Letter:  Wither the LCP?

Comment 1 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 21  at  10:24pm  •  All my comments • 

I'll let LCP answer for themselves, but this is awfully light on substance, and awfully confused. I'm not even sure how they'd go about refuting it because I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You quote from the LCP's self-description; “We defend the coast by supporting those who uphold the spirit and substance of the California Coastal Act.” Then you complain, "Seems that the Coastal Act is used simply as a tool to try to control City affairs from an “environmental” perspective."

And then you try to say they're not environmentalists.

You can't seen to decide whether they uphold the Coastal Act or don't, whether they're environmentalists or not.

But, you're right about one thing: their website is out of date.

Aside from Brian Ginna's surly tone, I'd not dispute a lot of his points because we at LCP asked ourselves similar questions recently. Which is to say that changes are coming because we see the need to improve.

By losing the election we necessarily reverted to defense and having to respond to opposition moves. Ginna's point about voters' perceptions of environmentalism when voting has some merit: McClung ran as a stated environmentalist (a guffaw here), and most people had no idea about Patridge's politics.

Voter analysis is tricky, but since the environmental credentials of Ferreira, Grady and Skinner were featured as prime assets, one can be fairly certain that voters who voted for them knew what they were getting, which wasn't true for the aforementioned ladies.

So unlike Barry, I don't wonder at Ginna's point at all because his negative tone IS the point. The rest could be construed as construtive feedback, but because of his tone we will forego the thank yous.

One quick comment.. There are too many LCPs. There is the Local Coastal Program (or is it Plan?), the League for Coastal Protection and the League for Coastside Protection. It is a bit confusing.

Does the League for Coastside Protection drive what is contained in the Local Coastal Program? Ray

Very weird, these local development discussions. They often seem to be conducted by people who got here yesterday, have read no background material on their areas of concern, have no idea how the overdeveloped coastside got to be how it is, are unaware of faulty planning decisions that were made repeatedly over the years by county and HMB governments, do not know the actual authority of various government sectors and bureaucracies in play and how citizens interact with those offices (some truly ignorant statements about the Coastal Act, Coastal Commission, and LCP's--what they do and do not address). How can so many concerned with fostering further overdevelopment (in the face of already depleted resources and overbuilt infrastructure) lack the ability to look outside their windows and count and measure things essential to living here? (Elected politicians get a free ride from me on such matters because they never address what exists in favor of machinations that serve whatever elites put them in place.)

Superficial "solutions" are repeatedly suggested that have already been tried in multiple versions and failed multiple times (the hackneyed "expand infrastructure" angle, for example). Empirical data and recorded recent history is dismissed as "opinion" in favor of myths with no real-world support and proposals with established records of failure.

So now a PAC concerned with coastal matters that picks up the acronym LCP is subject to mischaracterization as to what it represents, a charge that bursts off in all directions into a fractured rant on alleged motives and non-activities of "environmentalists." Huh? Since when is a PAC supposed to be a shadow government? A lot may be said about all the kinds of so-called "environmentalism" that are hypocritical and actually advocate damage to the natural environment, so it amazes that all such examples are missed entirely by vocal local pro-urbanization, pro-congestion, pro-degradation, pro-spending wags. And why are the pro-overdevelopment PACs not subjected to equal and objective scrutiny--when did they ever support anything that actually benefitted the citizens of the coastside over the past 20 years?

Carl May

A Freudian slip? Mr. Ginna's title for this thread is "Wither the LCP?" Perhaps that's what he really meant, but "Whither the LCP?" fits his discussion. [Sorry, a born editor here!]

I will forgive Ken for finding someone's tone "negative." That is truly funny. I think surly does sound more appealing, though. Is Ken the PR person for LCP or just a "supporter?"

I also think "confused" is actually an apt description. I did put forth a number of questions that remain unanswered and I am not quite sure what to make of "need to improve." Are you going to drop the blue, white and red theme from the billboards? I did not call them "environmentalists." Barry, you first "coined" the term in the Measure S analysis. At the time, I thought that was a clever little bit of positioning. I believe no group on the Coastside should appropriate the "environmentalist" label for itself.

I honestly think Carl hits the nail on the head and I am honored he came down off the mountain to grace with me his feedback, most of which is assertations about stuff he BELIEVES I wrote or know/do not know or represent, but not what I wrote (if my letter is a rant, what are Carl's missives?)

"Since when is a PAC supposed to be a shadow government?"

They are not supposed to be, but I shudder to think what might have been.

Campaign finance violations are a pretty serious charge. Can LCP Treasurer John Lynch provide some insights into the Fair Political Practices Commission's investigation? A lot of unanswered questions from that original post, probably intentional.

I'd guess Brian Ginna chose to leave off that "h" in wither, also probably intentional.

One more correction for the person stating McClung ran as an environmentalist. From what I can see, one of her stated priorities was: "Balancing the needs of the individual, the community and the natural environment." http://smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/sm/race/46/ Why do some people find that a radical position? -Joel Farbstein

Just back from camping near Shasta where I had to get used to the flies and gnats in order to enjoy the scene, not unlike being here as it turns out. Mr. Farbstein is like one of those pesky gnats, irritating, but not too troublesome.

Why irritating? Because he likes to shoot from the hip. Why not troublesome? Because he gets things wrong. This time he at least shows how he arrived at his conclusion that he says "corrects" me about McClung running as an environmentalist. He went to her website.(He apparently didn't view her printed literature.)

It was convenient to change the subject while begging the question about McClung's environmentalist claim by asking, what's wrong with her stated position?, which is not that of an environmentalist. No it isn't, but elsewhere she claimed to be one.

Not living in dear old HMB, I suppose he didn't receive McClung's mailed, fancy-schmancy, 4-color campaign brochure that bulleted two main qualifications for office on its front, one being "Environmentalist," with supporting text.

Fueled by motivations one can only speculate about, Farbstein's next foray into the picayune will prove more enlightening, I'm sure.

I'm not sure if that was such an appropriate comment Ken. If a comment is irritating and pesky to you, you can simply ignore it. Some might say your recent post has been irritating. Ray

That statement was from the non-political "Smart Voter" website.

Btw, here's another of McClung's priorities: "Establishing open/transparent government practices and ending the polarization present in our politics today.”

No wonder LCP posters really dislike McClung. First, she makes it her priority to establish open government and end polarization, and then she beats their candidate and starts delivering on her promises!

Buzz buzz -- two Farbstein posts and two red herrings. This is like following Alice through Wonderland.

"End polarization"? What about the tradition of approving a councilmember's nominee to the Planning Commission, which was violated by McClung not voting for Jim Grady's nominee? That "no" vote was more polarizing than anything else I can recall seeing the HMB City Council do in the 12 years that I've been here.

Just out of curiousity, could someone (Joel?) list the changes that have been made in the name of "open/transparent government practices"?

Thanks for teeing that one up (no pun intended here as I will refrain from the obvious wardrobe selection references that I could make here).

Actually nominating Mr. Ferreira (why do you not use him name? Is the LCP that split?) for that commission post was FAR more polarizing than the NO votes. Does Grady still think it was a good idea? A smart one?

Not surprisingly, you have entirely missed my point. The reason that I didn't name Mike is that the particular nominee was irrelevant at the time and is irrelevant to my point now. The tradition is (was!) that councilmembers rubber-stamp each other's nominations. Violation of that tradition is what was polarizing. You should review the video of that and watch Grady's surprise at having his nominee rejected. As to whether Grady thinks it was a good idea, you'll have to ask him.

Also, what happened to the other negotiated agreement that the majority would get one of the at-large seats and the minority would get the other? I guess a guaranteed 4:3 majority on the Commission just wasn't good enough.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget to provide the list of changes that have been made in the name of “open/transparent government practices”.

My, the LCP does like teeing them up, don�t they?

Leonard, did you point out that �precedent� to Deborah Ruddock 10 years ago? That�s when Ruddock got credit for turning nominations into a �political football� (according to the HMB Review) when she violated "The established policy of many years standing...." by throwing out �councilmember preference seats.�

In case you don�t read the HMB Review, McClung got great press for being a conciliator in the new kinder, gentler City Council. She reached out to Ferreira back in February (check the articles), moved toward the middle over the Planning Commission having 5 or 7 members, and more.

In my opinion, it�s not in your best interest to continue to belabor the point on who�s more centrist, or attack McClung nor her goal of �developing long range planning.� (Again, I ask, what�s wrong with that?) But I can see why you don�t want to answer the questions about campaign financing irregularities or what the LCP is doing for voter education these days. (Please don�t insult us by claiming �Voice of the Coast� is voter education.) Any examples would be appreciated (seriously).