Comments by Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Mary Bordi,
I wasn’t concerned with Mary Ascher’s use of the word “blog”. Now, calling the “Review, our local newspaper” should be out of bounds – calling the Review a newspaper was an insult to journalist.

You were right:
“You probably didn’t get a chance to read Dan Blick’s Jul 29, 06 | 12:41 comment.”
I went back to 12:41 to find it and couldn’t find it. Then it occurred to me, you have two 12:41s in your day and I only one [depends on perspective, doesn’t it?]. Now, I found it:

“In her letter, Mary blames “*they*” ("that small, but vocal, group of self-appointed arbiters of community values who consistently find fault with anybody who dares to advocate for our Coastside children") with defeating Measure S.”

I guess it is easier when you start with a conclusion and go on from there without ever seriously examining the original premise.
Statement: X is beneficial; anyone who questions X is a %#%# - aka “they”?

It was once accepted dogma:
‘The sun revolves around the earth. Mankind is the center of all. Anyone who questions that is a heretic and must be punished.’

“Absolute truths” must never be questioned?

Sounds like “they” is a code word for a small group who courageously exhibit the ability to think! 

Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Mary Ascher,
A few Facts you missed:
June 1996 Measure K won with 74.90%;
November 1999 Measure C lost with 55.99%!

Your letter, http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/letter_to_the_editor/story4.txt
“They won’t support the Cabrillo Unified School District because they don’t like certain school board members.” [You never identify: “they’]

School Board:
Measure K: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Burt Jones.
Measure C: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Dwight Wilson
Given, Dwight is not particularly likable - but a 20% difference?

Measure K: $35,000,000 twenty-five year Bond
Measure C: $125 4 years Parcel Tax
Maybe it was the extra $125 a year; but I don’t see any evidence for that.

OR do you think it might be the ACTIONS of the School Board Members?
-After THREE AND A HALF YEARS, all we had was a drawing of a new school [in fact, after TEN years, all we have is a drawing of a new school!]
- The School Board Members chose North Wavecrest, over much objection, in a bizarre series of land deals [North Wavecrest has had a variety of land development proposals that were ‘just around the corner’ since the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake – and still waiting].

Cunha needed to be rebuilt in 1976 when I first saw it in detail.
By November 1999 [Measure C], I concluded the School Board lacked judgment, accountability and financial wisdom.

November 5, 2002
Jolanda Schreurs, Dwight Wilson and Roy Salume ran on ‘Wavecrest Forever’.
[November 2, 2004: Charley Gardner the same]

A group of mothers, tired of waiting for a new school – SEVEN YEARS – brought in
November 4, 2003 ballot Measure D; “BUILD OUR SCHOOL NOW”!

CUSD response: Resolution NO. 22-03 OPPOSING BALLOT MEASURE D
Kenneth E. Jones, President
Ruth A. Palmer, Clerk
Roy Salume,
Jolanda Schreurs,
Dwight Wilson,

Had it not been for the above CUSD Trustees, we would have the middle school built and be MILLIONS Of DOLLARS ahead!

I’ve seen a number of references to “Obstructionists” in your Review – seems the School Board members above are in the membership.

Mary, voters don’t support when they can’t trust; but I still don’t know who “They” are.

Ken Johnson

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Bonus Questions: What President established the EPA and NOAA? What President and Senior Senator - NCLB? Labels don’t tell all!
[Answer: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) formed at behest of President Nixon. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) – Senator Edward Kennedy and President Bush.]

Who should replace David Gorn?

Brian Ginna,

You said: “The majority of voters would surely want someone who is clearly a “moderate.” [Jul 06, 06 | 9:21 am] Sounds reasonable, until you include George [I presume you mean Muteff ] in that definition from my limited knowledge of him.

Maybe you will elaborate in detail how George Muteff meets your definition:
“Moderates would compromise.”

You mention Naomi positively and Mike negatively.

I’ve known both Mike Ferreira and Naomi Patridge measured in decades. In both cases, on various issues, we have agreed, disagreed or simply agreed to disagree. In both cases I have known each of them to reach out to seek solutions to problems. We need more people on the City Council who understand the concept of agreeing to disagree and moving on to the next issue to work together.

If the City Council majority is unwilling to reach out at this point, everyone will lose.

Ken Johnson

Who should replace David Gorn?

Barry,
Excellent definition, I will try to remember to give you proper attribution when I use it.

Brian,
Ball is back in your court.

Ken Johnson

Who should replace David Gorn?

Mike Ferreira does seem to represent a logical choice. For those who don’t recall, winning and losing in the last election was determined by only a handful of questionable votes. His willingness to stand for the position would place the onus upon the current City Council majority to then demonstrate whether they wish to reach out or do they desire a divided community.

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray,

Sketch out your plan for widening SR 92. Take it to the effected adjacent businesses property owners. Let us know what they had to say.

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Mary Bordi,

CCF home page has: “my name is Don Bacon … I’m speaking as a director of Coastside Community First”. So I believed, Don Bacon was a director of Coastside Community First.
http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/
Don Bacon’s Speech to the Half Moon Bay City Council on May 2, 2006
http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/documents/db_speech_05_02_2006.html

You wrote [Jul 09, 06 | 9:28 am]:
“Please check out the CCF website for a list of CCF directors.”
http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/contact.html “
Indeed, Don Bacon isn’t listed as a Director of Coastside Community First there.

Put Community First – your sister organization with the same web templates as CCF - understands disclaimers.

At your next Board of Directors meeting, you might want to discuss with Mr. Bacon the appropriate disclaimer.

Regards,
Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray Olson,
Fair question. The original approved and conditioned by CC and the City with the required changes to SR 92 and SR 1 effected a ‘no negative impact’ – no reason to oppose, no reason to support. It wasn’t going to improve traffic flow; it just wasn’t going to make it worse! No one would fund that. Why would they? The primary developer wasn’t going to take bullet either. Ergo, dead.

I supported all the improvements currently waiting for funding. Key word – IMPROVEMENTS!

Personally, I don’t like the ‘straightening’ of SR 92 – I love driving it in cruise control. I love flying at the edge of the envelope when alone – it is just not good policy. So I grudgingly supported the ‘straightening’.

Regarding your question on:
“THE CITIZEN’S ALTERNATIVE PARCEL TAX”

At the 29 June CUSD Board meeting, I addressed the board requesting an update on the progress to a solution to the no school bussing on the coastside. Mr. Dwight Wilson announced that at the next meeting he would be announcing their solution. The Next CUSD Board meeting is Thursday, 13 July. I hope to see you there!

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Jim Larimer,
CCWD hasn’t embraced the concept that new development would pay for its costs. That you are now claiming that development should go beyond and provide benefits for the community that it is impacting is encouraging. Of course I support that, I got David and the others at the then Neighbors Alliance to join us in our Homeowners Association to put forth Measure A with the economic goal of having development proposals compete for a scarce resource—development allocations. Free market competition. Unfortunately, many politicos never got their degrees in Economics or Law. Anyway, I was asking you questions in a previous post to see if you had a better idea for evaluating and funding impacts – apparently by your reply [Jul 09, 06 | 1:20 pm] you don’t!

There for, if there is no public benefit, the public should not pay for it. There is no public benefit to Foothill STREET. So the public should not pay for it. Likewise the water lines associated with the development represent no public benefit so the public should not pay for it. The portions that would only benefit the public in general should be paid by a combination of the two.

If you are referring to the proposal portion that includes tanks and gravity feed reduces power consumption, etc. – that portion may be public benefit to the degree of representing reduced operating costs, etc. Cutting dead ends or mitigating them is a design and implementation issue. I believe strongly in ‘cost benefit analysis’ and proper ‘cost allocation’ – I haven’t often seen that done locally; and particularly at CCWD.

I understand that you want Ailanto to pay to pay for a Foothill STREET boondoggle.

Once again, “WHAT ARE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF BEECHWOOD and the other undisclosed beneficiaries?”!

Regards,
Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray Olson,
Once again Ray, “go to City Hall and ask the Planning Department to read the stacks of relevant traffic studies and proposals.” While there, examine the plans for SR 92 at Main St and beyond.

Now, draw your self a pretty picture of the intersections with all the lanes including turn lanes and lights. All the way back beyond Frenchman’s Creek.  Do it to scale.

Now, CCF claims that Foothill STREET as 1 mile long. DO you have any idea how far traffic going south on SR 1 backs up waiting to merge? Now, where will that traffic sit – hint, it doesn’t fit into a one mile single lane residential street—it will back up from the proposed light at Foothill STREET to Frenchman’s Creek and beyond.  Traffic wishing to go south will not be able to proceed – like those wishing to drop kids of at Cunha!

The worse case: [Ray, try this one, it is easier to understand!]
Evening westbound SR92 would have NO HOLDING CAPACITY waiting to turn right onto Foothill STREET nor the TURNS at Foothill STREET and SR 1. Traffic wishing to turn or to proceed straight can’t proceed.
Today, traffic fans out and can proceed north or south on SR1.
Foothill STREET would back up traffic intermixed with north and south traffic each waiting to go a different direction at a new traffic light – think it is bad now, you can’t even imagine it with this fiasco!

Does the word GRIDLOCK ring a bell!

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Don Bacon,
No difference between requiring “a four-lane arterial [etc.]” and a two lane residential street! Are you serious?

“CCF did not see the need for four lanes” – just Who and How was that determined?
If it wasn’t that a few misguided somehow take you seriously, I would simply laugh at that. Just what is CCFs track record – oh yeah, it has none! So everyone should just take CCFs “did not see the need” as reliable dependable evidence – you can’t be serious.

“Pretty much everything else around here is two lanes.”
That is precisely why there is a string of REAL improvements waiting in the queue for funding to upgrade. You would have us walk, no make that run, backward from progress!

You also apparently don’t think ‘holding capacity’ nor the additional lanes for exit/entrance or holding lanes are necessary? How about the required changes to SR 92 and SR1? The inadequacy for the original doomed it as well as the cost to do it right.
CCF non-proposal isn’t even in the game!

”So there is no major change in proposal for I or CCF to report.”
You don’t think the above is enough?

I don’t have to go through the documents now – I did it when they were first done!
I was also there as it evolved.

CCF refuses to provide ANY detail in their non-proposal because it would expose just how absurd it is!

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray Olson,
You almost got it. You were close. Let me try one more time. You wrote: “current morning commute where HMB has blocked off entry/exit to Main St. This was done to increase traffic flow, and it has helped.” Now, if it were reopened, it would hurt – right!

Turns from a roadway, SLOWS thru traffic flow. Entry to a roadway SLOWS thru traffic flow. OK. Now, if in the mourning [spelling intentional] Foothill exists with traffic turning into it from South bound SR 1 – thru traffic will be impeded. Also, if in the mourning [spelling still intentional] Foothill exists with traffic turning onto east bound SR 92 – thru traffic will be impeded. Got it?

The case of the evening commute on westbound SR 92 is even more disastrous! It is sort of the difference between eating dinner before going home and asking whether I should try to go home!

The questions I asked of CCF was not to determine WHETHER it would be a detriment to the commute times; but to determine the order of magnitude of a disaster they want to impose on us!

You can probably go to City Hall and ask the Planning Department to read the stacks of relevant traffic studies and proposals.

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Jim Larimer,
You are advocating abrogating the agreement with Ailanto to settle in favour with the “owners of the Beechwood property”? That does seem to answer part of an original question of mine, thank you. Would you like to identify any other previously undisclosed beneficiaries?

I find it also interesting that you seem to be suggesting a steep ‘progressive’ taxation plan. And the use of class warfare terms like “high-end houses” and “McMansions” is sort of new. I had always thought of you as an ultra conservative republican – sorry, I guess I was wrong.

Anyway, your calculation ignores the development relative to the total land area in question.

Are you suggesting an “excess profits tax” on all new development? Or a fixed rate of return on new development for the community?

You described SOME of the benefits of Ailanto. What are the community benefits of Beechwood and the other undisclosed beneficiaries?

As a CCWD Director, please elaborate or give a reference for the “parallel water pipeline” projects you cited.

Regards,
Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Don Bacon,
as a CCF Director, you are now advocating Foothill to the standards defined by CC and City’s Circulation Element, etc.? That is significantly different from the “two-lane route about one mile long” and rough alignment in the CCF original proposal!

Please confirm this major change!

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Jim Larimer,

I pictured you in the old cartoon of the guy who started to paint a floor by starting at the doorway and working backward to a closed corner, when I read: “These are engineering issues that would be solved as the new roads are constructed.” It does serve to explain the rate increases at CCWD, the new middle school at Wavecrest decade long saga, and now Foothill STREET.

“Increasing access to roadways improves traffic flows.” – Really?!

I have noted that those who have been subjected to studying Circulation Element alternatives; reviewing development traffic studies; traffic simulation models and software come rapidly to the conclusion that Foothill/Bayview is DOA.

Let me try to give an analogy to those who may be of good will but lack an analytical starting point for judging the CCF proposal.

Most people are aware how traffic flows on 280, 101, El Camino Real, and the Frontage Road between Wave Ave and Kehoe Ave.

Traffic flows best the further apart the entrance/exits are apart.

Entrance and exit ramps that are insufficient to hold traffic cause a backup to the normal flow of traffic, i.e. SR 92 at 280 merge north backs up SR 92 during evening rush hour for those who wish to continue westward on SR92. At some points the deceleration lane becomes a ‘holding lane’ and as a worse case the road becomes a miles long ‘holding lane’ or Level F traffic.

Stop lights function at best case as a flow direction mechanism when properly timed – this is rare. More often they serve to back traffic up, El Camino Real.

The next worse case is stop signs. At the bottom of the scale are residential driveways.

A normal model has residential streets with driveways transiting to a ‘collector road’ and that road entering a larger roadway through a stop sign or stoplight. The larger roadway, SR1 or SR92, merging on to 280 as an example.

The CCF Foothill/Bayview is a residential street with stop signs and driveways that they would like people believe that it can pretend to be an alternative to SR1 or SR92. Worse yet, it would function to negate planed improvements to SR92 and result in traffic backed up at a new four way light. 

Regards,
Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

CCF folks,
I have a few questions for the CCF folks that they have declined to answer.
Road width? How many stop signs [at least 1 at Lewis Foster Drive and Foothill STREET]? Where is a cross section of roadway showing driving lane width, shoulder width, bike path, sidewalk and curb and gutter?  Where are the ‘holding lanes’, ‘holding lanes’ length and what are their length on SR 92 and SR 1? How many driveways would enter/exit directly on the roadway. Is the shoulder width sufficient to pull a disabled vehicle off of the roadway? How many lanes are at the lights – straight, left turn, right turn?

“Foothill/Bayview, with nonstop dedicated right-hand turn lanes at both westbound 92 and northbound 1, would divert more than half the returning afternoon commuters from the Bottleneck.” CCF web site description.

Are there any traffic studies to support the claims?

Ignoring for the moment, who might pay for ‘underpasses’; try sketching out a rough geometry of the proposed ‘underpasses’ and overlay with property that would have to be taken. Try just drawing a circle the radius of a similar identified ‘underpass’ system sufficient to go safely under 4 plus lanes of traffic. 

It is one thing to wave your arms around gesturing in the air and another to make a real proposal!

CCF – Can’t Communicate Factually.

Only after determining IFF Foothill STREET is an improvement, then it might be worthwhile to discuss on the CCF website “CCC Response to the CCF Open Letter”.

Ken Johnson

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Mr. Ginna,

Did you mean to say: “explain to me why he (Mr. Chris Kern) should not answer questions from the community”. As I read the letter, it is signed by Mr. Charles M. Gardner, President of CCf. 

I, for one, am not willing to concede that the signatory of the letter represents the “community” nor stipulate that CCF represents the “community” in this matter!

I have dealt with the California Coastal Commission since its inception on a number of matters representing significantly more people. I have always found staff there most helpful and willing to go the extra effort even when they initially disagreed.  I would never consider the ‘tone’ of Mr. Gardner’s letter helpful and he ill serves his very limited constituency in this matter. 

Ken Johnson

Coastal Commission alerts HMB to problems with Foothill Bypass

Dean Skelton,

I used a precise direct copy of a full and entire paragraph from your post, a link to your post and your name and date and time of the post. 

Standard English usage dictates: ‘a’ is one, ‘a couple’ is two and “some board members” indicates three or more board members. Since you chose at the time, and coincidentally still choose not to identify the board members you lobbied, I made the decision to include your entire paragraph and the ability to go to your full post for context.

In your post in question: the prior paragraph related to the use of calling those who chose not to support Measure S as ‘child abusers’ and the following paragraph in your post is refuted by reality – I thought neither seemed reasonable to include.

As to: “doesn’t even belong under this thread”, that prerogative seems to belong to me and Mr. Barry Parr.

If it makes you happier, I will stipulate to the obvious, that: you did not specify ‘Charles Gardner’ as being among the imprecise words “some board members’!

Hang in there,
Ken Johnson

Coastal Commission alerts HMB to problems with Foothill Bypass

Mr. Gardner,

School “Board is committed to address [school bussing].” [Jun 15, 06 | 2:35 pm]
OH, really!

While on the School Board, you had the following options:
1) Option 1: Measure S with School Bussing – Charlie Rejected it!
“Personally, I think including busing in the measure would have made the difference. Before the measure was drafted, I pleaded with some board members to include busing, and recommended a $195 annual parcel tax to include it. That was rebuffed.”
[posted by Dean Skelton on Jun 10, 06 | 4:12 pm. [He did the Measure S web site.]
http://coastsider.com/comments?id=1540_0_1_0_C

2) Option 2: Measure with School Bussing as a separate item – Charlie Rejected it!
[The following comment was posted by John Lynch on Mar 07, 06 | 1:03 pm]
http://coastsider.com/comments/1209_0_1_0_C/
“I spoke at the March 2nd school board meeting in favor of the parcel tax measure. But with a caveat. At that time they were considering a $45 school bus proposal plus $150 for school improvements all tied within the same ballot measure.
My position was that each parcel tax should stand on its own. Why? Because the school bus parcel tax would be a “slam dunk” and would carry the school improvement measure on its “back” so both would be passed by the voters.
Imagine my chagrin when, at special school board meeting on Monday, March 6th, there was NARY a mention of the any of the parcel tax going towards the return of school bus transportation.
Was I and the people duped? I don’t know. But what I do know is that I am in a quandary and my feeling are in flux.”

3) Option 3: School Bussing on the November ballot—Charlie Rejected it!
At the 8 June 06 School Board Meeting, I addressed the School Board to see if the bored were willing to work on “An Alternative Parcel Tax Measure” brought from the public. Only Mr. John Moseley, to his credit, expressed a willingness to listen to members of the public on the issue.

4) Option 4: Blue Smoke and Mirrors – Charlie’s option!
The following comment was posted by Charlie Gardner on Jun 09, 06 | 9:42 pm
“What I did say is that it is my understanding Dwight Wilson [former School Board President and current member] is spearheading a collaborative effort along with Cheri Parr and Samtrans to develop a comprehensive transportaion (sic) plan which the Board is very interested in.”

After four years, Dwight Wilson hasn’t done the job—I wouldn’t rely on him too much!

[The following comment was posted by Barry Parr on Jun 10, 06 | 2:05 pm]
“There’s no question school traffic is big part of our morning commute.  The school board has paid lip service to solving the problem by putting $12,500 into a study of transportation issues. But it has said clearly and consistently that it has no intention of resuming bus service.”

5) What you [Charlie Gardner] actually did:
- opposed every long term School Bussing alternative
- provided very limited School Bussing during road closure – but excluded the High School.
- CCF proposal held out a proposed exit from High School to the proposed residential roadway Foothill Blvd—an inducement for support.
- CCF web site registration and the start of the slide at Devil’s Slide happened on the same day!

I wonder if the many people who wrote in other posts complaining about their wait at the High School to drop off their children may concluded that their exacerbated wait may just not be a coincidence. I suggest you might considering adopting a less ‘aggressive argument style’ than I found from you after the school board meeting. I blew it off! No harm – no foul. Arguing accomplishes nothing – discussion can be beneficial.

But I do recommend a different ‘fallback style’ when dealing with a couple of the mothers who someday may want to ‘discuss’ with you their ‘induced inconvenience’ while they were queued to drop off their children at the High School.

Ken Johnson

Page 11 of 14 pages « First  <  9 10 11 12 13 >  Last »