"Still a pro-highway widening mandate." by Bob Hutchinson
| All in all it was a 2-turkey election |
But I have to strongly disagree with Jane Northrop's assumption on the front page this week that said "The voters of Pacifica affirmed they are against the plan to widen the highway". How's that Jane? The one candidate (John Keener) who made anti-widening his primary platform came in last among the 3 that were elected. 53% of the vote went to pro-widening candidates. If voters were truly against widening they would have elected Matt Dougherty instead of Mike O'Neill by more than 1500 votes.
Yes it surprised me that John Keener won. It was a combination of scaring voters about "cementing over Pacifica" and other propaganda like 14' walls and bottlenecks, a very low voter turnout, and the vote being split by three pro widening candidates. I have to congratulate John. His strategy of deceiving and frightening voters with scare tactics worked. But let's be clear, it is no mandate against widening when only about 15% of registered voters elect an anti development candidate.
Thank God we still have a majority on council who understand we must have some economic development for this city to survive."
Note photograph: from PBS/KQED/Nature, "Wild Turkey fact sheet". Disclosure: the above text was submitted by Bob Hutchinson, and has also been sent to the Pacifica Tribune as a letter to the editor. Choice of article titles, photograph and caption by the poster below.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
54 comments:
Hutch must have escaped.. um I mean voluntarily left, the re-education camp, OOps, resort, and got this LTE typed off before he was found... located, and returned to the Nimby brain wash... OOps again, re-education facility/resort to undergo sore loser rehabilitation. (See Council Candidate thread for earlier report). :)
Going by your own definition Bob, you just committed slander.
430, it seems like stating the truth always looks like slander to NIMBIES.
Oh what the hell. Spam me, but spare me the fringe political insight. Can we all just say thank you to Therese Dyer? XOXO, madam. And an honorable mention to Hutch for his warm and public embrace of candidate Spano. Did the guy squirm at all? Victor, my man, you can run anytime, or, every time.
Kathy, I think you maybe missed Bob's long hard work on defining slander. Or maybe you've conveniently forgotten.
Anyway, I'm contributing to Keener's fund to sue Bob for slander. 'Cause, you know, in my mind at least that's a real thing.
Anyway, why are you guys so angry? You won!
"Still a pro-highway widening mandate."
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Welp, there you have it -- in black and white.
Hutch feels that the majority of Pacifica's voters are brainless idiots who can't tie their own shoes or otherwise objectively size up the candidates in an election.
The pro widening butt-kicking was actually a win for the Bulldozer Fan Club because...
Actually, almost 50% of the voters voted for Keener.
How does one deny reality with such religious fervor? I just don't know how it's done. It's gotta be exhausting.
2/3 of the anti-freeway candidates won (by a lot!) and 3/4 of the pro-freeway candidates lost (by a lot!).
Can I give you my wet clothes to hold while you make posts like these? They'd get dry in about seven seconds with all the spinning going on.
My ultimate pro-development slate in 2016:
Bob Hutchinson
Kathy Meeh
Victor Spano
Therese Dyer
Please, please, please will you all run in 2016? PLEASE DO IT!
I'm uh sure you'll win and bring back a semblance of ahahahahahahaha... I can't keep it up.
But I have to strongly disagree with Jane Northrop's assumption on the front page this week that said "The voters of Pacifica affirmed they are against the plan to widen the highway". How's that Jane?
Gosh, it's almost... almost like... someone looked at the results of the election and came to the exact opposite conclusion that you did.
Oh, the horror. It must be a conspiracy -- there's no other explanation!
Victor won't run again. He has too much good going on in his life.
Maybe you guys can run.
Hey Todd you have all the answers you should run.
"Kuddos to Caltrans on their outstanding work on the Bay Bridge."
"Buses don't work."
"99% of Pacificans support the highway widening."
And now this: Still a pro-highway widening mandate
Oh. My. God. It's Christmas every day here on Fix Pacifica!
Shall I assume your collective efforts to encourage Tribune subscriptions after they killed Wandering and Wondering no longer apply?
657 It's not too late. Think!
Where will you place those unforgettable 99% ads if the Trib fails? Subscribe now! Those ads were the best.
7:18-- seriously, those ads were the best. 6:13 referenced the peak comedy moment from them: "Buses don't work."
I still laugh about that one. Buses don't work. How out of touch with this community can a person be? Arw there too many buses serving Pacifica or something?
Did they envision someone reading that statement, buses don't work, to jump out of their chair and exclaim: "By god, they're right -- buses don't work! I'm canceling my bus subscription forthwith, good sir!"
Unbelievable. Comedy gold.
"Shall I assume your collective efforts to encourage Tribune subscriptions after they killed Wandering and Wondering no longer apply?"
What?! No! Don't you remember how they bragged about all the subcriptions they bought for their family, friends, cats, dogs, and turtles?
Wait a minute! You're not implying that they were fibbing, are you? Are you?!
6:07, They are not conspiracy minded, just delusional.
7:53, I don't get it. Why don't buses work? Are they stay-at-home buses? Just plain lazy? Why won't these buses get out there and work like the rest of us?
8:59-- don't know. You'll have to ask the creators of those ads to explain themselves about buses (I suppose they're bus engineers after all), but it appears no one is willing to own up to those stinking piles of offal. Hutch had something to do with them, but now he refuses to acknowledge their very existence and comes up with every excuse under the sun to not answer questions about them.
It would therefore seem that the ads manifested themselves in some miraculous, spontaneous fashion, of their own accord. A truly wonderous event of divine portent!
859 Sounds like a virus. Close the borders.
The DEVIL made them do it.
You need a special (not cheap) licence to drive a school bus, then you only get to work two 90 minute shifts a day. Probably easy to get grants for the 10 or 20 or more buses you'd need - but try finding the people to drive them. That's the main problems!
Bob,
Stating the facts does “frighten the voters” because the overwhelming reaction from the public has been that the highway widening project is massive overkill for the scope of the problem. I’m sorry that this causes you so much hand-wringing angst, but you simply need to come to terms with the reality that a substantial number of Pacificans disagree with you about the appropriateness of Caltrans’ plan.
As for your charges of deception, well, the soundwalls are described on Page 165 of Caltrans own report, so you’re being quite disingenuous with your accusations and, in fact, have the basic measurements of the soundwalls wrong.
There are two soundwalls, and their location and construction are described in great detail. Caltrans hasn’t yet made a final decision about incorporating them though, stating on page 166: “A final decision to construct noise abatement features will be made during the final project design process. If soundwalls are incorporated during the final design supplemental environmental review will be completed.”
Sound Wall One: “A minimum length of 200 feet and a minimum soundwall height of 12 feet would be required for this wall.”
Sound Wall Two: “A minimum length of 400.5 feet and a minimum soundwall height of 12 feet would be required for this wall.”
Joe 1025, this thread is full of anonymous cowards (like you) who very well know your anti-highway campaign was designed to "frighten the voters" against yet another city and regional improvement (highway widening). Your campaign began with a faulty "community" petition (63% Pacificans), and continued through the city council candidate campaign, (which included dirty tricks (such as the poor Vreeland complaints, and Spano hit). And reality is there are no, zero, none "alternatives"; where as the good, proposed highway project has been studied over 10 years and is funded. Studied and funded, got it?
The 1.3 mile highway widening will improve traffic flow, its proven science elsewhere and it will be proven science here as well. As for sound walls, sound walls are not expected to be part of the highway widening project, and were excluded early in the DEIR as well.
The "massive overkill" is what you Gang of No NIMBIES have done to this city. How about a balanced city economy (development), and better traffic flow through our city (solution highway widening). When does that change? And other than to post trash commentary on this blog, why are you here?
Yes, Kathy, I get it. The facts surrounding the Caltrans highway widening plan DO frighten the voters.
When they hear that the project width is twelve feet wider than I-280 they about crap their pants!
Confronting facts can be very scary. Some people just can't handle it and avoid dealing with facts at all!
Joe, 1222, I don't believe you. And the 1.3 mile highway widening is not the equivalent of I-280, or any other "freeway" that some of you have been insisting is the case. Shame on you for scaring our community.
6 lanes x 12 feet = 48 feet. Of course there are safety features, such as four 10 foot shoulders, the wide median, the planter and sidewalk (about 144 feet total according to Caltrans estimate).
Think we've had this conversation prior. The result of what your Gang of No is promoting is continued and worsening stalled TRAFFIC. The project in front of us will greatly improve that. Think progress!
"Joe, 1222, I don't believe you."
Yes, I understand facts can be very inconvenient things, especially when they blow your position to pieces.
What do I have on my side? Only the simple, most basic facts: Caltrans states the current roadway width is 64 feet; Caltrans states that the new roadway will be 144 feet across; Caltrans also states that the average interstate highway is only 132 feet wide.
Now, what do you have on YOUR side? Where are YOUR facts. You have none. All we get are bizarre roadway measurements that don't include shoulders, medians, etc. Pretty transparent spinning of the most basic measurements.
People see right through that sort of obfuscation and generally don't respect it. Same goes with ascribing conspiratorial motivations to things instead of confronting the facts at hand.
So, a challenge for you: can you stick to the facts and avoid the ad hominims?
Joe 107, a highway juncture where traffic and enters and exists causing a traffic bottleneck is not equivalent to a "freeway". To suggest it is, is goofy.
Which part of the added safety features (4 wider shoulders, and 1 wider median, planter, sidewalk) would you like to remove. Maybe narrow the traffic lanes to 6 feet, rather than 12 feet-- would that make you happy? What? Obfuscation, who do you think you're kidding. The facts are stated in the FEIR, big document fully researched and funded, the project is solid-- some of you not so much.
A lot of engineering geniuses out here at FP. Gives me warm fuzzies to know that. So would a genius from both sides of the debate please explain (in a clear and concise fashion - please, no patronizing) just exactly why producing a funnel at both the north and south end of the 1.3 miles of widening will/won't improve the traffic flow. If your argument is that there simply isn't a traffic problem in the first place, nice try. I choose to believe my lying eyes. Thanks in advance...
Drive north up to Santa Rosa some day on 101. Or drive north through Half Moon Bay on highway 1 around 5:00 pm on a weekday. There are any number of places where 4 lanes go down to 3, or 3 lanes go down to 2, or 2 lanes go down to 1. They all are congested. It's the definition of a bottleneck.
The whole "wider than i-280" comparison is bogus. Does the i-280 have turning lanes and traffic lights?
352 Oh, so it's the turn lanes and traffic signals that make it wider?Thanks, and who cares? It could have an all-u-can-eat Chinese buffet laid out down the median. Bottom line...it's wider than 280.
452 - A comparison to another state highway of similar importance with a metered intersection would be much more beneficial. The comparison to an interstate is useless and misinforming.
The FEIR shows a cross section that is 144 feet wide from one edge to the other. That's enough info for me. I don't need no stinkin' comparisons. It's many feet wider than it needs to be to add 2 lanes.
530 Beneficial to whom? A before and after comparison works just fine, thanks ever so.
5:43 - Is that in your expert opinion? If it was only 120 feet would that be ok? 100 feet? Of course not, you are against any type of progress. This has been a long battle and you are going to lose. This highway will get built, regardless of a low turn-out council election.
"This highway will get built, regardless of a low turn-out council election"
I've got bad news for you. You may want to sit down for this...
603 Not a snowball's chance in hell. Spin it any way you want, but people know it's not about traffic, safety or true progress. It's about money for the few and the loss of something quite irreplaceable for the rest. No sale.
646 - do tell. Progress is still in the majority even now on the city council. The bad news is coming your way.
646, 700 well let see, PH1A lost their Hearing and their lawsuit. One outstanding lawsuit pending, which may or may not have a"fix it". 3 of 5 city councilmembers likely see the value of better traffic flow through the local traffic bottle neck, FUNDED. Its the right solution, and the right thing to do for the people of this city.
For the project, the money flow comes into this city and will benefit this city-- that is progress. The snake oil you're pushing is confusion.
" Progress is still in the majority even now on the city council."
I don't know exactly how to break this to you. This may be a shock. Are you sitting down?
Kathy, you really should stop calling anybody who disagrees with you a liar, a cheater, a nimby or whatever other mean little name you can think of. That's what partly killed Victor's efforts - voters were encouraged to look at what FixPacifica actually represented, and enough were repulsed at the way you treat locals to sway it away from you.
Calm down, breathe deeply, try to win over people by being reasonable and reasoning. Accept that some people just don't want it - that doesn't make them evil or stupid or liars or cheaters, just that they don't agree with you.
Your burning of our village is doing yourself a disservice. Be the voice of reason, be the only adult in the room and more folk will listen. Being the cranky neighbor means nobody cares what you say. Even when you're right.
Kathy, If this council were stupid enough to put their names on this disaster it would only open the gate for organized and well-funded opposition from outside Pacifica. The CCC also will have its say. And, of course, a public referendum can launch at any time. You think your so-called progress council members are that selfless and have the backbone to try and bulldoze this through? They know there's no 99%. Do you?
718: "Calm down, breathe deeply, try to win over people by being reasonable and reasoning."
You should probably take your own advice here...
718, oh please no name, the only tone you would be interest in speaks NIMBY (land of progress impossibility). Then there's the other tone: speak softly, get eaten by NIMBIES.
Apparently what you speak is a different language on a different planet from Development and Highway Widening. There is no middle language or middle ground. And no I didn't "partially kill Victor's efforts"-- some of you did, remember that wild "Don't Fix Pacifica" letter to the editor? That was a doozy.
Besides no name whiner, here you are still smearing (smear, smear), all over this thread. And since you do not agree with fixing Pacifica, and are not supporting that position, and are not an adult in the room, you might ask yourself why you are here?
Let's build a highway, just what this city needs. Now that is positive, but must sound "mean and evil" to you. Let's build a highway where there is traffic congestion is also "reasonable and rational" mainstream thinking. Then about NIMBIES: NIMBIES have already "burned down our village". Nevertheless, with some important components missing forever, some of us are just trying to get the "village" rebuilt.
747, several city councils before this one have advocated for needed highway widening. This council or the prior one also chose the wide median, and the wider shoulders. Let's hope this council is not "stupid enough" (your words) to reject an opportunity which has come along during this past 10 years (possibly 20+ years in consideration). Those bulldozing progress in this city are NIMBIES, of that I am 100% sure-- right 718,747?
Kathy, serious reply here.
I ran a quick search of your last 200 replies on Fix Pacifica.
You mention the word NIMBY, NIMBIES, or NIMBYISM in 83 of them.
In those 83 replies, you use the word NIMBY, NIMBIES or NIMBYISM a whopping 132 times.
To put it another way, the odds are 43.5% that any post you make will have the word NIMBY in it.
Your peak NIMBY usage was in a post on September 30 when you used NIMBY an incredible ten times in a single response.
In response to my reasonable request, all I get out of either side is "Neener, Neener!" In fact, that's all we ever get out of either side. Pathetic. You guys make Wile E Coyote look good. And that ain't easy! Fact. You peeps need to grow up and debate this like adults.
Since no one seems to want to debate the merits of the bookend funnels being proposed (other than tell me to look at some other example of where something similar, or not, was attempted). No one can tell me why a funnel is a good idea, or, for that matter, a bad idea. For it to be a good idea, I would assume the engineers determined that enough traffic would exit on the widened 1.3 miles to mitigate the foreseeable bottleneck at the bookends. No one here seems equipped to discuss technical issues yet you think you are all engineers. All you seem capable of is more, "Neener, Neener!" Wonderful. You guys wouldn't know a good idea if it bit you in the ass. No wonder they call this place "Pathetica".
One more point: If the curators of this rag are really that offended that people post anonymously, then simply don't allow it. Stop whining about it. It really is annoying.
927, so? Usually turns out I'm talking back to twisted NIMBIES. Of course, you've got to ask yourself why YOU as different from 99% of other people would amuse yourself with such a trivial NIMBY count.
938, yes the traffic engineers know what they're doing. Again these transition roads exist throughout California, in our region, in Pacifica. The FEIR for widening the highway was a big study by experts who separated-out for cause "alternatives". But, NIMBIES don't debate, they get their directive talking points from NIMBYVILLE, and from that they dictate. To prove the point again: NIMBIES, what kind of balanced economy revenue development will you support in this city?
I give up. [sigh]
I give up too. Some people just refuse to listen. Please continue your work Kathy, you're doing a fine job which is clearly working.
Kathy fumes, "The FEIR for widening the highway was a big study by experts who separated-out for cause "alternatives"."
Not true Kathy. The DEIR was prepared by the self interest of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority who's Director lives on Fasslar Blvd. The DEIR along with 200 plus public comments was given to Caltrans pre-prepared by the SMCTA.
If you read the 33 sets of minutes from the Calera Parkway's Project Development Team meetings it is clear Caltrans had nothing to do with preparing the DEIR and as the lead agency merely responded to the public comments.
Caltrans did no studies for the widening and the alternatives were not studied but were uniformly dismissed in the DEIR with uniform, cookie cutter blather.
Of course if you do read the PDT meeting minutes you will also see nothing but duplicity and self interest on the part of the SMCTA director and our own Director of Public Works.
Todd, 928, not true, and I'm not "fuming". I'm just stating the obvious. Documents are linked to the recent Fact Sheet article. The Highway widening and traffic congestion studies were prepared by multiple sources, including consultant experts-- that includes DEIR and FEIR.
But, I'm sure your interpretation of of Minutes of some meeting you're not linking inform your preconceived opinion.
I'm absolutely sure Digre and Keener (anti-widening to the bone) won and I speculate that if they ran with another well-known anti-widening candidate like Leo Leon it would have been a sweep. And the only thing that informed me is the freaking results.
Post a Comment