Comments by Ray Olson

We need a way to cross Highway 1 safely in Moss Beach and Montara

I lived in Moss Beach for about 8 years and trying to cross highway 1 is definitely dangerous to your health. And, I’m convinced reducing speed limits will do nothing since most people ignore the speed limits on highway 1 anyways. Even on the Airport Road that connects Seal Cove to the harbor people drive dangerously fast. I’m convinced we need either pedestrain overpasses or underpasses to allow people to walk to the coast without fear of losing life. Everyone should have this privilege, not just folks on the west side of highway 1.

Current HMB City Council’s slate sweeps the field

It’s interesting that Kevin mentioned Patridge, and Aifano were backed by realtors, when in fact Ruddick, Freer, and Handler all received contributions from realtors. You can find it on hmbreview.com, here:

http://hmbreview.com/articles/2009/11/03/news/breaking_news/doc4ae893c48a57b978065766.txt

And, at least from my point of view all candidates had placed signs on every possible open space near town.

Current HMB City Council’s slate sweeps the field

Kevin,
Yes, I received that glossy paper on my door… on the weekend before the election. Though Partridge and Ailfano sometimes had their signs together it was never stacked like the Ruddick, Freer, Handler ticket from day 1.

Current HMB City Council’s slate sweeps the field

I think if we had term limits it would probably be applied to Ruddick since I think I read she has been on the council for 16 years now. And it was clear that from the beginning she was running as a slate to try a pull-up her newbies in the hmb politics scene. Note that Patridge did not have a slate until the last few days before election day.

What is troubling to me is how much campaign contributions for ruddick, freer, and handler came from over the hill. I’m not sure if they were representing hmb citizens, or some other agenda.

and yes, it is really frustrating that us hmb citizens are forced to pay for the mistakes of the council that started this back in the 90’s. I truly hope our new council can take us out of the large debt that we now own.

Another bill to exempt developer from the law submitted to Assembly

I just read the article. Can you tell me where there is actual evidence that this issue in LA is caused by our actual HMB issue, and AB1991? I don’t see how you can claim that this LA issue is using anything related to our bill, which hasn’t even passed. I think you made quite a big leap, and am concerned that perhaps you might be creating some hystery build-up, if you know what I mean.
I think i’ve done what Ken claims he has done: “Read the post thoroughly, analyze it, check the validity of the content,”
and yet find there is no connection at all.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Ken,
Go ahead and keep digressing from the main topic of this discussion, you are always so good at it!

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

ken,
So now you are attaching your belief in God to AB1991, that is so typical.
And you have no idea about my faith in God,
and frankly I take a little offense to that remark.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Barry,
Not sure what you mean by your statement “is simply a strawman”?

Please note some of the statements in this thread:
“All have a stake in saving a creation of God! “

or..
“The bill is a gross corruption of the entire statewide process of environmental protection”

or..
“..let alone threatening an entire coastal habitat?”

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Ken,
You and others quickly extrapolate that AB1991 is going to cause total anarchy and overdevelopment of the entire california coastside. It is totally untrue. The reality is that HMB cannot afford to pay this legal settlement, and it will lead us to bankruptcy (which is much much closer to the truth than the destruction of the coastal act, and the current wetlands definitions that have been made). You have absolutley no evidence to the contrary.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Wow.. if everyone on the coastside (or our county for the matter) were just as involved in our little city council’s affairs maybe we can just have a quick fund-raising campaign, and set this property aside as county owned public lands. I don’t necessarily agree with your statement of “But my concerns should be just as valid..”.

I am hoping that the reasons some of the negotiation between our greeder developer and our city was due to mitigating risk on other attempts to thwart the negotiation. I am certainly no expert in this legal battle, but it really seems like we have alot of “experts” here on this site. It is very easy to be an easy-chair quarterback.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Hal,
I’m glad you have interest in the financial well being of my city. I’m assuming you live in HMB too? Your points “a” and “b” seem legitimate but just want to make sure you have the same level of financial risk that I have at the moment. Or is it possible that you may be trying to raise any sort of opposition, in hopes of achieving some other non-obvious agenda?

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Oh, I must mention one thing..
Please support AB1991 as HMB desparately needs to move forward from the problems that past council members, and the coastal comission, has placed us citizens of HMB into. We cannot afford an 18 millon dollar settlement, and I feel we should not be placed with this financial burden. Please note that many folks on this site that oppose this bill, do not have to bear this financial burden, a financial burden imposed on us by the state, and the coastal commission that imparts judgement as to what lands should, or should not be, built upon

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Barry,
I apologize to you if you feel like I’m not being civil, as that what was not my intention.  But, I think you need to remind Carl as well.. His posts have such a belittling tone.
Also, I see a bit of name calling here which I think is uncalled for. Ken & Anneliese, I am no turnip, I am trying to make a point that I think many folks on the coast feel, and I’m sorry if the truth hurts.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Carl.. I’m just reading more pretentious discourse from someone that may not be living in the same real world that I am.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Oh Carl, it only took you a day for to write your VERY verbose, pompous, diatribe only to confirm that the words in the coastal act are actually “interpreted” by experts in the subject matter. And you call me flailing? That is soo funny.

And don’t you think it is a bit ridiculous that someone imparts judgement that a few yards away the land must be wetland, but over in this one particular spot, it has been determined that there are certainly no wetlands her?

I can visualize it right now…. Our coastal commission scientist is sitting at his desk and a call comes in. Some NIMBYer reports “Someone is starting to develop on this land that has been used for farming for so many years. My view of the ocean will be blocked… or I will no longer have direct access to the beach. Something must be done”.

So our coastal commission rep puts on his uniform and hat, with a label that reads, instead of “To Protect and Servce”: “To Protect and Prevent Excessive Development” (Thanks for the phrase Francis).

Our hero then heads out to the plot of land, takes a quick survey and says to himself “Why, this must be a wetland. But first, I must apply the scientific method!”

He then starts with step 1:
See if there is standing water on the land. After a quick survey he notices no water, but says “I must wait til the rains come. And the law says I must see this happen periodically”. he comes back in a few months to find water sitting and say “If I see this again, it must be a wetland”.

So onto step 2: Let’s test the soil. After carefully inspecting areas where the water consistently drains from the soil (but it is dry) he determines, this spot must be of hydric soil composition. So it takes samples to the lab to investigate. Perhaps tests were negative, but he takes many samples over the land, just in case.

And finally onto step 3: Let’s find a hydrophytic plant, there must be one somewhere. So he waits til the rainy season, and low and behold plants start cropping, so he takes photos and samples back to the lab as evidence.

I’m being humorous here… but could this be not far from the truth??

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Oh, and one other thing… My point about deciding that 20 homes can be built on the wetland… or perhaps 24, or even 130 homes. Where is that stated in the Law?

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

I’ve read the link that Francis has provided before, and I think I can count 4 different definitions, but it refers to the USFWS version which I am quite amazed Carl does not seem to know. It states this:
“Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.” (Cowardin, 1979)

These I believe are the 3 conditions, only one of which has to be met. I can probably find a hydrophyte that periodically grows in my backyard, perhaps even riparian vegatation that would also be considered a hydrophtye, and grows annually in my backyard.

The point is not about the literal terms of the text… It is about deciding when (and when not) to apply it. And then to take it and say: well you could build 20 homes on this wetland and it would be ok.
I am not in favor of Chop boy, and I really wish some Lawyer can stick it to him.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Even that pristine plot of land called beechwood, right Carl?
I’m talking about the definition laid out in the coastal act, that the coastal commission has been given the authority to uphold. You know.. the part that says one of 3 criteria must be met: soil, plant, or standing water. Carl, I’m sure you can elaborate for us exactly this definition.

And I do not disagree with trying to protect our wetlands, and try to keep some sort of balance for our beautiful coast. That is why I’ve lived on the coast all my life. It’s just this stupid bickering on plots of land that actually, were originally planned to be developed in some way.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Francis,
It is certainly not me that is dictating anything. It is the coastal commission that dictates whether a plot of land is now considered a wetland, and that our city must enforce an lcp. It is the judge that dictated that us citizens of HMB have to pay 36 million. What is fair about any of this?

And we all know that you if take the “wetland” definition very literally it would mean that all land on the california coast, probably for several miles inland is considered a wetland. I know I can find a plant growing in my backyard that is seen to have grown in a wetland condition. This is definitely a mess the state of california has helped us get into.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

I totally agree the decision was outrageous. As for negotiating a bad deal.. That might be your opinion but I would tend to rely on actual lawyers for what are our options and what might be the best decision for our city.
As for your comment: “the net obligation isn’t anywhere near $18 million”. Can you clarify this statement? As far as the settlement paperwork and what was agreed by both parties, isn’t it actually $18 million? I know you’ve written another piece about this topic, but that I believe is mostly conjecture on your part, and not what was actually in the settlement. Please clarify.

Page 1 of 13 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »