Comments by Carl May
February 07, 2007
Any scheme for human activity should include, at its base, how that activity can be sustained in a place. Anything that cannot be sustained is nothing better than a intractable problem generator over the long term. Because the coastside is already way beyond sustainability for the kinds of lives we are leading here--including the development, use of resources, and ecosystem services needed to support what we are doing with our lives--adding more lives at any income level only makes the overall situation…
February 02, 2007
Your sarcasm is wasted, folks. During its early Westinghouse years the "Harbor Village" project actually had plans for a tall fake lighthouse (presumably a beacon for shoppers who would have trouble seeing the modest little place from Highway 1?)! I believe it was gone by the time Nerhan got the development. Crude, bizarre stuff like this is sometimes put into plans so developers and/or government bureaurats can pretend to compromise by dropping an element that was unnecessary in the first place.…
January 28, 2007
Leonard, Once again, you need to know the specific individual arrangements between the parties paying MCTV to video something and MCTV. What you are describing in your assumption is often called a "work made for hire." The party paying for the creation of something is, indeed, the copyright owner in such a case. It usually takes a formal contract, coverage in an employment contract, for example, to establish a work made for hire. Unless it is paid for as a work made for hire, the copyright to a photograph…
January 27, 2007
Who owns the copyright depends on the arrangement between the party paying for a work and the party making the work. One cannot make assumptions.
Carl May
January 26, 2007
There are only a few businesses left in HMB that have any appeal or utility at all for me. If Raman is forced out, there will be one less. Is there any space available to him elsewhere that would be as convenient for those of us who pop in for a quick cup and a bit of refreshing philosophy or wit before we blast out over 92 or down 1?
Carl May
January 26, 2007
As a form of public control, the business of making a large number of individual ratepayers object in writing to something that has only been described in general terms stinks. The board knows that this is no kind of an accurate vote on anything, that most people will feel they don't know enough to frame a comment and will let it slide. It is reminiscent of forcing citizens to gather signatures to put a measure on the ballot to stop their fire district board from dissolving their district into a…
January 26, 2007
Leonard, Building excess firefighting water reserves could be an element in justifying new development. Also, storing water when there is an excess available to be metered out when amounts procured daily are not enough to meet demand could be used to justify new permits. The new treatment facilities could have excess capacity over what is now needed by ratepayers, thus becoming an element in an argument that the system can handle more hookups. More storage and more treatment than are needed for the…
January 23, 2007
Why is it so tough to get straight answers and numbers? I read the broadside. I went to the website. They are authoritative in tone but expect some assertions to be taken on faith. So here's a simple question once again: Will the expansions (doubled schoolhouse tank and new 1 million gallon tank, for examples) and upgrades new water treatment facilities) slated to be paid for by current ratepayers through the rate increase provide additional system capacity that will allow new residential and/or…
January 18, 2007
Still no answer to my question as to whether or not HMB's Parks and Rec is receiving "sphere of influence" funds for the uninc. communities? It used to, but because I don't waste time on the petty internal politics of the city, I don't know if it still does. Sorry kumbaya folks, but the unincorporated communities are not even close to being one with HMB for recreational activities. And because of the different landscapes of the city and the uninc. areas, they are even farther apart on so-called "passive"…
January 16, 2007
The county keeps rerunning studies and meetings on this matter every few years. Are they waiting for the population to change in the direction of allowing the county to do whatever suburban-type recreational development it wants to do (=$$$$) rather than what coastsiders have said they prefer repeatedly in the past? The desire by the county to grossly overdevelop the coastal trail into a wide, paved coastal road across the Mirada Surf property may be an indication.
Carl May
January 16, 2007
The underlying question concerns whether or not the City of HMB is still getting state or county funds for city park and recreation activities that serve people in the unincorporated area--in the contrived "sphere of influence" the city is supposed to have for such things. If so, then representation from outside the city makes perfect sense. If not, then there is no reason for such representation. Someone in HMB should be able to find out the answer to the funding question pretty quickly by going…
January 16, 2007
Bob, Talking one-on-one about general questions of interest to all accomplishes little. Why would you want to sooth the concerns of one person when many are wondering about the numbers involved in this rate increase? What about one of my main questions: will the expanded water facilities paid for by the rate increase allow permits for additional development--residential, commercial, or both--to be issued? It would mean nothing for you to answer me in private or at a weakly attended MWSD meeting on…
January 10, 2007
What is not clear from the broadside sent out by the MWSD is whether or not these upgrades, including expanded storage capacity, will allow more water permits to be issued for new development. If that is so, then current ratepayers should object. It is not our duty to subsidize new development with increased rates. In the absence of clarification of this matter, we should also send in letters of objection, as the potential for paying for someone else's development will be there. I agree that all…
December 16, 2006
Gee, do you suppose county and city will be looking at the tsunami risk areas of the midcoast and planning zoning and development accordingly? Anyone not cracked up over that question probably thinks warning people that the water is coming and helping them after they are clobbered is enough.
Carl May
November 30, 2006
Leonard pretty much nails it: the big newspapers, media corporations, editorial photo agencies, and wire services (AP being one of the best known) frequently do not credit photographers by name. Indeed, in some instances of exposes of wartime activities or government malfeasance, the photographer would be placed at risk or have their cover blown by being named.
Carl May
November 29, 2006
Hey, I'm for the horrendous no-project (no-light, no-widening)alternative. Unless people are smacked in the face with the consequences of overgrowth and overpopulation, most will never "get it." But let's not be so ignorant as to think a momentary, illusory switching of stereotyped roles with respect to the "environment" (whatever the definition of local choice for that term may be) is what it seems to be on the surface. The overheated hell, for residents, of the Terrace Avenue intersection with…
November 29, 2006
Here's the deal, kids. If you are on public property or adjacent private property where you have permission to be, you can take pictures of private property, even over objections of the private property owners or people conducting activities on the private property. Heck, you can even sell those pictures for editorial (educational/informational) uses, though you may not sell them for advertising or other promotional uses. You may not, however, go onto private property without permission to take pictures…
November 20, 2006
Advocating "growth" and "infrastructure expansion" on the midcoast equals, among other destructive consequences, additional hardscaping ("paving over"). No two ways about it. Obviously, our weak conservation laws, such as the California Coastal Act, have not been able to protect the coastside--and here I mean the entire California coast, not just the S.M. County midcoast. But for those with dollar signs in their eyes who lament how long it takes to wheedle development schemes through the political…
November 18, 2006
But, of course, I do like some of what is left of the midcoast and most of what I advocate is stopping people from wrecking it. Why should someone who opposes damaging changes and overpopulation that cannot be supported with local resources be the one to leave? Want a paved over landscape, including multi-lane freeways? You know where to find them. The sad thing is that thanks to greedy destructionists and the politicians they own, much quicker, easier, cheaper answers to the landslide on Devil's…
November 17, 2006
Barry,
The "Part B" cannot be considered anything but overhead for the tunnel construction. It is money that will be spent for that part of the project and cannot be separated from the cost of the whole.
Funny how Part B for the tunneling alone would probably have covered the complete cost of dewatering and roadbed stabilization on the current alignment. Sorta lets one realize that it's all about the money and not the actual problem with the highway.
Carl May
Page 19 of 26 pages ‹ First < 17 18 19 20 21 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS