Comments by Ray Olson
August 03, 2006
Ken, I think you proved my point as well when you state you do not "trust" the board. So that means we all pay because you want to make measure S fail? Also, I had proved that we are not getting the funding that the other districts are receiving, in fact we are below the state avg funding. So from all angles there is NO benefit to our schools and our children when Measure S failed. In fact it has been all negative, for example we have currently lost 3 great teachers, and now our music program at…
August 03, 2006
Sorry Carl but I don't buy that propaganda about either the tunnel nor the water supply. Believe what you want to believe but I vividly remember the time prior to the vote on Measure T and the emphasis on the habitat reduction of the frog, and other environmental impacts related to the road. Also, we are definitely not unique when it comes to water supply for the coast. Just look at the central california coast for example and the requirements they had for additional water supply. It can be done.…
August 02, 2006
Kevin, I agree with the point you made in your last paragraph. And, I also believe that the environmental laws you speak of are definitely not black and white. An example of this is the loose definition of "wetlands" that is sometimes applied, and sometimes not applied, in order to meet a desired objective. This is just one example. Another example is the reason for considering a tunnel rather than the original solution Caltrans had proposed. I believe one of the reasons for being against the Caltrans…
August 02, 2006
Hi Barry, You stated this: "There is no evidence that a zero-dev cabal defeated Measure S. Or that one exists." Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. A main theme for those wishing to defeat Measure S was: "I do not like the board, nor do I trust the board with any decisions, so I do not wish to give them any more money". Now, this statement has nothing to do with the merits of S, but rather who is on the board at the moment. But perhaps.. if everyone on the board happens to be for preventing any…
August 01, 2006
Coastsider.com is a great web site, with a discussion board.. but it is not a newspaper. I currently cannot go to coastsider.com for every local issue, but it is a good start. Plus, I can't read coastsider.com while eating breakfast at the hmb coffee house. That is unless I brought my laptop ;)
August 01, 2006
Just now reading this discussion. First off... how can one extrapolate Mary's letter to be about "environmentalists"? I think that was an uncalled for label in the above article. I believe that most everyone that lives on the coastside cares for the environment and so would be considered environmentalists. I think where there has been the most disagreement is in regards to "zero development on the coast". To meet this agenda many tactics are used, including, but not limited to, looking at environmental…
August 04, 2006
Good times again!
I think we have been our own worst enemy. Caltrans has stated for a long time that the slide is in a serious condition and needs to be replaced. They had attempted to correct this but they were shot down by the community (I voted for the tunnel as well). We are now awaiting the tunnel which of course has its own set of issues. Not sure what the answer is, but of course we are all hoping that the tunnel will put an end to any more closures. Well shall see I guess.
Ray
August 01, 2006
Totally agree with you both Matt and John. Unfortunately, we must live here on the coast with such folks.
July 26, 2006
It sounds like Mr. May and Mr. Steger are experts in the field of road construction. Maybe Caltrans should hire them to manage the next slide outage. Of course we should listen to Caltrans concerning when it should be opened since they are very knowledgable in this area, and are actually responsible for making it safe for folks to travel on.
July 21, 2006
I agree with everything Dan stated above. Great job CalTrans, and Thank You! I hope those folks that had criticized CalTrans in these past weeks feel a little embarassed by their statements.
My guess is that there might have been bonuses if the work was done earlier.
July 13, 2006
Here is my guess (just from personal experience). Since July 4th week (or even earlier), many folks are thinking: Hey, traffic is not bad in the mornings so I don't have to wake up at 5am and leave by 6am. So, more folks are thinking they can leave for work at an almost reasonable hour. Let's see of things adjust next week..
July 12, 2006
Brian G., you are soooo right.
There seems to be several good ideas listed above.. How can this be moved forward? Do we need to attend an HMB council meeting?
And to Linda.. Oh how I wished I voted NO for the tunnel.
July 13, 2006
These are all good ideas which I think will have some effect but given the state of the commute traffic this week it looks like that the school traffic wasn't a big factor.
July 13, 2006
Thanks for you responses Leonard and Hal. I obviously do not know enough about the El-Granada pipeline improvements to argue about current capacity vs. desired capacity. I will let Mr. Larimer comment on your questions. However, I still can't understand how growth-inducing is not the same thing as "no-growth" when it comes to increased water supply. From what you've stated, the assumption in your logic is that someone would say "Hey we have more than plenty water connections, let's build more houses".…
July 13, 2006
Isn't "to insure that it isn't growth inducing" the same thing as saying "no-growth"? Yet again our infrastructure needs are held hostage for fear of over-development.
July 09, 2006
Barry, I agree with you, and the key to your statement is what sort of position in the community are those folks where the label does fit. In El Granadas pipeline situation, even after the letter of the law has been followed, and the project was supposedly able to move forward, you have to seriously consider why certain folks felt the need to re-review (aren't they breaking the law?). What interests are they really serving, and is that in line with the community's desire?? I'm pretty sure the majority…
July 09, 2006
I don't believe that is fair assessment for the term no-growther Barry. For example, The issue of the El Granada pipeline replacement project smells alot like no-growthers trying to stifle infrastructure improvements for fear that somehow more developments will happen. Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like the facts are that even though the project was granted a CDP in 1999, certain folks felt the need to re-review and try and see if something can be found to hinder this improvement project.…
July 06, 2006
Grady has definitely shown that he does not want to compromise or try and reach a middle ground. A Moderate would have to be someone who is involved no matter what the person is up against (to try and show a middle ground despite any sort of polarized view).
July 06, 2006
Can someone clarify what is meant about respecting the law regarding wetlands, endangered species, etc? Who has been stating that they do not respect the law, or the environment? I don't believe lawbreaking is on any of the 2 sides, though both sides use pieces of law as it suits them best (or better yet create a law if there is more to gain).
July 06, 2006
So it sounds like our community is now divided between "NIMBYs" and "Extremists"? Having visited this site most every day I don't think I've read any post from an Extremist. Is saying that some sort of bypass between 92 and highway 1 is desperately needed an "extremist" view? Barry: you stated the following: "I see lots of support for new development, more infrastructure, and rezoning. I see no support for the environment, parks, open space." Can you clarify this for me? When you say "no support"…
Page 8 of 13 pages ‹ First < 6 7 8 9 10 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS