Sunday, October 2, 2016

Protect our City from preventable ocean damage

Image result for Pacifica, Ca flooding picture
Retreat may be a good idea, if it's not
"Managed Retreat" in our neighborhoods.
Pacifica Tribune/Print Edition/Letters to the Editor, 9/28/16.  "Managed Retreat?" by Frank Vella

Image result for Pacifica, Ca flooding picture
Apartments lost to coastal erosion.
"Dear Editor, that anyone believes in 'managed retreat" as a solution to shoreline erosion is beyond me.  Managed retreat means give up and throw neighbors, businesses and millions in sewer, telecommunication and water infrastructure under the bus.  

We have the technology and the resources to protect Pacifica from this growing problem. In any doubt, listen to Congresswoman Jackie Speier.

I have a suggestion to anyone on City Council or elsewhere in town thinking a retreat is ever a good idea -- you do not represent me and keep your hands off my house."

Reference, Managed Retreat, Beachapedia. Related article. SF Gate/Peter Fimrite, 2/3/16, "Pacific Ocean devours Pacifica cliffs in aerial photos over decades."   Note photographs. Apartment buildings lost by Leah Mills from San Francisco Chronicle/Peter Fimrite, 12/29/15,"El NiƱo forecast renews worries about Pacifica cliffside homes." Ocean splashing over sea retaining wall, West Sharp Park by Dave R./Flickr from Climate Central/John Upton, 10/30/15, "Paris Agreement Could Put Leash Around Global Warming."
Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

With every angry letter from the rogue realtors. The Nimbys sign and dance and get another noobee on city council.

Think about it.

Kathy Meeh (memo to "rogue" NIMBY) said...

808, "dancing" to City failure to protect neighborhoods, essential City infrastructure, peoples' property and the individual/family lives who live there?

Nope, none of your NIMBY chaos friends belong on City Council-- and this year, the issue is critical affecting the City Council majority vote.
For others, vote only for Nihart and Vaterlaus who will protect our City community.

Anonymous said...

Nihart has 2 investigations ongoing. A state investigation and a Federal Investigation. She has too much mud on her at this point. Plus she was all gung-ho for the Harmony @ 1 project and lost her nimby base.

Deidre Martin will win!

Kathy Meeh (oh give us a break, NIMBY) said...

152, yeah, but you didn't say the fake "investigations" are NIMBY promoted, irrelevant Federal Hatch Act restrictions, which have zero to do with non-partisan, local elections. (Also see US Office of Special Councel opinion.)
Isn't that what we're really talking about?

Meantime this City doesn't need to block the progress that is happening, by adding another NIMBY (NIMBY majority) on City Council.
Vote progress and experience: Nihart and Vaterlaus, (not NIMBY inexperience Martin or Duffy).

Addressing your Harmony@1 deflection: advancement of that project was limited by NIMBY design, and interfered with by NIMBY obstruction.
So once again, the NIMBY base promotes chaos, NOTHING, with intended and unintended consequences.
NIMBIES have not and will not govern with fair, accountable, responsible City economic, social and infrastructure balance, (this City has 35 years of proof of that fact).

Steve Sinai said...

"Nihart has 2 investigations ongoing. A state investigation and a Federal Investigation."

The above sounds very Steginkian, in that it dishonestly tries to spin what's going on as some kind of criminal investigation. It's not.

All that's happening is that an administrative decision needs to be made to determine whether there's a conflict of interest between Mary Ann's position working for the Veterans Administration and being on Council.

If Jim Vreeland's employment with the EPA was OK, it's hard to imagine Mary Ann's employment with the VA would be a problem.

Bob the BS caller said...

Stesnunk strikes again with his breathless, National Inquiry, headline.
What's next Stegsnunk, "Nihart conniving with aliens to create 'fill in the blank'".
Unbelievable horseshit. It's about time someone checked Stennuts bona fides.

Kelly said...

Frank Vella's letter is right on point.

Many Bay Area cities, counties, and agencies are preparing for risks related to sea level rise and erosion. I have yet to see one major jurisdiction advocate "managed retreat" for areas with established and functioning residential and commercial developments. Instead, they are planning to protect and upgrade coastal infrastructure.

"Managed retreat" supporters are ignoring the perspectives of Congresswoman Jackie Speier, CA Assembly Speaker Pro-Tem Kevin Mullin, and County Supervisor Don Horsley. These officials are encouraging Pacifica to develop a plan to protect and improve our coastal infrastructure, including along Beach Blvd. They are willing to fight for federal and state grants to build a sturdy seawall north of the pier. The $$$$ will be there; our city officials just need to get the ball rolling.

Among the four Council candidates, only Nihart and Vaterlaus get this.

The Local Libertarian said...

There are 100's of billions of dollars invested in the Bay Area which could be affected by rising sea level.

You can glean the detail from this informative white paper, prepared for California Energy Commission

Yes, global warm is a fact. And its a fact of life for those of us that live in the Bay Area. We need to figure out other ways to solve this problem. I am not entirely convinced "Managed Retreat" is an option.

One way to solve this is to re-zone the area as commercial which could potentially encourage outside business capital to solve the problem instead of raising public debt.

Anonymous said...

Feinstein wants to protect bayside. Now it's Pacifica's turn!

$ 1 billion needed for South Bay flood protection and marsh restoration - San Jose Mercury News
Apr 11 2012
A new coalition of business leaders, environmentalists and others will try to raise $1 billion over the coming decade to protect corporate campuses, houses and schools from what one supporter called an "inevitable Katrina" in the South Bay, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein will announce Thursday in San Jose.
Feinstein, in town to celebrate groundbreaking for a BART extension to east San Jose, will use the event as an opportunity to highlight the need for further investment in infrastructure -- specifically to build new levees and restore wetlands around San Francisco Bay.
Most of the work will be in the South Bay, where land sits below sea level and the gleaming corporate campuses of the high-tech economy sit behind fragile levees built a century ago to maintain salt manufacturing ponds.

Kelly said...

Managed retreat would end up costing far more than replacing the poorly built retaining wall with a properly built, technologically-advanced seawall. The latter approach is the fiscally prudent route to take.

Anonymous said...

Minus a few, Pacifica is the real home of the Deplorables.

Anonymous said...

Yes the faux-enviro NOBY's are truly deplorable. Keener is their new leader and Deidre Martin is campaigning to be first lieutenant.
Digre is the KP Duty Sargeant. She can't string together more than two coherent sentences, but she will be a very useful idiot for Keener and Martin.
As long "they've got theirs", these three stooges will surely destroy what little remains of Pacifica.

Kathy Meeh (Sue supports WSP) said...

353, Mayor Sue Digre is supporting West Sharp Park projects (that is progress).
And current comments targeting her about not "stinging two coherent sentences" together, seem unfair, unreasonable, untrue-- and even unethical coming from a hidden anonymous source, (yuck).

However you have a valid point about Deidre Martin, who may be a NIMBY hologram, since some of us have never seen her. Here's her candidate platform website: Deirde Martin, "Why I am running for City Council."
Clearly Deidre is against Highway 1 widening (the traffic solution).
And she's against Quarry development, and expresses skepticism that anything but housing (including affordable housing) would be built there-- even though whether to entitle housing is the ballot measure.
Any qualified development in this City has a multiple regulation process, including approvals through planning and city council.
Deidre is for rent control (which has renter advantages, and owner disadvantages)-- yet, she does not express support for affordable housing.

FMV undefined and unclear is the question of what Diedre views as a "long range protection plan" for West Sharp park, and other coastal land flooding and erosion.
In that regard, recently the City has set forth systematic goals, thus a plan to protect our coast.
Does she agree with and support these coastal protection goals? Or is her view more "managed retreat", (which some of us might suspect).

Also, undefined and unclear: what is Diedre's view of the role of City government and it's relationship to "community"? (The question becomes which "community", and for that I think we may already know the answer).

Anonymous said...

"SILENCE IS CONSENT". In this day and age and particularly on issues vital to the sustainability of Pacifica as a functioning city, I have never heard Sue Digre speak up in defense of saving West Sharp Park from the wackos promoting "managed retreat". I have not heard her ever promote the construction of any housing (including affordable housing) to help people find a place to live. Instead she is promoting rent control on a minuscule and rapid dwindling supply. I have not heard her speak in favor of the library, improvements to Palmetto Business District, the development on Beach Blvd and any development in the Quarry. If I am wrong please correct me with specifics. I have seen her vote mostly in tandem with whatever Keener votes for and he definitely has no interest in improving our city unless it benefits his NOBY buddies. Deirdre Martin has every intention of following the marching orders of her NOBY puppet masters. Sue's SILENCE IS CONSENT and that's really bad for Pacifica.

Kathy Meeh (hearing more is good) said...

752, Sue Digre hasn't been silent. Over the past several months, she's been voting on West Sharp Park and several other issues with O'Neill, and Ervin-- that's 3 votes, a City Council majority.
Nihart has often NOT been eligible to vote on West Sharp Park projects, because she lives too close to the projects.

Because Digre has voted YES, the Palmetto StreetScape and other West Sharp Park projects have moved forward (O'Neill, Ervin, Digre).
Her voting record is embedded somewhere in the City records.

BTW, Digre also supported General Manager Lori Tinfow's earned pay increase when that discussion came up.
(Don't worry, Keener gave his usual NO to both, of course.)

Anonymous said...

Sooo if Martin wins a seat on council, are you saying you are confident that she will vote against the wishes of Martin, Keener and their puppet masters and save us from the grand plan of "Nothing for Pacifica"?

Anonymous said...

Oh, honestly, Meeh, you and your facts! And, Martin's got the seat. Slam dunk.

Kathy Meeh (3 votes is City future) said...

803, if you understand the paramont importance of 3 City Council votes, you likely understand the issue.
Then, there is the election: the 2 progress candidates are Nihart and Vaterlaus.

5 city councilmembers:
4 only if one must recuse, such as Nihart living within the area of the development.
If 4 only votes, 2 vote NO = motion fails.
If 4 only votes, 3 vote YES = motion passes; Digre has stepped-up for West Sharp Park infrastructure development.
Therefore, 1 vote can determine, and has determined, our City future (both short term and longer term).

"Sooo" is a known Keenerism, are you sure you're comfortable with that expression?

Kathy Meeh (not so fast) said...

1101, honestly Anonymous, it would be helpful if you put your name to your crystal ball analysis, to determine if you're a "slam" or "dunk" NIMBY.

Anonymous said...

Sue lives on the North Side of town. I think Sue is also termed out after she serves this term? Can anyone verify?