Comments by Janet Zich
September 05, 2008
When will it occur to these folks that they have a better chance of crafting a bill that will pass if they sit down with the people and groups that opposed AB 1991 (and SB863) and together find a solution that will please everyone? Locals Mike Ferreira and Debbie Ruddock should be at the table. So should Yee and whoever succeeds Mullin. So should the Committee for Green Foothills, the Sierra Club, and the Coastal Commission, as well as advocates for the homeless and all the others asked to contribute…
September 01, 2008
I am sorry SB 863 didn't make it through the legislative logjam. The city spent so much time and money kicking the dead horse AB1991 it smelled all the way up here in Humboldt County. When I mentioned Mullin's AB 1991 at a local nonprofit meeting several months ago, everyone already knew about it -- and already opposed it. My former neighbors in Half Moon Bay should be grateful to Senator Yee, the Coastal Conservancy, Mike Ferreira, and many other concerned environmentalists and HMB residents who…
September 01, 2008
One person's weeds are another person's wildflowers. But let's get to the point, please. What happened to SB 863, and where does HMB go from here if it didn't make yesterday's deadline?
June 29, 2008
Thanks, Kathryn. Folks can get updates for sites around the state at www.fire.ca.gov/index_incidents.php.
June 22, 2008
Thanks again, Debbie. Good directions. (I missed the drop-down menu the first time. Thanks for pointing it out.)
June 21, 2008
Thanks, Debbie. I got that far before: case number and so on. But I never found the 19-page narrative report of what this thing is all about. Did I miss a Web link? Seems to me if George Muteff was able to read all 19 pages of "the Complaint," the rest of us should be able to find the same thing online.
Janet
The earth is warming! The earth is warming! Obviously a Ferreira plot!!
June 21, 2008
Carl, I don't know that anyone pays attention to George Muteff except to write off his posts as weirdness or worse. What interests me though is 1) where he found "the Complaint" he talks about below, 2) where all the rest of us can read the entire "19-pager" he cites, and 3) how Muteff just happens to possess a stamped paper copy of "the Complaint." As Muteff wrote earlier: "Yeah, there’s a chronicle alright, Carl. A 19 pager, stamped received Wednesday, June 18, 2008, E-Filed and signed by…
June 20, 2008
Who are the homeowners in the Cypress-by-the-Sea Homeowners Association? Whoever they are, did they question the takeover of their property in any public forum *before* they filed suit?
I am not suggesting that they don't have a valid point if what they claim is true. But why a lawsuit? Why *now*? Is HMB reaping what it sowed in AB 1991?
June 14, 2008
Steve, you read it first here. If AB 1991 passes, it will be held up in the courts long after the deadline agreed upon by the HMB City Council majority and Keenan -- and long after the $5 million insurance settlement has been spent. The best thing the city can do is end this thing as quickly as possible: get rid of the high-priced spin (i.e., get Lanny Davis and company off the hourly payroll), apologize to the Coastal Commission and every other agency the city and/or its spinmeister has insulted,…
June 14, 2008
Steve,
Whatever your definition of "weed" is, the site isn't as important as the political precedent of AB 1991. Look at the organizations that oppose AB 1991 from all over the state. And before you say they're all a bunch of enviro-whateveryoucallthem: note the League of Women Voters among them.
AB 1991 is a bad bill, pure and simple. If it passes it will cost HMB more in legal fees to defend it than will fit into the $5 million ABAG insurance is paying the city.
June 13, 2008
Ah, yes, the History of Beachwood Game...
Give me a clue: Didn't she also vote, in 2000, AGAINST Beachwood?
June 11, 2008
Steve wrote: "You see the bill as a way to chip away at the environmental laws... But to me and many other people, what’s more important is not paying $18+ million." Steve, I have a third way of looking at AB 1991. As blackmail. Four members of the current City Council chose to enter into a bizarre $18+ million settlement with Keenan that added Glencree (which hadn't ever been part of the discussion) to the developer's gift bag, even as they signed away the City's right to appeal the larger…
June 11, 2008
Back to the original topic of this thread... The Los Angeles bill with eerie similarities to AB 1991 has been shelved by its author. AB 212 (Fuentes) was due to be considered on the same day by the same committee as AB 1991. I'd like to believe the assemblyman belatedly realized the damage he was doing. More likely he was deterred by the publicity that surrounded the deal. As the L.A. Times reported today: "Fuentes' legislation ... would have allowed 229 homes to be built by MWH Development Corp.…
May 01, 2008
Kevin wrote: "Lastly, both McClung and Mullin claimed that the $18 million settlement amount would “devastate†the City’s budget while failing to mention that it was the City Council itself that agreed to that figure, presumably after doing its legally-required due diligence. This brings to mind the old story of the guy who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan." Thank you, Kevin, for putting this idiotic situation in perspective. If I still…
April 15, 2008
The letter was signed by Lanny J. Davis of the Washington firm Orrick Herrington etc. of Washington D.C. Isn't this the same talking head, Clinton (both Bill and Hill) supporter we know from cable TV news? Smart guy, good looking, glib? Whether he is THE Lanny Davis or not, I have to wonder why the city of Half Moon Bay got hooked up with a high-powered Beltway law firm that seems to have done no more for its hourly fee than advise the city to cave in to an agreement that would overturn the laws…
April 02, 2008
Can two opposing parties make a legal agreement that breaks existing laws?
January 09, 2007
What a gift! Thank you, Darin and Coastsider. I've downloaded the star to my desktop and look forward to more photos of the Coastside's natural treasures.
Janet
October 04, 2006
Having been directed by "bginna" himself to Wikipedia's definition of "nuisance," I must admit I enjoyed this part: "In the USA, the principle of coming to the nuisance states that existing uses of a property are generally not considered a nuisance if a new neighbour finds them objectionable. For example, if you move next door to a pig farm, you cannot claim that the normal operation of the pig farm constitutes a nuisance. However, if a pig farmer moves into a property that was formerly held by a…
October 01, 2006
Hey, Leonard, fun! Just checked out Wikipedia's "doublespeak" and found it links to one of the great euphemisms of our time, Janet Jackson's so-called "wardrobe malfunction." If I've ever heard of an occasion where a Larimerian "infrastructure renewal" was needed, this is it! What's not fun is that we're being bombarded on every side by people who demean our language to prove a point. I hope everyone is reading Frank Rich's "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" to understand how this has been done on the…
September 29, 2006
Barry, I wonder why you feel you must refer to James Larimer, PhD., a scholar who resorts to Wikipedia as a final source, as "Dr. Larimer." In MSM newspapers and magazines, the term "Dr." is normally reserved for doctors of medicine, human or veterinary, on second and later mention. The JIm Larimer we all know and love is not a doctor of medicine, but of experimental psychology, a degree he earned some three and a half decades ago. (No, not environmental resources, waste management, engineering,…
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Facebook
Twitter
RSS