Letter: Neighbors’ Alliance moved out a long time ago

The Half Moon Bay reported incorrectly in last week’s interview with David Iverson that the League for Coastside Protection evolved from Neighbors’ Alliance.  I would like to clear up a few of the articles misconceptions and add some history to the January 3, 2007 article.   

Neighbors’ Alliance was primarily founded to oppose the development of North Wavecrest so naturally its membership was composed of people from Arleta Park and Alsace Lorraine.  The rest of the Coastside was not included in the Neighbors’ Alliance.  Realizing the entire Coastside needed an opportunity to voice their concerns on the decision making policies of both the Midcoast and the city of HMB, the Coastal Alliance came into being, none of the founders being members of Neighbor’s Alliance.  This new organization was formed to include the entire Coastside in all political and environmental deliberations and actions but the members were all separate organizations making voting difficult under one umbrella.

About this time, David Iverson started leaning towards developing North Wavecrest, putting the middle school there and essentially changing the philosophy and mission statements of this group.  Speaking as one of the former Vice-Presidents of Neighbors’ Alliance, the foundation of this organization’s mission statement made a complete, unilateral turn around. So, it is a correct statement by the Review to say that the Alliance gave a lot of assistance to the increase of membership in organizations like The League for Coastside Protection which better reflected our vision. The Neighbors’ Alliance fell into inactivity a long time ago due to the course it took, specifically around the ongoing Wavecrest issue.  

According to the article, Mr. Iverson concludes that we activists no longer need Political Action Committees in place or "legal actions or measures" since there no longer are any growth issues on the Coastside.  One can conclude then that we have no wetland debates, all endangered species are protected, zero lawsuits are pending and there are no more questions on land use issues.  One could also interpret these statements that the citizens of Half Moon Bay all vote the same way and the League for Coastside Protection doesn’t have to ensure that the Coastal Act is upheld.  Measure D did get the growth rate down to 1%, but since it hasn’t been implemented yet, there is no basis for any type of activism shift. as is suggested. It is crucial that the Measure D growth limit be established. The California Coastal Commission needs watchdog organizations to help them be aware of and understand local land use policies and be informed when voters pass measures which sit unheeded for years.  Coastside activists should still continue to be ever vigilant of large developments and we will always require fundraising efforts to support these endeavors.

There are many land use issues outstanding on the Coastside in which the League for Coastside Protection is actively involved. Front page news includes Wavecrest, bluff-top antiquated subdivisions, Princeton’s Big Wave project, The Ailanto Property Settlement Agreement, Beachwood, the Community Park, The Boys’ and Girls’ Club and 92/Main Street Improvement.  There is always a lot of work ahead of us to maintain the character of our Coastside so in reality, no era ended at all, just the demise of an organization that changed its politics midstream.  It remains clear that growth related issues are not a thing of the past. 

Even though many people were saddened and disappointed by David Iverson’s ideological change, he is recognized and applauded for all the good achievements he helped accomplish prior to the changing of his politics. I think I can speak for the many people who moved their membership from the Alliance to the League for Coastside Protection that we prefer to remember the times when he was with us.

Dana M. Kimsey
Half Moon Bay`