Pants on fire

There was only one City Council motion voted on for the Settlement. It was not unanimous. It was a 4 to 1 vote. For clarity's sake, we should state City Council Majority, not City Council, when we talk about who is supporting this sleaze.

Lanny Davis' is linked closely to the Clintons who are known for having major problems telling the truth:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/bill-and-hillary-clintons-top-5-lies-to-voters-on-the-campaign-trail/

Who better than Lanny Davis to head up the City's "Truth Squad." What an embarassment. The City Council is paying this guy thousands of dollars a day (of our money) to put out this garbage. This is a scandal in itself.

AB 1991 is a corruption of the system of environmental laws that have been put in place for the benefit of all Californians. Politicians who support a corruption of the system are themselves corrupt. (Got that Gene Mullin?)

Now is the time to contact our state Senator Leland Yee and let him know that you oppose this destructive bill.

Senator Yee's Homepage: http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/

This is better than fiction. It was actually a stroke of genius to get Lanny Davis. He's obviously proven his worth so far to the residents of HMB by putting together a winning coalition.

Maybe Bill will be walking the halls of Sacramento. I can't wait to see next week's episode!

Who was on the City Council in 1991 - Didn't they get HMB into this mess anyways?!?

Steven Hyman,

You seem to have forgotten to answer ALL the questions to you. You seem to have a short attention span problem - I'll remind you.

Jonathan Lundell wrote: "Come on, Steve, show a little personal initiative and name one specific “lie”."

Ken Johnson

Look at what our Mayor and our high priced lawyers said. If you can't read or understand that, maybe I should help contribute to a Sylvan reading course for you.

Of course its hard seeing the truth when you only look at life through weed colored glasses.

Comment 7 by Kevin Barron  on  Jun 13  at  6:55pm  •  All my comments • 

"Lanny Davis is not a stupid man, but he plays one on TV. Convincingly."

So much for responsible factual journalism.

Steven Hyman,

YOU are not getting out of this one! This is about YOU! This will continue to be about what YOU wrote! YOU need to validate!

Jonathan Lundell wrote: "Come on, Steve, show a little personal initiative and name one specific “lie”."

Ken Johnson

Kevin Barron--Did you miss where it says "Editorial" in the little green box?

It's an understandable mistake, especially for those who read the Review where opinions do routinely masquerade as news articles (without being clearly labeled as such).

Jackson Robertson,

Great question!

Let’s play: "the History of Beachwood Game".

Who was on the City Council and voted for, in 1990, the City approved vesting tentative maps for 85 lots on the Beachwood property (25 acres) and 47 lots on the Glencree property (12 acres) AND she also voted not to proceed with an appeal of the Beachwood case this year?

Ken Johnson

Ah, yes, the History of Beachwood Game...

Give me a clue: Didn't she also vote, in 2000, AGAINST Beachwood?

Comment 12 by Jonathan Lundell  on  Jun 14  at  1:07am  •  All my comments • 

"Didn’t she also vote, in 2000, AGAINST Beachwood?"

I think she had her fingers crossed. Or at the very least mis-voted, in a not-forthright manner.

When she voted for denial in 2000 she clarified that she did so "only because of the wetlands".

It appears the Senate analysts office agrees with this editorial premise:

While the bill's sponsors argue that a unique local situation
requires a unique legislative solution, AB 1991 becomes a
political precedent for Sacramento's direct intervention on
behalf of specific subdivisions. The bill's declaration
that it shouldn't be considered a precedent for future
exceptions from state environmental regulations doesn't
bind future Legislatures from using AB 1991 as an excuse to
help other property owners who come up against tough local
conditions.

      [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_1991_cfa_20080612_140054_sen_comm.html]

It also states that the this bill is asking the State Legislature to act as a 'super planning commission"! It offers 2 suggestions: allow some development on these 2 parcels; finance the agreement with Keenan for HMB.

Kathryn

Kathryn Slater-Carter,

With the double-referral of AB 1991, I hope the Senate Rules Committee will then send it on to the Senate Committee On Natural Resources And Water where it should have gone in the Assembly.

Ken Johnson

The History of Beachwood Game… this does seem like a fun

She spent 16 years on the City Council between 1985 to 2001 AND

[I can't forget the headline "Beachwood loses its development case in appelate court" in August 2005! The City was aided by the California Coastal Commission ]

She rejoined the City Council in November 2005 to form a new voting majority that promptly quadrupled legal expenses with coincidentally no success in court.

Sounds like the description to Jackson Robertson's question of "Who was on the City Council in 1991 - Didn’t they get HMB into this mess anyways?!?"

Ken Johnson

Barry,

A bit of 'nit-picking', I didn't find, when I first read at the time of the release or when I re-read the City diatribe, the word "lying" or any derivative of that word. There are far better attorneys in the background to permit the use of any key words against a targeted individual - Sarah Christie - who is professional staff and not a public figure.

Steven Hyman is the only one I have read who has used the word "lying", "liars" or any derivative of that word.

Ken Johnson

Comment 18 by Barry Parr  on  Jun 14  at  12:55pm  •  All my comments • 

To be a lie, a statement must be deliberately false. Both Bonnie McClung and Lanny Davis have said that the Coastal Commission is making deliberately false statements. From the city's press release on May 28:

"The Commission staff has every right to oppose this legislation based on the facts, but the City cannot allow these false statements to go unchallenged," Mayor McClung said. "Once it became clear that the staff was misrepresenting its own history with the Beachwood property in an attempt to stop legislation that is vital to our City's future, I knew we had to set the record straight." ... "Because the Commission staff continues to consistently and repeatedly make misleading statements, despite multiple corrections by the City, I can only conclude the staff is intentionally misleading and spreading knowingly false statements to members of the Legislature," said Lanny Davis, an attorney for Half Moon Bay and partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. "When the legislators discover the truth, they will resent being misled by the Coastal Commission, a public commission that has already lost credibility on this issue."

Ken, we need to get you to the Sylvan Learning Center pronto. Its actually embarrassing to think there are public officials here who have a hard time reading English.

I'll put this in caps so it will be easier for you to read. The Mayor said about the CCC "INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING AND SPREADING FALSE STATEMENTS TO MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE."

Maybe the Bill Clinton dictionary has a different meaning for FALSE STATEMENT.

I realize complex or compound sentences are difficult for you to grasp. You really only know one word and that's NO. Like can I have a permit for my home or traffic light or Boys & Girls Club. You say NO so often that most of us think that's the only word that comes out of your mouth.

These must be trying times for you because most of us are tuning you out. We are tired of the Chicken Little whining. The sky won't fall when they bulldoze Beachwood.

You had your day in the sun and now you're being relegated to the scrapheap of irrelevancy. Get used to it.

Comment 20 by Barry Parr  on  Jun 14  at  1:27pm  •  All my comments • 

Steve, I've gone back and read the city's claims about the Coastal Commission's supposed lies, and what I find is typical Lanny Davis quibbling about the interpretation of subtle nuances. It's hard to read without getting a headache.

If the city had actually caught the Coastal Commission in a lie, you'd think they'd put out a press release about that, rather than a press release about a website that contains a document with a dozen pages of nit-pickery. They weren't announcing any lies they discovered. They were announcing the initiation of a propaganda campaign.

So, I think Jonathan's question is a good one. Please name one lie you think the Coastal Commission told the Assembly. Feel free to pick one from the city's press release that you're willing to defend. If you can stay awake reading it.

SIDEBAR: I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the answer is "no" for a traffic light or a Boys and Girls Club. When did that happen?

Barry,

Let me try and say this as simply and clearly as I can. When I made the remark about the CCC, I was referring to the quote made by the Mayor about false and misleading statements. PERIOD.

If that isn't clear enough, I think we should get the group rate at Sylvan cause obviously there are several posters who had a difficult time reading.

I'll contribute $100 for Ken

Comment 22 by Jonathan Lundell  on  Jun 14  at  2:22pm  •  All my comments • 

Steve Hyman wrote, "Its getting so hard knowing who to believe these days. There’s the Truth Squad, liars of the Coastal Commission and our own home grown Chicken Little crowd."

I don't have a difficult time reading that at all.

Barry,

Thanks, that meets the "bright-line test"!

Ken

Poor Steven Hyman,

Have the 'meds' kicked in yet? Let them kick in. Now, seems there were 5 different people in a row who all questioned you on the same thing on the thread you would like to ignore.

YOU wrote:

"Its getting so hard knowing who to believe these days. There’s the Truth Squad, liars of the Coastal Commission and our own home grown Chicken Little crowd."

Seems to be a clear statement of YOUR opinion!

Jonathan Lundell wrote: "Come on, Steve, show a little personal initiative and name one specific “lie”."

I, Barry, Jonathan, Scott Boyd, Francis Drouillard, and Jimmy Benjamin have all been waiting on YOU!

Ken Johnson

Ken,

I'm really getting worried about you. Either you are suffering from an acute case of LLD (liberal learning disability) or your prescription is off on your weed colored glasses. In either case, it seems to interfere with your processing of simple statements from people who disagree with you.

Let me call Sylvan for you on Monday. We'll get you signed up for summer school. Then we can play.

Comment 26 by Jonathan Lundell  on  Jun 14  at  8:13pm  •  All my comments • 

Sylvan? Why all this promotion of a franchise tutoring outfit? Are you getting your 3%, or getting paid by the plug?

Thanks for the idea. But what's wrong with 6%? I don't work cheap.

"With the double-referral of AB 1991, I hope the Senate Rules Committee will then send it on to the Senate Committee On Natural Resources And Water where it should have gone in the Assembly."

Given the laws involved in the sweeping exemptions, the bill should be redirected to both the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. If both of these committees do not see the bill, important areas of AB 1991 will not be considered appropriately.

Let Perata and the rest of the Rules Committee know this.

Steven Hyman, what's the benefit of picking fights here? Disparaging people, name calling and so on.

What value does that bring to you?

Mike Gleeson

Its always fun dealing with people who disagree with you. And I realize my views are in a definite minority here but I do like the fact that I know whom I'm speaking to.

Most of the time things are civil. There are a few who like to make disparaging comments and therefore the appropriate response.

Beachwood and 1991 are things we will never agree on. So my guess is that we'll be having these colorful conversations for years to come as this outrageously expensive comic opera or greek tragedy plays itself out.

Steve,

How much money has this entire pr campaign cost HMB? Other, unaccounted costs will be the ability of the City to work with the Coastal Commission and other regulatory agencies. for instance, even if AB 1991 passes there are still the Federal agencies. Any estimates on how much that will cost? Or if the pr campaign can be reimbursed by an insurance policy?

Who are the liars on the Coastal Commission and what lies did they tell?

Kathryn

Don't know how much the City is spending on its lobbying efforts but if it is successful, its well worth the investment. And its much cheaper than writing an $18 million check too.

Time has a way of healing most wounds so hopefully our state agencies are staffed with mature adults and realize that this is business.

But I don't hear any concern from you for our residents who are staring at this staggering debt. Should this bill fail, we will be the ones holding the bag for the failures of our government.

Money versus hurt feelings, that's an easy question to answer.

Steve,

You seem to think passage of AB 1991 in its original form is a 'done deal'. Why do you think so? It appears from the Senate analysts report that there are other options being considered in the legislature.

The $18,000,000 was agreed to by a majority of the city council. I am sure in its wisdom it looked at what would happen if AB 1991 or the subsequent federal permits did not conform to the very specific terms of the agreement. I am sure it carefully considered this option before it gave up its right to appeal; to do otherwise would have been very risky - particularly as the agreement has some very specific time deadlines. Is the Council in negotiations to amend the contract if AB 1991 fails or is significantly changed?

I asked about the pr costs because I am curious about the total costs of this fiasco. HMB did just receive an insurance settlement of $5,000,000. I am curious how much of that will go to the pr campaign - perhaps it should be spent on a bond that could be paid with the new tax passed in the last election.

I initially thought this bill was going to be easily defeated by the onslaught from all the environmental groups because they have historically been so creative/aggressive in pushing their agenda.

But it was really a stroke of genius by the City to take the tact they did with HIGH priced lobbyists. Not only did they create a winning coalition but made sure everybody had to lay out their positions early so they couldn't flip-flop later.

This may set a new standard in how to do things here by aggressively throwing a lot of money and influence peddling at a problem. This is a time tested method that works in Washington and it seems to be working in Sacramento too.

I do think that it will make it through the Senate but I its a long way off till the bulldozers start. The lawyers will be happily busy and billing the City for a long time. Lucky them to have latched on to the Beachwood gravy train.

To think that both sides have spent now in excess of $10 million on just lawyers. What a staggering waste of money. And if you throw in the money we blew on lawyers on Pacific Ridge and N Wavecrest, there's probably another $5-$10 million. Add to that City reports, time, G&A;and there's $5 million more.

So if you want to know why people are getting fed-up, its because of this outrageous wasteful unproductive spending of our money with nothing to show except for the lawyers getting rich.

As to your other question about AB1991 Lite, it will be up to Keenan if he likes it. Otherwise, he'll take his $18 million plus interest and say a tearful goodbye to HMB.

Then we will have had the privilege of paying $25-$30 million for some worthless field of weeds that probably isn't worth $3-5 million (depending on number of water connections).

Eventually someone will pick this up for cheap and bury HMB with more crushing legal fees and prevail. Just like the Oceano Hotel, it took 25-30 years but it got done.

Steven,

I didn't think I was asking for much when I asked for a representative misrepresentation by CCC staff. You had made the assertion that they weren't speaking truthfully, and I figured you'd have several that would spring to mind. Your point seemed relatively easy to make, and I was hoping that you would do so. After countless unresponsive responses on your part, we wind up not knowing whether there's a real basis for your assertion other than relying on Lanny Davis-written spin.

I also don't understand your antipathy towards the outcome on Wavecrest. You've made yourself eminently clear about your hostile feelings towards endangered species. Are you also unaware of or simply don't care about the many residents/property owners in town who are thrilled to have that open space preserved by POST (at no cost to you)?

Scott

Just imagine how the North Wavecrest situation would have been different if a scum-bag legislator could have been found who would carry a total-exemption bill (from state laws and from the coastal zone).

Mr. Hyman has already said, in response to his inability to meet any challenges to come up with solid information to back up the assertions he slings around, that he really doesn't care what the specifics are or what effect HMB's AB 1991 has on others as long as it works out for his parochial interests. Why bother trying to discuss anything with him when he repeatedly comes up empty?

Is this just a matter of giving him enough rope?

Scott,

I was referring to the Mayor's 5/6 letter to the CCC. What I found most disingenious was the back-peddling that first the CCC would approve 19 homes and once AB1991 was submitted, they softened their position to maybe allow 30 homes.

I'm sure they view this bill as a wittling away of the grip they have on us. All I can say is too little too late.

Let me first start out by saying that I think POST purchasing N Wavecrest was a good idea. The City spent a lot of money on lawyers, reports, staff time over 10-15 years. The endless foot dragging of this project softened up the buyer to where the offer from POST was better than more years of fighting.

What I was trying to say was what did the City get out of this multi-million expenditure on NW? No revenue, parks, Boys & Girls Club. If I'm missing something, I would sincerely appreciate your comments.

To me this is a continuation of out of control spending on lawyers that is disproportionate to our income. It is irresponsible, unacceptable and luckily, only because we are tapped out now, will stop. Its too bad for us citizens that it comes million of dollars too late.