Submitted by Bob Hutchinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pacifica's Economic Plan
Submission and comment policy
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Historic Sharp Park Golf Course
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(719)
-
▼
October
(71)
- Halloween bats no real problem, rain could be
- Vote to move this city forward
- Vote for the future of this city
- City Council candidate Victor Spano just wants to ...
- Pacifica streets considered "at-risk or poor"
- Victor Spano understands technical city "stuff", h...
- Uh oh, the robots are coming to help, aka: job rep...
- Pacifica Five-O Chief Jim Tasa Retires
- The highway 1 solution is widen the highway
- Sharp Park quick hit
- I'm voting for O'Neill, Spano and Ruchames
- Reminder scary City Council meeting, Monday Octobe...
- We call "Shenanigans"
- City Council meeting, Monday, October 27, 2014
- Pacifica Five-O Armed Robbery Press Release
- Vote for economic development and highway improvement
- Vote to fix this city, affect change
- San Pedro Creek Bridge project, see you again in A...
- More NIMBY tricks: Riptide smear attempt strikes ...
- Red Ribbon Week, October 27-31
- Some people don't want to fix Pacifica, the "hate"...
- The last candidates forum review
- Measure H
- Water supply earthquake ready
- Gypsy Hill Rezoning
- Reminder Planning Commission meeting tonight, Mond...
- Redwood City downtown palm trees will be replaced
- Heroic attempts to save a woman on a Coastside bea...
- Planning Commislsion, Monday, 10/18/14
- Pacifica, US Census demographic statistics, and ot...
- Rev. Peirs letters are welcome on Fix
- New neighbor's property clean-up unwelcome
- Earthquake, another reason to build nothing in our...
- SMCTA 5 year strategic transportation plan meeting...
- Half Moon Bay Art and Pumpkin Festival, Saturday a...
- PBCPAC endorsed City Council candidates
- Preserve the charm, modernize and develop the city...
- City Council candidates forum follow-up, Pacifica ...
- Sierra Club 2014 endorses their "green" city counc...
- Controversy over Measure H, community college cons...
- Adapt or change, how smart are we? A parrot story
- Reminder City Council meeting tonight, Monday, Oct...
- Local Democrats city council candidate endorsement...
- Seton Medical Center sold, but needs further appro...
- Sockpuppets, trolls - boo!
- Word review - "sock puppet", or "sockpuppet"
- City Council meeting, Monday, October 13, 2014
- Community Colleges tax, Fall ballot Measure H
- Judge rules against park ranger who used stun gun ...
- City council endorsement walks like a duck
- Wandering column suspended
- Therese Dyer for City Council Flyer
- AAUW city council candidates forum follow-up
- More city council candidate election forums
- SM County Harbor District dysfunction continues
- 10 years later San Carlos Transit Village almost a...
- Let the Fall 2014 vote begin !
- Planning commission meeting cancelled, 10/6/14
- New Economic and Community Development Director, S...
- Jefferson Union High School District candidates, F...
- Pacifica School District candidates, Fall election...
- Look back, transformation of "The Prospects" conce...
- Better safety for bicyclists
- Federal bankruptcy ruling, CA cities have right to...
- How does this save water? Won't surfers just take ...
- Vote for City Council accountability: your pocket...
- 10 homes too many on 60 pristine acres
- City Council Candidate forums, October, 2014
- City Council Candidates: who not to vote for, for...
- Pacifica Pride Award entry, deadline Wednesday 10/...
- Affordable housing, San Jose
-
▼
October
(71)
Visitors:
40 comments:
Love the crammed together cars.
Love those 14 foot concrete walls. Didn't seen any in the highway 1 photograph renderings. Where'd they go?
The same place their fictional bottleneck went Kathy.
Why do they have to distort the truth if they really think they're right?
Oops I just answered my own question.
Lets all ignore the Alternative prematurely rejected by Caltrans: The Grade Separation Alternative, the one that removes the traffic light at Vallemar and allows for the traffic to flow freely heading north, the Alternative that Caltrans states in the EIR "would provide the BEST traffic congestion relief" The Alternative that Caltrans rejected based on the cost of $50-$75 million (note the floating cost number). But instead Caltrans favors the Landscaped Median of a solid number of $52 million (no floating cost number). And as we all know Caltrans is solid with their cost estimates: The Tunnels - 4 times what they thought it would cost, The Bay Bridge - they thought it would cost $1 Billion, instead it cost $6 Billion. Oh yeah, we can all trust Caltrans with their cost estimates.
"Steve Sinai said...
Love the crammed together cars."
Are you trying to say cars crammed together is false?
"Love those 14 foot concrete walls."
Are you trying to say 14 foot concrete walls do not exist within the project?
Oh, because you didn't look at the FEIR, they must not be there.
If there are no crammed together cars and no 14 foot concrete walls, whom exactly is distorting the truth?
Looks like more "Shenanigans" from FixPacifica
122, think fix the traffic bottleneck through Vallemar/Rockway! State roads somehow manage to get fixed all over California. Some of these traffic flow improvements are highway widenings. After 20 years, its Pacifica's turn. That's really all were talking about.
140. Graphic is totally distorted, and funny-- enjoy the joke, but don't take it seriously. Cars drop into a funnel; bottleneck at both ends to defeat the traffic bottleneck (the purpose of the construction); 14 concrete walls to hold back dirt, so? Campaign for "alternatives", that's another joke. There are no funded "alternatives", and alternatives have been studied. Meantime, there are candidates that support this joke.
Source: Biological Assessment, Sept. 2010 Chapter 1 Introduction
• Construction of approximately 900 ft of retaining wall along the east side of SR 1 just north of Harvey Way to contain the widening within the existing State right of-way. The retaining wall would extend up to 14 ft above finished grade and up to 2 ft below.
• Construction of approximately 1200 ft of retaining walls along the west side of SR 1 between San Marlo Way and Reina Del Mar Avenue to prevent the highway widening from encroaching into CCC jurisdictional wetlands. These retaining walls would extend up to 10 ft above finished grade and up to 3 ft below.
• Construction of approximately 200 ft of retaining wall along the west side of SR 1 north of Reina Del Mar Avenue to prevent the highway widening from encroaching into CCC jurisdictional wetlands (wetlands perched on top of the SR 1/Calera Parkway Improvement Project BA 12 man-made embankment). The retaining wall would extend up to 24 ft above finished grade and up to 2 ft below.
• Construction of approximately 310 ft of retaining wall along the east side of SR 1 approximately 1000 ft south of Fassler Avenue to stay within existing right-of way. The retaining wall would extend up to 10 ft above finished grade and up to 2 ft below.
• Construction of approximately 630 ft of retaining wall along the west side of SR 1 south of Rockaway Beach Avenue to contain the highway widening at the top of the large existing embankment and avoid existing utilities. The retaining wall would extend up to 10 ft above finished grade and 3 ft below.
• Construction of approximately 430 ft of retaining wall along the east side of SR 1 at the location of the Harvey Way frontage road to contain the highway widening and preserve the frontage road. The retaining wall would extend up to 5 ft above finished grade and up to 2 ft below.
The Fix Pacifica Echo Chamber of Three
Steve: Nimby. I refuse to believe anything. Nimby.
Kathy: Nimby, nimby, UFOs, chemtrails, grassy knoll, nimby, nimby?
Hutch: Oh, Nimby! Nimby, nimby Caltrans on speed-dial, nimby.
Steve: Nimby. We are smart.
Hutch: Nimby. I'm smart too, right, Steve? Nimby, nimby.
Kathy: Oh, Nimby! You both are very, very, smart. Not like nimbies, nimby.
All: nimby nimby nimby nimby
933 Those are all retaining walls holding back the hillside. Not just "walls" which suggest they are freestanding like a sound wall. Why try to fool people? Oh, dumb question.
These are ABOVE GROUND retaining walls, contrary to what you said on the graphic. Now who's fooling people?
Fix Pacifica has it's head in the clouds - a cumulative nimby.
122 True, all true. For the people behind this widening, the core group, it's not about traffic and never has been. Add in a cowardly or complicit council, assorted camp followers and mighty CALTRANS and you have a situation that calls for a public referendum. Can't wait!
944, very amusing. Well, as long as the Gang of No keeps moving fact into fantasy and presenting that as reality, some of us will continue to label their comments NIMBY. These are people who want to drop off the face of the civilized developed earth, and some of us think they should-- just not in our civilized back yard.
NINMBY 1123, no, the entire 10 year highway widening process has been appropriate (complete with studies, at least 3 civic meetings and lots of public input). Our city councils (all of them over 10 years) have backed moving forward with this project.
But now that you NIMBIES have failed at a stupid 37% out of city petition, the failed PH1A lawsuit, a failed public hearing, are awaiting another failed lawsuit-- you NIMBIES still keep trying to confuse the city population. Since an attempted city council motion intended to block highway widening also failed, now you're trying for a special election. You're like a bunch of termites chewing down our city house.
There must be an end to the "nothing for Pacifica" propaganda machine sometime. NIMBIES sure are not working for the benefit of "all the people of this city". Worse, you don't care.
Kathy, run Kathy's world anyway you want, but it's only Kathy's world. The rest of us will do what we have to about the highway widening. That includes a public referendum. Whatever the result, the public needs to be heard through that process on such an important issue. Good times for the printing industry. I expect to receive lots of slick postcards paid for by various Realtor groups. Buy stock!
1256, I put out the facts, and you call that "only Kathy's world". No the odd ones out are you NIMBIES.
Following the judges decision on the pending lawsuit, city council will move the project forward, then the engineering design will be drafted. Eventually highway construction will begin.
There is a corridor of time for funding this project, you know that and your strategy is nothing more than an attempt to run out the clock on funding, (the core "alternative", result the usual "nothing for Pacifica). This is another old NIMBY trick: Delay and obstruct to defeat needed city planning and development.
A referendum would be interesting. I wouldn't be opposed to having one if it could be held in the Spring and funding wasn't threatened by the delay.
But even if the widening was approved by a 60%-40% vote, which is what I'd expect the final result to be, widening opponents would spin it by saying that 60% isn't enough of a mandate.
A referendum isn't about a mandate or a trend or a suggestion, it's about putting it to a vote. One side wins and one loses. Both sides gamble. And even if council asks for the money that doesn't rule out a public referendum. Not at all.
I think a referendum would just be another stall tactic. Besides the referendum will be next Tuesday and will be based on how large an amount Keener loses by.
"But even if the widening was approved by a 60%-40% vote..."
LOL
A referendum would be interesting. Pacifica voters only, but I could see all kinds of support from other coastal towns/groups who might think they're next in line for a little Caltrans' love.
Only 8 days left.
60/40 in favor of widening? Where? I can't find 3 people on my Linda Mar street of 20 houses who favor it. Cross section of age, length of residence, employed and retired. Clear majority opposed. Many feel council majority is in cahoots with local realtors and developers to "sell out Pacifica". The cost is a real sore point. Obviously if there was a referendum, there would be a vigorous campaign conducted by both sides and the vote could be closer but IMHO widening would not pass.
Hutch said...
"I think a referendum would just be another stall tactic. Besides the referendum will be next Tuesday and will be based on how large an amount Keener loses by."
Disagree. The election is about who citizens think will make good city council members. While some have tried to make it be about a specific issue -- on both sides -- it's more than that.
Stand against the highway, though I am not voting for Mr. Keener.
When Keener wins, does anyone think Hutch will STFU? No, of course not.
Hutchsky will come up with yet another unbelievable reason why Caltrans can do no wrong and despite Keener winning, well... 99% of Pacificans still really, really, REALLY want the highway widened.
5:10, the hate will kill you man. Calm down and put down the doughnut.
I don't think Caltrans is perfect. Far from it. Is this plan perfect? No friggin way. But if you want anything done we need to compromise.
Something the NIMBY's are not willing to even think about.
"'But even if the widening was approved by a 60%-40% vote...'
LOL"
70%-30%?
It's really hard for a first time candidate who's an unknown to win. He doesn't have a business here, wasn't a city employee, no committees, etc. Lived a quiet life in Pacifica and there's nothing wrong with that, but it makes it difficult to win in a small town. I think he was initially motivated by a single important issue but he's not one-dimensional, and usually, neither are the voters. He's campaigned hard. Time will tell.
Memo to candidates. Don't leave any phone messages for people who criticize you and improve your chances.
"'But even if the widening was approved by a 60%-40% vote...'
LOL" 70%-30%?
Against widening - 70% for it 30%
You guys that think that the majority of the community is for the widening need to get out more.
We'll see about that on the 4th 7:19. Care to put a name to your post?
It isn't about sitting in traffic, or traffic at all, and the community knows that. I believe they'd like to look at some of those other alternatives. Look at them honestly and with diligence. I don't believe they trust this council or believe it's the all or nothing deal hawked on here. And, even if it is, people don't like being steam-rolled into submission in their own town.
Yeah 719, you need to sit in traffic more, and while you're at it take drive down the coast. Coastside is in the early stages of fixing their traffic bottlenecks, and the solutions again seem to be highway widening (the result of heavy traffic).
815, the "alternatives' were already studied complete with Final Environmental Impact Report. Its not about "trusting this council", its about science (the studies are done), time for the engineers to draft the project.
The joke's on you, 7:19.
I read an advertisement in the most distinguished of papers which declared that 99% of Pacifica's population is pro-widening.
You aren't a naysayer, are you, 7:19? You are. You say "nay" a lot, don't you. Why, perhaps you are all horses, you are such sayers of "nay."
Hutch, 9:35 reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask you:
What made you think that it would be a Great Idea to pay $1,000 to run two ads declaring that 99% of Pacificans were for widening? I mean, there's spin and then there's unadulterated bullshit. That ad was 99% the later and it really stunk up the joint.
You've kind of gone AWOL when it comes to that ad. Want to own up to that embarrassment?
1025 No name. Ask me that after the 4th. We'll see who is more out of touch with what voters want or care about.
Fred Howard ran for city council 4 times before he got on.
And he was a Friend of the Hills or Save our Hills group.
Hey, where's the ambulance stuck in traffic? If you're going to mess with their picture, mess with it!!! Ambulance, fire truck, pizza guy.
141, I didn't want to alter their flyer only comment on it.
But there were a few things that would have been funny. Alternatives? Riding a horse? 14' Great Wall of China. Keener, Digre and what's his name. Larry, Moe & Curly pictures.
Post a Comment