Barry,
I’m not surprised that you closed out “Is This Abuse?”; George had already indicated in his last comment that he was through because of the non-responsive and abusive attacks he was receiving. But I am amazed that you would denigrate his initially constructive comments by blaming him for the deterioration in dialog that was clearly driven by others. So much for objectivity! Perhaps we could have forestalled some of this through the posting I was about to submit to “Is This Abuse?” when you terminated it for the wrong reason.

Come on guys! The Appeal is a public document and available to all. Barry (Darin), here is a copy of the Statement of Appeal, extracted from Mr. Ferreira’s Appeal that I’m sure you’ve been searching for. Let your readers judge for themselves. And, the CCC Staff will have the advantage of public opinion to draw on in their forthcoming deliberations. Congratulations, what a unique forum for providing complete transparency.

9/28/06

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

1.) There is no reckoning of the redemption of numerous unpermitted activities and structures on this parcel, said unpermitted activities & structures having occurred within the last 6 years, said unpermitted activities & structures being in conflict with the City’s Zoning laws and the resource protection policies of the City’s Local Coastal Program and, by extension, the California Coastal Act.

2.) The property in question is inclusive of the southern bank of Frenchman’s Creek and portions of the activities being “grandfathered” by this permit are occurring within the buffer zone of Frenchman’s Creek contrary to the resource protection policies of our LCP.

3.) This property contains one of the largest irrigation ponds in Half Moon Bay. There is no environmental analysis of the impacts of this project on said pond, nor is there an exemption specifically called for.

4.) There is no Prime Soils discussion, analysis, or finding.

5.) There are no studies of potential impacts to any potential resources, inclusive of endangered or threatened species, on one of the larger parcels in our city which includes, and is adjacent to, numerous Coastal Resources.

6.) The evidence on which the findings of continuous nonconforming use since 1964 are based is skimpy, at best. The burden of proof for this continuity lies with the applicant and there are many sources of overhead photos covering the years in question which could have been presented, but have not. In particular, there is no evidence of the volume of equestrian activity having preexisted.

7.) Granting permits for new buildings on the basis that old photographs show buildings having existed sometime in the past is a novel concept that could have mischievous results if adopted as an ongoing planning mechanism or development entitlement. This needs a thorough discussion.

8.) The forgoing is not the whole of my objections but is that which I am presenting at this deadline.

Michael J. Ferreira
(original signed)

Thank you, Dale, for your well put comments. More importantly, thank you for posting the so hard to find the Summary of Grounds for Appeal from Mr. Ferreira’s ‘appeal’.

Barry, I’m shocked at your actions. This is not the first time you have burried pieces that don’t jive with your personal points of view. The Is This Abuse thread that I initiated, despite your efforts, did accomplish several things. Mr. Ferreira finally submitted his Financial Disclosure Form 460! Well, at least part of it. We were able to expose examples of abuse. There certainly was dialog on the topic; and it was your second highest hit piece, behind Is The ‘Park’ a Good Deal, since the start of Town Hall.

I can’t think of any reason why you didn’t post the entire appeal, save one. A very good arguement could be made that would describe you as Mr. Ferreia’s press secretary, thereby ‘protecting’ him from scoudrels like me! I suppose when someone’s political views are opposite yours, and it is your sandbox, you have the right to subvert input.

Well, I am thankful that it got out, and should be thankful for its brief duration. Hopefully, at least one of your readers got the points made regarding abuse. There needs to be consistancy, BY ALL, when it comes to following the rules. Perhaps we got one step closer to that goal. Thank you for that opportunity.

Plenty of folks on the both sides of the Coastside divide have slammed me in private for not taking up their pet crusades—usually because I didn’t have the time or didn’t agree about their significance.  Sounds like you’ve got one of your own.

There’s plenty of evidence that I’m willing to give prominent play to people with whom I disagree.

The rule remains unchanged: treat the other members of the community with civility.  It’s a simple rule. If you’re confused by it, it’s probably best not to post.

Now that I see the points in Ferreira’s appeal, I can see why some might wish to stifle it with questions about legal protocols and with questions about his standing to make the appeal. May I suggest to the good citizens of HMB that they may wish to take these matters up themselves, as the Coastal Commission, depending on its makeup of the moment, is likely to look upon many of the issues broached in the appeal with keen or very keen interest and with little or no interest in backbiting local politics. Recall that Ferreira has a record of effectiveness with the Commission. Because Coastal Commissioners are politically driven and usually ignorant of local nuances (understandable with a coastline more than 1100 miles long) and because their staff does not have the funding or personnel to make complete studies and thoroughly inform the commissioners on most local issues, appeals going to the Commission will always be a crap shoot at best and tend to favor those who know what pushes the Commission’s buttons. Odds of achieving satisfying resolutions will be better for local governments that learn how the Coastal Act applies to their coastal zones and handle issues themselves.

Carl May

So, now that I’ve seen the appeal, I’m baffled. I don’t see how this appeal, which seems pretty routine, is newsworthy.

It also sounds like several of the bullet points by themselves would be a good basis for an appeal.  I can’t see anything in Mr. Muteff’s earlier posts that addresses the substance of the appeal, as opposed to the identity of the person making it.

Newsworthy and good topics of exposure / discussion are sometimes two separate things. It is my opinion that the Abuse piece was both.

I do find it interesting that you never did post Mr. Ferreira’s appeal in its entirety, even after several requests. It took Mr. Dunham to get part of it out there, and I’m thankful for that. I’d like everyone to see the 1st page as well. That’s where the rules are.

I am curious as to how it is, now that you pulled the Abuse piece, that you are now posting comments on another thread (this one) about a prior thread that you pulled, not affording your readers the opportunity to get the full scope of dialog. Doesn’t that bother you?

That piece (Is This Abuse?) was about much more than just Mr. Ferreira’s appeal, although that was a good starting point. It was, as intended, about abuse of power &/or the abuse of perceived power. Unfortunately, your pull won’t effect the desperately needed change in that regard.

If you were to be objective, and I were being everything you claim, wouldn’t it be in your best interest, and Coastsider’s best interest to let it continue (excluding profanity and the like; then just pull that part unless it happens again) so the public, that you profess to serve could form their own opinions? I would suggest, by volume of hits alone (900), in the timeframe the piece ran, that there was a strong interest. By pulling it, you took that away.

I would, therefore, ask you to put it back up, in its entirety.

Hi George,

I would tell you where to look—be I think it so important that you do your own research :)

Hint: Scroll down….

—Darin

Darin,

What George is referring to is the fact that it does not show up on “Most Popular Threads.”  Why is that?

Brian Ginna - 13 October 2006 08:19 PM

Darin,

What George is referring to is the fact that it does not show up on “Most Popular Threads.”  Why is that?

Because it is a locked thread???

I’m going to ask for a voluntary $10 a day penalty for George until he learns to navigate the Forum correctly :)

(George, the thread is still located in its “home” folder (along with this one)—the Government folder. I do not know but suspect that when the topic was “locked” it comes off the lists since viewers cannot respond. It’s still easy to find even if you don’t know its home folder—just below the comments here you should see a blue link entitled “Is this abuse”—goes right to the previous discussion.)

—Darin

“It’s still easy to find…”

Not really, since Barry knowingly “disappeared” it by locking it.  Mine was a mostly rhetorical question, but thanks for laying out the reason.  No surprise here.

Where does any “abuse of power” come in with this appeal? First, I’m not up on all the political crap that goes on in the city of Half Moon Bay, but isn’t this appeal current and isn’t Ferreira out of government at this time (not on the Planning Commission, City Council, or anything else)? So what’s to abuse?

Looking at the points in the appeal, how would any of them constitute abuse even if Ferreira were in “power.” Are any of the items frivolous, self-serving, and without merit? If so, isn’t that best elucidated by examining the appeal, itself, and not the personal history of the one making the appeal? Would Ferreira stand to gain personally if any items in the appeal are upheld? It that case, wouldn’t the simple, direct, local solution be to ask him to recuse himself from participation in any decision (noting that it would also be his right to speak as a private citizen before his colleagues making the decision)?

The accusations against Ferreira are so fractured and in some cases so irrelevant to the matters taken up in the appeal that they invite speculation on the motives of the ones making them.

Carl May

NOTE: I’m going to assume that Carl meant “crap” to apply to HMB politics in general and no issue in particular. But let’s try to keep the language civil, please.

I’m happy to have a conversation about the facts if we can do it without insulting members of the community.

It seems to me Mr. Muteff’s abuse of power argument rests on three legs: Mr. Ferreira’s appeal of a permit as a private citizen, something that happened when he was a member of the HMB Planning Commission (at least 5 years ago), and his failure to file a form.

I think we need to discuss the individual elements of your case, rather than take a broad brush, and you need to make a better case for abuse.  As the most recent allegation of abuse, and the one documented in the topic post here, the appeal seems like a good place to start.  Could you please explain why it’s an abuse of power? I don’t think I’m the only reader who has no idea what you’re trying to get at.

Feel free to post whatever documentation you need to make your case, but don’t demand that I do your legwork for you.

Brian,

Not only does it not show up on most popular threads, best I can tell is, unless you hit Blindsided (and the Title gives no hint of the Abuse piece), and work your way to the bottom, and get new reading glasses to see the miniature font size, and take a shot and click it, you won’t find it anywhere. If one clicks on Town Hall, on the main page, listed are all the stats, and titles, among other things. I checked…opps, not there either, so nobody will see how popular it was, and would have been. Kindda like Houdini. Bury, excuse me, I mean Barry has created a new hoop to jump through just for me! I’m flattered! Kindda like the prior Council creating extra hoops for us to jump through (substandard lots, net/gross lot rule, and so on) when they were in. It’s quite a list, but I’m scared if I put anymore in parenthesis, we’ll get pulled again.

To arbitrarily pull a piece, because the heat is way high, and getting hotter, doesn’t benefit anyone. It hurts everyone. We all loose.

What WE ALL LOOSE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH (we remember that from civics classes). We also loose ABILITY TO DIALOG. In addition, we looses the ability to track hits, and number of comments. Barry is the only one that can track hits now.

What BARRY LOOSES (and COASTSIDER) is at least as important…..any CREDIBILITY in our community. Honestly, it’s a sad day for us all.

I am shocked, and saddened to see something with so much potential good for us all taken away. I think it’s a mistake.

I’ve asked Mr. Muteff a couple of times to observe our rules, but he has continued to be uncivil and disruptive. This is especially problematic in an unmoderated forum, where I need to be able to trust the users to use their good sense when posting. His behavior has made Town Hall pretty unpleasant lately.

The rules are meaningless unless they are enforced. I’ve revoked his posting privileges in Town Hall. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve set up a topic for the discussion of Coastsider’s civility rule:

  http://coastsider.com/index.php/townhall/viewthread/43/

I’m open to discussing the policy, but I am not open to appeals of Mr. Muteff’s case, which is between him and me if he wants to talk about it offsite.

I have to admit that I’m slightly surprised as to who it was who lost posting privileges.  I was expecting that it was someone else posting here who recently caused me to comment privately that he, um, how do I say this politely, is much much nastier than George Muteff.  One of this other person’s rare posts here is the most obnoxious, insulting, inflammatory posting on this site.

” A hoop to get through like the net/gross lot rule.” A logical “hoop” which mearly subtracts lot area which is a buffer zone or a ESHA and then formulates the Floor Area Ratio after the buildable lot area is arrived at. The reason? Houses calculated on the Gross end up nearly on top of the Buffer zones with no room to landscape or move around the structure. The Turner properties behind the Miramar Lodge were the case in point. If you have to fence the buffer, to protect it, the fence would have almost touched the house. Yep, I was part of the creation of the “hoop” and I still think it’s appropriate.
As an aside-When people type in capitals it feels like shouting- in my opinion. lani ream

If “lose” is spelled “loose,” should “win” be spelled “tight”? Or maybe it’s “find” that should be spelled “tight”? Could someone use their two minutes at a City Council or Board of Supervisors meeting to query the local policy on this? And how eggs are priced in the Coastal Zone?

Carl May

Fyi, for anyone who is confused by Carl’s post, you should know that posts can be edited after the fact—for example, to fix embarrassing typos.

—Darin

Darin Boville - 17 October 2006 07:03 AM

...you should know that posts can be edited after the fact—for example, to fix embarrassing typos.

Hey, that’s cool! I didn’t realize that! Maybe other folks didn’t either.

(I have just added this sentence after the fact.)

You can go back and find an “Edit” button beneath your previous posts. That way you can correct those pesky spelling errors and edit other things you’ve changed your mind about.

That’s handy to know because embarassing things could be posted here forever and ever and probably found with a google search.

Does editing after the fact leave any indication that it happened?

It seems to me that if we all “perfect” our arguments by editing out the parts that are challenged successfully, things will get weird.  For instance, if I state in a post that 1+1=3, and then someone corrects me, and then I edit my post to correctly state 1+1=2, the post that corrected me will seem very strange - because the context for correcting my error will be gone.

Is this possible?

-hal

“Does editing after the fact leave any indication that it happened?”

Apparently not.

“...things will get weird.”

They already are.  This is scary.  My comments have been offered in response to things I have read here and are useless out of complete context (some might say they are completely useless in any context).

I’m looking into disabling this “feature”.  I think it’s likely to lead to problems in the future.

For the sake of keeping things in the right topics, if anyone wants to discuss this further, please post in the Suggestions for Town Hall topic:

http://coastsider.com/index.php/townhall/viewthread/10/

Gosh readers,  I hope someone will pass my post on to George Muteff.  After reading this thread and the “Is this Abuse?” thread, I can answer the question that started this discussion;  Yes.  Mr. Muteffs posts were abusive.  Mr. Ferreiras appeal was not - it appears to have serious coastal protection issues, not filing the appeal would have been an abuse of the Coastal Act.

Kathryn

Ms. Slater-Carter,

Is Mr. Ferreira’s appeal still being processed by the City?  Will it go to the Coastal Commission?

In your wealth of opinion, what critical and specific “serious coastal protection issues” need to be addressed?