Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor, 4/9/13. "Do the right thing," by Gil Anda
| This city council majority did the right thing |
Once the comment period closed, Caltrans began the work of incorporating and addressing all of the comments that were submitted during the public comment period. This 'group' even went as far as publicly bragging about how many comments they submitted.
So why are they asking the council to reopen the debate now, when this is totally out of the council's jurisdiction? Quit picking on the council."
Note: photograph from The Guardian, UK, Teacher Network.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
69 comments:
What Gil failed to state in his letter (something he always has in past) is that he has a piece of property that Caltrans must purchase to build the project.
BTW land owners like Gil should have their properties purchased ANYWAY for the inconvenience of it all regardless if this sham project moves forward or not.
"this is totally out of the council's jurisdiction" That's the problem. Why is the largest project in many years, a project that will have significant impacts on neighborhoods and businesses "totally out of the council's jurisdiction"? Do you think that's right? I don't.
Nah, instead encourage them to put storage units, trailer parks and apts along the highway and then call it our new downtown.
anything that Bray, doesn't believe in, sham.
Come on Todd, you're starting to sound like Sara Palin.
The sliver of dirt that Gil Anda owns is barely big enough to park a Volkswagon bug.
Hey 1156 Who says it's totally out of Council's jurisdiction? Council?
Is play dead their plan? Well, they may have found something they can actually do.
Regardless of who placed it out of their jurisdiction, Council must be thanking their lucky stars!
Most of us choose to move forward, rather than backward.
In the second or third attempt to agendize a separate city highway 1 meeting, City Councilmember Digre stated the potential of "no highway improvement" and the requirement for "mediation" with Caltrans the highway owner.
Surely, "no highway" and "mediation" protests coming from a separate city meeting were the underlying intent to delay or block highway 1 widening progress. That potentially skewed meeting (where NIMBIES are bused in) would have been a sham.
Highway 1 widening to allow access and exit lanes, is the studied, realistic solution to improve traffic flow through Pacifica. Its science and economics.
And Todd 11:40 AM, the fact that Gil's family inherited and owns a nonproductive strip of land along Highway 1 is old news. The same California requirement affects other owners in that 1.3 mile area.
oh Kathy, you have such a light touch
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/issues/traffic
According to the anti-development crowd, traffic is fine in 2012, but not fine in 2006.
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/issues/traffic
Let's see how long that link is active.
Shows just how phony and self interested these people really are.
Peter Loeb just stated on Riptide that he never screamed about traffic during his anti quarry campaign.
A quick search online tells a different story. In Fact Loeb's comments were in the voter pamphlet:
"VOTE NO on TRAFFIC JAMS"
355 HOUSING UNITS would create A COMMUTE HOUR NIGHTMARE. Pouring more traffic onto already-congested Highway 1 is a recipe for gridlock."
Signed by you guessed it, Peter Loeb
http://www.smartvoter.org/_/2006/11/07/ca/sm/meas/L/
Why don't you quote the whole thing Loeb said on Riptide? You took his comment out of context.
Loebs own words on Riptide "I never "screamed" about traffic during the Measure L campaign."
He then goes on to contradict himself saying that there was traffic then and there is traffic now.
Traffic was the measure L opponents main tool they used to scare voters. Now they deny it.
What a revelation!! Peter Loeb was against measure L and he used traffic as one of his reasons. That is stunning. What insight into the workings of the Loeb-mind. Please, Hutch, go for the gold--see if he's got a recipe for a 7 layer dip.
"Out of context", Anonymous 11:04 AM, what part of Hutch's 10:04 AM comment would that be? What is the context you are referring to?
Peter Loeb made a few comments on that Pacifica Riptide thread. And he mentioned, he is not a "traffic engineer". But then neither are we "traffic engineers", nor were we involved with the researched study. I say, "bring it on", roads are updated, even widened where bottlenecks exist, all over the country.
Yeah, Peter didn't make much sense on Riptide. He (and Todd) tried to suggest their opposition to Measure L wasn't based on traffic, but then Peter explained why traffic was an issue behind opposition to Measure L.
Still whining about Measure L losing? That was years ago. Get a life.
No. We're pointing out Nobie flip-flops from "traffic is terrible" to "traffic is not that bad".
oh the horror
Loeb and his gang of no wouldnt lie now would they?
Nothing like spinning and lying to confuse everyone.
Mainly the voters on measure L
It's going to be a tunnel redux. In 20 years somebody will be cutting ribbons on an overpass at Vallemar. Courtesy of the CA Coastal Commission and mid-coast anti-growth activists.
People, relax. Take a page from our city council and sit this one out.
There is no inconsistency with saying that more housing will lead to more traffic, which will lead to more costly and intrusive and unwanted roads for that extra traffic, and subsequently voting no on L AND being against the widening.
" housing will lead to more traffic.." Ian Butler, 7:57 AM.
Dead end conversation, Ian. Traffic exists in our city and in our region. Bay Area population is increasing, and there are State/ABAG city requirements to accommodate these additional people.
With Measure L (2006), the developer and the project would have been part of the city financial, economic and social solution. BTW for traffic mitigation, Peebles (the developer) supported an overpass. "You snooze, you lose", so they say.
@ Ian, but there is hypocrisy or perhaps even lies if Loeb whined and cried about the horrendous traffic jams that would result from the Quarry project. And then says the other day that he never screamed about traffic.
Poor Kathy, misunderstands the simplest of things. Measure L and with widening are two easy examples of this. Others include the Art Guild and in general those that disagree with her. They are not NIMBY's or NOOBIES, just other members of the community.
Kathy, Measure L was not a vote for a project, it was a requirement of zoning to allow housing in the quarry, nothing more. That the proponents of Measure L spent 3.5 million dollars on the campaign illustrates the gamble that was taken. Nothing more.
It's too bad you (Kathy, and I suppose the rest of the Rantanons, Dramanons, Redherringanons along with Steve) continue to misrepresent the simplest of issues like Measure L. But that is the fuel for your fire. Burn on Kathy et al, burn on!
It is a shame Gil left out a disclaimer he has religiously used in the past, that he has property the widening will purchase if built. I always respected his openess about that. Too bad he forgot this time. But again I think all the sliver owners should have their bits and pieces bought, if they wish, anyway, project or no project.
San Bruno added over 1000+ housing units at Sneath and El Camino Real and traffic flows thru the area better now then before.
Explain that one Bray and Butler!
It's too bad you (Kathy, and I suppose the rest of the Rantanons, Dramanons, Redherringanons along with Steve) continue to misrepresent the simplest of issues like Measure L
So Blogmasters why isn't this a toss! Its flaming and being an internet troll.
Let me first say that that "Bobby" comment above was not from me.
And Todd, no matter how many times you repeat the same chant we will never believe that measure L was not about approving the Quarry project.
It lost by a very slim margin. Just know that it would pass if it came to a vote today.
I spammed the phony Bobby comment Hutch was referring to.
Anon 10:15, are you saying that if 1000+ housing units are added between Fassler and Reina Del Mar that traffic will flow better through that area?
Todd 10:08 AM, do you really want to go there? As Bobby 10:40 AM said, you are "..throwing around more bs".
The 2006 city council majority (Vreeland, Dejarnatt, Digre, Lancelle) did not support quarry development. And following defeat of Measure L (by a small margin as Hutch pointed out), city council subcommittee (Vreeland, Lancelle) negotiations apparently thwarted the proposed commercial development. One year later, Peebles Corporation (developer) withdrew.
The traffic congestion bottleneck in Pacifica is a 20 year issue. Viewing Gil's 4/9/13 Letter to the Editor, his comment focus is the Calera Parkway "process", and not directly related to the strip of property his family owns.
The lawsuit four of us brought against Sanchez Art Center (2001-2002), occurred because without organization agreement the Art Guild bank account disappeared into the Sanchez Art Center corporation bank account. (The Sanchez Art Center was a shadow corporation at that time). There is a whole lot more to this story. Want to hear more?
Come back, Don, come back.
More then one Bobby in town Sinai!!
11:34
Someone at Sanchez had "sticky fingers" or was "profit sharing"
Tell us More!
http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/casereport.asp?casenumber=422260&casetype=CIV&courtcode=A
http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/casereport.asp?casenumber=105056&casetype=SCN&courtcode=A
Hahaha, burn on Kathy et al Rantanons/Dramanons and Redherringanons, burn on. And poor Hutch, you go on believing anything you want.
Case was dismissed, settlement reached.
And your taxes do not pay for the art center. Instead, the art center pays the city.
Show me the art center finances then. Open up the books.
1:30 we know your taxes don't cause you don't pay any property tax.
Something like 90% of litigated cases end in settlement. That's the efficiency of court system.
Current rental fees paid to the city are now probably about 30% of those collected by Sanchez Artist Center. See the last section of the Fix Pacifica, Sanchez Art Center sub lease article, 6/1/11.
Tell us the story Kathy.
The city deeply subsidizes the Sanchez Art Center and always has. Every so often butts get in an uproar about the below-market rents, the maintenance, utilities, overhead, super cheap fire inspections, etc. Appropriate council handwringing occurs and no changes are made. Anyone who pays taxes in this city could be said to be supporting the arts, whether you want to or not. We residents support all kinds of things. For example, the Pacifica Co-op Nursery used to get a heck of a deal on rent from the city. All the really cool kids went there. Wonder if they still get such a great deal? And, if so, why? Aren't they competing with the cities own childcare programs? Do we subsidize other day care providers? Oh, whatever, this is Pacifica.
The books of nonprofits are open. Also, the city's finances are public record. Go find out for yourself how much the art center pays to the city. Same for Pacifica Performances (Mildred Owen Concert Hall) and Spindrift Players. Your tax money does not support the cultural arts in Pacifica. Instead, the cultural arts help support the city's general fund.
"Nonprofits are required to submit their financial statements and other information -- including the salaries of directors, officers, and key employees -- to the IRS. The IRS and nonprofits themselves are required to disclose the information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. Nonprofits must allow public inspection of these records during regular business hours at their principal offices." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-are-nonprofits-finances-public-information-28028.html
When this city or any other subsidizes any non-profit, artistic or otherwise, with below market rents, the waiver or reduction of fees a for-profit business would pay, building and grounds maintenance, etc. then the taxpayers are partners in the subsidies. Payments made by tenants offset some costs but the City of Pacifica subsidizes the Sanchez Art Center among other non-profits.
Todd, document you're claim Peebles spent 3.5M on the L campaign. Your puffing of the facts does not support your position. Knock it off.
$1 million, $2 million, or $3.5 million, it's still a hell of a lot money. What difference does it make? Why are you still arguing over the details of Measure L? It's history. And it has nothing to do with the Caltrans highway widening project.
Anonymous: "there is hypocrisy or perhaps even lies if Loeb whined and cried about the horrendous traffic jams that would result from the Quarry project. And then says the other day that he never screamed about traffic."
Peter then:
"355 HOUSING UNITS would create A COMMUTE HOUR NIGHTMARE. Pouring more traffic onto already-congested Highway 1 is a recipe for gridlock."
Peter now:
"I never "screamed" about traffic during the Measure L campaign. It's very old news now, but the point then was that 355 housing units in the quarry would have poured 1,000 vehicle trips a day into that congested stretch of highway between Vallemar and Fassler, making the congestion 10 times worse. I have always acknowledged that there is congestion on that stretch of the highway, as have all the other people who are urging an alternative to the widening. None of us said there is not a traffic problem. There was congestion then and there is congestion now. The point is that the widening won't solve the problem and may only increase it, while there are alternatives that are guaranteed to lessen the congestion and that can be done sooner and cheaper."
I don't claim to speak for Peter, but for the life of me I can't find any inconsistency let alone hypocrisy or lies between Peter's two statements, unless you count writing the words "COMMUTE HOUR NIGHTMARE" in capital letters (standard practice for voting pamphlet arguments) as screaming about traffic.
How exactly does one scream in print? Sounds like an auditory hallucinations. Seek psychiatric treatment.
"How exactly does one scream in print?"
BY USING CAPS!!!
Is Ian, Peter Loeb's, attorney or PR Man?
Remember also the five acres of land inside the quarry that the city OWNS, which has been slated by the DEIR and PDT to be given for free to Caltrans as a mitigation bank for the six acres of ESHA take the project will impose.
If the city "adopts" the FEIR as required by SMCTA to provide funding for the design stage, this city-owned acreage in the quarry will be part of that deal. To adopt the FEIR is to accept its findings, and that land gift to the project is one of the EIR proposals. Also, to not have questioned the land gift in the DEIR is acceptance by the city of giving away five acres of our public property with virtually no public comment or public hearing on the matter.
I wonder how you FixPacificans will regard this land give-away that was decided by a state employee of Caltrans?
Don't bother thinking before you answer, wouldn't want you to step outside your comfort zone.
"I wonder how you FixPacificans will regard this land give-away that was decided by a state employee of Caltrans?" Todd Bray 8:07 AM
We think of it as part of an "open space" gift, Todd. (LOL). You guys missed-out with the proposed quarry development (2006), Peebles intended 45% (39 acres) of the 87 acre quarry would be "open space".
Understood, so your ranting for open government is only used by you and your fix crowd as a weapon... got it.
It wouldn't bother me if city land were contributed to the highway project.
How would that be different than city land being donated to the GGNRA?
"..land .. contributed to the highway project." Todd Bray, 10:37 AM
Todd, I think what you've got is scrambled brains. How do you figure fair public use of developed land is a weapon? And how is it that you consider the over abundance of "open space" in this city is not a weapon against the viability of the city and the economic balance FBO the people who live here? Are you sure you were born and raised in San Francisco?
Ian and Bray, mention the traffic nightmare during measure L
But they never add that Peebles would have been required by state law to mitigate the impact of any development
And that most of his proposals were the same as what Hal Bohner and his group as saying
That Peebles would have paid for most of it
so Pacifica would have an economy, HWY 1 would have been fixed as they wanted it, but they chased peebles out of town
peebles moved on. plant any ideas in anyone on here?
Wasn't the Peebles traffic mitigator an overpass? Surely to be built by Caltrans but wasn't that his preferred option?
Yup Big Banker, they ran him right out of town and he thanks them in his prayers every night since then.
I'm all for Caltrans' hopscotch vision of freeways through Pacifica, all the way through Linda Mar. Build them now and keep those commuters and pesky tourists from stopping anywhere in my town. I want empty aisles at my LM Safeway, no waiting at the gas pump, a clean and empty beach full of plovers, so sorry Rockaway-you dead. More freeways please. Keep Pacifica for Pacificans!
Steve, what land has he city given to the GGNRA? I know of some that had been purchased by private individuals or groups and then donated to the Federal government, but I don't know of a single square foot of city land given to the GGNRA.
Mori's Point. Cattle Hill. Sweeney Ridge, Top of Pedro Point.
Bray=epic fail
12:41 Pacifica is dead!
Anon 12:41 PM, please explain how your "freeway" argument works? Is that a 1.3 mile freeway?
Check out Westboro Boulevard coming-up the hill toward Skyline Boulevard. That road was widened to allow access and exit. Yet, Westboro is still a boulevard, not a "freeway".
The side road at Pedro Point is kind of funky, but its doubtful that widening or a better solution will happen there for a while.
Personally, I would prefer 4 lanes with periodic 6 lane widenings (or alternative access, exit solutions) all the way through Half Moon Bay.
Then again, we got the tunnel, a nice 20th century 2 lane road. Maybe you should drive through the tunnel more often to remind you of the good old days.
"..what land has he city given to the GGNRA?" Todd Bray 12:42 PM
Well, we all know where most donated and sold open space land ends up, don't we Todd? And what stream of revenue does the city gain from all this GGNRA open space "give away"?
Example, City leadership development delays contributed to bankrupting the Mori Point developer. Then that 110 parcel sold on the cheap a to open space, ultimately to be 100% converted to the GGNRA. Another example, 10 years ago I was told directly from a larger parcel owner, the city would not let them build houses, and they were being pressured to donate the land to open space and take the tax break. How many of those examples exist? I'm wondering if that was also the case with parcels such as Cattle Hill. No doubt many more recent examples exist.
Anon 12:41 describes the NIMBYs' (and Digre's) ridiculous vision for solving the city's revenue problems: "Let's cause lots of traffic problems and hope that means people will abandon their car and go shopping".
Post a Comment