treat the video recording of meetings as a fee for service. Those agencies very well could afford to pay the people doing the work of recording the meetings directly and have a say in how it is done and who owns the recording. So, what are HMB City and SMC getting for the roughly $85K of public funds they are giving to Ms. Malach and her clubhouse “non-profit”?
Ken,
The momentum may flame out in thirty days. But, how much effort would it take to keep AB1991 on legislative life support for a year to buy some time for a city facing bankruptcy?
I’m not an attorney. I read the agreement. This settlement agreement entered into by the present HMB City Council majority is predicated on that majority convincing the State and Federal Government and any individual or group that might sue to go along with AB1991 and not bring a suit which ties the Beachwood and Glencree developments up in court. It’s beginning to sound like the consensus here is this is not likely to happen.
The citizens of HMB could not participate in the current City Council’s negotiations with Keenan. But, there is an agreement now which gives the citizens of HMB time to act and several options. If the citizens agree with the consensus here, that the City Council majority’s getting AB1991 to pass and signed into law by the Governor by June 30, 2009 or the Feds acceptance and any lawsuits cleared up by December 31, 2011 is not likely, then how do they deal with the $18M default? I go back to what the City’s attorneys and financial specialists said in the public meetings. To deal with the $18M commitment there is a possibility of a bond financed by a new property tax approved by 2/3 of the voters or reducing the City budget to fund a bond out of general revenues or to have this Council or a new Council restructure the City’s debts including the $18M. Based on what I heard the City’s attorneys say about restructuring, if that option were to be selected or threatened, I’d speculate Keenan would be willing to negotiate again with that future Council rather than risk what a bankruptcy judge would grant him.
Go back to Barry’s reference above to Cleavon Little’s character in “Blazing Saddles”.
This is sounding more like a roughly one year (depending on events) timeout for the attorneys.
Steven and Ken,
Thanks for your perspectives. I take away from them, the current settlement is not as clear cut as $18M or 129 homes on the fast track. That there are a lot of economic forces and big political players that have not been factored in or consulted yet. So, the controversy shifts from negotiations between The City and Keenan concurrent with a multi year Federal appeal to a year long legislative action concerning saving The City of HMB from bankruptcy, the role of the State in bailouts of cities, the intent of the Coastal Act and where the Coastal Commission is at politically these days. The revised SMC LCP is also before the Coastal Commission. With a year plus time frame, the HMB citizens have options of recalling members of the present City Council or electing a new majority in November 2009.
I had no illusions about the “Foothill Scenic Bypass” improving the traffic flow North of 92.
Barry,
Thanks for asking Senator Yee’s about his position on the settlement and AB 1991.
Today’s S. F. Chronicle had an editorial cartoon:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/04/EDRUSSELL.DTL
The cartoonist missed how consensual the City Council majority has been, to date, to the position they now find themselves in.
I’m very confused by all this.
Brinkmanship and poor decision making over decades has caused this issue to spin hopelessly out of control. To me “the settlement” appears to be little more than taking the whole issue to the next level. The options now appear to the City of HMB pays Keenan $18 million(which would cause bankruptcy anyway) or the citizens of the State of California will have diminished access to their coast with 129 new homes AND the existing the growth rates in HMB and unincorporated MidCoast. I thought the Coastal Commission had issues with coastal access based on the Highway 92 and 1 traffic flow and the current improvements under construction at 92 and 1 weren’t going to improve traffic flow that significantly. With the Terrace traffic light, the Beachwood light and probably the bypass light on 92 all on the agenda, would whatever traffic flow gains the current 92 and 1 intersection work achieves be wiped out? Has any of this been studied? Is this just a taxpayer funded infrastructure grab by some North HMB developers? Is the Legislature going to go around the Coastal Commission on some trumped up emergency action to save The City Of HMB from their own mistakes? Did Yee and Mullins made their offer of legislative help, knowing this was going to be the settlement?
Darin,
Thanks for the recent history. I see little hope of influencing MCTV. This has gone on for a while and MCTV has dug their heels in too deep on the issue of copyright and being cooperative with other local events, commentary and news providers. For the SMC BOS this is small potatoes. Maybe next time the cable TV franchise is up for renewal would be the best time to bring the issue up.
The most pragmatic thing at this point is to go around MCTV as you and Barry have done. I commend you for doing that. It is a duplication of effort on the Coastside. But, you are doing a better job on your own nickel than MCTV does with Comcast and BOS funding.
One point I would like to make is one of the innovations of web casting that makes it superior to a rebroadcast on MCTV/Comcast. The Coastside has many local government meetings. For me in Moss Beach there is the MCC, SMC BOS, MW&SD;, SAM, CUSD, CFPD and what happens at HMBCC also indirectly effects me(if I left one out, sorry). Like most in the community, I don’t have time to attend or watch all those meetings. I rely on people that go to them to report, if something significant happens in one of those meetings. Then I would like to not have to watch a whole three hour meeting to find the part where something of interest happened. By having a web text commentary or even just a a log that says a particular item was handled so many minutes into the recording. Even better is having the recording broken up by agenda item or having Coastsider excerpt important segments is very significant and will help the community to follow local government better. If I want to then hear the whole thing or more on the subject, it’s just a few clicks away on the internet.
Another benefit of web casting is challenging local media coverage and keeping them and our local elected official honest. I ran for a Board seat on CFPD last fall. The HMB Review did their typical number on me. When the reporter that wrote that story posted about his objectivity of coverage of another story on Coastsider, I was able to nail him with his quotes and what I actually said at the MCC/LWV Candidate Forum by pointing directly to the web archived recordings on MontaraFog. This can also be used as record that keeps our local elected officials a little more honest. As Darin, observed show up with a camera and people at the meetings behavior improves. When an archive of a government meeting is sitting on the web and anyone can use it when ever they want, that puts a lot more power in the hands of the people.
MCTV is a relic of decades of government regulation. Over the years MCTV has presented themselves to the Fire Board as a bureaucracy with no accountability other than their internal rules which appeared to change at the whim of Ms Malach. They needed to train and certify camera operators on 1970 vintage equipment. They can’t have an unauthorized camera operator violating some regulation of politically correct camera operation. Their one trained camera person is over booked. There are too many local government meetings to cover. Oh you want a video tape of a meeting, well we’ll need to rummage around in the file cabinet here and maybe we can make you a copy for a fee for you personal use, that is. When we get around to duplicating the tape for you, you need to understand that even though you paid for the duplication and the citizens of the County and Comcast customers paid for the actual recording of the public meeting, do anything we don’t approve with what is essentially OUR tape and OUR lawyers will be all over you.
Now, MCTV has recast themselves as the premiere non-profit on the Coastside anointed by the County Board of Supervisors(BOS) as the official videographers and web streamers of public Coastside meetings(well not yet, maybe in April, stay tuned, folks). If Supervisor Gordon wants to throw Comcast customers fees and County funds away trying to reinvigorate his regulatory step child, why should any of us get heartburn about it, after everything else the County has done to the Coastside?
Some local government entities got in early on the Comcast and predecessor cable TV corporations franchise deals and were subsidized by the BOS and SOME WERE NOT. For those that were not, like CFPD, they are required to pay near full cost and MCTV’s overhead for the honor of having their meetings broadcast . The Coastside Special Districts are empowered to find the best deal for their citizens, ratepayers and taxpayers. These local government entities are under no obligation to work with MCTV, especially when they were cut out of the original franchise subsidies. Those local government entities can take Supervisor’s Gordon’s endorsement of MCTV, however they want.
Internet technology has changed the options for our local government agencies and the way local news is distributed to the residents of the Coastside. Just look at Coastsider, MontaraFog, The HMB Review and The San Mateo County Times. Over the past year, MCTV had the option to participate in those changes. All MCTV had to do, was to be reasonable on the copyright issue on public meetings they recorded and accept videos others recorded with disclaimers and there could have been no duplication of effort in broadcasting and web casting local government meetings and the residents of the Coastside could have viewed the meeting on the internet or Comcast. Instead MCTV chose to apply a 1970’s era cable TV monopoly franchise mindset. The likely result, MCTV will do what they have done for the past decades, have uncatalogued tapes sitting in file cabinets that no other entity can touch and an expensive cost structure. But, who knows, they might actually learn something over time about the internet, via subsidizes from the BOS and Comcast customers.
Competition involves duplication of effort, but ultimately the best solution. We will see how MCTV performs for CCWD in web streaming. We will see how MontaraFog performs for CFPD. We can now see how MWSD performs with a combination of MCTV Comcast rebroadcast and a static camera compressed and hosted on MontarFog. May the best solution win.
The recordings of public meetings should either have the copyright reside with the government agency or an unrestricted license be granted to copy and reuse either for private or commercial use. Fair use is not sufficient. Most of the local political debate is now hosted on commercial sites. If MCTV thinks they need a copyrighted recording of a public meeting to sell to defray their costs, let them convince the Board of Supervisors(BOS) to appropriate the fees tacked onto the bills of Comcast customers to MCTV to accomplish this. The transfer of those costs to the taxpayers served by the local special districts in not appropriate.
I commend the MWSD Board for aggressively looking at these proposals and protecting the publics interest.
In comparing the attitude of MWSD to CFPD Boards toward copyrights, in my opinion the CFPD Board is not as far a long in the process as MWSD. MWSD has been using MCTV. The MWSD Board also felt that web casting was important enough to do part of this task themselves and host it with the help of MontaraFog, until they can get a more permanent web casting solution. Citizens have been prodding CFPD and its predecessors HMBFPD and PMFPD Boards to broadcast their meeting for years. Unfortunately, MCTV was not in a position to have a person available to video tape or a broadcast time slot for the Fire Board meetings(curiously, now there is). The CFPD Board is now engaged in the controversy and lawsuit over CalFire and the staffing issues. The web casting and sub issue of who controls the copyright is a low priority for CFPD Board. I suspect the CFPD Board was surprised by the number of people that showed up to speak on the issue and the fervor of the discussion.
I have some observations on producing the audio of the CFPD Board meetings and writing up the “editorial” annotation for MontaraFog. I felt myself in conflict between a dry non engaging “just the facts” annotation that would bore readers and a slightly more opinionated one pointing to what I felt the public would consider to be the important parts of the meeting. Previously, I had done notes for MidcoastL and had a similar issues. To be truly objective results in equal weighting to all aspects of the meeting that makes for a very boring reading that most likely no one would read. For me the problem of governance on the Coastside is the general disengagement of the public. Is the greater good engaging the public or providing a dry objective record that is warehoused?
It has been said, the pen is mightier then the sword. But, people can turn anything into a weapon. For those editing sound, operating cameras or editing audio and video, there are ways of injecting bias into recording and editing process that is very difficult for the viewer to detect. Examples are as simple as adjusting the volume for a particular speaker to make them sound more strident or to make them appear to be insecure about what they are saying. A camera operator can focus in or out, frame or not frame a speaker, pan away from a speaker, focus on a bored or sleeping Board member, do a low profile shot of a public speaker or a high shot to make them look pleading. We have all seen the TV media do a biased interview or expose’. To suggest that MCTV has no bias or trains their staff to have no bias or could not have bias in the future is self serving nonsense. To think that the FCC, IRS or our BOS can charter MCTV to be totally objective is similarly ridiculous. Observing and recording any human activity perturbs what is being observed and recorded. For me personally, I’d rather have an operator with bias, than a dry static camera planted in the back of the room. Over time, any bias will become apparent. Again, my sense is right now, the community needs engagement, not a dry presentation.
The fact that there is now competition for these contracts for service, empowers the Boards to select the best option for the public. The Boards should be able to negotiate for what they think is in the public interest. In addition, in the future, if there is an issue with a contractor’s performance , it will be a simple matter to switch contractors.
Barry,
I was taping, but just audio. The recording will be up on MontaraFog, soon. It’s the third audio segment. In editing it, I found it was one of those real gems. I was happy to be able to participate in and capture it. It was a dramatic confrontation between the old media and the new media played out on an unlikely local stage.
I don’t see any point in copyrighting the material I record. For me personally, it’s an accessible record of what happens at public meetings that keeps our elected officials honest and constrains the spin of our local for pay media and blog contributors. Transparency in government is my goal.
My investment was a couple hundred dollars in equipment. It takes a couple of hours to upload, edit, convert, compress and write some text annotation. Ten years ago it probably would have been ten thousand dollars worth of equipment to get the same quality and a whole lot more personal time to process on an ongoing basis. It’s not rocket science, children are doing similar things in schools, now.
There is the issue of the cult of the amateurs versus the professionals. There are some folks that look at me as a amateur with cheap technology degrading their traditional livelihood by giving it away for free like a slut. Some of the implications of what Connie Malach was saying were actually worse that being called a slut. It was more like some of us were taking resources away form local people in need by undercutting her 501C corporation’s mission. Hunter S. Thompson said something like, “We are all professionals here.”
I’m not really a data wants to be free fanatic. Artists, creative types and even hacks deserve to be compensated for their labors. But, trying to copyright something of such little value as a recording of a government meeting is absurd. The Brown Act permits anybody to record public meetings(competition and generally boring subject matter). Once the meeting loses its “news” value it’s as valuable as an old newspaper on a park bench(litter). There is an official recording and minutes which become the official record that anyone can get for near free(taxpayer subsidized official competition). If one wants to make a profit off something, this is the worst possible product.
The higher good here is making government transparent, not making sure this fits the legal constraints of MCTV’s charter decades ago. In the past few years MCTV has been unresponsive to the local Boards that wanted their meetings broadcast. Now that grassroots new media and technology are able to compete with MCTV, they have suddenly become responsive, but only within their constraints. They feel a need to control it all, including the copyrights. If MCTV clings to their position, their mission will erode.
Mary Kay Jolley wrote:
“My husband Clayton Jolley was the acting chief after Chief Asche retired and before Chief Bonano arrived. He has not been the acting chief since that time.”
The point I was attempting to make was that Division Chief Jolley was a part of the Management at HMBFPD/CFPD in 2006 and 2007 and there was a lot of turnover of Acting Chiefs.
Chief Jolley was Acting Chief for a portion of January 2006.
I do no know for sure when Acting Chief Bonano last day of service was or who was sworn prior to Acting Chief Hamilton on April 18, 2006. In March there were reports that Division Chief Jolley was going to be the Acting Chief, until another Acting Chief could be hired by the HMBFPD Board. However, Division Chief Cole attended April 11, 2006 PMFPD Board meeting, before Acting Chief Hamilton was sworn April 18, 2006. This all occurred in a matter of weeks.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Mary Kay Jolley wrote:
“Why? Why do trained, experienced FF/PM leave for other departments and start at the bottom again?”
In 2005 Rene Maynes conducted a management audit of HMBFPD:
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/09/28/news/local_news/story02.txt
The HMBFPD Board followed the recommendation to hire an Acting Chief from outside the Department. Since this audit there have been FIVE Chiefs and Acting Chiefs. Your husband was one of them.
When Acting Chief Bonano left he wrote a scathing memo on the Department:
http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/interim_fire_chief_condemns_deficiencies_recommends_contracting_out_fire_se/
Since this memo there have been THREE Acting Chiefs. Your husband was one of them.
The 2006 Civil Grand Jury Report notes “a culture of strife”:
http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/grand_jury_says_coastside_fire_districts_should_merge_and_outsource_service/
Mary Kay Jolley wrote:
“The chief has not done a single exit interview.”
During the two year period you cite(2006-2007) there were FOUR Acting Chiefs, not one. Your husband was one of those Acting Chiefs. Chief Cole was an actual Chief for less than one month of that two year period. While Chief Cole was Acting Chief, he was doing two job functions: Acting Chief and covering an Operational Division Chief shift.
Mary Kay Jolley wrote:
“What is the root, the core problem, the deep current of this discontent? Until this question is asked and a solution is found, I believe that our safety will be affected whether we are CFPD or contracting out to CalFire.”
The culture of strife as noted by the Civil Grand Jury, Chief Bonano’s memo and Rene Maynes audit. The Board addressed that issue in 2006 and followed the Civil Grand Jury and two outside professional Chiefs recommendations to consolidate and contract for fire services. The Boards have found a solution in a contract with CalFire. The consolidated Board is not responsible for IAFF Local 2400 lawsuits that have delayed the implementation of the CalFire contract or individual Linestaff’s career decisions.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Mary Kay Jolley,
I hope you are not referring to me as having a bias against FireFigther/Paramedics. The HMB Review printed the same slander during the last election.
Requesting and publishing public information is not a bias. In posting the information, I was intending to make the information available so the citizens can make informed decisions about any new Local 2400 initiated recall petitions, an election on the CalFire Contract in case it is required by the courts or a recall election of CFPD Board members.
Depending on how these matters are resolved, it could result in significant new parcel taxes for the citizens of the Coastside or severe reductions is Fire Service levels.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Kevin,
To receive 90% of final year salary would require thirty years of service. Here is a link I found explaining the CalPERS Public Safety retirement benefits:
http://www.calstate.edu/benefits/pdf/CalPERS_Pub7-booklet.pdf
3% at 55 is the one CFPD offers. Lifetime Medical Plan qualification used to be after one day of service at HMBFPD. I heard there is a longer period of service required under the latest contract.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Sabrina,
You had some questions:
“Vince Williams please describe with some level of detail your experience with the Board of Supervisors and how you found the BOS to be accessible.”
For a number of years I have been an advocate for a stable fire services on the Coastside. I have met with Supervisors Gordon and Hill on that issue and talked candidly with them about it. I won’t go into specifics. In the 2005 election I was endorsed by Supervisors Gordon and Hill. Supervisors Gordon and Hill serve on the County LAFCo. I spoke at LAFCo meetings on the Municipal Service Review(MSR) for Coastside Fire services and consolidation. I found Both Supervisor Gordon and Hill very concerned with our local self created fire service problems. I don’t think the moved up MSR or the consolidation of HMBFPD and PMFPD would have happened without their support. In 2006, Supervisor Gordon said that he favored a contract with The City of San Mateo for the Coastside(I didn’t). In 2007, I did not seek Supervisor Hill or Gordon’s or any PAC’s endorsement, because I wanted to present myself as a candidate narrowly focused on the Fire Board issues. I spoke a number of times at meetings on the County’s LCP. I met with Supervisor Hill one time with a group. I was disappointed in the whole LCP process. I have gone to the office hours at the Sheriff’s Substation and found the staff respectful and helpful. I should point out, I don’t expect staff or elected officials to agree with me 100% of the time. I expect them to respectfully listen and respond, if they feel inclined. They have done that.
“Why should the BOS have control over the MCC agenda?”
See Johnathan Lundell’s post on unincorporated governance. He expressed it better than what I was intending to write.
Some other points:
The BOS is ultimately responsible for what happens on the MidCoast. They are the ones that are going to get sued, not the MCC, if something actually goes wrong or some one feels wronged. The BOS have a fiduciary responsibility to all the taxpayers of San Mateo County to minimize future litigation costs. When a advisory council steps over the line into political theater and starts antagonizing some people, doesn’t the BOS have an obligation to reign it in? The BOS have an obligation to spend the taxpayers moneys as efficiently as possible. If an advisory Council wastes County staff’s time on items the BOS is not likely to move forward on, doesn’t the BOS have an obligation to control that?
The MCC is an advisory council to the BOS, not an elected group of lobbyists. When the advice is given and the BOS takes an issue, the MCC’s role should be limited to clarifying any advice that was given on that issue. While individual members of the MCC have every right to continue to advocate as a individuals or a member of a PAC, they should be careful not to associate the MCC with their advocacy. That care has not been shown in the past. I suspect that has rubbed some in the community and BOS the wrong way.
“Why can’t the MCC self-regulate?”
I don’t know this is probably better directed to those on the MCC and that served before.
“Do they follow any self imposed rules?”
I don’t know this is probably better directed to those on the MCC and that served before.
These are my personal experiences and opinions. You may want to direct some of these questions to current and former MCC members. They represent you, I don’t. Their silence on this thread is curious.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Sabrina,
You make some really good observations and raise some very important questions. I agree with most of your analysis. After reading your post, a possible mechanism for transforming the MCC or slowly determining its relevancy occurred to me. Thanks.
One simple suggestion is a variant of what has happened informally over the last couple of years. Develop a formal mechanism to take issues off the MCC’s agenda and transfer them to the BOS agenda. Further, don’t just reserve the right to initiate transfer of issues to the BOS, but extend that initiative right to individuals and local PAC’s. So, if the BOS doesn’t want the MCC discussing an issue, a political faction raises enough public comments against the MCC continuing to deliberate an issue, or an individual with a project wants to deal with the BOS directly on their project, then transfer it off the MCC agenda and let the BOS handle it. The BOS would be the final judge of whether an issue transfered off the MCC agenda to the BOS.
One proviso is the transfer off the MCC agenda process should be transparent. We should all get a report from the BOS on why an issue was transfered off the MCC agenda and put on the BOS agenda. Was it: real MidCoast citizens willing to put their names on letters or email or citizens that went to office hours and stated their position and were willing to be asked respectful questions by staff to clarify their position or an individual that filled out a form that wrote, I want to deal with the BOS directly on what color I paint my garage door or the BOS said we did it unilaterally. For example: consider last Wednesdays MCC Agenda Item 9B. Let’s say the BOS decides to transfer it off the MCC agenda onto its agenda. It would be nice to know whether the BOS did it unilaterally on its own initiative, a CCWD administrator requested it, a bunch of PCF/CCF types wrote in or a bunch of LCP types wrote in. I’m not sure about the legality of all this transparency. But, without that transparency, we would have to assume Bayside interest groups dominated the BOS decision, or the BOS sold out to…
Now, some may argue, that this would make the MCC even more toothless. It would. But, the MCC would be able to focus 100% of their energy on the issues which the majority of the citizens want to move forward. It could also result in no business for the MCC, in which case the citizens have expressed their opinion on the relevancy of the MCC or their deep fractiousness. There would be no shame for the MCC members if something was transfered off their agenda; the BOS narrative could be the item just got too politically hot. If the MCC attempted to politicize something, it could be taken away from them. The people in the back of the room at the MCC meetings that get frustrated and walk out, would find a voice. I suspect the BOS would be more willing to give more resources to an MCC that was moving forward on consensus issues. There would probably be less burn out and frustration of MCC members. The MCC would no longer be a political prize with the pro growth and limited growth factions turning it into political theater. Over time the MCC membership would gravitate to those willing to build consensus representation and move government projects forward. It would be easy to measure the accomplishments of the MCC members and vote for them. A desirable political process would have the PAC’s grooming their candidates for the more prized elected Coastside offices by having them do a tour of duty on the consensus MCC. A middle of the roader could get their foot in the political door without having to join a PAC. A candidate for a more prized elected office that accomplished something at the consensus MCC would have a distinct advantage over other candidates.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Paul,
I’m flattered the LCP sent out one of their big guns to type me out. I think I have been smeared. But, I’m not sure with what.
I have more respect for the BOS than you paint me with. I respect them for listening to me both in public meetings and in personal communications. I also respect that they have many different supporters and deal with County wide and regional issues. I recognize that were I live is 1/10 of their responsibilities and a very small fraction of the votes that elect them. What I want in terms of a master plan and regulations is some reasonable equivalent of what citizens in the Bayside incorporated munis get (somewhere between Daly City and Woodside), that conforms to The Coastal Act. Not some cherry picked set of loopholes picked by a developers association. I can use my two minutes to PERSONALLY RESPECTFULLY ask for it. I understand that the BOS won’t always agree with me. I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. I’m quite happy with the essential government services the County provides.
The roach motel comment was not about what the MCC was, but what it has become, its current utility to the community and the BOS. I see no grand multi year conspiracy by the BOS, such as you allege. We can argue until our fingers fall off about whether it was conceived toothless, lacked the nurturing support of the BOS, the citizens elected the wrong candidates, it pushed too hard on the LCP(plan) or was hijacked by a bunch of forest fairy tree huggers. I don’t see the point.
The MCC has become what I cynically referred to(and no one has, so far, challenged) a democratically elected political theater playing on MCTV 6 twice a month. I don’t see a way to make it relevant. I suspect that eliminating the MCC will create a political vacuum and a governance vacuum. I look forward to seeing what fills that vacuum.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
It’s ironic the disbanding of the MCC proposal is delivered not to the MCC, but to the Editor of The HMB Review.
The whole governance on the MidCoast has been poor. Politics on the MidCoast is fractious. The Sups. are elected at large and represent Districts the MidCoast being part of one. So, election wise the MidCoast’s issues are diluted by County wide issues. Taxation with disproportionate representation. The MCC was ostensibly formed to address part of that issue. A lot of MidCoasters put a lot of work into the MCC, which was ultimately ignored by the BOS. The LCP revision process was the real end of the MCC.
I suspect the BOS and the people that elected them interests would be better served by keeping the democratically elected political theater group called the MCC going as a sort of roach motel for MidCoast political activists(the cost is minimal). I’ll let the BOS worry about their own political interests. If the MCC was disbanded as Supervisor Gordon proposes, the old guard MCC political players of one faction would lose their tenuous hold on one of many local government bodies. Maybe some fresh political ideas would emerge.
The MidCoast has more difficult political issues than the BOS and MCC. It’s largely a bedroom community without civic centers. It’s not clear the tax revenue exists to incorporate or the political will to annex to Half Moon Bay (preBeachwood) existed. The politics are fractious and polarized. Residents are frustrated that every issue gets polarized around the issue of growth. The MCC has become one of the many ultimately worthless prizes the pro growth and slow growth factions fight over to gain some minute political advantage. The other issue is all the special districts which are also prizes for the political factions to fight over. The poor citizens have to keep their eyes on all this.
Another factor in the issue of the political relevance of the MCC is new media in terms of the internet, transparency of government, blogs, video and audio online. They have changed the way we interact with government. The MCC is rooted in paper copies, public access TV(that no one watches), and a public meeting style reminiscent of high schools student bodies circa 1970(try to watch the meeting on MontarFog). It’s a different game now.
My personal experience has been that the Supervisors are accessible without going through the MCC.
Whatever happens, I appreciate the hard work of my fellow Coastsiders that contributed to the MCC in the past and to those that went to the effort to run last time and stimulate political discussion. They have made this a better community.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Paul,
I read the opinion piece. The article fails to mention some USA based Blogers justification for remaining anonymous. One is that many employment agreements prohibit the employee for damaging the reputation of their employer, partners or customers. Some corporations initiate legal proceedings against individuals and groups that “get in their way”. Given the financial resources and legal protections for corporations, why would anyone speak against them publicly? The only real restraint on corporations being heavy handed with individual critics is the public relations fall out from them stepping on little people. Employers frequently Google prospective employees. How is being the tequila shot master on Myspace or opposed to Wavecrest development on Coastsideror arguing vocifereously to death on a Blog going to look to a prospective employer or client? So, identifiable public speech on Internet forums carries some risks even in “the land of the free”.
A real newspaper uses anonymous sources with great care. The reporters and editors investigate the motivations for the anonymous source to talk to them and their reasons to request anonymity. In many cases the journalism professionals attempt to corroborate these sources with other sources. Sometimes the journalists hold off a story to see how it unfolds to test credibility of the anonymous source. The journalists weigh the timeliness and the newsworthiness of the report against being manipulated by their anonymous source.
One of the huge fallasies of modern times is that if you can measure something, it must be significant. Hits on a website is one of those meaningless measurements. It’s the mania of people trying to figure out how to make a buck on the Internet.
Talkabout seems to be where certain political factions float trail balloons and see what happen to them. Some get shot down promptly, some get attacked by a pack of wild dogs, some get put up on the pedestal of correct political thought by the regulars and some float away unnoticed never to be seen again. I don’t really think its a place to have a serious political discussion. One of the great things about equality, democracy and our popular culture is average folks looking at George Bush and think they can lie better than him and winning is everything. I don’t think any hearts and minds are being won on Talkabout. Some seem to show up drunk or under the influence in drag or a costume, run doppelgangers and let their alter ego hang out there. It’s more of a role playing game.
So, like everything on the Internet, one has to approach what one finds with skepticism. I’ve found Coastsider is real people. Many I have met in person. After talking with them, I can appreciate the value of their posts. If I want to engage in a political discussion that is controversial, at least I will know who I am arguing with. If The HMB Review managers want to get addicted to the Internet crack of website hits and pander to their mob, why not?
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Barry Parr: Ray, you’re welcome to disagree, but please be civil. Posted 05/17 at 10:08am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Kevin J. Lansing: Following up on Anneliese’s post. It is critical for those opposed to AB 1991 to… Posted 05/17 at 9:47am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Francis Drouillard: I would encourage Kevin, Ray and Steven to learn more about the Coastal Act and… Posted 05/17 at 9:16am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Anneliese Agren: Understood Ken. It’s important to give definition to the difference of genuine debate here, versus… Posted 05/17 at 5:35am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ken Johnson: Anneliese, Maybe you are right - I always thought of him as a turnip. But… Posted 05/17 at 1:51am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Carl.. I’m just reading more pretentious discourse from someone that may not be living in… Posted 05/16 at 10:36pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: Ray, Let’s pretend you are as confused about the basics of ecological matters as your… Posted 05/16 at 10:16pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Anneliese Agren: Ray Olson is a troll. Posted 05/16 at 8:40pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Oh Carl, it only took you a day for to write your VERY verbose, pompous,… Posted 05/16 at 8:33pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: It doesn’t hold true in all cases, but damage to natural features and values in… Posted 05/16 at 7:11pm in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
