Comments by Ken Johnson
June 14, 2008
Barry,
Thanks, that meets the "bright-line test"!
Ken
June 14, 2008
Barry,
A bit of 'nit-picking', I didn't find, when I first read at the time of the release or when I re-read the City diatribe, the word "lying" or any derivative of that word. There are far better attorneys in the background to permit the use of any key words against a targeted individual - Sarah Christie - who is professional staff and not a public figure.
Steven Hyman is the only one I have read who has used the word "lying", "liars" or any derivative of that word.
Ken Johnson
June 14, 2008
The History of Beachwood Game… this does seem like a fun She spent 16 years on the City Council between 1985 to 2001 AND [I can't forget the headline "Beachwood loses its development case in appelate court" in August 2005! The City was aided by the California Coastal Commission ] She rejoined the City Council in November 2005 to form a new voting majority that promptly quadrupled legal expenses with coincidentally no success in court. Sounds like the description to Jackson Robertson's question…
June 14, 2008
Kathryn Slater-Carter,
With the double-referral of AB 1991, I hope the Senate Rules Committee will then send it on to the Senate Committee On Natural Resources And Water where it should have gone in the Assembly.
Ken Johnson
June 13, 2008
Jackson Robertson,
Great question!
Let’s play: "the History of Beachwood Game".
Who was on the City Council and voted for, in 1990, the City approved vesting tentative maps for 85 lots on the Beachwood property (25 acres) and 47 lots on the Glencree property (12 acres) AND she also voted not to proceed with an appeal of the Beachwood case this year?
Ken Johnson
June 13, 2008
Steven Hyman,
YOU are not getting out of this one! This is about YOU! This will continue to be about what YOU wrote! YOU need to validate!
Jonathan Lundell wrote: "Come on, Steve, show a little personal initiative and name one specific “lieâ€."
Ken Johnson
June 13, 2008
Steven Hyman,
You seem to have forgotten to answer ALL the questions to you. You seem to have a short attention span problem - I'll remind you.
Jonathan Lundell wrote: "Come on, Steve, show a little personal initiative and name one specific “lieâ€."
Ken Johnson
June 13, 2008
Steven Hyman,
My deepest sympathy for your loss - of any credibility!
Jonathan Lundell not only pointed to your great weakness - never supporting your statements - but he stayed with the point until you had no option but to expose yourself.
Simply stated: your assertions have no there there!
Please call the 'minders' and tell them to send another one over to Coastsider; that you were caught in a "depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is" moment!
Ken Johnson
June 12, 2008
AB 1991 - SENATE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. HEARING DATE: 18 June 2008. Room 112.
Just in case you are interested in writing a letter on AB 1991 and haven't already done so.
I apologize for changing the topic.
BTW, Steve,
I guess there is something we agree on: as you wrote:
"The bottom line is that we don’t agree. And its likely we will never agree and that’s ok."!
Ken Johnson
June 11, 2008
Steven Hyman, You do a disservice to 'your side' by insulting the intelligence of the casual reader. By continually asserting opinion and never supporting it by fact, the reader must conclude that there is no validity to any of your statements. You assert, with seemingly a sense of pride, in not only your lack of knowledge of a subject but a sense of pride in your lack of desire to acquire a level of knowledge. IMHO, Coastsider's strength is that it offers any opportunity to discuss, in an intelligent…
June 11, 2008
Steven Hyman,
I'll venture a solution to your query: "Its getting so hard knowing who to believe these days."
Read the post thoroughly, analyze it, check the validity of the content, do the 'homework'; then, please, don't hit transmit!
Ken Johnson
June 11, 2008
Mike,
Seems only the CC4 didn't believe in the strength of a City appeal.
The developer certainly didn't believe in the strength of his case. He surrendered his $41,100,000 judgment while still retaining the property and instead accepting $18 million in exchange for the property in the City Settlement Agreement.
I guess the City Council Four have to want to win an appeal, to believe in it.
Ken Johnson
June 07, 2008
AB 1991 - SENATE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. HEARING DATE: 18 June 2008. Room 112.
Ken Johnson
June 07, 2008
Cheri, CUSD Board had time to vote 4-1 for AB 1991; 5-0 for merging all water districts into CCWD Thursday night; and no time to consider merging F V into a successful School District. They had time to deny Federal Funds to Farallone View and no time to correct the false information disseminated that Farallone View was not failing - corrected quietly on their web site only recently in the School Accountability Report only six months late. They have time to do the things they want to do! Ask them…
June 05, 2008
Jonathan, The School Board has run through all of our $35,000,000! They are meeting 'off the radar' to sell off CUSD property. They want to avoid admitting that the front of the New Cunha Looks Like This. It does seem to distract from the more important question of what does the Academic Performance really looks like compared to their claim of being a "high performing district"! I was curious about the usually discussed nine student characteristics groups charting CUSD and the County mean scores.…
June 05, 2008
CUSD support for AB1991 is a breach of the board's fiduciary responsibility to the district! It would be an action to actively support the acceptance of funds, for the development of 129 new houses, that was knowingly substantially less than the cost to provide classroom space for the expected number of children! Opposition to AB 1991 is support for greater revenue to CUSD and to reduce the financial impacts to CUSD! ALL FEES ARE SET AT 1990 LEVELS - this includes fees due to CUSD. A VTM, Vesting…
June 05, 2008
Kevin, If you really want to see your elected School Board turn the definition of "Fact" upside down, watch Charlie Gardner and Jolanda Schreurs! Charlie Gardner wrote : "The fact is that there were [u]more letters in support than opposed by a margin of almost 3-1."[/u] Truth: Source: Committee BILL ANALYSIS - ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT - 04/29/2008 Support: Individual letters (77) Opposition: Individual letters (89) Maybe poor Charlie is just mathematically 'challenged'! Poor Charlie…
June 04, 2008
To his credit, District Superintendent Gaskill did concede, at the 14Feb08 Board Meeting at my questioning of his statement to "retain our status as a high performing district" by pointing out that East Palo Alto and CUSD are the only Failing Districts in the County - that only the 'White' enrolment, 46.6%, is among those in that "retain our status as a high performing district". After he affirmed his statement regarding "retain our status as a high performing district" was only for the Anglo students,…
June 04, 2008
Jonathan, A minor correction, any parcel tax would be the Sixth "attempt at passage" - CUSD has been so successful at ticking off the public, it is difficult to remember them all! It has been twelve years (June 1996) since 74.90% approved a $35,000,000 Bond measure. The CUSD School Board has not showed any respect for their fiduciary responsibility in managing that money! Two CUSD Governing Board members have already announced their support for AB 1991 - Charles Gardner and Jolanda Schreurs: Charles…
June 02, 2008
Kathryn,
Thanks, that answered my only concern. I look forward to Gina Papan as our next State Assembly person.
Ken Johnson
Page 5 of 16 pages ‹ First < 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS