Comments by Barry Parr
May 19, 2008
Ray, the failure of AB1991 will not bankrupt Half Moon Bay. Chop Keenan would never have agreed to the settlement if that were the case. He's not that stupid.
Your "anarchy" statement is simply a strawman.
May 17, 2008
Ray, you're welcome to disagree, but please be civil.
May 15, 2008
Brian, Bob Mitton didn't say that the land is worthless. As far as I can tell from the Review, he talked about the difficulties, but not the value. Real estate development is about overcoming difficulties, and Beachwood would have fewer than most if the city takes it over. Also, according Bob's website, he's a sales and marketing specialist, not a developer of ten-million-dollar projects: http://www.bobmitton.com/Nav.aspx/Page=/About/Default.aspx The land is clearly not worthless. The only people…
May 15, 2008
It's just dishonest to say that land that can be developed with 19 to 30 or more houses is worthless.
I took my best shot at estimating the value and no one has seen fit to refute it.
Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on the city, not on opponents of AB1991. They have yet to prove the land has no value. They can't.
May 14, 2008
First, the net obligation isn't anywhere near $18 million. That's what the city council and Chop Keenan want us to think. It's a lot less. Second, I think the city council negotiated a bad deal. Don't blame me, I didn't get to vote for your city council. Third, the decision was outrageous. A damn shame. Let's call it the equivalent of a natural disaster, and the city should get some help. I would have supported a less aggressive settlement. I now would support some kind of state help for the city…
May 14, 2008
Ray says, "It would be interesting to find out whether the select few that continually voice their opposition to HMB and any sort of improvements in our daily lives here on the coast have any sort of financial interest in this area."
Is financial interest the only kind that matters?
May 14, 2008
Actually, mostly it was a cut & paste of HMB's current line of justification for AB1991, which consists mostly of handwaving: Pay no attention to our undermining of the Coastal Act. Let's imagine that Beachwood has no value whatsoever.
Also, please note that AB1991 is a state law. I've got as much of an interest in the integrity of the Coastal Act as anyone and a lot less to gain than a resident of Half Moon Bay from its subversion.
May 11, 2008
When I worked at the Mercury News, which was in a Golden Age of punning headlines at the time, the rule was that any pun in a headline had to "work both ways". That is, the headline had to make sense, and the pun had to express something meaningful as well.
The problem with Clay's headline is that the story doesn't say that AB1991 is anything like a "capital idea", so the pun "capitol idea" just flops around there on the page.
May 10, 2008
The hearing is now scheduled for May 22. I believe this is the last possible date for a hearing for this particular bill.
May 04, 2008
Even Judge Walker would say that the development proposed by the city is illegal. That's why the city is trying to change the law. I'm hardly a no-growther and have always been prepared to support reasonable, legal development of Beachwood.
The rule of law is a meaningless concept if you can get yourself released from it in exchange for money.
April 30, 2008
This kind of astroturfing has the added advantage of crowding out other citizens who oppose the bill. Comcast used this technique in recent FCC hearings to keep Net Neutrality supporters out of seats. What is the message of the HMB citizens? "We'd really like you to void state and local law for Mr. Keenan so we don't have to pay this settlement we negotiated." The more you look at it, the clearer it is that the city knows it negotiated a lousy deal and wants us to liquidate (convert into cash) our…
April 28, 2008
Yes, this would be a complex transaction and the timing would be difficult. But the city must have given some thought to this. A big part of why they hired Orrick in the first place was their municipal finance expertise.
We have to believe the city has a contingency plan, but they won't tell us or the legislature what it is. They're treating AB1991 as a hostile negotiation, not a partnership.
April 27, 2008
On the conference call, the city made the point that the environmental groups (and the Coastal Commission) had a lot of good ideas for making the settlement more palatable, but unfortunately it was too late.
The city council gets credit for the decision not to consult these stakeholders (or the citizens of HMB for that matter) in putting together the settlement. It could be this decision more than any other that dooms AB1991.
April 20, 2008
Not necessarily all that odd. According to Wikipedia: "Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is an international law firm founded in San Francisco. Orrick traces its roots back to 1863, making it the oldest continuously-operating law firm in San Francisco, and the second-oldest privately-held company in San Francisco after Levi Strauss." However, that doesn't answer the question about why the release came out of DC and the spinners are located there as well. I can't imagine Lanny Davis's hourly rate…
April 19, 2008
"Weeds over people" is of course a straw man. How about "this inflexible attitude of money over the law", or "money over people", or "money over common sense", or "money over the environment", or "money über alles". I haven't a clue whether the vegetation at Beachwood is weeds or natural coastal scrub or some combination that thrives in degraded environments. I support infill development, as long as it is done in compliance with the law, in cooperation with local authorities, at a rate consistent…
April 18, 2008
I think it would be more effective if you refuted Steve's arguments instead of questioning his motives.
Steve, as I pointed out earlier, it's possible to get big projects approved reasonably fast. But you've got to follow the law. Flouting the law is what leads to appeals and delays. That's a pretty consistent pattern.
Personally, I think the city could have pulled off AB1991 if they hadn't overreached.
April 17, 2008
Non-residents of HMB clearly have a direct stake in AB1991. It's a state law and has a direct impact on the future enforcement of state environmental laws as well as the Coastal Act. Assembly members and state senators from all over California get to vote on this issue.
April 17, 2008
At this stage, debate over the definition and source of the wetlands is a waste of time. The new reality is the settlement and its homely lovechild AB1991.
And the question is whether it should become law. If AB1991 fails and the city is looking at developing the land, we'll get to argue about Beachwood's wetness to our hearts' content.
April 17, 2008
Roy, how do you figure?
The wetlands definition was written by HMB, they were found to have created the wetlands, and they negotiated the settlement.
April 17, 2008
I agree that you can't take property without compensation. I still think the city had a good argument that (1) they didn't make Beachwood into wetlands and that even if you thought they did (2) the owner was at least as responsible as they were. They chose not to press the matter. In the words of the anonymous author(s) of the city's press release, “Now is not the time to ask what might have beenâ€. Now is the time to ask "Who should pay for the city's settlement?" I think the city of…
Page 26 of 48 pages ‹ First < 24 25 26 27 28 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS