Comments by HMB Ranger
November 18, 2005
Well this is disappointing. You may be referring to me, although I never imagined that critical comments would be considered out of line.
I can't post under my real name, because I'm in a position where there could be repercussions. Of course, you'll have to take my word for that, but that's the way it is.
At any rate, this will clearly be my last post. Good luck to the rest of you.
November 10, 2005
Barry - it sounds like you think I was being sarcastic - FWIW I wasn't. Even though I know you and I have differences I can see you're a able to look at things in many different lights. And I didn't know where you live.
As far as what happens to the Council on Ch 6, sometimes you reap what you sow. Everything that happens in this City does not happen in front of the camera. Someday I'll be happy to explain that to you in excruciating detail, if you're interested.
November 10, 2005
Mr King: instead of jumping to conclusions can you please address issues and questions on their own merit? As for me, I am neither George Muteff, Clay Lambert, davy crockett or anyone else that you would recognize, but I have a reason to remain anonymous. It's not like I've been posting here to swing the election or effect any kind of change in the community. Anyone who posts on the internet to make a significant impact on the world should be locked in a padded room. But it is a good place to exchange…
November 09, 2005
Well let me start by saying an interesting but not unexpected result. Probably a little closer for Mr Ferreira than he would have liked. And certainly not an overwhelming mandate for either side. I guess the most striking thing for me is that there clearly are still two distinct sides. The best indicator of that is the votes for Skinner and Muteff, who being newcomers and relative unknowns would garner votes based on their messages or alignment rather than popularity. But for all the talk about moderates,…
November 08, 2005
Now I'm really confused. Are you calling it a newspaper or not? Kenneth King says it isn't, and he's one of the "authors", but then the slogan is "News for people who love the coast". That's the problem with Voice of the Coast - it's ambiguous, and apparently purposefully so to the point where even you guys can't keep it straight. It's no wonder that BGinna struggled to find the right term. There's nothing nefarious in what he wrote, and I certainly knew what he meant. Please let's try to control…
November 08, 2005
The involvement of some CURRENT councilmembers and planning commissioners in creating the problems that face us today is a matter of public record. I'm not particularly interested in assigning blame, but if you want to go there I can do it in spades. I'm more interested in how the City operates today and how things will get fixed. While the current Council has taken steps, in the opinion of many it's not enough. As to whether these problems are property interests or "larger civic goals", these notions…
November 07, 2005
Within the first 14 words of that link, the definition ceases to apply to LCP. Govt officials are not ordinary citizens.
Hal M. Bogner wrote: "Citizens deserve a voice in their own community."
I wholeheartedly agree. But apparently, when that voice speaks words not aligned with LCP's vision, that citizen is either a big developer, manipulated by large financial interests, or has a single, narrow self-interest.
November 07, 2005
Barry, I find it sad that you dismiss average HMB homeowners involved with civic issues as narrow-minded people who are easily used and manipulated. We're not that stupid, really, and we think about more than our own personal problems, even if we're not a member of a PAC. At this point, LCP has several members and/or supporters who are either elected or appointed Government officials. That's certainly one of their goals, and achieving that goal has resulted in power, which they wield often to the…
November 07, 2005
Barry - I also agree with you 100% on the PACs, and the fact that if Voice of the Coast is not truly representing the candidates' positions, then they are doing the candidates a huge disservice, because most people that I've talked to equate the two. And I couldn't agree more with Bginna ... strange strange money flow, and a very misleading publication. The League for Coastside Protection is anything but a true grassroots effort at this point, they are clearly very organized and well-funded. True…
November 07, 2005
Well, Mr Ferreira and Mr Grady spent $510 each on advertisements in Voice of the Coast. Of course, the reality is the majority of the paper is an advertisement and was paid for with other funds. This is a loophole of course, in that money is spent that isn't yet accounted for, so I would characterize that as a benefit, not a handicap for the Ferriera, Grady and Skinner campaigns.
November 07, 2005
Too bad the League for Coastside Protection Political Action Committee isn't held to the same rules of disclosure. That skews the finance picture quite a bit - surely alot of money has been spent on those blue signs, printing and distribution of the "Voice of the Coast" editorial and campaign advertising paper, and Lord knows what else. All, of course, benefitting Mr Ferreira, Grady and Skinner. And we can only speculate where LCP's money comes from. PS to Barry - your links are broken. "/election2004"…
October 30, 2005
I guess if I were you, I wouldn't worry so much about what owners of large undeveloped lots know about M/P/M that you don't, since as you point out they don't represent many votes. I'd look into what's driving the anger and unhappiness of average homeowners that support M/P/M. That is, if you're interested in reporting the complete picture.
October 29, 2005
Coastsider: "In the last couple of weeks, signs supporting Patridge, McClung, and Muteff have sprung up on nearly every vacant lot and farm field on the Coastside. I keep asking myself, What do the owners of those undeveloped lots know about those candidates that I don't?" This caption makes it sound like only out-of-town developers support Patridge, Muteff and McClung. This is of course misleading. Have you not noticed the large number of signs supporting Patridge, Muteff and McClung on developed,…
October 31, 2005
ldw: you are a piece of work. Folks like you make me wonder why I bother with this website - views are so biased and personal attacks flow so freely. Kevin: I agree that models can be manipulated to support any conclusion. Nonetheless they are a useful tool as long as they get reviewed and refined. If you have data showing the City lost tourism revenue, that should be factored in. But I think if you bring HMB's tourist revenue into the picture (i.e. the Ritz-Carlton T.O.T. and related revenue) you'll…
October 31, 2005
You guys are rich. I can see now why your "facts" are so distorted. You make them up as you go, like the one where I'm supposedly advocating cutting the police services budget. I never argued that HMB did not have a net fiscal loss per house - I challenged ldw's statement that "Every city in California knows that houses are a net loss". Nevertheless, Kevin's reference contains a flawed financial model. Homes don't sell every 7 years in one big bang. If the model showed turnover every year (like in…
October 31, 2005
A couple of comments, because its pretty pointless to have a discussion when you throw out so many unsupported "facts". I highly doubt that residential improved land is a net loss for every city in California, but I can't prove it at the moment. If you can back up your statement, I'd love to see that proof. Revenue comes from property taxes. Prop 13 holds taxes down based on FMV at time of purchase. If on the average, homes are a net loss, that means that new homes help close the gap since the owners…
October 30, 2005
(1) Huh? It's zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). (2) See above. Development is not discretionary, it's based on land use policies, planning & zoning. (3) Not sure what specific findings you're talking about here, but I'm sure if state law is being violated, a settlement would never have been reached. (4) See (1) & (2). If the City wants to stop development, the General Plan (Local Coastal Program in this case) should reflect that. (5) All land, developed or not, produces revenue. If there's a…
October 28, 2005
I'm curious Idw - why exactly should the Pacific Ridge subdivision not have been approved?
November 03, 2005
Actually I don't "know very well" the things you state - and however it happened it should be fixed. Meanwhile, you didn't address my question: What in the CA Coastal Act or the LCP support such a high percentage of substandard lots? Why is it so complex to fix something so obviously out of whack?
November 03, 2005
OK my friend, we could go in a few directions but let's keep it simple. Explain in 25 words or less how this work of art is justified by the CA Coastal Act or LCP:
http://electgeorge.net/lots.pdf
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Facebook
Twitter
RSS