« West Coast whale entanglements down 50% |
| HMB man's second sexual-assault arrest »
Posted at 03:33 PM in Government & Politics | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
That Peter was banned for daring to mention a FACT about Officer "Princess" Tessa means they are circling the wagons for sure.
September 10, 2019 at 09:52 AM
I got kicked off, too! I was using an alias and someone took umbrage and reported me.
They did me a favor; it’s a cesspit.
Alan the Kiwi |
September 09, 2019 at 02:04 PM
Also kicked off Nextdoor for daring to go after the real estate PAC contributions to council candidates. If I could still post there, I would tell them the RVs are a direct result of the false petition drive (funded by realtors) that ended the emergency moratorium on rent increases. Your local landlords, egged on by the real estate hysteria, raised rents beyond tenants' ability to pay. Those same tenants have roots here, kids in school, and jobs. The editor of the Tribune and Nextdoor moderators are doing a great job of curtailing speech.
September 09, 2019 at 11:53 AM
I kicked myself off Nextdoor when it revised its terms and conditions. But given the generation of urban myths and the rewriting of local history that goes on there, it cannot be ignored as a social medium. On the Midcoast, it has more penetration into the local population than any other form of communication covering local matters, with no fact-checking going on and most rebuttals stomped out by amateur censors as "un-neighborly."
Carl May |
September 08, 2019 at 02:33 AM
Since we have a mixture of issues here, I'll just ask that while the committee appears to be within the letter of the law, why is it a closed meeting?
I've been back on Nextdoor lately, and what strikes me is that people posting there appear not to know much of anything about recent Pacifica history. There is a lot of anger toward our expanding population of "residences" (what I call RVs), and some of these folks are living close by with the new residents. It's causing friction and I would bet that most people would not like being up close and personal with this new Dickensian development.
I've pushed back on the platform at the name-calling, and my comments were posted. I think nothing will get done until the county steps in with its far greater resources and funds a regional solution.
I've advocated this on Nextdoor and I'll say it here as well: Call Don Horsley's office and ask what he and the board are going to do to help communities like ours deal with this growing problem. It's not enough to wring your hands.
The other day I came home from shopping at Oceana Market to home in Edgemar and I counted seventeen (17) "residences" on the street!
Lionel Emde |
September 07, 2019 at 02:32 PM
I am perfectly happy to remain "kicked off" Nextdoor.com in perpetuity. From what I have seen and heard about the site, it is full of trolls and angry losers. The San Francisco company that runs it practices a weird kind of inconsistent censorship. It tries to pass itself off as a friendly neighborhood forum, but I sense some hidden agenda or hypocrisy. In any case, I don't miss Nextdoor, and otherwise urge all Coastsiders to skip the big-city site and check in with our truly local, vocal social media PacificaRiptide.com.
JOHN MAYBURY |
September 07, 2019 at 01:22 PM
John and Peter -- Wow! Are you both “kicked off” Nextdoor forever?
susan grandfield |
September 07, 2019 at 08:12 AM
Welcome to the club! I was kicked off Midcoast Nextdoor for posting a Half Moon Bay Review article about a white motorist screaming "go back to China" at an Asian motorist during a road rage incident.
JOHN MAYBURY |
September 06, 2019 at 11:51 PM
By the way, I've been kicked off Nextdoor. My crime was that I reported this news: "SFPD sergeant accused of pulling false fire alarm at Pacifica police station." I was notified that it was a violation of the Nextdoor guideline against public shaming.
Peter Loeb |
September 06, 2019 at 11:36 PM
fyi, California "Necessity" Statute, CA-3403 (e.g., pulling false fire alarm):
alan wald |
September 06, 2019 at 04:53 PM
This was one of the first meetings of the Pacifica committee on homelessness, appointed by the City Council (I happened to be there the night the group was introduced at the City Council meeting). This private meeting was not a violation of the Brown Act, as Peter Loeb explains above. Due to the ugly comments on Nextdoor.com (I am guilty of frequenting that site, as well, though) wherein people deride the homeless and their RVs (the ones we have met are locals fallen on hard times). The public seems worried about "property values" and feels it has a right to "have a say." I speculate that this is the genesis of the alarm-pulling behavior. Nextdoor.com comments propagate misinformation posited as fact (the Brown Act is being violated! -- not really true, but I read it on Nextdoor.com). My guess is that this dangerous act was a product of this type of "gossip." But what an irresponsible act. What if all of the police force had exited the building due to the alarm and then there was a community emergency? And wouldn't a fellow officer be even more aware of this fact? A major apology to the community is due (not to mention to the members of the committee on homelessness, who are doubtless serving out of the goodness of their hearts).
Susan Grandfield |
September 06, 2019 at 04:11 PM
Being a god-durned furrener, I have zero authority on the Brown Act. But one thing I, and every other decent person who appreciates firefighters putting themselves in harm's way, say this: Don’t pull the fire alarm unless you think there’s a fire. Just like police officers being fake-called, eh, Maria?
Alan the Kiwi |
August 31, 2019 at 02:25 PM
A "possible" violation of the Brown Act is a non-issue. No members of a legislative body were in the meeting. "The Brown Act only applies to meetings of local legislative bodies. The Brown Act defines a meeting as: “… any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location ...". "A temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of the legislative body that serves a limited or single purpose, that is not perpetual, and that will be dissolved once its specific task is completed is not subject to the Brown Act." "Individual decision makers who are not elected or appointed members of a legislative body are not covered by the Brown Act."
Peter Loeb |
August 31, 2019 at 01:18 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
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.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address