Comments by HMB Ranger
November 03, 2005
When the term "big developer" is expanded to include people like me, as it has, then it is a misnomer as well.
I've read the California Coastal Act. It most certainly does not clearly support many of the actions taken to date by elected and appointed officials in HMB. I've never heard anyone state they are against the Coastal Act, only that they disagree with how it is being abused.
November 03, 2005
I don't speak of "no growthers" nor do I speak of "big developers". Other people use those terms, or if they don't they engage in other rhetoric that has similar implications.
My point, that is getting ignored once again, is that there are real people whose views are at neither extreme, but are affected by the policies and practices of those who think they are fighting an epic battle.
November 03, 2005
Re: "No More Delays" vs "League for Coastside Protection" This upcoming election is being painted as an epic battle between "no-growthers" and "big developers". Perhaps there is such a battle, I don't know, but what seems to be lost on the combatants is that the little guys, the average homeowners, are starting to wake up to how they are being treated by the City. Anytime someone speaks up about property rights, they, as I have, get personally attacked and labelled as advocates of "big development".…
November 03, 2005
bginna: Kevin's talking about the current LCP, which was certified by the Coastal Commission in 1996. Having said that, there is alot of room for interpretation regarding what "growth-inducing" means. That's the problem with quoting policies, you don't really get a sense of how they will really be applied until you get to the ordinances and how the City Council and Planning Commission choose to interpret them. Re: Voice of the Coast - you're right, it's not a news source. It's kind of funny that…
October 21, 2005
I'm sure this isn't some ploy to win political control - more likely an individual who can't control himself.
Nonetheless, it's childish, inexcusable, and hopefully the offender is caught and prosecuted.
October 23, 2005
Padre - Whoa cowboy - get YOUR facts straight. If you're going to quote me, quote something I actually wrote. If you read through these posts carefully you will verify that for yourself. Perhaps your earlier advice to me about taking extensive reading courses would be more appropriate advice for you.
October 23, 2005
Malcomx writes: "In this, as in many other cases, your arguments are built on a set of false premises." My point was the law allows for development and growth. It's still possible for a person, even a Planning Commissioner, to wish they could stop it. So they use whatever powers they have to grind it to a halt. These days that's often done by looking for ESHAs and Riparian habitats in places like storm drainage ditches. So now regarding your blanket, unsupported statement above, go ahead and enumerate…
October 22, 2005
MalcomX - Even the most hardcore no-growth Planning Commissioners will tell you there is nothing they can legally do to protect private ocean views.
October 22, 2005
Padre - your diatribe is not very impressive either, but let me give you a recent example of how a private development can be facilitated by the City - Cunha's Market. Enlightened now?
October 22, 2005
Barry - Thanks for the thoughtful responses. As BGinna said, it's apparent that you care, and you can articulate your opinions. Regarding Naomi: regardless of whether she is running on her record or not, there is a public record to examine, and one can reasonably expect that past performance will predict future actions and positions (obviously some think her past record is negative, others think it is positive). We don't have the same data on Skinner. If you're saying he will follow whatever Grady…
October 21, 2005
"spewing ... rhetoric"
"...take an extensive course in reading.."
Man, three responses, and all I see is bitterness and anger, but no substance or even style. Try again - use those brain cells that God gave you.
October 21, 2005
I'm not sure about you Padre, but I'm talking the "Voice of the Coast" website that Barry refers to.
If the text you quote is there, I sure can't find it. It must be well hidden.
October 21, 2005
As I'm sure you know, Voice of the Coast is published by a political action committee called "League for Coastside Protection" (although the website doesn't advertise that). The League for Coastside Protection PAC funds the campaigns of Ferriera, Grady and Skinner. PACs exist to push political agendas. Nothing illegal about that, but it's certainly not an impartial source for information. I love how they disparage homeowners who advocate recognition of their own (not big developers) property rights.…
October 21, 2005
You jump to conclusions. Where do I say they should be spending more money? I said they're spending money we don't have, like the $3M for the parkland. I didn't even characterize the lawsuits as anyone's fault. But when you have legal expenses like we do, and like George Muteff researched and documented in one of his campaign ads, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be fiscally responsible. It's not fiscally responsible to spend money you don't have, and to spend at a deficit rate. Please help me understand,…
October 20, 2005
Many other arguments in the article are weak. You say the incumbents are getting things done. You list trails, a (pedestrian) bridge, road improvements, and acquiring funding for Hwy 1 improvements. That's not very impressive for 4+ years of work and in a City that gets millions of $$$ in revenue from the Ritz-Carlton. You say they're building a park close to downtown. No park building has started yet. But the City owes $3M to POST with no clear plan for where the money will come from. Meanwhile…
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
Facebook
Twitter
RSS