If you missed the Highway 1 widening DEIR meeting last night, the following are a few unhinged citizen highlights and comment trends read into the Caltrans record. Activist do attend most of these key meetings while you and I may not. For them, human safety or time efficiency was not an issue.
 |
| Really its a red-legged frog! |
The NIMBY party of no, aka Pacifica environmentalists in conjunction with their coastal friends, claimed that 1) fixing the 1.3 mile Calera Creek highway bottleneck would create a "freeway". Others claimed that 2) adding 2 lanes through the highway bottle neck would not solve the congestion, (DEIR/EA researched studies indicate time savings during peak hours would be about 8:20 minutes round-trip now, over 20 years about 28:00 minutes. A few acknowledged 4) highway 1 has a congestion problem, yet these are the same people that blocked the 88 acre quarry social, civic and economic development because of 5) traffic congestion on highway 1 during what would be the build process. Reality: 6) most of these same people want "nothing", no improvement, while most expressed wishful, not practical "what if" thinking-- the same kind of thinking identified more than 23 years ago with near zero action since.
The party of no, aka Pacifica environmentalists in conjunction with their coastal friends, claim their amateur ideas are better than the highway professionals. They claim special knowledge of our community, (that lopsided adverse City impact conspiracy I do believe). They complained about not being consulted, their entitled ideas were not considered, their "due process" was vacated. They contended that Caltrans' plan to update and improve the 45 year old existing highway 1 is calloused and intended to wreck havoc on the entire community. A few demanded a detailed accounting of each discarded idea. Whereas, the final simplified 1.3 mile highway 1 design would fit easily into the coastal space available, extend the existing highway, intrude by right-of-way on a minimum number of existing properties, and fulfill California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines.
Finally, most NIMBY Pacifica the party of no, aka Pacifica environmentalists in conjunction with their coastal friends, objected to the cost of improving highway 1, although taxes, including county Measure A, would pay most of the related capital improvement cost. Personally, I think most of these NIMBYS might prefer a beach party, in exchange for the proposed city and regional highway updating. The future? Without better visionary city council majority leadership put into practice, unfortunately most of these same people will continue to work against progress and influence the destiny of this city. Good luck to us all.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
28 comments:
I question any one with 50 million of taxpayers money. So piss off.
The nimbys sure had a lot of shrieking harpies at last night's meeting.
SOLYNDRA
500 MILLION
THE LIGHT BULB WENT OFF
OH WELL!
I'LL TAKE THE HWY FIX ANYDAY
Anon (505), how much is a daily safety hazard worth in terms of human life, personal time, auto wear, and air quality x 20 years. Is there a number on that?
How about the "narrow build" $30 million cheap plan vs. the "landscaped deluxe plan" $35 million-- which of those alternatives work best for you? Or, is it that you want no improvement or updating in Pacifica and this region? More of the same only less with deterioration, population increase, inflation and the rest of the Bay Area world leaving Pacifica in a ditch. As Gil Anda mentioned at the meeting, improving the highway is a capital improvement asset, not just an expense.
Human safety be damned? Try reading the Tribune letters-to-the-editor, 9/21/11: See what the retired Battalion Chiefs Firefighters say. There following, if your comment is still "piss off", well your brain as empty and vulgar as that comment.
As Anon (601) says, the limits of civility and logic were stretched by some NIMBYS at the SMCTA highway widening meeting last night.
well duh...shrieking harpies are on the endangered species list right next to RLF's and that little ole snake.
The shrieking harpy is right here. She posted this.
Kathy didn't even speak last night. Shrieking harpies is a great description. The first two women who spoke against the project could have been heard five miles away without a microphone.
The moderator eventually had to tell the "Gang of No" harpies to knock it off.
Were they local harpies or migratory?
That emblem at the top of this thread does not look like a RLF to me. Republicans take umbrage
at vicious defamation of their sacred icon.
"...emblem at the top of this thread..."
Anon (1028) know you're on to something, but this emblem is earned by NIMBY Pacificans, they deserve it. Some disappointed local Republicans may visually choose to think of the icon as a RLF in a bag.
Unidentified Anon (857),(505) your comments are weak, but who cares? I didn't expect to win NIMBY friends with this true reflection of the 9/22 meeting some of us attended.
the bullgod
7:28am on Saturday, September 24, 2011
So Jim Vreeland, is on the San Mateo County Transit Board? What has he done for the city regarding highway 1. Besides tell everyone in town he was against the project then he tells everyone at the county level oh the city is behind it.
Haven't the residents and taxpayers have enough of Jim Vreeland, and his double talk?
The term "safety hazard" is brought up a lot on this site and was mentioned a number of times by commenters at the DEIR meeting.
I'm treating this claim as BOGUS until anyone can provide ANY data about how many lives have been lost or negative health outcomes due to the current condition of the highway. I don't see this data in the report nor have I seen a single piece of data that backs this claim up.
Also, the claim among supporters (notably the chamber hacks) that cars currently idling on RT.1 are "poisoning our fresh sea air" is L-O-L material and was shot down by Caltrans reps at the meeting who flat-out stated that such emissions are "negligible."
So the freeway isn't big enough to support all the fat-asses and you want the tax payers to pay 50 million to make the roads large enough to carry all that fat in your ass around?
All you fat-asses need to get out of your cars - that will fix your imaginary traffic problem and the fat in your ass. With that ass-fat removed maybe you might be able to think straight again. I don't want to live in a town with so many fat people - it's embarrassing when I bring my skinny friends to town.
Fat people don't make correct choices in there own lives, they certainly shouldn't get a vote that will influence my life. You disgust me with your greed and gluttony you fat-asses!
Kathy, your opinion of the meeting above is just as valid as mine which I'll share with you from Riptide:
The meeting tonight was not bad; it was even good. There was a mandatory introduction to the document that lasted 40 minutes or so.
For the most part, the speakers wanted something other than the widening project. By a margin greater than two to one, speakers opposed the widening in favor of less expensive, more practical alternatives. Some speakers asked for an extension to the comment period, which ends October 7, so the city, which has yet to understand its role in all this, can have some time to find its identity.
The Chamber of Commerce had several representatives like Chris Porter (president), Courtney Conlon (CEO), Jim Wagner (board member), and a couple of others who were all in favor of the project. It was a little awkward because it was shaping up to be the Chamber of Commerce board against the people of Pacifica. Courtney and city manager Steve Rhodes sat cozily side by side enjoying the event together. A handful of other widening proponents who spoke were by and large land owners who would be profiting from land sales to the project.
The most surprising speaker of the night was a soft-spoken Todd Schlesinger, who made some very productive, non-theatrical comments that endorsed finding a solution that included more aspects of the community, not just the expected views of the chamber. When the speaker who followed him complimented his toned-down comments, the audience clapped in acknowledgment of Todd's unexpected personal growth.
The best comments of the night came from Julie Lancelle, who focused on the process moving away from Caltrans and SMCTA and bringing it back to the city and its residents to have a much more inclusive process throughout the community to find and implement some solutions that would include PSD board involvement, among others.
I mentioned the more recent traffic study by RKH Consultants, whose traffic counts were conducted this year (2011), and found the intersections at Fassler and Reina Del Mar now operate at a LOS E. The most current data Caltrans has are from 2007. I asked that Caltrans include this report in the FEIR/EA. After all, if the LOS is really E and no longer F, is it really worth all this fuss?
I am reminded of how Caltrans and the "develop come hell or high water crowd" insisted that the ONLY possible solution to crumbling Devil's Slide was mountain top removal and a six lane highway to Moss Beach. Who stepped up to lead the fight for a realistic solution? Why the very same "harpies" and environmentalists who you so readily attack in your narrow sense of what is "wrong" with our democratic process. You should thank these "harpies" for building the coalition that delivered a world class engineering project that fits perfectly with our community sensibilities. Shame on you Ms. Meeh - you owe everyone an apology for dragging the level of discourse down to name calling.
Todd (1101), the reality is people travel highway 1 at peak hours though our city, and NIMBY representation with speeches at this meeting were at least 2:1 (as Lionel pointed-out through his estimate on Riptide). At the first of these meetings I attended in about 2005, the crowd sentiment was overwhelmingly "fix the highway". Also some of the ordinary people present lived coastside south of Devil's Slide. Unlike the 9/22 meeting, they were not "bussed-in" by the local Sierra Club.
IMO, some of your comments are absurd:
1. "..the Chamber of Commerce board against the people of Pacifica,.." False statement. Responsible business people generally have a vested interest in improving their business, their community, and the city structure.
2. Todd Schlesinger is growing toward the NIMBY position? Ask him, my money is on no. Possibly you missed the part where Todd said 23 years of proposed "alternate solutions" to proposed highway widening had not be acted on or implemented.
3. Past city councilmember Julie Lancelle apparently understood the City is co-sponsor of the highway widening "environmental assessment stage" (DEIR/EA). Unfortunately (for whatever reason) current city council member Sue Digre did not understand that, and you repeated her position.
4. "...the speakers wanted something other than the widening project." Alternatives were considered in the DEIR/EA. "Best use" through research and practicality would prevail. Personally I like the simplicity of the highway widening design in the space it occupies. Take another look.
5. My observation: there is no conspiracy against Pacifica other than the one cooked-up by some of your NIMBY friends more than 30 years ago.
6. Highway planning is a longer-term view than what's in front of your nose today, and again its science rather than ideology. Still under the good current conditions you suggest (less traffic due to unemployment), as Chris Porter said it takes 25 minutes during peak morning hours to travel across town 5 miles.
Oh Todd, you know it's not really worth all the fuss but being rational is so dull. Better we should amp up the drama and engage in as little critical thought as possible. This thing is about expanding regional highways to support the very outdated dream/nightmare of coastal growth and development all dolled up as Caltrans saving little Pacifica from a terrible local headache. Where's the critical thought on this? The Chamber and Caltrans want it. Of course and so what? Where's council? Going to be windsocks on this? Working behind the scenes? In any event, Lancelle's more inclusive, critical, and more rigorous approach to finding a solution acceptable to most Pacificans is the right approach. A less expensive and less invasive solution is out there!
The same few dozen wardrobe-challenged, baklava-wearing, twirly-dancing, tantrum-throwing, "Keep Pacifica Poor" activists, who show up to oppose anything that might improve the commercial infrastructure in town, do not represent the city. Some of them even admit to living south of the slide.
I'm not hearing any outrage about this project from normal citizens.
While Pacificans certainly have a say in the matter, it seemed to me that many of the comments at the meeting were based on an assumption that the road was Pacifica's property. It's not. It belongs to the state, and SMCTA and Caltrans have to consider that the road is used by non-Pacificans, too.
if the road doesn't "belong" to pacifica then
seems like anyone from anywhere can speak on the subject although pacificans will be most directly impacted
let's make it white tie optional
Steve I don't think they were wearing baklava.
Probably balaclavas although it's usually a babushka kinda crowd.
They were going to have to eat their hats, so they were baklava hats.
"if the road doesn't "belong" to pacifica then
seems like anyone from anywhere can speak on the subject although pacificans will be most directly impacted"
Sure, anyone can speak on the project. Out-of-towners just can't claim that speak for Pacificans, as Todd was suggesting.
in pacifica our twirly-dancers pass their hats, they never eat them
overcome by a sugar-high from all that baklava I'm sure
Kathy, sweetie, I can't do anything about your reading comprehension
I've got to say that Steve and Ian are the only two people in this city who a) seem to genuinely care, b) have a sense of humor, c) don't espouse ridiculous wing-nut conspiracy theories and d) don't take everything to some crazy extreme like we see locally in Pacifica and nationally with both parties in Congress.
Given the fact that they are on opposite sides of most issues, I vote that they go into the metaphorical octagon, fight it out (again metaphorically), and come up with binding compromises that we all must adhere to.
Any takers?
Todd, since you are unable to site any specific "reading comprehension" issues on my part, "sweetie", I assume your 5:40pm comment fits into your stock "escape from being nailed to the wall" replies when confronted by what YOU said. However, even though you are menacing and devious (from my view), one thing I appreciate about you is that you post comments under your own name.
Anon (1210) your "shame on you" comment in response to my meeting observation article is a "piece of work". Transparency in this community has been muted, along with necessary balanced-city progress. BTW, the relevant speech from past-city councilmember Lancelle was past due about 6 years. My recall, when these meetings began, Lancelle was on city council. At that time she was talking about ride-sharing and bus transportation to Bart, while the crowd was talking "fix the highway". Hopefully some or you won't be able to screw-up "fix the highway", but if there's a way I'm sure you'll do just that.
Yes. Widening One and half mile of HWY 1, spending 50 Million Plus, is going to solve all of our traffic problems. Pssh! Keep dreaming. I can't wait for them to get started. It will be so much fun.
Post a Comment