This is Scotty's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Scotty's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Scotty
Recent Activity
I agree with John that we're all saying the same things again. However, since the frog and snake crowd are repeating their inaccurate assumptions, I'll repeat that they can't make up a cause and effect relationship just because two things occurred during the same period of time. Also, the CBDers need to update their little handbook of talking points, since they're starting to contradict themselves. It's hard to understand how snakes are being chopped up by mowers left and right, but at the same time, no one's seen a snake in 20 years. Lastly, I disagree with Rose's assertion and contend that the burden of proof is on the people trying to take away recreation from tens of thousands of local bay area residents. I realize that most of the CBD crowd isn't from around here, and therefore probably don't really care. However, before they attempt to deprive local residents, it seems that they should not only provide proof that the golf course is harming the snakes, but in addition prove that the elimination of the golf course will cause them to return. By the way, is anyone else feeling a little sense of deja vu? For some reason, I keep remembering the Davies Communication Sock Puppet Show. I’m not sure why.
First off, I think almost everyone on this blog loves Pacifica, and they are all only trying to do what they think is best for our beautiful little city, and I want to applaud all of them for their passion. That said, the people who support Measure D are dead wrong. Here's why: - Hiring a bunch of consultants (using our own money!) to try and figure out how to best stick their hands in out pocket is just wrong. I expect the people who complained about Davies Communication to complain just as vehemently about this. - A sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation and places the heaviest burden on the people who can least afford it. That's just wrong in these economic times. - Council engages in fear-mongering about emergency services, but they could have proposed a tax that was dedicated to those services and chose to not do so. This money could easily be used on any of their wacky ideas like an ocean-front city idea, which is also wrong. - Our city, with almost the identical set of leaders who passed the fire assessment tax, hasn't done anything to promote increased tax revenues. This council was presented a proposal for live/work development in line with what we all want on Palmetto that was unanimously approved by the planning commission. The fact that they delayed this development for an appellant that had received disclosure that this type of development was possible shows that they will kowtow to their friends instead of showing the leadership required to make decisions that help this city. We need to show them that we're mad as hell and not gonna take this any more. - WE DO NOT WANT TO BE THE CITY WITH THE HIGHEST SALES TAX RATE IN ALL OF CALIFORNIA. THAT IS NOT AN HONOR.
Toggle Commented May 19, 2009 on Yes on Measure D (Archived) at Pacifica Riptide
I don't know about that, but it could just as easily be argued that people who want to get rid of Sharp Park obviously don't understand the frogs' and snakes' preferred habitat.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, Summer. I've always paid entry fees at many state and federal parks (at least until I started buying annual passes). As a more frequent user, I was glad to pay my share for the maintenance of these treasures.
Now that's an opinion upon which we can all agree (hopefully). Does anyone know why work was stopped after installing the now-rusted bases of the gates at Linda Mar? John, I know you've suggested allowing vendors access to Linda Mar. Have you ever heard a reason why it's not allowed? I'm curious if there's some kind of policy around this, or if vendors just haven't asked.
It's a false choice to say that Pacificans need to accept this tax or lose emergency services. If this tax is approved, council can use it for anything that they like. This includes things like tons of out-of-state consultants, mansions by the sea for Vreeland, and pet projects for friends of council like the seaside biodiesel refinery. There is nothing to ensure that they use it for fire and police services. Should we accept the HIGHEST LOCAL SALES TAX IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, or should we ask city staff to make some of the same sacrifices that the rest of us have made in this horrible economy? It's a pretty simple choice. If the city wanted to tie this tax to emergency services, they could have. Instead they want to use it for the same ridiculous purposes they always do, without any thought of building a tax base for the city. Don't enable their irresponsible and reprehensible behavior.
Toggle Commented May 17, 2009 on Yes on Measure D (Archived) at Pacifica Riptide
Correct, Dan. That's why I was pointing it out when Ian did just that for just that reason. Using this new logic paradigm, I think I've discovered the problem that the snakes are having. Long ago, there were many snakes and there was also some commercial development on Mori Point, including a 21-room guesthouse. Now, Mori Point has been converted to open space, and there are no snakes to be found. Therefore, open space kills snakes.
"the protected species have drastically declined in numbers since the berm was built" That's an interesting leap. Using the same logic, here are some other things that Sharp Park Golf Course is apparently responsible for: - the increase in obesity in the US - the development of the Internet - the general decline in men wearing snappy fedoras Making up a bunch of false cause and effect logic does not help this discussion. It's a fact that the frogs and snakes do not like salty lagoons (or "laguna salada" as they say in Spanish). It's a fact that the golf course and its berm keep out the salt water. Reasonable people can draw their own conclusions as to whether the golf course has contributed to frog and snake habitat.
Matthew, I'm not sure that it was your intent, but you make the golfers' points very well. All of the city's maintenance funds have been poured into Harding Park for the past several years at the expense of Sharp Park and the other San Francisco courses, and then people complain that the golf course doesn't make enough money. How can the course make money when the city takes all of its earnings and pours them into Harding Park, rather than maintaining the course? When I refer to "the city" in this case, of course I mean the City of San Francisco, so unless you are a San Francisco resident, I'm not sure who you think will be "sticking their fingers in your pocket." Shifting to the City of Pacifica, your reference to our local city government is very apt as well, since they also burn through all of their tax revenues and fail to ever invest in the maintenance required to grow those revenues. I would be annoyed by the hypocrisy of people who complain about “greed for profit” acting like they’re Gordon Gecko all of a sudden, but I guess we’re all getting used to it. After all, they’re pretty much the same people who don’t want the quarry to be developed to protect frogs and snakes -- unless of course that development is one of their buddies promoting a fuel refinery. Also, if the snakes aren't a figment of your imagination, could you please send a picture of one from the golf course for John to post?
Here's a better link to the article: http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1895794-0,00.html If anyone is interested in saving Sharp Park as an affordable means of public recreation for Pacificans, please join the San Francisco Public Golf alliance at: http://sfpublicgolf.com/index.html
"the punishment fits the crime" Uh, yeah. Unless it's a crime that council or their little cadre have committed -- in that case, all sins are apparently forgiven. It's official. This city has fallen victim to a coup of a confederacy of dunces.
If there's a charity tournament as Butch indicated, you might want to wear a helmet just in case the golfers read your comments here, Ian. I actually don't golf, so please don't blame any wayward drives on me.
"It's like me telling you to donate your house for a golf course." It would only be like that if I was telling you that we didn't have enough golf courses, and we needed to take some snake habitat to build more. I'm not. Instead, I'm just saying that the existing golf course that many thousands of people already enjoy doesn't need to be taken away to accommodate the snakes that don't exist on all of our other open space.
I don't think you get to be the arbiter of what counts as volunteering for this discussion or otherwise, Ian. The point was for you to donate your own property as habitat rather than attempting to forcibly remove property that is used by many others. At least, that was my point before you set up your creek-cleaning straw man. If you don't own property, perhaps you could take out a mortgage and then donate some land. It's a win-win: you get to give the frogs some habitat, and the golfers get to keep golfing. Sorry, I won't be able to make it this weekend.
Thanks for posting this, John, because I would have never thought of it otherwise. Instead of wasting money on flowers that will be dead in a few days, both my mother and step-mother are getting a donation to the PRC.
"The golf course is for a few people-- 2 to 4 percent of the population." It's not clear where you pulled those figures, Summer, but if you'd like to pick any day and compare the number of people hiking on Mori Point versus those golfing at Sharp Park, I think you'd find a huge percentage more playing golf -- even on a rainy weekend like this one.
Many of us have read your columns patting yourself on the back for your work on this secret waterfall, Ian. While very admirable, I'm still not sure that this entitles you to forcibly remove another form of recreation for others. Have you really done all that you can for the frogs? Again, I suggest that you reduce your carbon footprint by moving into a tent and donating your home as additional habitat if you're so concerned.
Summer, could you please explain how the existence of Sharp Park Golf Course somehow causes us to "terminate a species"?!?
Unfortunately, Mike, it's readily apparent that these people are very ready to take away things from others, but are very much less interested in doing something themselves. I second the call that they stop being such hypocrites and donate their homes for frog habitat, rather than selfishly choosing to take something away from others.
ONE OF THE SEVERAL REASONS WHY I'M VOTING NO ON D It rewards bad behavior and incompetence. The fire assessment tax was supposed to be temporary, and the council knew for years that it was expiring, since pretty much the same group inflicted that tax upon us. Did they do anything to try and raise a sustainable tax base for our city? No, they continued their open antagonism towards local businesses and the people that might help bring some of new business into Pacifica. Did they cut costs and bring things more in line with our tax revenues? No, they continued to waste money on out-of-town consultants for ridiculous projects like an ocean-front city hall. This all occurred during a relatively booming economy, with people buying houses, refinancing, and resetting their property taxes at higher levels to increase the revenue coming into the city. That’s very different from the current economic climate where hard choices will need to be made. Is Pacifica ready to make those hard choices? We received our answer last month when a project that had been unanimously approved by the planning commission and was directly in character with what most agree is our vision for a Palmetto downtown was delayed by council. Was this an out-of-state developer trying to change the zoning? No, this was a local Pacifican who was trying to create one of the only cases of development and job creation and growth that I’ve seen in these hard times on a property that was not only zoned for this use, but where that fact had been disclosed to the appellant prior to purchasing their property. This example shows that our city has not learned to make those hard choices and will instead continue to appease their "friends" by delaying projects into obsolescence. I fear that nothing short of forcing their hand will get the council to fix the structural problems with our budget that are a direct result of their reckless spending and no-growth attitude.
Toggle Commented May 2, 2009 on Yes on Measure D (Archived) at Pacifica Riptide