Comments by jlundell
June 08, 2006
Donald Graham: We'll have to wait a while for precinct breakdowns, though the active Measure S folks might be able to provide some preliminary numbers from election night. I'm told that there were some 20,000 ballots left to count on Wednesday morning--late absentees and provisionals, I suppose--countywide. We won't get the official results and precinct breakdowns until they're all counted. (Could that be enough new votes to turn Measure S around? I suppose it's mathematically possible, but pretty…
June 08, 2006
Eric suggests that parcel tax opponents are child abusers. Sam suggests that Eric is a Nazi. I suggest that it wouldn't hurt to tone down the rhetoric; neither approach is likely to win converts.
June 08, 2006
Local revenue comparisons are something of a red herring, in that, for revenue limit district (which CUSD and most other districts are), local revenue is "topped up" from the state general fund to the revenue limit. The whole point of the Serrano decisions was that basing school funding on the amount of local property tax revenue that happens to be available is unconstitutional. The court, to its credit, did not mandate the current mess of a funding structure, only that the old one was unacceptable…
June 07, 2006
A little more than five years:
November, 1999: $125/parcel for 4 years
March, 2002: $75/parcel for 3 years
March, 2003: $250/parcel for 5 years
June, 2003: $250/parcel for 5 years
June, 2006: $175/parcel for 5 years
June 07, 2006
Ray: as Leonard points out (and as was my point), the no vote dropped pretty dramatically, but the yes vote dropped even farther. The problem isn't with the "child abusers" who voted no; it's with the large majority of district voters who didn't even bother to cast a vote. Only 21% of the district's registered voters bothered to vote for Measure S. Child neglecters, maybe? Granted, this wasn't a very exciting ballot, but June 2003 was even less exciting: it was just a special election for the parcel…
June 07, 2006
There are quite a few ballots left to be counted; the elections department claimed not to know how many a couple of hours ago.
But Measure S got only 55% of the early absentee ballots, so I wouldn't raise my hopes too much about the late one pulling it out.
June 07, 2006
To answer my own question: June 2003: 66%: 4895 to 2530 June 2006: 62%: 3063 to 1809 The 2006 numbers will rise a bit as some late ballots get counted, but that's a serious drop in turnout, which would ideally be an ideal situation for the parcel tax measure. 30% of the 2003 no voters didn't show up. Granted that the CCF (or is that CQF?) silliness can't have helped, I wonder how many voters made the connection. Would a commitment to busing have turned the vote around? I'd like to think so, and the…
June 07, 2006
This is surprising. Not the loss so much as the margin, which is wider than the last two attempts (and I don't recall the first two).
It's about a 5% drop in support. The registrar is reporting a turnout of less than 27%, so it appears that the parcel tax supporters simply didn't show up. 3.063 yes votes--how many were there in prior attempts?
June 01, 2006
Brian Ginna says, "You infer from the LCP update that the “buildout numbers” double the population. They do not.".
The most recent BoS staff report on the LCP update says, "There are 3,719 existing Midcoast residential units, and at buildout, there will be between 6,757 and 7,153 units. Thus, the Midcoast is approximately half built out."
So yes, I do infer from the LCP update that the buildout numbers double the population.
June 01, 2006
Ginna: "I do not see any plans in place to make [92] four lanes other than from SR1 to Hilltop (less than 1 mile?), so what is this assumption based on?" I was replying to Mr Dantes. Dantes: "92 needs to be 4 lanes all the way to 280" Go read the proposed LCP update. Its buildout numbers roughly double the midcoast population, and that understates the actual growth, since second units, among others, are inexplicably not counted toward the buildout numbers. Regardless, a 3% growth rate doubles the…
June 01, 2006
BD, the BoS is on track to approve an LCP update that will more than double the population of the midcoast, and there's no reason to believe that HMB won't follow suit (albeit at, perhaps, a slower pace). We already see Hwy 1 being more of a bottleneck than Hwy 92; if Hwy 92 became a four-lane freeway, how far behind would Hwy 1 be? Public transit is a mess, largely because public transit funding is a mess. SamTrans and Caltrain are forced to raise fares in the face of declining ridership. I'd call…
June 01, 2006
Tangle of pavement: the inevitable result of trying to solve traffic/growth problems by building more and bigger roads.
June 01, 2006
Has morning traffic been lighter than usual this week? I believe that CSM finished their term last week; any other reasons?
May 27, 2006
Carl, I make that assumption (that Caltrans is doing what it must do) in the present state of the repair. I agree that the process that led up to the choice of the repair method should have been open to the public, so that there could have been public input into that choice. That said, I'm open to the real possibility that Devil's Slide is significantly different from "everywhere else", and that the range of options was narrower than usual. Still, it would have been nice to have had more visibility…
May 26, 2006
Two questions, then, for your research staff, Barry.
What's the broad outline of the project timeline? What gets done when? Obviously Caltrans must have a pretty good idea, given that they've now got an overall schedule and are letting contracts. I'd really like to see a timeline with significant milestones.
And: why "whalers"? Here's a clue: http://www.foam-tech.com/services/contractors_info/techniques/whalering.htm
May 26, 2006
Will the cranes be on the roadbed for the duration, or at least most of it? It does seem that the site is not friendly toward moving the cranes out of the way for commuting (nor are the cranes likely to be kind to temporary pavement). At the very least there appears to be a tradeoff between finding a way to route one-way commute traffic over the slide and the schedule for completion. I can easily imagine that there are more than a few people who would be willing to extend the project schedule if…
May 27, 2006
Like Mr Ginna and Ms Felgenstaff, I won't have the opportunity to vote for him until November, but I'll be voting for him then (if he makes it to the ballot) on the basis of his environmental record and his strong support for AB 583, the pending clean money proposal.
Feng shui and Chris Alexander? sounds good to me.
Alexander fans, by the way, should try to find a copy of his new The Nature of Order: http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0621,byles,73284,10.html
June 02, 2006
Brian Dantes writes, And I’m surprised no one else has mentioned this - but I find the exemption for seniors unfair. I could tolerate a tiered tax based on income level regardless of any other factors, but beyond that everyone in the community should support the education of our children. It is in the best interest of everyone for our children to be educated and become productive members of our society. This gets at the reasons that I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of Measure S. Most of CUSD's…
May 01, 2006
I use 84 fairly often, and I still get taken by surprise at the 11895 dip. The signage hasn't been very good (or at least it wasn't last week).
April 29, 2006
Linda: I had the same experience using Flip4Mac, and even then it's a sometimes thing. It's working for me at the moment (I just saw someone run the light). Timothy: I don't think a boycott is necessary. Just put up a couple of signs on 92 thanking them for adding half an hour to the afternoon commute. As for a timetable, those who haven't been reading the Caltrans daily updates (link at the top of this page) should start now, but you won't find it very encouraging. The holes they're drilling are…
Page 8 of 13 pages ‹ First < 6 7 8 9 10 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS