Pacifica Tribune/My Turn, 8/19/14. "Hwy. 1 solution is near" by Jim Wagner and Mark Stechbart.
 |
| Highway 1, Fassler to Reina del Mar. Could be off peak hours, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. any day |
The court hearing to settle disputes over the environmental report is scheduled for August 22.
Over the course of the 30 years of debate for this widening, we have seen the City of Pacifica endorse the project with a December 2006 letter signed by Mayor Pete DeJarnatt, "The purpose of this letter is to convey the need for and reiterate the City of Pacifica's full support for the subject project...this segment of Hwy. 1 experiences heavy congestion during both morning and evening peak hours..this portion of highway is extremely vital to the coastal highway system for it provides the only link between the northern and southern coastal regions."
The Pacifica School District said this in a January 2007 Hwy. 1 widening support letter, "The Pacifica School District is very supportive of and endorses the continued funding of all studies need to mitigate traffic congestion...the current level of congestion at commute times affects the daily life of 3,400 children who attend our schools...the widening of Hwy. 1 would specifically help traffic concerns related to safety, emergency response times and the overall standard of living in Pacifica."
Finally, three retired Pacifica Fire Department Battalion Chiefs with more than 100 years of service underscored the need for a Hwy. 1 widening for emergency vehicle response and getting equipment to the north end of town during a fire.
So the need is pretty clear. And we all know we can't use the bus or walk to work, otherwise that "alternative" would have solved the bottleneck 30 years ago.
Now we are in court. Because of the inherent complexity of environmental law, some observers think the August 22 court hearing may generate even more delay. In the 2,100 pages of reports some errors are bound to occur, so some items may have to be re-studied. On the plus side, one would hope the court would understand stopping thousands of hours lost in commutes over 30 years and tons of pollution generated by cars crawling through this bottleneck outweighs minor errors in the report.
Elected officials are beginning to take this new look at environmental reviews. Over the past several years in the Legislature, bills have sought to even out the process. The Democratic leadership, with long-term environmental credentials, have supported the process. The pending $5 billion Tesla car battery factory has legislative support to speed up the process and cut down delay. The 49er stadium in Santa Clara also had legislation to speed up the reviews. A big part of the legislative reform has been aimed at providing clearer direction to courts so that entire environmental documents were not invalidated just because the judge found minor errors.
Does this sound familiar? If the 49ers and Tesla faced a 30-year review, endless talk and lawsuits over alternatives no one has ever used, nothing would get done.
Eighteen years ago the City endorsed; 17 years ago the school district endorsed. Yet we still sit in traffic, waste time, pollute and hold up emergency vehicles. In this time period the United States designed, built and launched a space station. Our request to the Court -- let's get this done!"
..........
Note: Pacifica Tribune: "Jim Wagner is a longtime realtor/broker in the community; Mark Stechbart is a political consultant." Photograph of Highway 1 between Reina del Mar Avenue and Fassler Avenue by John Green from a related San Jose Mercury News article by Julia Scott, 10/16/11. "Battle brews over proposal to widen Highway 1 in Pacifica."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
48 comments:
Alrightey! Think positive, envision a righteous victory, and remember to stand where people can see ya!
Mr. Wagner and Mr. Stechbart imply in their piece that Mayor DeJarnatt and the Pacifica School District endorsed the current project in 2006 and 2007, respectively. This is impossible given that the current project design didn't even exist until several years later.
In fact, it wasn't until July 28, 2011 that Caltrans revealed the true scope of the project; an expansion of the 64-foot roadway at the quarry to one measuring 144 feet across -- a width that exceeds that of an average eight-lane freeway by 12 feet.
* Highway 1 (currently) = 64 feet wide
* 8-lane freeway, average width = 132 feet wide
* Highway 1 (Caltrans proposal) = 144 feet wide
_________________
Sources:
(1) Caltrans, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Fig. 1-5 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/documents/route_1_calera_parkway/calera_pkwy_deir_ea110801combined.pdf)
(2) Caltrans, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq92.htm
An imaginary endorsement of an imaginary plan? Oh well. Time and space and limits of the physical world have never been an impediment to propaganda. Pete's relationship with the idea of improving traffic congestion was somewhat abstract. He approved in general and acted accordingly, but also said he was sure the CCC would never allow the proposed plan to proceed. Not a bad position for any politician to be in, then, or now.
Chris 1235, about 2007, then Mayor Pete DeJarnatt (along with Cal Hinton, both representing the Pacifica City Council) took the request to fund the Calera Creek bottleneck project to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors. That request set the traffic studies, research, public meetings, and ERAs in motion. However, the first CalTrans public meeting about fixing the traffic bottleneck, I recall attending, occurred about 2004. The County follow-up letter from that meeting, referred questions to then Councilmember (or possibly Mayor) Jim Vreeland.
My recall is that City Councils have supported fixing this bottleneck for decades. Now we're there, studied, with funding. Two of those lanes you site are turn-offs, within 1.3 miles of 6 lanes. Hence, let the traffic flow through that area, and as is said "get out of the way" of that happening. If we miss this opportunity to fix the problem, we have nothing (as usual) and we start over sometime, maybe. Meantime, the regional population is growing and everyone uses the highway through our city, including us.
1253, wrong! Nothing abstract about being the Mayor (Mayor DeJarnatt) who (representing city council) requested the project with funding to move forward. At that time, he said he had been hearing from his constituents (both sides of the issue), but he also knew the project needed to move forward. And it has.
We all understand there is a structural traffic bottleneck at Calera Creek Parkway (Vallemar/Rockaway) don't we? After 20 years of doing nothing, time to fix it. (1253, the "imaginary, BS and CCC would never allow propaganda" is all yours).
City Council, on Vreeland and Sneaky Pete Degarnatts watch said the Manor overpass needed to be replaced and it was a danger of failing during a strong earthquake. This Caltrans proposal does nothing to fix this problem.
Oh Kathy, Pete, Vreeland and Lancelle have all been heard at one time or another through the years to say they believed the CCC would stop the proposed project. No bs, it came from the horse's mouth. Fogel's timeline is correct, but that doesn't mean Pete didn't support the project in general. Imagine that!
No one is debating that both DeJarnatt and the PSD may have supported and endorsed doing something about morning traffic, but they most certainly did not endorse this particular project (as Wagner & Stechbart's piece implies) for the simple reason that it didn't exist at that point in time.
It wasn't until 2011 (not 30, 18 or 17 years ago) that Caltrans unveiled the project -- one that will increase the size roadway size until it is twelve feet larger than that of an eight-lane freeway.
As the authors themselves admit, there are errors in Caltrans' own reporting which will require a certain amount of review. The piece seems to argue that the mistakes are minor, but that's up for debate and is why, ultimately, the Court needs to rule on the issue.
That the authors acknowledge that mistakes were made by Caltrans seems to put their previous claims that this is a "frivolous" lawsuit in a new light. It's not so frivolous if there are genuine questions and issues about the project documents vis a vis state and Federal legal requirements.
I've found that at 144 feet wide, the actual size of the proposed roadway stuns most people when they discover it. That city council has, since 2011, refused to engage with the community and to have a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the project's size shocks them and seems to most an abdication of one of council's most basic responsibilities as our representatives.
Chris, DeJarnatt did not just support "something" as you say. It was a plan to widen the highway exactly where it is being widened. Pretty much exactly what is happening.
I think your side would do much better if they didn't constantly twist the facts. "Giant retaining walls" "Paving the coast" "1200 signatures"
But please keep it up.
And BTW what is your solution? You do admit that we have a serious safety problem and emergency vehicles being stuck in traffic? What is your solution that could be implemented while we're still alive to appreciate it? Nothing?
Retaining walls?
Here are the facts regarding the retaining walls on this project. I am cutting and pasting these measurements directly from Page 14 of the Caltrans Final Environmental Impact Report:
A retaining wall a maximum of 10 feet tall and approximately 540 feet long, located at the
western edge of the highway near the commercial area and just south of the intersection of
Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue.
A retaining wall three to seven feet in height and approximately 180 feet long, located at the
western edge of the highway near the commercial area along Old County Road, on the north
side of the Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue intersection.
A retaining wall approximately 310 feet long and up to nine feet high, located at the eastern
edge of the highway near the southern end of the project alignment, south of Fassler Avenue
and Coast Lane.
A retaining wall approximately 430 feet long and up to five feet high, located along the
eastern edge of the highway north of Fassler Avenue and adjacent to the Harvey Way frontage road. There would be a three-foot high vehicle barrier on top of this wall.
A retaining wall approximately 400 feet long and up to 12 feet high, located along the eastern
edge of the highway, north of Harvey Way.
A retaining wall approximately 1,000 feet long and up to nine feet high, located along the
western edge of the highway north of Rockaway Beach Avenue and the old “quarry site”
driveway.
A retaining wall approximately 170 feet long and up to an average of 22 feet high, located
along the western edge of the highway north of Reina Del Mar Avenue.
A retaining wall approximately 60 feet long and up to 10 feet high, located just south of the
Shelldance Nursery driveway.
* * *
TOTAL = 3,090 feet of retaining walls ranging in height from 3 to 22 feet high.
I don't believe I've ever mentioned retaining walls in any posts until now and I'll leave it up to readers to determine whether or not these retaining walls are "massive."
Nothing will ever be done. Pacifica will stay in the dark ages and every other city in San Mateo County will prosper. Even East Palo Alto.
Pacifica will lose out on the money to fix Highway 1.
adding lanes was always the plan. For 30 years. The only debate was where the road would actually be placed: expand where it is; a frontage road; through the quarry or some combination. The next debate was landscaped median or concrete barrier/no landscaping; size of break down lane/shoulder; bike/ped paths.
But always more lanes.
Hey Fogel, close your eyes and take a look at the locations you so breathlessly pronounce as "retaing walls". How many of those are below grade and how many are holding up earth that already sits above grade. Should we all fret about a wall that holds up Shelldance? Have you ever noticed the "dastardly retaining walls" at the entrance and exit of the tunnel?
Chris, Glad you can copy & paste and add.
Isn't it true that the largest retaining wall you listed 1000 x 9' would not be visible from the highway or any point east?
And can you tell me what is so terrible about retaining walls anyway? Have you seen the ones up on 92 or after the tunnel? They are actually very attractive sculpted and natural looking.
The problem is people like your leader Peter Loeb were spouting off about giant "SOUND" walls which are much different than retaining walls. Sound walls could actually block someones view. But then it was pointed out that there are no sound walls so they switched over to retaining walls and hoped nobody would notice.
I thought you were better than that Chris.
So again I ask, keeping in mind we have a hazardous situation what is your alternative to widening that could actually happen in say 5 years?
Yeah Fogel, close your eyes and take a look.
Fogel, you outta know by now how it works around here.
Accept the Caltrans plan without question and you are reasonable.
If you wonder aloud how adding a single lane in each direction makes a Hwy 1 wider than an interstate freeway, well... you're being an unreasonable naysayer.
And you can't comment on the project unless you're a traffic engineer, but retired firefighters don't count. I guess when they retire they're made honorary traffic engineers.
Bad traffic in Pedro Point? Stop complaining and "just deal with it." Bad traffic in Vallemar? Time for a $55 million freeway that 99% are for. I mean, I read it in an ad and everything!
A project designed by Caltrans only four years ago has now become something so old it was mentioned in the Bible, albeit the New Testament.
This is not reality as you know it here, Fogel
Chris 231, 438, from reading the article, I think you (not Wagner or Stechbart) are suggesting that the initial highway 1 widening approval and funding (2007) is somehow time and endorsement linked to the specific project concept (2011-2013). Where as Pete DeJarnatt acted in the capacity as Mayor to initiate and fund the project (2006-07), PSD may have endorsed the (2011-13) project concept.
Beyond the current status (FEIR, legal, etc.), next stage will include the project engineering design draft/final (about 2015); then build the project (about 2016-17). These stages occur within 10 years (2007-2017); and, the initial scoping meeting may have occurred in 2004. (There has been public meetings and comment along the way).
Are the lawsuits against the project "frivolous"? The PH1A lawsuit was thrown-out of court (so that one may have been "frivolous").
We'll see what the second (mainly eco) lawsuit brings. In a large report, compiled with multiple studies some errors might be expected. And since the lawsuit is mainly eco, based on most any technicality, (similar to Brent Plater and others), right or wrong, win or lose-- no doubt the State will compensate the law firm (our tax money at work). Then again, the "Gang of No" game plan may be to keep the lawsuits going, delay the project long enough so the funding timeline will run out.
Retaining walls? Sure, to hold-up dirt in road development, not encumbering the view from Highway 1.
Think of it this way, had the Highway 380 extension been built 30+ years ago, we wouldn't being having this contest. But assuming this time the highway 1 widening project moves forward, having better traffic flow through our city will be appreciated (and safer). Yea, progress!
The end of Pacifica as a destination awaits us if Caltrans' plan goes through. Caltrans, as can be seen by the Bay Bridge replacement, is a criminal enterprise
Why would it be the end of Pacifica as a destination 913? You make no sense. Unless you a leader of the PH1A?
The Hwy 1 Calera Parkway project would be a ugly monster like 380 extension model was years ago. A public referendum,after people saw what it looked like, would seal its fate. Let voters decide again!
close your eyes and take a look at the locations you so breathlessly pronounce as "retaing walls"[sic].
I cut and pasted a section about retaining walls directly from the Caltrans report… breathlessly?
How many of those are below grade and how many are holding up earth that already sits above grade.
I don’t know, I’ll have to look at the Caltrans report to see if they disclose this.
Have you ever noticed the "dastardly retaining walls" at the entrance and exit of the tunnel?
I don’t know. Which ones are the “dastardly” ones? You provide a quote; are they labelled that way somewhere?
Isn't it true that the largest retaining wall you listed 1000 x 9' would not be visible from the highway or any point east?
I don’t know; I’ll have to look at the Caltrans report and see if they disclose this.
And can you tell me what is so terrible about retaining walls anyway?
I didn’t say the retaining walls were terrible.
Pacifica will lose out on the money to fix Highway 1.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
You do admit that we have a serious safety problem and emergency vehicles being stuck in traffic?
…keeping in mind we have a hazardous situation…
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
I think your side would do much better if they didn't constantly twist the facts. "Giant retaining walls"
…it was pointed out that there are no sound walls so they switched over to retaining walls and hoped nobody would notice.
I never posted anything about sound walls.
The problem is people like your leader Peter Loeb…
What an odd thing to say. I honestly don’t know how to respond. Why do you make kooky statements like this? Do you really believe this?
I thought you were better than that Chris.
Better than what? Cutting and pasting numbers straight from Caltrans’ own report? Are you feeling okay?
Chris you have chosen to align yourself with these idiotic groups. As with measure V I think you are hurting the credibility of your very good work on Pacifica Index.
PH1A and Pacificans for a Scenic Coast continually throw crap up and sees if it sticks. This week it's retaining walls and a 144 ft freeway, before it was pedestrians crossing, an overpass, school busses, school start times, telecommuting, traffic light timing and on and on.
Many people know the facts. Facts like 3 ambulances stuck in traffic (that we know of) in the past year. It happens there's your proof. Do you really think they were the only ones? Anyone with common sense can see that if there's traffic it will delay emergency vehicles. Can you? We've had 4 career Firefighters attest to that. But that's not proof to you and your group.
This is why they are not taken seriously. They ignore facts and sensationalize their position. Sensationalize like your piece over on Riptide about how wide this freeway is. You don't show any actual pictures from the EIR because they don't look so bad. Instead you use a picture of 280. That's the way to report the facts Chris.
I still haven't heard an answer as to what your solution would be. I guess you think we don't need one since there's no proof of EMT's being delayed by traffic?
Fogel you are show boating when you show a picture of the narrowest part of highway one (64 feet) when much of the highway between Vallemar and Fassler is about 90 feet wide. That would mean we're only adding about 25 feet to each direction. But that wouldn't convince anyone huh?
Fogel you are show boating when you show a picture of the narrowest part of highway one (64 feet) when much of the highway between Vallemar and Fassler is about 90 feet wide.
At that point in the picutre, where the roadway is now 64 feet, the proposed roadway will be increased in size to 144 feet across. Right there at that point. That’s not me “showboating,” that’s figure 1.5 from Caltrans own FEIR & DEIR. You should check it out.
By the way, at that spot… where the picture is? That’s the only point along the roadway where Caltrans supplies data on width. Roadway widths at the intersections (or anywhere else) are not provided in the FEIR. So maybe, even at 144 feet, it will be the narrowest point.
Chris you have chosen to align yourself with these idiotic groups.
Uncalled for. I have personal and legitimate concerns about the size and scope of the project unrelated to any group.
PH1A and Pacificans for a Scenic Coast continually throw crap up and sees if it sticks. This week it's retaining walls and a 144 ft freeway
The project calls for a roadway width of 144 feet and 3,090 feet of retaining walls and is stated forthrightly in the Caltrans report. This is “crap?” What is it about my posting this data that has upset you so much?
I’m neither a PH1A or PSC member/participant, though I did attend one of the public PH1A meetings to better understand the group’s perspective on the project. My posts are my own and not representative of those (or any other) groups.
Facts like 3 ambulances stuck in traffic (that we know of) in the past year. It happens there's your proof. Do you really think they were the only ones?[sic]
If the claim is made that “serious safety problem and emergency vehicles being stuck in traffic," then I think it's reasonable to expect proof of these claims before we commit ourselves to a three-year $55 million project that more than doubles our 65-foot wide road to 144 feet based on those claims.
I’m aware of one ambulance that was “stuck in traffic” a number of months ago because it crashed headlong into a car at Linda Mar Beach. The ambulance driver exercised poor judgment and drove on the wrong side of the road rather than use the twelve feet of open shoulder available on the through-traffic side. I saw the immediate aftermath of the accident with my own eyes and I have the police log that corroborates it.
When/where were the others stuck?
Anyone with common sense can see that if there's traffic it will delay emergency vehicles.
Are you claiming a delay or are you claiming that emergency vehicles are “stuck in traffic?” I’ve witnessed ambulances and fire engines traveling this stretch during heavy traffic on a number of occasions and have never seen one “stuck.” They actually move through fairly quickly, but again this is my opinion and I understand that we can differ on that; however, it’s unfortunate that we can’t reasonably discuss this difference as adults without name-calling and personal attacks.
Sensationalize like your piece over on Riptide about how wide this freeway is. You don't show any actual pictures from the EIR because they don't look so bad. Instead you use a picture of 280.
The pictures are visual aids that provide contrast, context, and reference. Caltrans is proposing to widen the highway to 144 feet at the point I show in the picture. In order for people to visualize the size of the road, this is 12 feet larger than the average eight-lane freeway. Yes, it’s bigger than I-280, including all its shoulders and medians.
I would have used a picture from the EIR if Caltrans had provided one that corresponds to the only point along the entire length of the project they provided a roadway-width measurement for, but they didn't.
Here's my PERSONAL OPINION: When I drive along I-280 and try to imagine a roadway wider than that plunked down in Vallemar, it strikes me as a draconian solution to a minor problem. Again, this is just my opinion, so don't freak out about it.
Mr Fogel is the new shill. Over on Rip, Gang of No posting this: double the width of the existing roadway, and encase the highway in 9- to 22-foot-high retaining walls. Pedestrians and bicyclists crossing ...would be challenged in crossing such a wide roadway, which as proposed is completely out of scale for... Pacifica.
So retaining walls the new cry. At least they gave up on non-existent alternatives!
A PSC spokesman says, “Caltrans has approved a project that will more than double the width of the existing roadway, and encase the highway in 9- to 22-foot-high retaining walls. Pedestrians and bicyclists crossing from west to east or east to west would be challenged in crossing such a wide roadway, which as proposed is completely out of scale for a community the size of Pacifica. There were only two alternatives considered by Caltrans, big and bigger. Bigger was Caltrans’ preferred alternative.”
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
After the poor pedestrians cross the great divide do they have to scale 9 to 22 foot retaining walls to continue on their way!
Oh, and as for the ambulance driver using bad judgment, the gentleman they were transporting was dying rapidly in the back. That I know, and no, I won't reveal my sources.
Important note here: Candidate O'Niell while on the Pacifica School Board did vote to support widening the highway as he does now. This election for those paying attention is about one thing. Does the candidate support the widening or not, there is not pussyfooting around the issue any more. O'Niell is a supporter as is Spano. A vote for them is a vote to widen the roadway from 64' to 144'. Personally I'm voting for candidates that DO NOT support the widening. BTW didn't bother reading the Twins article, we've all heard it before.
Proverbs
A truly wise person uses few words
http://howtobemoreconcise.blogspot.com/
Todd if you believe all Pacifica voters care about is highway widening you're more out of touch than I thought.
We shall see won't we? John Keener's only position is to stop widening. He has no record of doing anything in Pacifica. No committees, no letters, no volunteering. Hell I've done more. But hey, he's against the highway. Good luck with that.
That right Todd 332, vote to fix the traffic congestion funded (O'Neill, Spano), or vote for continued, increasing traffic congestion, no funding, no future (Digre, Keener)-- NOTHING as usual, only worse. BTW why bother reading your 332 comment, or this comment for that matter, "we've all heard it before." Duh!
But does it matter what you NIMBIES read, when you learn nothing of balanced objectives for a city. Clearly NIMBIES do not care about civic progress, and do not care about traffic congestion. And, we all know the traffic "alternatives" promoted by NIMBIES are a NIMBY joke to the public. We also know that NIMBY economic numbers do not add-up: NIMBIES can't count. What a terrible waste of a city you folks have caused for three (3) decades.
Time to solve and fix the problems of this city: traffic congestion through Rockaway and Vallemar is one; voting for city council candidates who will support and promote city progress is two; reality check in exposing the condition of this city caused by NIMBIES who will not compromise for the best interest of this city is three.
Last time your greenie candidate (Campbell) bombed Bray. He didn't just lose to O'Neill, he was tromped on. People are wise to the BS enviro, anti progress line.
Keener will come in last as he should. And you guys still won't learn.
What's that about repeating the same thing and expecting different results?
Todd
Don't worry you can appeal this project to the Coastal Commission also.
332 Dying in an ambulance stuck in traffic. That's the kind of "there but for the grace of God go I or someone I love" story that would convince the undecided and maybe even sway some who are opposed to widening. Why hasn't it been in the Trib or the Times? It would hold up to scrutiny, wouldn't it?
Todd you're probably right about Spano, but his flyer went to great lengths to avoid saying "widening". He says "I support highway one improvement" and goes on to play the firefighter card--the post 9/11 equivalent of wrapping yourself in an American flag. No where in the Spano flyer does he use the word "widening". Quick! Some one tell him that 99% of Pacificans support widening Highway One. He can come out of the closet and say the W-word.
my my my there are sure a lot of people having severe allergic reactions in this thread after accidentally inhaling a fact!
seven "nimbies" in a single post, is that a new record?
It wasn't dying in an ambulance stuck in traffic, it was dying in an ambulance smashed against the front grill of another car because your ambulance driver channeled Dale Earnhardt and tried to drive the wrong way on the highway.
I totally have proof of this, but I'm not going to share it with you because I have my sources and it's top secret, hush-hush, black ops stuff, so you'll just have to trust me while you write that fifty five million dollar check, right 3:32?
I'm 99% sure there are 144 things wrong with the widening.
Todd tried blaming the ambulance driver also 608.
How low of a human are you that you blame an emergency worker for following the accepted procedure of driving on the wrong side of the highway when there's a traffic backup to save someones life? I only hope all those doughnuts and pancakes don't catch up with you and you are in the same situation.
Here's a link to the fix post Chris & 549
http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2014/04/highway-1-traffic-congestion-ambulance.html
yeah, how dare you 6:08 don't you know that emergency workers are flawless beings comprised of pure energy, beyond reproach? and they're traffic engineers too!
sure, sure, the highway was to blame, just following procedure. great decision and it ended up working out swell for everyone involved. high fives all around. way to go! A+
Me thinks 824 is brownshirtanon
News flash…emergency vehicles regularly drive on the wrong side of the road in every US city.
To say this driver is to blame for trying to save a dying patient because the highway is choked with traffic is bad karma man.
8:11, as suspected, complete fail.
One of the ambulances was the one that rammed head-on into another car over at Linda Mar. The other was an ambulance that... oh the horror... had to slow down! Stop the presses!! Only something bigger than an eight lane freeway will fix this!!!
Yeah so the previous ambulance count was three, now it's down to one "stuck" due to a crash in Linda Mar and another that someone claims had to tap on its brakes.
There goes your own policy on honesty, eh, 8:11?
Chris Fogel is working on John Keener's campaign. Thus he is aligned with the progress stopping Hippies and gang of no.
Putting John Keener on council is another vote for the gang of no.
Keener has done nothing for this town that I can see in the years he's been here. Not even a letter to the editor before these last few months. Not any help on fighting Measure V even though he says he was opposed to it. His good buddies sure were for the phone tax though. Keener's platform is he's against highway widening and he's a green candidate. Nothing about economic development because that's not his thing.
Keener may have no lengthy history of civic involvement, but he's giving us something this city council refused to do. His candidacy is a referendum on widening highway one. Yes or no, straight-up, with none of the careful wording of the career bureaucrat or some well-coached council clone. If Keener succeeds in getting his message out, it could be fun while we wait for council to drop their next stinker.
1253 Even if Keener managed to get elected it would make no real difference in widening the highway. We would still have a 4-2 vote to procede. If you're hoping for some landslide referendum it ain't going to happen. Don't you learn from the past? Pacificans said in 2012 they don't want another green candidate at this time. And Campbell had a lot more service and experience under his belt. Keener has nothing except he's against the highway. At least Campbell offered some other positions and had volunteered and showed he cared. Keener has done nothing.
Hutch
How do you count 6 on city council?
4-2 vote?
Yeah yeah press one for your daily message. Assuming the judge doesn't derail Caltrans, got to wonder if council will wait to vote on such an important issue as the highway widening until after the new council is seated. Do they want the public input this election might provide? Is there a deadline on asking for those funds?
Mr. Keener stopped by my home campaigning. I was able to talk with him. He is an intelligent man. I asked him a wide range of questions. He answered all of them. I told him what I wanted and did not want. He gave me some ideas of how to compromise and move forward. I have to say he will get my vote. I am against widening the highway, although I want it fixed.
Post a Comment