Comments by Greg Ward
March 28, 2008
Rather than saying favoring greater restrictions at the local level, I believe that the appeals process at all levels needs some method of assuring that appeals that will take up valuable time and resources, be more stringently vetted. Too much time is wasted on spurious appeals, that will be denied anyway. There should be some criterion under which an appeal could be filed, some specific problem rather than "I object, this doesn't follow the LCP", or "I think there's a wetlands out there somewhere,…
March 28, 2008
You guys are going to nit-pick me to death, but I should expect it. Point: No one is saying eleminate the appeals process, Barry. There have been projects that I have thought needed appealing. I am saying that the process should be more demanding on the person(s) doing the appeals, so that the number of nonsense appeals drops. The process needs to be messed with. There needs to be fairness to all sides. Point: The above well process was approved by the County with NO appeals, period, and was conditioned…
March 28, 2008
Apples and oranges Leonard. Why should requesting that the law (zoning, LCP, Coastal Act) be followed be any different from requesting that any other law be followed? Does the police department ask you to pay to enforce the law against somebody who robs you or who assaults you? Because by the time the project hits the approval stage, we have gone through ALL of the zoning requirements, and have complied completely with the LCP requirements, etc. that the agencies enforce. These plans are gone through…
March 28, 2008
As usual Leonard and I disagree on everything. He feels that anybody with any beef at all should have a free ride to delay any project just because they have a bad case of gas. If these appeals are not designed to stall a project, and have real merit, then there should be no objection to paying for it. As for Lansing's comment, and just for the sake of conversation, who put Barbara up to filing the appeal, and who was the Staffer that filed the pre-signed appeal, which I have a copy of. I have the…
March 27, 2008
The point is Ken, that just because someone has an objection to a Project, doesn't mean they should be able to hold up people's lives for free. If you feel strongly about it, be willing to pay for it. As to my own personal experience, ask Kevin Lansing and Barbara Mauz about a certain well project that was to be a strict test well. The entire County process was followed to the letter, public meetings onsite (no one showed) 3 public hearings, again, no one showed. No one appealed to the Planning Commission…
March 26, 2008
No Carl. Sometimes you just get tired of the SOS. This from the other scource: Ducheny takes on errant commission staff Sunday, March 02, 2008 The arrogance of the California Coastal Commission staff knows no bounds. So, hats off to Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, for countering the staff's audacious interpretations of state law. After six months of effort, Ducheny has forced Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas to halt his staff's abuse of a law that Ducheny authored four years…
March 26, 2008
Guess what, Greg. The right to petition the government is in the First Amendment of the Constitution--or are you one of those who thinks they can do better dictating to their fellow citizens than the law of the land we now live under? In HMB, for example, the Public has 4 opportunities to object to a given Project before it is approved. 1. ARC. 2. The Planning Commission. 3. The City Council. 4. CCC, or litigation. I hardly think anyone's first amendment rights are being violated. I won't take up…
March 26, 2008
I disagree Ken. I feel that if someone has an issue with a Project, they should be willing to put their money where there feelings are. Us "Developers" are forced to pay for every inch of the process, including the costs for delays in terms of time lost, construction costs, interest, and stress caused by unlimited rights of appeal. The CCC process should probably happen concurrently with the local approval process. As to "local error", that implies that the local Planners and LCP policies mean nothing,…
March 23, 2008
I stand humbled, educated, chastised, and overwhelmed by the above responses to my less-than-educated comments. I observe someone taking a general comment to literary heights unimagined. I see Carl wax eloquent in his normal eletist way, and I see Kevin slinging the normal rhetoric putdowns, and I am in awe. Still no Apology.
Greg Ward
March 23, 2008
It seems to me that this bill is designed to cut down the number of appeals because it’s inconvenient for developers, and not to serve any real public purpose. An appeal must still be voted on by the Coastal Commission itself. Inconvenience,is the least of the problems that the vast majority of these appeals generates. Everything that costs time, costs money, and affects people's lives, and not positevely, as they have already been through the grinder locally. For a large project, yes, some…
March 22, 2008
So, once again, the label "developer" is laid on anyone who disagrees with Carl or Kevin, or the "usual suspects". Kevin is intimate with a couple of staffers on the CCC, and naturally doesn't want anything to interfere with this intimacy. Carl is just flat against anything. I agree that the whole CCC is in need of total restructuring, with input from ALL parties, not just the ECO-Nazis.
Greg
March 21, 2008
Finally the State is doing something about a system that has been, and is being abused by the "Usual Suspects". Local governments should know better what their local situations are, than a staffer sitting in a hotel in Southern California does. The majority of these 'after the fact' spurious appeals are nothing more than No-Growthers continuing on in their efforts, and with the CCC, it's free. SMCO has raised their fees and the process for appeals is more difficult, so the appelants are waiting until…
Facebook
Twitter
RSS