Comments by Ray Olson
I totally agree with you Barry. I don't think anyone really wants an half cent sales tax increase but it was more of a lesser of two evils at this point. At least with the half cent tax we HMB citizens could quantify what that would mean to our monthly budget, but all of the other alternatives may actually mean much worse for the whole community, not just HMB.
we all know that the property was intended to be developed on once it was sold to keenan, only later to be revoked due to the lcp that hmb had to enact. The idea that it was even considered a wetland was of course due to the no-growth faction that resided in the council at the time the water diversion was being performed, unfortunately. We of course are now paying for these past mistakes.
actually they are both not really considered wetlands until the runoff water was diverted to this area, sigh. It is really dis-heartening that us hmb residents of today are paying for such bad decisions of a council some 15 - 20 years ago. It would be in our best intersts to actuall sue the coastal commision for putting us in this precarious position.
I lived in Moss Beach for about 8 years and trying to cross highway 1 is definitely dangerous to your health. And, I'm convinced reducing speed limits will do nothing since most people ignore the speed limits on highway 1 anyways. Even on the Airport Road that connects Seal Cove to the harbor people drive dangerously fast. I'm convinced we need either pedestrain overpasses or underpasses to allow people to walk to the coast without fear of losing life. Everyone should have this privilege, not just…
It's interesting that Kevin mentioned Patridge, and Aifano were backed by realtors, when in fact Ruddick, Freer, and Handler all received contributions from realtors. You can find it on hmbreview.com, here:
And, at least from my point of view all candidates had placed signs on every possible open space near town.
Yes, I received that glossy paper on my door... on the weekend before the election. Though Partridge and Ailfano sometimes had their signs together it was never stacked like the Ruddick, Freer, Handler ticket from day 1.
I think if we had term limits it would probably be applied to Ruddick since I think I read she has been on the council for 16 years now. And it was clear that from the beginning she was running as a slate to try a pull-up her newbies in the hmb politics scene. Note that Patridge did not have a slate until the last few days before election day. What is troubling to me is how much campaign contributions for ruddick, freer, and handler came from over the hill. I'm not sure if they were representing…
I just read the article. Can you tell me where there is actual evidence that this issue in LA is caused by our actual HMB issue, and AB1991? I don't see how you can claim that this LA issue is using anything related to our bill, which hasn't even passed. I think you made quite a big leap, and am concerned that perhaps you might be creating some hystery build-up, if you know what I mean. I think i've done what Ken claims he has done: "Read the post thoroughly, analyze it, check the validity of the…
Go ahead and keep digressing from the main topic of this discussion, you are always so good at it!
So now you are attaching your belief in God to AB1991, that is so typical.
And you have no idea about my faith in God,
and frankly I take a little offense to that remark.
Not sure what you mean by your statement "is simply a strawman"?
Please note some of the statements in this thread:
"All have a stake in saving a creation of God! "
"The bill is a gross corruption of the entire statewide process of environmental protection"
"..let alone threatening an entire coastal habitat?"
You and others quickly extrapolate that AB1991 is going to cause total anarchy and overdevelopment of the entire california coastside. It is totally untrue. The reality is that HMB cannot afford to pay this legal settlement, and it will lead us to bankruptcy (which is much much closer to the truth than the destruction of the coastal act, and the current wetlands definitions that have been made). You have absolutley no evidence to the contrary.
Wow.. if everyone on the coastside (or our county for the matter) were just as involved in our little city council's affairs maybe we can just have a quick fund-raising campaign, and set this property aside as county owned public lands. I don't necessarily agree with your statement of "But my concerns should be just as valid..". I am hoping that the reasons some of the negotiation between our greeder developer and our city was due to mitigating risk on other attempts to thwart the negotiation. I…
I'm glad you have interest in the financial well being of my city. I'm assuming you live in HMB too? Your points "a" and "b" seem legitimate but just want to make sure you have the same level of financial risk that I have at the moment. Or is it possible that you may be trying to raise any sort of opposition, in hopes of achieving some other non-obvious agenda?
Oh, I must mention one thing.. Please support AB1991 as HMB desparately needs to move forward from the problems that past council members, and the coastal comission, has placed us citizens of HMB into. We cannot afford an 18 millon dollar settlement, and I feel we should not be placed with this financial burden. Please note that many folks on this site that oppose this bill, do not have to bear this financial burden, a financial burden imposed on us by the state, and the coastal commission that imparts…
I apologize to you if you feel like I'm not being civil, as that what was not my intention. But, I think you need to remind Carl as well.. His posts have such a belittling tone.
Also, I see a bit of name calling here which I think is uncalled for. Ken & Anneliese, I am no turnip, I am trying to make a point that I think many folks on the coast feel, and I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
Carl.. I'm just reading more pretentious discourse from someone that may not be living in the same real world that I am.
Oh Carl, it only took you a day for to write your VERY verbose, pompous, diatribe only to confirm that the words in the coastal act are actually "interpreted" by experts in the subject matter. And you call me flailing? That is soo funny. And don't you think it is a bit ridiculous that someone imparts judgement that a few yards away the land must be wetland, but over in this one particular spot, it has been determined that there are certainly no wetlands her? I can visualize it right now.... Our coastal…
Oh, and one other thing... My point about deciding that 20 homes can be built on the wetland... or perhaps 24, or even 130 homes. Where is that stated in the Law?
I've read the link that Francis has provided before, and I think I can count 4 different definitions, but it refers to the USFWS version which I am quite amazed Carl does not seem to know. It states this: "Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically,…
Page 1 of 13 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›