Comments on: Lawsuit opposes excessive Coastal Commission restrictions

By: Ted Steele, Navigator

Ted Steele, Navigator — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:59:36 +0000

Jimmydee– You’re kidding right?

The I-5 bridge supports? So you’re saying that since those are there we can build more? Have you ever taken a logic course?

The park you want to build the freeway through (which will never happen btw) was mitigation for the now infamous and leaking nuke pile at SONGS. I was alive then and involved. So you want to destroy the largest mitigation in the area to build a road that has been proven not cost effective?

You are just the sort of sap that the chamber of commerce clowns LOVE. The California coast has sufferred a death by 1000 cuts. No more little buddy, that’s why your fellow Californians passed the Coastal Act. Maybe you should move?

Now shuffle back to your cubicle, break’s over.

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:44:15 +0000

That mirrors the silly arguments used in favor of most “endangered species” legislation.

All it is, is a ruse to prevent development. That may be fine, but at least come out and say so. Argue the merits of development, pro-and con. Don’t hide behind the skirts of a gnatcatcher, snail-darter or beach sand.

Funny how loss of all these “endangered species” would supposedly upset the “ecological balance” and all that. But if these species are already so few in number as to be endangered – then they can’t be having much of an impact on the “ecological balance” anyhow, now can they?

Low Information Teddy.

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:33:57 +0000

That’s insane.

What of the impacts of the I-5 bridge supports?

And the railroad trestles?

There seems to be plenty of “sand flow impacts” already…..

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g148_f09/lecture_notes/peninsular_range/trestles5135.jpg

Low Information Teddy.

By: The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)

The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:51:30 +0000

LOL poor Jimmydee—- WRONG—- the toll road would impact sand flow down the riverbed, which of course effects the famous surf break, as it will be built up the west edge of it after the proposed flyover. There were dueling reports on this by experts at the CCC hearing. In addition to that there is the development etc…. SeeSaw— Right as usual!

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:01:56 +0000

seesaw – you are completely wrong, once again. That makes you, what….25 for 25?

The whole toll road issue is not about san onofre (note spelling), nor trestles. None of those would be impacted by the actual road. (There’s already a road there – it’s called Interstate 5. You may have heard of it. The toll road would be built INLAND of I-5……not SEAWARD.)

It’s about building the road through southernmost orange county and resultant development it may bring.

It’s all a ruse to appeal to the low information voter. As your post and Teddy’s indicate: it succeeded.

By: Ted Steele DD

Ted Steele DD — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 03:30:35 +0000

Oh— and it was a pleasure to call jimmyoc on his 7th grade hype—- without an answer!

By: Ted Steele DD

Ted Steele DD — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 03:29:51 +0000

well said SeeSaw and if those rotten developments had of gone thru— so oc would be the worse for it. Crap coastal development has never improved property values or quality of lfe— without the CCC we would have had that nonsense freeway right thru our State Park! Even Clint Eastwood was on our side on that one!

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:28:46 +0000

The only one here with any sense, so far, is Ted. The CCC saved Trestles for the surfers. GAS had his own brother-in-law and Clint Eastwood thrown off the State Recreation Commission for voting for the people and against him when it came to putting a toll road right through San Onofrio State beach. Without the CCC there would be no public access to the beach left, in CA. Take a look at Oregon–there is no private ownership of Coastal property there. Its all for the people. Look at Catalina Island–without the Conservancy that has it protected, it would be all condos and concrete. We do need regulations to protect the assets of this great state–sorry.

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:59:04 +0000

Teddy – [expletive deleted]

No one “called” me on my hyperbole. I admitted so. Furthermore, it was intentional. Fantastical exaggeration to make a point.

I take that back. [expletives and insults deleted]

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:07:09 +0000

I am one of the business people that left California to start my business. This might interest people that want facts instead of jiberish. It is not a scientific study but it is interesting.

U-Haul Rate comparison – People are leaving California.
http://youtu.be/l_sGbrtOzA8