Comments by Mike Ferreira
On page 11 of the decision the "civil penalties" stated as "minimum" not "maximum." Very important distinction.
That's really impressive! I've never heard of a write-in candidate winning office on the Coastside. Or anywhere in San Mateo County, for that matter. Maybe we should ask County Elections when, if ever, that's happened before.
Have to give a lot of credit to the candidate and her volunteers for this achievement. And we seem to have a lot of determined voters who went to a lot of trouble to cast a write-in ballot on those blankety-blank voting machines.
The Commission has made an excellent decision. Charles Lester has an impressive list of degrees. His tenure as Deputy has shown him to be something of a polymath regarding coastal issues. His remarkable ability to respond in depth to Commissioners' questions regarding complicated local issues has been a hallmark. I don't think a national search for a Director could possibly have come up with anyone who could hit the ground running the way that Mr. Lester can.
Katherine Webber asks what percentage of eligible voters cast ballots in the CUSD district. Good question.
The answer is 40%.
That may seem low at first glance but it's about 43% higher than the San Mateo County turnout of 27.8% in yesterday's election. That's a remarkable difference that's very indicative of stronger motivation.
Yesterday, Thursday, the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Commission unanimously adopted the General Manager’s recommendation to proceed with the recovery plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red Legged-Frog and to preserve an 18-hole golf course at Sharp Park.
At an earlier date, December 1, the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department's Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee had endorsed the General Manager's recommendation by a 14 to 1 vote.
The GGNRA has no magic wand with which they could "restore" Salty Lake to its original status without decimating both endangered species.
What is important is to improve/revive the existing freshwater habitat that is silting up and being choked by cat-tails. If the bickering continues for much longer we're going to end up with a problem beyond solution.
The 1899 map shows the original Laguna Salada (Salty Lake) in the middle of a larger area named Salt Valley. There's a reason people bestowed those names. It's called salt.
Red-legged Frogs have a low tolerance for salt. "Restoring" the wetland area to its original saltiness is potentially deadly to that endangered species and a significant negative impact to it's predator - the even more endangered San Francisco Garter Snake.
Government agencies usually speak for themselves. Those are not GGNRA websites. Nor are they National Park Service -NPS - websites. If you have specific knowledge of an official GGNRA plan - preferably one that stands a reasonable chance of being funded - then provide it. Such things are usually available in electronic format.
"And, did I mention that it the GGNRA would make it a free national multiuse recreational park?"
I am unaware of any proposal from the GGNRA and I would think that if there was one we'd be aware of it because any "free national multiuse recreational park" would need environmental vetting just as thorough as the golf course is getting.
By what twisted logic did the seniors, juniors, minorities and working class folks who comprise the bulk of the users of the public golf course at Sharp Park get turned into the "priviledged (sic) few"?
Oh, wait, I get it. It's their fault for being politically vulnerable to San Francisco inside-ball politics.
Thanks for posting that, Pat.
Oshen's "Sins of Commission" may end up sharing comparable honors with "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
The drainage pipe conveys water from the property, not to the property. Yes, it was with the consent of the landowner. No, there was no "dumping" of water onto the property.
The faulty premise that the city illegally dumped water on the property is one of many reasons why the city would have prevailed on appeal. There was no "dumping" of water on the property other than nature's. Ever heard of rain?
Going into the tank for $18 million - when they should have appealed it down to nothing - does not discourage lawsuits, it encourages lawsuits. The city now wears a target.
What they should be angry about is the City's failure to appeal a grotesque decision by the most overturned judge on the Ninth Circuit.
I don't think Half Moon Bay should "get used to forking over a huge sum of money" when an appeal would have resulted in zero sum of money. The case wasn't appealed for ideological reasons.The City's attorneys recommended appeal but the Council declared that "settlement is first priority.
The people of Half Moon Bay are paying millions for nothing more than than a political pinata.
P.O.S.T. has not disced any portion of the Wavecrest property since taking ownership. They have only harvested hay from the parcel that had been disced and planted by the prior owner. The introduction of a false implication is disinformative.
Following is an excerpt from the Editor's introduction in the May issue of California Lawyer magazine: "However, the longer David P. Hamilton, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, worked on this story for us, the more troubled he became with Judge Walker's ruling. "My experience is that when you come across a judge's opinion as strongly worded as Judge Walker's was, you naturally assume that the offending party was caught dead to rights. But as I dug deeper, I realized there was a fair…
Following Kevin's point, anyone care to wonder why the eastern part of the property was long referred to by locals as "Hog Wallow"? As to the press, the best editorial comment and investigative reportage regarding the Beachwood decision were in the May, 2008, issue of California Lawyer Magazine. http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?pubdt=NaN&eid=893556&evid=1 http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?pubdt=NaN&eid=893570&evid=1 On the other hand, the Chronicle's coverage was not well researched and misstated…
Page 1 of 8 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›