Comments by Ray Olson
August 21, 2006
Carl, There will only be more people living on the coast not less. Sorry, but that is just reality. If you drive on devils slide during commute hours and tourist days it is heavily travelled, way more than the original engineers had ever imagined I am sure. By you "common" definition of rural I then argue that most parts of Pacifica and even parts of SF are rural. In addition to those areas in the central coast that I refer to above. I would be interested in the traffic studies you speak of, however.…
August 20, 2006
Here is another url which is a hybrid map showing hwy 1.
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=morro+bay,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=35.354231,-120.780548&spn=0.005626,0.011083&t=h&om=1
August 20, 2006
Dan, What point were you even trying to make?? Leonard, First off, I don't agree that devils slide is even considered rural. It is no more rural than parts of Pacifica, or even parts of San Francisco. Just because you can't build anything on the side of this steep hill doesn't make it rural. There is as much traffic volume thru Southern Pacifica as in devils slide so one wonders why it gets reduced to 2 lanes? As for Morro Bay, here is one url: http://www.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&saddr=&daddr=morro+bay,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=35.436171,-120.88671&spn=0.005621,0.011083&t=k&om=1…
August 20, 2006
Dan, What point were you even trying to make?? Leonard, First, I disagree that devils slide is anymore rural than many parts of pacifica, or even parts of 1 in San Francisco area. Just because nothing can be built on the side of a hill doesn't make it rural. Certainly there is as much traffic flowing thru devils slide as is thru Southern Pacifica so one wonders why it gets reduced when the traffic volume is the same. As for the Morro Bay area, here is one url: http://www.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&saddr=&daddr=morro+bay,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=35.436171,-120.88671&spn=0.005621,0.011083&t=k&om=1…
August 12, 2006
If you look at the central coast you will find hwy 1 is 4 lanes in many sections that could be considered rural. If you look at sections of hwy 1 outside of San Diego you will also see 4 lanes. Oh, and believe me I am not for putting in more lights, though are some quick benefits to having lights. For example, the 2nd light at El Granada now provides for safe bike and walk travel to the beach, which is what was very much needed (but could have been done with an overpass). I am not for "maximum-growth"…
August 11, 2006
No, I don't get it. How could continuing 4 lanes from Pacifica thru devils slide not be considered an improvement?? Please tell me how that would not be equal to a safer, and more reliable route for folks to travel to the coastside?
Ray
August 11, 2006
Oh and Ken.... Do you really need to resort to name calling (what do you mean by "turnip")?
Oh, and how is that alternative tax efforts coming along? And, you never did tell us what our children have gained by Measure S failing. I remember that was one of your arguments you pushed for when campaigning against S.
Ray
August 11, 2006
Leonard, I understand about the general desire to keep highway 1 to 2 lanes, but one cannot argue that there are sections of hwy 1 that are currently 4 lanes. Now, we should then review how it happened that those sections of hwy 1 were determined to be 4 lanes. My guess is that it would mainly be based on the volume of traffic that the specific section of the highway must support. If you were then to compare that "volume" of traffic to our current devils slide volume, my bet is you will find that…
August 10, 2006
Hmmm, I had no idea about measure A applying to Highway 1. Thanks for the information John. It seems that it is either the red legged frog, or wetlands, or measure A that is being used to prevent any sort of improvements on the coast. I think it is time to read up on Measure A to find out what it really states. It is certain that the california law allows highway 1 to be 4 lanes, yet a measure approved by a county states that it cannot be 4 lanes. Can that actually happen when Highway 1 is a state…
August 10, 2006
Well one could definitely argue that the inside of tunnel is not scenic. Carl, what you are trying to argue is the definition of "scenic" which is not detailed out in any laws. It is clear that there are many sections of highway 1 that are 4 lanes, and that was all done within the laws of California. Furthermore, those sections that are currently 4 lanes could be argued either way that they are or are not scenic. But the facts are that it exists, and based on the current amount of traffic on devils…
August 09, 2006
Sam, You are totally spot-on! Also, you are definitely not alone as I think that perhaps the majority of the coastside community feels this say way. The thing is, most folks feel that it is almost impossible to effect any sort of change on the coast, for certain obvious reasons. I was looking into the whole tunnel campaign information from back in 95. Take a look at the website below and you will see that many of the arguments against the Caltrans options are all valid problems with the Tunnel we…
August 09, 2006
Look at the scenic central california coastline where Morro Bay and others, as well as San Diego area. When there is such a high volume of traffic that exists in the devils slide area the only valid option is to make it 4 lanes. The laws and facts do support this. And I voted for the tunnel it is was never made apparent that it could only be 2 lanes.
Ray
August 09, 2006
Which is as they should be... 2 lanes each way to deal with the volume of traffic this artery must currently support. I can't see the logic for this section to be only 2 lanes (unless of course you want to prevent people from enjoying the california coastline).
Ray
August 09, 2006
Jonathan, Thanks for the information on declining enrollment, I didn't realize this and I can see it would be a factor in the decision making of the middle school. Let me add that I didn't say I disliked the Cunha decision. I am so happy that we can now move forward and get something accomplished. There are pros to the Cunha decision, and Barry has stated some of them. I do like the fact that a "historic" building is not getting bulldozed. I was just stating that I feel it is not the ideal decision.…
August 07, 2006
Kevin, This is all good information, and I am aware of some of this history. But, I think you helped make my point in that there was pressure from folks to just rebuild at Cunha rather than build from a new site. If you ask most parents they will tell you they want to see a NEW school, rather than a refurbished old school (and I think they voted yes on K thinking it would be a new site). How come folks were so adamantly against Wavecrest, or for that matter a different, but new site? I think it is…
August 07, 2006
Yes Barry, I think you are correct that the inability of the board to get the Wavecrest Middle school to be built had an impact on the Measure S vote. I know a few folks that had mentioned this prior to the actual vote. That is a tough one because the current board members may not have been around during that period, and they may have actually been part of the recent solution to just redo Cunha. But, I have to say it must have been extremely tough to try to get a new school built when there are folks…
August 06, 2006
Carl,
I think you could do yourself a big favor by comparing the precint level results of Measure S to other important factors such as family with kids, or number of Senior Citizens, etc. as these factors play a more important role in deciding to vote Yes or No. And I think you are making quite a strech by indicating folks voting behaviors based on Wavecrest vs the new Cunha site.
Ray
August 06, 2006
Hi Lani, In fact if you read Carl's posts above you will find out that he is actually a reduction of the current population advocate, not even zero growth, which of course will never happen. We have to accept the fact that growth will occur and we need to make sure we have sufficient utilities and services for our current and planned population. From reading many of the folks posts here on this website there is no doubt in my mind there are several folks that do not want any growth at all on the…
August 03, 2006
Leaonard,
I don't think the numbers reported above say anything one way or another. There is no clear definition of environmentalist as well (Barry had just implied the letter was about environmentalists). I don't even understand his statement that the more North you the more green it gets. And unfortunately it doesn't really matter at this point. What matters is what it would take to get the remaining 3% vote so that the measure will pass.
Ray
August 03, 2006
Carl,
From what you are saying I guess we all shouldn't be here.. Oh well, I can see that you have this dislike and hatred for folks in this world that you will not accept the fact that we have to learn to live with the population that we have.
Ray
Page 7 of 13 pages ‹ First < 5 6 7 8 9 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS