Comments I personally do not like the idea of such a large house among the cottages, and feel the city council got it wrong. But to be fair to city council members, the documentation that I reviewed on the city council site (still out there under the July 17 agenda) indicated that the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Committee both gave the go ahead to this proposed plan before it went to the city council, and the response to the appellant seems to me to be pretty well reasoned. In the absence of clearer planning mandates, we are going to continue to be bound by legal and technical interpretations. I am disappointed about this, but it speaks as much to the need to have clearer guidelines about HMB's planning goals.
Susan, What clearer guidelines could you ask for? The City's zoning code says that new structures in this historic area "shall be SIMILAR in scale and style to that of the predominant OLDER structures in the IMMEDIATE VICINITY" (emphasis added). The City Council (except Grady) decided that "older" and "newer" mean the same thing, that 3400 is "similar" to 1000, and that "immediate vicinity" doesn't mean next door or even on the same block---but rather it means a couple of streets away. The problem is not that the law is unclear. The problem is that the City Council (except Grady) didn't want to follow the law.
I watched some of the Council meeting on MCTV the other night. Perhaps I missed it, but is there a bulding being torn down next to the cottage to build this home or is it on one of the cities many infil lots?
The lot is empty. Calling it a "mixed-use" project rather than a "residential use" is a trick to allow for a much bigger structure because no standard setbacks etc. are imposed for mixed use.
hi, where in the "historic downtown district" are they building it? 3400 sq ft is large, but I don't know that I'd call it "monster."
This particular project is located on Church Street near the Cunha Middle school. When compared to the two small historic cottages on either side, the new house is accurately described as a "monster."
My point is that it seems we have gotten to where what ultimately guides a decision is the likely legal and technical interpretation of planning codes and guidelines--that is, bets on what the final outcome is likely be if it ends up in court. And you can see from the legal costs that HMB incurs that we are taking that route more and more. I think we have lost sense of any clear vision for Half Moon Bay. As much as I agree with you on the council decision, Kevin, there clearly is some precedent for bigger, newer looking structures in that are of downtown, even if not immediately next door. And why is it that the ARC and the Planning Commission opted not to turn this down? It seems to me that these groups are the main screening point for these kinds of design issues, so seems rather harsh to lay principal blame with the city council. I am simply highlighting that I think is a need for a broader community view about what we want Half Moon Bay to be like or not, and not one grounded in reaction to a series of individual proposals. Do we care about preserving the historic look and feel of Half Moon Bay? Do we care about the potential presence of 'big box stores'? Are we concerned about revenue growth for Half Moon Bay, and do we care about the sources of revenue? Are our codes sufficiently clear to support the community views? I am sympathetic to the lack of time and resources in groups such as the planning commmittee but neglecting the broader view will mean a town designed by response to individual projects. I see many of the same folks setting forth strong, often polarizing views on environmentalism and building. We are a town of clearly mixed views and it is unlikely that one camp is going to prevail. My simple question is how do we build a clear and straightforward vision for our community that take into account and reconcile as much as possible the variety of viewpoints that exist out there.
Susan, Those are all excellent questions. I'm not sure how to get the planning process to take the big picture into account, rather than looking at things project by project. But right now, the planning process is clearly broken. You asked, "why is it that the ARC and the Planning Commission opted not to turn this down?" Another great question. Could it be that those bodies were appointed by the City Council majority and the City Council majority wanted this thing approved? BTW, the Planning Commission voted to approve it 4-2 with one commissioner absent, otherwise it would have been 4-3 . Commissioner Linda Poncini who is a licensed architect voted no. The ARC failed to do its job, big time. Also, the dissenters on the Planning Commission were not saying that the new project should be limited to 1000 sq. ft. What was needed was a better design, not a garage-dominated box, which is what we are now stuck with.
Things for readers to consider: 1) How was the previous version of the Planning Commission put in place? Anything political going on there? 2) How long has Mr. Lansing been on the Commission and what kind of long-term "planning" has been done in that time frame particularly the period under which he led the Commission? 3) Would Mr. Lansing actually prefer the current state of a "broken" process which might allow him to take advantage of the fluidity to fight EVERY SINGLE PROJECT? 4) Should you believe his rhetoric?
Brian, I'll take a shot at answering your questions: 1. The previous Planning Commission was appointed by the previous City Council majority. There was one instance where politics did trump the law (the Popeye's Chicken drive thru). In that case, the City Council overuled a fully justified Planning Commission denial in an election year. I didn't like it then and I don't like it when it happens now. But there is no doubt that politics is trumping the law more often now. [Evidence: two recent Planning Commission approvals were recently overturned by a State Regulatory Agency; that never happened under the previous Planning Commission. 2. I have been on the Planning Commission since February 2004. Before that I was on the City's Architectural Review Committee (ARC)for about a year and before that I was on the City's Open Space Element Steering Committee. What kind of long range planning did we do? Well the Open Space Committee did a lot of long range planning, but much of it has mostly been ignored by the politicians in office. The Planning Commission's role could be to propose long range changes, but the City Council has not wanted us to do that as it would be stepping on their turf. 3. Whatever long range planning approach you might want to take, the job of the Planning Commission will still require making sure that each proposed project complies with the letter and intent of the law. I think that is an extremely important function of the City's planning process (private citizens depend on it, like on Church Street)---but it's not working right now. 4. People can believe whatever they want believe. I am going to do what I think is right.
While my wife and I don't live in HMB, we've been visiting the area for the last 20+ years. We live close by and used to drive over 2-3 a month to enjoy the charm of a small town and the sense of history. You could always count on finding shops, casual and charming restaurants and coffee shops that were different from your typical shopping malls in the peninsula. We've noticed however, starting a few years ago, the community has gone through major changes (and unfortunately at times going against zoning laws that were put in place to protect against unplanned, commercial growth). A phenomenon that at the time I referred to as "Carmelization of HMB". These more upscale shops, businesses and homes, while may help the growth and generate revenues, seem out of place and do not match the soul of the town (or the locals). My observation is that HMB is confused about what it wants to be and is missing a long term vision. Does it want to become commercialized and be another Carmel or stay a small town with a sense of history and charm that's different from other typical towns on the peninsula? It can’t be both. This is a decision for the community and the city council to make. As for us, needles to say, our visits have dropped off to 2-3 times a year.
I wonder how many people understand exactly what Kevin is getting at here. I would invite you to view attachments 2 and 3 under Item 7 (Planning) at Web Link. Then, after reviewing the surrounding structures against the enormity of the proposed "edifice", come back here and tell the rest of us that you still believe that the mini Ritz-Carlton that sleazed through the system for 619 Church St. is in any way conforming to the type and size of its neighboring structures. B & L from the Peninsula said it best when they said that HMB "is missing a long term vision." When I was away at a party recently (not locally) and mentioned I was from HMB, the fellow party-goer said, "Ah, the city without a plan." We could more functionally read that as a city without a clue, because if the current power elite and its elected entourage keep messing around with the paradise they've continued to try to sell off, there won't be any more cute and quaint left here. HMB doesn't have much in the way of historical buildings, certainly not compared with towns back in New England or Charleston SC, for example. It is merely the vestige of an agricultural cow-town that happened to survive the fast-track evolution that overtook communities a mere 12 miles away, solely because of its isolation. It has some nice trails, but no waterfalls, lakes of geysers. It has beaches, but no beach facilities that optimize that coastal resource. I think it would be wise for our local officials to remember these little tidbits as they continue to take chinks out of HMB's armor. And when the grandchildren of these officials sit around someday in a community far far away, looking at old pictures of HMB, wondering what it must have been like back then, will they even begin to wonder how it came to be that they could no longer afford to live in the same town they grew up in. Great legacy.
This proposed home is being built on a vacant lot. No historical structure was torn down. It passed all of the city's current laws and as a two story is similiar to many buildings in the surounding area, just not to the next door lady who will now have a neighbor. Is what you are suggesting is that the City have a new code that says all buildings must be craftsmen style home with no garage under 1000 sq ft and no commercial buildings? I walk down Main St and all I see are two story structures. The old buildings did have living space upstairs and the family business downstairs. If anything this new structure is doing the same.
40-year resident wrote: "It passed all of the city's current laws and as a two story is similiar to many buildings in the surounding area." That's not true. It does not comply with the historic neighborhood compatibility ordinance and it is not remotely like any other structures on the same block. Basic commmon sense would tell most people that the thing does not fit, but our City Council passed it anyway, mainly becuase the appplicants were well-connected, in my humble opinion.
Dear 40 year "Anonymous" resident, I think people need to first look at the previosly stated weblink to view the proposed structure, then actually get out of their barco-loungers for a moment and see the lot where this monstrosity will be squeezed into. The structure is in no way even remotely in character with the surrounding buildings. The sole building on that block with a functioning 2nd story is an older split ranch live-over garage, probably half that size, and that's at the other end of the block. Where I lived back east, I had an "R-10 substandard lot of record", which was exactly twice the size of the average coastside lot. My house was the second house built in the area. For both functional and aesthetic reasons, the town changed the zoning to R-20, meaning that any new construction had to comply with lot sizes four times the size of the postage stamps out here. I can understand an owner's desire to push the envelope, but at some point we have to ask if these people have any sense of boundaries .......... and I'm not talking about property boundaries. So many people move and build here and then wind up pulling all their shades down in order to block out the very neighborhood they moved into into. This proposed structure is out of place and out of character. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would suspect that you'd probably also feel also comfortable wearing plaid pants with a striped jacket.
I am a frequest customer of Mr Long's health food store on Main St and that is precisely why I chose not to use my real name. The gentlemen posting appear as very angry men and as you can see by the response from Mr Long very sarcastic. We are all entitled to our opinions and I respect the different viewpoints to open up the issue. However the last comment was really unwarranted. It probably doesn't matter to you Mr Long- but you are a very disgruntled shopkeeper and one who just lost a customer.
That is certainly your prerogative, ........... but did you even bother to look up the information at all? Have you viewed the project and driven around the block there? Laurie Torres presented a very reasoned argument, reinforced further by Kevin Lansing. If I appear disgruntled at all, it might be the result of trying to conduct business in the downtown area that has virtually forgotten any sense of loyalty to the surrounding residents and only tries to attract the locals when the weather isn't attracting dollars from over the hill. The business community is so politically torn apart by competing factions, each one promising that magic pill that will somehow bring about an end to the economic woes. I support the residents first ...... and still owing to the isolation of the Coastside, that should be our city's prime directive. That's where my political convictions lie and I have never tried to hide behind a cloak of anonymity about it. This project on Church St. is just another example of a system out of control. If you ever wish to discuss the issue, I would be willing to do so, but it's hard to converse with a shadow.
A copy of my response letter to the editor: Mr. Lansing, although an intelligent man, has lost sight of the real issue here. The issue being, and as I said at the various Planning Commission hearings, and at the City Council hearing, that the City needs to be clearer on what will or won't be accepted in this type of zoning. It is very clear in the residential statutes what is or is not acceptable, period. When my clients were considering buying this lot, they did their homework, and proceeded based on the ordinances in place for that zoning. Nobody was trying to "Trick" anybody. The design was done accordingly, and modified to ARC's and the Planning Commission's wishes, period. Mr. Lansing also neglected to mention that he was the missing Planning Commissioner on the night we were approved. Mr. Lansing is not happy about losing this. This is the classical reaction, when a person who believes they know everything, is rudely awoken to the fact that they don't. In this case, the reaction was, "monster House", "out of scale", "out of character", rhetoric ad nausea. Mr. Lansing's spin on the ordinances was obviously wrong, as City Counsel stated directly to his face. Mr. Lansing seems to be under the opinion that he is more knowledgeable than ARC, the Majority of the Planning Commission, City Staff, City Attorney, and the City Council. For myself, I am grateful to the City and it's Staff for the help we received in getting through this Process. Greg Ward, For OSD, Inc. 3566 Beard Road Fremont, CA 94555
Greg, now who is the one spinning? Just because the City Council sided with the applicant (your client) on the appeal does not mean that the dissenters (and the members of the public who spoke against the project) were "wrong" as you put it. What happened was that politics trumped the law. And that has been happening more often these days. Pointing to a local approval and claiming that it validates your argument ignores the fact that two recent local approvals were overturned by the California Coastal Commission because the projects did not in fact comply with the law. The difference here was that the local decision was final. And yes, I was not happy about this. Another piece of the charm of Half Moon Bay has been lost. Frank Long said it very well above.
Anybody, repeat, anybody who points to the CCC, and says that they are infallible, and always right, is living in FantasyLand. The CCC has also approved controversial Projects. Maybe, just maybe, Kevin, somebody else has just as much right to put forth their vision of what HMB should look like, and where it should go, as you do. You, Long, and Ms. Torres, (who by the way lives in another part of town, and rents out her property on Church St.) haven't figured it out that because someone else doesn't agree with your views, they are not necessarily wrong. The City Council is elected to protect and promote the City and it's long term goals, that's what they are paid to do, and probably not very much. Let them do their job. The difference between you and me is, even if the decision had gone the other way, I would still stand by this statement.
Why does Mr Ward feel its neccesary to point out that Ms Torres rents out the house on Church St, doesn't she have the right to object to the Monster House being built next door to her? Mr Ward had also made a point of saying at the various meetings that the owners of the property in question are third generation residents, is he implying that those of us who were not fortunate enough to have born here should have less rights than the long time residents? When the plans for this home were first sent to the planning commision the plans called for TWO kitchens,one on each level, odd don't you think for a supposedly single family home, can you say "Duplex" and even now the plans call only 140sqft to be used as a business with the rest of the lower square footage to be "Private" commercial use, which could be easily converted to an "Inlaw Unit"which I suspect was and is the reason for this project from the start,as a 22year resident of this community, Im finding out that its not what you know as much as who you know that counts in this town, it sure pays to have friends in high places, especially on the City Council.
.....or rather that "Everyone else pays the price when some people have friends in high places."
First, it was necessary to point out that Ms. Torres doesn't live on Church street, and she has been complaining about this project from the start along with Mr. Lansing. Secondly, and as I said many times earlier, the Project was modified as requested by ARC, and the PC, which is normal procedure. Here we go with the typical insinuations again, very typical. And lastly, I don't know anyone on the CC well enough to even call them by their first names, and the times I have said hello to any of them can be counted on the fingers of my left hand. The Council approved the Project for all the aforementioned reasons, NOT, because I know any of them personally, and to suggest this, is nothing but sour grapes.
Why Mr Ward was is neccesary for you to point out that Ms Torres doesn't live at the Church St address, she pays the taxes on it so has every right to object to the project. You however don't live in this community, and once this project is finished you can return to Fremont,however we the residents are stuck with this monstrosity, which is going to stand out like a sore thumb, how anyone on the ARC,PC or CC can approve a house that is three times larger than those around it and call it similar, is like comparing a Great Dane with a Toy Poodle, both dogs, but hardly similar in size, and your dead wrong Mr Ward, neither Ms Torres or Mr Lansing are the losers as you have previously stated,in fact Ms Toress's property will no doubt rise in value, but obviously she's not concerned with that, or she wouldn't have objected to the project,we the residents of this once quaint town are, and I for one am saddened by that,also you or your clients never answered the question as to why they needed two full kitchens at any of the meetings, I still say its going to be converted to a two family dwelling down the road, which was and is the intent all along.
Yes, it was absolutely necessary to point this out, as she was the person who filed the appeal to the CC. As to my living in this community, that is true, but I lived on the Coastside from 1985 to 2004, and I still own property, and pay taxes on that property. How long have you lived on the Coast??? I have just as much concern as you do, for where this community is going, and will continue to do so. When the zoning requirements allow for certain uses and configurations, that's it. If you don't like it, run for CC, and change the zoning, period. As to why they wanted a kitchen on first floor, it was so that either one of my clients could prepare snacks and coffee during the work day. The original plan called for no residential on first floor, so they felt a need to have that capability so that they weren't running up and down the stairs to get a sandwich, or a cup of coffee. And it wasn't two FULL kitchens, get your rumors straight. The PC objected to this, and we took it out, see, simple compromise is how this is done, and we worked with them and got it done. Same story, sour grapes. If you are going to advocate for Ms. Torres, or Mr. Lansing, please get them into this blog, and let them speak for themselves.
Sour Grapes? I doubt it. It's more about common sense, at least some modicum of 'taste', and an attempt to preserve a lifestyle here on the coast that people who have lived here for generations are trying to conserve. Efforts such as the one you helped facilitate, here, only serve to undermine that sense of social conscience. These continued assaults on the character of the Coastside, while you might dismiss as 'progress', only serve to further disillusion newcomers into thinking that they are buying that slice of Americana. The bottom line is that had you not taken on the project, there would always be someone else willing to do so. I guess we can conclude from your statement that the bottom unit then will NOT be used as a rental unit. Do you feel comfortable reaching that far? You may have land here, Mr. Ward, but if your heart ever was here on the coast, it obviously isn't here any more.
"You may have land here, Mr. Ward, but if your heart ever was here on the coast, it obviously isn't here any more." We have a winner. Mr. Long with the melodramatic comment of the day (and it is still early). A little over the top, no? How is it that your "heart" is in the right place?
"I guess we can conclude from your statement that the bottom unit then will NOT be used as a rental unit. Do you feel comfortable reaching that far?" Of course Frank. I know my clients, and what they intend to do with the building. They are a growing family, they both work from home, and their family has been in HMB for many years. These issues were all discussed at PC, and CC, and were made very clear. Again, the zoning is at issue here, not my Clients intents. If you think this was such a bad proposal, or the zoning sucks, run for CC Frank, and stop whining. And as for my heart, and the Coast, I won't even go into the amount of time I have spent pro-bono working with County and HMB Staff trying to resolve issues just like this. How much time have you spent on it Frank???
While it may at least "appear" a bit fishy to have top and bottom kitchens, if your clients fully intend to comply with that, then that issue is closed (at least for me). The issue that sticks in my craw is the size of the structure, flat and simple. For you, I guess, it's simply a matter of representing your clients' best interest, but for the rest of the city, I'm sorry, it's still an eyesore. Had your clients decided on a structure similar to those on the 600 block of Myrtle, the tasteful ones, not the barracks, we wouldn't be here jawing at each other over the issue. I am entitled to my opinion, as are other people here, and I think it's safe to say that I speak for at least several of them when I say that the 619 Church St. project just isn't appropriate for it's surroundings. It isn't even close. And just for the record, while I may not have put my time in HERE in sunny HMB, I did my time at the state and federal level back east, pro bono, as well as serving as a board director and treasurer, where I was in the hot seat resolving a fiscal nightmare of someone else's creation. These were not issues where I had any financial gain.
As you know, opinions are like a......., everybody has one. I have received more complements on this than negative reviews. The building was redesigned to accomodate what ARC, PC, and my Clients desired, and believe me, I didn't make that much off of it. So we can agree to disagree, I hope, and end this.....
Mr Ward,had you bothered to read my earlier comment would would have learned that Ive been a resident of this community for 22yrs,which is a lot longer than your nine. I viewed the original plans and questioned the city planner as to why your clients needed two kitchens, the response was "Im going to question that at the next meeting" which they obviously did, and you were required to change the plans, funny though how most small business's usually have a coffee pot and microwave to prepare snacks, but your clients needed a kitchen, and as to my advocating for Ms Torres and Mr Lansing Im doing no such thing, as a resident of this community I have the right to express my opinion though I refrain from expressing mine in such a crude way, we do all have them Mr Ward and you appear to be one of the biggest of all!!
Your math is off. 1985 to 2004 (see above) is closer to 20 years. Again this whole point is moot. They wanted the second kitchen, and were denied, period. So what is your point? And yes, I will agree with you, sometimes the truth is crude........and no one has ever accused me of being shy. Have a good weekend.
Follow The Conections....... Long time parks worker for the City of HMB is the $$$ money man For years he has,( among other, thins),worked his but off doing a lot of work at Smith fields HMB baseball fields Under the unofitial direction of Mayor Naomi Patridge and Council woman Marina Fraser. So comes the time he is getting ready to retire ,He is granted a favour,as he puts his Nonecomforming planes to gether, To build a monster house.for him his wife,daughter and son inlaw.That will latter be converted into two family dwelings, and a printing business The only reasone this past is because the applicants were well conected with the city council I hope this High exposure .Monster house was worth loseing your reputation over Naomi.,Marina__ President of spanishtown Historical.Society___What a joke!!!!! I ask you all What would Mary Lou Cunha Orange, think about this Mess ?????????
The initial comment in this topic states: "Actually, it was City Attorney Adam Lindgren who gave his bosses the legal weasel-words they were looking for." Is this the same City Attorney that George constantly tells everyone bends over backwards to support the so-called "no-growthers" (actually, the "planned-growthers") rather than the "pro-growthers"? Perhaps Mr. Lindgren just does his job, and advises the City Council on how they can interpret the law to meet their objectives, which is what most attorneys do for their clients. Has this structure been built yet? Maybe it is time to drive down Church Street and see whether it fits in (as claimed by some) or really is a monster (as claimed by others). Then decide whether the future Half Moon Bay will be better, or worse, for this decision.
Little late Paul (5-months?), they are already rolling first floor joists. "Monster house" is just another catch phrase like "wetlands" that's used to stop or slow growth around here. In this case the house is no larger than any number of similiar projects within several blocks of the site. Greg
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how much it dwarfs the surrounding houses. I suppose now that that size house made it onto that block, you have no misgivings about bulldozing downtown and making it like Burlingame. You think the traffic's bad now? With that logic, the fastest was to Moss Beach in a few years will be on a bicycle on the Coastal Trail, or do you want a Starbuck's and a KFC on the trail too? The NIMBY argument is a selfish one, but somewhere along that line of logic is the point of carrying capacity and sustainability; two points that the property rights activists are too willing to overlook for THEIR OWN selfish interests. It's not an easy problem to solve, but one certainly brought upon the Coastside when turn of the last century developers saw dollar signs in lieu of common sense when the lots were laid out .......... and everyone who continues to buy land here becomes another potential victim. Beautiful place to live but really @#$%-ed up.
I think I recognize the logic train above, especially the "sustainibility" arguement......here we go again.... Greg
The building in question is mixed use, meaning that it will be a home and a business. The owners are HMB residents, and currently operate the business (printing) in another HMB location. I'd love to hear how that will increase traffic, or how that's anything like KFC or Starbucks moving in. Kevin Lansing made this statement above: "Calling it a "mixed-use" project rather than a "residential use" is a trick to allow for a much bigger structure because no standard setbacks etc. are imposed for mixed use." Mr Lansing makes this claim with no supporting facts. In fact, the actual facts, like those in the beginning of this post, directly contradict him. It would appear that Mr Lansing prefers to assume the worst of people, and he conducted himself that way as a public official.
And he continues to do so behind the scenes. This was the attitude/approach that has put this City in a $40M+ legal problem. Funny how no one is stepping up to the podium and taking responsibility for this SNAFU. Greg
Greg, why waste your time? They'll always come back with something, and it only gets more absurd. Example: Interested Party. Forget about it Greg. As you said earlier, work has already begun.
I hear you. You keep hoping that some sense of sanity, logic, or compromise might occur, but you're probably right, why waste time? With some of these people it becomes a religion, and you are subjected to the Inquisition if you disagree with them. Good thing they don't allow the Rack, or thumbscrews anymore......(:-) Happy New Year; Greg
One thing is for sure ....... both sides have their convictions ....... and their priorities. I don't doubt that the pro-growthers have sustainability and carrying capacity somewhere on their priority lists, and that the no-growthers likewise do consider the dilemma of property ownership, indeed, both sides probably have those issues at the bottom of their respective priority lists. If any one group is responsible here, it was the developers, long ago, who saw nothing but money and opportunity and threw common sense out the window in the their parceling according to city lot sizes instead of something more appropriate for a rural setting. Back in that era (and I'm not sure of the exact sequence), the railroad held the promise of a continued and "reliable" connection with SF but soon afterward, the increasing number of slides bankrupted the railroad and the Slide has had its gnarly reputation for 100 years. The next responsible groups are those who never sought to question whether the remaining lots should be rezoned so that people might actually be able to have "a yard" with any realistic setback, instead of building so close to their neighbors that no one can take a crap in private. So, taking the stance that the no-(or slow)-growthers are "insane" or "illogical" is actually what is insane and illogical. The NIMBY people are just as self serving as the real estate interests that only sought to pack the Coastside like a can of sardines. Water availability, drainage, wetlands, and most importantly, access and egress, are minor technicalities when money is involved. So as for the "Monster House", I would suppose that even if it does turn out to be too large, it will still be acceptable to the pro-growthers ..... anything to support their argument.
Then to extend your analysis, I suppose to the No-Growthers it couldn't be small enough. Even a 500 square foot house will mean at least one more car on the road, one more consumer of water and electricity, more impacts to views and the environment, etc ad infinitum ... anything to support their argument.
This argument is solely about differences in Coastside developmental philosophy. You either see the long term problems of sprawl with only few changes in access and egress to hope for, or you think the tooth fairy is going to miraculously smack you on the head with her wand one day and make all the congestion go away when it takes you an hour to drive from Montara to HMB on a sunny Sunday. At the rate we employ your logic, we'll have to use the Coastside Trail as the fast lane to town. As it is now, we are driving our kids out of our own community because a handful of elitist decision makers care more about their home values than their family and community values. Now that's short term planning.
MY logic?? Hey, I just extrapolated YOUR logic. But... I see your point now. The "pro-growthers" are elitist decision makers that don't care about their families or their community and only care about money. The "no-(or slow)-growthers" are sane and logical. What do I win?
Maybe the "sanity/logic" part of the argument above was a little over stated. I will say in context though, the No-Growthers (Anti-growthers, Eco-Nazis, Sierra Clubbers, Frog Lovers, whatever you want to call them) have been relentless in their attempts to deny people their rights to free use of their property, as guaranteed by the Constitution. They have imposed rules, regulations, and permitting processes, that 30 years ago would have had them imprisioned. By allowing these people almost free and easy access to the Appeal Process, without any penalties if they are over-ruled, such as in a court of Law, our rule makers have turned the application process into nothing short of an expensive, time-consuming, complex process, that few laymen could accomplish, and few attempt. Another result of their non-compromising stance, as I said earlier, is this wonderful judgement that the City is even now having to deal with. You can only stomp on people so long, and they WILL react. Greg
I went by the so called monster house job site to take a look at what all this talk is about. The House looks like it fits just fine with the ohter homes in the area. My question is where are these cottages that keep getting brought up. I see a couple of homes on each side but still no cottage. I live in a cottage 350 sq ft max. I bet my cottage is smaller than the garages that belong to these so called cottages on each side of the monster house. Come on you bunch of cry babies this guy has all the right to do what he is doing. So to the guy building the monster house I hope you have a monster party when its done.
You don't win squat ...... you missed the point. A "handful" of elitist decision makers doesn't translate to all those unfortunate property owners who struggle to built homes on their own property. And while I have no sympathy for spec home builders and developers, it seems everyone else wants to play their ignorance card when they buy here and then wonder where the problems came from. It's the flip side of the NIMBY argument; instead of buying here and trying to then limit anyone else from doing so, the property rights activists buy land here and then claim there was insufficient evidence to alter their investment decision. Yawn ........
OK I get your point now. You have no sympathy for "elitist decision makers", "unfortunate property owners", "spec home builders and developers", "property rights activists" or "everyone else". What do I win?
.... and ignorami.
ignorami: What ignoramuses think is the plural of ignoramus because it sounds better. Should they not be so ignorant to look it up in a common dictionary, they will see just how wrong they are.
Yeah, that reminds me of the occasional idiot who buys a house close to the airport, and then bitches about the airplanes.....HUH?
...... "the word was used as a Neo-Latin masculine proper name of the second declension in George Ruggle’s play Ignoramus. If the word is then used metonymically to refer to an ignorant person (or an ignoramus) in Neo-Latin, as it is in English, the nominative plural would be ignorami." Anyway, 20 years ago, had I looked into the then recent historical use of the airport prior to my purchasing a home nearby, only to later discover that the County would be dragging its ass to encourage more build out prior to the adoption of a set of airport standards that it is now decades behind in doing, tell me again why I shouldn't have reason to be a bit miffed. Light planes that operate within the legal framework are not the problem, not one bit ...... it's the jets and this new class of lightweight pilots that try to remind those on the ground underneath them how much fun it is to fly, even if they're pissing everyone off through their ignorance or intention.
|
