Voice of the Coast

Political debate suffers when candidates aren’t able to address each other directly because of format constraints. A moderator asked questions. Tuesday night, candidates answered serially, one question, one answer per candidate. In this format, later respondents can make debatable statements without challenge. This frustrates the candidates and the audience. Even so, clear differences emerged from the discussion.

Opposition candidates George Muteff, Naomi Patridge and Bonnie McClung suggested land use planning (the Local Coastal Program) hasn’t been open to public scrutiny. “The public needs to be invited to the table,” McClung said. Mayor Grady noted over 70 public meetings on it in the last four years. Muteff, Patridge and McClung alleged closed-door decision-making is the chief problem, and they say they are the answer.

Their evidence? They say the City is causing too many lawsuits, costing taxpayers too much money. Patridge proposed firing the city’s law firm (one that specializes in defending small cities) and hiring permanent staff instead (with all this implies about overhead, office space, pension funding, etc.—hard to see any savings here since the City’s pending structural deficit is due to escalating pension costs).

Mike Ferreira pointed out that the City has successfully defended itself, and that it has chosen the legal option rather than caving into special interests that routinely use legal challenges as a bullying tactic. Patridge, Muteff and McClung also said the City should compromise more often with those wanting to build, and proposed liberalizing zoning to allow anyone wanting to build on their property the ability to do so easily. Naomi Patridge’s past record includes having approved large developments the current council has fought to whittle down.

Muteff expressed hostility to “unnecessarily involving the Coastal Commission with local planning decisions,” as if there is another choice—he said the Commission will go along with strong leadership from the City. This rugged individualism overlooks what it takes to adhere to the Coastal Act, the law affecting every square inch of Half Moon Bay.

The challengers want to be elected, but presented an entirely negative set of reasons to vote for them. Patridge talked about what she wants to do, not about what she did in her sixteen years in office. In contrast, the incumbents, Grady and Ferreira, spoke to their positive record of accomplishment

The surprise of the Tuesday evening debate was the overwhelmingly positive response elicited by articulate newcomer Steve Skinner. Skinner unequivocally supported Ferreira and Grady’s vision of working with the school board to achieve the rebuilding of Cunha Middle School, continuing to tackle the LCP and submit it in bite-sized pieces to the Coastal Commission for approval, fixing Highway 1 after the Highway 92 project is completed, seeing our parks and trail systems improve, and to continue building better relations with the special districts and state and federal agencies Half Moon Bay needs to work with to continue improving our way of life.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

by Jonathan Lundell

1996 was a big year for the Cabrillo school district. In February, the board received and approved a new Facilities Master Plan, recommending an ambitious round of school construction, including a new $17M middle school. In June, district voters handily passed a $35M facilities bond to help pay for the construction, and in October a site selection committee reported its recommendations.

In nine months, a facilities plan, a bond, and a site: bang, bang, bang.

And yet, nine years later, we find ourselves looking at building a $32M middle school at the existing middle school site, with only $27M left in the bank, and an estimated completion date of 2009, more than 13 years after the bond was passed.

It’s instructive to look back over the history of the project to see what went wrong, if for no other reason than to see that it doesn’t happen again.

Time is Money
While the 1996 Master Plan estimated that a new middle school would cost $17M to construct, it warned that costs would go up with time, doubling by 2010.

Bond Issues
The 1996 site selection committee initially ranked Cunha as the best site for a new middle school. However, they subsequently downgraded Cunha, apparently misinformed that rebuilding at the Cunha site would violate the bond terms. Their report refers to an “attached Bond Counsel opinion”, but despite repeated requests, the district has failed to produce a copy of any such opinion.

This was a critical mistake, effectively eliminating the most cost effective and timely site for the next nine years.

The bond problem with Cunha was not undisputed. Jonathan Lundell, in his 2002 and 2004 school board campaigns, argued that there was nothing in the bond language that prevented the district from building the middle school at Cunha.

In October 2002, noted bond counsel Jerry Laster confirmed that the bond language was no barrier to construction at Cunha, in an opinion letter provided to the school board.

Nonetheless, the bond language “problem” was cited again and again, by Jim Larimer, Jolanda Schreurs, Ken Wilson, Chad Hooker and others to justify excluding the Cunha site from consideration.

Nine Years Later
At long last, in October 2005, nine years after the bond language was first raised as a block to building at Cunha, the district consulted its own bond counsel, William Kadi, who informed them that the “bond proceeds may legally be expended to improve the Cunha site.”

After nine years of needless delay.

After construction costs had risen from $17M to $32M.

After the facilities fund had shrunk to $27M.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When you attend Half Moon Bay council meetings, you’ll notice that most speakers want something having to do with their property—or their clients’ property, if they’re lawyers or real estate agents. Almost by definition, council meeting attendance is an exercise in self-interest. If you don’t pay attention to council meetings, odds are you are satisfied that your own interests are not being jeopardized.

Those who attend meetings are often there for a grievance, and the most common ones involve zoning issues. Zoning is about community standards, which most people support as valuable. But some people oppose zoning requirements that stand in their way, seeking variances to accommodate their plans. It’s only human nature for each of us to want to be treated as exceptions to a rule.

Private property is a traditional right in our society, but some behave as though it were the most basic right of all, an article of faith. No wonder passion is so aroused in our small town.

Two viewpoints are represented in this election: one of moderate, controlled growth, represented by incumbent council members Mike Ferreira and Jim Grady, and citizen advocate Steve Skinner; the other the property rights extremism of George Muteff, along with development-minded Naomi Patridge and Bonnie McClung. This election is critical because the city’s philosophy of development will radically change if Muteff and his friends are elected.

Open space and the Age of Limits

You may have noticed big campaign signs for Muteff and Patridge out in the country along Highways 1 and 92. Many large landholders dislike being constrained by anti-sprawl zoning laws that designate their land as urban reserve, to be developed only after urban infill is complete. They want to shed such zoning constraints, one reason that Muteff and Patridge are signed so heavily in open-space areas. You may also have noticed that Muteff employs the word “rights” on his signs, as in property rights. The connection is clear.

The property rights movement began to aggressively assert itself in the late 1980s. Why? The “Age of Limits,” for one thing, recognition that resources are running out, and that resources such as clean air and water, energy, land for expansion, even places to bury our trash are not in infinite supply. (Notice the ever increased scarring along the rim above Half Moon Bay as the county landfill expands across our beautiful hills.) Environmental concerns dawned on us late in our history, but there has been fierce pushback, not only from landowners pursuing their interests, but big business and its allies that control many of those resources, land included.

“Takings” rhetoric

The so-called “Wise Use” movement, founded in 1988 by Ron Arnold, meant to serve the interests of corporate free enterprise, but cleverly disguised itself with conservation rhetoric: “Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.” But its target has been all government regulation, which defined as “takings.” It has been so successful promoting this view that it’s the rare city council meeting where someone doesn’t use this term in disgust.

The term “takings” stems from Amendment 5 of the US Constitution; the last sentence ends, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The most famous case, Penn Central v. New York City, 1978, said that government could significantly cut into private property rights to bolster public interests, and that view has been upheld ever since. The recent Kelo v. New London, CT, case was shocking because it supported Connecticut’s eminent domain law taking private property to bolster private interests, so that public interest would benefit through an increased tax base. By this logic, any one of us can lose our home to more profitable development schemes. (You have an opportunity to make sure Half Moon Bay officials never try this by voting Yes on Measure O.)

The showbiz side of property rights

George Muteff had a recent phone-in interview on talk radio with KSFO’s Brian Sussman. The interview had a Looney Tunes, otherworldly character to it, full of paranoia and conspiracy. Could Muteff have been talking about Half Moon Bay? It might have all been plain fun, if Muteff hadn’t inserted absurd allegations regarding Mayor Grady and Councilmember Ferreira, ones that are easily refuted should Muteff offer them in print locally.

In response to a question about the definition of “substandard” lots in the zoning ordinance—lots less than 7500 square feet—Muteff described this designation as “a taking.” (The City submitted changes to this law to the Coastal Commission for approval in July, grandfathering in existing homes like those in Casa del Mar.) Sussman asked, “You mean like eminent domain?” Muteff agreed. The interviewer clarified by adding, “So they can blight it, condemn it, and then turn it into open space?” Muteff readily agreed.

This is the extremist rhetoric of the “Wise Use” movement, nasty and untrue. Groundless charges like this may work elsewhere, but they’re clearly out of place here.

Muteff (and Patridge) opposed the new community park, and McClung, perhaps sensing a political opportunity, voiced concern about it as well. Private property extremists oppose public investment in property for public use, so such protest comes easily. They talk about the cost of the park, despite its low price, and despite the fact that it adds more value to homes than its cost and maintenance.

All the enjoyable parks you can remember came about because the public voted to invest in them. Why should it be different now? In his KSFO interview, Muteff suggested graft in the park purchase, that it was a sweetheart deal for the grower, despite their having sold the property for $1.5 million under appraisal. Now that the park is a fact, should we turn over its development to people who are hostile to it?

A balanced approach to the public’s interest

As cities recognize the need for growth controls and orderly zoning laws, property rights extremists have polished appealing arguments for self-interest, but it’s important to note the issues they ignore. For example, zoning increases value in neighborhoods, despite its impact on some individuals who wish to be treated exceptionally. Our government has to balance private concerns with the public interest or there is no use for government at all.

Please vote for moderation in this election — Grady, Ferreira and Skinner.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In 1960, one out of every 200 San Mateo County residents lived in Half Moon Bay. By 1990, it was one in 75. Today, it’s one in 50.

Consequently, Half Moon Bay’s population doubled, from 4,000 to 8,000, between 1970 and 1990, and added another 4,000 since 1990.

Alarmed Half Moon Bay voters approved Measure A in 1991, limiting residential growth to 3% per year. In 1999, Measure D reduced the allowable growth rate to between 1% and 1.5% (depending on where in the city the growth occurs).

Measure D passed overwhelmingly. Even Bart Colluci, then running for city council against Measure D supporters Dennis Coleman and Deborah Ruddock, saw the writing on the wall. In mid-October that year, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Colucci, who calls himself the ‘common-sense candidate’, said he opposes

Measure D mainly because it fails to exempt senior housing or affordable housing.” But by election day, Colluci’s SmartVoter website conceded, “I will vote For Measure D.”

It was too little too late. Measure D won overwhelmingly; Coleman and Ruddock were returned to office.

Exponential growth

An annual percentage growth rate implies exponential growth. Measure D limits how fast the Coastside can grow, but not how big.

Under Measure A’s 3% annual growth rate, Half Moon Bay’s population could double every 24 years; at Measure D’s 1.5% rate, every 47 years; at 1%, every 70 years.

Coastside residents have yet to seriously address the question of how many people should ultimately live here. “Buildout” is only a temporary goal, to be revised when exceeded.

It’s time to consider whether the Coastside will follow the unlimited-growth path of southern California, or even Santa Cruz (how long before Highway One becomes a freeway?), or retain what’s left of our smalltown atmosphere.

The choice is ours.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 04:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For at least as long as the town of Half Moon Bay has existed, streets and subdivisions outlined on survey maps from the turn of the last century have shaped its growth.

The city of Half Moon Bay was incorporated in 1959, and the city founders were ambitious that it should grow and prosper from the start. Along with San Mateo County planners, they envisioned as many as 100,000 people living from Half Moon Bay up through Montara. After all, the lots already existed—it was just a matter of linking them to the road network.

What is Foothill Blvd?

It was clear from the start that Highway 1 could not carry all of the traffic these planned houses would generate. By the early 70s, new roads were drawn on the subdivision map to help stem the foreseen traffic burden. Foothill Blvd was born this way, as a drawing exercise.

Its designation as a boulevard meant that it would be a four-lane road — possibly divided — intended as a bypass to Highway 1. When the planners put Foothill on the map in the early 70s, there were no commuting problems along Highway 92. There was not even a stoplight at the intersection of highways 1 and 92, and none envisioned for other Coastside intersections—certainly not for Foothill and 92.

Where is Foothill Blvd?

Driving west on Highway 92 in the last half-mile before the Main Street intersection, you’ll pass a brushy hillside on the right that ends abruptly at a driveway next to an opening framed by two rows of mature eucalyptus trees (a few feet further west is the goat farm).

The proposed Foothill Blvd begins at that spot and runs due north between the trees, along the foot of the steep hill behind the high school, past a riparian habitat with willows directly behind the school, and then through a ravine and up across meadows near the planned Pacific Ridge development above Terrace Ave. It continues north along the foothills all the way across Frenchman’s Creek, and ties into Young Ave.

How expensive is it, and who pays for it?

Foothill is entirely within Half Moon Bay’s jurisdiction, and is the city’s responsibility to build and maintain: the county or the state would have nothing to do with funding this road. The city in turn would require that developers with planned developments along Foothill pay for it.

The engineering report of a couple of years ago showed a $13 million cost for creating a signalized intersection at Highway 92 and the portion of road just to Pacific Ridge (above Terrace Ave). The current city council negotiated with the Pacific Ridge developer to reduce the number of houses from 212 to 126, and again to 63 to reduce the traffic impact (as well as other infrastructure and environmental concerns), but the lower number of houses makes it unfeasible to spread out the high cost of Foothill Blvd.

Our development-minded friends advocate the full-blown version of Foothill. Forget about what hundreds of extra vehicles would add to the commute, and leave aside the problems with regulatory agencies and the wetlands. The grading required over the hilly terrain, and cost of building a fourlane road along with the multimillion dollar bridge over Frenchman’s Creek promise extraordinary expense—$70 to $100 million for the whole project is not an unreasonable estimate. There are not enough planned units between Pacific Ridge and Frenchman’s Creek to support the total cost, even if every one of the original planned houses were built.

Usually developers attach projects to existing roads and highways, to avoid the cost of building new ones from scratch. If developers were willing to foot Foothill’s bill, Half Moon Bay would still be responsible for maintaining Foothill to state highway- level standards (because it’s a bypass), which would cost more than maintaining all of its existing roads now. That cost would be borne by Half Moon Bay’s existing homeowners.

A cure-all for whom?

The $13 million dollar estimate for the portion from Pacific Ridge to 92 is already dated, and is likely to grow. The estimate is also problematic because it fails to take into account the removal and stabilization of the massive hillside on Foothill’s eastern side near 92.

Besides Foothill’s expense, its darkest shadow falls over traffic flow during commute hours on Highway 92. Foothill requires a signalized intersection a quarter mile east of Main Street, and would impact the morning and evening commute periods. Imagine driving on eastbound 92 at 7:15 on Tuesday morning: just having passed Main Street you are impeded by yet another stoplight that allows northern neighbors (fed from Terrace—see below) to turn east onto 92. It’s difficult to imagine the backup getting worse than it is now, but it would.

Some Terrace Ave residents believe that building Foothill would provide proper access to Pacific Ridge, relieving Terrace of the burden of Pacific Ridge traffic. The problem is that Pacific Ridge cannot be legally blocked off from Terrace (think fire safety), nor could east or northbound drivers seeking to avoid downtown traffic be prevented from cutting through Terrace (many now use Terrace to access the high school during commute times to avoid the downtown snarl.) So Foothill would mean more, not less, traffic through Terrace.

Who promotes Foothill Blvd, and why?

The Half Moon Bay Review, and past politicians like Helen Bedesem, Jerry Donovan, and Naomi Patridge (during her long tenure on the city council), and recently those mavens of infrastructure build-out, Ken Jones and James Larimer, are all Foothill boosters. They contend that large-scale development will benefit the public by providing improvements to infrastructure that the public is unwilling to fund,

In an ironic twist, as booster promote the idea, the developers have lost interest in Foothill as a viable option because of its inordinate cost.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Cabrillo Unified School District empaneled a committee of experts to find out where a new middle school could be built most quickly and economically.

The answer wasn’t surprising -- the best site was Cunha -- but the details were stunning. The school could be built in half the time and at half the cost at Cunha.

The expert analysis put a lot of things in perspective, including the positions of this year’s City Council candidates. But it raises as many questions as it answers.

We’re left with unanswered questions

Why did it take a panel of experts to tell the school board that Cunha was the only logical choice? And why did it take the school board nine years to get around to asking?

Why are former School Board Chairman Ken Jones (the architect of the Wavecrest debacle) and CCWD board member Jim Larimer (who donated $1,500 to campaign of one pro-Wavecrest school board member) still saying in 2005 that the school should be built at Wavecrest?

Why are Jones and Larimer blaming the League for Coastside Protection for the delays in Wavecrest, when they know that Wavecrest has been held up by poor planning by the district’s development partners, litigation from other developers, and state and federal regulators?

Why are CUSD board members still flogging the notion building the school at Cunha risks a lawsuit over the district’s Measure K bond, when the CUSD’s legal expert mocked the idea by saying, “Well, people can sue over anything, can’t they?” A simple reading of the language of the measure would confirm that the district never risked a lawsuit.

Why did it take a committee of experts to show that the usable space on the Wavecrest site was virtually identical to that at Cunha?

Why will it take the district more than five years (the same as for a brand-new site) to do its environmental homework on Wavecrest? After all, they’ve been “working” to build a school at Wavecrest for ten years. What have they done in that time?

Why did we squander $15 million in increased building costs between the $17 million estimated by the district’s 1996 Facilities Master Plan and the $32 million the experts tell us it will cost now?

Who are the real authors of this expensive farce? Is it the people who have said from the beginning that we could have a new school at Cunha just by deciding to build it, or those who refused to accept the reality that Wavecrest wasn’t a viable building site?

What are the issues in this election?

The League for Coastside Protection has said from the beginning that Measure K didn’t require a location other than Cunha, that Wavecrest wasn’t going to provide additional space, and that Cunha could be renovated faster and cheaper.

Who knew? Mayor Jim Grady made a presentation two years ago that laid the issues out clearly. Steve Skinner spoke up at the school board meeting to offer his support to the Cunha decision, as did Mayor Grady on behalf of the city council. Meanwhile, Wavecrest’s owners endorsed Grady and Mike Ferreira. They obviously don’t hold them responsible for the delays.

Who didn’t know? Bonnie McClung, in her unsuccessful run for the City Council in 2001, made “Building the new Boy’s and Girl’s Club and Middle School” at Wavecrest one of her top three priorities. George Muteff and Naomi Patridge, alone among this year’s candidates, endorsed Ken Jones for reelection in 2000, when his top priority was building the new middle school at Wavecrest.

Muteff, McClung, and Patridge are supported by the “No More Delays” PAC. Marina Stariha, treasurer of “No More Delays” is a former pro-Wavecrest CUSD board member. Stariha blames the current City Council for the school board’s failure to build at Wavecrest.

In 2003, Naomi Patridge signed the argument against the Measure D “Build It Now” initiative that began, “This initiative claims to ‘solve’ the middle school issue by forcing us to rebuild on a site [Cunha] that is too small, compromising educational needs and restricting open field space for the entire community.” Where did she get the idea that Cunha is too small, or that Wavecrest is any bigger?

Bonnie McClung signed the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure D. She claimed, just two years ago, that building at Cunha would “Violate the bond terms” and “Promote delays and continued costly lawsuits”. Where did she get the idea that Wavecrest could be built faster or that the bond terms required a new school site?

A lot of Coastsiders supported Wavecrest. But we weren’t given the full story, and it’s time to hold the community leaders who led us down this path accountable. And it’s time to recognize the vision of those who tried to keep us from making an awful mistake.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A regular feature that examines editorial bias in the Review, both on and off the editorial page.

When Half Moon Bay’s 22-acre community park acquisition was announced a year ago, the Review hailed it as a “forward-thinking move,” helpfully informing its readers that “land doesn’t grow on trees,” and it was “a good investment.” After all, who isn’t in favor of community parks?

Well, some of the park’s Cypress Cove neighbors, it turned out. Obligingly, the Review suddenly discovered a city council conspiracy to build a noisy, sprawling, trafficjammed sports complex. The neighbors grabbed the ball and ran, and the Review provided play-by-play coverage.

Let’s have a look at the history of the Great Park Conspiracy of 2004.

At a city council meeting on October 19, 2004, Parks and Recreation Director Rollie Wright proposed to apply for two time-sensitive state grants using place-holder language and elements from an earlier grant application to speed the process, and modifying them after the grants were approved.

After public discussion, the council approved Wright’s proposal, as the Review reported a week later.

In early January, City Manager Debra Ryan again explained to the first meeting of the citizens’ park advisory committee that the grant applications had used place-holder language in order to meet the December 10 deadline.

Two weeks after Ryan’s appearance, and despite its own October story, the Review published a front-page article on January 19 with the dramatic headline, “Is park plan already in place?”, along with an editorial excitedly “exposing” the grant applications as a newly-discovered “fact” that the council had hidden from public view.

The Review’s headline baldly suggested that the city had a secret plan for the park, making a sham of the 31-person park advisory committee. A month before the first committee meeting, the Review breathlessly related, the city had submitted a grant application “that appears to detail the future park’s amenities,” and that “most weren’t aware the city authored any type of plan at all, and certainly not one that was submitted to the state for review.”

Having made the front-page accusations, the article went on to bury on page 13 the city officials’ repeated explanation: that the plans could be amended, that if the state wouldn’t go along, they’d forego the grants as a funding source, and emphasizing that the citizens would make the decisions about the park elements.

But if the headline merely alarmed its readers, the Review’s editorial drove home the point: “Meanwhile City Council — unknown to everyone — including some of its own members — hires an architect as part of a detailed grant application that includes very specific plans for the park. And no one knows . . . get it?” (emphasis theirs)

Months later, on Sept 14, 2005, the Review now admits, “It is now obvious the city never planned to construct such palaces of recreation.” (emphasis added)

Why the turnaround?

Damage to the incumbents done, the Review dropped the neighbors like a hot rock, in an editorial telling them to leave the lawyers out of it. The Review’s strategy shift happens to coincide with the challenger candidates’ view that the park lacks enough “active sports” facilities for kids, a view that goes directly against the concerns of the neighbors. Flip, flop.

As the Review, fresh from a round of pothole digging, disingenuously observed in its September editorial, “It would be no exaggeration to say that it has been a bumpy ride.”

To answer our own question: a park is not a park when it’s made a political football. That’s a shame when, for the first time in Half Moon Bay history, our city council has brought us a real community park.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With gasoline prices over $3 per gallon and winter heating bills expected to soar due to soaring natural gas prices, Coastside residents will be hit with yet another increase. The elected Board of the Coastside County Water District (CCWD) recently voted to raise water rates by 15%.

The rate hike will be used, among other things, to pay for major water system projects, a 27% increase in projected employee salaries, and a 30% increase in projected employee retirement benefits.

The water district’s employee retirement plan is already generous. The district contributes 14.5% percent of each employee’s salary toward the pension plan with no need for any contribution from the employee. Employees become vested for lifetime pension payments after only five years of service, and employees may retire as early as age 50.

Budget? What budget?

The mailed notice for the required September 13 hearing on the CCWD 2005- 2006 budget listed the district’s website as a source for the budget.That budget would have disclosed large increases in salary and benefits, as well as other data necessary for the public to judge whether the proposed rate hike was reasonable and necessary.

Unfortunately for ratepayers, the details of the proposed budget never appeared on the website during the 45-day period leading up to the hearing.

Despite the lack of public information, CCWD’s board of directors pushed ahead with the rate increase. District officials have not responded to a written request for data on employee salary and retirement payments from previous years.

Swimming in cash

CCWD’s budget data shows that the district is sitting on over $4 million in unrestricted cash reserves. At the September 13 hearing, the Board voted to fund new water system projects from cash reserves, and to raise rates to replenish the reserves. In effect, the Board’s action forces current customers (whose bill payments have built up reserves) to foot the bill for water system projects serving future housing developments.

This is unsound public policy. Basic fairness requires the cost of infrastructure projects to be spread evenly across current and future residents. The standard practice of achieving this beneficial cost sharing is to finance infrastructure projects through long-term municipal bonds, repaid over time by current and future water customers.

In contrast, CCWD’s plan forces current residents to subsidize the cost of delivering water to future housing developments. Besides being unfair, CCWD’s plan raises serious questions of legality: Half Moon Bay’s certified Local Coastal Program requires water supply facilities to be developed so as to “minimize the financial burden on existing residents and avoid growth-inducing impacts.”

A history of expansionism

The tendency of special districts like CCWD to pursue growth-inducing infrastructure projects has a long history on the Coastside (see sidebar). From 2001 to 2003, the water district spent thousands of dollars in legal and consulting fees trying to strong-arm the California Coastal Commission into approving a new 16-inch water supply pipeline through El Granada.

Unfortunately for the expansion-minded directors at CCWD, the Coastal Commission staff concluded that the pipeline might be oversized and growth-inducing, and so potentially in violation of the City and County Local Coastal Programs. The December 2003 Coastal Commission staff report points out:

“CCWD has not presented a clear statement of the capacity of the proposed 16- inch pipeline in terms of the maximum volume of water that the proposed pipeline would be capable of delivering.

“Since CCWD did not identify the maximum capacity of the pipeline,...it is unclear whether the pipeline is appropriately sized because it might be able to accommodate additional water, which could serve additional demand.”

To guard against the growth-inducing impacts of the 16-inch pipe, the Coastal Commission forbade CCWD to increase the number of water system connections beyond the current phase unless the rest of the Coastside infrastructure (roads, sewer, and schools) can handle the level of development served by an expanded water system.

Unsurprisingly, the developer-friendly directors at CCWD, with the aid of a hired lawyer, have been working to undo those conditions during the ongoing updates of the Half Moon Bay and San Mateo County Local Coastal Programs. CCWD’s own 2005 financial statements show that the district has been spending over $10,000 per month on legal fees.

The voice of the public

It’s fair to say that all five members of the current CCWD board share the same pro-development vision. An independent voice on this board is needed to protect the interests of current Coastside residents, an independent voice like Jim Marsh.

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Half Moon Bay Review’s recent story about a fizzled city council candidacy is a good example of why many observant Coastsiders have concluded that they can’t trust the paper.

On August 24, the Review dedicated the top of page 3A to a story about Peter Bodnar’s failure to file as a candidate for the Half Moon Bay City Council. The article’s author is Clay Lambert, managing editor of the Review.

A week later, the Review printed a letter from Half Moon Bay City Manager Debra Ryan refuting Lambert’s article and correcting Lambert’s false assertion that Half Moon Bay Mayor Jim Grady had not returned his calls.

In a note appended to Ryan’s letter, the Review concedes her point.

Editor’s note: The mayor did return a call for comment on the Bodnar story and that conversation is accurately reflected in the above letter. The Review should not have reported otherwise.

In the same issue, a “Correction” appeared.

Due to a reporting error, an article in the Aug. 24 edition stated that Half Moon Bay Mayor Jim Grady did not return a call seeking comment on Peter Bodnar’s aborted City Council candidacy. Grady did in fact speak to a reporter for the story and said city policy would have allowed Bodnar to run even as he remained a city employee. Bodnar would, however, have to resign or retire prior to taking office.

But the Review didn’t correct one assertion that took up half the article: Bodnar’s suggestion that unnamed “city officials” had sabotaged his nonexistent application and his candidacy:

Whether you blame [Bodnar], city officials or the faceless court system for that fact [the absence of Bodnar’s name on the November ballot] depends on your point of view.

[and later in the story]

Bodnar wonders whether someone in City Hall -- either seeking retribution for the bad publicity his case caused or simply to keep competition out of the race for City Council -- purposely delayed his court hearing to make his candidacy all but impossible.

“I was told that I could run but as soon as I pulled papers everything started to slow down,” he said. “The case has been moving sideways ever since.”

The suggestion is clear: Jim Grady and Mike Ferreira (the only council members running for reelection and the only council members mentioned by the Review’s article) are conspiring to keep Bodnar off the November ballot.

Never mind that, as Ferreira points out elsewhere in the article, another opposition candidate would only benefit the incumbents. Never mind that the city’s insurance carrier is responsible for appealing Bodnar’s case. Never mind that Bodnar isn’t prevented from running for city council, regardless of the state of his case.

This is not the only time that the Review has used innuendo and unsupported assertions to tarnish the reputations of City Council members. The Review has suggested, but never proven, that the city paid too much for its new park. The Review has implied falsely that Grady and Ferreira autocratically shortened the time for the public to comment at city council meetings. The Review insinuates that a city council member participated in an improper fundraiser, and goes on to admit in the same breath that he did nothing wrong.

And now, the Review says Grady didn’t respond to calls from the Review – except that he did respond. It insinuates that Grady and Ferreira prevented Bodnar from running for city council – except that he was always free to run.

Lambert’s 74-word correction, itself a rare exception to the Review’s usual stonewalling, does little to reverse the initial impression given by prominently placed falsehoods. Last May, by contrast, Lambert dedicated an entire 400-word column to correcting a photo caption in which he had misidentified a flag – and offers his “most humble apologies” to boot.

It’s difficult for public figures to prove they were libeled. It requires proof of “actual malice”: the knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity. The Review’s treatment of Jim Grady looks like actual malice to us. Knowing that Grady had refuted several of the article’s false claims, Lambert not only ignored the refutation, but claimed, in print, that Grady had not even called.

Why would he do that? Could it be that an election is coming up?

Posted by Voice of the Coast at 05:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)