Comments by terry gossett

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Mr Ferreira,
If you are so certain that the plaintiff only expected $10.5M, why was the city estimate of damages (equivalent number to the $36.795 from Gimmy for Yamagiwa, page 102 of the Yamagiwa decision) $26.6M?
I you, and others, know so many “facts”, and assert them continuously, it would be helpful to this forum to provide the basis for your assertions.
Then we could move to a constructive solution for the community.  That is what we are all seeking, right?

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Steve,

What I am seeking, as are you, is solutions for the citizens of HMB, all the while noting a few lessons learned along the way. 
I agree with you, on the daunting task ahead of us, But if concerned citizens on the coastside pull together , we can do it.
Imagine the Cunha fire, yet less than 365 days later the store was rebuilt from ashes—-in the coastal zone.  If a City, even with a LCP, wants to do something important, it can be done.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Francis,

Our messages are passing like two ships passing in the dark.

Do not despair. We can do this. Keep trying.

I support the Coastal Act. I have been at hundreds of meetings, over 80 on just Local Coastal Programs for HMB and Midcoast.

If we all want laws that work, the laws must not be vague, capricious, or apply to some and not others.  Laws cannot be cherry picked by people lacking morals or ethics…Or people will be outraged.

I suggest we start with a very simple issue.  The definition of “wetlands”.  If that definition can be understood by real people they will comply.  IF it requires a phalanx of biologists and lawyers the outcome is far less certain, and THAT is where we are today in HMB…

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Francis,

I urge you to carefully read the Yamagiwa decision, and the Beachwood settlement agreement, and after having done so, ask you to re-visit your statement that “takings are rarely the case”.

I believe that a combination of private and government stewardship of land has opportunities for us all. This can be a Win- Win Outcome for us all, IF we choose to make that happen… Or it could be a fight to the death…with Appeals to Eternity.. It need not be Government ownership of land or Else…It need not be my definition is the Only interpretation, even if it is flawed or inconsistent…

I accept the Coastal Act, let it be fair and balanced, not a Club.  (like Club Sierra)

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Mr Ferreira,
I am not proposing to go backward in time to snapshots that you choose, and defend interpretations of past lawsuits which you assert.  I do not wish to go to the original lawsuit, or the Appellate Court, or to possible “reasons” the California Supreme Court “refused to hear” the case.  This is not a public meeting and the choice of venue is not yours.

I choose to make direct quotes from the most recent, relevant determinations in a court of law, and that would be the US District Court, Northern District of California.  I am citing from the Judge Vaughn’s decision on the Yamagiwa lawsuit, page 156, where it states “The City admits that “Yamagiwa did appropriately seek compensation in the California Courts by filing the complaint simultaneously alleging inverse condemnation under the state and federal constitutions.” ”, and goes on to state “Indeed it was the City that removed the case, thereby electing to proceed in the federal forum.”

And, in conclusion, Judge Walker stated, “Accordingly, judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff Yamagiwa and against defendant City of HMB in the amount $36,795,000.”

My hope and plan is to help the City of HMB and other coastsiders in any way I can to minimize the costs to the citizens of the HMB community, landowners or not.

What is your plan? From what I understand See the website http://talkabout.hmbreview.com/topic.php?t=1779&c=1&d;=  it appears you prefer to support the interests of the Sierra Club (or possibly the Coastal Commission) over the interests of the City of HMB and its ratepayers.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Barry,

Before dismissing the definition of “wetlands as a waste of time” and leaping to the issue of whether AB1991 should become law, consider this.  Any further appeal is dead.  We can all help craft a suitable AB1991, and support AB1991 or HMB will owe $18M.
Then, hopefully HMB will find ways to pay for it, and then own Beachwood for all time.  Is that what this is all about?  Another opportunity for a park? 
What of the cost to the citizens of HMB, which you and I are not.  I am doing this on behalf of property owners that have been denied access or use of their land, and you? We need to work together for a coastal solution.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Jonathon,
In no way am I trying to say that any law is unconstitutional.  Carefully re-read what I said.
Honor all law equally. Don’t cherry pick them.

All laws should be obeyed within some context.  When elected officials take office they swear to uphold and support the State and US Constitutions. So I submit our laws are in the framework of the State and US Constitution and should not conflict.
 
I went back to the Yamagiwa decision for an example of just what I am saying.  On page 65 it states that in the May 2, 2000 resolution by the City it said that “Dr Josselyn’s interpretation of the vernally wet exception was erroneous.”  However, I note that from page 61 the last sentence of the City’s LCP definition for wetlands has that statement of the vernally wet exception. And, so I wonder, did that council follow their own LCP that was approved by the Coastal Commission?
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my first posting.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

OK, here is what I believe.  We are a nation that is governed by laws. No one can, or should, be allowed to cherry pick laws, you have to take the whole package, whether you are an individual, an NGO, or the Government in its many varied forms.

In the case of Beachwood, the definition of wetlands in the HMB LCP was cherry picked, most probably at the behest of the Coastal Commission, but with participation by prior City Councils.  See http://talkabout.hmbreview.com/topic.php?t=1784&c=5&d;= 

Now, with AB1991 this Council is trying to exclude the unique circumstances that created this crisis without setting a legal precedent, and I believe that to be feasible.
Why not support this one time solution to enable a compromise ?

I might add, why not also re-visit the interpretation of the term “wetlands” in the HMB LCP and bring it into conformity with some of the other 125 LCP in California as well as with definitions from other entities?
One last thing, please don’t forget the State and US Constitutions along the way.

HMB City Council votes to fight

Hi Barry,

I welcome your questions.  Communication, as you well know, is essential to resolving long standing problems that we continually face living on our coastside.  That desire to communicate and educate is probably part of why you started Coastsider.  Please note that CCF is a state recognized and chartered non-profit educational corporation, with a state approved mandate and mission to educate, and to serve our community.  I am not sure of the status or recognition of Coastsider.com with the state.  Barry, perhaps you could enlighten your audience on your mission and state charter and funding, even if it is only as an internet domain. 

However, that said, we both are here for the long haul, have demonstrated a concern and commitment for our precious coast.  I felt I had to acknowledge that I recognize your efforts to help the coast, and would hope that you do likewise.  Sort of like a stipulation in court—“both sides so stipulate.”

As you know Charlie Gardner is the President and spokesman for CCF, I am only a director of CCF.  Charlie is out of town, and my comments are intended to clarify the CCF position and respond to your questions.  I will report back to the CCF Board for guidance at our next meeting.  I think the action plan is fairly clear.

If the wetlands definition is interpreted and applied as it is written, almost all of Beachwood is developable. As the Coastal Commission and City previously found, the development should include Bayview, which would connect to Foothill, the traffic mitigation for Pacific Ridge that the Commission and City required before they entered into the settlement agreement. If you don’t like Bayview/Foothill, tell it to Coastal Commission staff. The bypass wasn’t CCF’s idea: the Commission and City
required it.

terry gossett

HMB City Council votes to fight

Gentlemen,

CCF is simply trying to offer options and present them to the community and leaders of the city for their consideration in dealing with this Beachwood crisis.

I was hoping for, and asking for, more ideas and options from this discussion group. 

Mr Lansing, I have not seen you at the recent city meetings, but I trust that you have read the judgment by Judge Walker.  The Judge heard considerable expert testimony on wetlands and compared existing definitions from the Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Commission, and the HMB LCP.  You are right that the LCP definition has not changed since 1985. What was striking was that the current interpretation by the city does not address their own sentence concerning what wetlands are not.  You are also right that a prior state appeals court upheld that definition, and the right of the city to interpret it that way. However, after reviewing all of that, Judge Walker accepted Dr Josselyn’s testimony for Keenan that wetlands were caused by TAAD construction and rejected Dr Huffmans testimony for the city that wetlands existed long before TAAD in 1984.

Mr Blick, in most cities there are bypasses or loops to help people avoid congestion.  Are you suggesting they are all wrong to do so?  I don’t know how to respond to your assertion that the “the Main street bypass” hurts traffic flow.  Regarding, can you sue, absolutely, this is America. If you have some ideas on what to do rather than what not to do, I am eager to hear them.  Please come to some meetings and we can talk.  Maybe the city will have a public workshop someday.

Mr Bogner, Judge Walker ruled on your first two points. Regarding Podesta the city is obliged to consider development proposals as you state.  I am suggesting that if in considering proposals the city had an overall master plan for the nexus of their city it might offer advantages over dealing with each parcel separately.  The city has every right to appeal, I repeat, CCF is merely trying to offer some options regarding the Beachwood crisis.  Do you have any?

terry gossett

HMB City Council votes to fight

Hey Barry,

Nor are you.  (Is that a word? capitulationist?, no time to look it up, time is ticking along rapidly)

Any way. I am involved with Coastside Community First as a director, and we placed an ad in the HMB Review this week, with some actions that we hope the HMB Council will consider.

I will paste those ideas in here.

  ALL ON THE SAME PAGE: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HMB ACTION PLAN

1. Interpret and Apply the City’s Wetlands Definition Exactly as it Reads.
If the City established a policy to follow its two-sentence wetlands definition to the letter, in particular the final clause (“Wetlands do not include…vernally wet areas where the soils are not hydric”), Beachwood would be developable and potential compensation for court-awarded damages. In 2000, the City chose to ignore the second sentence of its wetlands definition to deny the Beachwood CDP; in 2005, the state appellate court decided the City had “rationally interpreted” its language. The court never prohibited the City from interpreting its own wetlands definition literally, i.e., exactly as it reads.

2. Establish as Public Policy that the City Needs Foothill/Bayview to Bypass the 92/Main/1 Bottleneck.
For many years, the Coastal Commission and City have consistently made the finding that Foothill and/or Bayview are necessary to alleviate traffic congestion and improve coastal access. The City should renew its finding that there is an ongoing (and increasing) public need for Foothill/Bayview. If Pacific Ridge and Beachwood wetlands are redelineated according to the City’s exact definition, Foothill/Bayview appears to be routable to avoid all seasonal wetlands. If not, the City can make the finding that the need for the road outweighs the need for the seasonal wetlands, which if desired can be mitigated elsewhere on the properties.

3. Question the Tactic of Appealing the Beachwood Decision as a Negotiating Technique.
An appeal should be made for one fundamental reason: if and only if the City believes it has found a legal silver bullet that will overturn the lower court’s judgment. Appealing for purely tactical reasons may backfire, and is a bad-faith basis for settlement negotiations. Good-faith negotiations will begin for the City with an acceptance of the judgment – and an apology. For the developer it will begin with an understanding that the City will never be able to pay the awarded damages. As a carrot, the City can offer tasteful development of Beachwood and/or Podesta. As a stick, the City can raise the spectre of bankruptcy protection if the negotiations fail. Bankruptcy is a wild card for all concerned, and should be treated as a last-ditch scenario.

4. Retain New Legal Counsel.
No matter what course the City chooses, it needs a new legal team. On appeal, a very different legal approach would be needed. At negotiations, new personalities with fresh ideas would be a must.

5. Renegotiate the Pacific Ridge Settlement Agreement.
The City should make it clear that Terrace as sole access, with or without a stoplight, is unacceptable, and that no development will occur without Foothill. The cash payments for lot retirement and a Terrace stoplight can be forgiven as compensation for the costs of the roadway construction.

6. Forge a Unified Beachwood/Pacific Ridge/Podesta Development Project.
A comprehensive and interdependent – not piecemeal – planning approach that packages the future development of these neighboring properties, is not only the key to settling the Beachwood judgment against the City, it can provide the opportunity for cooperative community-building.

terry gossett

HMB City Council votes to fight

Darin Boville started a topic about the appeal on Talkabout see http://talkabout.hmbreview.com/topic.php?c=1&d;=&o;=&t=1073#comment_form 

I am very interested in getting the maximum input from coastsiders regarding the development of options for Half Moon Bay and its citizens.

Time is of the essence, and resources are being depleted as we chat.  If you have constructive ideas, it could help us all.

terry gossett
moss beach

Letter: The Time of the Ancient Larimer

Ken,

I agree “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”, my question had to do with——

“what is a “cigar” doing here, during elections”  when the ball game is not over ala boston celtics

“why a “cigar” in a no smoking zone?”

“what is relevance of “cigar” to Mr Larimer’s achievements or issues in his campaign”

“why is a candidate for mcc, and an elected official of gsd posting disparaging “cigars” about a candidate in another service district”

Leonard,

Hope your trip was eventful.

I saw your intro, but wondered as to the timing and content of your posting, especially since Mr Larimer was engaged in an election, as were you.

No problem, but I was curious as to your rationale.

Letter: The Time of the Ancient Larimer

Leonard,

and the relevance of this poem to…..?  is what?

If you wish to share archived information, but will only cite relevant information, I am at your disposal, so to speak.

Knowing you are with the GSD, I do not use the term disposal lightly.

terry gossett

Coastside PAC’s endorse candidates

Barry,

I am not a member of Put Community First (PCF), but I follow their efforts to help the community, and am familiar with their bylaws and mission.

This whole topic and comments on coastsider are a bit of a distortion—

Barry, can you show me where PCF states “Put Community First is a PAC representing development, property rights, and growth interests”  or did you just make that up?

If not, I would hope that you retract same.

terry gossett

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

Barry

I have been door to door in Montara today so missed a few posts, but when I read your comment…

“That’s one problem with anonymity.

You’ll never know who’s succumbed to the temptation to give themselves a pat on the back from anonymous admirer or two. “

I died laughing. 

Why?, Because no one has ever given me a pat on the back on Talkabout or on Coastsider to my knowledge. But I am accused of being Tawdry Glamour, and anonymous postings, and I never met her/him, and don’t think her/him ever gave me credit for much.

I take your analysis as a very obverse, like a coin, complement from you.  I know it is a stretch, but I will take this opportunity to thank you for a big laugh.

My guess is that for all coastsiders the one with the most, by far, anonymous admirers is MWSD Slater-Carter.  What does that suggest?  Go figure.

Again, I find myself laughing.  As I said, I just spent the afternoon walking door to door in Montara.  And talking to about 70 folk.

terry gossett

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

Barry,

You and I agree.  You don’t know how to help me.

terry

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

Ken

Have you already changed your clock?  Your post says 930pm.

My clock is 838pm on 3 Nov 07.  No wonder we have problems on communicating, we can’t even agree on the time of day.  It is dark and night out here, how about you?

Ok, enough attempts at levity.

Ken, if we just agree on a coupla things, we could communicate, like what dictionary to use, and how to enable weary and/or intimidated souls to participate in a sometimes caustic community, and how to be more civil.

Can you tell me when you think it is OK to use anonymity?  I am already on record as saying “I am for the right of the accused to be able face their accuser in whatever forum.”

Ken, just where do you stand on anonymity?

terry

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

Barry,

Thanks for providing an answer to my question. Answers are very hard to come by on our coast.

Point 1—Responsibility—What does “take responsibility for anonymously sourced material” mean?, If you take responsibility, does that mean you are liable in a court of law? Or like in this post,  “Let’s get one thing straight from the get-go. Scott Boyd and Kathryn Slater-Carter are friends of mine.” So, does that disclaimer then allow you to “rant”?  Commingling facts, biases, and proclamations?

Point 2—Accuracy—Your position is very similar to that by HMB Review and what David Smydra espoused for the paper version of HMB Review.  However, the Review web version of Talkabout is more like “Open Line”.  It allows people that might not have spoken for whatever reason (intimidation, timidity, fear of ridicule, poor grammar, etc) to participate in the community. Open Line is a monitored forum causing minimal damage to the poster or the postee.

Point 3 & 4—Security and Intent—The HMB Review also monitors and deletes anonymous postings on issues that touch on your points 3 & 4.  However, for you to say “Coastsiders have been physically intimidated by developers, contractors, and their stooges.” Is what my wife would say is half the truth.  To omit the other side, “That Coastsiders have also been intimidated by the Coastal Commission, by anonymous and false claims to Gov agencies, SMC Planning and Building, etc,  does not meet your own standards.

Point 5 –Identity, It is clear all anonymous sources on Coastsider must also subscribe to your own philosophies, ideas, and credos.  If, even one, anonymous source was permitted on Coastsider that was not congruent with your own views, I might not be responding here.  But that is not the case.

Compare Coastsider with HMB Review.  The Review took anonymous sources regarding taxes for Bulan and Slater-Carter, and published same, with a rationale for doing so.  What did Coastsider do?  Coastsider focused on half the story, or served as an apologist for your friends. 

Barry, be all that you can be.  Please cover both sides of the story,

PS—Barry, If an anonymous source made a statement about you or your family, would you want to know and face your accuser?

I would demand the right to face my accuser, most especially an anonymous accuser.  I am very confused with your position on this anonymity issue. 

I do not think a court, or a real newspaper, or a policeman, or a person on the street would be able to understand, a very arbitrary, wavy line on issues, sources, and development issues as you suggest for determining when anonymity is appropriate.

Your position on anonymity seems to depend on whether the anonymous source are friends of yours, or if the attacks support your beliefs (look no further than this topic), or if the “information is from “knowledgeable” people”, or for whatever reason you may propose.

terry gossett

Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD

Barry

You stated the following in your comment to your story “Coastsider endorses Boyd, Slater-Carter for MWSD”

“An old friend of ours has posted a response to this endorsement over at TalkAbout. I’d reply to him there, but I’ve seen what the anonymous trolls over at TalkAbout do to people who try to reason with them. “

What I do not understand is how you have such disdain for “anonymous trolls over at Talkabout” yet you embrace what I have referred to as “anonymous canaries” like those parties finding delinquent taxes by Bulan and by Slater-Carter and providing that info to HMB Review.

You have also supported anonymous photographers, like the party that took pictures for Coastsider of Big Wave being prepared for its field to be planted for this season. You and I both know who that anonymous photographer is, so it makes this column and your responses all the more relevant to me.  I believe all prior coastsider stories with pictures have had credits for the photographer.  Why not for the Big Wave photographer?

I am for the right of the accused to be able face their accuser in whatever forum.  You, Barry, have taken a different tack.  Please explain how some forms of anonymity are OK, even very strongly supported, and other forms are to be condemned.

Anonymity, to me, is the scourge and the bane of the coast.  It affects us all, mostly negatively. To have selective domains of anonymity is a double bane.  To have you, Barry, as the self-designated judge and jury to determine what domains should and should not be anonymous for the rest of the coast is a triple bane.

I admire David Smydra, HMB Review, for his courage in describing how he negotiates through the process of putting together a report, when given facts, and anonymous input.  Barry, if you seek to be the equal of the HMB Review, I would request you do the same.

My wife had a saying that she used thousands of times when we raised our kids.  She said “If you know all the truth, and tell me half the truth, that is a lie”.  I believe that to be true.

terry gossett

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >