Anneliese,
Maybe you are right - I always thought of him as a turnip. But I don’t want to change the conversation from “Local Government Committee passes AB1991-next stop: Appropriations Committee” ;|
Ken Johnson
Kevin Barron,
Substantiate Your claims with multiple specific examples - if you are capable of doing that! Be complete, rather than vague, obtuse and illusionary!
You wrote: “Coastsider postings on AB1991 are biased and incomplete.” YOUR posting is the only one I see that completely matches that description.
Ken Johnson
APPROPRIATIONS Committee
HEARING DATE : 05/14/2008
Ken Johnson
Kevin Lansing,
Vallejo will file for Chapter 9 protection. They voted last night.
HMB next?
Ken Johnson
Kevin Barron,
A fact check and a veracity Check:
Let’s look at your full quotes:
You wrote above on May 01 at 9:09pm
“It was just not shocking to see a rep from the CCC, lay claim… like they do on EVERY measure that comes across their desk to say this would be unprecedented ... many of us think it’s about time to break the spell, so to speak.”
Then you wrote: on May 04 at 10:51am
“I was talking about the CCC rep whom spoke at the meeting as I watched the video Barry so graciously gave us the heads up on. Thusly my verbiage clearly stated as:
(shocking to see a rep from the CCC, lay claim)
See, not read. “
Let’s see if you can REALLY find what you claimed, by giving a time reference on:
Local Government Committee passes AB1991-next stop: Appropriations Committee since you claimed you vividly remembered it 6 hours after the fact - this should be a snap for you to pass the veracity test. [I just don’t think so - prove me wrong.]
Oh, and can you name ANY other, that, in your words: “like they do on EVERY measure that comes across their desk to say this would be unprecedented “.
BILL ANALYSIS - ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
I think it is important, because I believe it will be useful for the opponent of any State Assembly Member who votes for AB 1991.
I would expect their opponent to identify the incumbent as voting for unprecedented exemptions to environmental statutes and regulations.
“exemptions to the environmental statutes and regulations ...of the scope set forth in this bill from so many different statutes are unprecedented.”
A vote for AB 1991 will provide the basis to defeat the Anti-Environmentalists in the State Assembly!
Ken Johnson
Kevin Barron,
Fact Check:
It is zoned for residential development not commercial.
There is also the option of filing for Chapter 9 Reorganization; seeking an evaluation by the court of the Settlement Agreement which is really a contract to purchase property at a price beyond the fair value. There may be the prospect of seeing the dollar amount reduced. It would also be an opportunity to open up the process - did the City Council Majority ‘throw the case’?
Compared to watching the City Council Majority throw our money around like a sailor on shore leave; it doesn’t sound like a bad option.
If the cost [dollar bleed] since 1 April 2008 is not provided Tuesday, 05 May 2008, night at the City Council Meeting, the Citizens of Half Moon Bay should feel outrage!
Ken Johnson
Carl May,
Recalling my part in “the first attempts to create an LCP for HMB” is like recalling a root canal and a prior marriage. I’ll try to give a ‘short’ response to a multi decade effort.
HMB at that time was an owned subsidiary of the Building Industry Association and SAMCAR. It operated as if it was an independent country approving anything presented for building residential housing so long as they were providing a face saving gift. Quite literally, once they received jerseys for a ball team - reminiscent of the scene in the movie Rocky, where Stallone was wearing a robe with advertising, when asked what he had received for the advertising, he replied, “the robe”.
When the Coastal Act was passed, the City Council did not get it that they had to comply with State law. They were ‘annoyed’ when Enforcement began, griping about the hotel being stopped at Ocean Colony. On another development proposal, I had to bring in a legal transcriptionist (they produced no record of meetings at the time) to a City Council meeting, to get their attention that we were going to court!
At the California Coastal Commission meetings, it probably appeared as a ‘head scratcher’ from the audience. Being asked by the Chair to resolve that my name appeared in the front of the document yet my ‘speaker sheet’ had the box opposed marked, it offered the opportunity to explain and exceed my five minutes allocated to delineate the conflicts between the submission from the city and the requirements. The City consistently tried to circumvent the law and had their submission sent back for revision.
During the time period leading up to the Measure A vote [May 1991] [an interesting coincidence in numbering - AB 1991] the City Council approved every development they could before Measure A would beat the opposing City Council Measure B measure by a 2 to 1 margin. As an author of Measure A, I brought a legal action [seeking a Writ of Mandamus] to overrule the delaying action of the City Council.
To provide an understanding of the contempt the City Council had / has for Federal and State environmental law, Dykstra Ranch, so named at the time, represents the most egregious where a habitat pond for two endangered species was approved by the City Council per the developers request to be replaced with a ‘concrete pond’ to be chlorinated and maintained with filtration - that is the definition of a people swimming pool!
The “why” is more difficult to explain. ‘They’ have little support beyond those most obligated to residential development and their campaign contributions. This is comparatively a cheap place to develop because of the minimal requests beyond the legal minimums. So we have a symbiotic relationship - only the residents loose. There is also an entertaining emotional component for them that I have observed. At various conferences where they were representing the City and I attended by other representation they looked so ‘cute and proud’ of their little name badges showing Mayor. I don’t think they ever knew they were the brunt of laughter upon leaving the room. As was put being the big fish in the bitty pond of HMB - in south Texas speak, a pond the size of a heal print after a morning shower.
Today CUSD and CCWD have joined HMB. The best example was their using an Administrative CDP to approve the Cunha Middle School project last year - absurd. CUSD didn’t want it publicized that their insistence on holding to Wavecrest squandered about as much money as the City in the Settlement Agreement. That the New Cunha School will look a lot like the Old Cunha School.
So you may ask how that relates now to development interests. For the past year, a group in the development business has been meeting with CUSD to decide what school properties they can sell off for development. [The only specific comment made last year in the recording of our new School Superintendent by Darin Boville referred to this activity.] The proceeds they hope will cover what was lost by their last land debacle! And the City Council will be requested to ‘expedite’ the project ‘for the children’. The irony is that the ‘for the children’ chant ends up to the detriment ‘to the children’ and their parents!
Not quite as short as I had hoped,
Ken Johnson
Kevin Barron,
I agree with your self characterization that you “have no clue”! Did you ignore or simply lacked the knowledge to understand that the quotation didn’t come from the California Coastal Commission?
I provided the citation to the document immediately before the quotation.
For your edification:
From ‘Glossary of Legislative Terms’, Prepared by: The Legislative Counsel, State of California:
“Bill Analysis:
A document prepared by committee and/or floor analysis staff prior to hearing the bill in that committee or on the floor of the Assembly or Senate. It explains how a bill would change current law and sometimes identifies major interest groups in support or opposition.”
Interesting, in that you presumed the source to be the CCC, demonstrates that actually know that the CCC is correct!
Ken Johnson
Kevin Barron,
Were you attempting to direct a question to me? I am sympathetic to the ELL challenged. I simply can not make any sense of your writing. Maybe you can attempt to rephrase your question or comment - which ever form of a sentence may apply. An ellipsis simply does not provide sufficient information as your only form of termination punctuation. Sorry!
Ken Johnson
The List in Support tells one story. The Legislative Analysis tells it in one word - “unprecedented”!
BILL ANALYSIS - ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
“While limited exemptions to the environmental statutes and regulations affected by AB 1991 have been granted before, it appears that exemptions of the scope set forth in this bill from so many different statutes are unprecedented. They will no longer be unprecedented if AB 1991 passes. “
“Support:
City of Half Moon Bay [SPONSOR]
CA Association of Realtors
CA Building Industry Association
Californians for Property Rights
Coastside Community First
Half Moon Bay Coastside Chamber of Commerce & Visitors’ Bureau
Half Moon Bay Firefighters Association
Half Moon Bay Management Team
Half Moon Bay Police Management Association
Half Moon Bay Police Officers Association
San Mateo County Association of Realtors
Stationary Engineers, Local 39
Individual letters (77)”
Do you see a theme to the list? Can you tell why they support AB 1991?
Ken Johnson
On a 4-2 vote, AB 1991 moves to next hearing.
Ken Johnson
Kevin,
City Council members don’t need outside help to make “shameless distortion[s]” - they really need help to make them seem less embarrassing!
Half Moon Bay has always been a laughing stock, now, with their efforts, our little insular village is a laughing stock to a much larger audience! Who can forget their combined meeting at the Coastal Commission or the letter opposing SB 1295?
They continue to always give fresh material for cocktail party monologues outside of this area.
A memorable story was of a man who had voted for an MP who had just been released from an insane asylum. He explained that it was the only candidate who had been certified as no longer a danger to the public.
Ken Johnson
The amended AB 1991 is scheduled for hearing 30 April. A small change in strategy. It is now a ‘Non-Urgency’ bill - majority only vote required. Also, added as Coauthor: Assembly Member Ma.
Although it is unlikely to make it out of the Committee on Local Government, I would like to see it make it to the Assembly floor. It would produce an ‘anti-environment hit list’ for the November election.
If you liked the Settlement Agreement, you will love reading: The Amended AB 1991 full text.
Ken Johnson
HMB City Council,
PULL THE TRIGGER - FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY!
The City Council Majority has committed to an expenditure regime without rational expectation of success. AB 1991 is DOA, yet funds are being expended on Orrick beyond that required in the Settlement Agreement. This is not ‘rational’ behaviour.
Bankruptcy represents an opportunity to set aside all, or a part, of the higher than justified cost of the Settlement Agreement.
Dissolution presents the opportunity to re-organize under court supervision, minimizing a sell off of public owned assets.
For better or worse, the Settlement Agreement has set a cap on the financial risk. All costs since 1 April 2008 on legal costs and anticipated legal costs represents a raising of this cap.
Ken Johnson
Nancy,
Orrick represents their client - unfortunately, ‘we’ are not their client. The HMB City Council majority is their client.
Orrick could have advised the City Council to pursue the Appeal and reject the Settlement concept! The advice is bound up in confidentiality.
I wrote back on 30 Nov 08 “The list of who might join on the City’s side and amicus curiae briefs would / will be interesting.”
There is now a clear written record that the City Council majority knew that the Coastal Commission AND the Attorney General’s office were willing to back HMB on an Appeal.
The City Council majority chose to make them an enemy! And they are using our checking account to fight another loosing battle against those who should have been recognized as friends.
Ken Johnson
Kevin,
I agree that Obama should go – somewhere else! After his performance last week, his new book will be titled “The Audacity of Being Questioned”. I thought he was going to cry - but that would wait for the 527 groups if he is the Dem Nominee. He will make “Bambi Meets Godzilla” (1969) look like a full length feature film.
Ken Johnson
Orrick is headquartered in S.F. The ‘Political’ Practice Group is located in D.C. Hourly rate is equal to one month mortgage payment.
Ken Johnson
Steven,
You wrote, “to try and kill the bill” - that presumes the fantasy that AB 1991
has shown any life since it was introduced on 14 Feb 08. It has not! The Settlement Agreement pulled the life support on 1 April.
The forthcoming California Coastal Commission staff reports may assist the City if / when it goes to court for the Bankruptcy Reorganization Hearing in setting a reduced value on the $18,000,000 settlement amount.
As to your F.O.F., Fear Of Frogs, I can’t help you there - I always liked Kermit the Frog.
Ken Johnson
AB 1991 and the Settlement Agreement - Another Nail in the Coffin!
Ken Johnson
Thanks Barry. And maybe bring it back to topic - maybe. AB 1991 still sits as originally submitted back in February. A good rumor is that the legislative analyst had to be ambulanced to hospital - something about laughing so hard that ribs were broken and chanting ‘you want to do WHAT!’
Ken Johnson
Page 1 of 9 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?
