Comments by Barry Parr
July 29, 2006
Here's the ironic thing about the word "blog":
I don't object to it, but it seems that some folks who apply it to Coastsider think they're insulting me. Some people (who will remain nameless) only call Coastsider a blog when I've annoyed them.
But I'm not even sure they know they're doing it.
July 28, 2006
Mary:
I'm not editorializing over your responses. It's supposed to be a conversation. Nobody gets the last word.
I didn't put words in your mouth. I quoted you and linked to your letter. I then asked you to tell us yourself what your letter meant.
July 28, 2006
Let's not deal in rumors, let's focus on the facts. Your rumor says that "LCP support" for Measure S dwindled because of Foothill Blvd. But, as you can see, LCP-oriented precincts turned out for Measure S. And, as I said before, let's not get hung up on the label "environmentalist". Don't let me put words in your mouth. If these people you blame for the defeat of Measure S aren't environmentalists, and they aren't LCP supporters, who are they? How are they organized? What's their motivation? How…
July 28, 2006
Mary A: Welcome to the discussion. Let's put aside your assertions about all the great stuff for local kids these unnamed people are against, and stay on topic. This story is about a common belief, exemplified by (but not confined to) your letter to the Review: "They have voted down five separate parcel tax measures." Who is "they" and how did they vote down Measure S? My analysis of the vote shows that LCP voters aren't responsible, so who was it? How did they put together the votes? My own theory…
July 28, 2006
Brian writes: "Using environmental regulations as a means to an end (to effect control over city affairs) does not make someone an “environmentalist.”" Are you saying they're motivated by something other than a respect for the environment and the law? That assertion would be as unproven as the one that they don't care about kids. The folks you seem to be describing (earlier you called them "obstructionists") are LCP voters and candidates. But Measure S did best where LCP did best. LCP voters…
July 28, 2006
The letter was clearly designed to blame Coastsiders who care about our environment for the defeat of Measure S, and to label them as not caring about children.
July 27, 2006
For those of you who are still awake, I just did a similar analysis by precinct of Chamberlain's vote relative to Measure S. There was a slight positive correlation between votes for Jo and for Measure S (Measure S did a little better where Jo did well), but nothing to write home about. It certainly doesn't prove that Jo's supporters don't like kids.
A scatter chart can be found here:
http:/coastsider.com/images/uploads/schools/parceltax/jo_vs_s.jpg
July 27, 2006
The label doesn't matter. I don't have good names for either side of this debate.
My point was that it's possible to believe in protecting the environment and enforcing the law, and still want the best for our kids. That's mainstream apple pie values.
To suggest that people who believe in enforcing the environmental laws don't care about kids (or are against them) is propaganda and demonstrably false.
July 27, 2006
To refute my point that environmentalists were not responsible for the defeat of Measure S using the supervisorial election, you would need to demonstrate a negative correlation between votes for Jo Chamberlain and votes for Measure S. In other words, you must show that Measure S did badly where Jo did well. Jo's results are so tightly clustered in the limited examples you cite (32.0% to 35.3%) that I doubt you can. I don't find that election indicative of much. Gordon was a shoo-in, so nothing was…
August 01, 2006
There will be a ribbon-cutting Thursday at 11am. I'm hoping they will bring an enormous pair of scissors.
July 18, 2006
It's impossible to read Chief Bonano's final report without believing that we're running out of time.
The difference between what I'm saying and "the little red flyer" is that I'm saying outsourcing offers a clear solution to the crisis.
I'd like to see the authors and distributors of the "The Little Red Flyer" (1) tell us their names, and (2) offer a solution to the problem instead of trying to frighten us out of the only solution on the table.
July 10, 2006
I'm saying that it's not Jim Larimer's call whether additional studies are required.
If the city requires you to do them, they are by definition required. I know this is a rather semantic argument, but the statement “No more studies are required to issue the permits" suggests that this is a settled matter, when it's at the heart of the controversy.
I have no opinion about whether the city needs the additional studies to issue a permit.
July 10, 2006
In the July 5 issue of the local weekly, Jim Larimer wrote, "Planning Director Jack Liebster stated the water district agreed that the city had the right to request more studies. We do agree, but the issue is not the right to request more costly and delaying studies but the need for these studies."
Here he writes: "No more studies are required to issue the permits." It seems to me that this is his opinion, rather than the judgement of the permitting authorities.
July 09, 2006
To label people who differ about the necessity or legality of the pipeline, or whether CCWD has their paperwork in order, as "no-growthers" is to say something about their motives that may or may not apply to some of them, but certainly does not apply to all of them. I know that some people are concerned about the way that CCWD goes about building pipelines, want to make certain that CCWD follows the letter of the law, believe that CCWD has targeted some sensitive land for its pipeline, are concerned…
July 09, 2006
I released this comment, but I'm pretty much done with the use of the term "no-growth" to describe people who insist that developers follow the law. It's being used (as it always has been) as a smear. There is no evidence to support the idea that Ferreira, Grady, or any other LCP-supported candidates for that matter, are no-growthers. As I've pointed out here before, when they were in the majority, HMB grew at a very healthy clip and new developments were added to the pipeline. To use "no-growth"…
July 06, 2006
How has Jim Grady show he does not want to compromise? Please be specific.
I don't expect everyone to compromise every time. But I do expect them to do it sometimes. For that reason, I'm much more interested in examples of compromise than I am in examples of failure to compromise. I'd like someone to put forward a person they believe is a moderate and cite an example to demonstrate it.
July 06, 2006
No one has answered my original question for Brian. And anyone can play: Who do you think is a moderate, and can you cite some examples of what they have done to strike a balance on the critical issues that divide our community, and to reach out to the opposition to craft a compromise that both sides can live with? Joel: Reasonable people can differ about Ferreira's openness on the park deal. But it's dishonest to describe the park plan as "family unfriendly" or Mike as "one of the extremist chief…
July 06, 2006
If we assume that respecting the law regarding wetlands, endangered species, and the Coastal Act is a given for all members of a civil society, I would define "environmentalists" as people who regard the letter of the law as it is currently written insufficient protection for the environment and seek either an expansion of the law or higher regard for the environment than is required by the law. Lawbreakers on either side of the issue are not part of civil society and cannot be compromised with.
July 06, 2006
I don't remember Mike Ferreira saying he wouldn't run again. I think that might be wishful thinking on Brian's part. Ferreira was the author of a number of compromises. Both the current versions of Pacific Ridge and Wavecrest represent compromises between the concerns of the developers and the environmentalists. Many of the environmentalists I know have mixed feelings about Ferreira because he really is interested in compromise and getting things done. Brian: Who do you think is a moderate, and can…
July 05, 2006
NIMBY is defined by Wikipedia: NIMBY is an acronym for the phenomenon in which residents oppose a development as being inappropriate for their local area but, by implication, do not have a blanket opposition to such developments elsewhere. It is therefore used to signify protest by people whose major concern about some development or activity is for it not be associated with or developed within their locale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimby *** The problem, as I see it, is that this is simply a…
Page 38 of 48 pages ‹ First < 36 37 38 39 40 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS