Comments by Ray Olson

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

January 05, 2010

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

November 06, 2009

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

November 05, 2009

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

November 05, 2009

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

June 11, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

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

May 17, 2008

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

May 17, 2008

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

May 16, 2008

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

May 16, 2008

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

May 15, 2008

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

May 15, 2008

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

May 15, 2008

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

May 15, 2008

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

May 15, 2008

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 »

Click here to post your own letter to Coastsider.

Princeton Seafood Co. on board with “Hats Off to Teachers”

Letter by Princeton Seafood Company on Fri, Mar 12 at 04:14 pm • 1 comments; click to add your own

Campaign Offers Educators Hearty Discount

Where would we be without our teachers? They’ve given us the fundamentals – the foundation we need to succeed in today’s society. And now, Princeton Seafood is giving something back. With JointVenture’s “Hats off to Teachers” campaign, the restaurant is offering all teachers 10 percent off any meal daily and a full 20 percent off on our special “Teacher Tuesday.”

To receive a discount, teachers must present the restaurant staff with

Read more...

Sam’s Chowder House Hosts Fundraiser Supporting the Big Wave Project

Letter by David Vespremi on Fri, Mar 12 at 11:25 am • 2 comments; click to add your own

Have a comment?

Twitter @samschowder
 
Mail:

4210 North Cabrillo Highway
Half Moon Bay
CA
94019

Telephone: 650.712.0245
Fax: 650.712.0371

Read more...

Free educational events at New Leaf Community Markets

Letter by Patti_Bond on Thu, Mar 11 at 10:13 am • 0 comments; click to add your own

On Tuesday, March 16 from 6 - 7 pm, New Leaf Produce Director, Mark Mulcahy, will present ” For the Love of Produce: Citrus.” Mark will talk about the difference between various types of citrus, where they come from, how to select them and prepare them, as well as provide suggested pairings and recipes.

On Tuesday, March 23 from 6 - 7:30 pm., Larry Jacobs of Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo and his team will give a talk on Organic Farming in Mexico. They will tell their story about the cooperative they

Read more...

Information Session on Roundabouts

Letter by Len Erickson on Wed, Mar 10 at 12:45 pm • 0 comments; click to add your own

Roundabouts were one of many features discussed in the report from the Traffic and Trails meetings last June and presented to the Midcoast in a public meeting last month.  On Saturday, March 13, there will be an information session on roundabouts open to interested members of the community.  The meeting is sponsored by Midcoast Park Lands and will be at the Granada Sanitary District office in El Granada, at 504 Avenue Alhambra, 3rd Floor.  The meeting time is 10:30am.  There will also be an

Read more...

Earlier letters

...Looking for something even earlier? Try our letter archives.
Get Coastside alerts from Fire Dispatch on Coastsider's Twitter feed...