Comments by Darin Boville
Hmmm. I don't like this new phrasing any better :)
>>Are you willing to allow the Supervisors exercise the power to choose who can represent you
>>Are you willing to cede that power
>>How can you defend the idea that only the Supervisors can speak for the Midcoast?
>>It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the real reason...
an attempt to dictate an advisory council that is less bothersome to a county ...less representative of local citizens...and less responsive to coastal concerns. Carl, The issue is having the MCC adhere to conflict-of-interest laws. The County won't tell you who to vote for. They won't tell you you can't run. Or are you suggesting that qualified, representative and responsive candidates are in short supply on the Midcoast--and all those individuals are already on the water and sewer boards? What…
The MCC is only an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. But the community wants--the community *needs*--much more. To a degree the existing MCC has been trying to expand its role--a desirable goal. It needs to be more than just an advisory committee. But it cant have it both ways, can it? It can't say, "We are more than just advisory, we speak for the community and can write who we want" and at the very same time say, "We are only just advisory and the laws that apply to *real* councils…
>>The reason it’s impossible to discuss is more fundamental — some people appear to be pushing the concept that anyone who opposes any development in any way is an eco-terrorist. As the saying goes, “That’s not right. It’s not even wrong.”
Are these the same ones who used to roam the streets around George and Birch? They've been missing now for a few weeks.
I was under the impression that one of the houses owned the animals and had a shelter for them.
>>They even have their own names: Miramar, El Granada, Princeton, Moss Beach, Montara.
I think it is rash to accuse (as I interpret your cryptic comment) Chair Leonard Woren as being a member of the "pro-builder lobby."
He seems to have made his views abundantly clear--he is nothing of the sort.
Hi Jonathan, I'm curious about the last two charts in your analysis--the ones that project enrollment out ten years. Although you cite Ed-Data as the source for the charts I didn't see the projections there so I'm assuming they are yours. Could you share the methodology you used to develop these? I see that your charts differ in enrollment by about 1000 students (You used different methodologies for each chart? Or the same methodology produced different results?) and also that not only will Hispanics…
>>I am still waiting, since 5 November 2007, for some explanation of your 'disinformation' campaign!
My intention is not a "personal attack" - it is a friendly 'intervention', to get you to face your problem with factually recognizing CUSD's shortcomings.
>>I am surprised, after CUSD destroyed your credibility, that you are still an apologist for them.
>>The headline and the text make it clear that the reason the reported dropout rate has soared is that the reporting system has changed.
The graph is still misleading--it essentially mixes data types--the "reported drop out rate" prior to the last column is a different beast than the "reported drop out rate" in the last column. Oh, what would Edward Tufte say! In any event, if we really want to address the problem we need to dive a bit deeper into the data. Here is the chart that I think Jonathan is referring to: http://tinyurl.com/6s49o3 And what jumps out is that three fourths of the drop outs are Hispanic (29 out of the 39)--keeping…
The chart seems to give a wildly inaccurate impression--suggesting that something happened in the past year that caused a sharp spike in dropouts when in fact it is just an artifact of the change in methods. The point should be not that the dropout rate has increased but that the dropout rate has always been much higher than admitted (making some assumptions about the missing data). It would be nice to include data about kids who are "dropouts" only because they haven't passed the test so we can…
fyi, the end of the Piper Jaffray analysis has more detail on the numbers...
As I have mentioned elsewhere, my copy of the Beachwood Settlement says that if the City of Half Moon Bay pays Keenan $18 million they get two things: 1) The land referred to as Beachwood, and 2) the *option*, recently purchased by Keenan, to buy the land referred to as Glencree. They don't get Glencree--just the option. They have to buy Glencree which, based on the option payment, looks like at least $1 million on top of the $18 million. The Piper Jaffray analysis, however, has HMB building on Glencree…
>>From Gina Papan:
I do not and would not support AB 1991 unless it was amended
>>Will you Democrats be asking them how they stand on AB 1991, and why? Do they understand the nature of the precedent for the rest of us who do not live in HMB?
Page 4 of 8 pages ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›