Pacifica Patch, Christa Bigue, Editor, 9/20/13. "Lawsuit filed against Caltrans roadblocks Highway 1 public meetings."
| Caltrans highway 1 widening project, 1.3 mile traffic management improvement, with 2 access and exit lanes wide or narrow median |
 |
| Continued NIMBY plan, more eco-lawsuits, we pay |
Pacificans for a Scenic Coast filed the suit, which challenges the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Calera Parkway Project. Pacifica attorney Celeste Langille filed suit for the group, which is publicly represented by Peter Loeb, plaintiff in a separate lawsuit on the highway widening.
.... The environmental documents have been deemed finished and have been
certified by Caltrans, according to City of Pacifica officials. However,
because a lawsuit charges that the documents are not complete, the next
step for the project will not be a public meeting, it will be in a
courtroom. In a nutshell, the project can't move forward until the legal
issues are resolved." Read article.
Related - Anti Highway 1 Pacifica.wordpress.com blog,"City councilmember Sue Digre calls for public forum on the Caltrans widening proposal." At the Pacifica City Council meeting Monday, February 11, Sue Digre asked
the Council to put on their agenda holding public forums to discuss
traffic congestion management ideas for Highway 1. Sue referred to the
two scoping meetings that were held by Caltrans in Pacifica and said
that the issue is still controversial. She indicated that there are
technical solutions for congestion management. She also referred to a
study which indicates that adding new traffic lanes is costly and
ultimately counterproductive."
At City Council meeting 3/25/13, Councilmember Digre attempted 3 times to formulate a motion to hold a public City only meeting to discuss highway 1 widening, Caltrans would be excluded. Her 3rd attempt included a further requirement that there would be binding"legal mediation". With that, City Council four (4) did not offer a second, attempted motions failed and were withdrawn by Councilmember Digre.
But has the path for those who refer to the Caltrans 1.3 mile highway widening as a "freeway" always been a lawsuit, or lawsuits? Government ecology based lawsuits frequently pay compensation win or lose. The classic Willie Sutton comment may apply,"that's where the money is".
Note photographs: Caltrans Pacifica graphic proposal is found on the anti-Highway blog,"Do you want a freeway in Pacifica?" Woman stuck in traffic is from Urban Grounds, bicycling on a rainy day from Strange Police.com.
 |
| Good old fashion alternative commute plan, almost working here (not), dangerous and impractical |
At City Council meeting 3/25/13, Councilmember Digre attempted 3 times to formulate a motion to hold a public City only meeting to discuss highway 1 widening, Caltrans would be excluded. Her 3rd attempt included a further requirement that there would be binding"legal mediation". With that, City Council four (4) did not offer a second, attempted motions failed and were withdrawn by Councilmember Digre.
But has the path for those who refer to the Caltrans 1.3 mile highway widening as a "freeway" always been a lawsuit, or lawsuits? Government ecology based lawsuits frequently pay compensation win or lose. The classic Willie Sutton comment may apply,"that's where the money is".
Note photographs: Caltrans Pacifica graphic proposal is found on the anti-Highway blog,"Do you want a freeway in Pacifica?" Woman stuck in traffic is from Urban Grounds, bicycling on a rainy day from Strange Police.com.
Reference Caltrans - California Department of Transportation, "Calera Parkway Widening".
Related City Council - City Council Meeting 3/25/13, see item 7. City Council Minutes, see 3/25/13, item 7. Pacifica Index, "No action from Council", City Council Meeting of March 25, 2013.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
15 comments:
They better fix that highway. It is getting so bad. Last year in the winter rains (which were few thank god) my truck hydroplaned and swerved. I was lucky I was the only one on the road. It is a matter of health and welfare. FIX THE DAMN HIGHWAY!!
I suppose you can postpone a meeting that was never scheduled. Sure, why not. Because I say so!
The city council did the same sort of malarkey with the second August city council meet I Nguyen. They always cancel the second August and December meetings. So the city council cancels the meeting, then puts it back on the calendar to only cancel it once again.
When a citizen asked if city council was trying to put the meeting back on the calendar, to sneak something through without the public paying attention.
City Council wouldn't do that, would they?
"I was lucky I was the only one on the road." The widening is supposed to improve traffic congestion. Doesn't sound like there was any congestion when your truck hydroplaned. I'm not sure that a new road surface would fix that problem. Might make it worse.
Thanks again Peter Loeb you've been so great for this city. When you lose these frivolous lawsuits are you expecting a payout for all your legal fees like the frog people?
Anonymous 5:23pm. The issue you have raised is unrelated to the concerns about highway widening. "Fixing the highway" to resolve surface issues is a separate issue.
It's a replay of the tunnel. Why is this a surprise? People, some of them anyway, will fight for what they believe in and hold dear. Hutch, you and Peter have that in common! And this highway battle, like the tunnel epic, will probably take just as long to resolve and end up looking nothing like the original plan.
I expect the lawsuits to be tossed out pretty quickly.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but I wouldn't retire the side just yet. That's just not realistic with true believers.
But Steve (9/24, 11:11 PM), "there are red-legged frogs on both sides of highway 1". That fact, or not, should be worth some government cash penalty in favor of the eco-Langille lawsuit.
Also, 9/24, 8:42 PM, who appointed you the "relevancy police"? Most of our commentary is not narrowly focused, and 9/24, 5:23 PM makes an interesting point.
Those who have experienced hydroplaning in that low flooding area of highway 1 know its dangerous. An accident there could cause human harm (possibly death), property damage, and the kind of lawsuit against government that most of us can understand and support. Last Saturday around 10:00 AM that area was flooded. Caltrans probably knows about the area, and plans to fix it during the widening. Sooner would be better if possible. As 9/24, 5:23 PM, said "fix the damn highway!" Our safety is at stake.
@8:05 So you think a new highway would not fix the cracks, holes, dips? Sometimes I feel like I live in a world of STUPID!
We need a new highway and if you don't allow it to be built any further accidents , deaths, will be on your back. It is becoming a matter of health and welfare and by preventing Pacifica from maintaining it's highway's and streets is becoming an act of terrorism by the people who stop Caltrans. Yes. Chop on that.
Tossed out quickly on what grounds? Can you please quote case law legal precedent.
First lawsuit will be tossed because it was filed too early.
The second one because they are stuck on stupid.
Read the lawsuits on Pacifica Index
http://www.pacificaindex.com/litigation.html
"Tossed out quickly on what grounds?"
Without merit.
Post a Comment