Comments by Vince Williams

Supervisor Gordon suggests MCC has “outlived its usefulness”

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

Supervisor Gordon suggests MCC has “outlived its usefulness”

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

Supervisor Gordon suggests MCC has “outlived its usefulness”

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

Should TalkAbout continue to allow anonymous postings?

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

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

David F. Smydra Jr.,

I have some issues with the objectivity of your reporting and your editors from an article you wrote entitled “One night, three races, 10 candidates”, on Oct. 18, 2007.

From your article:
“Williams said that Montara’s fire station is practically falling down and that the engine will soon need to be replaced.”

What I actually said:
“...If you think in terms of replacing fire apparatus on a twenty year cycle, replacing the El Granada station, which is literally ready to fall down.  I calculate there should really be three quarters of million dollars in the fund right now to rebuild that station.  Instead, there is a hundred thousand dollars.  The Point Montara Station has to be to be seismicly retrofitted...”

Link to the video:
http://www.montarafog.com/video/426f.php?title=2007/Montara_Fire_Debate/Montara_Fire_Debate_Q4

Your misreporting was significant.  As a candidate, I am attempting to demonstrate an understanding of the details of the financial issues of the District.  You claim I said things I did not say.  By substituting incorrect facts, you make me look incompetent to your readers.  Was that your intent?

From your article:
“In his closing comments, Williams made one last push for the contract, saying a couple dozen firefighters are ‘holding the majority hostage.’ “

What I actually said:
“The new nine member Fire Board needs to move forward as one. The days of strife and the minority holding the majority hostage have to end.”

Link to the video:
http://www.montarafog.com/video/426f.php?title=2007/Montara_Fire_Debate/Montara_Fire_Debate_closings

Again your misreporting was significant.  You made me look like I was being critical of the Firefighters.  I was being critical of having a Board minority which caused strife and prevents the Board from moving forward.  Why would you fabricate a “couple dozen firefighters”, when I never said that phrase or anything like it in the whole candidate forum?

Vince Williams
Moss Beach

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

I also decided not to participate in The HMB Review’s candidate review process.  Years ago, I was sucked into attending the Fire Board meetings by all of the misinformation in The HMB Review about what was going on at the Fire Boards.  As I shifted from reporting on MidcoastL to advocating a position, every letter to the editor that made print in The HMB Review was mangled by their staff to make me look the fool.  In articles in 2005, I was misquoted.  Misinformation was printed.  The Editor refused to print my letter of response.  As a candidate in this election, I decided to demonstrate some good judgment by not playing the Review’s game.

I’m thankful that alternate news sources and forums for discussion such as Coastsider exist and flourish.  Darin Boville’s videos have made it easier to hear from the candidates directly.  It’s exciting to see to see this small community using technology not to passively watch and consume, but to do production that fits the needs of the community.

As a homeowner in Moss Beach looking at the candidates for MWSD, I know my interests are best served by voting for Scott Boyd and Kathryn Slater Carter.  As an advocate for the Fire Board, I know that present MWSD Board members are setting the right priorities in terms of mains and hydrant replacement and pushing forward the capital projects for more storage capacity.  Decades of neglect by the previous corporate owners of the water system can’t be fixed in the Coastal Zone as quickly as we all would like.  We need to face the reality of the constraints of where we live, the price tag it took to purchase the water system and what we can afford to pay as a small community.  We need to have dedicated experienced Board members to assure these critical projects happen.  I have seen on the Fire Boards how dissident members can slow a Board down and add
to costs.  Don’t let that happen at MWSD.

Vince Williams
Moss Beach

Coastsider endorses Donovan, Taborski, and Silva for HMB Fire and Williams for Pt Montara

Carl May wrote:

“So now, every time a car is broken into and trashed on the coastside--an act that happens fairly often in parking lots and neighborhoods--local firefighters and their union are tainted by it?”

I wrote “at HMBFPD” not “on the coastside.” According to press reports the crime locations were Half Moon Bay Main station parking lot and Chief Cole’s locker.  I wrote “the whole organization and Local 2400” not “local firefighters and their union”.  The “whole organization” also includes, the Firefighters employed by the District that don’t reside in the District(a majority of the Firefighters at HMBFPD), Board, Management, Administrative and Mechanical staff.

Carl May wrote:

“So reassuring to know someone is running for our now meaningless Point Montara fire district board who can divine guilt without evidence.”

I wrote “an alleged criminal” not “guilt”.

Vince Williams
Moss Beach

Coastsider endorses Donovan, Taborski, and Silva for HMB Fire and Williams for Pt Montara

Continued part two of two

Mary Kay Jolley wrote:
“Yes, Acting Chief Paul Cole had his car vandalized and someone peed on his sleeping bag, but there was never any proof who did it and certainly no connection one can logically make that it was because of the contract with CalFire.  It is very irresponsible for you to write such.  Local 2400 came out swiftly and strongly condemned the actions.”

Barry has responded.

The question of who is responsible is just the game that has been played over and over again within HMBFPD.  Absent a responsible party for this cowardly set of acts, one can only speculate on motive.  So, we are all supposed to forget about it?

The issue is both these acts of vandalism occurred at HMBFPD. It is highly unlikely that anyone outside HMBFPD was involved.  The inability of HMBFPD and IAFF Local 2400 to resolve the matter leaves us in this community with a command structure in CFPD with an alleged criminal.  Regardless of who did it, the whole organization and Local 2400 are tainted by it.

Vince Williams
Moss Beach

Coastsider endorses Donovan, Taborski, and Silva for HMB Fire and Williams for Pt Montara

Mary Kay Jolley,

Thank you for clarifying the quote about CDF.  I have some issues with some of your other comments.

Mary Kay Jolley wrote:

“What you need to consider is that CalFire is only able to staff approximately half of its engines with a paramedic and that the paramedics are VERY inexperienced.”

Where, the state of California, San Mateo County or Station 44?  CalFire provides a variety of engine staffing options to agencies that contract with them.  The contract for staffing Station 44 calls for staffing an ALS engine.  That means a San Mateo County(SMC) Accredited Paramedic on the engine on each shift. The CFPD master contract with CalFire calls for ALS engines at all three stations.  To suggest that a Paramedic that is accredited to operate in SMC is “Very inexperienced” speaks poorly of the other SMC Paramedics and the whole accreditation program in SMC.  It’s rather hard to accept that a licensed Paramedic most likely having experience in another jurisdiction, that goes through SMC specific training, followed by 2 to 6 months of field training in San Mateo County under the supervision of an experienced Paramedic is “Very inexperienced”.

This is a public forum.  There is a fine line between the first amendment and undermining the confidence in the public in the EMS system.  To quote Oliver Wendel Holmes, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Mary Kay Jolley wrote:
“In fact, by paying overtime and not replacing two chiefs, the district has a $3 million reserve and has paid off the $400,000 loan for the land under the El Granada station.”

The largest source of the fund balance this fiscal year came from canceling the contract for HMBFPD to handle AMR’s ambulance responsibility on the Coastside.  Other SMC Districts have taken similar action. The loan for the land for the El Granada station has not been paid off as of the last CFPD Regular meeting.  The capital plan calls for it to be paid off sometime this fiscal year.

Part one of two.

Coastsider endorses Donovan, Taborski, and Silva for HMB Fire and Williams for Pt Montara

Mary Kay Jolley,

I do not recall having written on Coastsider what you claim I wrote.  I did an advanced search of what you claim I wrote, “CDF will cause more problems than it will solve.” That string search only found your post.  Could you please provide a link to what you claim I said on Coastsider?

An anonymous poster on The Half Moon Bay Review Talkabout on September 28,2007 12:05PM posted the following quote attributed to me on Coastsider, “we should not contract out with CDF, it will cause more problems than it will solve.” Again an advanced string search on Coastsider turned up nothing.  Are you the anonymous poster of that post on Talkabout?

Vince Williams
Moss Beach

Video:  Meet the fire board candidates

I misspoke on the video in two places.  I have two corrections:

I said “… that is to reconstitute CalFire having its own employees.”.  I meant to say “… that is to reconstitute Coastside Fire having its own employees.”

I said, “...200 households.” in the video.  I meant to say, “...2000 households.”.

Under Darin Boville’s ground rules, that I agreed to, this was shot and edited by him and I did not have the opportunity to review it or edit it.  I want thank Darin for the opportunity to get my message out, his efforts to get other local political issues out to the community and his images of where we live.

Vince Williams
Moss Beach

Video: Caltrans geologist explains Devil’s Slide

Carl May wrote:

“The overall landslide is longer at road level that where they bolted the retaining walls to rods pushed into the hillside.”

Technically it may be true that the section south of the whaler wall is part of the slide. But the historic movement of this section is a lot less than the northern part where the whaler wall is. Look at the photo’s of previous failures.  The major rifts were all at the northern end of the current whaler wall.  These rifts follows the fault line between the north east solid rock of fault and the south west loose debris on the other side.  South of the whaler wall the composition of this section is large blocks interlocked.  The section of the whaler wall could almost be thought of as a chute. To the north of the whaler is the north east solid rock. To the south of the whaler wall is the more stable large blocks of the south west side of the fault.

I agree with Leonard’s contention that both the north section and this southern section can provide suitable anchorages for a steel truss bridge to span the troublesome chute section with the high rate of slippage.  Providing an anchor for a light steel truss bridge is a simpler problem than trying to tie all the debris in place and hold it there. Steel plates can be uses to form expansion ramps to accommodate slippage. It’s relatively easy to jack a steel span, if there is movement. CalTrans waved their arms and said they couldn’t provide a suitable anchorage for a steel bridge span.  They were asked this numerous times. They never provided any information to back up their assertion that a light steel bridge was not possible.  There were never any public design reviews of their design.  CalTrans had no problem using the both the north and south intact section of roadway for multiple large cranes, mortar tanks, cement trucks and other equipment, before they tensioned their cables. A steel truss bridge has a relatively low static load and CalTrans has already provided a worst case dynamic load to the potential anchorages.

The issue for me is what to do, if CalTrans current repairs fail in the next four years.  We (us and our local governments) should insist a temporary light steel span be seriously considered.

Video: Caltrans geologist explains Devil’s Slide

Leonard,

I have one minor technical correction. You wrote:

“It’s not—it’s basically just the part where they bolted the concrete barrier to the side of the mountain with long bolts/cables into the solid part of the mountain.”

Not all the tension anchors are embedded in bedrock.  It may look like a fortress. But, it’s basically retaining walls above and below the roadway with anchors buried in slide debris.

Have a look:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/stormdamageroute1/docs/daily_update_71806.pdf

The red dotted line is the diagram is not a boundary between debris and bedrock. It is a theoretical boundary between two layers of debris moving relative to each other.  Right after the roadway failure, CalTrans reported data from their two vertical bore hole slippage meters below the roadway that the slippage plane had a depth of about 80 feet.  Historical theory has it that there were multiple slides that covered previous slides. One was theorized to have occurred during the 1906 earthquake. The cumulative slide debris is a couple hundred feet “thick” measured horizontally east at the roadway.  The horizontal drains CalTrans installed(concession that Dr. Hovland may have been right?) below the roadway run 300 feet eastward.

Most cables are just drilled into the debris of the slide and anchored with mortar pumped in. On the south end the debris is more like large blocks that have bulk movement.  I’d speculate some of the tension anchors on the north end penetrate the debris completely and are in the solid rock of the north east side of the fault.  CalTrans reported while drilling that it went faster than anticipated and they needed to pump more mortar than anticipated to fill the voids for anchors.  So, it would appear their extrapolation of their two vertical bores to drilling horizontally(red dotted line) had some inconsistencies.  In addition their bore hole slip meters continued to show slippage as they drilled and tensioned.  If you assume a certain slide density and estimate the weight of something like 70,000 cubic yards of debris being held back by the whaler walls and the tensile strength of the cables, it’s all rather puny despite it’s impressive looks to the taxpayers whizzing by.  Another consideration is if there really is a distinct slip plane between layers of debris, the vertical shear strength of horizontal cables may be the first failure point.  But, it only has to last four more years.  Hopefully the weather will cooperate and we won’t have a heavy cumulative rains like we had in March and April 2006.

Video: Caltrans geologist explains Devil’s Slide

Darin,

Carl May makes some really good points.  If you go back and read the history and all the studies you will come to many of the same conclusion he has.  Taking a hard look at the documents it’s obvious CalTrans has never wanted to admit that Dr. Hovland or others had a viable option in dewatering.  Dewatering is not in CalTrans’s solution space.  CalTrans is not an evil empire.  CalTrans had/has a technical bias against anything that touches on dewatering the slide, because they were attempting to fund the tunnel. That technical bias at CalTrans was in play in April 2006 when there were heavy cumulative rains on the slide.

I agree completely we do not have our act together on the Coastside in terms of governance.  This was a regional problem.

I missed the MCC meeting, but saw your excellent recording.  I attended the Pacifica City Council and HMB City Council meeting with CalTrans.  At Pacifica, many Coastsiders showed up and gave CalTrans and earful.  When the Pacifica Council members asked direct questions, CalTrans was not forthcoming with answers.  I got the sense the Pacifica City Council was uncomfortable with what they were hearing from CalTrans.  Five weeks into the closure, at HMB Council meeting, the Council was clearly in bed with CalTrans.  What actually happened?

I never heard that the Pacifica City Council, Supervisor Gordon, the MCC and the HMB City council ever all sat down together with CalTrans.  If you followed CalTrans from meeting to meeting and saw the same slick CalTrans presentation evolve and saw the same direct questions deflected again and again, I think you would have had a different opinion of CalTrans.  CalTrans was slick and Mr. Wilcox was part of the campaign for the “big project.” To be fair, most of the citizens effected were busy coping with the closure. There were only a handfull of us that made all the meetings. CalTrans shuttled from stake holder to stake holder and sold their “big project”.  If CalTrans had their eyes open, they would have realized it was fairly easy to exploit devisive issues like the right turn signal on N.B. Highway 1 and signal timing.  Our local officials were out manuevered, abdicated responsibility and squabbled over traffic signals. Five weeks into the closure it was pretty clear CalTrans was in control of the political situation.

Next time, I’d suggest a public REQUIREMENTS meeting days after the incident, after an initial assessment is made.  The future meeting should be held on a Saturday in a large venue on the Coastside or Pacifica.  It should include Pacifica City Council, HMB City Council, MCC, two SMC Supervisors and CalTrans to represent the interests of statewide stake holders. Let the public comment go on for hours, let everyone have a say.  Then, let our regional officials and CalTrans close public debate and deliberate IN PUBLIC to provide a consensus set of requirements to CalTrans, before anyone goes home.

Video: Caltrans geologist explains Devil’s Slide

Cal Trans had an agenda in 2006 and our local government representatives were all to willing to be spoon fed information from CalTrans.  Weeks into the crisis, we get Mr. Wilcox’s hand waving dog and pony show at the MCC.  In the following weeks CalTrans did not share their drilling, slippage or water level data with the public, until they had their $7M solution. Nor did CalTrans ever answer the question asked in the MCC meeting, about whether their lack of maintenance of swales and drains contributed to the roadway failure in April 2006.  Many of us continued to dog them with why not put in a Bailey bridge(truss span used to span breaks in emergencies and permanently) or just fill it in and maintain it?  No, their Engineers were working on it, in six weeks their analysis of the water levels, rates of slippage and design would be complete. Mr. Wilcox at a later meeting admitted that some slides in Marin County on Highway 1 had twenty eight feet of vertical asphalt fill on them.

After their design was complete, they were willing to talk about their geo-technical assessment based on the data they collected and kept under wraps. Six weeks into the closure is not the time to have a design review!  At that point in time, we were all calling for a solution, any solution, even theirs.  Our local politicians were being played by CalTrans and squabbling about the timing of traffic signals which CalTrans controlled. CalTrans effectively held this community hostage to their desire to do a big project and set themselves up to be the big heroes.

Did CalTrans really know what was going on at the slide?  While they dilled, cabled and tensioned, the slide continued to move as it dried from the rains. By their own admission they didn’t know what they were anchoring to. Some drilling went faster than expected and they pumped a lot more mortar into the anchor holes than they expected to.  CalTrans and the contractors changed their design as they proceeded with the work.

It’s not clear at this point who was right or whether the $7M solution will even last, until the tunnel is completed.  I certainly hope so.

Politically there were some lessons learned in 2006:
-If the slide roadway fails again, this community had better be a lot more aggressive early on getting information and demanding a say in the solution.
-We all got a taste of what it will be like on the Coastside when the number of vehicles(not homes) doubles.

The Review’s publisher is confused about park financing, democracy

Mary Bordi,

Sorry, I misspelled your last name.

A reasonable presumption for the reader of a newspaper is that a publisher knows how to write or can find someone around the office to edit what they write.

Debra Godshall in her Publisher’s Note said, “I apologize in advance if it reads a little bit like a fairy tale.” Those were her words. Readers upset or confused by her writing have every right to comment on this confusing piece, ask questions, disagree or use the label she supplied, “fairy tale.”

The Review’s publisher is confused about park financing, democracy

Mary Bordi,

The Publisher of The HMB Review spins a political “fairy tale” and us little folks are supposed to see all the hidden wisdom and none of the sexism.  I’m no expert in “fairy tale” interpretation.  Who exactly is the “he” in Debra Godshall’s political “fairy tale”?  Mike Ferreira, John Lynch, a member of the patriarchy, some incompetent lout or any man?  Why not a “person”?  Can a woman not be the head of a household and aspire to own a home?  Do men have a monopoly on making obstinate bad decisions? Aren’t publishers supposed to be on the cutting edge of political correctness and not perpetuate sexual stereotypes?

There is no need to make veiled aspersions of misogyny or attack my “he"hood by calling me out.  This thread is about what Debra Godshall wrote and what the citizens of HMB are getting from their current City Council.

The Review’s publisher is confused about park financing, democracy

This week we have Debra Godshall’s latest “fairy tale”.  I’m not sure whether it is a bad metaphor of Mike Ferreira overcommiting the family to purchase a dream mansion on a toxic waste dump surrounded by disabled(from the toxics) red legged tree frogs or maybe we’re supposed to trust the women in the family to know what the City can afford and to have better real estate acumen.

The “yammering” on Coastsider brought to light what the current City Council in HMB was planning to do on short notice, with very little public awareness with the park land acquired by the previous Council.  Was The HMB Review asleep at the wheel on this issue or deliberately silent?  Look at the timing of the articles and who put the relevant information out first.  Yet again, The HMB Review was dragged into covering this story.  Why?

The questions remain for the residents of HMB. If you suspect the previous Council made a mistake, why would you let the current council make another? Do you trust your current City Council to dispose of the alleged white elephant “Half Moon Bay Community Park” site to some developer at a fire sale price with a promise of favorable zoning?  Will the current City Council, after congratulating themselves on their secret aggressive negotiations with one of their cronies, place all responsibility on the previous City Council?  What will be left over to build parks in your city? 

Don’t accept a fairy tale from your fairy godmother or a bunch of Bloggers spewing “facts”.  Demand transparency and accountability in your City Council.

A whole generation of Coastside children saw their middle school held hostage to Wavecrest.  One has to wonder whether today’s children of HMB will be adults, before the political issues over “Half Moon Bay Community Park” or any collection of parks with its potential are resolved?

The Review’s publisher is confused about park financing, democracy

Debra Godshall is self-serving.  She put the IAFF Local 2400 supporters on the front page of her newspaper with all kinds of positive press for doing exactly the same thing that John Lynch is doing(September 13, 2006 and February 14,2007).  They didn’t have a viable plan to finance the status quo at Coastside Fire.  Why a different standard for John Lynch?  Stoking the fires of controversy at Coastside Fire helps create strife that passes for news and I’d guess criticizing John Lynch reassures the construction and real estate advertisers they are getting their moneys worth in her newspaper.

Is her newspaper serving the public interest or just stirring the pot to assure more tax dollars get wasted for the sake of news and some special interests get taken care of?

Fire districts face a staffing crisis

Leonard, Part 2 of 2

HMBFPD reserves are very low.  PMFPD’s are in really good shape.  In the consolidation the reserves are commingled. There is a short term financial benefit to the residents of HMBFPD at expense of the residents of PMFPD as far as reserves.  PMFPD is also buying into the long term liabilities of HMBFPD.  Also, getting the two Boards in one tent will prevent all the costly inter board strife.

I have been told numerous times by many “experts” that the minor financial inequities are dwarfed by the larger financial benefits of a larger scale Department.  Five stations was supposed to be the optimal size for a district.  So, even after consolidation we are on the small side.  But, we will be contracting with CalFire which has a large presence in the State and County.

We have the staffing emergency, the lawsuit and the pending consolidation.  It’s all a mess now.  I can’t say which way any of these are going to go for sure.  The equities of the cost allocations for the service zone are dwarfed by all the other things going on right now.  I support the course the two Boards have put the Districts on, a contract with CalFire and consolidation.

End of art 2 of 2.

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