Did the city have the following anti-development email in mind when they set-up "Nextdoor" neighborhoods e-lists? Its doubtful. Today the email list assigned to my neighborhood (and 4 others) delivered the following commentary. A few days ago there was an anti-highway 1 widening meeting advertisement. (Kathy Meeh).
From Nextdoor neighborhoods email, Linda Mar Daily Digest New Posts....
"City Council hides behind deceptive wording in General Plan Update" by Sam Casillas from Pedro Point.
"Friends and Neighbors, I apologize for my erroneous earlier post showing cautious optimism for the GPU. It appears the GPU is totally misleading: in one section they say they want to retain the commercial recreational/visitor zoning for the Calson field with "flexibility" but then it was pointed out to me that in section 4-36 LU-I-30 they recommend something called "Coastal Residential Mixed use" with "15 units per gross acre". Folks that is 75 densely packed houses!
| The Pedro Point neighborhood "our gang of NO" dictates private Calson property remain a field, we all said so. |
It is now obvious to
me that this city council has absolutely no intention of listening to
its own citizens and we must take action against them with our votes and
any legal means at our disposal; we only have ourselves to blame if any
of them, other than Sue Digre, get elected again. I am thoroughly
disappointed and call on all of us to join forces to fight for what is
right for our community and not for these self serving individuals.
The
traffic nightmares, the flooding that WILL occur, the negative
aesthetic from 75 homes densely packed in with a joke of pocket park.
This will all have a negative impact on our quality of life. Please
join with me now in figuring out how we can go around the city council
before they ram this treacherous plan down our throats. We need
outside help because we are being deceived by the very people we have
elected and who have continually been telling us we are being heard when
there has never been any intention of listening to us at all."
Note: The Sam Casillas comment on Nextdoor was shared with Pedro Point + 4 neighborhoods in General. The email was one paragraph which has been broken into four paragraphs for easier reading. Photograph of Pedro Point from Linda Mar Beach is from the San Francisco Chronicle, by Katy Raddatz.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
Note: The Sam Casillas comment on Nextdoor was shared with Pedro Point + 4 neighborhoods in General. The email was one paragraph which has been broken into four paragraphs for easier reading. Photograph of Pedro Point from Linda Mar Beach is from the San Francisco Chronicle, by Katy Raddatz.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
29 comments:
When I told y'all this council was the same as councils past, nobody listened. Even the group of yes didn't listen.
Wool was pulled over your eyes.
823, looks like I need to work on the article further. The email title and commentary are from Sam Casillas. His email title is printed in blue, and the commentary is his.
In his own words, Sam apparently thinks the City General plan is deceptive. He's anti-development in Pedro Point. He's against all current city council members except Sue Digre. Separately, he's against highway 1 widening.
Think again. He's against four city council members you may want to support.
823 The old council of Pete Jim n Sue would have never even picked the landscape median alternative. They would have held public hearings on highway widening making sure all their naysayer, nimby, gang of no supporters were heard. And they probably would refuse to ask for the measure A money which would kill the project.
A little different I'd say.
That's hilarious. Sam Casillas kinda hijacked Council's new toy and attacked them with it. So much for keeping Nextdoor as a one-way city propaganda tool. How long til Mayor Nihart has a meltdown and pulls the plug or implements some playground rules.
Hutch
I call them zero revenue projects adn the city councils past present have been really good with those.
Do you mean the Linda Mar landscape that made all the tanbark get into the drains and briefly flood Linda Mar or do you mean on Highway 1?
I always thought that Sam was another city council pigeon who did everything they told him. The Pedro Point crowd leans on city council all the time. That is where all the new money nimbys live. Watch when something gets proposed for Pedro Point or you threaten the property that was owned by Catholic Charities.
I was just talking to someone yesterday about Nexdoor over in the East Bay where he lives. He said his subdivision has an HOA and the HOA keeps in the dark and feeds them BS. So now they set up a Nextdoor and people start talking and swapping notes. The HOA freaks out and calls an emergency meeting on how to deal with this treat to the HOA.
Mary Ann has two looks on her face. Either she is going to have a meltdown and start crying or she looks like the cat who ate the prized canary.
Sam, is another nimby who has zero respect or clue about personal property rights.
I have my little piece of the pie no one else gets anything, no crumbs or pie pan.
The Pedro Point residents voted, to keep it like it is the Carlson property, really Sam, since when is a group of Pedro Point nimby's vote offical.
Stick to selling software or what ever you do, you haven't a clue about real estate.
Casillas is a jerk. Massive traffic jams. I find that humorous. Isn't he the same Casillas that says there's no traffic so why fix the highway?!
I suggest PPIA and the city get together and determine what the economic loss and cost is to give them their park, then we level a special assesment district on Pedro Point to pay for the loss to the rest of Pacifica of the much needed revenue. Nimbyism in it's most ugly form. Figured it would be Casillas that jumps out first.
Understandably, the Pedro Point residents are concerned about 75 houses packed into a 5 acre site. A recent article on Fix Pacifica lamented the fact that more affordable housing in town was needed. Why not compromise and meet in the middle, and if indeed housing is to be built, then build affordable housing on that land. The current owner, Ron Calson, has a history with Catholic Charities in San Francsisco of providing housing for the disenfranchised. He might be receptive to seeing this type of housing built on his land. And certainly, the altruistic nature oft voiced by many Pedro Point residents should lend further support to such a project. The Calson parcel is conveniently located for easy access to shopping, the beach, and public transportation. Much more convenient than a formerly proposed senior citizen complex to be located in Park Pacifica.
The pedro point parcel is in an upscale part of town. The mixed use developement would be market rates, with either the developer paying for an exception to lower income units or moving them offsite or allowing a few below market units.
Pedro Point people want it to be their own private dog park.
I cannot access, follow or subscribe to all Pacifica neighborhoods in Nextdoor, thus I'm not happy with it. Sam Casillas might be horrified to know that his postings cannot be seen by all in Pacifica. Sam is an articulate and passionate individual, although I do not always agree with him, I feel his voice should be heard.
Being on the north end of town, it only lets me subscribe to 6 Daly City neighborhoods and 4 Pacifica neighborhoods. Maybe I am wrong and there is a way to do it. Can anyone help?
Go into the settings. You can find which neighbors you want to see. You can see just one, or you can set it to see all of them.
Email them they will walk you through it.
Have you seen some of the dilapidated shanti shacks on Pedro Point? Yes there are some very nice houses. But you can't call that entire area "upscale". Some affordable housing would fit right in and would look better than most of the stuff there.
1049 Affordable on Pedro Pt.! Oh the horror. Hell, Park Pacifica had a cow when it was even rumored that affordable was being considered for the old Oddstad School property. I believe the wailing was led by a realtor who did a perfect rendition of the nimby 'right project, wrong place' number. Market rate, at least 60 units with the usual set-aside for a few affordable units or cash in lieu to the city would be just fine for Pedro Pt. It won't be any time soon and it won't do much for our finances but we need some new housing stock.
Seem to remember that the Calson owner proposed 12 upscale houses on that parcel which would have been an extension of lower Grand Avenue. The rest of the parcel would have been dedicated as a park or open space. The PPCA was holding out for either the General Plan "marine/visitor serving" zoning or a park. "Visitor serving." might that include a hotel?
Maybe the Pedro Pointer's should go back to Calson and beg him to build those 12 houses rather than risk having 75 houses or a visitor serving hotel. They've fought the good fight for over 15 years, but at some point that property will be developed. 12 houses seems like more of a win-win, than 75 houses that would be even more detrimental to the current Point residents.
Nothing that is an offical development for Oddstad. A school leased out part of the site.
People want soccer and baseball fields on part of the parcel bordering Yosemite.
People are going to bitch and gripe in Pacifica, even if they got a freebee.
Yes I have been seeing the shacks up on Pedro Point. I have also seen them bought up and torn down and replaced with million dollar homes.
Build 12 when the city would allow 75? Is he even interested at this point? It's been years and life goes on. If the city actually now supports 75 units on that parcel, he can sell the property for development and run like hell. After all the bullshit and being labeled a "profiteer" he might as well act like one. Then he can watch from afar as the PPHA fights the new owner to limit the project to 12 luxury homes. Hahaha. Come back, Ron, come back.
How old are those Oddstad School buildings? Looking shabby. I doubt the district makes enough off rent to cover increasing costs of up keep on aging buildings and grounds. Hey maybe Caltrans will rent it again for the highway widening? Failing that, a squat for the homeless back there. Probably end up torn down and an empty lot within the decade. That'll be pretty.
So Sam. is a "profiteer" who lives here less despicable than one who does not? Ron Calson has held the Archdiocese property for close to twenty years, all the while trying to work with the PPCA and the neighborhood to develop his property to everyone's satisfaction. Although, no luck to date, I would hardly call him a profiteer just because he doesn't live here. Calson must be close to 70 by now, maybe older. Perhaps he's tired of trying to placate an entire neighborhood and would like to get something reasonable built while he's still among the living.
Then there's a builder or two around that has come to Pedro Point, made vague promises to the neighbors, banged a couple of houses together,made a fistful of dough, and then moved on. But since they're "local profiteers." I assume that is perfectly justifiable.
823 Sad to say you're largely correct. A few admin changes from the obvious process lovers and natural bureaucrats on council are insignificant. The downward trajectory of this city has not changed.
Those heartened by the choices council made re Caltrans fail to realize how very very pragmatic the dominant and ambitious members of Council really are. Judge the wind, set your sail accordingly, and don't get run over by the supertanker on your stern.
In Pacifica for those of you keeping track at home.
Profiteers=bad
capitalists=bad
property owners=bad
out of town developers=bad
anyone who differs in opinion from the gang of no=bad
caltrans=bad
timing the signal lights=bad
324 You're one bad-ass. I keep waiting for someone, anyone to kick a few and get Pacifica on track. So far? Nada.
156 You're a little vague. What kind of vague promises are you talking about?
5:10
Bad to the bone...
@512. Vague promises: "we're going to live in these houses and raise our families here. That's the one that I had heard from the neighbors. Didn't happen.
And to be clear, the builders weren't Dave Blackman or Mike Panisi. It was two other guys.
1108 It sounds like the 'two other guys' dealt pretty effectively with neighbors engaging in that time-honored Pacifica pastime, ie, let's tell people what to do with their private property. The change in plans could of been the recession, family stuff, or, gasp, making money.
Making money in Pacifica is a sin.
Everyone has to be a broke artist, or sign painter.
Post a Comment