Comments by Mike Ferreira
May 15, 2006
Mr. Muteff is perhaps unaware of the scope of the actual 4 lane Foothill Boulevard in the City's Circulation Element that runs all the way from Young Avenue in the North to Stonepine in the south. My 5/02 comments to the council about costs were directed at that very version, the official version, and not the latest resurrected Bayview/Foothill flim-flam because the flim-flam hadn't even been announced by CCF as of 5/02. There's some twisteroos in Mr. Muteff's comments above, some subtle, some not.…
May 15, 2006
The Bayview/Foothill flim/flam would only screw up the traffic on #92 with an extra clogging intersection and, thankfully, is not permittable anyway.
I subscribe to the theory that it takes money and permits to improve highways and intersections and there are large projects in the queue waiting for money. If you want to help the City, Caltrans, and the SMC Transportation Authority get that money I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
Mike Ferreira
May 13, 2006
No, you didn't get it right about much of anything. State Highways are still State Highways. San Pedro Road is north of Montara, and at a far remove from Half Moon Bay. Bayview/Foothill is still unbuildable and would only screw things up worse for Midcoast commuters if it were built. Hopefully other readers have paid better attention to the park issue than you have and therefore they know that there are no contamination issues whatsoever, species issues have been cooperatively and successfully addressed…
May 11, 2006
Mr. Muteff offers no explanation for who would pay the considerable cost for it, why it wouldn't make matters worse on highway #92 to create another intersection at the Goat Farm, why it would make any sense to bypass the expanded multi-laned downtown intersections with a longer multi-intersectioned two lane road, or how to get around the closing quote from Coastal Commission staff in yesterday's Review: " ...it does seem unlikely that Foothill Boulevard could be constructed because it couldn't be…
May 15, 2006
Tim,
The Park story is an interesting story of political intrigue and vengeance which is well worth a separate article and discussion. I don't have time for it now but I'll get to it soon.
Mike
May 14, 2006
Mr. Pond is a little behind in his news analysis. Shortly after the election it was made clear by the Finance Director in a Council meeting that there was no deficit spending during the prior year. Spending accumulated reserves that have been reserved for that specific expenditure cannot be called deficit spending.
But, those who told the lie knew they could get away with it. And they got away with it for long enough that it was useful to them.
May 14, 2006
Leonard,
I think there's a traffic volume/logistics point at which safety has to prevail over efficiency and that's the point at which 5 lane stoplights happen. We've disagreed over that point for a long time now. But I think your suggestions regarding #92 are interesting. I'll get a copy of the current planning alternatives and see what the Transportation Authority is planning.
Mike
May 13, 2006
No. I'm not joking. Getting third lanes is serious There's a lady from Half Moon Bay who was killed in Montara a few months ago because she was waiting to make a left turn into the lighthouse from a section of highway #1 that has no left turn lane. There also is no jump lane there for people exiting. We tend to refer to that as lacking a third lane. The light at Rousseau Francais is referred to as a three lane light because there's a northward lane, a southward lane, and a turn lane. Likewise, the…
May 13, 2006
Mr. Pond, Following is a repeat of the projects I posted earlier which are, in addition to the $300 million tunnels currently under construction, in the mill now. Only the second one is fully funded. The others have to wait fior the tax dollars to be collected. Again, waiting for the tax dollars to be collected. So what road improvements are actually being stopped by "circular infrastructure arguments"? Looks to me as if money, lack of same, is much more of a factor. Mike Ferreira **************************…
May 10, 2006
The "solution" to a hare-brained proposal is to not waste time, energy, and money on it. Especially when it has the potential to make things worse rather than better. Non -hare-brained "Solutions" which are in the mill now but which seem to be overlooked by those who demand "solutions" are: 1.) The two projects on #92 which cover from Half Moon Bay to #280 which will most likely consume $200 million and which face significant technical problems. These projects are administered by the County Transportation…
May 10, 2006
Hello Barry,
I should have made a bet with you when I predicted yesterday that Ginna would just engage in an off topic personalized rant that would contribute nothing to the debate and that would only lower the tone of Coastsider. He did and it did.
Let's leave the gossipy personal/political lashouts for a different thread and stick to traffic related discussion on this thread.
Mike Ferreira
May 10, 2006
Mr. Pond, Nice try but no cigar. Trying to put the onus on a small city to resolve regional traffic problems only works with the uninformed. Ever heard of the State government? As in State Highway #1? As in State Highway #92? What's watered down? If the intersections will handle more traffic than the two highways will produce why waste millions on even wider intersections? Or waste millions on alleged bypasses that would actually be the longer way around, would introduce two new intersections on…
May 30, 2006
Barry,
You and your team have done an outstanding job of leveraging information technology with your genuine journalistic drive to improve the public's grasp of what's really happening. This time around the Coastside is much, much better informed about the Slide and its challenges. You're setting the standards. Keep it up.
Mike
October 14, 2005
Clarifying my earlier comment regarding the Council's ordinance changes: the Coastal Commission approved the City Council's changes (Exceptional Lots) in public session but, in the days afterward, held up the actual certification while asking for a few more changes. The Council made those changes and is now awaiting the Commission's re-acceptance and Certification. As far as can be determined, there is no further action required of the City to close this issue.
October 13, 2005
Concerned HMB Citizen writes: "the City has declared a huge number of lots “substandard” based on inappropriate zoning, and set up special restrictions on what can be built on those lots. Add to that excessive fees and additional loss of property rights, mentioned by the author of another recent letter to this website who was simply trying to build a fire pit." ******************************************* Earlier this year the City Council passed, and the Coastal Commission certified, substantial…
September 27, 2005
Frank Long commented:
"My other point was .......What data source for the LCP determined that we didn’t need to address additional parking for Downtown? (So I was told.)"
The LCP doesn't address Downtown parking and no one in their right mind would want it to. Could you imagine having to go through the LCP Ammendment process for parking changes?
September 27, 2005
Frank Long commented: "Other times visitors express their frustration in not being able to both dine downtown AND shop without having to relocate their vehicle because of the parking time limits. The parking limits are set to encourage customer turnover because there arent enough spaces and the City doesn’t see the need to do anything about it. Why would they? All the folks there have a place to park, so it doesn’t effect them." Setting the record a little bit straighter I'd like to point out…
August 31, 2005
Correction. It's 40 homes and 86 empty lots. Theoretically, the 86 lots would wait for a different access to be developed. Ever heard of lawyers? Sooner or later those 86 lots, in addition to the 40 lots, would come down Terrace. Or Silver. The City's negotiators looked at 63 as cutting the base entitlement of 126 in half. We could have deluded ourselves that the 86 lots would sit there until they were reclaimed by the environment but we chose to address the issue rather than dodging it. I rather…
August 31, 2005
I would like to clarify that the lawsuit was being waged by numerous Terrace Avenue residents and that Mr. Parness just happens to be the one whose name appears on it. I've met him and his wife. They are sincere people trying to defend their neighborhood from what they perceive as a raw deal. We disagree as to how best to do that. As it happens, the Court has ruled that proper and timely notice of the Settlement was given so the lawsuit is not timely by itself. I'd appreciate it if we could all recognize…
July 14, 2005
It'll be nice to have this behind us. Neither the City administration of the '90s nor the previous management of the golf course looked very good on this. In reading through the Consent Decree I'd like to say that I'm impressed with the comprehensiveness of the Decree and the Permit and, given my personal knowledge of the history and details, I'd like to offer the opinion that it couldn't have happened without a high level of cooperation on both sides. Bruce Russell's guidance of the golf course…
Page 7 of 8 pages ‹ First < 5 6 7 8 >
Facebook
Twitter
RSS