Comments by Barry Parr
May 30, 2009
I think the Governor is trying to punish the voters for hating his stupid ballot propositions.
May 30, 2009
I've edited Jack's comments to remove the all-caps and bold. I'd prefer not to set a precedent for what looks like shouting on Coastsider.
May 30, 2009
More from the Chron: Only five parks in the Bay Area are among the 59 statewide that could be spared because they are self-sustaining, collect special use fees or are run by local cities and counties, according to Roy Stearns, spokesman for California State Parks, which released the plan. Those are: Albany State Marine Reserve, Emeryville Crescent State Marine Reserve, Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area, Pacifica State Beach and San Bruno Mountain State Park - all of which are operated by local…
May 27, 2009
This is a critical process that has been going for about 10 years. The Coastal Commission has raised a number of critical issues in this important plan and I'm glad to see the MCC taking a lead role in this process.
It's ironic that the county chose to hold this important Midcoast hearing in the city of Half Moon Bay, rather than the communities most affected by the LCP.
May 20, 2009
HMB already has received a $5 million insurance settlement from ABAG:
That's the money they plan to apply to the Beachwood settlement.
May 18, 2009
We haven't been well served by the current restrictions on funding, so I don't believe that increasing restrictions will make the problem better. The enemy isn't "government", and the people who want us to believe that are looking after their own best interests, not ours. Representative democracy is messy and it's often wasteful and sometimes corrupt. It's full of distasteful compromises. We're better off with open meetings laws and campaign finance reform than we are with declaring war on our government.…
May 15, 2009
Half Moon Bay signed the settlement agreement April 1, 2008 and spent virtually the entire legislative session flogging the disastrous, hopeless AB1991. I don't know who told them that was a good idea, but what stuns me is that they didn't have a Plan B when the stakes were so high. AB/SB 650 now appears to have been a nonstarter from the get-go, despite the fact that they've had since last August to work on it. As I've said before, I'd like to see the city get some relief from the state, but the…
May 14, 2009
I missed Steve's question when I was posting my comment above. I wasn't calling Jim Larimer a wing-nut. I was saying that his column contained a coded message (dog-whistle) to the wing-nuts that he supported their cause. Although I see how it could be read that way. In retrospect, I think the headline probably detracted from the analysis of his column, although I still believe it accurately reflects one of his intended purposes. Also, as I've said in the past, we also don't enforce our civility rules…
May 14, 2009
Steve writes: I’ll take all this as if you don’t like the message, attack the messenger. Its also obvious that after all these comments, my question won’t be answered here. I'm still baffled by what Steve's trying to get at. The MWSD has stated publicly that they started the process so they could get state money to improve the wells, something which is impossible under the current arrangement. OK, that seems reasonable. It also suggests that there is a huge upside to getting a change and that…
May 13, 2009
"lemmings"
That's name-calling and it's out of line.
May 13, 2009
Steve writes: "Everybody is stretched thin but this is certainly more important to many people I think than guitar groups or dead birds or wild flowers." Maybe, but I'm basically reposting that stuff. And while being a community bulletin board is an important part of our mission, it's a lot more work to really master an issue or a court case and share it with the community. I spent a lot of time with the county's groundwater report before I posted my story, a week ahead of the Review and days ahead…
May 13, 2009
I can't be everywhere at once, so I put this issue is on the back burner because of more urgent/important matters, even within MWSD.
But I'm curious what you're hearing, Steve. If this has got your attention all the way down in Half Moon Bay, what is it about this lawsuit that you think is important? Is it just the cost of litigation, or is it something else?
May 13, 2009
Steve, I don't agree with this statement: Most of the litigation that we’ve had could have and should have been avoided It's those kind of blanket statements that I objected to earlier. It's based on assumptions that I'm sure you and I don't share and applies way too broadly to be useful. I'm commenting only generally on the MWSD issue because I really don't know the details. I'm just saying that it seems like the upside is really high and the downside is really low. I haven't seen anything that…
May 13, 2009
I don't like the representation (not necessarily by Steve) that the problem is "lawsuits". This ignores where the lawsuits are coming from and why. If HMB has a litigation problem, that begs the question of whether it's the fault of the city or a new tactic on the part of those who don't like the law. Oak Park looks like a particular case that could easily have been avoided and I don't think it's part of any trend around litigating land use. The MWSD/airport lawsuit is also unrelated to land use…
May 13, 2009
Yes, I made fun of Jim Larimer's column in my headline, but my piece was an excruciatingly detailed examination of his reasoning and the assumptions supporting it.
I don't know what to say about his latest post (May 12 at 3:27 pm) over in TalkAbout, accusing his mysterious enemies of faux environmentalism, lack of empathy, service of special interests, and intolerance of people with an alternative vision of the Coastside.
He's describing his own column.
May 12, 2009
I'd be the last person to say that you can't comment on a Coastside district of which you're not a resident. :->
However, I'm very careful about how I use "our" or "we" when doing so. It's not a big deal, but I'm guessing that's what Vince was reacting to.
May 12, 2009
I agree that this is an interesting question, but the comparison to HMB doesn't work for me.
1. When MWSD lost their suit, they found themselves still in the status quo, not $40+ million in the hole.
2. The risks of an appeal are a lot less, while the upside is much larger compared to the cost.
My best guess is that the answer is "Why not?"
May 12, 2009
I just want to note that it has been nearly 24 hours since I've asked Jim Larimer to substantiate the following allegation:
There has been an excess of this intolerance in our community and Parr’s blog site offers many examples.
If he can't produce those many examples of intolerance on my part, he owes me an apology.
May 11, 2009
Jim Larimer writes: These are all examples of the sort of factionalism that James Madison had in mind when he wrote his warning in the Federalist Papers about the danger related to factional zealotry. There has been an excess of this intolerance in our community and Parr's blog site offers many examples. Paging Dr. Freud! Jim Larimer is one of the great sources of factional zealotry and intolerance in our community. Go back and read his column from the Review. It's a spittle-flecked rant about the…
May 10, 2009
Jim Larimer has posted a reply to this piece over in TalkAbout: If he'd rather not discuss it here, I can understand that. I'd be happy to continue this conversation in a neutral forum where the participants use their real names and don't hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I'm not going to take his reply apart right now, but I did want to share this piece: Barry Parr is part of a political faction that believes that their collective right to define what protects the environment is superior to other's…
Page 17 of 48 pages ‹ First < 15 16 17 18 19 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS