Naomi Patridge’s campaign materials list San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon as endorsing her, but Gordon has never endorsed Patridge in this campaign. Gordon has spoken with Patridge this week to make it clear to her that she does not have his endorsement. Patridge has agreed to remove his name from her campaign materials.

"If Supervisor Gordon had an opportunity to vote in this election, he’d vote for Steve Skinner, Jim Grady, and Bonnie McClung," said Deborah Hirst, legislative aide in Gordon’s office. "He and Naomi Patridge had a misunderstanding about his endorsement.  They remember things differently."

Patridge’s ad in the October 19 edition of the Half Moon Bay Review listed Gordon as an endorser. She ran no ad in the most recent issue, on October 26. Patridge did not return Coastsider’s call for comment.

MCTV (Channel 6) will broadcast the two city council and CCWD candidates’ debates.

The Chamber of Commerce/League of Women Voters debate from Tuesday, October 25 will be broadcast on Thursday, November 3 at 7pm

The AAUW (Monday, October 24) and Chamber debates will be re-broadcast back-to-back on Monday before the election, November 7, with the AAUW debate at 7pm and the Chamber debate at about 8:35pm.

The County Times has endorsed Ferreira, Grady, and McClung; and the Review has endorsed Grady, Patridge, and Skinner.

Read their endorsements. Each is surprising in its own way. Click on the comments link below the headline and let us know what you think about their choices and reasoning.

Here are a couple of photos of road signs that were sent to me by readers.  I’ll be glad when the election is over and I don’t have to write about politics any more. 

Darin Boville

You’ve probably seen this sign, unless you never go north of downtown. We thought it was a particularly calm and clever response to a problem that is no doubt infuriating some members of the LCP.

From Coastsider’s endorsement of Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner: "In the last couple of weeks, signs supporting Patridge, McClung, and Muteff have sprung up on nearly every vacant lot and farm field on the Coastside. I keep asking myself, What do the owners of those undeveloped lots know about those candidates that I don’t?"

I can’t say that anyone learned anything new at the Chamber of Commerce’s debate for Half Moon Bay City Council on Tuesday night.  Most of the audience had come to support their favorite candidates, and the candidates didn’t say very much that was new.

Grady was stolid, Patridge was well-spoken, Skinner seemed like a very nice man, Muteff seemed like a very angry man, McClung seemed dazed, and Ferreira seemed avuncular.

I may post more later, but one particularly interesting part of the debate revolved around lawsuits. There was one mildly exciting moment at the very end.  In his conclusion, George Muteff very effectively waved a copy of the blacked-out due diligence report on the new park.  Mike Ferreira dedicated his conclusion to saying the city had redacted worst-case scenarios from their lawyers, and that the redacted paragraphs amounted to a manual on how to sue the city and stop the park. Ferreira noted that the judge agreed and allowed the redactions.

Speaking of lawyers, I did figure out one thing that I had been gnawing on, or had been gnawing on me, for a while.  George Muteff and his supporters have been pushing hard to make the city’s legal expenses a campaign issue. It seems backwards. The city is never the plaintiff. I don’t understand why Muteff isn’t angry at all the people suing his city.

Somebody, presumably a supporter of Muteff’s, lobbed a question into the debate about all the money the city is spending on lawyers. City Council members Ferreira and Grady made what I thought was a reasonable point: if you fold up every time some out-of-town attorney drops a lawsuit on you, the result is not going to be fewer lawsuits, it’s going to be more lawsuits. That’s the way it works with bullies.

Patridge, Muteff, and McClung took another approach. Patridge wanted to get rid of the city’s law firm and hire a full-time attorney. Muteff said to "Stop putting the Coastal Commission ahead of Half Moon Bay residents."  He talks like that—in folksy and common-sensical non sequiturs.

I’m a little slow on the uptake sometimes. I finally realized tonight why they’re making all this fuss about attorney fees. Not only can you save a bundle by cutting legal expenses, but you can strip the city of its ability to enforce the Coastal Act, and its own laws for that matter. It’s what they call a win-win.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court came out in support of the use of eminent domain for private profit. It was a bad decision that is in the process of being corrected by state and local lawmakers nationwide.  Half Moon Bay’s City Council took a big step toward protecting property rights by putting Measure O [smartvoter.org] on the ballot to prohibit the use of eminent domain for private profit.

I think it’s significant, that for all their complaining about property rights, we haven’t any of the local property rights advocates applaud this, or even note it [Search for "eminent domain" on Californians for Property Rights website].

Measure P [smartvoter.org]  says the City of Half Moon Bay should support the development of recycled water to replace the water that agriculture and golf courses are currently taking from Half Moon Bay creeks. Pilarcitos Creek in particular is losing a lot of water to these uses and it’s time for the community to do something about it. Except for the increasingly expensive water we’re getting from Hetch Hetchy, Coastside water is a closed system and we need to use every drop more efficiently.

We strongly recommend voting for both Measure O and Measure P.

Neither measure is binding on the city, but the voters should deliver a clear message to the city on the importance of both issues. For what it’s worth, the San Mateo County Times has come out in support of both measures.

Sunday night, someone, presumably one of our Coastside neighbors, tore down campaign signs in front of Mayor Jim Grady’s house, then they took a moment to smash the windshield of Grady’s car with a rock.

After I heard this at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, I started and abandoned several editorial pieces on the anger and bitterness of some of the rhetoric I’m hearing in this campaign, not from the candidates, but from ordinary citizens.

But this has just left me speechless.

Residents of Half Moon Bay have a clear choice in this year’s City Council election. Regardless of the opposition’s attempts to blur the lines between themselves and the current City Council majority, the choice could not be more stark.
Coastsider strongly recommends voting for the candidates who are moderates committed to improving the community while preserving the things that make the Coastside special: Jim Grady, Mike Ferreira, and Steve Skinner.

A year ago, I didn’t know any of these guys. Since I started writing Coastsider last year, I’ve become familiar with the current City Council and with a lot of the issues that affect, and divide, our community. The more I learned, the more impressed I’ve been with the current majority. Grady and Ferreira are running on their outstanding record, and Steve Skinner is running on the support of Grady and Ferreira.

They’re not afraid to make big plans. The City Council has delivered a fully-funded Highway 1/Main Street project. They’ve built trails, a bridge, and improved roads. They are building a park close to downtown despite opposition from Naomi Patridge and the Half Moon Bay Review. They’re building a small park in a neglected neighborhood.

Grady, Ferreira, and Skinner are moderates in every sense of the word.  While the Review has attempted to paint them as extremists, Grady and Ferreira have received endorsements from the building trades unions, the developers of Wavecrest, and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors—as well as the League for Coastside Protection, the Sierra Club and Coastside Democratic Club. They have shown how development can take place for the good of the community, and within the constraints of the Coastal Act, Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Program, and good planning.

Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner have been working hard to support the school board’s mandate to build a new school at Cunha, instead of the money pit at Wavecrest. Grady and Ferreira have offered to speed building of the new school in the City Council in the same way that they expedited the rebuilding of Cunha’s Market.  Skinner has supported Cunha since the current review began. Patridge, McClung, and Muteff, die-hard Wavecresters all, have never attended a school board meeting since the review began, and have been mysteriously silent on this vital community issue ever since it became clear that Cunha was the only reasonable choice.

"Because of the 1% cap, growth is off the table as an issue," is something I’ve heard from many supporters of the opposition. This is disingenuous and shortsighted. First, there are plenty of ways to get around growth limits. Second, it’s illegal to steal, but would you trust a thief with the key to your home?  Third, it fails to answer the real question: "What kind of growth?" Take a look at the unplanned, eye-watering, hopscotch development that took place before the current City Council majority.  Even 1% a year of that kind of growth is too much.

Finally, there’s the vague assertion that Half Moon Bay needs better management and more open government.  There is no evidence that the opposition would be better managers, or that they will be more open. But even if they were, that’s not what matters. What matters is what a candidate stands for. We know what Grady, Ferreira, and Skinner stand for. We’re a lot less certain about their opponents. Why is that?

Here’s an exercise that I think will help you make up your mind.  In the last couple of weeks, signs supporting Patridge, McClung, and Muteff have sprung up on nearly every vacant lot and farm field on the Coastside. I keep asking myself, What do the owners of those undeveloped lots know about those candidates that I don’t?

UPDATED: This editorial has been modified.  It’s less tough on the Review and the opposing candidates than the original version. I think it’s better for it.

Even by the ultraconservative Republican standards of Bay Area radio talk show KSFO [KSFO’s flag-themed website], the Brian Sussman Show stands out as the loudest daily rant. To Sussman, the Bay Area is the "belly of the beast," the heart of liberalism he despises. In a seemingly endless loop of mean-spirited invective, Sussman lambasts social programs of any type, environmentalism, public education and the Democratic Party.

So it was instructive Tuesday at drive time to listen to Half Moon Bay City Council candidate George Muteff attacking Mayor Jim Grady, Councilman Mike Ferreira, and by extension, Steve Skinner, who are running for Council as a team.

As Sussman screamed in astonishment, Muteff described how City Council had actually bought property to build a public park! And how Council was conspiring to take away property rights, despite all evidence to the contrary. "Hippies!" Sussman called Muteff’s opposition, never mind that Grady is a corporate executive, Ferreira a businessman and Skinner a realtor. Muteff ended his attack by calling on support for himself as well as Naomi Patridge and Bonnie McClung.

Then Sussman was on to his next hatchet job.

The governor has signed a bill that will allow San Mateo County to put a sales tax to support its parks on the ballot, according to the Daily Journal.  It is expected to raise $13 to $16 million each year.  This would contribute to Half Moon Bay’s efforts to build its new park.