Comments by Ray Olson
September 23, 2006
I believe my point about being grounded in reality is even more reinforced by the above response.
Ray
September 22, 2006
Carl,
What you call damaging, I call "life-saving".
Your fear that improving infrastructure means "growth-inducing" is unfounded and not based at all on facts.
Ray
September 22, 2006
One quick comment..
There are too many LCPs. There is the Local Coastal Program (or is it Plan?), the League for Coastal Protection and the League for Coastside Protection. It is a bit confusing.
Does the League for Coastside Protection drive what is contained in the Local Coastal Program?
Ray
September 22, 2006
Ken,
what you mention as alternatives above can be classified in one of my two options, it is just a matter of degrees. I think most folks on the coast are frustrated with the sort of "incrementalist" approach that may have been used in the past (ie no boys/girls club, no new middle school etc) and so want to see improvements, in a more realistic and worthwhile timelines.
And Carl, I am all for getting real, which is why I disagree with your point of view.
Ray
September 21, 2006
I think we all understand Carl's opinion, and based on the problem as he states it, we should ALL move from the coast, including himself. But of course the reality is we live 25 miles from a large city, and we already have a sizable population for which our current infrastructure cannot support (let alone any sort of growth). So there are really only 2 things that can be done: 1. Reduce the current coastside population by pursuading people to move 2. Improve the current infrastructure so that we…
September 20, 2006
This is great Barry!
Not sure about Ken's comments since there happens to be no context around it, though George's comments were a bit comical.
Ray
September 20, 2006
Kevin,
I do agree with you that we shouldn't re-invent the wheel, if our LCP does address all things related to the community, but don't we have 2 at the moment (one for HMB and one for the county)? And from reading Don's article above I'm not sure he is saying to use something other than the LCP, he is merely pointing out areas that may need reconsideration.
Ray
September 20, 2006
Look, I am not necessarily for Concar developing the land. As it currently stands, they are preparing the land to raise some sort of crop. The land had previously been farm land, so why can't they continue this? Until there is actually development activities going on, the coastal commission's decision on the property being treated as endangered habitat will probably not be able to be enforced. Just like the farm property that is on the east side of hwy 1. What I do read from the letter is that there…
September 20, 2006
Kevin, Why do you say that the California Coastal Act is the ordinance for Smart Growth? I don't believe it is the coastal commission's charter to tell a community how they should support the needs of the community. I believe their only job is to make sure there is a balance between coastal habitat, and land development. That is it. Coastal habitat is definitely not our only concern, and so it is up to us folks living in the community to find out where our needs are not met, and do something about…
September 19, 2006
This is pretty comical! I read the letter from the coastal commission to Concar. There is even this question: 15. Were there security trucks/guards present on the site during the disking activities? Why does the coastal commission care whether security guards were present when the land was prepared for farming? Doesn't it sounds quite odd that they would be asking these questions? To me, it sounds like some folks may have pushed the coastal commision to respond in a certain way? If the law is black…
September 19, 2006
Great article Don, this is a long overdue and accurate assessment of our current situation. People should note that we can definitely have Smart Growth, and protect endangered habitat and address environmental concerns. These are not 2 opposite ends of the spectrum, and is something that many coastside communities have adopted. The so-called "laws" around the california coastal act are definitely not black and white and are written in such a way to support both the communities needs and the environments…
September 12, 2006
Thanks for your comments Mike, I appreciate them. I just read your attachment. One quick comment: A snake was found 1 mile away, and near the creek! I find that quite odd how one can extrapolate that the area in question is the actual habitat for the snake, when a snake wasn't even found on the property! Yes, you can assume, and make an educated guess. And they even point out that adjacent areas are suitable habitat, so one wonders how much of the habitat is actually necessary, to ensure that the…
September 11, 2006
Oh, and let's not forget that we have an annual growth rate in HMB, and that annual growth rate will always be reached, no matter how many new housing tracts are even discussed. So the issue of new homes, and more traffic is a non-issue, as we have to address these concerns no matter what new housing tracts are proposed.
Ray
September 11, 2006
Mr La Guardia stated the following: "Actually, not the case. US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists have visited the site and officially declared it endangered species habitat for both the California Red Legged Frog and the San Francisco Garter Snake. Barry has the letter to this effect posted on Coastsider." Are you referring to this document: https://coastsider.com/images/uploads/docs/wavecrestusfg041122.pdf If so, I have read this letter and it states: "As you know, both the Department and the…
September 07, 2006
Sam is totally spot-on about the "critter-card". Doesn't it sound a bit ridiculous that "the law" should be introduced as being violated, simply because one biologist spotted a frog on the property? I have frogs in my backyard, and I bet there are some red-legged frogs. Does that mean that if I spotted one (and documented it via an official form) then I cannot landscape my backyard? It is obvious that the law is NOT black and white in this matter. I think the intent of the law is that: if a species…
August 09, 2006
I loved Hawaiian Ono! Is this another result of the slide being out? I hope they are not gone for good?
August 25, 2006
Leonard, I believe you are correct in your statements. I think I didn't make myself clear.. I think the portion of hwy 1 between pacifica and montara should be 4 lanes since there is nowhere to turn off of. This would allow traffic to avoid a situation like an accident and still allow some level of throughput. The portion of hwy 1 from Montara thru HMB doesn't necessarily have to be 4 lanes, but it has to be wide enough to support it. For example, at any given time there might be a left turn bay,…
August 24, 2006
Carl, I think we all know where you are coming from. From your statements I read that you feel the world is overpopulated as it is and we need to have a reduction in the number humans. I don't think that has any bearing on the discussion above since we are not talking about how to reduce our population here on the coast. Barry, I'm not sure I agree that the stretch of road you mention is a nasty piece of road. When driving on sharp park during commute hours, you will find that it suppports ALOT of…
August 23, 2006
Hi Barry, Thanks for the compliment on being a reasonable guy. I hope I have been reasonable in all of my discussions. Sorry if folks take offense to my comment on attitude. Honestly, I have spoken to folks that agree with me on the road infrastructure and the "no growth" attitude and that seems to be what folks perception is. Including folks on the other side of hill. I'm trying to find out if that is really people's intention, and because I don't understand how improving the roads means additional…
August 22, 2006
Hi Dan, Thanks for your comments. I too am living on the coastside for the same reasons as you have indicated. I think there are many folks that agree with this same desire. I do not desire to diminish it. But, I do not believe that making hwy 1 4 lanes (or 92 4 lanes) to mean that the coastside will be diminished. In fact, I totally believe it will be improved, and that is where I fail to see your reasoning. The only thing I see from the logic of throttling traffic flow is perhaps a "this is my…
Page 6 of 13 pages ‹ First < 4 5 6 7 8 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS