Comments by Vince Williams
January 23, 2009
Carl May asks: "If it is all perception, fuzz, and smell, why do the Supervisors feel they need a formal resolution drafted by County Counsel to legally dictate a change to qualifications for service on the MCC?" 1. Show of power: the Supes have legal counsel, the MCC doesn't. 2. Next election a member of one of the special district boards might actually run and get elected to the MCC, in defiance. The Supes might actually find themselves in court trying to justify their invalidation of someone that…
January 23, 2009
Darin, I divided my post into my lay understanding of the law and my opinion of the politics of the situation. I interpret what you are asking as an ethics question. Legally the burden of making a determination of a conflict of interest lies with the individual elected official. They go through AB1234 ethics training. They are free to consult with an attorney about any issues. Any citizen can go to the DA or sue on their own, if they see a legal conflict of interest. I did that in the case of one…
January 23, 2009
Neil Merrilees wrote: "Sewer board members can’t also serve on a Fire Board." There is a difference between a legislative body and a advisory body. Legislative bodies can pass regulations, collect taxes, assess fees, hire employees, fire employees or enter into contracts. MW&SD;, GSD and CFPD Boards are all legislative bodies of special districts within the County of San Mateo. You are right one person can't serve on two of these Boards, because it is an incompatible office. "The Midcoast Council…
January 21, 2009
Darin wrote: "I think that if the MCC was more credible in Redwood City, if it was seen as a legitimate voice of the coast rather than the puppet of other boards, then we would be able to have a larger voice in planning and zoning, parks, quality-of-life improvements." As I wrote earlier, I perceive a difference between a majority of the Midcoast residents and the Board of Supervisors(Supes) on the issue of growth on the Midcoast. It's a pretty fundamental disagreement about a big issue. The infrastructure…
January 21, 2009
Kevin Lansing wrote: "Rather than attempting to restrict who is eligible for the MCC and obsessing over some procedural missteps, people should be focusing on more important issues like the Midcoast LCP update, and Rich Gordon’s effort to shove 3400 more houses down the throats of Coastside residents." Which "people"? I see people on both sides of the growth issue fixated on the trivialities of the eligibility requirements for the County Supervisors advisory council which is ignored by the Supervisors.…
January 21, 2009
Carl May, What have you done lately, other than rant about the good old days? The Midcoast P&Z got disappeared by the County as did the LCP update. How many hours went into those efforts only to be thrown away by the County. What seems to matter to some here is maintaining the futile struggle just for tradition and the bragging rights of, at least, we tried. Hate to tell you this, but, you're sounding like the local old guard. My challenge is still out there: what can the MCC realistically accomplish…
January 21, 2009
Darin, Thanks for bringing the MCC meetings to us. I particularly appreciate the way your webcasts allows one to pick and choose what one is interested in. The powers that be in Redwood City have already decided what they are going to do with their advisory council. Supervisor Gordon had the courtesy to come out to the Midcoast and explain the Supervisor's position and listen. The Board of Supervisors are going to keep their advisory council. Those that got themselves elected, can stay to the end…
January 20, 2009
Kevin Barron, Sorry, I wrote Kevin Bacon. I meant to write your name spelled correctly, capitalized correctly, in a context of proper grammar in order to have maximum "responsive rhetoric". I dashed it off quickly. Now, I have egg on my face. I didn't take 45 minutes to hem an haw about how to slide a personal attach by Barry. But, I guess that is why Ken Johnson got the editorial rebuke and I skated by. But, I'd thought I skated by unrebuked more for my cleverness of comparing a three hour MCC meeting…
January 20, 2009
Barry spoke of the divide on the issue of growth on the Midcoast. The County Supervisors are hardly neutral on the issue of growth. The political interests that control the Supervisors do not have the same interests as the Midcoast. The Bayside cities manage and control growth with in their individual borders. Cities on the Bayside in general have a NIMBY attitude as far as development, dump it on those cities or unincorporated areas that either want it or can't stick up for themselves. The unincorporated…
January 16, 2009
It's on MontaraFog.com. The problem is it's near impossible to summarize the three hour meeting. I'm sure there will be different interpretations, like the failed attempt by, Kevin Bacon above. But, to really EXPERIENCE the frustration of the MCC, one has to view the whole webcast in its entirety. I watched the webcast. It is a good example of Coastside democracy in action. Like a movie by Michaelangelo Atonioni every moment of it has to be carefully watched. Darin is a webcast genius. I fear with…
January 14, 2009
Paul Perkovic writes: "What issues has the Midcoast Community Council discussed that could have a potential conflict with the goals of other local agencies?" Most here concede this is a non-issue. "I put together a brief list of 'Some Previous Midcoast Community Council Discussion Topics'" When the Supes. canned years of compromise and work by the Planning Commissioners and the MCC on the LCP update, the MCC became politically irrelevant. I look at your list and what the MCC has accomplished in the…
January 14, 2009
The political poles on the Coastside have battled to a political stasis or standoff. It would take incredible political effort to take away possession of one of the special districts from the opposing political pole. The control of the special districts is not likely to change. The attitude of the Supes., bought and paid for by County wide political interests, are currently aligned with one of the political poles. The Supes. are not going to concede any power to the Midcoast or the MCC. The citizens…
January 14, 2009
We all apparently agree, “that the Supes don’t take the MCC seriously”. So, what is the relevance of the MCC to residents of the Midcoast? Why should we fight over this? Let the Supes. put their appointees on the MCC and we can ignore the MCC like many of us are now. When the appointees run for reelection, either political pole could run mudslingers(that may or may not be qualified) to embarrass the appointees and have a good laugh. I don't see any difference between this new scenario and the…
January 13, 2009
Kevin Barron writes: "Vince, it was a blatant personal attack." It wasn't. I was commenting on what Steven Hyman wrote. I said that explicitly. "Nice try on the backpeddle." I don't see a back peddle in my post. "You are obviously on opposite ends with Steve’s piece, and it clearly shone through." How can I be on opposite ends of something that is incomprehensible to me? Here is this one sentence form Steven Hyman's original post: "NP3 graduated #1 in his class at Camp GITMO and has specialized…
January 12, 2009
I'd like to discuss the topic of the political extremes, no middle ground and everyone in the community being held hostage to the extremists. I've seen some follow ups, I'd like to respond to, here. But, I don't think it is appropriate to have such a discussion under this topic.
Some suggestions for a new topic header, " eco-terrorist or shill for developers?", "Is there a middle ground?", "Why don't polite people talk about religion or politics?" or "Why can't we all get along?"
January 12, 2009
Steven Hyman asks, "What do you think?"
This is silly self promotion which hardly qualifies as satire. The references and analogies seem weak. From your prose, you appear lost in your own head.
The political issues are buried so deeply in inappropriate metaphors, it's impossible to discuss them.
This isn't a personal attack. I'm just reacting to what was written.
January 09, 2009
Ah, I hate to admit this, ah, but, I agree with Carl May. Combining GSD and the sewer portion of MW&SD;would be ok. But, I would guess MW&SD;can't split its water and sewer functions, now. To put it directly and tactlessly, control of the water portion of MW&SD;is the political prize that the political extremes are willing to fight to the death over. Again tactlessly, control of that political price (water) is what the BOS are after. The problem with the water portion of the MW&SD;is that there are…
October 19, 2008
Leonard,
Thanks.
Isn't the State Controller's LAIF fund pool that MWSD and GSD utilize separate from the SMC LAIF fund pool Treasurer Buffington manages? California Government Code section 53684 appears to allow Counties to maintain their funds separate from the State and Local Districts to utilize the County fund.
October 19, 2008
Leonard,
You don't mention what entity is holding GSD's LAIF. Does GSD have their own Treasurer?
I believe CFPD was soliciting for a Treasurer and investigating getting out of the SMC Treasurer's LAIF, when the Lehman failure occurred.
October 19, 2008
Paul, OK, let's cheer MWSD for dodging the Lehman failure. But, what's the point, when we all took a hit in our other local districts. Like I said in my previous post, I don't see enough transparency in the State Controller's LAIF investments. If the State LAIF funds were all in three month T-Bills, I'd give MWSD a gold star for fiduciary responsibility, this week. But, they aren't. This past week the nine largest banks in this country were summoned to the Treasury Department and told they have to…
Page 3 of 8 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS