Patridge, Grady, and Ferreira elected to HMB City Council

Well let me start by saying an interesting but not unexpected result. Probably a little closer for Mr Ferreira than he would have liked. And certainly not an overwhelming mandate for either side.

I guess the most striking thing for me is that there clearly are still two distinct sides. The best indicator of that is the votes for Skinner and Muteff, who being newcomers and relative unknowns would garner votes based on their messages or alignment rather than popularity.

But for all the talk about moderates, bridging the gap, etc, it sure looks like that hasn’t happened and the City is split down the middle. Although I don’t believe the ideologies of the voters are “no growth” vs “rampant development”, I think that’s just rhetoric that is being used polarize the community. I hope the City someday finds a way out of this predicament.

Final thought for now (sorry to disappoint you Mr Leads): With a Council made up of 3 from the LCP camp and 2 from the other camp, it will become more clear what the agendas are. With Naomi’s experience, she doesn’t need a learning curve, and Marina has had two years of experience at this point so I expect there will be more pointed discussions than there have been the last 4 years.

Sorry to disagree with you, Ranger, but many people had written Mike Ferreira off, so his win was a surprise, maybe even a wake up call to some folks. He’s there and they are going to have to work with the majority if they want solve their problems.

Muteff was not a newcomer, having run for council before in the 90s (I believe), so his total most likely shows his relative base. Skinner’s vote total doesn’t indicate anything other than it helps to be known.

It’s not clear the polarization is around growth, despite the just-finished campaigns. It used to be, but things are constrained by Measure D limits, the relative scarcity of developable lots, and the cost of permits and infrastructure improvements. Large scale PUDs are unrealistic here because of those things.

The polarization is around what our community goals should be and who gets to identify them. Property rights-oriented folks are against spending public money on parks and infrastructure improvements, only favoring those things if developers can be made to bear the expense. The LCP and allies believe that public investment is worthwhile and actually enriches us all. Parks not only positively affect our kids’ lives, but add financial value to our homes. We also know that public funding through many sources is available to help mitigate costs, so things aren’t ever as expensive as opponents allege.

The council discussions should be animated and intelligent. We all expect this from our public officials. There are many local problems needing redress. It won’t be difficult to discern whether all of the councilmembers and the city staff are tackling them in good faith or not. In the mean time, now that the election is over, we need to see some civility by the public (Muteff) that has been sorely lacking over the last year.

I don’t think it was a surprise at all that Mike was reelected. There are a certain number of people who actually believe the scare tactics of the LCP, there are some who are just apathetic and therefore don’t vote, and there are some who just haven’t been paying attention.

If people voted for Mike because they thought his style of leadership is actually good for the community, then they’ve gotten what they deserve. I only regret that Naomi will have to work in the contentious environment that he seems to thrive on. The one true hope for HMB is that Jim and Dave can find it in themselves to become leaders, to work with Naomi and Marina to foster a new attitude of inclusiveness, to value the opinions of all of our citizens, and to treat everyone with respect.

How long will we have to wait to see what Mike and Jim promised Ocean Colony Partners to gain their endorsement? Not long, I figure.

Scare tactics? I am not scared by the LCP. I am scared by property rights fundamentalists and those who think that the highest needs of a complex society can be fulfilled by using one of the seven deadly sins: greed.

The ends are never achieved by using tainted means, unless the ends are to be tainted themselves.

HMB Ranger and now davy crockett? George Muteff or Clay Lambert? Why hide behind pseudonyms, as if your opinions won’t carry water if you used your given surname?

I’ve attended council meetings faithfully for a year and a half and will tell you that Mike mainly gives back what he gets. Jim Grady may achieve sainthood, but only with an ulcerous gut.

Regarding Wavecrest, there is a signed deal that was about to be executed when a frog was discovered. They will break ground there one of these days. The Cunha decision by CUSD last night hastens the day, no doubt. The City doesn’t have much say left about the remaining project specified in the last agreement and reported in the Review last year.

Comment 6 by Barry Parr  on  Nov 10  at  1:52pm  •  All my comments • 

It’s as dishonest to suggest that Mike and Jim won based on fear, ignorance and apathy as it would be to suggest that Naomi won based on anger and greed.

Muteff’s defeat demonstrates that fear, ignorance, apathy, anger and greed are not enough.

Each side has their constituencies. There is clearly some overlap in their goals and I would like to see the city council work together to accomplish great things for the community, particularly in the downtown area (92, main street, park, library, Cunha, and police station). I would also like to see the city address legitimate concerns that individual homeowners have with the planning process, while not lowering its standards.

Both sides received support of OCP. My sense today is that OCP’s looking to complete the Wavecrest project by following the law and working with the community. I think Mike Ferriera and Bruce Russell both deserve a great deal of credit for this change.

I just hope the day comes soon when we see the windfall TOT taxes spent for infrastructure, parks and recreation, social services and a host of other needs, rather than to defend needless lawsuits from within our own community. Let’s talk to each other, let’s not make secret deals and then spring them on the community. The Council just might make better decisions in the light of day, with input from concerned citizens. After all, you don’t always know what’s best for us, now do you?

Comment 8 by Barry Parr  on  Nov 10  at  3:00pm  •  All my comments • 

The number of lawsuits is a disingenuous argument because it ignores the fact that each suit has its own issues and that not all are equally valid. Let’s also not forget that George “No more lawsuits” Muteff’s biggest financial backer has lost one lawsuit, which they’re appealing, and is threatening to sue the city for $30 million. The voters saw through this line of reasoning.

I hope to see an end to the lawsuits, too. Once it becomes clear that the city’s not going to roll over, we’ll see the number of lawsuits go down.

No one knows what’s best. That’s why we have elections, public meetings, and process. The city’s processes have been very open. I’d take the current Half Moon Bay city council over most city governments (or the county) any day of the week.

Mr King: instead of jumping to conclusions can you please address issues and questions on their own merit? As for me, I am neither George Muteff, Clay Lambert, davy crockett or anyone else that you would recognize, but I have a reason to remain anonymous. It’s not like I’ve been posting here to swing the election or effect any kind of change in the community. Anyone who posts on the internet to make a significant impact on the world should be locked in a padded room. But it is a good place to exchange ideas and to learn, which is my goal.

To Barry: very VERY well said. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness and balanced perspective. Why don’t YOU run for Council?

It is my understanding the biggest part of the city budget is related to wages and benefits for employees. As I recall some pretty hefty raises were negotiated about 5 years ago in anticipation of the Ritz TOT’s.

Just a note. I did not even imply that Naomi won based on anger or greed. I am talking about those who support the neoconservative agenda, who did not win. Those who think profits are more important than people. Those people aren’t “balanced” at all.

Comment 12 by Barry Parr  on  Nov 10  at  5:09pm  •  All my comments • 

I think Ranger already knows why I have no plans to run for HMB City Council. I live in Montara. And for all the blessings that confers upon me daily, I have zero input into my local government, which is elected at large by the residents of San Mateo County.

I envy HMB their city council, which is made up of good people with the best interests of their community at heart and whom we see every day on the streets of town. They really care about doing the right thing and are working hard to make HMB a better place to live.

Ever notice how little fun they seem to be having on Channel 6?

Speaking of voting - I would definitely vote for Barry’s posts over mine and most others in terms of relevance and eloquence. That said, I think debocracy ends up dead last.

Deb - what planet are you on? Neoconservatives? If you are referring to Muteff, sure, he is definitely of the conservative bent. But…”profits are more important than people.”?

On the other hand, if you are referring to Oscar Braun…

I always find that those without fact-based logical arguments resort to ad hominems. A lack of knowledge and understanding of the current political climate in the USA is no excuse for a personal attack.

so your personal attacks are better than others? Facts? Did you want to name names or keep pussy-footing around some sort of evil “force” lurking on the coast like them surfboard-eating sharks.

I didn’t know this was a Bush-haters forum. Go to Yahoo, you’ll find plenty there. Perhaps you’ll also find a sense of humor (oh, buy people are dying in Iraq, we can’t dare laugh…)

…and don’t bother trying to attack me for making light of the situation in Iraq. I wasn’t.

I see that its time to disengage from this discussion.

Barry - it sounds like you think I was being sarcastic - FWIW I wasn’t. Even though I know you and I have differences I can see you’re a able to look at things in many different lights. And I didn’t know where you live.

As far as what happens to the Council on Ch 6, sometimes you reap what you sow. Everything that happens in this City does not happen in front of the camera. Someday I’ll be happy to explain that to you in excruciating detail, if you’re interested.

Comment 19 by Barry Parr  on  Nov 10  at  11:15pm  •  All my comments • 

Nah, I took you at your word, but I figured you knew I lived in Montara. Feel free to tell me whatever you like.

A very interesting question is “why” voters chose Naomi. Did they choose her because of her previous record which included Vested Tentative Maps for Glencree, Beechwood, Pacific Ridge, Wavecrest et. al. which included access along Terrace Ave and grading plans that would have flattened the mesa you see from HWY 1 (this when the certified Local Coastal Program clearly states that is not to happen at this site)? Did they know that she attended the hearing for Pacific Ridge in Morro Bay to support the developer and the project as requested. She attended every Coastal Commission hearing to support Wavecrest and voted no on appealing the Beechwood CDP approval to a higher court.(The City won this decision within the last year). Is being a “popular figure” enough? lani ream

Unfortunately, being a “popular figure” is enough. Voters chose Naomi in part because they don’t know or care what a Vested Tentative Map is. Witness the national elections: they want a simple person, or at least a simple message. In Naomi’s case, they want this nice coach-lady who wants playing fields For The Kids.

How the woman got away with coming out against a wonderful new park as opposed to hitching HMB’s future to Wavecrest/Smith Field’s star is something I will never understand. But the role of the Old Guard in this is something I do understand. I also understand how all the new, frustrated, wish-I-lived-somewhere-fancier commuters could go for the Old Guard’s old, tired message. What a shame the local newspaper continues to be overseen by an old, tired…

Well, whatever…

jz - can you elaborate on why voters should know a specific definition from planning code? If growth limits are basically in place and the city council clearly has a “limited-growth” majority in place, what are you so fearful of? and why are you so bitter?

take a shot at Naomi for her past deeds - fine. Why take a shot at families (many of whom commute but would not want to live anywhere else) who want parks that exist or will actually be built? seems like you are the frustrated one. Do you hate kids or parents?

The 92/Nurseryman’s park is going to be a colassal waste of time and money. It may never get built due to traffic/noise concerns - I have a feeling that many people are banking on it just sitting empty for a long time.

bginna — I didn’t suggest voters should or should not know the definition of a Vested Tentative Map. I was replying to Lani’s message. She wondered why voters had elected Naomi after Naomi helped issue Vested Tentative Maps for a number of questionable projects. My reply was intended to suggest that most voters don’t follow the ins and outs of politics so closely, that many don’t know or care about arcane matters like Vested Tentative Maps. They vote for the person (the nice coach-lady), not the bad decisions she made on land use.

I hope you’re also wrong about the new park. It, a new library and the new middle school, as well as a creekside trail, can make a huge, positive difference to downtown HMB and to the community.

The Vested Tentative Maps had no “limited growth” constraints that I’m aware of. There are many homeowners on Terrace Ave who are going to be impacted by real traffic constraints and noise when Pacific Ridge begins and endures, even in it’s much reduced buildout. I’m mystified by anyone who complains about traffic/noise concerns over a City Park. Over half of Half Moon Bay homeowners share the beaches with the world and bginna says there are homeowners who don’t want to share an open area with their fellow neighbors? That read a little bitter to me and I’m really not sure why. Also, who is bginna? lani ream

I said that there are homeowners who don’t want to share an open area? Gee…ever read about Cypress Cove? Either you haven’t or you did not read very closely.

why do you care who I am? I am not George Muteff or Clay Lambert, so don’t worry.

“The 92/Nurseryman’s park is going to be a colassal waste of time and money. It may never get built due to traffic/noise concerns - I have a feeling that many people are banking on it just sitting empty for a long time.” Did you post this? Is this your opinion? Yes I have heard of Cypress Cove. Yes, I understand that there are people who don’t want a City Park. Whoever you are, just to identify myself, I was a Planning Commissioner for the City for five years. I’m still mystified at the point of view. lani

I know who you are. Research isn’t real difficult these days thanks to those nice billionaires at Google.

Is this clearer?

My OPINION is that the current city council majority and many of their supporters would not be unhappy if it just sat EMPTY as a pseudo-city yard with a bunch of plastic weed liners laying around. Until 92/Main gets done, no EIRs will likely permit the park to be fully developed. Even then, it is not a sealed deal.

In the meantime - no interest payments, no noise, no development, no park, NO problem. Do they really want to see it built? I do not, for one, think so. I fear it is simply a pawn. Again, my opinion. I hope I am wrong and it is simply more than a few paths, a barely usable field and a “labyrinth.” btw, I really could care less if you think my opinion has merit.

One item did seem to get lost in the legal fees debate held here some time ago - the city basically forced a lawsuit from Cypress Cove by withholding/redacting documents.

bginna writes: “Do they really want to see it built? I do not, for one, think so. I fear it is simply a pawn.”

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about the park? Why are you dragging the CUSD board and the middle-school fiasco into this? (vbg)

we are (at least I am). where did I mention the CUSD board? Are you trying to change the subject?

As I understand it, the city was preparing the documents for release, and the Cypress Cove folks filed a lawsuit.

At that point, the city could not proceed with the release of the documents because the Cypress Cove association leadership had made the documents a matter of litigation. The time it took to get to the release of the documents was the result of the filing of the lawsuit and the wending of the lawsuit’s way through the court’s necessary processes.

Since the city had been preparing the documents for release (which can be demonstrated from the court proceedings), the lawsuit only held up their release.

oh, ok. Haven’t heard that before - right. According to the city attorney…

http://coastsider.com/comments/843010C/

That still reads like a very convenient explanation after the fact.

bginna, parks take time to design, undergo CEQA, finance and build, and this one will be built in stages once work begins. We’re probably talking up to five years for all of this. This is going to cost between $6 and $7 million ($3.1 for land and the rest for development), but there is a lot of grant money available due to park bonds the voters passed a few years ago. In the scheme of things, this is a tiny investment that should have been made much earlier in our history, but the fact it wasn’t means we will be able to do it in a more environmentally friendly way because more is known about how to do this today. The people that oppose this as an expense are those who don’t believe in public investment and will likely vote against the next school bond or parcel tax as well.

The Cypress Covers have legitimate concerns, but the park design tries to assuage these as much as possible. Not everyone can be accommodated because a few don’t want anything at all. Ironically, once built, it will make those units more exclusive and expensive than they are now.

It’s easy to to cynically knock things, and it’s difficult to execute a complex vision, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. I’d be happy to send you the ftp of the latest park design presented at the the council Tuesday evening if you’d like to see it—it really is well thought out and exciting. I’m if you are interested.