reactorpic.jpg

August 8, 2001

A few words about Bruce, beaches and bribery

To know Bruce Hotchkiss is to like him. He's a nice guy. In my case, to know Bruce Hotchkiss is also to often disagree with him. And he with me. Bruce's letter last week talked about dogs on beaches, Target and me, in that order. Bruce and I generally agree on the dogs. We obviously don't see eye to eye on Salt Lake City. I was a bit put off by the fact Bruce misspelled my name, but then, I'm the professional proofreader. He's the professional car expert. He knows how to spell Messerschmidt and Daewoo.

Bruce sees Pacifica as a sleepy seaside community. For the past 38 years, I've seen it as a community with fantastic possibilities for dynamic achievement, and I don't mean SF/ Daly City style housing density. Quite a few people have done their best to destroy our potential for community success. To a great extent they've succeeded. The Friends of Pacifica worked hard to destroy the city in the early eighties. They came close, though they'd deny it to a man. Those who stymied completion of 380, and those who fought the Devil's Slide bypass to a standstill also helped destroy the potential.

Bruce mentions the scandal with the Salt Lake Olympics. I don't condone bribery, but if the Olympic officials hadn't been successfully bribed by the Salt Lake folks, they undoubtedly would have awarded the 2002 winter games to whichever city actually came through with the payoffs they expected. Salt Lake had to pay up or give up. The Olympic officials could have prevented the whole debacle by being honest and fair. Don't blame Salt Lake.

I certainly would never tell Bruce he can't comment on housing, open space, or any other subject. That's his right, but surely he isn't obligated to use every power and exercise every right, any more than I am. I'm aware, and probably Bruce is aware, that forcing prospective developers to furnish unneeded EIRs adds burdensome expense and complication. It's indirect, subtle and effective. It kills many projects. Postponing or delaying projects with endless red tape is a classic way to strangle them. The proposed residence for the Coptic religious leader is being stifled even as you read this. It's a fine project, by fine people. That's admitted even by most of those doing their best to kill it. No home, no matter how great or how well designed would satisfy those who object to this particular planned single family residence. It would be a fine addition to Pacifica's panorama of homes. I predict it will never be built. Those responsible for killing it will not benefit in the least from its loss. The Copts will lose, but every Pacifican loses as well, even those who've fought most doggedly to stop it. They won't even know what they're missing. A number of years ago, plans of a good friend of mine were turned down by the Planning Commission of that time. The design was called "bulky and monotonous." Perhaps it was. There was no way I, or my friend the builder, or the Commissioner who used that phrase could possibly know what really constitutes or does not constitute "bulky and monotonous"? My friend had no way to know what he'd done to merit those words, and no way to know what he might have done to avoid them. My friend later killed himself. Should I blame his death on the city, as I do? If that project had been permitted, would my friend be alive today? I don't know. I can only suspect it might have made all the difference.

I wish the folks who stifle so many worthwhile projects would come up with some new objections. They keep mentioning rare caterpillars and traffic congestion. Perhaps they could express their fears of martian invasion, or Hoof and Mouth disease. At least those would be different complaints to bring before the Planning Commissioners or City Council.

Paul Azevedo's e-mail address is thereactor@earthlink.net

 
[This Week] [2001 Archive] [2000 Archive] [1999 Archive] [1998 Archive]