I am relatively new to the area and I know this is a sore subject but why has highway 92 not turned into a 4 lane road (2 lanes East, 2 lanes West). The recent car accident in which a drunk driver hit a HMB man head on illustrates the problem. Why is it that so many people oppose the expansion of 92 to keep this community as is and risk their lives in the process. The traffic has subsided with Devil’s Slide opening but the danger is always there. Huge trucks drive that route everyday with impatience drivers speed and take risks to pass. I love the community so far but strongly feel that keeping others out (no expansion) is not worth risking your life.
I was told by a neighbor that in the 50s the state had budgeted and approved funds to expand 92 but it was turned down by the locals. I’m not sure the reality of that, but wanted to know what is being done to make the road safer. We need a center median and 4 lanes the whole way. I know there are expansion projects currently going on but it doesn’t seem to address the dangers.
Thanks for listening and drive safely.

Doug, Many of us on the coast feel the same way. Unfortunately there are those that want to keep 92 as is to the danger of all. Their thing is it will bring more people to the coast hate to tell them but the people are here. I was told there are no plans in the future to improve 92 only to straighten the road out between Main St. & the passing lanes. But like everything, no money is what im told. If the road was improved in the 50s it would have cost 1/4 of what it will eventually cost. Been commuting & driving over 92 since 6/69 [it was a pretty peaceful drive back then] & am still wary of the road. Hated it when my kids had to drive 92. Never know whats going to happen my main thing i want is separation of East & West traffic. Oh well just be careful & stay to right as much as possible [without going over the cliff] keep an eye on traffic coming toward you & warn them if it looks like they are crossing the center line. Good Luck & stay safe.

Half Moon Bay wasn’t even incorporated as a city in the 1950’s.  Sounds to me as though someone’s playing the Newcomer Snipe Hunt with you. 
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority is the lead agency for Highway #92.  Call them up.  Ask your questions.  If they tell you there’s a secret cabal of highway blockers who’ve hidden in coastal caves the hundreds of millions of dollars it would take to build a 4 lane #92 - why then we could resume this conversation in its current tenor.
I don’t think that’s what they’d tell you, though.  I think they’ll tell you about the very expensive obstacles they have to overcome and that there’s only so much highway money available to San Mateo County over the next 30 years and that they can’t spend most of it on #92, and that they have to give some thought to #280, #101, #35, #1, #84, etc.
But, maybe not.  Their offices are in San Carlos.  Make the call.

MOVE!!

Hey, a few bozos even wanted a freeway through the hills south of 92 that ended in the center of Half Moon Bay.

Let’s ask the people who overdeveloped the midcoast and produced a population that is beyond the carrying capacity of the area to solve (and pay for) the traffic problems. Within a few years, all that would be result from a four-lane 92 is a four-lane mess in place of the current two-lane mess. This is what ALWAYS happens with increased road capacity in growing areas in California—the rate of growth determines the length of time for the bigger mess to occur. The midcoast already has too many people for its land and resources; it’s insanity to induce more growth than is already killing the place.

We are seeing our local problems on numerous fronts compounded by what overdevelopment, including infrastructure expansion, is now allowed. The only slightly sensible approach to the current woes on 92 is to lighten its peak traffic loads with traffic-handling efficiencies and alternative transportation. Until that unlikely approach is under way, and if one is hung up on the simplistic “more-lane” idea, there are plenty of places to live in the Bay Area that are served with four-, six-, and eight-lane highways. Check them out for liveability, traffic, etc. No one is forced to make housing decisions blindfolded, are they?

Carl May

Carl, you are the only person so far that “gets it”.  It is amazing just how foolish these do good proponents of big roads, big government, more schools, skating rinks, clubs, etc are. 

Thanks for your absolutely accurate commentary on why we should simply do nothing.  Then, maybe, just maybe, those who do not like it here will go away and things will return to the good old days before beautification and tax revenue became so vogue.

Look im not advocating “big roads” or even a 4 lane 92 that will never happen. But how about safety improvements, straighten the switch back curves, the sharp curves, look how many accidents & death the “house of doors”  curve caused’ it’s helped since the “trucks tip over” sign was installed.

Seperate the East & West traffic. Is that to much to ask for our coast families. Safety improvements. Of course the old bug a boo no moneys. Let the “gets it’s” get with it. And telling people to move is no help.

Totally agree with Sam and Doug on our insufficient road infrastructure, not only on 92 but on highway 1 as well. And I also believe most people on the coast are just as frustrated and fed up with the select few that want to try and prevent growth any way possible. We need to make the county realize that we are in a serious condition and with the recent LCP update, something has to be improved.

Please, what is so serious about our condition that a few less cars and people wouldn’t cure?

Ray, why did you move here?  Is your dream of a perfect community here on the coast to “fix” it until it looks no different than San Mateo?  How about an El Camino West, let’s say from Montara to Ocean Colony, or maybe even Pescadero?  What exactly is your vision for the mid coast?  More kids, drugs, gangs, shootings, etc?  Don’t you know that everywhere we go, we screw it up…no exceptions…good intentions and all??

Well, Sam, the things you now say you’re looking for are, for the most part, contained in the plan that the SMCTA has been working on for the past decade.  And 30 to 50 million dollars ain’t no bugaboo.

Doug,

Perhaps Mr. Ferreira can also explain why the City’s representatives missed “17 straight meetings of the City/County Association of Governments between April of 2004 and December of 2005.”  Mr. Ferreira was on the City Council during this period and should have known this was not happening.  One of his political allies, “Former City Councilwoman Toni Taylor was the city’s designee to attend C/CAG meetings in 2004 and 2005.”

“The important reason for anyone to come is one big word - money,” said Richard Napier, executive director of C/CAG.

Money talks, but if it you are not there, can you hear it?

http://hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/07/news/local_news/story07.txt

Mike Perkins - Carl is far from the only person that “gets it.”  His views are merely his opinions.  They seem to be very well formed and obviously educated opinions, but they are nothing more.

Lets be clear about a few things concerning the incident on hwy 92 last week.
It had nothing to do with hwy 92 and it was not an accident. It was a criminal act committed by a drunk driver.

Brian;  If Carls opinions are well formed and well educated ones, why then are they “merely nothing more” than simply opinions?  What more do they need to be based on?  Is his problem not being politicaly correct?

Move??? Now there is an intelligent comment.

I would be open to just adding a center divider on 92. Why does expanding a highway automatically equal expansion of the coastside? I know there are a lot of restrictions in place already to prevent this. Every month you here about new lands purchased and set aside for protection and our recreation. I’ll I want is a safe highway for people to drive on. There are too many cars/trucks/bikes in the current situation. I do understand that this would cost money and will ask the appropriate people these questions.

As far as moving goes, I love it here so far. I plan on staying, raising a family, and becoming involved in the community, whether it gets bigger or stays the same.

Mr. Ginna’s cheap shot at Toni Taylor has nothing to do with the status of Highway #92 funding and just reflects his willingness to backstab someone who is not a party to this conversation.

Mike P.
Why do you think improving our road conditions means it would become like San Mateo city? I think that might be a very limited viewpoint. Are you worried that by making the roads safer, and allow tourist more accessibility to the coastside (which is not just for us but for all californians) mean that everyone will be moving here?  And how can you extrapolate building a safer roadway system to gangs drugs, etc. It is this shortsided-ness that has placed the residents of the coastside into a very precarious position.
Ray

Intelligent comment or not, I stand by it.  If you moved here within the last 5 years or so, then did you have blinders on?  Did you not see the problems then or were you mesmermized with the area?  Because you didn’t do your research does not mean that we should completely change the flavor of the coast to accomodate people who now that they are here want to change it.  Again I ask, why are you really here?

Mike P.
First off, I’ve lived here for over 11 years (not sure how long you’ve been here). Second, what I am stating is something that many folks believe (including folks that have lived here for several generations). But that is not the point of this debate. The point should be: Is our road system adequate for the current traffic volume, let alone the additional traffice volume due to the current LCP? Based on the 4+ months that Devils Slide has been out, it is pretty clear the roads need to be improved. Businesses like Hawaiian Ono, etc that had to go out of business are a testament to the problem. I say we can have better roads, and still have open space and a beautiful coastside, for all to see.
Ray

Mr. Ferreira calling out someone for a “cheap shot” and “willingness to backstab someone who is not a party to this conversation. “

This made my day.  Thank you.

Now that Messrs. Ferreira and Ginna have titted-for-tat, I would like to remind everyone to stay civil.

Last input for now…It’s afternoon wine time.

No, our roads are not adequate for the volume of traffic that exists today.  I have been here for about 22 years, and it was somewhat of a pain when I came here then.  However, commuting to Belmont and then Palo Alto was a joy, especially when I finally reached the light at Crystal Springs.  Time to relax and take it easy after the white knuckle flight on either 280 or 92 east of the springs.  So my man, get over it and get on with it.  This fur flying left wing cat fight is something that takes place during a political debate.  No offence, but if you get your way, you will eventually want to move to Oregon…YES!!!

Barry Parr - 05 November 2006 12:08 AM

...have titted-for-tat…

Is that kind of language allowed here?

Oh my goodness!  Tit for Tat is a game strategy or an expression for getting even.

Please google it.

Mike Perkins - 05 November 2006 01:51 PM

Oh my goodness!  Tit for Tat is a game strategy or an expression for getting even.

Please google it.

Ooooh! My baddie! Sorrrrry!

I forgot to put in an Alert for the Humor Impaired. I’ve got to remember that next time.

It looks like this:——->Alert! Alert! That was humor! Ha ha! Smile! Grin! Get it? Wink wink nudge nudge <——-

Talk about tit for tat…

Oh, you’re so clever cutie.  You seemed to fit the profile of a over zealous PC’er, so I assumed you were.

MOVE. Reminds me of a friend of mine who said “we don’t need better roads we need less people” of course he meant for other’s to step into the less people machine & disappear from the coast not him!
Another of my favorites is potholes in our roads are good they provide a traffic calming effect. I think the person that thought up that one owned a wheel alignment shop. Or didn’t have my basketball size prostate that wanted to make a basket over every pothole. Yeah potholes really calm my prostate. This is my last whine over making 92 safer. Drive safe people. Don’t want any of our coast people hurt.
Been here since 6/69 & seen to many hurt.

Yup Sam, I am in complete aggrement with your ex friend.  This place is OK with me, it’s you who is complaining.  If this place does not suit you as it is, well…..bye bye.  I will admit that I would like it even better if there were not so many people to screw it up.

Sam also…regarding your prostate issue, get the best Saw Palmetto product you can.  Trust me, I know of what you speak.

Folks,

Rant on, but you are still asking those who don’t want the midcoast wrecked even more to ignore the clear record of growth in California since WWII. To call road expansions in areas that are prime for increased growth and development anything but “growth-inducing” is ignorant of the facts of all such road expansions in California for a half century. Call it opinion if you wish, but this comes as close to a fact, and a verifiable principle, as anything you will ever encounter in the money-pushed growth game. Think a moment. If an area has a moratorium on buildiong permits because there is no more water for urban development and that moratorium is lifted by piping in some other place’s water from the outside, is not the pipe growth inducing?

In the areas surrounding cities in California, we have been living the experiment with infrastructure expansion for many decades. As long as growth continues, all infrastructure expansions are overwhelmed over time. Net result: a bigger mess than the one that inspired the infrastructure expansion with fewer remaining resources to deal with it. This is why the buzz word for many these days is “sustainable.”

Anyone who looks at our midcoast situation with an eye to creating a situation with a decent quality of life for its inhabitants that is sustainable—a quality of life that can continue through the toughest environmental times (drought, etc.) and the toughest economic times (bursting bubbles in major industries, outside (including overseas) competition for local agriculture, an economy drained by the federal government into the pockets of favored political supporters, etc.)—sees that we have a lot of reversing of trends and a lot of retrofitting of the physical and social scene to accomplish. Money devoted to getting bigger or to trying to make up for past overgrowth is money that, in the long run and usually the short run as well, is devoted to making our situation worse. What we need to do is get better.

Infrastructure *expansion* in an area that has already outgrown its natural endowment and is overdrawing its resources can only make the situation worse. A dedication to improving infrastructure efficiency, changing our behaviors to get the quality of life we want with fewer negative impacts, conservation, and (to the degree possible) restoration, and halting population growth and urban development in our area are key ingredients to turning things around for at least a chance at a more positive future.

A side note. For safety reasons—access to wrecks and other problems—installing a center barrier on an existing two-lane road is a no-go unless there is a shoulder at least as wide as a lane on both sides. So arguing for a divider down the middle of 92 is the same thing as arguing for another lane.

Carl May

Carl May - 06 November 2006 01:32 AM

A side note. For safety reasons—access to wrecks and other problems—installing a center barrier on an existing two-lane road is a no-go unless there is a shoulder at least as wide as a lane on both sides. So arguing for a divider down the middle of 92 is the same thing as arguing for another lane.
Carl May

What about other ways to divide lanes? What about those metal poles with reflectors at the most dangerous curves? Or those ones that can be hit and then stand up again? How about a rumble strip in the center at those same curves—the idea being to wake up the drunk/tired driver as he drifts into oncoming traffic?

Do these require additional lanes? Couldn’t *something* be done that addresses the narrow issue of safety on curvy mountain roads without costing a gazillion dollars and opening up a pandora’s box of six decades of coastal history and political polarization?

—Darin

Carl, run for something, anything and you will get my vote.  So far, you are the only one that would.

Mike,

Sometimes the fact you are not running for anything allows you to be more honest, direct, and open and allows others to look at what you say with fewer suspicions that there are ulterior motives.

Darin,

In places that are already full, improving infrastructure efficiency/effectiveness along the lines of what you suggest is usually a more appropriate way of dealing with problems, a way of improving quality without going along with the myth that increasing quantity is necessary. Still, there are those who are so brainwashed that they can’t conceive of anything but K-rail or worse down the middle of a road to help separate traffic.

Carl

Mike P,
It is clear that you do not see the writing on the wall? Did you commute on 92 during the devils slide outage. Have you any idea what would happen on our coastside if we had an emergency? I’m sorry, but it may be in your best interest (and ours) if you started looking for remote property in Oregon..

And, you’ve never answered my question as to how you can piece together “improving our road infrastructure” to disaster on the coast. Do you have an explanation for your opinion?
Ray

Mike Perkins—there are plenty of people who agree with Carl’s ideas on the growth ethic.  Few of them are willing to stick their necks out to get sniped at by the “bigger is better” crowd that seems to have taken over HMB politics.  I’d guess that the majority of people who agree with Carl live north of HMB rather than in HMB.  Check out the boards of MCC, MWSD, GSD.

When I moved here (in 1994), I knew one person in the Bay Area—my boss—and felt that I needed to live near him.  He lived in north HMB.  Having grown up driving Mulholland Drive for fun, it never occurred to me that SR 92 is a difficult road.  (For those who don’t know about Mulholland Drive, think SR 84’s curves on a ridge-crest road like Skyline.  I know where the Beach Boy’s “Dead Man’s Curve” is, and if you don’t believe the 25 MPH sign on that curve, you will be dead.  There are hundreds of cars over the side there.  Nobody proposes straightening it or putting in K-rail.)  (And oh by the way, they don’t close the road for hours when some idiot drives over the side.  The car is left there forever.  Why is 92 closed for hours during commute times when someone drives over the side?  Get the person out to medical treatment and forget about the car until off-off hours.)

When I moved here, a frequently recurring conversation went like this:
Q:  Where do you live?
A:  El Granada.
Q: Where’s that?
A: A few miles north of Half Moon Bay.
Q: Oh.  How can you stand driving on 92?
A: What’s the problem?

But at least those people were smart enough to not move to a place where they didn’t like the roads.

I cannot understand why people think it’s ok to move here and then whine about the roads.  It’s no different than people buying houses in Moss Beach under the airport flight path and then whining about the airplane noise.  Guess which was there first in both cases?  It’s called pre-existing conditions.

I believe that SR 92 needs:
1. Standard width lanes (14 ft instead of the current 12 ft)
2. Usable shoulders
3. Safe bike lanes
4. Straightening of (only) 2 of the curves (House of Doors, and the hairpin turn 1/3 of the way downhill towards Crystal Springs)
5. No k-rail
6. A center turn/merge lane in the stretch where the businesses are
7. More/better and better marked turnouts for slow vehicles
8. Enforcement against slow vehicles which obstinately stay in the main lane instead of using the turnouts
9. Stay 2 lanes where #6 doesn’t apply.

Leonard your ” i believe that state route 92 needs’ is right on. As for Mr. “Move ” Perkins dont know about you but been here since 6/69 & yes i knew what the road was like even back than without the dump, golf courses all the new homes etc. But stupid me back in 69 i was hoping for road improvements not road worse as it has become now. A lot i blame on our local politicos as they will get shouted down by the do nothings so more of our residents can get hurt on 92 if the politicos try to get the County, Calif government to make road improvemrnts not pave over the coast. The only thing Leonard, you dont want a K rail but what can be done to seperate East & West traffic? Been watching the other cars coming toward me for 37+ years & when i see their tires pointing towards me i get a clenching feeling in my lower regions. Staying to the right as much as possible has saved me a few times when car & 18 wheelers came over the center line. Kept a 1/2 lane buffer between me & vehicles coming toward me, 18 wheelers rear tires tend to come over the center line a lot.
Drive & Stay Safe People! Watch out for the other Jamoke.

Sam, I hope that it’s clear that I’m supporting only improvements which are clearly safety issues, along with some operational improvements.  I remain totally opposed to SR 92 being 4 continuous lanes anywhere west of I-280.  None of my suggestions would result in an increase in traffic capacity, although improved flow will certainly result, which in some sense could be interpreted as an increase in capacity and therefore growth-inducing.  While I am one of those people often referred to as “no growth”, I will very much support all of the improvements I listed, along with one to address your concern about my “No K-rail”:  I’ll just claim that I forgot this one:

10.  Anywhere #6 doesn’t apply, double-double yellow line with 2’ wide center median with big Bots Dots along both sides.  (You’ve seen this type of center median here and there.  I think there’s some of this on SR 152, a road with some similarities to SR 92.)

However, my support for any of the items on my list is conditional on my #9, although I’d like to tweak the wording to allow dedicated turn lanes:
9. Remain 2 through lanes where #6 doesn’t apply.

How about do the exact same thing they did on the West side of 92 to the East side?  2 lanes uphill with a center divide!  Seems this would solve the head on collision problem that no one is immune from except for those that “own” the coastside and never venture outside of it.
Happy and safe travels.

How about not?

1. It’s ugly.
2. It destroys the rural character of the Coastside.
3. It’s ugly.
4. The “head-on collision problem” would be drastically reduced with the other safety improvements that I proposed.  I also believe that a major problem is that the embankments on the curves were designed by Hal Needham (director of many car-crash TV shows) to flip over any tall vehicle which wanders slightly out of the lane.  It’s a classic “how to design a dangerous road” scenario.  This is why there are so many overturned truck accidents westbound.  Widen the lanes to a proper width, put in an old-style guard rail to keep vehicles from wandering (and then put a bike lane on the other side of the guard rail!)
5.  K-rail restricts animal movement.  I’ve seen animals trapped and I’m sure eventually killed because they tried to cross SR 92 where the K-rail is, got to the center, and then panicked.

Vehicles wouldn’t be wandering over the center line anywhere near as much if the lanes were wider and there was a center median, and the worst curves were improved.  Center medians are appropriate.

There have been some nasty head-ons on the straightest parts of SR 1.  I hope that nobody is going to propose K-rail there.

I once saw at least 6 lanes of an 8-10 lane Southern California freeway blocked in both directions due to an overturned tanker truck, which flipped onto the K-rail and smashed it.  The vehicles which are the most dangerous won’t be stopped by K-rail.

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
— H.L. Mencken

In heavy traffic a couple of weeks ago a deer was killed by a pickup not 30 feet in front of me heading north in Vallemar Gap in Pacifica. That four-lane section was created by widening the gap (in actuality, a highway cut through Mori Ridge) not all that many years ago. It’s a common place for wildlife deaths, interrupting the natural corridor of Mori Ridge and, here’s the relevant point, being divided by K-rail down the middle of the four lanes. All K-rail usually does is confine accidents to one direction and make getting to those accidents more difficult for emergency vehicles. At higher speeds, parts of accidents frequently jump the K-rail—just keep tuned to traffic radio for examples of this.

Carl May

Hey Doug

Good question… I moved to Moss Beach in 98, but have driven to this beautiful coast and along Skyline hundreds of times since 65 when I moved to Los Altos from Edwards AFB.  Since you are “new” I am curious how you view the wide ranging responses to your query in terms of responsiveness.

I think your question evoked an unusually wide range of responses, and if one were to strip away the emotion, possibly a consensus could be crafted to your question?  Or at least a hierarchical list of possible improvements ranked by cost…OR by safety to drivers…OR even to beautify the entrance to HMB…

Who knows?

My van was totalled when rear ended in May 2002 while sitting in traffic going east at Hilltop Grocery.  Gas was pouring out of my ruptured tank and sizzling on my hot exhaust, police and fire response was great, but not nearly as great as that by the proprietor of the grocery or the residents at the mobile home park, who told me this happens ALL the time.

This accident impacted my wife and my life for a year with all the insurance and medical costs and negotiations.  I checked with the HMB police and found that there had been 34 accidents in the short stretch from hwy 1 to Hilltop the prior year.  I was, and am, absolutely astounded that this community does not evince more outrage with OUR traffic situation.

A lot of us have been outraged for decades at the truly stupid overdevelopment of the coastside, one consequence of which is the terrible traffic situation at the intersections. The traffic has been consciously created by those who foster the increasing population of the midcoast. If one is not astounded at the excessive activities of residential developers, large and small, and commercial developers with projects out of scale for the coast, and at the government that permits them to have their way, then one is questioning the wrong people.

Carl May

By the way, deer and other animals have no problem jumping or climbing over a center median.
I just don’t understand how road saftey has anything to do with the development on the coastside? The road has not been improved at all in years. The work done on the west-side grade of 92 is a great example of how to make things more safe yet not make the road bigger (which seems to be the big hangup here).
Look nobody is immune car accidents. Why can’t we make it safer those how travel over the hill and support the coastside businesses?
Thanks for all the feedback.

Deer and other animals do, indeed, have problems with jumping over anything from a paved surface (too slippery for a good footing for animals with hooves, especially if they are startled or freaked out by vehicles and are not moving naturally. For smaller animals, K-rail might as well be the Great Wall of China.

Not sure what is meant by “west-side grade of 92.” Does this refer to the greatly widened portion with the uphill passing lane? That would make the two-lane sections of 92 going over the hill much bigger. Where would one put all that pavement in the valley of Pilarcitos Creek where the current 92 runs to HMB. Are all aware of the controversies involved in widening 92 from 35 at the summit down to Crystal Springs Lake? The environmental consequences of all this widening and increased capacity would be enormous and havbe already been much debated over recent decades.

Development increases the population of drivers using the roads. As with so many problems involved with the continuing decline of the environment and the continuing increase of community, societal, and governmental problems on the midcoast, overdevelopment coupled with the overpopulation it facilitates is a driving, fundamental cause. If the midcoast ratcheted back to a sustainable population, traffic problems would greatly decrease and traffic safety would greatly increase. As it is, all available road money is being spent (and misspent) in a futile attempt to not allow traffic to get worse than it is. The pathological growth ethic strikes again (and again, and again).

Carl May

Another reason why K-rail is unacceptable in the two lane parts of SR 92 is emergency vehicle access.  Ever see the parting of the Red Sea where drivers move as far as they can to the sides so that an emergency vehicle can drive down the center?  This will be impossible with K-rail.

Carl May said -

“If the midcoast ratcheted back to a sustainable population, traffic problems would greatly decrease and traffic safety would greatly increase.”

What is a “sustainable” level?  Does it include you as one of the people who “gets” to stay?

What are your solutions, Carl?

Thanks.

I will answer as though I am Carl…which I am not of course, so do not become confused.  It absolutely does include me as one who “gets” to stay.  You…I am not so sure of.

Mike

Mike Perkins writes on - 12 December 2006 08:45 PM

I will answer as though I am Carl…which I am not of course, so do not become confused.  It absolutely does include me as one who “gets” to stay.  You…I am not so sure of.

Wow, I feel threatened. In my opinion, the above verges on hate speech. (Barry doesn’t like me using the term fascist.)

I’m not really acquainted with Carl, Mike or Brian (other than from their posts to Coastsider and in other written venues). So, yes, I am confused.

In his post, I don’t know if Mike is leaning toward condemnation or dehumanization, expressing anger, hatred, violence or contemp or perhaps intending to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against Brian based on his race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,  disability or length of time he’s lived on the coastside.

Or is he trying to put words to that effect in Carl’s mouth?

Does Mike get to stay or Carl? Or both?

What does one have to do to be among the chosen few? Who gets to set the guidelines?

I’m seriously thinking of becoming an anarchist…

I’m not going to pretend to be Carl.

The usual practice when, say, limiting the supply of housing, is to let market forces work their magic. People decide where they want to live, within the limits imposed by the housing supply. The technical term for this process is “The Law of Supply and Demand”.

I’m always surprised when property right advocates profess to be confused by this.

Barry - nice job of avoiding Mary’s point.  Should we get Ken King in here to tell us what kind of argument you used?

Mary - good questions.  The double-standard meter is hitting “orange” like the “National Threat” level.  I was going to let Mike’s post sit out there for awhile so people could wonder at the “level” of intelligence or lack thereof.

I wasn’t talking to Mary. I was addressing the perennial (and IMHO phony) question “Who chooses who gets to live on a growth-limited Coastside?” There is and always has been one near-universal answer in this country: the market decides. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it’s a lousy system, but it beats the hell out of all the others.

I wasn’t ignoring Mary’s point. I assumed Mike made his comment with tongue in cheek and Mary was playing along.

I have to admit that phony is a word that comes to mind on most of my visits here.