The Daily Journal (San Mateo), Bill Silverfarb, 7/31/13. "City bond debt to be paid early: Half Moon Bay using insurance settlement money for Beachwood Development."
"Half Moon Bay officials have saved the city about $12 million by applying insurance settlement money related to the botched Beachwood Development toward paying down a court-
 |
| City inflicted wetlands caused private property lawsuit |
.... The costly litigation has transformed the city dramatically since it
lost the case, forcing it to get rid of its own police department and
reducing staff drastically. The city is now primarily a contract city,
partnering with the Sheriff’s Office, for instance, to provide police
service for the coastal city.“ Read more.
Related Fix Pacifica reprint article - Half Moon Bay Review, 9/20/12. "Half Moon Bay gets back liability cost from Beachwood lawsuit." For other articles, search Beachwood lawsuit.
Note: Photograph of Beachwood property is from Coastsider, "HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree--and more", 4/1/08."
Peebles, should have sued Pacifica. Either let him build out the quarry, or sue and bury the city.
ReplyDeleteThe city would not talk to him in good faith.
Peebles did not talk to the city in good faith. The city should have sued Peebles.
ReplyDeleteHe wanted to sit down with the city manager and Jim and Julie walked in and sat down with Peebles. He wanted to talk to the city manager and Jim and Julie, sent in Cecilia to talk him.
ReplyDeleteYou where clearly not in the know, the city told him do what we say, or you have to start from scratch.
2:10
ReplyDeleteSued him for what?
Buying to quarry and trying to bring Pacifica, out of the cluster F**K they are in?
Oh baloney you're both wrong. The quarry project went up for a vote and was narrowly defeated by the NIMBY enviro's who have since lost power.
ReplyDeleteSame vote today that project would easily pass.
Pass or not it didn't mean the property had any entitlements, permits or a project. It only meant the public vote necessary to allow for housing would have been satisfied. Pass or not it wouldn't have guaranteed the 355 units stipulated in the ballot measure.
ReplyDeleteIf L had passed the only thing different between the quarry property and any other coastal zone property would have been satisfied, which was a vote to allow housing.
And no, if the vote was taken today it would have still gone down in a screaming flaming agony just like L did.
coulda woulda shoulda Peebles was a pro, handled it like a pro, made money like a pro. Precious poverty-stricken Pacifica is safe from his kind for a long, long time.
ReplyDeleteThe city is rejecting NIMBYism. If the vote were held today, it would pass.
ReplyDeleteAfter the economic wake-up call delivered by the Great Recession, anything short of a nuclear waste storage site would probably pass. Nevada's got dibs on those anyhow. Do you think the CA Coastal Commission heard the wake-up call?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the evidence that "The city is rejecting NIMBYism"? A couple of planning commission appointments? A couple of know-nothing, do-nothing City Council members? The more things change, the more they stay the same.
ReplyDeleteLook at who endorced Mary Ann and Ervin, the same people who wrecked the city financially.
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled. This council is just the same as other councils.
Just as sneaky and fly under the radar as city councils past.
Only one NIMBY left on council.
ReplyDelete...and the fact that NIMBYS had to file a lawsuit against the city to stop the highway improvements. In the past, the NIMBYS could have had council stop it.
ReplyDelete"Look at who endorced Mary Ann and Ervin, the same people who wrecked the city financially."
ReplyDeleteI'm not hearing a lot of love directed towards Mary Ann and Ervin by the NIMBYS.
City Council has had 6 months to show they are different from City Councils past. What have they done besides raising fees and taxes?
ReplyDeleteDon't say changing around the Planning Commission. That is just moving around chairs on the Titantic.
7:24
ReplyDeleteIt was one nimby and one nimby attorney. This suit will be tossed at the first preliminary hearing.
They failed to prove how the whole city was at risk by Caltrans. They failed to name Caltrans, who would have crushed them, and the San Mateo County Transit Agency.
7:30 & 7:38, you left town four years ago. Don't you have a life?
ReplyDeleteYou don't even know these people you're sniping about.
Hutch or Tom Clifford
ReplyDeleteHave you two sat down and chatted yet?
Not yet
ReplyDeleteThe quarry vote would not pass now:
ReplyDeleteWhy?
The new nimbys mainly the Vallemar and Pedro Point nimbys are better organized then the old bunch. They are better educated, have more money, and have more free time on their hands to take on the issues. We seen it when the flat parcel in Pedro Point came up for a zoing change. All the Pedro Point Nimbys came to council and whined how they walk their dogs on the parcel.
The city is doomed.
It is up for debate if the poison pill on the quarry went away due to the redevelopment agencies being fazed out.
ReplyDeleteI know the poion pill that Loeb, and his friends, put on, had a time limit also.
It is not up for debate if the requirement for a pubic vote on housing in the quarry went away with the end of redevelopment. That requirement was not part of redevelopment. It's still there.
ReplyDelete