Coastside Eats: Poppy's Crab Shack & Cookbook
Alandrome: From Russia With Love


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Okay, John, fair enough. It is your blog.

I do have a simple question for Dan, Peter, Bob, and Todd.

How do you propose the city pays for the $80 million in additional debt service it is proposing?

$50 million for the sewer plant.

$30 million for the library.

As the moderator/publisher, I have been a little too lenient in allowing personal attacks here on Pacifica Riptide, so henceforth I will try to be stricter about enforcing our terms of service: no name calling, no personal attacks, just the facts and issues, please. And particularly for those who choose to use pseudonyms (screen names or pen names), be aware that you do not enjoy the same rights and privileges on Riptide as those courageous folks who sign their comments with their real names. Riptide has allowed certain people to comment anonymously because they were concerned about their personal privacy or business/employment security, but it is cowardly of any such unnamed person to make ad hominem attacks on another person, and it no longer will be tolerated.

Dan: It appears that using the pseudonym “big banker,” an anonymous commenter representing a group of reactionaries is venting their collective and irrational anger while whining about the accomplishments of Peter Loeb and others. Let it be said: Peter has paid his dues big time, as have all the conservation “players.” The same thing can’t be said for “big banker” and his buildout crowd.

@ big banker: Rather than let readers be confused by your constant "gang of no" rants, I should point out that most proposals that come before the Planning Commission are approved. Sometimes they are improved before they are approved, but they are mostly approved. Your tactic of manufacturing and denigrating a "gang of no" in public forums leads me to believe that you probably have some really large-scale, really bad idea up your sleeve that nobody would ever support unless they had been brainwashed into believing your "gang of no" scenario.

Peter: Thats OK, I don't want to raise your blood pressure. We will just never agree on what is best for Pacifica.

35 years from now the new "gang of no" will have the same conversation.

If you think it is okay for a city to run like a welfare state, it is your opinion. Nothing I can do about that.

If you really want to talk about pot shots, please continue.

big banker, I have spent 35 years of my life working for what I think is best for Pacifica because I truly care about this city. Meanwhile, you have done nothing for Pacifica. Instead, you take anonymous potshots at me and others who have paid real dues for the city that we love. You are irrelevant.

Peter: It has nothing to do with who builds what in town. It is about you and your friends having a chokehold on most developers who propose a project in Pacifica. It is about you and your friends having blinders on city councils for the past 30 years.

If you would truly care about what is best for Pacifica, you would have never filed your premature lawsuit stunt, which cost the taxpayers a substantial amount of money.

“You people,” that is, the public, are supposed to participate in the process of planning review and approvals. We the people do in fact have the right to tell property owners what to build and how many units. That’s why there are planning and zoning laws, public hearings, public comments, an appeal process, etc., so we (“you people”) can comment on building design and conditions and not leave everything to the City Council and Planning Department and the Coastal Commission. Those bodies have made some bad planning decisions. It’s our right and responsibility to hold these bodies accountable. It’s a protection against the arrogance of people who think they’re the only ones who should make planning decisions and that "you people” should not be involved in planning because it's too complicated for us to understand.

I am confused and forgot to add this:

You felt so strongly to appeal to the Coastal Commission knowing full well that they hold the meetings at different locations around the state each month?

You did not show up at the meeting because it was in Long Beach. Sounds like a cop-out.

Leave building design and conditions to build up to the agencies. The City Council, Planning Department, and the Coastal Commission.

California Building Codes are very complex to an outsider, in fact, they are very complex even to people in the industry.

If you read the staff report and/or watched the Coastal Commission meeting, the building of the hotel expansion at sea level is not true. The Coastal Commission had no problem with the elevation of the property.

As for matching the neighborhood. We have the buildings on Dondee that match the building on the corner of Rockaway Beach and Old County Road. The Clocktower, which was approved both by the City Of Pacifica and the Coastal Commission, does not match the surrounding buildings. Did any of you protest this building. I think not.

The new construction on Dondee doesn't match anything in Rockaway: three buildings on one small parcel. With parking in between the buildings.

This was simply a tactic to delay the owner, make them waste time and money. You have no concern for what is best for the city, and its need for badly needed money. This city needs revenue-producing projects; the owner was going to replace a horrid, empty eyesore of a building (Horizons) with a very nice hotel expansion.

You people act as if you have some kind of right to tell the property owners what to build and how many units, etc. Only the city and the Coastal Commission hold that right.

Seriously, move on to something else, get a hobby, or go to the JC and take a class. You're wasting everyone's time and money.

I'm grateful that California Coastal Commission staff and commissioners at least looked at it. I couldn't be there in person; the week of meetings was scheduled in Long Beach City Council chambers.

The Holiday Inn is proposing to expand its building at sea level. As sea level is rising, that makes about as much economic sense as building houses on the cliff at Esplanade.

The entire San Mateo County Coast is affected by sea level rise. Taxpayers don't need to pay for another bailout.

Reject stucco turrets.

I like the headline. I do have appeal, don't I!

With its "prison guard turrets," palindrome-loving local judges can sentence remorseful defendants to do time there:
"No sir, Pacifica Prison!"

Well said, Todd. I do hope they can accept it in the spirit in which it was offered. I know that there is a part of me that resists ideas that contradict some part of my established plans. I have to remind myself that I have benefited from such input in the past, even after fighting vehemently against the new ideas.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)