Comments by Ray Olson
Even that pristine plot of land called beechwood, right Carl? I'm talking about the definition laid out in the coastal act, that the coastal commission has been given the authority to uphold. You know.. the part that says one of 3 criteria must be met: soil, plant, or standing water. Carl, I'm sure you can elaborate for us exactly this definition. And I do not disagree with trying to protect our wetlands, and try to keep some sort of balance for our beautiful coast. That is why I've lived on the…
Francis, It is certainly not me that is dictating anything. It is the coastal commission that dictates whether a plot of land is now considered a wetland, and that our city must enforce an lcp. It is the judge that dictated that us citizens of HMB have to pay 36 million. What is fair about any of this? And we all know that you if take the "wetland" definition very literally it would mean that all land on the california coast, probably for several miles inland is considered a wetland. I know I can…
I totally agree the decision was outrageous. As for negotiating a bad deal.. That might be your opinion but I would tend to rely on actual lawyers for what are our options and what might be the best decision for our city. As for your comment: "the net obligation isnâ€™t anywhere near $18 million". Can you clarify this statement? As far as the settlement paperwork and what was agreed by both parties, isn't it actually $18 million? I know you've written another piece about this topic, but that…
Francis states: "I could care less about the effect its failure to pass would have on HMB". Hopefully that statement really highlights to the readers on this site how little merit your opinions are to tbe financial predicament our city is currently in. And all because we have been pressured on how the coastal commission deems what is a wetland, and what is not. Barry, My point about financial interest is alluding to the possibility that I might have a financial obligation to pay for 18 million that…
It would be interesting to find out whether the select few that continually voice their opposition to HMB and any sort of improvements in our daily lives here on the coast have any sort of financial interest in this area. It would be intesreting to see if the usual suspects here on this site are still sitting under prop 13 protection and have invested very little (in comparison) to the vast majority that live on the coast. When reading the posts related to this article it seems to me that the usual…
I've decided that any post by Carl is just too lengthy and ranty to warrant my 15-20 minutes to read. Also, it looks like this article is soooo long it must have taken Barry several days to compile. It would be interesting to see how this article would have been if the writer actually lived in Half Moon Bay.
Are any of you folks espousing your opinions on the notion that Walker's decision can be succesfully appealed have any sort of financial stake in the matter? Do you live in HMB and are willing to take on the risk of having to fork out the entire judgement? Somehow I think the answer would be a... no. I know how we can pay for the coastal commission's actions... Let's have a toll both on the west side of of 92 right before main street. If you are NOT an HMB citizen, well you will have to pay 2$. I…
let's just replace the stupid weeds with the homes and end this entire debacle. I frankly do not want to pay for one cent of the 18MM.
Terry, Your comment on 7:20pm is spot on. Francis, Because you don't live in our community (Looks like you live up in Gualala) there is not much weight to your comments. It would be appreciated if you kept your armchair quarterbacking to your own backyard. Kevin, As a citizen of HMB for many years now, I don't want to have to pay for the settlement, a problem introduced by the HMB council a decade or more ago. That is where the gross negligence should be applied, as well as the coastal commission…
Now this thread is becoming comical..: presence of standing water, or hydrophytic soils, or hydrophytic plants is NOT open for interpretation. Oh, you left out the part of "at some time during each year.."
You are the one that makes the leap of assuming inconsistency, I never said that, though it is interesting that you brought it up.
reading the url you provided merely confirms my point. For example, the statement here:
"long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils"
what is long enough, etc? My argument is not whether this is right or wrong, but that the coastal commission makes the decision. They should be held accountable for those decisions.
Francis, I'm not trying to criticize the coastal commission. I just think they need to be held accountable for their decisions, that's all. I did read through some document on the definition of a wetland: one of 3 situations I believe, if the soil appears to be of like soil that is found in a wetland, etc.... It is definitely open to interpretation which I think the coastal commission is needed. Your statements above could lead folks to think that it is a simple matter of: speed limit being 55mph…
You are assuming the state law around this subject is black and white. It definitely is NOT.. Isn't the coastal commission the body that applies the decisioning of the act, where applicable?
Francis, I think we are saying the same thing. I want to point out however that the definition of what is a "wetland" is definitely not black and white. I think California left it up to the Coastal commission (I may be wrong) to decide what space is considered wetland, and what is not, by applying some form of expertise. That is why I think they should be held accountable, and not a small community like HMB. You may infer that would mean taxpayers would be paying for it, but I would then look at…
But see that's thing.... The Coastal Commission is doing the enforcing by tell each city on the coast that they require an LCP, which must a have their definition of a wetlands. I don't believe HMB just created their own unique interpretation of what is a wetland, did they? Regardless, HMB was only doing what they were told to do (to put an LCP in place, and then enforce it). Am I wrong? Let's put it another way. HMB didn't even have the option of not abiding by the Coastal Commission, and an LCP,…
Didn't HMB's definition of wetlands come from the Coastal Commission and they then told HMB we must enact our own LCP? Whatever definition the city came up with back then had to be approved by the Coastal Commission, correct? Maybe I misunderstood the LCP process, but it seems to me the Coastal Commission is the authority on these things.
Don't get me wrong... I don't believe anyone should pay for the settlement.
you stated this:
"I think the city of Half Moon Bay should pay. Itâ€™s a bad idea to pay the cityâ€™s settlement by selling dispensation from state and local law."
You actually believe HMB city should pay the settlement?
If anyone should be held accountable for the settlement it would have to be the Coastal Commission.
I was just on the talkabout item related to this issue and wanted to point out something. Discussions on the coastsider website are so much more informative and constructive since people cannot post anonomously. I think I wasted 10 minutes of my time trying to read through the talkabout post to try and find what other people really think. Sorry for the digression.
I gotta believe that the city will be appealing this decision. This is completely ridiculous. How could they determine that the land was NOT a wetland at the time of Yamagiwa's purchase? Especially since the definition of a wetland is so subjective?
Maybe the city should sue the Coastal Commission for getting us into this position of trying to define what exactly is a wetland.
Are the case exhibit documents also available online?
Page 2 of 13 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last ›