Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Killer Whale

We’ve all been to Marine World and seen the Killer Whales. They are remarkable animals; beautiful, strong, smart and at the top of the ocean’s food chain. Watching them, whether in a facility, or in their natural environment (for those few fortunate enough to have had that opportunity) is quite an experience. We know them by two different names; Killer Whales &/or Orcas.

Wikipedia offers this: The Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), commonly referred to as the Orca and, less commonly, Blackfish, is the largest species of the dolphin family. It is commonly mistaken as a species of whale. They are found in all the world's oceans, from the frigid Arctic and Antarctic regions to warm, tropical seas. Some killer whale populations feed mostly on fish, including sharks, while others hunt marine mammals such as sea lions, seals, walruses and even large whales. Being the ocean's apex predator with an extremely high intelligence, killer whales hunt prey for "delicacies." Whales have been observed hunting the dangerous great white shark, then only consuming the liver.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there’s another ORCA out there, and although predatory in nature, it has nothing to do with nature!

ORCA is a 501c3 (non-profit), started by Sara Wan, one of our CA Coastal Commissioners, with the primary intent of teaching people how to appeal projects to the Coastal Commission! Membership is by invitation only; Web Link

You can email your request for membership. If accepted, you will go through two days of training…by Sara Wan herself (only if accepted)! Yep, you got it; Wan, a Coastal Commissioner (the Coastal Commission is a State Agency), will teach you how to oppose a project and appeal it to…her!

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a conflict of interest? Is there no end to the corruption in this State?

At least one local has been accepted and trained by Wan; Mike Ferreira. Lenny Roberts, Committee for Green Foothills Chair, is also a member.

This raises so many red flags for me that I don’t know where to start, so I’ll just put this out there for now and wait for some feedback.


Comments

Orcas are actually dolphins. "Killer whale" is the result of a translation error.


Don't see a problem in educating people about how to navigate the Coastal Commision's beurocratic process. Would you be complaining of ORCA was a property wrongs organization?


Corruption is a very simple, clear accurate description of the activities here.

For the SMC LCP Update hearing last week, Steve Blank filed an Ex-parte communication from Mike Ferreira and Mark Massara as "representing" ORCA. Steve Blank made all of the motions, Sara Wan seconded all of them. ORCA was mentioned a number of times.

here is some more info:

Web Link

When will the "protectors" realize they are simply signing on to bad government? Corruption is so ugly from this close. See the problem now?


No, not really. Are you saying that those procedural motions were compromised? How, exactly? Brian, you come off a bit like a sore loser.


I also heard Steve Blank complain about traffic here on the coast. Guess the drive to his multi-million dollar south-coast compound is taking too long. ORCA I'm sure will see to it that no more development ever happens here on the coast. We wouldn't want to inconveniance Steve now, would we? Nice to see Mark and Mike doing such good work!


I thought the property wrongs crowd loved the rich? I guess they just love em unless they disagree with them.


when is the guvmint going to back off? they ask me to spend and spend to help the economy, and then they just take and take ---

my land,

my water,

my guns (today at SMC Supervisors),

and my fire (on spare air days)

whut's next? my hat and underwear?


They obviously haven't taken your wit . . .


In the spirit of the holidays, I beseech you all. Please play nice. I have better things to do than pound the delete button all night long. Thanks in advance.


my guns (today at SMC Supervisors), ????

Please expound on this, what happened?


There is nothing wrong with trying to educate the public on the workings of the coastal commission. However two things appear to be a conflict of interest for a seated coastal commissioner. The first being that it is by membership and invitation only. The coastal commission is a state funded board and if there is an educational component that should be made available to all.

If Sara Wan was a retired member of the CC and wanted to form her own group to reflect her positions then she could be free to form what ever groups she likes. But as a seated member there is no government transparency in the workings of this select organization.


If Miss Sara Wan wants to have an exclusive membership 501c3 corporation in California, then that is her right! She can pick who she wants to admit and who she wants to train as members to do whatever she wants them to do!

Pardon me, let me read this note.

Oh, well, I admit there are specific rules from our State for an educational 501c3 corporation in the state of California, and yes, I do admit that any corporation granted a tax free educational status must comply and must adhere to the IRS rules as well, and that a 501c3 corporation must be Either a membership based or Director based corporation.

Pardon me let me read another note....She has to do what????

Let me continue this response later.


Certainly, Supervisor Wan would not provide any inside insights on inner workings of the Coastal Commission, or past, on-going or upcoming litigations, or of upcoming issues, or appeals, or of any other relevant details with these new recruits to her own Non-Profit educational self procalimed "activist" organization, RIGHT???.

Is anyone so certain?

If so, let them speak up OR forever hold their piece.

Or at least until the litigations commence.


boogur,

Guessing at your level of personal hygiene from what you write, your hat and underwear are probably safe from confiscation.


You need to realize that ORCA has been operating since May 1, 2003, and has been granted a 501c3 status by the Secretary of State of California,CHECK IT OUT Web Link Number C2508117, with status of ACTIVE, and I might add, VERY Active based upon all the ex parte communications from ORCA to at least 3 Commissioners of the Coastal Commission, all of whom had been approached by ORCA, a non-profit "educational" group, prior to the most recent CCC meeting in SF.

The agent for the Organization of Regional Coastal Activists is Mel Nutter, at 200 Ocean Gate Suite 850, Long Beach, CA 90802.

OH BY THE WAY, the last recorded filing with the IRS for ORCA, Form 990, in 2006 shows no contributions, no expenses, no financials, with no "activity not previously reported to the IRS" and with Sara Wan, 22350 Carbon Mesa Rd, Malibu, CA, 90265 as the Chair of the organization. Shirley Detttoft (as spelled in the IRS form 990), 6812 Laurelhurst, of Huntington Beach is the Secretary of ORCA. All of this is Public Information. Someone may need to google earth this, verry ODD -- Who are we really dealing with on our very own Coastal Commission???


NP,

no one at any security checkpoint has ever touched my hat or underwear. thanks for your considerable concern with my welfare.


Clay,

somehow some of my entries are di..s..a pp....ea..aring...


"...no one at any security checkpoint has ever touched my hat or underwear."

Just as I guessed. But what's this I hear about all your cabin mates in the private militia training camp quitting?


Mr Now Pichin'

what camp? what cabin mates? We are talkin' bout ORCA, or is this just another one of your hijackings? OK, what is your ransome this time? Same as last time?


"Are you saying that those procedural motions were compromised?"

Nice leading question, counselor. Are you?


My how the property wrongs crowd whines when they aren't the ones corrupting a governmental process.


Good to see NP acknowledging corruption. Pretty simple stuff and he has mastered it.


boogur,

How is that fundraising effort for the Exalted Knights of Property Rights going? You know, the lottery selling a chance at playing The Most Dangerous Game with a kidnapped environmental scientist on the militia's South Coast "ranch"?


"Good to see NP acknowledging corruption. Pretty simple stuff and he has mastered it."

Ever hit any family members with your random shots in the dark?


Maybe, during these very difficult times, Wan is simply ensuring her own job security.

Those that don't see conflict of interest need to look again.

Wan is very accomplished in several areas; she's nobody's fool. Here's her bio: Web Link Impressive, huh?

One thing I didn't see in her bio is any recognition of her people skills. She has become her own special interest and it's at the State of California's expense, or rather at the expense of the residents and property owners of California.

One has to wonder what else and who else is mixed up in this ethically and morally wrong activity, and how many other 'groups' she or other Commissioners are into that bully her convictions before ours (her employer).


Here is a link from Sara and "Francis Drouillard,PE" about ORCA.

It is very interesting to note that Francis says "If anyone from this list is interested, please contact me offline and I will

provide you with the necessary contact info. If anyone from this list is interested, please contact me offline and I will

provide you with the necessary contact info.

Web Link

"

It is SMALL wonder that Mr Drouillard knows so much about the Coastal Commission...he has all the inside dope from the longest serving Commissioner-- SARA WAN.


Canaries, boogur, more canaries.


canaries, as you know, are used to check out mines full of gases--which kill humans--

I agree, albtm, more canaries...more deaths.

connect the dots of corruption in the coastal commission..

connect the dots.


If one might want to know the origins of "ORCA"

Web Link

"The initial organizing efforts are focused on the southern counties from Santa Barbara to San Diego and are being facilitated by a coastal activist organization called "Vote the Coast," under the direction of Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan."

On 9-11 December 2009 we witnessed the increasing activities by Sara Wan to influence the Coastal Commission at the monthly meeting of the CCC in San Francisco on a number of issues before the Coastal Commission, including our own Midcoast LCP. Commissioner Blank indicated in ex parte communications that Lennie Roberts and Mike Ferreira had approached him a number of times in the name of ORCA.

Bad Pool

Bad Karma.

Bad Boogurs.


Hey, I have heard of Vote the Coast, here it an old website.

Web Link


Would someone please give "boogur" that proctology merit badge? Seems to me it's richly deserved. Maybe then "boogur" can start working on that "first amendment" merit badge, particularly as it applies to freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government.


You're back, fd. Too bad. Again you bring such substance to the dialog; "Would someone please give "boogur" that proctology merit badge?" Deep, fd, real deep.

Thanks for your immeasurable and continued contributions.

I take it you're a "member"? Did you get that once in a lifetime opportunity of a one-on-one with Wan?

It's OK, you can admit it. Either you are a "member", or you're a wanna be. Either way, your colors are loud and clear.


Orca -- Funny how you imply I operate in secret while hiding behind an anonymous name. You realize that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, don't you?


Oh, no you don't, fd. You're not going to hyjack this one.

Perhaps, if you want to play constructively, you might answer the question asked of you: "Did you get that once in a lifetime opportunity of a one-on-one with Wan?"

Here's one with less words (easier); are you a member of ORCA?


Orca -- Send me an email that bears your real name and I'll consider providing the personal information you so desperately seek.

And, if you want to "play constructively," you'll learn to discuss the issues without resorting to despicable opposition research tactics.


Folks,

Francis Droulliard owns property in the Coastal Zone. Up near Gualala. He wants to develop it, but he knows it can be very touchy with the powerful CCC.

Sooo...Mr. Droulliard does all he can in the four corners of the Internet to defend the CCC. He is in it for himself.

oh, by the way...he designs habitat-destroying bridges for a living. Figure that out.


No wonder the overdevelopment rights crowd is so frustrated. Like Orca and Brianna, they focus on the irrelevant.

As for my habitat-destroying designs, perhaps Brianna can name a few. He's already earned his proctology merit badge, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to do. Then, we can see whether the design was least environmentally harmful solution, which is the measure for development in the coastal zone.


Brian, don't let our wiley outsider take us off topic. Who cares about francis, other than francis? He is nothing more than a very small pimple on a burro's butt. Let's look at the burro.

I'd sure like to hear more about this organization that Wan has going on. It smells; it smells very badly, and is another example of what has become of our rights.

When individuals in powerful positions sit in judgment on the rest of us, and create shadow cells to satisfy their goals over ours, what does that say to us all? What does that do to us all? What has happened to our rights?

Is this type of behavior acceptable to most? Would you want to be in this woman's crosshairs?


"When individuals in powerful positions sit in judgment on the rest of us, and create shadow cells to satisfy their goals over ours, what does that say to us all? What does that do to us all? What has happened to our rights?"

It has always been this way. Are you Native American?


The CDP for future Coastal Commissioner Steve Blank's 15,000 square foot mansion near Ano Neuvo was appealed to the Coastal Commission back in 2000.

The San Mateo County file number was A-2-SMC-00-028

Substantive issue was found, and the De novo hearing continued into 2001.

The project was "approved with conditions" in April 2001 (Item 10A)

One of the appellants was...drum roll...Sara Wan. Coincidence?

looks really nice, huh?

Web Link


See what a $1,000,000.00 contribution to Club Sierra can do?


The contribution was to POST, how else did he get on their board along with Sara Wan's son. Web Link


Good thing we have groups like ORCA keeping the next billionare from building a spread like Mr. Blank built in the Coastal Zone. I just wonder if people like Mike F. and Mark M. feel just a little bit stupid shilling for the likes of Mr. Blank ?


The Coastal commission has created a myth that they are for the little people and will provide people access to the coast. But in reality, they help their allies create enclaves in the coastal regions, and deny the rest of us ordinary people infrastructure. What sense is it to say you are providing access to people to the coast, yet when those people get to the coast the roads are jammed, and there are no beach facilities.


Don't like the Coastal Commission? Forget the vapid, childish, uninformed character assassination. Do something effective. Repeal the Coastal Act. Work for a statewide initiative to reverse Prop. 20.


That would be rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Act is a good thing. We just need to revamp the way it's interpreted by restructuring the commission.

Throw the bums out and elect humans to the job.


Coastal Commission is appointed.


No kidding; really? What does restructure mean to you? That's exactly why I said "Throw the bums out and elect humans to the job."

Start by dumping the little property thief Douglas.

Btw, changing those to elected positions is nothing new.

Try to keep up.


How are you goint to throw out and elect new people to appointed positions?


The issue of Coastal Commission appointments was addressed by the State Supreme Court several years ago. Besides, making the positions elected would make the commission more political, not less. In today's political climate, that would result in a commission less friendly to those that promote overdevelopment of the coast.

For some reason, I don't believe that's what "don't think" has in mind.


Vote the Coast was another organization that Sar Wan set up in 2002 with the mission to-- "support those candidates for public office who are guided by the principles of ecological sustainability, environmental justice, public education, participatory governance, commitment and ideological integrity." That way if any elected coastal officials give problems to the Coastal Commission she can mount a campaign to replace them.

I could not make this up. Read for your self.

Web Link


OBTW -- Imagine that, someone exercising their rights as an American citizen to support candidates that agree with them on the issues. How dare they act as though we live under representative democracy!

Perhaps you really mean "how dare they do it more effectively than me!"


Again we are in awe of the free advice fd provides. I guess the old saying that you get what you pay for fits here.

To So ya know; let me simplify.

re-struc-ture: to change the makeup, organization, or pattern of

One of those changes would be to eliminate ALL current commissioners. Another change would be dump Douglas. I'd prefer we dump him in San Quinton, personally.

Another change would be to reduce the Coastal Zone back to its original boundaries of 1,000 yards from the sea.

Another change would be to require commission seats be elected.

Then, elect 12 individuals to be commissioners.

We can grid the State's coast into twelve parts and provide one commissioner from each section.

How's that, So ya know? Got it now?

Oh, almost forgot; we already know, francis, but you have yet to admit whether you are officially an ORCA member, or just another wannabe. How's Sara doing today? Care to share her cell number?


Orca -- Only an idiot would complain about a politicized Coastal Commission then propose changes that would make it more so. Only an idiot would think that challenging me to disclose personal information about myself would advance their cause in any way. And finally, only an idiot would envy and denigrate someone far more effective than them rather than learn from their methods.


De: seems to me some of this is hitting you right where it counts. Got your panties in a wad, eh?


News Flash: "Planning Commissioner Sarah Christie confirms she'll resign at today's meeting", dated 12-17-09; Web Link

One down, and how many to go?

We remember Christie, don't we? She was so gracious and put on such a magnificent performance in Sacramento opposing AB1991 and our efforts to resolve the Beachwood matter.

She lied right through her teeth to the Assembly committees, on behalf of the Coastal Commission. What a character.

I'm surprised she lasted as long as she did.

Who's next?

PS: I don't want francis to feel ignored, so this Bud's for you, francis. You say (among other dribble) "And finally, only an idiot would envy and denigrate someone far more effective than them rather than learn from their methods."

You really should try thinking outside the box, dude. Some (smart) people can do both. Some (smart) people don't see it as either/or.

Open your mind francis. Give it a try. Hopefully you can do better than staying stuck in that rut you're in.


>>Another change would be to require commission seats be elected.<<

Assuming statewide elections, and I think you have to assume that, what kind of commission do you think elections would result in?


Orca -- I did open my mind and as a result became more supportive of the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission. And folks like you serve to reinforce the need to support state law and the agents charged with enforcing it.

That, and it is kind of fun watching supporters of overdeveloping the coast take on the chin now and then.


I do not trust "a resident of another coastside community" telling us what we must do in our coastside community.

Let me offer just one example of my miss trust, the commission wants to delete 143 pending "grandfather" pending Coastal Development Permit applications in the Midcoast Local Coastal Program, that have been wending their way through a maze of bureaucracy created by the Coastal Commission for years. What kind of justice is that? Where have the Commissioners done that before? How many lawsuits resulted, if anyone can identify any other LCP that agreed to eliminate "gradfathering"?


Google "CA Coastal Commission" and what do you find? This was one of the top 5 hits. Web Link


"That would be rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Act is a good thing. We just need to revamp the way it's interpreted by restructuring the commission."

News flash to "expert": the Coastal Commission is "structured" by the Coastal Act.

There would never have been a Coastal Act without Prop. 20--the state legislature never wanted to touch coastal protection because of the conflict with its money masters--and there would not be a Coastal Commission without a Coastal Act. The way to change this is with another citizen-created proposition. Put up or shut up.


Instead of restructuring the Commission, since Thee Commission is so "successful" we should use the Coastal Act as a model for geographic regions other than just the coast. Imagine how life would be enhanced if we created a Commission for Mountains, and a Commission for Watersheds, and one for Flatlands, and for Lakes, and a Commission for Forests.


Googler -- Apply your googling skills and you might find the video of Don Schmitz at the CCC hearing archive site where he backpeddles from those statements as fast as he can. I may have provided the URL and timepoint in this TA thread: <Web Link>

That's a long thread, so it may take you some time to find it.

While you're at it, you might want to check out how things worked out for the couple that drank the Zumbrun Kool-Aid.


Folks, this bears repeating.

Mr. Droulliard hopes to develop his land near Gualala in the near future. He is defending the Coastal Commission all over the Internet to be on the "good" side, hoping that his assistance may be rewarded down the line.

His statements are for his own benefit, not others.


Being incapable of refuting my main points, Brianna chooses to continue spouting his ignorance of facts and the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. For one, any development I propose will be reviewed and approved by the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building, and the basis of review will be the county's certified Local Coastal Plan. As my development plans conform to both the spirit and intent of the LCP it is very unlikely that the project will be denied or further conditioned for approval. Since the property is outside the appealable area of the Coastal Zone, approval of the project cannot be appealed to the Coastal Commission.

Not that there is anything wrong with cozying up to commissioners or commission staff. A big part of the staff's job is to help small developers make their proposed project compatible with the Coastal Act.

Some folks are smart enough to take advantage of those services. Others are dumb enough and eager enough to turn those helpful hands into adversaries.


What we have here is a failure to communicate; we are allowing drullard to misdirect.

It is plain to see that he wishes he lived here. Thank goodness he doesn't. Never will, so why should anyone care about anything he says?

The topic, for those with short attention spans (francis) is ORCA and Wan's spin on the difference between right and wrong.

As a coastal commissioner, a paid state employee, what ethical standard is there when it comes to; contributing to local elections, starting splinter groups to support your own moraless compass, playing Free Cell while someone is in front of your body trying to educate you in an area that is important to them?

drullard is nothing more than a cheap imitation of our very own np, our premier twit. There is no reason in the world to give either the time of day. There is plenty of reason to question Wan, Douglas, Blank and the rest. Corruption? You tell us.


"Since the property is outside the appealable area of the Coastal Zone, approval of the project cannot be appealed to the Coastal Commission."

Has that stopped the Coastal Commission or various appellants in the past? Not in the least.

I have no need to refute anything you put down here. It is all suspect - the entire sum of the parts and each respective part. Your very teling use of "cozying up" says all we need to know. You are a shill and a very bad one at that.

What we have here is corruption. There is no doubt in my mind. What can be done about it? Exposing it is the first step. The others are being taken.


back to topic -- You sound like the sniveling Trish Douda featured in Richard Oshen's fictional piece -- totally clueless on the law and the public hearing process.

You may not realize it, but individuals do not lose their civil rights when they serve on the Coastal Commission. Furthermore, they do not owe you or anyone else their undivided attention when you make irrelevant arguments that waste their time and which they've heard time and again.

You may not realize it, but seats on the Coastal Commission are not paid positions. Commissioners receive $200 per day for each hearing day they attend plus travel and lodging expenses.

They don't get paid for time spent reading staff reports, which represents a considerable effort.

They don't get paid for time spent with lobbyists, which can also be a considerable process.

They can't accept gifts greater than $10 in value, which means you can't provide them lodging or transportation, or buy them lunch let alone a dinner. (I know because I've tried.)

Corruption is a serious charge. If you believe members of the commission or commission staff are involved in corruption, gather your evidence and present it to the Attorney General. It has lead to the prosecution and dismissal of at least one past commissioner, and I might add, one that was also an elected representative rather than a public member like Wan and Blank.

By the way, thanks for comparing me to NP. I find that flattering.


Brianna says "I have no need to refute anything you put down here."

That statement is highly consistent with your irrelevance and ineffectiveness on issues related to the Coastal Act and Coastal Commission.


"You sound like the sniveling Trish Douda featured in Richard Oshen's fictional piece" Another off-topic personal attack. How imaginative. Besides, how would you know what anyone in 'Sins of Commission' sound, except for a few soundbites. You still haven't seen it.

"They don't get paid for time spent reading staff reports, which represents a considerable effort." Perhaps that's why they, the commissioners, don't read them. Makes sense.

"If you believe members of the commission or commission staff are involved in corruption, gather your evidence and present it to the Attorney General." And who represents the commission? Oh, that's right; the Attorney General. Our tax dollars at work. So, what we have here is the full weight and force of the state representing the commission. Great stuff.

"By the way, thanks for comparing me to NP. I find that flattering."

You would. Another mini-me, oh brother.

Get a life francis, preferably in your own neighborhood.


Albeit threads and blogs about the coastal commission have much fluff and disinformation, golden nuggets of data are plentiful as one sifts through blogs. A veritable mine field of data can also be found in the monthly coastal commission agendas, the staff recommendations, and the archived webcasts.

As has been pointed out, key players include wan, douglas, blank, kruer, neely, ferreira, roberts, ruddock, and massara. Organizationally, the California Coastal Conservancy Web Link , the Wildlife Conservation Board Web Link , and groups discussed on talkabout and run by roberts and wan and rust drive the ever changing and expanding coastal agenda.

connect the dots.


back to topic -- I didn't need to see all of "An Inconvenient Truth" to know it was a bunch of drivel either. But since this is a persistent issue with those willing to be mislead, perhaps you can tell me how the rest of Oshen's unfinished piece is any different from the clips and trailers he posts to hawk the film.

You're kidding yourself if you think most of the Commissioners don't read the staff reports. They rely on those reports and relevant public comment to make their decisions. If a blowhard provides public comment that isn't based on the LCP or the Coastal Act, they're ignored because the commissioners have to base their decisions on relevant facts and state law. The fact that you don't understand their purpose or state law doesn't mean that they're not doing their jobs or corrupt in any way. It simply means that you don't know enough about the law or how it's enforced.

The Attorney General is the lawyer for the people of California. The fact that your evidence of wrong-doing by commissioners is weak or non-existent reflects poorly on you, not the AG.


Flawed logic?

"The fact that you don't understand their purpose or state law doesn't mean that they're not doing their jobs or corrupt in any way. It simply means that you don't know enough about the law or how it's enforced."

The SEC did not do their job and Bernie Madoff pulled off the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world -- $50Billion. Web Link If the SEC could not find that masively huge problem, what good are they?

Since Madoff's arrest, the SEC has been criticized for its lack of due-diligence, despite having received complaints from Markopolos and others for almost a decade. The SEC's Inspector General, H. David Kotz, found that since 1992, there were six botched investigations of Madoff by the SEC, either through incompetent staff work or neglecting allegations of financial experts and whistle-blowers.[62][63][64]

Could it be that our own CA AG also may not be perfect? Why is Mr Drouillard bothered so much by simple common sense questions about possible ethical misbehavior by government officials?

Connect the dots


Connect the dots -- I don't think you'd know simple logic if it hit you in the face. I agree that the SEC failed miserably to do its job. But how does it follow that the ignorance of "back to topic" regarding the Coastal Act and Coastal Commission procedures means that they are failing to do their jobs or acting in a corrupt manner?

Do you accuse every spilled glass of water being a rainstorm?

By the way, I'm not bothered by questions about possible ethical misbehavior. However, it does bother me when some make unsubstantiated accusations regarding public officials, particularly when they're based on ignorance.

I'll say it again -- if you have evidence of wrong-doing, present it to the AG. If not, you're simply wasting everyone's time with uninformed speculation. To put it as eloquently as Now Pitching, put up or shut up! Don't blame for the AG for failing to act because you can't put your poop in a group.


"They rely on those reports and relevant public comment to make their decisions." Not true; not one pixel.

What is true, however, is that the commissioners..all of them, look at the face of the staff reports to see what the staff reccommends.

Pretty thorough and time consuming, huh?

Maybe, if the commissioners were to actually do their homework (part of their job), they wouldn't have time to start splinter groups and get involved with local politics (like they have here).

francis' comments again hold no water. Take a look at the commission agends (pick one; any one): Web Link Pick the ones with 'linked agendas' so you can get an idea of just how many items are on the agenda combined with how many pages the staff reports are.

What you'll find, or rather what I found is an unfathomable volume of agenda items and staff reports that range from 150 pages to over 1,000 (not including attachments).

It is not possible for the commissioners, any of them, to read the staff reports or gain any semblance of familiarity with every issue; or even a majority of issues...not even close.

So, for those that espouse the diligence and quality character of the commissioners in the pursuit of 'justice', the evidence supports exactly the opposite.

Nice try, though. Back to Free Cell.


Mr Markopolos did go to the proper authority, the SEC, about Madoff 5 times in 6 years but that did not work. Madoff had to admit it. Why? because he could no longer pay the interest on the $50B, the scheme was about to blow, and he wanted to try to protect his family and cronies.

How did you know that information was going to the AG?


I repeat. This is a very serious proposal for all of you that are true believers in the Coastal Commission.

Instead of restructuring the Commission, since Thee Commission is so "successful" we should use the Coastal Act as Thee Model for geographic regions other than just the coast.

Imagine how life would be enhanced if we created a Commission for Mountains, and a Commission for Watersheds, and another Commission for Flatlands, and for Lakes, and a Commission for Forests.


"Imagine how life would be enhanced if we created a Commission for Mountains, and a Commission for Watersheds, and another Commission for Flatlands, and for Lakes, and a Commission for Forests."

Does a house and boat come with the Commissioner for Lakes?


back to topic -- It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what commissioners read and what they don't. If you want to assume they don't prepare for meetings, are unaware of the issues involved, or simply rubber-stamp staff reports, that's fine with me. No point in arguing otherwise except to say that my experience strongly suggests the opposite.

A question for you to make a point -- on how many projects did the commission oppose staff recommendations at the November hearing? Clue: more than none.


On the Other Hand -- I'd be happy with an expanded coastal zone, one that extends generally from the sea eastward to the first mountain ridge and includes the Golden Gate Bridge. (The BCDC takes care of the bay.) I'd also make every project within the Coastal Zone appealable, and require local municipalities to update their LCPs on a regular basis or face de-certification.

If I could choose only one it would be de-certification.


oops


Francis Drouillard, let me see if I understand, the first mountain ridge.

That "first mountain ridge" could be construed to be as far as the Sierras by reasoning that if one were to follow the rivers between Oregon and Mexico that empty into the Pacific Ocean that would include the Klamath, Redwood, Mad River, Elk River, Eel, Albion, Russian, Gualala, Sacramento, Feather, San Joaquin, Toulumne, Merced, Guadalupe, Tulare Lake Basin, Kern River, Montecito creek, Santa Monica creek, Carpinteria creek, Ventura, Los Angeles River, San Gariel River, Santa Ana, Santa Margarita, San Diego River. Web Link

Francis, I bet you would be very, very happy to have the Coastal Commission control the whole state. How devious you are.


This thread has some great insults in it. Not too informative though. Lots of passion.

"And, if you want to "play constructively," you'll learn to discuss the issues without resorting to despicable opposition research tactics."

So I guess that means, "Take My Word At Face Value"

"Would someone please give "boogur" that proctology merit badge?"

Very persuasive.

"You sound like the sniveling Trish Douda featured in Richard Oshen's fictional piece"

I guess one had to be there to get this one.

"I have no need to refute anything you put down here."

Yep. that about sums it up.

"And finally, only an idiot would envy and denigrate someone far more effective than them rather than learn from their methods."

Obviously, this poster has a very high opinion of his posting skills.

"They can't accept gifts greater than $10 in value, which means you can't provide them lodging or transportation, or buy them lunch let alone a dinner. (I know because I've tried.)"

My favorite line!


On the other hand -- There was nothing about my reply to your "serious question" to suggest that I want the Coastal Zone to cover the entire state. Maybe you have difficulty understanding a simple qualifier such as "generally."

Besides, if you consider a general, straightforward answer to your question "devious," what should one think of your "question?" Misleading? Sandbagging? Baiting? Dishonest?

Perhaps all four.


Francis, Francis, Francis,

You and I. We know each other. We both know the Commission and have seen what good and what bad that body is capable of. We are each playing the crowd to let them know the depth of our experiences and knowledge and passions so that they can get a sense of who ORCA is, or how the Commission "operates", and the extent and nature of the shadow entities that surround our California Coastal Commission.

skygizmo,

thanks for the succinct summation.

Merry Christmas.


On the other hand says -- "We know each other." Prove it!

Other than misleading folks on the purpose of the Coastal Act and the intentions of the commissioner, I really don't know what game you're playing or what crowd you're playing to.

Commissioners make their decisions at public hearings. They must disclose all ex parte communications (if any). If they don't, they're in violation of state law, which even a frustrated individual like you can report.

I don't buy into your "[we] both know the Commission ..." crap either, nor should anyone else. If you have evidence of wrong-doing bring it forward, but speak for yourself because "we" don't agree on anything you've written so far on this thread. You will, however, need to do more than simply howl at the moon if you're going to play watchdog.

skygizmo -- If you're going to take things out of context, at least get the attributions right. It was Brianna that wrote "I have no need to refute anything you put down here."

Judging by those that support overdeveloping the coast, he's probably right. For once.


skygizmo checked skygizmo's post. skygizmo attributed nothing to nobody.

Mr. Drouillard, I must admit, your statement about having your bribes turned down is very amusing and perhaps the most informative post in this thread. Are you sure you want attribution for that one?

But the pun contained in your quote:

"You will, however, need to do more than simply howl at the moon if you're going to play watchdog."

is pretty good!


skygizmo -- Orca, Brianna, On the other hand, and back to topic want to believe that the commission is power hungry, in collusion with outside groups, incapable of reading vast volumes of staff reports or making up their own minds, and corrupt. When challenged to support those accusations they either fail to do so, change the subject or accuse me of misdirection or worse.

Your MO appears to be taking statements out of context, failing to attribute statements properly, making things up (I never used the word "bribes") and finding puns were none exist. Do you have any useful information or observations to add to the discussion or any clear, unambiguous and relevant statements of your own?

Then again, perhaps you're just a comedian trying to lighting things up, which is okay so long as we know you shouldn't be taken seriously.


"skygizmo -- Orca, Brianna, On the other hand, and back to topic want to believe that the commission is power hungry, in collusion with outside groups, incapable of reading vast volumes of staff reports or making up their own minds, and corrupt." coupled with "Your MO appears to be taking statements out of context, failing to attribute statements properly, making things up (I never used the word "bribes") and finding puns were none exist." Isn't it odd that it seems, at least according to drullard, that everyone else has issues and problems with reality, but his view is OK...and the right one?

"When challenged to support those accusations they either fail to do so, change the subject or accuse me of misdirection or worse."

No francis, you just choose not to 'listen'. What a piece of work you are.


"want to believe that the commission is power hungry, in collusion with outside groups" - Francis Drouillard

Name one organization that isn't.

"attribute statements properly" - Francis Drouillard

Do you really want credit for anything posted in this thread.

"They can't accept gifts greater than $10 in value, which means you can't provide them lodging or transportation, or buy them lunch let alone a dinner. (I know because I've tried.)" - Francis Drouillard

Most people I know would call gifts, bribes. If you knew the $10.00 dollar rule, why would you try to break it? In order to influence somebody?

"finding puns were none exist" - Francis Drouillard

"You will, however, need to do more than simply howl at the moon if you're going to play watchdog." - Francis Drouillard

This forum is owned by the Half Moon Bay Review. Many of the posters on this forum live and shop in Half Moon Bay. Even if you weren't clever enough to make a pun, I still enjoyed it.

"I don't think you'd know simple logic if it hit you in the face." - Francis Drouillard

"He's already earned his proctology merit badge, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to do." - Francis Drouillard

You are funny man, Francis Drouillard.


skygizmo -- Sorry to hear you can't do anything for your friends or family without expecting something in return. How sad.

Orca -- I'm listening, but you still haven't explained why serving as a commissioner while promoting the Coastal Act is wrong, unethical or a conflict of interest. You haven't even offered a specific example where that would be or has been a problem, which makes yours a baseless accusation.

It's a serious allegation. Treat it that way.


"Sorry to hear you can't do anything for your friends or family without expecting something in return. How sad."

Hmmm. I think you are misattributating. Where did I say that?

What were you expecting in exchange for the gift you offered that was valued at more than ten dollars? Pleasant conversation? Are the commission members friends and family of yours?

I take it you would have no problem with one the commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development?

Do you get your pun yet?


"Orca -- I'm listening, but ..." No you're not; not now and not at any point in the past on TA. Story after story after story on the coastal commission provide example after example after example. You just choose to turn a blind eye and shamelessly pandor your 'beliefs'.

"Sins of the California Coastal Commission" Web Link

"Sins of California Coastal Commission, Part Two" Web Link

"Coastal Commission Called to the Carpet" Web Link

"AB1991, and Special Interest Influence" Web Link

There are many more examples. Plus, this forum will only allow a small number of links. I just used the ones most obvious and on the front page of 'Number of comments' provided by the Review. How many more there are is merely a guess, as I have no intention of spending my time on someone with the vision of Ray Charles.


I did a quick google. Dude, how many bots do you have out there? Nobody posts in as many forums as you do. You are a man on a mission.

I respect that!


who are you talking to...about?


I forgot to add one more comment on the links I provided:

drullard is prominant in most, if not all of them. So one should then ask; is he playing stupid, or is he?


Francis Drouillard,

Treat me like a Fool,

but luv me.


what's a bot? In this context, it is a computer program that scours the internet for posts that Francis Drouillard wants to reply too. I lost count at twenty different forums. One in Hawaii even.

Sounds to me as though he is on a mission! For a guy that lives North of the Golden Gate Bridge, he sure has spent a lot of time on TalkAbout. Maybe a mission from God?


Got it, thanks.

Sounds to me like someone is in need of a hobby. Perhaps he just needs to get out more.

Whatever the solution, sounds like he has 'issues'.


skygizmo -- I use Google alerts to track one topic. If I see any outlandish allegations about the Coastal Commission I join the fray. TA is rich feeding grounds in that regard. And no, I haven't gotten the pun yet. I'm slow that way.

Orca -- Please recall, I was seeking your reasons for believing that serving as a commissioner while promoting the Coastal Act is wrong, unethical or a conflict of interest.

You didn't need to make the case that I vigorously promote and defend my point of view, which I readily admit.

By the way, judging from the outcome, I don't think my opinions expressed in the links your provided were too far off the mark.

Mr. Oshen's film is going nowhere.

The suit by Norris and Gilder against the CCC was dropped.

The subpoena for Mr's Oshen's work became moot, putting an end to that free advertising outlet.

The folks in HMB got their outstretched hands slapped hard

Legislation to eliminate commissioner appeals by an assemblywoman from an inland district was shot down.

Maybe 2010 will be a little better.


"Mr. Oshen's film is going nowhere." That, sir, is an opinion. Further, whether the film goes "nowhere", or is a box office smash resulting in a compete restructure of the commission is irrelevent and has no bearing on the facts provided.

"Maybe 2010 will be a little better." We can always hope. It will require vigilence by those who question authority and have the brain tissue and the upbring to recognize right from wrong, and stand up for right.


"You will, however, need to do more than simply howl at the moon if you're going to play watchdog."

Half Moon Bay. Howl at the moon.

Get it? I still find you to entertaining.

Why did you offer more than a ten dollar gift and what were you hoping for in exchange?


"Please recall, I was seeking your reasons for believing that serving as a commissioner while promoting the Coastal Act is wrong, unethical or a conflict of interest." - Francis Drouillard

"I take it you would have no problem with one the commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development?" - skygizmo


Half Moon Bayers only know how to Half Howl, which sounds like...

OOOWWWW, OOOWWWW, OOOOWWWWW......


skygizmo -- Check out Web Link for a power point presentation on conflict of interest, bias and related issues. As you can see, commissioners are extremely limited on the gifts they can receive without recusing themselves or submitting paperwork, or both. I presume most would rather pay their own way to avoid the hassle. As for my own experience, I tried to purchase lunch for a small group of friends that included a commissioner, who politely but firmly refused. I wasn't expecting anything in return, with the possible exception of a free lunch (literally) down the line.


skygizmo -- Oops, overlooked one of your comments. Actually, I do have a problem with commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development. There are limits on the number of commissioners that can meet outside of public hearings, and working to oppose _any_ development is not promoting the Coastal Act, which encourages coastal dependent development. ("any" in the important word.)

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with anyone privately promoting coastal dependent development that is consistent with the Coastal Act while they have a seat on the Coastal Commission.

Moon. Howl. HMB. Geez -- told you I was slow that way.


Francis,

Thank you for glimpses into your humanity. When you chose to respond to questions, communication was aided by your response. Acknowledgment of normal human frailties is very becoming to you.

your friend,

bot

ps-- I lost count at 23


Communication is good. One way communication is even better.

Compromise is good. Look how well Compromise has worked for me and the Democratic Party. Watch my Senate vote in 4 hours on the National Healthcare Reform. If communication is good, raw power is even better. Can you tell I am happy?

Am I off topic? I do not think so. In all of the USA, no other group exercises raw power better than the California Coastal Commission. Mr Drouillard is justifiably proud of the Commissioners.

Oh well, I must go vote. I am glad that our Senate leader gave me the 336 pages that were just added in the back room, but I don't have time to read all those pages. I must go vote yes, to whatever.


Francis Drouillard, let me see if I understand, the first mountain ridge.

That "first mountain ridge" could be construed to be as far as the Sierras by reasoning that if one were to follow the rivers between Oregon and Mexico that empty into the Pacific Ocean that would include the Klamath, Redwood, Mad River, Elk River, Eel, Albion, Russian, Gualala, Sacramento, Feather, San Joaquin, Toulumne, Merced, Guadalupe, Tulare Lake Basin, Kern River, Montecito creek, Santa Monica creek, Carpinteria creek, Ventura, Los Angeles River, San Gariel River, Santa Ana, Santa Margarita, San Diego River. Web Link

Francis, I bet you would be very, very happy to have the Coastal Commission control the whole state. How devious you are.


On the other hand -- Oh boy! Repetition! I can cut-and-paste too!

---

There was nothing about my reply to your "serious question" to suggest that I want the Coastal Zone to cover the entire state. Maybe you have difficulty understanding a simple qualifier such as "generally."

Besides, if you consider a general, straightforward answer to your question "devious," what should one think of your "question?" Misleading? Sandbagging? Baiting? Dishonest?

Perhaps all four.

---

Wasn't that fun? Your turn! Go fetch! We can do this all day! Good boy! Say, what color is that car?

Sorry, unfair question.


"skygizmo -- Oops, overlooked one of your comments. Actually, I do have a problem with commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development. There are limits on the number of commissioners that can meet outside of public hearings, and working to oppose _any_ development is not promoting the Coastal Act, which encourages coastal dependent development. ("any" in the important word.)"...Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, 16 hours ago

What? Are you contradicting yourself? Having trouble making up your mind? Can't make a decision?

Now let's see, what's the topic here? And who has been blindly carrying the commission torch?

You're not actually reading, thinking about and retaining any of the comments made by anyone (other than yourself), are you?

Oh, francis, I have to agree with skygizmo; "You are funny man, Francis Drouillard."


back to topic -- No contradictions on this end, no trouble making up my mind, and no trouble skipping anything you have to say.

Words are important. Try reading and comprehending them all before springing into "gotcha!" mode.

BTW, I think you might like this: Web Link

Enjoy!


Yeah, you're right, I did like your link. I particularly enjoyed the announcement of Robert's recent 'success' and what she chose to do with the $5,000.00 'prize' money: give it to herself.

The money was to go to the favorite charity of the winner's choice. Roberts choice?: Committee for Green Foothills. Who's 'charity' is it? Lennie's.

Well, I never said she was stupid; just arrogant and self interested.

"springing into "gotcha!" mode"? Don't judge others by your own thought patterns and actions, francis. Not everyone thinks like you do, thank goodness.

I still see two completely opposite and opposing views from you, regarding ORCA. Since I must be a simpleton, perhaps you could add a little clarity for me. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.

Always fun to watch someone talk out of both ends.


Besides his bot network monitoring disparaging comments made about the CCC, Francis Drouillard has a web cam too?

Please, do not post the link!

"Always fun to watch someone talk out of both ends." - back to topic


"skygizmo -- Oops, overlooked one of your comments. Actually, I do have a problem with commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development. There are limits on the number of commissioners that can meet outside of public hearings, and working to oppose _any_ development is not promoting the Coastal Act, which encourages coastal dependent development."

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, 19 hours ago

Well, now we're getting somewhere! So you do understand the Brown Act, and then you must know that meetings outside of public hearings include so-called "serial meetings", where Commissioners might engage in sequential small group discussions, e.g. Joe talks to Mary, then Mary talks to Clyde, then Clyde talks to Irene .. you get the idea.

So if Sara trains a team of robots in her ideology as it specifically relates to current proposed projects, and the robots then fan out and lobby the other Commissioners .... well maybe not a literal violation of the Brown Act, but certainly ethically questionable at best. Nice loophole she found!


back to stupid -- Where is the inconsistency between the following (one derived from a question I posed and another from a statement I made):

---

"I don't believe that serving as a commissioner while promoting the Coastal Act is wrong, unethical or a conflict of interest."

"I do have a problem with commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development. There are limits on the number of commissioners that can meet outside of public hearings, and working to oppose _any_ development is not promoting the Coastal Act, which encourages coastal dependent development."

---

DCc -- I think you're extrapolating comments in an effort to make a case that doesn't exist. I don't believe any of the commissioners are engaging in your so-called "serial meetings." What makes you think they do?


"back to stupid --" very strong, very constructive.

Really shows your communication skills (are in dire need). So, what to say to that opening? I heard a kid a Hatch say something that is probably fit for you, francis: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Oh, that's right, you're not from around these parts. Forgive me; Hatch is one of our local Elementry Schools.

The only thing that you are consistant on, aside from carrying the commission's jock strap, is inconsistency.

Btw, Dennis Coleman has a conscience? Wow. Learn something everyday.

Above, I provided severable links, most display francis extensively, in his undying blind support of the commission. He really has his head right up there with that bunch; so much so that he is blind to all the facts that have been and continue to be laid out here on TA.

I mean really, how many people have Google Alerts for following threads that blatantly (or even hint at) challenge the commission?

Over 20, was it francis? What, are you the Russian Chess Master of the blogashere on commission wrongs?

Not worth it. Like I said, "Always fun to watch someone talk out of both ends."

Btw, thanks for giving this thread legs and keeping it in front of people. These are important issues. People need to know. Although there is a fair amount of worthless back and forth, there are also plenty of facts being offered and plenty of views being shared.


I am available for all of you that post on blogs that need a notice on a topic of interest. Be like Francis, follow 5, 10, 20 of your favorite blogs with choice topics, call me, use me, abuse me.


back to topic -- You're all bark and no bite. Or all hat and no cattle. Or all "right" and no might.

When challenged to back up your assertions you fail to do so. You change the subject instead, or try to dismiss me with "you're not from around here." Not good enough. You need to do better.

Rather than concern yourself with my ability to use Google or who I associate with, try finishing up on a few items that you raised, and that are on topic.

So here we go again -- where's the inconsistency in my statements:

"I don't believe that serving as a commissioner while promoting the Coastal Act is wrong, unethical or a conflict of interest."

"I do have a problem with commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development. There are limits on the number of commissioners that can meet outside of public hearings, and working to oppose _any_ development is not promoting the Coastal Act, which encourages coastal dependent development."

If you don't see a discrepancy, then perhaps you can better explain why you disagree with the first statement.


"back to topic -- You're all bark and no bite. Or all hat and no cattle. Or all "right" and no might." Clever stuff. Is that original? Is it part of some jingle?

It doesn't matter what anyone places in your line of site, francis. You'll continue to see what you want to see and disregard the rest.

You're just not worth it. Like I said, "Always fun to watch someone talk out of both ends."

You just keep on doing what you do, francis. I have better things to do than go in circles with you.

The data is here for those that want it.


back to topic -- As I suspected, you can't back up your allegations of wrongdoing, or even state why you think it's wrong for a coastal commissioner to advocate for enforcement of the Coastal Act. Thanks for the confirmation.

I suppose that should be expected of one that hides behind an anonymous name. If my arguments were as weak as yours I too would use an anonymous name.


I do enjoy some of the talkabout chatter. From time to time, after a little reading, I like to comment on my observations.

In that light, here goes.

Living in the Coastal Zone I do take more than a casual interest in what is happening here and who's doing what to whom. There's always something. Of course, the Coastal Commission is worth following because they can and do have such a direct impact on our lives, or at least the lives of those that live in &/or own property within the Coastal Zone which has grown substantially since Prop 20 back in 1972.

I find it very hard to believe that all the people that voted for Prop 20 envisioned what we have today. It'd be a kick to do a do-over, knowing what we know now, to see how the vote would turn out today. I seriously doubt that it would receive the same warm embrace without some major tweaking.

I've read the Commission topic threads on talkabout. I've seen the posts and the authors, most of which I don't remember (the authors, that is). One that I do remember is Francis Drouillard.

Without fail he shows a very consistent arrogance toward anyone and everyone that besmirches the Commission. Several posters on this thread nail it and lots of other posters on the other Commission threads nail it too, but last word Droillard just keeps his blinders on and his foot to the floor. He doesn't pay attention to the unbelievable volume of facts that are constantly put in front of him. He ignores the hardships that others go through, generally saying it's their own fault, when the evidence shows otherwise. He fails to see the jackboot manner in which his beloved Commission acts, the greed for more control they possess and the pain they cause.

One conclusion that I've reached is he's not worth dealing with. All he does is go round and round, repeating his slanted views while dispelling all else. He doesn't live here, but is very generous with his advice on how we should live here.

I've seen it time and time again. He hijacks threads that disparage the Commission or the Commissioners, with his round and round tactics, usually starting with personal attacks to put the others on the defensive and he doesn't stop. He creates little cutsie names for those he disagrees with, in an obvious attempt to demonstrate dominance by belittling others. He lies through his teeth, then after being challenged with evidence, kind of sort of backs off and attacks from a (he thinks) different side.

People like him should just be ignored. There is no real dialog with him. There's only him, and he always has to have the last work, like that means he's "right" or he "won". He's like the child at Safeway that screams and stomps his feet for that candy bar at the checkout stand.

The only thing that I can see that he's won is the right to be ignored. I doubt he'll come back if nobody engages him when he dangles a tempting carrot.

Life is too short. I'm going to keep focusing on the issues. These are very important issues (to me). I'm going to focus on the facts within those issues. I'll figure things out for myself, with those facts.

Too bad Drouillard won't. Ok Drouillard, get your last word in again.


an interested reader -- Funny how you claim I hijack threads, then launch into a diatribe about me. You write that you want to focus on the issues but haven't said anything about the topic of this thread. Is it that hard to make sound arguments around relevant facts to make your points on this topic? The high schools in HMB aren't that crappy, are they?

Maybe you can succeed where others such as "back to topic" have failed. Please tell me why it is wrong or unethical or a conflict of interest for commissioners to advocate for enforcement of the Coastal Act.

It's not a trick question, and I'm sure others that have participated in this thread would really appreciate a well articulated answer.


Hi Francis,

Let me try to answer a few of your questions.

Yes, I would expect the Commissioners to enforce the Coastal Act.

But I agree with the California Farm Bureau Federation when it asked the Commission to "Cease Recommending that Counties Adopt policies not Required by the Coastal Act."

While the Farm Bureau supports voluntary agricultural easements, the Bureau is concerned with recommendations for preserving agricultural land through Mandatory agricultural easements.

The "LCP Update Guides" published by the Commission often recommends that counties incorporate a number of policies that are NOT required by the Coastal Act.

The Farm Bureau asks the Commission to "Respect Limits to the State's Authority and the Powers of Local Governments." and adds, "The Coastal Commission should respect this local process and not intervene to weaken any protections for agricultural resources"


Francis,

One more quote from the State Farm Bureau --

"Local elected officials understand far better than the Coastal Commission or its staff the needs of its own constituents-- and more importantly, their RIGHTS. (their emphasis)" I totally agree.

Francis, you and I both attended the historic Workshop in San Francisco in August, when for the first time in 37 years, Commissioners met with elected coastal officials from the Coastal Cities Issues Groups. My County Supervisor, Richard Gordon, was very eloquent in speaking for all coastal cities and counties about many issues with the Commission. You and I are both very aware that the LCP update process is broken, and I said those exact words when speaking to the Coastal Commissioners in August.

We need to put aside our differences and work to fix the process. A standoff will hurt our environment. Denizens of the coast do not want that. We love our coast and want to protect it.


Mr. Drouillard supports this from the ORCA website. Notice the interesting choice of the word activist. I never have heard of a developer being characterized as an activist. I wonder why they chose the word activist.

ORCA (Organization of Regional Coastal Activists) is a network of coastal activists that focuses on training coastal activists about the Coastal Act, helps to educate them as to the process to follow development from initial permit application at the local level up to and including the Coastal Commission, and facilitates networking between coastal advocates throughout the State.

But Mr. Drouillard then states:

"Actually, I do have a problem with commissioners forming a select group that would train folks on how to effectively oppose any development." - Francis Drouillard

The domain, CalOrca.org is owned by Lawrence Wan of Malibu California. Who is he? Where are their offices? Are they really a 501(c)(3)? If they are, everybody should request ORCA's tax records. They are required to provide them with in thirty days. Make sure you document your request in some fashion as fines apply if they don't comply.

Who is Mark Bixby? He is the technical contact for CalOrca.org. I find his name all over a bunch of Huntington Beach area CCC type issues. Here is a link to his site.

Web Link

Here is a link to the WhoIs for the domain, CalOrca.org. Notice and I kid you not, they called their domain name server LandShark.CalOrca.org!

Web Link

The idea that a public official would create a by invitation only shadow group is rather novel. Wouldn't that sort of be like some Senator on the Defense Committee forming a private group to help contractors get their bids approved. Would you not wonder who such a sleazy Senator worked for? Usually, folks wait until they leave public service before they start a lobbying business.


Think of reciprocity.

Think of On the Other Hand.

If it is "OK" for a Commissioner of the Coastal Commission (SARA WAN) to start non-profits for her own purposes, that will lobby for her agenda, to her own "Office", and her own Organization, and badger her "Fellow " Commissioners, then I must ask a VERY SIMPLE Question.

Why do NO Elected Officials in any of the 128 LCP counties, coastal towns, and provinces that represent us, their constituents, do the same as SARA WAN? Could it just be a simple matter of ethics?

Inquiring minds want to know.

CCC === Sleaze


>>ORCA (Organization of Regional Coastal Activists) is a network of coastal activists that focuses on training coastal activists about the Coastal Act, helps to educate them as to the process to follow development from initial permit application at the local level up to and including the Coastal Commission, and facilitates networking between coastal advocates throughout the State.<<

Gee. They sound a lot like Community Organizers. :)


Oh Misanthrope, surly you are not accusing ORCA of being part of the corrupt Chicago Political Machine?!:)

Wait a minute. Wait just a minuet. Their mission statement does sort of look like the ACORN manifesto.

Son of a Blagojevich!

I'm not sure which side I'm on.


ORCA and Sara Wan and Community Organizers and Expanding the Coastal Act beyond the Law are topics relevant to coastsiders.

Where is Connect the Dots when we need her?


"My County Supervisor, Richard Gordon, was very eloquent in speaking for all coastal cities and counties about many issues with the Commission. You and I are both very aware that the LCP update process is broken, and I said those exact words when speaking to the Coastal Commissioners in August."

Gordon carries major responsibility for hijacking the LCP update process in San Mateo County and "breaking" it. He and Hill threw out years of work and rewrote the update to satisfy their political leanings and agenda. Why would anyone pay any attention to what he says when so clearly he can't bring himself to conform to the Coastal Act that states what LCPs must cover?


Hey MB,

You do know that I know that what you speak is pure blather. Good Night, Paul.


"He and Hill threw out years of work and rewrote the update to satisfy their political leanings and agenda." NOT

Hill is bought and paid for by unions and the enviro lobby. Lenny still has a desk there. So much for that.

Neither one sat and "rewrote" anything, except maybe their resumes, adjusting for future options.

Staff wrote it at the direction of the entire BOS after the BOS spent ..how many years? ..listening to how much public input? .. working with how many experts?

Your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up. Just the compexity of the process, this one in particular, is far too vast to be tucked neatly into your little compartments.

"..so clearly he [Gordon] can't bring himself to conform to the Coastal Act that states what LCPs must cover?" Do you mean the Coastal Act, or your interpretation of the Act? I think we all know the answer to that one.


ORCA is a hoax on the people of California. Sara Wan should be ashamed. Lennie Roberts and Mike Ferreira are shills for Sara Wan. Who is Shirley Detttoft (the name on the IRS 990 filed for ORCA)? Speaking of pseudonyms. Is that legal with the Internal Revenue Service? NO, and again, NOOOOO.

I think it is high time to notify the IRS on this scam on all Californians.


Seal, all you have to do is file a request. They have to disclose their tax returns and other documents. Have at 'em. I am doing the same thing to the BigWaveProgect.org. They have missed two promised deadlines to supply the info but I'll get it.


"passing through" has a fantasy history for anyone who doesn't know what actually took place with the county's failed LCP update for the midcoast. Probably part of one of the special interests served by the supes at the expense of everyone else. In any event, the political manipulation flopped in the end. The final version of Gordon and Hill's update, with its stonewalling on seven sticking points that did not conform to the requirements of the Coastal Act, couldn't even get a single vote for certification by the most development-crazy coastal commissioners. Even in Orange County they do better than that.

Gotta love the childish comment on Wan. Are you local blowhards spouting under the assumption all your superficial blather and empty challenges have not already been raised and answered repeatedly. Not only are you losers when it comes to the process at hand, you are lunatics. Save yourself a lot of energy next time and look into what has already been thoroughly covered elsewhere.


"...couldn't even get a single vote for certification by the most development-crazy coastal commissioners." hehehehehehehe

hehehehehehehe

I particularly like the "development-crazy" part. Thanks for the mind bend.

I luv you man.


What's great about this forum is that you get to see how unprepared, ill-informed, incapable and ineffective the over-development rights crowd truly is.

Brings back memories of those moments in kindergarten immediately before nap-time, too.


Scores for Substance:

Terry Gossett - 2

skygizmo - 2

connect the dots - 2

Now Pitching - 0

Francis Droulliard - 1 (for admitting the bribe)


Well, I have to say. I am proud of my Farm Bureau for telling the Coastal Commission how the cow eats the cabbage.


"passing through" indicates he/she doesn't have a clue how the Coastal Commissioners are appointed nor what the political/pro-development makeup of the current Commission is nor how the current commissioners have voted on other development issues. No wonder he/she is left to try vacuous slurs with no basis.


Now Pitching,

Your assessment of passing though tells me much more about you than of "passing through"

So, what is your excuse for thesxe personal attacks? Are you one of the ORCA or CCC buddy study shills?


Looks like Farmer needs to get his face out of the dirt and learn about the makeup of the Coastal Commission, himself/herself.


"...seven sticking points that did not conform to the requirements of the Coastal Act..."

I know I'm not worthy and am dumber than a POST (play intended) according to you, oh wise one, but perhaps you may be able to find that one..tiny..spec of a warm spot in that heart that science says you must have and help us mouth breathers (one you made infamous) see the world through your wise eyes.

Would you, Now Pitching, please explain to us your justification for the comment I quoted above: with complete specificity on each of the "seven sticking points" and the specific parts (all of them, please) of the Coastal Act that you feel are being violated.


NP,

Rather than play games with NP. If you want to knwo about the Commissioner processes just go to the ccc website. Click here Web Link

NP,

What uniform do you wear at the meetings? I wear my overalls with a baseball cap.


The best line in this boring thread.

"I am proud of my Farm Bureau for telling the Coastal Commission how the cow eats the cabbage."


Merry Christmas, everyone!

That's my favorite line of this thread.


Francis,

We agree.

Merry Christmas, everyone.


Quick Summary--

ORCA is a 501c3 (non-profit), started by Sara Wan, one of our CA Coastal Commissioners, with the primary intent of teaching people how to appeal projects to the Coastal Commission! Membership is by invitation only; Web Link

the last recorded filing with the IRS for ORCA, Form 990, in 2006 shows no contributions, no expenses, no financials, with no "activity not previously reported to the IRS" and with Sara Wan, 22350 Carbon Mesa Rd, Malibu, CA, 90265 as the Chair of the organization. Shirley Detttoft (as spelled in the IRS form 990), 6812 Laurelhurst, of Huntington Beach is the Secretary of ORCA.

Here is a link from Sara and "Francis Drouillard,PE" about ORCA.

It is very interesting to note that Francis says "If anyone from this list is interested, please contact me offline and I will

provide you with the necessary contact info.

Web Link

"

And finally, only an idiot would envy and denigrate someone far more effective than them rather than learn from their methods.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 18, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Mr. Droulliard hopes to develop his land near Gualala in the near future. He is defending the Coastal Commission all over the Internet to be on the "good" side, hoping that his assistance may be rewarded down the line.

His statements are for his own benefit, not others.

Albeit threads and blogs about the coastal commission have much fluff and disinformation, golden nuggets of data are plentiful as one sifts through blogs. A veritable mine field of data can also be found in the monthly coastal commission agendas, the staff recommendations, and the archived webcasts.

As has been pointed out, key players include wan, douglas, blank, kruer, neely, ferreira, roberts, ruddock, and massara. Organizationally, the California Coastal Conservancy Web Link , the Wildlife Conservation Board Web Link , and groups discussed on talkabout and run by roberts and wan and rust drive the ever changing and expanding coastal agenda.

Yes, I would expect the Commissioners to enforce the Coastal Act.

But I agree with the California Farm Bureau Federation when it asked the Commission to "Cease Recommending that Counties Adopt policies not Required by the Coastal Act."

While the Farm Bureau supports voluntary agricultural easements, the Bureau is concerned with recommendations for preserving agricultural land through Mandatory agricultural easements.

The "LCP Update Guides" published by the Commission often recommends that counties incorporate a number of policies that are NOT required by the Coastal Act.

The Farm Bureau asks the Commission to "Respect Limits to the State's Authority and the Powers of Local Governments." and adds, "The Coastal Commission should respect this local process and not intervene to weaken any protections for agricultural resources"

Wasn't that fun? Your turn! Go fetch! We can do this all day! Good boy! Say, what color is that car?

Sorry, unfair question.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 21, 2009 at 5:54 am

The best line in this boring thread.

"I am proud of my Farm Bureau for telling the Coastal Commission how the cow eats the cabbage."

skygizmo, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 23, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Summary?

Something is very broken with our Coastal Commission. Many dots are surround Sara Wan and Peter Douglas.


And Merry Christmas to you, too, Connect the Dots!


"...seven sticking points that did not conform to the requirements of the Coastal Act..."

Above, I asked our favorite naysayer about those points he mentions (with authority).

"Would you, Now Pitching, please explain to us your justification for the comment I quoted above: with complete specificity on each of the "seven sticking points" and the specific parts (all of them, please) of the Coastal Act that you feel are being violated.

Looks like Now Pitching is a no show.

Maybe he aquired artheritis in his typing finger?! Too much punch celebrating Christmas by himself?!

Try some Advil and get back to us.


Please educate us -- Have you tried educating yourself?

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

If you read the above you may not feel a need to badger someone else for an explanation.


I asked Now Pitching to support his comments. It's real sweet of you to stick up for your little buddy, but I think this appears to be an ABC conversation. I'm A or B, Now Pitching is the one that I'm not.

You, who haven't answered any of the questions of substance asked of you since you've posted on TA would be C; so C yourself right on out of the equation.

My questions to Now Pitching stand, and web links don't cut it.


Please educate us -- For one, I don't provide personal information to cowards that hide behind an alias. For another, if you take issue with the reasons the CCC denied the permit, it's a simple matter to refer to the appropriate content in the staff report then state the reasons why you disagree. And finally, you shouldn't expect others to make your arguments for you, especially those that disagree with you. Common sense should tell you that.

On the other hand, if you like being on the losing side time and again, then continue with your verbal thuggery. It has obviously served you well and advanced your cause, hasn't it?


Wow, this one is still going!?


"...For one, I don't provide personal information to cowards that hide behind an alias." Who asked you? This is another example of what we don't need or want on talkabout. Real powerful stuff; very constructive.

Nobody asked you for your opinions, or habits, or for personal information. We know more than we'd like about you as it is. This isn't about you, as much as you'd want it to be.

This thread is titled Killer Whale, and is about one of our Coastal Commissioner's ethics (oxymoron), or rather lack of ethics.

It has taken a bit of a turn to include our County LCP. That's Ok because the Commission is still in focus.

You, Mr Drullard, are not in focus. Your continued attempts at hijacking this thread are recognized and not appreciated. Are you one of those children that simply seeks attention? good or bad, so long as you are the centerpoint?

Hey, Now Pitching, are you going to come out from Drullard's skirt and answer the questions asked?

To skygizmo: Yeah, it's still going, but I'm not sure where. If those with constructive points would post them, and those without constructive points just read the posts we'd probably be a lot better off. Stimulative dialog seems to challenge some beyond their limits.


"What uniform do you wear at the meetings? I wear my overalls with a baseball cap."

Aw, we are all real rurally impressed with your garb. You'll pardon us if the smell of what passed through passing through on your boots doesn't allow us to get closer to check out the logos and labels.

"Imagine how life would be enhanced if we created a Commission for Mountains, and a Commission for Watersheds, and another Commission for Flatlands, and for Lakes, and a Commission for Forests."

Don't California state government, do you. Why go on with such moronic asides before taking a few minutes to look up the kinds of things you stupidly assume do not exist? Reading difficulties? Comprehension difficulties? Don't know how to look into state government? Can't deal with Google?


As for the dolphin angle, add the movie "The Cove" to your viewing if you haven't already seen it. The approach of the town of Taiji to dolphins is a lot like the approach of the Old Guard and property wrongs crowd in HMB to coastal values.


Well folks, there you have it. Mr Pitching did stick his head out from behind Mr Drullard's skirt, but chose not to answer the questions that he provoked with his accusatory comments.

He prefered to be smarmy with someone else. What a surprise.

Make of it what you will.


Please Educate Us,

Thank you for bringing us back to topic, I could not agree with you more. Us Coastsiders along the San Mateo County coast know full well the nasty nature of eco thugs. Typically they use fear, smear, and then when or if any opposition arises they change the topic. Enough about them or me or anyone.

This topic is about the chronic and recurring forces aligned against people that live in our coastal zone. Here are a few of the dots of those forces that I have found.

FOLLOW THE MONEY- The eco-thugs include many zealots, but if you want to know who is their backbone, follow federal and state grant monies. Carefully look at the recipients of our money, and how the eco-thugs use that money, and how that money is reported, Right NP? Right, Francis?

FOLLOW NON- GOV -ORGS- This is a major point of this topic. Follow ORCA, and Green Foothills, and Vote the Coast, and POST, and Coastal Land Trust, and the Sierra Club, and many others.

ATTEND THE MEETINGS, WATCH THE SPEAKERS-- Go to key meetings of any of the Local Coastal Programs in CAlifornia, Watch the County and City staffs FACE OFF with the Coastal Commission and their staff. Pick any key piece of litigation with which the CCC is involved, look at the issues, Look at upcoming legislation.

Get involved. Read. Talk with neighbors. TAlk with your local elected officials about your concerns with loss of Local Control.

Connect the Dots.


"Well folks, there you have it. Mr Pitching did stick his head out from behind Mr Drullard's skirt, but chose not to answer the questions that he provoked with his accusatory comments."

Aren't non-answers to non-questions appropriate? Or am I to be your stringless yo-yo, baby?


Connect the Dots imagines so many of the little round things that they create a blackout of reality for him/her. With the world around them occluded by made-up shadows, pretty soon the ranters find themselves at midnight, stuck in a cave without a light.

"Go to key meetings of any of the Local Coastal Programs..."

Ignorance is free. Showing it on TalkAbout is priceless.


NP,

I never see you in the meetings that you presume to understand. Are you a hoax or merely a joke in your own mind. As you may or may not know the LCP meetings are very important to the coast where you and I live.

OK, go ahead and do another meaningless attack on me.

But I have an advantage, I know you.


The intricacies of interactions between the Coastal Commission and its shills needs a road map for the regular people to grasp the enormity of conspiracy. Very soon many of these nefarious and criminal dealings will be unveiled.


Hmmm -- You may not realize it, but you have the same access to Commissioners as everyone else. You can ask to meet them to discuss projects that will appear before them in a public hearing. Not all will agree to do so, but many do. You can also attend public hearings and provide public comment on a specific project during its hearing, or general items.

Beware, you need to have your poop in a group and get off your duff to be effective. Rants like the one above from the comfort of your computer station won't get you very far.


"You can also attend public hearings and provide public comment on a specific project during its hearing, or general items."

Yes, one can do that. However, it's very difficult to have a meaningful dialog when the individuals one's trying to share a point of view with are playing card games on their laptops instead of listening.

The Commissioners need to be engaged when they're being spoken to; typically, they're not.

But you keep singing their praises Francis. Sooner or later someone might swallow the crap you offer.

We're so fortunate to have outsiders like yourself tell us how to live. Still nothing to do in your neighborhood, huh?


Please educate us wrote:

"But you keep singing their praises Francis."

"We're so fortunate to have outsiders like yourself tell us how to live."

If you make unsubstantiated statements like those during public testimony then it's no wonder the commissioners would prefer having their teeth filled than listening to you.


"unsubstantiated statements"? all one has to do is scroll up, or pick any other thread that has anything to do with the coastal commission to see your shameless pandering for them and your badgering of those that disagree with your views. There's plenty of evidence, which flies in the face of the quote you offered.

To the best part; "... it's no wonder the commissioners would prefer having their teeth filled than listening to you."

I'm afraid they'd have to go to a proctologist to get their teeth filled. Say hello for us while you're in there trying to get their collective heads out.

It still applies, so I'll say it again: "We're so fortunate to have outsiders like yourself tell us how to live. Still nothing to do in your neighborhood, huh?"


"I never see you in the meetings that you presume to understand. Are you a hoax or merely a joke in your own mind. As you may or may not know the LCP meetings are very important to the coast where you and I live."

What meetings? What the heck is an "LCP meeting"? Are you, in your garbled way, referring to a meeting of the local PAC with the initials "LCP"? Elsewhere, you refer to meetings of the "Local Coastal Programs"? Huh? Please let us know what you are dreaming about.


Please educate us -- "all one has to do is scroll up, or pick any other thread that has anything to do with the coastal commission to see your shameless pandering for them and your badgering of those that disagree with your views. There's plenty of evidence, which flies in the face of the quote you offered."

If it's so evident, why do you repeatedly fail to provide any examples?

Rather than blame me or the commissioners for your poor lobbying skills, why not improve those skills instead? I've had pretty good luck basing my arguments on the spirit and intent of state law and using relevant and verifiable facts. Trying being less lazy intellectually and do the work necessary to support your arguments. Don't rely on others to do it for you. Instead of asking others to "scroll up" or "pick any other thread," do it yourself.

It may have been eons ago, but remember what your mother told you "if you want it done right ..."


Aren't we up and at it early today. What, all those blogs to spam?


busy day, huh Francis? -- Same as any other weekday. But what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

If you clowns -- and I do mean clowns -- spent as much time considering the law and relevant facts as you do dreaming up silly monickers and lame rejoinders, dealing with the Coastal Commission would be far less frustrating for you.


Gee, hate to do this to last word francis, but speaking of the coastal commission, did you know that they sent a letter in for the Big Wave DEIR? Yup, they are one of the 243 letters received. Some sent in multiple letters. I'm a little surprised, although I shouldn't be. Committee for green foothills also sent a letter. No surprise there.

Like flies on bovine waste, the swarming has begun.

Here's the list of letter senders: Web Link

Here's another thread on the comments: Web Link


Whenever people take the time to look around and review the enormous stream of data emanating from the Coastal Commission, with all their lawsuits, and enforcement actions, and even donations to our very own HMB CC by Coastal Commissioner Steve Blank, and their affiliated NGO like ORCA, CGF, Sierra Club, LCP one QUICKLY realizes,

I need to connect the dots.

Something stinks in the Coastal Zone.


Any relation to Jammie, Connect the Dots? Or simply overdosed on messages from Brian Ginna?

A good scandal requires specifics that the accused parties cannot easily wiggle out of--not the ranting of some demented skeptic waving a magic marker in the air in an attempt to connect imagined fuzzballs.


"Any relation to Jammie, Connect the Dots?" That would make you a relative of Connect the Dots; not blood though, as Jammie is only your significant other and (hopefully) not your first cousin as has been reported; although this is the SM coast. We've seen it before.

Anyone hear a banjo?

Is it your secret desire to belong to ORCA? What, you and Sara aren't as tight as you'd like? Try sending her flowers on her birthday with a sweet little note of love. Might just lead to lunch, and who knows from there. You might have more of an in than you think. She has a soft spot for catchers and I'm sure she'd see and appreciate the irony of your moniker.

If you get as far as lunch, order more than you can eat and eat as much as you can. The more often your mouth is stuffed with food, the less conversation you'll be able to offer improving your chances of getting into this highly coveted shadow (state) government.


passing through -- Seems you do a great deal to justify liberal condescension. See .


oops, problems with linking to another site, try this instead:

Web Link


Gee, what took you so long, last word francis? We've missed your self righteous and blind support for your buddies (in your mind) at the commission. We are, however, grateful to you for keeping this topic alive. It's important that as many as possible recognize the black boot policies and actions of your commission.

I gotta tell you that you had me chuckling with your latest folly. I had a mouthful of coffee when I read your latest; darn near had coffee coming out of my nose. It was a struggle.

Ok, your turn. We wouldn't want this thread to just disappear into the electronic clouds, now would we francis? Way too much good stuff here.


passing through -- Other than confirming you don't have a clue what you're talking about, what is the point of your last post? Just another pathetic attempt to appear relevant? If so, I'm happy to keep this thread alive to shine a little light on ineffective anonymous thugs like you.


You are so pathetically predictable, dear francis.

As long as you're here, let's provide more fodder for your slanted responses. On another thread, Web Link , someone posted part of the commission Agenda for Feb. I'll c&p the comment below so we can all appreciate your perspective on it. I'm sure you'll have some clever little antidotes for us:

"And lets not forget the abuse from all the anti-growth people who are screaming over 1 home being built." Excellent point. Here's an example: Web Link This is from the Coastal Commission's February Agenda. Please note Items 10 a & 10 b, both appeals, both in HMB.

10 a, you'll notice, has Kevin Lansing appealing a City approved project; a two story 2885 sq.' single family home. John Irwin and Alice McClelland are the applicants. This appeal has been withdrawn.

10 b, you'll notice, has Steve Blank and Mark Stone, two of the Coastal Commissioners, appealing another City approved project: a two story single family home. Marcos and Esther Hernandez are the applicants.

We've seen this lack of ethics many times at the Coastal Commission. Commissioners (usually staff pulling pre-signed appeal forms and filling them out FBO the Commissioners whose signatures they have at the ready) appealing a project here in HMB...appealing the project to themselves! Is this a Great State or what.

Just for the fun of it, you should scan the staff report on this one: Web Link

I'm surprised the appeal doesn't blame them for the world going from flat to round or for the lack of world peace!

Yes folks, it's out there for anyone interested. If I didn't know better, I'd think they had it in for us here in HMB.

Time, Steve; and we all know what time is, don't we? Money, the applicant's money.

It's a sorry state of affairs (play on words intended).

my understanding is, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on February 3, 2010 at 10:43 pm

There ay go, last word francis. Have at it. Go ahead, justify your black boot buddies thuggery (I just love your use of the word, but think mine is more in line with the definition).


I forgot that links don't work when they're copied, so here are the two links again, in a usable format:

1st link above: Web Link

2nd link above: Web Link

Wouldn't want you short changed on data.


I am so glad I checked out this thread; vintage Now Pitching deluge of condescension, accusations, pontifications and insults...but NO answers or clear facts on anything. I guess one gets this way when you spend a great deal of time picking sheep droppings out of your underwear. NP, go sit in the middle of your "wetlands" and commune with the red legged frogs; you are of like mentality and share a common kinship with pond scum.


passing through -- Your last post is more proof that you're a rambling idiot. I didn't post ANY comments in the thread you linked to.

Slow down a bit. Take some medication if necessary. Then try to make a cogent point that others can follow. But most of all, don't be so damned presumptuous.


passing through -- Okay, you've linked to some staff reports. And?

Again, what is your point? Do you even have a one, or did you just emerge from a dark closet with an empty bottle of whiskey in an ornery mood?

If you goal is to change minds about a particular matter, you're doing a lousy job of it.


nature lover -- Your hostility towards natural resources isn't very compatible with your moniker. Just sayin.'

As for NP, I have yet to see his detractors ask him or her a straightforward question that is relevant to the topic at hand. Most just resort to puerile insults such as those you delivered, then skulk away when he or she responds in kind.


Well, Francis, pardon me, but I have gone toe to toe with the infamous and much reviled NP and HE is the one who skulks away. I know who he is and I am fairly sure he isn't a "she"..although, who knows. As to my "hostility toward natural resources"; to which "resources" do refer? Weeds, wetlands, red frogs? Are these resources?

They are mainly resources to those eternal nay sayers who use them to try to stop any form of building or human progress; people like the much and deservedly scorned NP. REAL wetlands have their value; those "wetlands" in Beachwood and in Wavecrest, created by dishonest politicians or products of enviro-extremist fantasy, are places where people who walked through got dust on their shoes. "Wetlands" and "resources" indeed. Go read more science fiction.


oh, poor francis. Work on your reading skills, then your comprehension skills, please. I don't recall saying that you had any input in the thread I offered for your slanted opinions. You state "I didn't post ANY comments in the thread you linked to." Please show us where anyone said that you did (this ought to be good).

I offered the thread, and one of it's comments, for you to read (capable of that, aren't you?) and then pontificate on (we know you can do that).

You say "Slow down a bit. Take some medication if necessary. Then try to make a cogent point that others can follow. But most of all, don't be so damned presumptuous."

Is that the advice your shrink offered you? or maybe you feel so much superior to the rest of us Earthlings?

Try again, please, but this time pay attention to what is actually written. It will enable you to provide a much more "cogent" response.


passing through -- Again, what is your point? I've got much better things to do than guess what some snarky little turd is trying to say or chasing the numerous links they provide.


Francis - "snarky little turd"...would this fall into the category of "peurile insults"? Are those of us who live in glass houses beginning to throw stones? You and your Siamese twin, the Nipper, better go back to your shared burrow and come up with some new material.


nature lover -- Perhaps you can decipher the mystery point that "passing through" is trying to make, and is so doing make a worthwhile contribution to this thread.

That's the challenge. Can you meet it, or do you prefer to continue a pointless argument? My guess is the latter, but I could be wrong.


This back and forth with you, francis, is worthless if you can't pay attention and follow very simple concepts.

"passing through -- Again, what is your point?" I would have thought it was clear, and for most it probably is.

"I've got much better things to do than guess what some snarky little turd is trying to say or chasing the numerous links they provide." Now is that any way to talk to someone? Would you talk to your mother like that? "..snarky little turd..." Very mature, francis.

The thread I posted the link to is just a thread containing the comment I copied and posted (from it). I wanted you to have a complete picture of the context in which the quoted post was within. Read the thread, don't read the thread - no matter, you're call. It is the comment reposted (without permission, I might add) that you may want to focus on; that is IF you want to stay on topic (see title of this thread and it's original comment if you've forgotten).

The reposted comment discusses two of the Agenda items from the ccc's upcoming meeting. I don't see the reposted comments as difficult to read, or hard to comprehend, but then I don't think like you (thank goodness).

You are and have been a blind disciple of the commission and it's members. I thought it might be enlightening to everyone if you'd offer your view on the reposted comments. I realize that when things don't go your way you get uncomfortable and hijack the topic with misdirection and personal affronts, but I didn't expect you to take that path so quickly in this case.

Allow me to try to clarify the picture for you, francis.

On another thread (which I provided the link for, and you complained about) Steve Hyman was commenting on how difficult building on the coast can be. Someone named 'my understanding is' posted the comments I copied and pasted here for your reading and commenting pleasure.

You'll note, if you bother to read what was written rather than what you'd like, that the 2 items mentioned are appeals; one by Kevin Lansing and the other by commissioners Blank and Stone (and their crack staff). We've seen this type of behavior before and I thought you may want to comment on it. You sure weren't shy when this exact point was raised, the same way, on the Saso Gale project. Oh, no, you just couldn't comment enough then.

What's the matter now, francis. I doubt you've seen the light of the blatant commission corruption, so what's the hold up?

Changing or redirecting the topic isn't going to cut it. If you can't handle the topic, just don't comment; but name calling (turd?) is so juvenile, so childish and so transparent.

Contained in one of your misdirection attempts above you state, "If you goal is to change minds about a particular matter, you're doing a lousy job of it."

I doubt anyone here is going to try to "change" what little mind you may have, but that doesn't mean you have nothing to offer the dialog. In an attempt to encompass a broader opinion base, I've provided the basis to you for that goal.

Do you understand what's being asked of you now, francis?


Essentially, it appears to me that he feels you have misconstrued his message or failed to respond to points he has made. Many of the same accusations are pointed at your "brother", NP. The Nipper's postings are usually implications that the people with whom he disagrees are stupid or uneducated. He really almost never gets into productive exchanges of ideas; if you disagree with him, it is because you're stupid or need to read more books. I levy my "puerile insults" (I see I misspelled that in an earlier entry - careless typing) on NP because his whole manner of dealing with people on TA is almost without fail condescending arrogance couched in sophisticated English but with almost no substance; why would one attempt to discuss anything with anybody like that? It is more fun to just ridicule him and that is what he deserves. There are people I know who, were they to meet him face to face, the Nipper would not leave the encounter perpendicular; he would be horizontal.


passing through -- Let's see if I can weed through all the flak you've tossed around while your little friend nature lover is nipping at my heels ... paraphrasing Ronnie Reagan once, there's got to be a pony somewhere in all that manure.

In the sixth paragraph of your most recent post, you state your opinion that I am a blind disciple of the Coastal Commission. Nothing specific to back that up, though.

Moving on to the ninth paragraph, you observe that Kevin Lansing is an appellant on one local item in the upcoming CCC hearing and that Commissioners Blank and Stone are the appellants on the other.

You then infer that those observations are clear evidence of corruption, but being a snarky turd, you fail to say why you think it is corrupt or who is being corrupt.

Hell, you don't even bother to mention the issues involved in those appeals, or what staff recommends. That tells me several things about you. One, you don't care about the issues. And two, you remain ignorant of both the law and the processes used by those charged with enforcing that law.


Sorry, Francesco, but I don't "nip at the heels" of people like you; your kind nips at mine. What "passing through" has mentioned about that family over on Terrace and what your pal, Kevin (along with the other enviro-nuts), did to them incites extreme rage. That was a complete travesty and, in old Half Moon Bay, there would have been horrendous retribution.

Again your comments about "snarky turd" and a "pony in all that manure" shows your own hypocrisy and love of "puerile insults". If your clone, NP, were speaking here, he would make some stupid comment about "middle school playground insults" and "open mouth breathers" - does the shoe fit? If so, wear it.


Guys and Gals--

Could we please talk about ORCA and abuses within, and by, the CCC?

I found a great html link on California Natural Resources Agency California Natural Resources Agency—

Web Link

Their Mission Statement

To restore, protect and manage the state's natural, historical and cultural resources for current and future generations using creative approaches and solutions based on science, collaboration and respect for all the communities and interests involved.

On their website you can find a summary of bond issues and grants, a listing of conservation easements registry, Marine Life Protection Act, and Protection against invasive Species.

ORCA is milking all of those sources of funds.


OK, if that's the format you prefer, I can adjust.

You paraphrase a Reagan quote in paragraph one of your most recent post (right after nature lover's comments above, which apparently you didn't care for, either). Here, I'll provide a direct quote from him for you: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" He prefaced that comment with "beware..."

Another one of Reagan's gems seems to fit here: "There you go again." That, of course, could apply to any of your comments, but let's attribute that gem to this marvel from your keyboard; "...but being a snarky turd, you fail...", from your 4th paragraph. There are those that might believe that if it weren't for low class, you'd have none at all.

You end your 2nd apparent drug induced paragraph with "Nothing specific to back that up, though." Most are smart enough to scroll up. There is a collection to choose from, just on this thread alone; but one could easily go to any commission topic thread and see more...many more. Back it up? francis, you do that well enough.

Your 3rd paragraph restates part of what I described. It shows me that you are capable or reading and moreover, that there is some level of comprehension; fantastic.

Your 4th paragraph resumes your flighty thought process, if that's what we want to call it, by not reading what I wrote (but I'll bet you did read it, didn't like it, and couldn't come up with a reasonable defense to it, so attack the person, complete with playground name calling). Here, let me repost part of the repost...the pertinent part, for your benefit; "We've seen this lack of ethics many times at the Coastal Commission. Commissioners (usually staff pulling pre-signed appeal forms and filling them out FBO the Commissioners whose signatures they have at the ready) appealing a project here in HMB...appealing the project to themselves! Is this a Great State or what." You may note that I mentioned the Gale appeal above.

I suppose you feel it's OK for a commission staffer to have a drawer full of appeal forms complete with commissioners signatures, standing at the ready to appeal a project they don't like; Then, sit in judgment of the very appeal they generated. North Korea is looking for some fresh followers that are sympathetic to their way of thinking. I'll bet rents are cheap for those that carry the torch.

To polish it all off, the garbage you spew I mean, your 5th and final paragraph states, in part, "Hell, you don't even bother to mention the issues involved in those appeals, or what staff recommends." I suppose the two links provided, at extra effort on my part I might add, didn't appeal (play on words intended) to you? One link, to refresh, is to the commission Agenda and the other is to the staff report for 10 b.

Unlike you, I address each of your paragraphs with comment. See how it works, francis? You make a comment and I respond to the comment you made; not to what I might like it to be, and I don't ignore what I don't agree with. You should try it. If you call what you did above trying it...try harder. You can do better, francis.

Please try to focus on the issue(s) at hand. I don't have much more time here today as I have other things to do...productive and fun things, as opposed to this.


boys,

Time Out.

This topic is about ORCA. If you want to talk about manhood, take it outside. (I dont know where Clay is, so that is the best I can offer)

Francis,

Do you have anything to offer in defense of ORCA?


While our buddy last word francis is compiling his fictional novel, I thought I'd comply further with one of his requests. Above, as he often does, he complains, in an obvious attempt to misdirect, that examples of his support for the black boot tactics of the commission aren't provided; which I, along with others have disagreed with (each and every time).

Anyone reading this thread will see many examples of his pandering to the commission, for their benefit. As I've already stated, just scroll up and see for yourselves. I've also mentioned that there are many other examples of his blind allegiance to the commission and that they can be found, typically, on pretty much every thread that talks about the coastal commission (and there are a lot of them here on walkabout).

One such example, titled "Sins of California Coastal Commission, Part Two" happens to be the second highest commented on thread on TA. Here's the link: Web Link

Please note that francis is even more prominent on that thread than he is on this one, but the theme is constant and consistent; support the black boot tactics of the commission and attack (preferred method is personal, with name calling) the author of any comments that don't demonstrate complete reverence and submission to the commission.

It doesn't take anyone very long to see that francis is incapable of providing reasonable and logical answers to support the commission and the individuals that comprise the commission (staff too). That may be because the commission, the commissioners within, and their staff are neither reasonable or logical. Example after example of commission offenses are laid out for all to see, but poor francis is blind to them.

It's nice to know that outsiders still want to tell us what to do and how to live. And here I thought that disappeared with the November 2009 City election results.

Gee, guess I was wrong.

Hit the link and check it out. Our little outsider buddy is like horse manure...he's all over, but his mindset, approach, and tactics do not change from one thread to another.


nature lover -- Were you not such a measly little ankle-biter, you wouldn't presume that I know Kevin Lansing (I don't) or the family on Terrace (I don't).

back on topic -- ORCA is privately funded, thus your claim that "ORCA is milking all of those sources of funds" is completely unfounded.

passing through -- The issue at hand is whether or not appeals by Kevin Lansing, Steve Blank and Mark Stone are corrupt. You've blathered on a great deal about me today, but you continue to avoid explaining why you think that's indicative of corruption, something that shouldn't require more than one paragraph if it were true.

But why write 1 true paragraph when 10 snarky ones will do, eh?

boys will be boys -- Do you have any specific accusations that would warrant a defense?


Oh man, what a letdown. I happened across this thread about two hours ago while surfing the topics. I saw it was active so I hit it. It has been both entertaining and educational for me. Entertaining watching Mr Drouillard dodging issues and specific points while passing through has been just nailing him with facts. To the point of almost overwhelming him.

I see your points, passing through. I think Mr Drouillard just can't handle it, kind of like that movie when Jack Nicholson says "You can't handle the truth". That was a good movie, great scene and slivers of it appear here which I find entertaining.

If I were you passing through, I wouldn't waste another moment on this Mr Drouillard. He doesn't seem to know right from wrong, he is repetitive with nothing tangible to say and I doubt he'll stop his pandering, as its been put, to and for the Coastal Commission.

I do want to say that I was so looking forward to a good response from Mr Drouillard to passing through's comments. What a let down, although he did manage to offer more offensive and off topic remarks in his last post; going from attacking one poster to attacking four posters. Looks like he picked up three new friends today.


bored and needs help -- Great, another snarky turd of a troll that fails to address the question at hand, which is: why are appeals by Kevin Lansing, Steve Blank and Mark Stone corrupt.

Do you want to address that simple question, or do you prefer instead to make me the topic of this thread?

My guess is the latter because you won't (or can't) support the anti-CCC inferences, implications and innuendos resplendent in this thread. Don't worry, there are plenty like you at this site.

Face it, most of your wild ideas about the commission are based on ignorance. No matter how much prodding is applied, no one has been able to provide any evidence that either Kevin Lansing or any of the Commissioners is corrupt as a result of their appeals. It's clear that most of you don't like the practice, yet you can't explain why you believe it's corrupt. Granted, it's much easier and way more fun to make me or anyone else that disagrees with you the issue. At the very least, it attracts the snarky turds and trolls.

Same goes for ORCA, a group of like-minded individuals regarding coastal planning issues. You may not like it, but we're exercising our Constitutional rights, namely of freedom of association and the right to redress government.

ORCA's a great organization with one simple goal -- enforce the Coastal Act. We're getting better at it, too, as evidenced by the venom and vitriol now hurled our way by those prone to knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

I suspect you can add a few county supervisors and city council members to that list as well. They really don't like it when you catch them violating the LCP they're charged with enforcing.

So keep cheering on the anti-CCC crowd that circles these waters. I'm content with beating them again and again at the CCC hearings with the same tools and the same methods that are available to them.

That said, I'd much rather spend my energy helping those willing to comply with the Coastal Act (or LCP) get their project approved by the local Coastal Permit Administrator or the CCC. It's really not that difficult a thing to do, unless you prefer to be confrontational.


People in California are totally fed up with the onerous and oppressive policies of groups like the Coastal Commission. At every voting opportunity you will see a host of new initiatives to take back our state. Web Link

Be sure and look at many of the new proposals for sanity and common sense.

Trust? Not for any government institution in California.

Belief? Not in our governor, state legislature or juciciary in California.

Time for HOPE & CHANGE.


From the NY Times comes a piece on CA and it shows change is coming. All you have to do is read and this November, go vote.

Web Link


Vote for what, bozo?


"There are people I know who, were they to meet him face to face, the Nipper would not leave the encounter perpendicular; he would be horizontal."

Oh, I'm so terrorized by the wemoan/nature lover veiled threat that I'm going to reinforce my bunker. Isn't it revealing that when sputtering fools have no taunts left in their juvenile arsenal, they resort to mention of violence?


Now, now, Nipster, don't get your pink little panties in a knot. Nobody is threatening anybody or anything; I was just making an observation that you have developed many "interesting" relationships here on TA. I know how people feel about you; nobody is advocating such things, just stating facts. As far as taunts, it is SO very easy to pull your short little chain and such fun. I find you very amusing but I know a few who do not. Don't let them grind you down: I get a kick out of what an ass you make of yourself on such a regular basis.


You are so full of bull, NP. A "bunker", is that what you call that cave you live in?


Bill -- Now you're talking about changing the rules instead of understanding and playing within the rules.

One word of caution on promoting a California Constitutional Convention (other than it has the acronym CCC). It's not just environmental laws that will face the chopping block. Limits on property tax laws will be up for grabs, too, namely Prop. 13.

Personally, I would rather live with the environmental laws in place than jeopardize Prop 13.


"Bill -- Now you're talking about changing the rules instead of understanding and playing within the rules," says Druillard.

I'd suggest that you are making at least one assumption and that your assumption is off-base.

You state (stronger than insinuate) that Bill doesn't understand the {current} rules and that he doesn't play within them. I didn't read it that way.

What I got from Bill's comments and link was that he recognizes a good part of the mess we're in and, like most Californians, is sick of it. I also understand his point on mistrust of government, and most (me 2) agree with him. Btw, the poster following Bill, check this out, produces a NY Times link that corroberates Bill's post.

In closing, you say "Personally, I would rather live with the environmental laws in place than jeopardize Prop 13." This is also an assumption, a way off-base assumption that pits enviro laws against Prop 13. That is not true, not the case and a very weak attempt to jade the complex issues at stake with the simplicity of carrot and stick.

Missed the mark again, Druillard. Perhaps you have too much time on your hands.


rebutt -- There's no question that the intent of calling a constitutional convention is "changing the rules," so I don't see why you'd suggest I'm off-base or making an assumption in that regard.

This thread was largely about the "rules" and playing within those rules. Some think private citizens and commission members are corrupt when they appeal a project (but none have been able to articulate why). In other words, we've been talking about the rules.

Now comes Bill, who clearly wants to change the rules.

At this point, I'm indifferent about calling a constitutional convention. However, I know that everything will subject to change in a constitutional convention, not just environmental laws. Think Prop 13, Prop 8, and the super-majority needed to pass a tax increase.

And how can you characterize my stated personal preference as a "way off-base assumption." I checked with myself, and yes, that is my preference. No assumptions on that one at all!

Methinks you were a little to eager to "pile on." Better to wait until you have some thoughts worthy of sharing next time.

Try rebooting instead of rebutting next time.

Do you understand my point now?


"Do you understand my point now?" I'd say that everyone, including even the most casual visitors to TA, understand your point Drouillard. You've never deviated.

As just one example, I see 'nature lover', 'bored, but this helped', 'passing through', 'Connect the dots', 'busy day, huh Francis?', 'Please educate us', 'farmer', 'skygizmo', 'scorekeeper', 'Seal', 'Dennis Coleman's conscience', 'boogur', Terry Gossett, 'on the other hand', 'interested reader', 'Orca', 'what's in it for me', 'back to topic', Brian Ginna, 'Miss Trust', 'OBTW', 'don't think so', 'excused', 'MultiMillionaires Rule!!!', 'Special Interest', 'in the know', and more...just from this thread alone all seem to "understand" your "point" quite well.

And, since you mention it, "Some think private citizens and commission members are corrupt when they appeal a project (but none have been able to articulate why)", 'passing through was very clear in his/her response to your query, multiple times, but you just ignored it. Typical.


rebutt -- Care to defend your previous post, or do you want to change subjects in an effort to remain remotely relevant?

The number of folks that you think disagree with me is irrelevant. (To be clear, that doesn't mean I think those on the list are irrelevant.) If you're logic is sound you don't need to resort to mob tactics to make your point.

Which brings me back to the main point of this post -- why are appeals to the CCC by private citizens or commissioners, or both, corrupt. Although you're able to provide numerous quotes of mine and assert that it's been answered, you don't (or can't) quote any answers to that question.

Why is that? Take all the time you need to provide a simple answer, or assemble and enumerate another mob to provide cover should you fail to do so.

So, once again, rebutt needs to reboot.


Mr Drouillard, you may be able to draw others into your twisted little web, but I have neither the time nor inclination to play 'you're it'.

Although it's not my place to do your research, I'll take the time to provide you a few examples from this thread that meet your request. There are plenty more right here, but you're a big boy; thumb through them yourself.

To the ORCA conflict, I'd refer you to:

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm

excused, a resident of El Granada, on December 15, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Question???, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 15, 2009 at 5:32 pm

OBTW, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 15, 2009 at 5:50 pm

boogur, a resident of San Gregorio, on December 15, 2009 at 8:11 pm

The commenters listed above all seem to understand the conflict of interest and corruption from the Commission, the commissioners, the commission staff, and ORCA (which you are a 'member' of). I did not include the author of this thread, Orca, who seems to ask the right questions and provides good info. There are many more, but I wouldn't want you to feel ganged up on...even though you bring it on yourself.

Like most threads on the Commission, this one has taken a few twists and turns. Not only do we see the conflict of interests and corruption of Wan's little group, but we also get a dose of what it takes to get on the Commission ($$$ & lots of it; Steve Blank for example), we see valid discussion of the SM County LCP Update and how your buds at the Commission handle that, and we get another peek into the Commission's idea of appeals, where if no one else provides one, a staff member will get it done...so the Commission then becomes the appellant and the judge and jury. Sweet deal.

If you don't/can't grasp corruption just from what I've demonstrated here for you, then there really is no sense in going any further with you.

You know, Mr Drouillard, I'd frankly prefer that you at least recognize the issues being discussed and argue them with meritorious facts...even if we were to disagree, than to ignore all the data that has been provided you, at your request, because you prefer to feign ignorance. I don't think anyone is that mentally challenged (but, I've been wrong before).

Try drinking milk. It helps build bodies with a good daily dose of calcium (for backbone).


rebutt -- You and your mob are the ones are crying "foul" regarding appeals to the commission and the existence of ORCA. It's clear to me that you and your mob don't like anything about the commission or ORCA.

Face it, you don't like their effectiveness, so you've resorted to wailing about "corruption" where none exists.

If you can't present a reasonable analysis of "all the data that has been provided" and reach a conclusion in line with your accusation, let you're just another loud mouth in a rumor mill.


Wow; we've been waiting 13 hours....for that? Lame, lame, lame stuff fdrouillard. I can sure see why everyone that you engage , that bothers to respond, ends up walking away. They're all right; you have no interest in dialog or discussion. You won't even acknowledge the issues, and couldn't find a fact if you fell into it.

You are a piece of work, dude. Do you share physicians with Michael Jackson?


What's that you say? -- Great, another buffoon piling on.

I'm very interested in knowing why some in HMB think that appeals by other citizens or commissioners is indicative of corruption at the Coastal Commission. That's why I keep asking in the simplest terms possible.

Maybe those folks walk away from the conversation because they won't or can't provide a simple, straightforward answer. Looks to me like you're in that group.


Mr. Drouillard:

Many of us find the very idea of your adored Coastal Commission to be a travesty. Let's look in a non-confrontational and fair way at the problem. A person, with great sacrifice of labor and money, purchases a property; he pays interest on his loans, insurance and is further TAXED for the privilege of owning this piece of property. Along comes the "coastal" commission and claims dominion over just about anything related to the properties within FIVE MILES of the ocean. That is getting hardly "coastal" and, to many of us, it is an invasion of the fundamental right of property ownership. Additionally, so many horrible things have been done to innocent people whose only 'crime' is to want to have a home for their family. Again I take the case of the people who wanted to build a house in an established neighborhood on Terrace in Half Moon Bay. They had managed to get through the web of restrictions in place locally but were stopped by the Coastal Commission due to a complaint by an infamous and much despised local that they were encroaching on a phony "wetland" which was created by some infamous enviro nazis who were once in our city government. These hopeful home builders spent, I am told, some $250,000 in various permit and legal fees to try to build a house in an existing neighborhood and but finally gave up because of the wonderful efforts of your beloved Coastal Commission. This is justice? This is serving the people? I am enraged just thinking about it. Heads should roll for something like that. Were the other houses on either side of their lot not encroaching on their sacred "wetlands"? Please give me an explanation to lower my blood pressure...if you can.


You are not the first to try reason with fdrouillard, nature lover.

I don't want to stick my nose in your business, and your point is valid and well documented, but this guy is all about bullhorning his masters wishes and nothing about listening, factual evidence, or even reason.

You are wasting your time, like so many before you. He doesn't live anywhere near here, yet is very opinionated on how we should live and what we should think. He has no interest in any other view; only his own. He will berate you because factual data is a foreign concept for him and in his frustration of not getting you on board with him, he lashes out with personal attacks and ignores all input.

In addition, I'll bet you that his name will be the last one this thread sees. I guess he also believes that if he continues to repeat the filth he elucidates, it therefor is true.

I won't waste my time, but maybe you can go where no man has been. Good luck.


In these difficult economic times, why are we even funding a system which violates our basic rights like the Coastal Commission? Like a tumor, were we to cut off its blood, it would die a natural death. This could be one positive good that we could derive from this economic economic turndown.


I understand Francis' fascination with this whole "wetland" thing, froggies like frogs. Ohhhhhhh! What have I done? Was that an (gasp) ethnic slur? Naw, can't be.


Oh Wemoan, you've gone and done it now; you've upset nipper.

My suggestion is you promptly go stand in the corner...and no peeking, for 10 minutes. Then, if he'll/she'll/it'll accept it, grovel your way to forgiveness.

Isn't it cute how one sticks up for the other; fdrouillard & nipper. I guess there's some kind of catcher's club that extends beyond the Bay Area. Wonder what it takes to join? Does Wan send applications upon request? Does she give a two day one on one?

So many questions.


Ya know, "what's that you say", the Nipper is in a league of his own when it comes to catchers. He has caught so many pitches that his mitt is as big as a tractor tire. Poor bugger, he's getting hit on by so many he doesn't know which way to turn.


Ya know, "what's that you say", the Nipper is in a league of his own when it comes to catchers. He has caught so many pitches that his mitt is as big as a tractor tire. Poor bugger, he's getting hit on by so many he doesn't know which way to turn.


Watcha thinkin. Why'd you put dat twice? Well, I guess somethin dats da truth is worth sayin two times.


You don't like the Coastal Act. Big surprise, but in expressing that contempt you provide an answer to my question -- anyone involved in enforcing a law with which you disagree is corrupt.

That simplicity is certainly befitting the knee-jerk anti-environmentalists that use this forum.


There you go again, fdrouillard.

"You don't like the Coastal Act." Oh, francis, you are something else. Not sure what, but something else.

Please show us where someone on this thread has stated that they "don't like the Coastal Act". I wait with baited breath.

Where do you come up with such outrageous claims? Do you come to your conclusions first, then revise history and any other data (including imaginary/fabricated) to meet your conclusions?

That's what it looks like. Been like that since you first started posting on walkabout.


Francis: Laws such as the one creating the Coastal Act are the creations of people; people make mistakes and laws can be repealed. The Coastal Act, as it is often used, is very wrong; the intent when it was instituted may have been good but they way it has been employed has been very unjust - I refer, once again, to the case of the family on Terrace.

What do you say about that case? I would be interested in hearing how you would justify what was done to them.


Now you've gone and done it nature lover. I've been sitting here at my computer anxiously awaiting fdrouillard's response to my request, "Please show us where someone on this thread has stated that they "don't like the Coastal Act". I wait with baited breath."

The usually talkative fdrouillard hasn't responded, yet. I'm quite sure it's not because he's incapable, and it's certainly not because he mis-spoke (misdirected, lied?), so the only conclusion I can come up with is that you've scared him away.

I don't know how much longer I can wait. Maybe if you were to smooze up a little we can get him back and learn from his extensive wisdom.


"Now, now, Nipster, don't get your pink little panties in a knot. Nobody is threatening anybody or anything; I was just making an observation that you have developed many "interesting" relationships here on TA. I know how people feel about you; nobody is advocating such things, just stating facts. As far as taunts, it is SO very easy to pull your short little chain and such fun. I find you very amusing but I know a few who do not. Don't let them grind you down: I get a kick out of what an ass you make of yourself on such a regular basis."

What a lot of babble just to back down on a threat. But that is how it is with the kiddies in the school yard--lots of bluster until they are called on it.


"I wait with baited breath."

I'll bet the rats are most attracted to you when playing with your friends in the sewer. So, how do you set that bait in your "trap"--eat a lot of raw anchovies?


Please don't be so foolish as to think everyone, or anyone for that matter, lives as you do.

Try to be civil. We know that's quite a challenge for you...but just try.


nature lover -- Please provide a link to the staff report for the Terrace Avenue project. If you don't have a link, then provide the date of the hearing. An item number and applicant name would be helpful, too.

But that's another topic. If you still want to get into it, start a new topic at this forum after you've read the staff report. At the very least, point to the pages in the report that identify what was at issue on the project.

Wetlands are valuable parts of the coastal ecosystem. They clean the water and provide habit for innumerable species. Many have been lost or degraded due to development along the coast. Because of their importance to a healthy coastal ecosystem, the commission does everything they can to protect them, even ones that are degraded. They may not be important to you, but that doesn't matter. The law is pretty clear on this issue.

However, there is also the issue of a "taking," which the commission strives to avoid. I don't know the details of the Terrace Avenue project, but a dollar to a donut says the commission didn't reject the project outright.

But I could be wrong, which is why it's important to check the staff report.


Whasamadda, now now. Can't get anyone to come close to you with that bait smell?

Maybe it was the smell that had your chum (a word almost too obvious for the moment) "What's that" banished from spelling class on the day they taught "bate"?


Nipper!!! You came out of your hole and saw the shadow; oh, wait, you aren't a groundhog, you are another species that likes to crossbreed with sheep...I'm sorry for my confusion. What happened? Did you not take your meds today? Did your favorite ewe have a headache? Take a cold shower; they tell me it helps. Now look at your colleague, Francis; he was being rather systematic and politely formal in his last entry. I will have to dig up the requested information about the infamous deed and maybe we will get some answers, explanations or disclaimers.


You two are like ships in the night, nature lover. You missed nipper; he/she/it was sprinkling it's scent galore last night, hitting 8-10 threads before retiring for the evening. Judging from the length of it's time online last night (hours) and the tone of it's comments, I'd say it was lonely.

Furthermore, I noticed that our nipper was after me last night here on TA, instead of continuing the dialog with you. That troubled me.

I don't want to get between you two as I know your relationship is special.

Perhaps, if you can dig up that stuff that fdrouillard has asked for, the dialog will get back to topic. After all, ORCA, the commission, commissioners and their beloved staff is what this thread is all about. (Got that, nipper?)


Please stop with the back and forth. Participate in a meaningful discussion or watch from the sidelines. Thanks.


Francis: The link to the data you require to be totally informed on the tragic issue of the lot on Terrace and the injustice rendered on its owners is the following:

Web Link

I would be very grateful if you could somehow come up with any justification for what was done to that family.

And Clay, as to the fun and games with the Mipper....he is the main reason why I even look at TA. He turns out to be (to use a Central American expression) the turkey of the party; he's the center of attention but he also ends up being the main course. It is all just for fun. We all love the Nipper and I am sure nature lover wouldn't exist but for the Nipper. The Nipper is nature lover's raison d'etre.

Be patient.


A few things to note right off the top. First, staff recommended approval with modifications, which included relocating development to provide the minimum 100 foot setback required by the Local Coastal Plan. Second, the CCC had to act on the application by July 24th, a week or so after the hearing date. And finally, the application was withdrawn.

Why didn't the applicant proceed with the project as modified by the commission so that the project would comply with the LCP?


Francis: The ruling would require that they build a house much smaller than what their needs were or what they wanted. Why are all the other houses all around their lot not tiny like that? Why were they not given their proper right to the use and enjoyment of their property which they purchased and upon which they pay taxes? The most outrageous and offensive aspect of this whole disaster is that the "wetland" is a fake. It was created by the man who was the mayor of Half Moon Bay at that time. He ordered the work crews who annuallly cleaned the drainage ditch behind Beachwood to not do anything, so water wouldn't go out to the sea. He then had ditches made so the drain water would go into Beachwood and create this "wetland". This atrocity and miscarriage of justice should be taken to the courts and criminal charges filed against those who have perpetrated it. Show me how this "protects our environment". Show me how that is justice.


How do you know what the applicant wanted and needed? How do you know that what the commission approvded wouldn't meet their needs?

The applicant is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property, which they could have done had they incorporated the commission's recommended modifications into their design. At the same time, they're NOT entitled to develop their property in manner that is inconsistent with the LCP.

If this was such a miscarriage of justice, why didn't they sue the commission? After all, if the commission's actions were so egregious, plenty of sharks that prey on homeowners in the Coastal Zone would have been happy to take the case.


Nipper: Excuse my digression; I have been involved in an intellectual discussion with Mr.Drouillard and I have neglected you. Were you "picking up the gauntlet" in that posting a few back? Were you actually rising to the perceived "threat" by some your newfound friends here on TA? How exciting! My perception of your type is that you would prefer to meet somewhere around a campfire and sing a few verses of Kumbaya. Well, Nip, I was talking to a friend who is into clinical psychology and, of course, we did a study of what makes the Nipper tick. She concluded that your hate for local, country people goes back to an experience you had when you were making a canoe trip on a backwoods river. It seems you encountered some hillbillies, one of whom you came to know a little better than you would have liked. A life altering experience! You even went so far as to give up your position of pitcher on the local baseball team and decided you like catching better. I know you have gone back to that same river time after time and have, sadly, never met you new friend again. Such is life, Nipper, time heals all.


"How do you know what the applicant wanted and needed?"

The applicant applied for a CDP for what they needed; nothing more, nothing less. The question wasn't what they need, as you imply. The question was is there a 'reasonable' alternative to what they need. What the commission was proposing, in fact, was that no project be built, but what they suggested was an alternative that did not meet the applicant's needs and did not fit with all any of the existing homes in the almost fully developed neighborhood. I might add that the neighbors all signed a petition of support for the applicant's design, which was a good fit with the other homes in the neighborhood.

Above the post I pulled that quote from, you had another question: "Why didn't the applicant proceed with the project as modified by the commission so that the project would comply with the LCP?"

The proposed "modification", as stated above, did not meet the applicant's needs, or wants, and would not have fit into the character of the neighborhood (existing homes). The applicant felt, and most agree, that he was in compliance with our LCP; and he was. The appeal was withdrawn from the commission, during the hearing, by the strong-arm tactics of the commission. While each commissioner was yammering, one at a time, about their thoughts on the project, the commission's crack legal staff was applying the old carrot v hammer routine leaving the applicant no option but to withdraw.

Regarding legal action, your question is misleading and out of touch. The action would not be against the commission, in this case, but against the City of HMB; which happened (initially). By this time in the process, the City had approved the project the 2 coastal commissioners appealed, but originally, the HMB planning commission and council (on appeal) denied the CDP (same structure both times). It wasn't until after the 2005 city election that we got rid of the no growthers and put reasonable people on the council and planning commission.

Remember, this was an appeal; an appeal just like what this thread, and so many others, have described which brings us right back to conflict of interest. It was a self generated appeal, bringing the applicant into the web so they could apply the carrot v stick to the applicant. By (forced) withdrawal, there would be no basis for litigation with the commission. They are very good at the game. I got the distinct impression that this was not their first trip down this dark ally; not their 10th, or 100th either.

Commission staff appealed this project (I'm sure you've noted, being such a commission follower) to themselves, then spent the first few minutes justifying their desire to sit in judgment of the very appeal they initiated. Therein lies the conflict, as has already been discussed.


now, now nipper -- Sounds like you want to keep using the same failed arguments over and over again. Good luck with that.

The site governs what can be developed, not what the applicant wants or needs. This is true from a zoning as well as a resource protection perspective. If the applicant has special needs that cannot be achieved at that particular site, then they need to find another site.

But the potential for a dramatic home is still feasible, especially it if it's outside of the appealable zone. Alter the plan as needed to provide the buffer (and a bigger back yard like the applicant wants). Go to two stories to get the maximum heated space allowed for that particular lot. Start fresh with the city of a CDP.

Once the city approves that design, the wetland issue goes away, which means the finding of substantial issue goes away. In other words, someone can develop that lot to its full potential. The CCC's actions have done nothing to devalue the property.

A strong dose of American ingenuity and creativeness would go a long way towards turning this project around.

Could it be that some of those that are most critical of the CCC's decision on this project are worried about the prospect of a two-story home blocking their view?


I just got here. Here are a few ideas.

If you want to talk about specific issues before the Commission, please provide suitable links, so that we can all be specific in our input and responses.

If you want to (and I do) get into the appropriateness of an organization named ORCA, whose members are hand selected and then trained by Sara Wan to make appeals to Sara Wan and other Commissioners, I am anxious to learn. It appears that Mr Francis D is one of those members, and certainly Lennie Roberts and Mike Ferreira are members of ORCA based on webcasts from CCC. Where might one obtain a list of all such ORCA members? It is not available at the ORCA site.


Hay -- If you belong to one of the many environmental organizations dedicated to protecting the California coast, you won't have any trouble becoming an ORCA member. Good luck!


I'd like to start, if I may, by saying that I'm trying to answer questions you've asked about the Terrace Avenue proposed project, commonly referred to as the Gale project. I feel I am qualified to to answer probably any question you may have, and am hopeful you will reciprocate. Toward that end, I take offense to your introducing comments to me. There is no need for either of us to take shots at the other, so log as each of us is being objective and genuinely trying to discuss a specific issue. Alright, that's out there; let's get to it.

"If the applicant has special needs that cannot be achieved at that particular site, then they need to find another site." I don't believe that the applicant ever vocalized any request for "special needs". His home was no bigger, better or different from the others in that neighborhood. So, I assume that you meant that the site dictated that his proposed project (home) made his proposal a "special need". Is that correct?

"But the potential for a dramatic home is still feasible, especially it if it's outside of the appealable zone." May I suggest that you go back and look at the staff report again. The project, and in fact that entire neighborhood is located on the east side of HWY 1, which excludes it from the Appeal Zone, as you've indicated you think it may be in. There is nothing "dramatic" about his proposed project. As I've stated before, it fits with the character of the neighborhood.

"Once the city approves that design, the wetland issue goes away, which means the finding of substantial issue goes away." Perhaps I wasn't clear before. Originally, the project was denied by the HMB Planning Commission. On appeal to the Council by the applicant, it again was denied. After the 2005 election, a new Planning Commission approved the project; the same project. On appeal to the Council, the appeal was denied, supporting the applicant's rights. The "wetland issue" did not "go away" as you state; nor did the Substantial Issue, as is evidenced by your coastal commission self appeal resulting in the staff report you have.

"A strong dose of American ingenuity and creativeness would go a long way towards turning this project around." I agree and I have a sneaking suspicion we'll get to that shortly.

"Could it be that some of those that are most critical of the CCC's decision on this project are worried about the prospect of a two-story home blocking their view?" No. Again I refer you to your commission's staff report. There are pictures and maps, not to mention a pretty good description of the surrounding area. Blocked views were never at issue. I'll also note that that particular neighborhood has one and two story homes throughout.

I'm beginning to think you took this lightly and did not read the staff report (don't feel alone; none of the commissioners read it either), but rather scanned it. I might suggest that if we are to get to the bottom of this that you read the report. I did, and so did the applicant. Take your time. I doubt that either of us are going anywhere anytime soon, and I am patient. I can wait. You'll need to be better informed to get to the next step.


I apologize for this following post, but I hadn't read Hey's comments and questions.

To Hey; thank you for your interest and desire to participate. So you know, a link was provided by nature lover 10 posts up; here it is: Web Link

It is the link to the coastal commission's staff report on this project's self appeal. Although incomplete, it is 105 pages, if memory serves. That is what we're working from so far. As this progresses, if it progresses, I'm sure more data will be introduced; but this is a good starting point. Nobody is ahead of anybody. We're all working from the same platform. In the interest of disclosure, I probably know more about the project than Mr. Drouillard, but that may change depending on how far we get.

I am hopeful that we can dissect this matter and reach the same conclusions based on the facts. We'll see how it goes.

"...the appropriateness of an organization named ORCA, whose members are hand selected and then trained by Sara Wan to make appeals to Sara Wan and other Commissioners,..." is most definitely part of this dialog. Jump in anytime. Look forward to it, and thanks.

Oh, and no you won't find ORCA's membership on their website. Would be nice, and it would make sense, but no.


I read enough of the staff report to know that there IS a feasible alternative that DOES comply with the LCP. In that case, the Commission is obligated to deny or modify the CDP, which they did.

There's nothing unique about this particular project. There's a wetland present on the property that Commission is obligated to protect, and the applicant argues unsuccessfully that:

1) the law doesn't apply to them, or

2) it really isn't a wetland, or

3) someone else created the wetland, or

4) the commissioners didn't read the staff report, or

5) the commissioners didn't understand the staff report, or

6) the commissioners don't care about people, or

7) the commissioners are corrupt, or

8) the law must be changed, or

9) all of the above.

The property has a wetland present. Deal with it.


Francis: This issue of "wetlands" is not something that came down to Moses in the Ten Commandments; it is something contrived by people, that's all. There is nothing sacred about the Coastal Commission and its ideas or of your LCP; all of this written in mud,not stone. Secondly, I KNOW that "wetland" was created by the bald guy who used to be mayor at that time with eco-political, power play motivations. The family who owns the lot in question had the bad luck of getting caught in the middle of this power play and, because the deck was stacked against them, they lost. Of course they lost but JUSTICE still needs to be done and the guilty punished.


"I read enough of the staff report to know that there IS a feasible alternative that DOES comply with the LCP." followed by, "There's a wetland present on the property that Commission is obligated to protect.."

These two statements contradict each other and are only separated by one sentence.

No Mr. Drouillard, you have not read enough of the staff report to know, because if you had you'd know that there is no "wetland" anywhere on the Gale property; never was and was never argued. You are mistaken.

If we are to have any reasonable discussion on this matter, you need to get up to speed. You need to read the data you (we) have, which you have not done "enough" of.

Your closing comment again reinstates that you are arguing a non existent point; "The property has a wetland present. Deal with it."

Attitude, Mr. Drouillard, attitude. What's up with this "Deal with it" comment?

Not only have you not read the staff report, you clearly haven't even looked at the attachments which provide pictures. It really couldn't be that difficult; look at the pictures and you'll see there's no "wetland" on the property.

Once again I will ask that you read the staff report. You, and everyone else looking at this thread have a copy. The link is planted twice above. If we are to have a dialog on this matter, you need to have the facts (which you do)and you need to understand the facts (which you do not).

The question now appears to be 'do you intend to read the report, get up to speed and argue this matter using the facts of the case' OR 'do you intend to argue this matter without the benefit of the facts, using misinformation, made up data and deliver it with a bad attitude?

I stand ready to argue the facts of the case. Where do you stand?


now, now nipper -- Where do I stand? Over here, shaking my head at your eagerness to re-hash the same failed arguments ad nauseam. IIRC, psychologists refer to that tendency as "undoing."

If I'm wrong, then get a real name, start a new topic and present your argument. You don't need me or anyone else. If there's anything new I may join the discussion. (Key word: discussion.)


Francis: "Failed arguments" only because the deck was stacked on the side of those who don't want to let somebody build. Now one understands why people sometimes take justice into their own hands.


nature lover -- Excuse me, but the CCC didn't tell Gale "you can't build." They said "you can't build that there, but you can build this instead."

That is hardly "stacking the deck" against an applicant.


"now, now nipper -- Where do I stand? Over here, shaking my head at your eagerness to re-hash the same failed arguments ad nauseam. IIRC, psychologists refer to that tendency as "undoing.""

That's it? That's the best you can do?

"If I'm wrong, then get a real name, start a new topic and present your argument."

You are wrong. The question is do you realize it? I have a real name, but that has no bearing on the "discussion" at hand. I see no need to start a "new topic" to present my arguement(s). The reason is clear; this "discussion" is right on topic. Why reinvent the wheel? We could not be more on topic. Well, at least I could not be more on topic; you, so far, have chosen not to read the data provided you (at your request) and prefer to deliver smarmy comments rather than "discuss" the merits and issues of the case you asked about.

What I am and have been trying to do is have an on topic "discussion", using a specific case (the Gale project) as the basis for that "discussion". I have provided you with your coastal commission's staff report on this item. What you have provided us, so far, is misinformation, defensive posturing, and a rotten rhetorical attitude.

The post I placed just above your recent response (if that's what you call it) contained this comment; "If we are to have any reasonable discussion on this matter, you need to get up to speed. You need to read the data you (we) have, which you have not done "enough" of."

In your flailing retort, you close your post with "If there's anything new I may join the discussion. (Key word: discussion.)"

At least one of us is trying to have exactly that...a "discussion", but as I noted above it is very difficult to engage in a legitimate "discussion" when one party has the facts of the case and is applying them while the other party has the facts of the case but refuses to even read them, let alone apply them to the "discussion".

This engagement with you is disturbing on several levels. First off, you asked for the data. It has been provided, twice. You refuse (so far) to read the data provided, yet you want to comment, with feigned authority, on a local case without any factual basis whatsoever; not because you don't have the facts, but because you refuse to read the facts thereby not allowing yourself the opportunity to engage in any reasonable "discussion" on the case.

Secondly, you have a pattern of this type of behavior and apparently have no genuine interest in a legitimate discussion. You have exhibited that type of behavior on every thread you've posted to. There's an old saying that goes; "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You continue to provide support for that saying. The shame of it is you have the data you need to change that, but refuse to read it (or comprehend it; probably a bit of both). One of us is being unreasonable.

I couldn't leave this dialog (?) without noting the most aggregious and blatant red flag you fly. You are a member of ORCA. You submitted an application to Sara Wan, a current sitting coastal commissioner. You have taken her two day, one on one intensive training...and passed! You, as a member of ORCA, clearly demonstrate the point that the author of this thread was making and now the most obvious question to me is:

Are your consistently demonstrated 'tactics' a reflection of your ORCA one on one training? Is this what Wan teaches? If so, what does that say about the coastal commission? Are all the commissioners like that? Based on what we've seen here in HMB, it certainly appears that way.

If you are in fact regurgitating what you've 'learned' from Wan and as an ORCA member this is how you represent that 'organization', how much faith can we, as mere rule following mortals, have in the State Agency called the California Coastal Commission? Do they also not read their staff reports? Do they also shoot from the hip? Do they also attempt misdirection? Do they, as you do, come to their preferred conclusion, then fill in the blanks not with pertinent data, but with whatever makes their conclusions 'valid'?

As a member of this exclusive organization (ORCA/501c3), founded by a sitting coastal commissioner (Wan) and framed to personally teach others (you) how to appeal cases to the coastal commission (herself, from her website) I would think that you would have an obligation to represent that organization the way it should be and wants to be represented.

Out of all this "discussion", the only conclusion of import that we have is that you don't care to read or comprehend the facts of a specific case; that you prefer to badger others, bully others with lies, misinformation and predetermined conclusions; that you do so with arrogance and out of ignorance; and that you polish off your posture with defensively rhetorical smarmy remarks, generally of a personal nature.

Don't you feel at all silly and self concious about putting yourself out there in such a state of disarray? Doesn't it bother you that even with the facts readily available, you are deficient in fact?

How can you argue the merits of an issue when you hold no factual knowledge? Is Wan going to give you a gold star for how you've represented yourself and ORCA here on TA?

So, what are we to think Mr. Drioullard?


now, now nipper -- If you want to know about the Coastal Act or how to get a project approved by the Coastal Commission, then I can help. If you want to skirt the law, or be an ornery and contentious miscreant hiding behind an anonymous name, then I can't.


Mr. Droiullard, you have me somewhat confused. It's clear that you don't wish to engage in an intelligent discussion on an issue you raised, asked questions about, then cut and run on...simply because you either can't read or choose not to read the data provided (again, at your request).

Perhaps you can answer this question, even though you haven't answered any of the other questions I've asked. Is it that you don't like the facts in this case? That they don't add up to the conclusion that you've aquired? Is that why you refuse to discuss the matter like a reasonable person, and prefer to cut and run mummbling incoherantly while running away?

You state: "If you want to know about the Coastal Act or how to get a project approved by the Coastal Commission, then I can help." My confusion comes from the fact that I was under the impression that the coastal commission's mission statement, their whole purpose for existing is to uphold the Coastal Act. I thought, along with most, that the Act was their Bible. You, as an emmissary of ORCA, a 501c3 founded by a sitting coastal commissioner whose sole purpose is to bring appeals to the commission, represent a 'shadow commission', if you will, that doesn't adhere to the very Act that allows the commission's very existence. It is a very telling commentary on the commission itself and falls in line lock step with what others above have described as black boot tactics.

What you have managed to show everyone reading this thread is that you, your personal trianer Wan, and by extension the coastal commission, have no interest in the law (Coastal Act) regarding it's intent or interpretation; but rather that you arrive at conclusions without the benefit of the facts and use whatever you feel like using to accomplish and justify that goal.

I'd like answers to all the questions I've asked you, but it looks like they will not be forthcoming. I am still interested in discussing the Gale appeal; it is exactly on topic, but you refuse to, or are incapable of reading the provided commission staff report. If you change your mind and find you do want to have a legitimate discussion of the facts, I'll be ready. If not, so be it, but next time don't start something that you are not capable of finishing. It really does make you look the fool.

Perhaps there is someone out there that can read, comprehend and discuss the facts of this case...but you don't appear ready, willing or able to perform.

The Gale appeal is a real case. These are real people, with real issues spending their real resources to accomplish a goal. You, on the other hand, are nothing more than a bump in the road by your own choosing, and I have to say here that I feel sorry for you. Aside from your unwillingness to act like an adult, you reflect poorly on ORCA, the Act and the Coastal Commission.

If I were Wan, I'd fire you; but then, you are what she seeks, aren't you?

Very telling. Thank you for your time.


now, now nipper -- For someone that professes to know the facts about the Gale project, I think it remarkable that you don't share any.

The facts for this project are identified and discussed on pages 23-29 of the staff report. Instead of getting yourself all worked up about me and other things you know little about, try addressing the items in those pages.

The fifth paragraph of page 24 is important. So is the last paragraph on page 27. Also, you may want to note the paragraph on page 28 above the section 5.3 Conclusion. It refutes an earlier assertion made by you or someone else that the applicant doesn't want a two-story home.

Finally, we have the second paragraph on page 29, which reflects what I wrote earlier regarding the potential for developing the site.

Now quit acting like a horse and have a drink.


Back in the day (70's and 80's) a lot of people would follow rock bands around the country from venue to venue to see them play and hope for that one special moment when one of the band members would pull them onstage, or wink at them, or even have intimate relations with one or all of the group. We called them groupies.

I never thought I'd live long enough to see a coastal commission groupie, but here we are with our very own coastal commissioner wannabe, who so far is only a commission groupie.

Isn't it funny how the more things change the more they stay the same?

Dirty shame fdrouillard wouldn't read the staff report so he could have something intelligent to offer on the Gale project, ORCA and the obvious conflict of interest with ORCA and the commission's self appeals. Just not up to the challenge and not qualified.

We might have actually had something, but instead we get off to a good start and fdrouillard chokes again.

Maybe next time we'll get someone with a little more brain tissue, reading skills, comprehension skills and communication skills...like Mark Massara.

What do you think about that now, now nipper? You game?


That Shallenberger gal is a bit of a hotty, that's for sure.


Finally, fdrouillard admits by non-rebuttal (that's a first) that he choked again.

He does, however, seem to have a soft spot for Shallenberger. Although I'm sure she's flattered, I suspect she's also confused. Most thought that fdrouillard's soft spot was for Kruer.

Learn something everyday.


Another snappy rejoinder!

But it was pointless. That appears to be the norm for those that disagree with me. Being unnable to identify the relevant facts or provide a rational analysis of their own, they demand it from others then declare victory when it isn't served up fast enough.

If you want to debate the Terrace Avenue project, at least take the time to clarify which facts you think are relevant and why the staff report is wrong, and base that analysis on the LCP.

Keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself and write something you'd be proud to associate with your real name.


fdrouillard continues his tail chasing techniques and character assaults, encouraging the same type of behavior from others, but has yet to answer any of the questions asked of him by numerous posters..the most recent being from 'now, now nipper'.

Speaking of which, now, now nipper sums it up nicely here: now, now nipper, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 am.

fdrouillard seems to want to believe the issues and responses are a Lazy Susan, something that just spins around for our consumptive pleasures. That is not the way it works, fdrouillard. You were unable and unwilling to correctly address any of the points of interest and concern, instead applying your usual duck, cover and misdirect tactics which have been identified numerous times.

You state "Being unnable to identify the relevant facts or provide a rational analysis of their own, they demand it from others then declare victory when it isn't served up fast enough." How funny. From where I sit now, now nipper has identified numerous relevant facts. You just choose to ignore them. "Served up fast enough"? How about served up at all? The only thing you've "served up" belongs in a sewer treatment plant.

I say bring on the big gun; someone who at least can read, comprehend and articulate a thought or position. You, frdrouillard, are not capable, as you've repeatedly demonstrated. Now, now nipper gave you every opportunity, at your own asking, and you failed miserably. You couldn't even answer one of the questions he/she provided. You couldn't and didn't even bother to read the information provided in the staff report you asked to see and was provided for you and everyone else at your request.

Why don't you call your buddy Massara and ask him to come over here and clean up your mess. There are plenty of folks around here that would be happy to discuss the issues with someone capable. Although his logic and interpretations are just as skewed as yours, he at least will be able to read and comprehend your commission's staff report allowing all of us the opportunity to discuss the many real issues presented.

You? Well you could always just go take a walk. The air might do you some good. At least you wouldn't be a further embarrassment to Wan and her shadow group. If Massara shows up, you could always grab a pen and paper and take notes.


Your taunts don't match your actions.

The relevant facts and the issues involved are spelled out quite clearly in the staff report. Why would anyone in their right mind engage you in a conversation on this topic when you persistently refuse to address the staff report?

Addressing the staff report is the only way to effectively influence the commissioners. You should try it sometime, unless you prefer to remain in a state of frustration.


Here we go with drouillard again trying to spin the table accusing others of what he's been called on so many times. We know your game. It won't fly. It's almost as if you quote now, now nipper's address to you...which you were quick to avoid and try to redirect.

Chase your own tail fd. We passed that point in our grow up years a long time ago.

Call in reinforcements. You need them, badly.For those that just joined us, here's an example of what I'm talking about from just above:

"I read enough of the staff report to know that there IS a feasible alternative that DOES comply with the LCP." followed by, "There's a wetland present on the property that Commission is obligated to protect.."

These two statements contradict each other and are only separated by one sentence.

No Mr. Drouillard, you have not read enough of the staff report to know, because if you had you'd know that there is no "wetland" anywhere on the Gale property; never was and was never argued. You are mistaken.

If we are to have any reasonable discussion on this matter, you need to get up to speed. You need to read the data you (we) have, which you have not done "enough" of.

Your closing comment again reinstates that you are arguing a non existent point; "The property has a wetland present. Deal with it."

Attitude, Mr. Drouillard, attitude. What's up with this "Deal with it" comment?

Not only have you not read the staff report, you clearly haven't even looked at the attachments which provide pictures. It really couldn't be that difficult; look at the pictures and you'll see there's no "wetland" on the property.

Once again I will ask that you read the staff report. You, and everyone else looking at this thread have a copy. The link is planted twice above. If we are to have a dialog on this matter, you need to have the facts (which you do)and you need to understand the facts (which you do not).

The question now appears to be 'do you intend to read the report, get up to speed and argue this matter using the facts of the case' OR 'do you intend to argue this matter without the benefit of the facts, using misinformation, made up data and deliver it with a bad attitude?

I stand ready to argue the facts of the case. Where do you stand?"

now, now nipper, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on February 12, 2010 at 7:20 am

How about you finish what you started instead of being such a tail chasing twit...if you are capable.

I tend to agree with those that say you aren't capable. That's why I'd like to see you call in your ORCA friends. Surely there's someone in that group that has the capacity to keep up, read the report, understand it and argue the facts.

If you are the best Wan can provide, all I can say is um, um, um.

I'm going to go out and play now, fd. But don't let that stop you from reposting your ...whatever, in yet another attempt to misdirect.

Do us all a favor. After you get done providing us with more of your last word crap, call Mark and ask him to join us; or call the big dog herself, Sara Wan, and ask her to come to your aid. You surely need it and we could surely some sort of answers. She won't be able to provide the answers we want because of the conflicts of interest involved and addressed on this thread, but at least she can cover better than you.

Think you can do that? or are we again asking too much from you?


So, you're arguing that there is no wetland associated with the property that requires protection ... is that right?

That's a relatively straightforward matter to discuss. Why'd it take so many posts with so many insults before you coughed it up? Are you that miserable a person?

Do you know what definition the CCC uses for a wetland? Do you know that there is no distinction between fully functional and degraded wetlands according to the Coastal Act? Do you know why?

Have YOU read the staff report? If so, will you please offer a tiny demostration that you have as a matter of goodwill? Or is common decency and civility above your paygrade?


Wetlands defined:

Web Link

Note that photographs wouldn't capture all the evidence needed to determine the presence of a wetland. That is especially true of the poor quality photographs in the staff report.

Also, check out the wetlands findings on pages 20-21. Note that the applicant's biologist agrees there are wetlands within 40 feet of the proposed development.

The presence of a wetland is pretty much confirmed, wouldn't you say?

If there's another basis for your vituperate tirade against this fairly straightforward commission decision on the Gale project, please clarify.

Seems to me you should be more upset with the City than the Coastal Commission. They're the ones that failed to grant reasonable setback variances. They're the ones that directed the applicant to change his design in a manner that couldn't be approved by the Coastal Commission.

Wetland or front setback? Hmmm. Which one is the Coastal Commission obligated by law to protect?

It's almost as though the City used Gale as a pawn in their war on the Coastal Commission.

You aren't defending the City's actions, are you?


Alright Mr. Drouillard, am I to understand that you are now ready and willing to discuss the Gale matter?

I stated above that "I stand ready to argue the facts of the case", and I am. I've had a long day today and would prefer to start tomorrow. Based on our progress so far, I think that's probably a fair position.

If you are now ready and willing, let's pick it up tomorrow. A good night's rest might do us both some good and we'll get a fresh start.

I look forward to a discussion of the issues and hope we can get through it this time.

Have a good night.


What a bunch of drama queens!

And a total waste of time. Nothing prevented you from presenting facts, performing analyses or presenting your conclusions. In fact, those were explicitly requested of you time and again.

You proclaim to have done so, but haven't. So far, you've only used this forum to launch personal attacks while hiding behind an anonymous name.

Given that you avoid relevant issues and use lame arguments that are way off the mark, it's no wonder you feel the need to do so.

Maybe you can do better after nappy time.


Apparently I was mistaken. I thought, based on your back to back flailing references to the Gale project that you were finally ready to discuss the issues and merits, but alas...I was wrong.

So far, Mr. Drouillard, all you have managed to do is demonstrate your ignorance through your predictably childish behavior (avoidance, name calling, not getting informed, no desire to see or hear anything other than yourself).

I thought, or maybe it is just that I was hopeful that you actually wanted to engage in some sort of meaningful dialog about the issues here using the Gale project as the platform. It is unfortunate that you continue to assume the same juvenile posture you've maintained throughout, but when you start off name calling (again), I doubt we can accomplish anything productive...which is probably what you were hoping for all along.

Since you've decided to take the attitude and approach that you have, I see no value in dialog. I'm not interested in a give and take of name calling; I have better things to do with my time.

I will say here that maybe there's some merit to the suggestions made about getting someone with more fiber and background on the issues and facts of those issues, like Massara or Wan, to come here in your stead and have a good discussion on the issues. At least they may have something of substance to offer.

I continue to stand ready to discuss (with any reasonable, knowledgeable individual) ORCA, the clear conflict of interest ORCA represents, the Gale project, the self generated appeals by the commission and staff and the obvious conflict of interest with that, wetlands of all types and of course Beachwood...which is at the heart of this all (for us). You sir, unfortunately do not.

My comments on the issues above stand on their own and clearly contradict what you have to offer. We'll just leave it at that.

The commission's staff report is here and available for anyone interested in the facts of the case: Web Link (again)


Francis:

That "wetland" you are making such a fuss about was CREATED by the Ferreira administration to prevent "growth"; this is a KNOWN fact. Since it is a faux "wetland" (I hope you are pleased with my using some of "your" language), it really has NO bearing on this whole issue. What would you say if we were to divert some drainage into YOUR yard and then declare it wetland? My God, we would have to tear your house down to correct that horrible stain on the eco-system, right? Can't you see the utter stupidity of this and the horrible injustice that was done to the family on Terrace? Sincerely, I feel there should be criminal charges brought up against those who perpetrated this whole fiasco on the people of this community.


Oh. I see. Better to just say you have a command of the facts than demonstrate that you do.

It's really simple. The City of HMB denied a plan that conformed to the LCP, then approved one that did not. Big "Oops!" by them.

The project was then appealed by an HMB Planning Commissioner writing as an individual. The project was also appealed by two Coastal Commissioners, Kruer and Shallenberger.

At issue was the buffer distance to a wetland and whether or not there were feasible alternatives to the proposed wetland that would provide the required buffer distance. The applicant proposed a 40-foot buffer, but the LCP required a 100-foot buffer.

It appears that the Commission was prepared to have the substantial issue hearing and the de novo review hearing all in one day, but the application was withdrawn by the applicant.

The staff report finds that a feasible alternative to the proposed project exists, and that that alternative would meet the requirements of the LCP. They further found the the 2-story structure rejected by the City would have complied with the LCP if a few minor variances were granted.

Nothing improper or nefarious so far, with the possible of a few City staff.

You may not like the outcome, but there's no reason to bellyache about the process. The CCC did the job it is supposed to do.


Not even the applicant argued that the wetland was created by others. As far as the CCC is concerned, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Neither the Coastal Act nor your LCP makes a distinction between natural and created wetlands. All wetlands are protected under the Coastal Act.

If you look at the appeal letter filed by Kevin Lansing, you'll see he's suggesting that the LCP could or should be amended. I don't know what he had in mind, but my guess it was a reduced buffer to an absolute minimum of 50 feet, provided that a "reduced buffer analysis" indicates that a reduced buffer distance with (mitigations) can be found to avoid adverse impacts on the wetland.

You may want to push your local leaders to go for such an amendment. The problem with that is that the Coastal Commission may subject your entire LCP to review and approval.


Francis: I ask you to please entertain the idea of how it would be if we diverted a bunch of drainage into your yard and then declared it a "wetland". Wetlands are supposed to be a creation of nature and, if somebody wants to create a "wetland", they should do it on their own property, not the property of others. Do you have NO respect for the right of property? If you don't then you shouldn't object to our creating a "wetland" in your backyard and forcing you to move your house away from it? The case of Terrace Ave. is just as preposterous as that. And, by the way, for you to invoke the infamous Kevin Lansing as proposing some "kinder" solution is a joke: he was the one who anonymously made the complaint that caused the mess to go as it did. Did he, perhaps, see the error of his ways and try to do something to diminish his damage?


Well, nature-boy, we agree. I dare Drouillard to come up with a straight forward and honest answer to your words. I doubt he has one.


Do you just not know any better? Are you proud of your self inflicted and perpetuated ignorance? You continue to deliberately miss all the points of fact.

The staff report is crystal clear, yet when I compare your comments to the facts contained in the report offered, there are no similarities.

The 'wetland' you refer to is not on the Gale property as you have stated: "There's a wetland present on the property that Commission is obligated to protect, and the applicant argues unsuccessfully that.."Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on February 12, 2010 at 6:32 am

The 'wetland' you continue to refer to is on the adjoining property; Beachwood.

The appeal that generated the commission's staff report had nothing to do with Lansing, as you suggest. It was a commission self initiated appeal, which has been the subject of many a dialog throughout CA in that some see that as a conflict of interest; a line of thought that I happen to agree with. You won't find that sort of behavior on a national level as our Constitution framers recognized what you and the commission fail to admit to, hence the check and balance of our three branches of government; Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Only in CA do we see a State Agency that not just blurs the lines of separation, but dives from one to the other at their desire, with no accountability. To have the power of accusation with no jurist prudence, and the power to 'convict' with fines and other severe penalties without the benefit of our Judicial system is a conflict of interest and illegal in 49 States and at the national level. The idea that the commission, staff or otherwise, can appeal any project to themselves, with the appeal generators sitting in judgment of their own appeal slams right through any definition of ethics I've ever seen. But the burden of proof is never theirs. It always falls on the ones that have been wronged, further exacerbating their resources. Very 'clever' move by Douglas.

Furthermore, you seem to enjoy exhibiting your ignorance with your comments by supporting that type of behavior, which is at the very least thuggery.

You might be interested in knowing, Mr. Drouillard, that the same project that was denied in 2005 by the HMB no growth PC and Council was the same project approved by the City and appealed by the commission to itself. Then, after they strong-armed the applicant into 'withdrawal', the Beachwood Findings of Fact and remedy were announced by the federal court that heard the case. The applicant, Saso Gale, then resubmitted the very same project as he had twice before. Once Beachwood was done however, you commission saw no reason for their intervention. The project was approved and the CDP was issued. Not a peep from your buddies was uttered. I wonder why.

Could it be, Mr. Drouillard, that there never was an issue with Gale or his project, but that the real issue from the commission's perspective was Beachwood, a political issue that your commission was contributory toward creating?

Could it be, Mr. Drouillard, that they just used Gale as their political platform (football) to endorse their support of the illegal "Takings" they helped create (May, 2000)?

Could it be, Mr. Drouillard, that the Gale project was just another appropriate, simple, legal project in the first place that just happened to abut a $37 Million legal action that proved costly to the applicant (Gale) and the City of HMB?

If you look at the report, you'll note that the commission staff even argued that rain falling from the sky becomes "toxic" once it hits a manmade object, Gale's roof in this case, and that inconsistent with any of the laws of physics that I'm aware of runs off the roof, draining off the Gale property, then takes a right turn going uphill over 40' to infect an alleged 'wetland' on the Beachwood property.

Yes, Mr. Drouillard, there are many inconsistencies, points of irony, flat out lies and a bunch of the applicant's resources expended because of your no growth clan and your commission friends; all of which turned out to be wrong, drying up and blowing away once Beachwood was determined to be what it was: a violation of the US Constitution...a "Taking".

Meanwhile, Mr. Gale has suffered years of indignations, slander, abuse (verbal, financial, and more), meetings up and down the state and more, all at his expense. It was/is wrong and any reasonable person can/will see it. The commission cares not.

Although you have made a point by point exploration of the issues here a complete waste of time with your transparent antics, you can not change the facts, the history here that implicates your commission and their staff in complicity of illegal activities, conflict of interest, and their embracing of increasing the burdens of applicants that don't meet their personal objectives while ignoring the law (the Act).

Black boot thuggery is exactly what your commission provides us here in the Coastal Zone. Oppression has never been welcomed by anyone, other than the oppressors. History is replete with examples of revolutions, whether violent or not, that turn the tide against those that oppress. Your commission's days as the organization they've become are numbered. In my opinion, the change can not come soon enough. Even how commissioners are chosen has been compromised; Steve Blank offers a good example of that. So from appointment to process, your commission needs restructure, not blind support. That restructure is coming.

We wonder, Mr. Drouillard, what you'll have in your feeble life once the day of reckoning comes.


As best I can tell, no one made the source of the wetlands an issue on the Terrace Avenue project. To take that a little further, please show me where in the LCP or the Coastal Act that the source or functional capacity of the wetlands is a factor in a review of the project.

As for how I would handle wetlands on my property, I have two things to say. First, the property I want to develop is within the coastal zone and is seriously constrained by the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and riparian areas. I've had to re-site the home and drastically reduce its size to minimize impacts. And, those remaining impacts will have to be mitigated.

As for my neighbor re-directing surface water onto my property that creates a wetlands, I would seek redress against them in court.

I'm not sure what I'd do if they created a wetland on their own property that further constrained development on my property. (That's what appears to be the case with the Gale property.) I suppose I'd sue them in that case, too, but I really don't know if I prevail since they have a right to create a wetland on their own property.

Don't they?


Looks like someone desperate to be relevant needs their rabies shot.


"As best I can tell, no one made the source of the wetlands an issue on the Terrace Avenue project." Is there no limit to the ignorance you display, or will display? Again and still you are wrong. I'll give credit where it's due; You are consistent. So far, every comment that you dribbled out has been wrong.

The reason, no doubt, is a combination of your arrogance and your inability to read and comprehend what you've read (if you've read anything at all).

Just like you lied about something as silly as viewing the film, "Sins of Commission", where you started out saying emphatically that you'd seen it. Through constant references by others to events in the film we discovered, through your bizarre comments, that you had not seen the video as you'd previously stated. Most call that lying. You continue your story telling here, implying that you've read the Gale v commission appeal (staff report), which you clearly have not.

Do you just sit there in your shorts and pull comments from your obviously active, but limited imagination? You continue to ignore the facts and replace those facts with made up and contrived fd'isms (called lies), like things that never occurred, were never discussed, or are floating around that cavity which is occupied by brain tissue in most humans.

Really, Mr. Drouillard, your kind are a dime a dozen; someone on TA refers to your kind as sheeple; a blind follower with not much activity or mass between the ears. Perhaps it was you they were defining.

When you part with comments like "Looks like someone desperate to be relevant needs their rabies shot", you show another side of your child like 'character'. I can't help but wonder if there's a mirror next to your keyboard prompting your comments.

'Mirror, mirror on the wall; who's most important of them all?'

Some will do and say anything to avoid the facts of an issue. Most call it spin.

For the sake of all reasonable people, Mr. Drouillard, take your spin and sit on it. That seems to be the appropriate spot for all your comments; probably the source of their origin.

You are hopeless, and with that realization, so is any form of reasonable dialog with you and anyone else (except yourself).


What kind of idiot writes the following:

"... Is there no limit to the ignorance you display, or will display? Again and still you are wrong. I'll give credit where it's due; You are consistent. So far, every comment that you dribbled out has been wrong."

but never says what the disagreement is or why they disagree?

A pathetic, irascible wretch, that's who!

You first tried to besmirch folks for exercising their constitutional right to freely associate and petition their government, namely the CCC. Then you tried to claim that the CCC erred grossly on the Terrace Avenue project. And now you're going on about that so-called "Sins of Commission" documentary. (Hmm, who could that be?) You also added a few threats for good measure.

And you have yet to post a single comment in this threadthat makes an unequivocal and cogent point, let alone one that is devoid of personal attacks.

What's wrong with you? Are opposing viewpoints that intolerable? Or just the ones you can't refute?

If you want to know why the Commission decides what they do, then I can help. I you want to be a raving lunatic that spouts off about the way you think things should be, then there's not much I have to offer.


"there's not much I have to offer." That's all you needed to say, and the only comment you've provided to this point that is cogent and true.


Why should I be burdened by a group of appointee Commissioners that dictate everything I must do in the coastal zone.

Why is it 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean?

Why do Commissioners donate to local elections to get their preferred candidates in office in the coastal zone?

I have a million questions.

Let me stop with just THREE.

I have no hope that anyone will answer any of my THREE.


Add another, Innocent Taxpayer. fdroouillard was accepted, hand picked if you will, to be a member of ORCA, the very topic of this thread. His actions and comments are a reflection on the entire ORCA 501c3. Makes me want to overnight my application to Wan.

I've seen more than a few on this thread try to talk with fdrouillard, perhaps thinking that as a member of Wan's esteemed group, he'd carry himself with some measure of professionalism and a modicum of respect. So far, that hasn't happened. All we get is more of what the Commission itself doles out, only with no imagination.

He is the very definition of shill and carries absolutely no shame in that capacity.

According to fdrouillard, the Commission is fair. All they do is follow the Coastal Act. They are not high handed. They are not self engrossed. The never break the law. They are user friendly and have a very strong interest in reducing the suffering of violations property owners endure. They want to make our lives better. They would never even broach a potential ethics violation, always taking the high road.

Yes folks, see it for yourselves. As a proud member of ORCA, fdrouillard should be proud of the way he presents himself. Class act, just like Wan and all the other Commissioners and staff. Great bunch.


Dang Francis Drouillard! Double Dang!! You are still debating this one? A thread started in December? Over 200 posts ago?

I am impressed with your commitment but the tone of your posts has gotten more and more angry. What is up with that?


Francis,

Once you realize you are trying to talk to a copy of the famous brass monkey trio, one which believes the world should operate according to its fantasies and self-serving preferences, the sooner you will realize that no aspect of coastal law that interferes with their off-the-wall whim can ever be acceptable in their hand-covered eyes.

Try to realize that with this property wrongs and local old guard combine, what is does not hold a candle to what they want.


Q -- Why should I be burdened by a group of appointee Commissioners that dictate everything I must do in the coastal zone.

A -- Because we're a nation of laws and the Coastal Act requires them to do so.

Q -- Why is it 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean?

A -- Because that's where the Coastal Zone is defined by the Coastal Act in some parts of the state, such as Topanga Canyon.

Q -- Why do Commissioners donate to local elections to get their preferred candidates in office in the coastal zone?

A -- Because they don't give up their rights to participate in elections when they're appointed to a commission that pays their expenses only.

Surely you knew when you purchased your property that it was in the Coastal Zone. Why don't you just get a CDP like the rest of us have to do?


Well, well, now the Nipper has joined in. I hope you are reading carefully and maybe you, too, Nipper, will glean a bit of understanding why we don't like your style of "coastal law". Francis, you said anybody can create a wetland on their property; mayor Mike and his gang of conspirators created that "wetland" on property that did not belong to the city. Your sacred Coastal Commission and its legion of toadies in the "no growth" group, did everything they could with anonymous appeals to the CC to stop the Gale family from building a house to live in on THEIR property that has NO WETLANDS on it. The adjoining "wetland" was illegally created and should have NO bearing on the case. Nevertheless, the Gale family lost a fortune in legal fees to try to just get their rights...and did not because of a pack of lies and conspiracy.

Those who perpetrated this outrage on the Gale family and the resulting lawsuit against the city of Half Moon Bay should be in jail and hanging their heads in shame.

If you, the Nipper and all the others of like ilk don't see this then I know you are either blind, delusional or psychotic. The end justifies the means for you, even when the end is of questionable value; that is beyond repugnant.


"According to fdrouillard, the Commission is fair. All they do is follow the Coastal Act. They are not high handed. They are not self engrossed. The never break the law. They are user friendly and have a very strong interest in reducing the suffering of violations property owners endure. They want to make our lives better. They would never even broach a potential ethics violation, always taking the high road."

The sarcastic dolt that wrote the above presumes that all 12 commissioners have the same values, the same character, the same ideology and that they vote in unison.

You only need a small amount of functioning gray matter to know that presumption isn't true.


Now Pitching -- Failing to engage those hostile to the Coastal Act and other environmental laws would be a mistake.

Sure, some are complete and utter scofflaws that haven't seen a wetland they want to fill or beach access they want to close. But there are many others that are simply overwhelmed by what they view as a tangled bureaucracy, or fearful that the CCC will prevent them from building their dream house on the coast.

To the latter group I say -- the CCC pursues two goals: 1) to maintain public access to the beach, and 2) to ensure development doesn't adversely impact coastal resources. You will be able to build, but not necessarily what you originally wanted. Furthermore, you may have to spend lot's of money on studies and reports that you hadn't planned on spending. (The additional planning expenses are a consequence of the Coastal Act, not one of its goals as some would have you believe.)

In most cases, only a few modifications are needed to comply with the Act. For the scofflaws, that's too much to bear. For most folks, they're happy to comply once they know what compliance entails.


x²-x=1 says to Francis Drouillard "I am impressed with your commitment but the tone of your posts has gotten more and more angry. What is up with that?

He's committed alright; or should be. It has been my experience that the anger referred to is fairly commonplace with those that have communication deficiencies. More times than not a person gets angry when others don't see things the way they do, They tend to get frustrated, which comes across as anger, when they can not communicate their message clearly enough or can't support their claim with the person or people they are trying to convince.

Ultimately, it results in anger due to the frustration felt by not accomplishing their goal; getting the other person to agree with their view. It's fairly common.

fdrouillard presents us with an array of examples of frustration and anger. He could relieve himself of that angry image if he'd either stay out of discussions where he finds himself handicapped by facts that don't favor his bias, or by actually having a comprehensive knowledge on the issues he chooses to involve himself in, or just reading all the data on a particular issue and accepting the data with an open mind and willingness to learn.

Multiple individuals have tried to discuss a specific example of injustice here in HMB with fdrouillard. Not one has had any luck in getting him to tackle the required background necessary for reasonable dialog. That background, of course, is critical if you're going to have any semblance of an intelligent dialog. fdrouillard isn't interested in intelligent dialog, however, because that might/would conflict with his preconceived notions. It would ruin his day.

One of the things that troubles me the most with this particular individual is that he is a member of a shadow group of a State Agency's appointee. He sees no conflict of interest in belonging to this Coastal Commissioner's tattletale group where he's tutored, one on one by Wan herself (if accepted), to go out and find her version of evil doers and rogues and turn them into her and her cohorts on the Commission for punishment by the Commission. Maybe he's just happy to 'belong' anywhere.

On top of that, fdrouillard carries himself, and therefor the group's image, with arrogance, resorting to childish name calling and more. Most reasonable people get past that juvenile stage in their late teens. It's an 'I know you are but what am I' mentality and does not represent ORCA or the individual subscribing to that type of behavior in a positive light.

fdrouillard is persistent in his efforts to redirect and misdirect dialogs and topics using several childish tactics, in his attempts to skirt issues and the facts of those issues.

This thread was initiated to discuss ORCA, a 501c3 initiated by Sara Wan, a sitting Coastal Commissioner. A 501c3, by law and definition, is an educational entity, prohibited by law from taking one side or another in an effort to politically move something. A 501c3 is required to be balanced in their approach.

Does anyone see any semblance of balance in fdrouillard's approach...to anything he posts on any topic? I haven't seen it, yet, but I continue to hold hope.

Another one of his tactics to those that don't subscribe to his views is to accuse them of disliking the Coastal Act. I have seen no evidence to support that claim. It appears to me that it's never been about the Coastal Act, but rather always been about the Commission's role, approach, attitude and ideology in 'interpreting' and 'enforcing' the Coastal Act. Opposite views to say the least.

It's too bad that fdrouillard takes the approach he takes. If he were smart, he could educate us through dialog showing us where we might be missing the boat or inject dialogs with different reasonable perspectives thereby helping us to understand his views and those of the Commission. He chooses not to, squandering opportunity after opportunity. What we have here is another example of that.


spanked -- Why are you so obsessed with me personally? Because I won't divulge personal information that's none of your damned business? Because the time you waste researching me and my background hasn't yielded what you hoped it would yield? Any buffoon that can Google can easily find my email addy then regurgitate a portion of it here as you have done.

I assure you, my background is uneventful and really boring. Your time would be better spent studying the Coastal Act and the various LCPs up and down the coast. You then might be able to stay on topic and make a point that doesn't rely on personal attacks.

Same goes for ORCA. Everything you need to know about them is available from the SoS's office or in ex parte reports revealed at CCC hearings. There's absolutely nothing nefarious about ORCA or its members. We just kick your ass every time you rear your ugly head in public, that's all.

And please note, we do so without ever saying anything bad about you!


Francis:

I make the briefest of postings that ask for very simple and straight forward answers; why have you not responded to what I say to you?


nature lover -- I didn't realize you were expecting a response when you wrote:

"If you, the Nipper and all the others of like ilk don't see this then I know you are either blind, delusional or psychotic. The end justifies the means for you, even when the end is of questionable value; that is beyond repugnant."

As for what I'd do if a neighbor flooded my property, see my response above if you can find it amidst that chaffe you and your ilk have written. As for what Kevin Lansing thinks about something, you'll have to ask him yourself.


"I assure you, my background is uneventful and really boring." Tell us something we don't know.

"spanked -- Why are you so obsessed with me personally? Because I won't divulge personal information that's none of your damned business? Because the time you waste researching me and my background hasn't yielded what you hoped it would yield? Any buffoon that can Google can easily find my email addy then regurgitate a portion of it here as you have done."

I am not obsessed with you, but rather how you consistently try to take a serious issue, ORCA, or the Coastal Commission, or the Gale project, or Beachwood and try to redirect, misdirect or hijack the topic to yourself. It's amazingly consistent and amazingly transparent. Very weak. The arrogance you carry; nobody has asked for any "personal information" from you; nobody gives a darn about your personal issues. We already see enough of that from you. You must really think you're something. I have not, to date, researched you in any regard; I see no reason. You are certainly not a threat, not important in any aspect of my life or the lives of anyone else in our community.

And really, that's part of the point. You seem to enjoy being the center of attention, even if it's bad attention. I have a dog like that; he just never grew up.

This thread, this topic is not now nor has it ever been about you. It is about discussing the issues explained and explored above. You won't, or can't keep up so you want to make this about you. I feel sorry for you, fd.

"There's absolutely nothing nefarious about ORCA or its members. We just kick your ass every time you rear your ugly head in public, that's all." This has to be one of the most comical comments so far. Reminds me of the little twit that gathers up his bigger friends and runs around talking smack to anyone that will listen. Then, when things get a little tense and border on physical confrontation, calls his bigger friends over to protect him and the nasty comments he made. So childish.

Then, to end it, you say "And please note, we do so without ever saying anything bad about you!" You, of all people! Talk about the pot calling the kettle.

Throughout your entire tirade (about yourself), not once do you even approach anything even close to topic. You're too busy talking about yourself and how you want to kick ass! Start with yourself, fd. You could use it.

Now, we know you have an obsession with getting the last word. Do you think you could use that obsession to provide constructive input on topic?


Um Spanky, you are just making it fun for Francis Drouillard and his ilk. Francis Drouillard has been posting on this ORCA thread for over three months. He has over 80 of the almost 300 posts.

He will have the last word on this one. For his sake, I suggest we let him have it today!


For someone that claims they aren't obsessed about me, you sure do seem obsessed about me.

If you don't want to make this thread about me, then stop writing about me or asking me what I think about something.

If you're as intelligent as you claim to be, then you should be able to make your points without mentioning me at all.


There has been a lot of snarky sniping on this one and everyone has had time to have their say on the actual subject matter, so I think I'm going to cut off further comments on this topic. Thanks everyone.


Add a comment

Sorry, this topic is locked.

Powered by Podium