Date: 10/02/95 02:24:10 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Ocean view park at Manor.My wife & I were just talking over the weekend about why parts of Pacifica appear so ugly.  Let's face it, some places in Pacifica seem run down and disorganized.  Appearing to me at least as if there was a lack of "vision" in urban planning over the decades.For instance, the stretch of road along the bluff overlooking the ocean near the post office at Manor.  I propose that this block of roadway be closed to automobiles, with some of the asphalt being used for parking, remove the rest and replace it with some "drought tolerant" lanscaping, the "snow fence" should be replaced with a wood rail fence, add some picnic tables, [add a restroom?] etc..  The view is spectacular... imagine people stopping to shop at Manor, purchasing picnic supplies and walking down to the "ocean view park", it could become a pleasant place and an real asset to the City.  With exception of the restroom, the costs would be nominal, returned over the years, I predict, through increased tourist traffic.  Could it be funded with a Bond?  And/or, a tax levy on Manor businesses?     Date: 10/02/95 02:24:23 PMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.     My 2c worth:        I think Pacifica is swell as it is, in part because it isn't all      "perfect", I don't want to turn it into Carmel or Fisherman's Wharf,      and I don't want a lot of tourists.  If you want to picnic near the      Manor, either get a blanket and eat on the beach, drive North a mile      to the spectacular overlook under the recycling center, or go South a      mile or two to the park by the fishing pier.  There are too few roads      in Pacifica to go closing the few we have.  If you think Pacifica is      so ugly, maybe you'd be happier living elsewhere.        -- Mark     Date: 10/02/95 03:34:42 PMFrom: Rick776_AT_aol.com (Rick776_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.That is an EXCELENT idea! ! !    I know I'd vote for it.  That area definetlyneeds something, and the idea of a park to help attract tourists to the areawould, I'm sure, meet with very little resistance from the businesses in thatarea.Date: 10/02/95 03:34:46 PMFrom: Rick776_AT_aol.com (Rick776_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.That is an EXCELENT idea! ! !    I know I'd vote for it.  That area definetlyneeds something, and the idea of a park to help attract tourists to the areawould, I'm sure, meet with very little resistance from the businesses in thatarea.Date: 10/02/95 03:34:50 PMFrom: Rick776_AT_aol.com (Rick776_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.Date: 10/03/95 06:18:56 AMFrom: Michael Slaughter (slaughtr_AT_crl.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.Yes, it seems to be a kind of non-invasive development (to tiptoe through a minefield of loaded words).Perhaps we could consider open space forart exhibitsconcerts (small or large)performance piecesguerrilla theater (e.g., the SF Mime Troupe?)soapbox oratory [a completely lost art in this land of freedom of speech]poetry slamsThese things jangle my glands.Michael SlaughterOpenly Avowed Anarchist Serving as  Member, Pacifica Cultural Arts CommissionDate: 10/03/95 06:20:17 AMFrom: Rick776_AT_aol.com (Rick776_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.Date: 10/03/95 06:20:25 AMFrom: Michael Slaughter (slaughtr_AT_crl.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.Date: 10/03/95 06:20:30 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.     My 2c worth:        I think Pacifica is swell as it is, in part because it isn't all      "perfect", I don't want to turn it into Carmel or Fisherman's Wharf,      and I don't want a lot of tourists.  If you want to picnic near the      Manor, either get a blanket and eat on the beach, drive North a mile      to the spectacular overlook under the recycling center, or go South a      mile or two to the park by the fishing pier.  There are too few roads      in Pacifica to go closing the few we have.  If you think Pacifica is      so ugly, maybe you'd be happier living elsewhere.        -- Mark     Date: 10/03/95 06:20:46 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Hey, there is somewhere to eat in that Foggy Town!I tried it a few years ago, and was disappointed because they put      pickle relish in the tuna salad.  What do you like to eat there?        -- Mark     Date: 10/03/95 06:20:56 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Ongoing discussion re: Pacifica in ba.food newsgroupAw, cmon, give Dave a break.  It's not that TB is the only restaurant      in town, it's just that there a so few of each kind, there's not much      to debate.  If you want to eat Thai or fish&chips in Pacifica, it's      not a question of where, only what to order. (If you want to eat      Indian, go to Mountain View.)  Where there is a choice (Chinese,      Mexican), most of the Pacifica choices are generally competent, but      not exceptional, IMHO.        -- Mark           PS. The tacqueria in the underused shopping center across from Linda      Mar is another good alternative to TB.  And if anyone has any      suggestions on what an adult might order when your kids drag you to      TB, I'd be interested to hear.  I generally order just a taco & coke,      and look forward to my next meal.Date: 10/03/95 08:57:05 AMFrom: Christi603_AT_aol.com (Christi603_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.In a message dated 95-10-03 06:59:53 EDT, mfd_AT_dolby.com writes:>  I think Pacifica is swell as it is, in part because it isn't all >     "perfect", I don't want to turn it into Carmel or Fisherman's Wharf, >     and I don't want a lot of tourists.  If you want to picnic near the >     Manor, either get a blanket and eat on the beach, drive North a mile >     to the spectacular overlook under the recycling center, or go South a >     mile or two to the park by the fishing pier.  There are too few roads >     in Pacifica to go closing the few we have.  If you think Pacifica is >     so ugly, maybe you'd be happier living elsewhere.>        -- Mark----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is the attitude that causes Pacifica to Loose precious Police and Firedepartmentrevenues. Mark, you must be living in a very nice area of Pacifica, secludedfromeveryone else. There are area's in town (Namely the one in question) That arein Dire need of clean up. If you lived in this area I'm sure your views wouldchange. If the people of Pacifica are so against Big Business coming in tosupport our tax base, then we need to bring in Tourists to support it! Andthis area in question is perfect. Before the Promenade went in and we Startedour annual Fog Festival, Many people just thought that Pacifica was a Fogtown with little or no reason to come here. Now our hotels in Rockaway arefull (almost year round) and we are beggining to see a light at the end ofour Tax deficit City. If Big Business can't pick up the Tab then It's left upto Small Business and the home owner. The next step will probably be a stepbackwards intoOne High School, Only two Grammar Schools and County Sheriffs Department witha Volunteer Fire department!! The people in this city are overgrowing thecapacity of the fire & Police Departments. And our Schools are suffering Terribly. Somethingmust be done..and I feel the "Ocean View at Manor" would be a start in theright direction.Date: 10/03/95 10:08:32 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.mfd_AT_dolby.com wrote:>>  There are too few roads in Pacifica to go closing the few we have.After looking at it more closely last night, Esplanade Street is wide enough (50 ft?) that simply narrowing the driving lanes to 12 feet each way, revising the parking spaces to be diagonal for half of the street, and putting in a wide ocean side sidewalk for the remainder would do the trick.  It appears that the City is doing road maintenance (repaving) work there right now, and why there is no sidewalk on the ocean side is hard to comprehend.I suspect that this high bank waterfront property is privately owned, but remains undeveloped due to some constraint, (too narrow to be economical?)  Does anybody reading this have access to some plot plans to learn who is the owner?  The next generation in Pacifica would thank us if this waterfront property was aquired into the public space.  That ugly fence is probably privately owned, and I vote that this eyesore should be the first task of the new Pacifica Code Police! Go look through the hole in the fence where it has partially fallen down like I did.  This is a beautiful place.Michael Slaughter wrote:>>Perhaps we could consider open space for art exhibits ...[other good ideas edited]Add to this... hot dog cart, street fair, farmer's market, native plant habitat restoration zone...Rick776_AT_aol.com wrote:>> That area definetly needs something, and the idea of a park to > help attract tourists...Although rationally I am of the group that believes we want to encourage tourists to visit Pacifica, I bet money that the majority of users would be local residents.  [Not to be entirely rosey, we should be aware that the potential exist that this area could become a "delinquent hangout/drug dealing" zone too.]   It would be wise to have a talented landscape architect/urban planner design such a park, to minimize the chance of this problem.   Date: 10/03/95 11:21:15 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Ocean view park at Manor.     Maybe I'm hopelessly in the minority on this, but I fail to understand      why my esteemed fellow Pacificans think attracting a bunch of tourists      is such a swell idea.  Friends, Pacifica is a nice, quiet little town.      Let's not turn it into a circus.  There are people who live in the      Manor along the beach, and I really doubt they want a bunch of rowdy      tourists wandering around, peeing in their back yards.  Rick776 and      Bruce H., if you think tourists are such a good idea, why not invite      'em to your homes, and share the proceeds with the rest of us?          Except I doubt there will be much in the way of proceeds or profits.       Any extra revenue brought by tourists, unless it's a whole lot, will      be more than offset by the need for a larger Police force, larger      Sanitation department, fences, traffic control, et al.  We've only got      that one main road into and out of town, and if you clog it up with      tourists, you won't be able to get in or out.          If the big attraction of tourism is to acquire more dollars for the      town, I submit there have got to be better ways to do it than      increased tourism.  I really don't fancy the prospect of living in      Disneyland North.  Bolinas has the right idea: take down the signs.             -- Mark          Date: 10/03/95 11:21:25 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Ocean view park at Manor.Maybe I'm hopelessly in the minority on this, but I fail to understand      why my esteemed fellow Pacificans think attracting a bunch of tourists      is such a swell idea.  Friends, Pacifica is a nice, quiet little town.      Let's not turn it into a circus.  There are people who live in the      Manor along the beach, and I really doubt they want a bunch of rowdy      tourists wandering around, peeing in their back yards.  Rick776 and      Bruce H., if you think tourists are such a good idea, why not invite      'em to your homes, and share the proceeds with the rest of us?          Except I doubt there will be much in the way of proceeds or profits.       Any extra revenue brought by tourists, unless it's a whole lot, will      be more than offset by the need for a larger Police force, larger      Sanitation department, fences, traffic control, et al.  We've only got      that one main road into and out of town, and if you clog it up with      tourists, you won't be able to get in or out.          If the big attraction of tourism is to acquire more dollars for the      town, I submit there have got to be better ways to do it than      increased tourism.  I really don't fancy the prospect of living in      Disneyland North.  Bolinas has the right idea: take down the signs.             -- Mark          Date: 10/03/95 11:21:33 AMFrom: LSTEERE.US.ORACLE.COM (LSTEERE_AT_us.oracle.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Re[2]: Ocean view park at Manor.--Boundary-14928900-0-0I for one don't love tourists as a crowd but think having more people appreciate the beauty of our town's surroundings is one way to protect the open space: you can't expect politicians to support funding for all of that so-called unused land unless more than our small population enjoys and treasures it. And the alternative for revenues--industry or card rooms-- appeals a lot less. In fighting to preserve Montara and San Pedro Mountains by stopping the bypass, I have come to accept how important it is for "outsiders" to know and appreciate the natural surroundings we are fortunate enough to live in. Without outside help, we can't preserve it. In fact, I think too many Pacificans are a little too complacent about the open space they're lucky enough to be surrounded by: it's not as if what we have is guaranteed to be there forever without constant vigilance. And I'd rather have hikers and picnickers coming through eating at our restaurants and staying at our motels than any other alternative I can think of that would keep the city solvent. If you have better ideas for saving Pacifica's scenic and private nature while at the same time keeping it solvent, please let the city council know. I'm sure they'd love some help and support. Leslie Steere Managing Editor, Oracle Magazine 415.506.6576				We like people who meet deadlines. Date: 10/03/95 11:54:38 AMFrom: Tim McGraw (MCGRAWT_AT_ceb.ucop.edu)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Ocean view park at Manor.I have only subscribed to this list for a couple of weeks, and after enduring vapid comments ranging from ownership of the city's home page to what to order at Taco Bell, I finally must respond.mfd_AT_dolby.com wrote:>>If the big attraction of tourism is to acquire more dollars for the >>town, I submit there have got to be better ways to do it than increased >>tourism.Yes, but unless you mean that city-types should have bake sales and car washes, that means development in one way or another. Having lived on Pedro Point for 3.5 years, I became familiar with the Pacifica conundrum: We want to develop without hurting the landscape/not increasing traffic.Sorry folks, the two are mutually exclusive. One thing everyone agrees on is that Pacifica (like most American cities in this age of shrinking Fed/State support) must expand its tax base/increase income. Everyone has a different idea as to how this should be accomplished.>>I really don't fancy the prospect of living in Disneyland North.I don't think that's what was being proposed. A small oceanside park doesn't exactly call for a midway. As for tourists peeing in our yards... we already have a lot of locals (particularly teenagers) who do that for us; what's a little more unplanned irrigation? And who says we can't be a little more selective in WHAT KIND of tourists we attract. I don't see Carmel running any tourism ads in BEER SWILLER magazine, do you? (By the way, I'll have you all know that my subscription to BEER SWILLER mag lapsed after I graduated from college... I only peek at an issue in the library every so often for marketing research.)>>Bolinas has the right idea: take down the signs.What--and sacrifice our civic pride?!?!?! Remember about a year ago when the sign coming down the hill was changed from "Pacifica Next 3 Exits" to "Pacifica Next 9 Exits"? Never mind that there were only 3 freeway-style exits after the sign... there were still 6 more roads you could turn off on, dang it! And how about those new signs that say "Civic Center This Exit." For a moment I thought Pacifica had built some kind of auditorium and didn't tell anyone--then I realized they meant the City Hall and Police station. Wow. Some Civic Center.=========================================================================Tim McGraw/Continuing Education of the Bar"Windows '95 = Macintosh '89"=========================================================================Date: 10/03/95 01:56:53 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Ocean view park at Manor.mfd_AT_dolby.com wrote>>>     I fail to understand why my attracting a bunch of tourists>     is such a swell idea.  I confess, a large part of me agrees with you.Forget that I mentioned tourists, I still think that the block of Esplanade behind Manor Plaza is down right ugly.  From the simply perspective of living here, I want to clean up Pacifica and make it less ugly.  Taken to an extreme, should be strive to make Pacifica more ugly?  To chase tourists away?  Of course not.I invite you to take a close look at that block like I did last night.  The inland side of the fence looks kind of sad.  The ocean (back) side of the fence looks like a park.  The latice fence should come down; there should be a sidewalk, for our own sake.  Why should grafitti covered trucks park there on what could be one of the most beautiful blocks in Pacifica?  At the least, there should be enforcement of the existing traffic code prohibiting parking of commercial vehicles on residential streets.  At the most, I hope that the land can be aquired for a park for the benifit of generations of Pacificans to come.  In between, how about a sidewalk with a park bench?The other part of me says that I would prefer tourists that come to appreciate a good view over tourists that come to gamble in a dark smokey card club.  I prefer Monterey to Atlantic City N.J..  It's too late to be a Bolinas.   Date: 10/03/95 01:57:01 PMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Ocean view park at Manor.     I personally would like to see a careful accounting of just how much additional money we actually need, why, and what avenues have been explored before to obtain it.  Christi603, can you justify in detailed terms your assertion that the "people in this city are overgrowing the capacity of the fire & Police Departments" when the population has remained essentially constant for years?(And yes, I concede that the schools could and should be better, but your characterization of them as "suffering Terribly" is a little over the top, IMHO.Somehow, kids in my day managed to learn to add and subtract without their own personal MAC's.)It seems to me Pacifica, as a more-or-less bedroom community, is an integral part of the overall Bay Area commercial infrastructure. (aside: I don't expect much disagreement on that point, at least from Pacificans.)  As Bruce Hallman's Web page graphically iluustrates, we live here and work elsewhere, in more commercial areas, like downtown SF.  If those commercial areas want to continue to thrive, they have to allow workers to have homes to go to at night,  since homeless, sleepless workers tend to be cranky and unproductive.  Thus, if SF andother Bay Area commercial locales derive income from taxing businesses resident therein, I feel they are legally and morally bound to share those revenues with the suburban communities that provide the human resource foundations for those businesses.  In other words, before we turn Pacifica into a big, solvent-but-ugly factory town, let's see if we can get the big commercial areas we serve to stop hogging all the loot, and give us our rightful share."Just because it makes money doesn't automatically make it good (for Pacifica), and just because a little of something (like tourism) may be good doesn't mean alot of that something will be better."        -- Mark Date: 10/03/95 01:57:09 PMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Ocean view park at Manor.     >> There are area's in town (Namely the one in question) That are in      Dire need of clean up. <<          I have nothing against a little cleanup, I just don't care to see the      effort balloon into a major revamp of the town, especially if we're      going to have to shell out big bucks to make it happen in the hope      that we'll recoup the investment someday.               -- MarkDate: 10/03/95 03:18:00 PMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Ocean view park at Manor.     Bruce,             Well, I dunno, maybe, sort-of.               I went by on my lunch hour, and reaffirmed that that is one      hellasciously gorgeous spot.  The place was nearly deserted, and I sat      at the edge of the cliff, marveling the majesty and natural beauty of      it all, and wondering how the family playing on the beach below got      down there, and how they were going to get back up.             I guess I'm just aesthetically impaired when it comes to fences,      but I wasn't offended by that one: weathered wooden slats held in line      by chain link, the slats softening the look of the chain link.  I've      seen better and worse; check the houses on the next block.  Actually,      I'm not sure why the fence was put there in the first place, but I've      always assumed there was a good reason (stop sand from blowing into      the street, maybe?).             The thing that puzzles me a little, Bruce, is how, amid all that      glittering ocean, rolling sort-of-clean sand dunes (much better than      Linda Mar), plant life, sunshine, seagulls and cliffs, how could you      focus in on the fence??  The fence is man-made, it hasn't a prayer of      competing one-on-one with the natural beauty behind it.             I say leave the fence looking ratty.  The place is too good to      share with a bunch of lowlife tourists.  Let's just keep it our      secret.             -- Mark           Date: 10/05/95 03:35:24 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: History Buffs, "Discovery Site" in PacificaForwarded from the ba.announce newsgroup. Article: ba.announce Subject: Sun. Oct. 15: History Buffs visit "Discovery Site" in PacificaOn Sunday, October 15 the History Buffs will drive up a winding road to visit the spectacular "Discovery Site" in Pacifica, the mountain top where the Don Gaspar de Portola expedition first sighted San Francisco Bay in 1769. At 2:00 p.m. the History Buffs will meet in the Church of the Highlands's large parking lot located at Sneath Lane and Skyline Blvd. in San Bruno. From there a Golden Gate National Recreation Area ranger will lead cars up the one-lane road to the "Discovery Site" at an elevation of 1200 feet.  A history of the Portola expedition will be presented. Permanent memorial bias reliefs depict the Farallon Islands, Mt. Tamalpais, San Bruno Mountain, Mt. Diablo, Mt. Hamilton, Pt. San Pedro and Montara Mountain.  The History Buffs are sponsored by the San Mateo County Historial Association. Anyone interested in local history may attend. For more information please call 415-574-6441.   Date: 10/05/95 03:35:28 PMFrom: mla_AT_dolby.com (mla_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: History Buffs, "Discovery Site" in Pacifica     Lazy buggers. Why don't they walk/bicycle to the top like the rest of      us!          The other Dolby Mark...Date: 10/05/95 03:35:36 PMFrom: Dave Yuhas (Dave.Yuhas_AT_pobox.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Eric Lloyd Wright!Is the Pacifica Tribune running press releases disguised as news stories onthe front page?  How else can you describe the front page "story" about Mr.Wright being hired to "design" the phantom card club?As I read the article it occurred to me that Mr. Wright has never designedor built the type of structure being discussed.  (Don't you think that if hehad that fact would have been included in the story?)  Mr. Wright, itappears, restores large homes. Where's the news value of a remodellingcontractor with a connection to a famous architecht?It would be nice to have a hometown paper that serves the interests of itsreaders rather than catering to out of town builders.  When the"well-respected" developer who wanted to build homes at the quarry came totown, the Tribune rolled out the red carpet, journalistically speaking.  Howelse can you explain the fact that they never ran a single story about theprojects he supposedly built?  The only story they ran, just before theelection, was an interview with a city manager where one of his project'swas given approval.  Not a single shovel full of dirt was turned over.  The headline of the story about Mr. Wright said he was "hired" to design thecard club.  Did the Tribune see any documentation to support this contentionby National Investors Financial, Inc?  Being the cynic that I am, I'll betthat Mr Wright was hired to pose for the photograph that ran on the frontpage of the Tribune.Dave Yuhas                         Christine Krenzel, CPADave.Yuhas_AT_pobox.com               415 912 5840Date: 10/06/95 06:39:03 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Eric Lloyd Wright!> I'll bet that Mr Wright was hired to pose for the photograph > that ran on the front page of the Tribune.What I noticed about the photograph was that it appears to be on the summit of the Mori Point hill.  Is that where they want to build a card club, on top of the hill!  I don't think so, but whew!  Still, if the proponents have any hope, they must showcase a well developed plan prior to the election or face certain defeat.  Pacifica won't vote for a "blank check" design, I am certain.   Date: 10/06/95 06:40:22 AMFrom: mla_AT_dolby.com (mla_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: History Buffs, "Discovery Site" in PacificaDate: 10/10/95 12:02:41 PMFrom: tbear_AT_backdoor.com (tbear_AT_backdoor.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Development in PacificaI have read with interest your correspondence regarding some improvement possibilities in Pacifica.  Specifically, regarding the property at Esplanade and Manor Drive intersection in Pacifica Manor.  We are aware of the condition of this private property.  We intend to give this problem top priority on our new code enforcement program.  We will require that the property owner control sand and improve the frontage of the land.  Beyond that, there are no plans for expenditure of public funds in this area.With respect to the comments on increasing our tax base through development of our visitor serving economy, I would like to draw your attention to our efforts to solicit public input on ideas for development of the Rockaway Quarry.  This land presents the greatest potential for creating an attraction that could provide the additional income that we need while respecting aesthetics and environmental quality.  We are looking to the public for ideas on how, or if, the quarry could be developed which would meeting with public acceptance and provide a boost to our sagging economy.  Responses may be provided over this medium or by participating in the workshops as announced in the Pacifica Tribune./s/ Tim Molinare    Community and Economic Development DirectorDate: 10/10/95 03:14:10 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaTim Molinare wrote:>Welcome Tim!>We intend to give this problem [Esplanade/Manor] top priority on our new >code enforcement program.  We will require that the property owner control>sand and improve the frontage of the land.  I am curious what you mean by "improve the frontage", I presume that you are thinking of a specific code, which one?...and more generally I am curious about the codes of Pacifica.  Tim, if you have a chance would you please describe the codes of Pacifica in twenty words or less?  Where can I read these codes if I want to learn more?>Beyond that, there are no plans>expenditure of public funds in this area.Maybe in the long run... I was admiring this piece of property yesterday evening as I drove down the hill from Daly City.  It would make a gem of a park.>to solicit public input on ideas for development of the Rockaway Quarry.  I vote for dual use of native species restoration areas and a Factory Outlet Mall.   Date: 10/10/95 03:14:15 PMFrom: David Macy (David.Macy_AT_efi.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaReply to:   RE>>Development in PacificaI certainly don't think another factory outlet mall, or another mall of anysort is what the world, or Pacifica needs. I'd like to see some sort of artscenter/gallery environment. And yes, I did like aspects of the proposition lastyear for an arts center at Linda Mar beach, except the free reign it seemed thedeveloper would have to build whatever they wanted after it was approved Date: 10/11/95 06:34:14 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in Pacifica>I certainly don't think another factory outlet mall, or another mall of an>sort is what the world, or Pacifica needs. I am aware of how obnoxious malls are, but my rational is that economic development is necessary, if it is then "retail" is one of the less obnoxious choices.  [Due to the local retail jobs, among other reasons.]I like the idea of a factory outlet, because they seem to appeal to the "weekend driver" tourist.  A problem with Pacifica is that it comes too soon  along the trip for the SF based "weekend driver" tourist.  I have the hunch that a factory outlet mall might make a difference and get the tourist to stop before they drive on to Half Moon Bay.I think that a Walmart type of mall would fail miserably, when people think chain discount store, they think "Colma".  When they think recreational shopping, I imagine that they could think "Pacifica".Of course, if you object to my premise that we should encourage tourists to stop and shop, then ignore the above .>I'd like to see some sort of art center/gallery environment. Hmmm, IMO what makes Carmel work is not so much the galleries, but the fact that Carmel is an artist's colony.  A sort of chicken and egg question.  I don't see the perception of Pacifica as an artist colony, therefore maybe art galleries might have a hard time going.What are our strong points?... Clearly, the environment, our views, the fishing, the surfing, the mountain biking, , etc..Bear in mind that the Rockaway Beach area is not the prettiest, and is a place that could accept a mall better than most in town.     Date: 10/11/95 06:34:17 AMFrom: Michael Slaughter (slaughtr_AT_crl.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaHere's to Holland . . . where marijuana is legal and malls are illegal.Date: 10/11/95 06:34:35 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaAt 03:53 PM 10/10/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>>>>I certainly don't think another factory outlet mall, or another mall of an>>sort is what the world, or Pacifica needs. [...]>I like the idea of a factory outlet, because they seem to appeal to the >"weekend driver" tourist.  A problem with Pacifica is that it comes too soon  >along the trip for the SF based "weekend driver" tourist.  I have the hunch >that a factory outlet mall might make a difference and get the tourist to >stop before they drive on to Half Moon Bay.Hmmmmmmm I distinctly recall reading in the SF Chronicle that many developers of "Factory Outlet Malls" are concerned that the conceptmay be overbuilt and that demand for such may now be static or evendeclining.......... Cynthia --%"May we learn more and more how to live and   |  work, struggle and celebrate, in an openness |  to all that we cannot see."                  | http://www.persephone.org					      |       *******	  Carter Heyward - "Staying Power"    |  lthrdyke on IRC%Date: 10/11/95 10:43:50 AMFrom: David Macy (David.Macy_AT_efi.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in Pacifica        Reply to:   RE>>Development in PacificaI certainly don't think another factory outlet mall, or another mall of anysort is what the world, or Pacifica needs. I'd like to see some sort of artscenter/gallery environment. And yes, I did like aspects of the proposition lastyear for an arts center at Linda Mar beach, except the free reign it seemed thedeveloper would have to build whatever they wanted after it was approved.Date: 10/11/95 03:07:35 PMFrom: Michael Slaughter (slaughtr_AT_crl.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaDate: 10/11/95 04:08:04 PMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaAt 05:21 PM 10/10/95 -0700, Michael Slaughter wrote:>Here's to Holland . . . where marijuana is legal and malls are illegal.Hear ... hear!It would have been nice to have some of that weed CAMP harvested fromthe patches on Montara Mountain a few weeks ago. *sigh*......... CynthiaDate: 10/12/95 10:23:52 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaAt 03:53 PM 10/10/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>>>>I certainly don't think another factory outlet mall, or another mall of an>>sort is what the world, or Pacifica needs. [...]>I like the idea of a factory outlet, because they seem to appeal to the >"weekend driver" tourist.  A problem with Pacifica is that it comes too soon  >along the trip for the SF based "weekend driver" tourist.  I have the hunch >that a factory outlet mall might make a difference and get the tourist to >stop before they drive on to Half Moon Bay.Hmmmmmmm I distinctly recall reading in the SF Chronicle that many developers of "Factory Outlet Malls" are concerned that the conceptmay be overbuilt and that demand for such may now be static or evendeclining.......... Cynthia Date: 10/12/95 10:24:03 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in Pacifica> >I like the idea of a factory outlet, because they seem to appeal to the > >"weekend driver" tourist.  A problem with Pacifica is that it comes too soon  > >along the trip for the SF based "weekend driver" tourist.  I have the hunch > >that a factory outlet mall might make a difference and get the tourist to > >stop before they drive on to Half Moon Bay.a factory mall in PACIFICA?  are you guys NUTS????  there's no way in hell that i want to see people driving from all over the peninsula to go to our lovely factory mall.  bleah!  arg!!!  pacifica is beautiful....let's keep it that way!!!(factory mall????? *shudder*)Date: 10/12/95 10:24:07 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in Pacifica> >I like the idea of a factory outlet, because they seem to appeal to the > >"weekend driver" tourist.  A problem with Pacifica is that it comes too soon  > >along the trip for the SF based "weekend driver" tourist.  I have the hunch > >that a factory outlet mall might make a difference and get the tourist to > >stop before they drive on to Half Moon Bay.a factory mall in PACIFICA?  are you guys NUTS????  there's no way in hell that i want to see people driving from all over the peninsula to go to our lovely factory mall.  bleah!  arg!!!  pacifica is beautiful....let's keep it that way!!!(factory mall????? *shudder*)Date: 10/12/95 02:41:10 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaAlyssa wrote:>>>a factory mall in PACIFICA?  are you guys NUTS????  there's no way in >hell that i want to see people driving from all over the peninsula to go >to our lovely factory mall.  bleah!  arg!!!  pacifica is >beautiful....let's keep it that way!!!OK, we know what you don't like, but you shouldn't take the easy out and simply say what you don't like, you should suggest something realistic that you do like.  I am afraid that the status quo can't continue.  The quarry site will evolve somehow, if we do nothing, probably for the worse.  The City has a narrow window of opportunity (with this six month option to buy) to do something positive.  You say, "let's keep it that way!!!"... but you are talking about someone elses private property.  How much right do we have over other peoples private property?  There is a limit.I, for one, want the future to include funding to revegetate the rock face scar from the old rock quarry.  Does your plan allow to repair that eyesore?If the City gets it together and exercises the $11M option, the economics will need to balance, that is why I favor some relatively non-poluting development which can stay "out of the red ink" on a portion of the space.  We need a way to fund the remainder of the open space as park land/ native habitat etc..  The economics simply  won't work if it is all held as green space.   Date: 10/12/95 02:41:17 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: The quarry.Moonshadow  wrote...>Hmmmmmmm I distinctly recall reading in the SF Chronicle that many >developers of "Factory Outlet Malls" are concerned that the concept>may be overbuilt and that demand for such may now be static or even>declining.If you read it in the paper, it must be true .  Still, I think that the flat market mentioned in that article applies more to saturation in a given tourist route, IE the wine country probably can only support one "factory outlet mall".  I think, as there is none yet on the "scenic highway one" tourist route, that it would have a chance.BTW, the "overbuilt" question would need to be asked of a card club too.And another idea...How about building a "for profit" prison, where you rent cell space to either the state, or to the City of San Francisco.  They can be attactive looking, [from the outside], they provide local jobs, do not polute, and the trend is clearly towards growth in this sector of the economy.  A minimum security prison probably would be easy to "forcast" a revenue stream on, and would be certain to be full to capacity in the next decades.  As part of the enitre quarry plan, this could fit in especially due to it could provide a dependable source of revenue.  Sure, some people might have the [irrational] fear of escapees, but Pacifica is a well educated lot, and our community less than most might not have the NIMBY objections.  Where else could you find a less poluting industry, heck, you don't even have the air polution that the cars bring to retail.  A decent architect could landscape the thing to make it disappear, put it up by the treatment plant, or perhaps on the flat spot at the old quarry excavation.   Date: 10/12/95 02:41:21 PMFrom: Eric Raznick (eraznick_AT_ccsf.cc.ca.us)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry. -- a prison?This I like!  ---snip----> And another idea...----snip-----> > How about building a "for profit" prison, where you rent cell space to Now you got something!  Just think of the booth they could have at the Fog Fest!   Forget about Walgreens, TJ or Costco!  Gimme a prison anyday!"Come to scenic Pacifica, the foggy prison town!" Date: 10/12/95 02:41:32 PMFrom: Dave Yuhas (dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:10:57 -0700, you wrote:>How about building a "for profit" prison, where you rent cell space to >either the state, or to the City of San Francisco.  They can be attactive >looking, [from the outside], they provide local jobs, do not polute, and >the trend is clearly towards growth in this sector of the economy.  A >minimum security prison probably would be easy to "forcast" a revenue >stream on, and would be certain to be full to capacity in the next >decades.  As part of the enitre quarry plan, this could fit in especially >due to it could provide a dependable source of revenue.  Sure, some >people might have the [irrational] fear of escapees, but Pacifica is a >well educated lot, and our community less than most might not have the >NIMBY objections.  Where else could you find a less poluting industry, >heck, you don't even have the air polution that the cars bring to >retail.  A decent architect could landscape the thing to make it >disappear, put it up by the treatment plant, or perhaps on the flat spot at >the old quarry excavation.I'd like to see a world-class aquarium at the quarry; maybe theCalifornia Academy of Sciences would consider building a new onerather than trying to patch up Steinhardt?The idea of a prison at the quarry probably makes sense, even if itdoes make my skin crawl.  But I don't think it's entirely pollutionfree.   To generate significant revenue to the city, it would have tobe a large facility.  That means hundreds (thousands?) of staffmembers commuting into Pacifica.  Then there's the commute trips offamily members and other visitors.I don't think the shopping center idea, any kind of shopping center,will fly.  The access just isn't there.  If there was some magicsolution that would attract large numbers of shoppers and/or touristsit would be obvious.I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors -primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's wrongwith that?dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.comChristine Krenzel, CPADate: 10/12/95 02:41:36 PMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: The quarry.     >>I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors -      >>primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's      >>wrong with that?          Several weekends a year, various and sundry surfers and other known      visitors descend in volume on Pacifica, typically tying up Rt 1 and      making it impossible for residents to get to the beach.  I have no      problem with that happening occasionally, but I have no desire to see      it become the norm.             -- MarkDate: 10/13/95 06:26:57 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.Dave Yuhas wrote:>>I'd like to see a world-class aquarium at the quarry; maybe the>California Academy of Sciences would consider building a new one>rather than trying to patch up Steinhardt?Just a wild guess, but I bet the C.A.S. is strapped for cash.  Does the Monterey Aquarium have a good cash flow?>The idea of a prison ... That means hundreds (thousands?) of staff>members commuting into Pacifica.  We need more local jobs, live here work here.  Besides, there is plenty of excess capacity on the highway in the "reverse" commute direction.  Prisons mean more than "staff" employees, but I'm sure there would be lots of "buy-out contracting" ancillary supplies, provisions, laundry, etc., kind of like what you see around a military base.>I don't think the shopping center idea, any kind of shopping center,>will fly.  The access just isn't there.  I'm sure that widening the highway to include a double lanes for left turns and right turns would work just fine.  A traffic engineer could certainly resolve the access flow, Tim???  As I see it, there are all sorts of possibilities due to the width of the available space adjacent to the road to work within.   >I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors ->primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's wrong>with that?The quarry site, though near the ocean doesn't really have good access to the ocean.  Not to mention that the Linda Mar beach serves the beach/ocean folks just fine, being more sheltered than The Rockaway Beach cove.The "known visitors" are one thing, but I envision that we want to entice the thousands of "drive through" tourists who head south through town each weekend, before they go on to spend money in Half Moon Bay.   Date: 10/13/95 06:27:02 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.bruce,i respect your intelligence (after all, you did start this list!!), but what's with these "lovely" ideas??  i mean, first a factory outlet mall, and now a prison????????  sheesh!!!what about something nice and happy like a skating rink or something for teens to do??  or maybe a nice little outdoor mall like union street in s.f.???  i just can't abide by the idea of "come visit scenic pacifica, and while you're here, stop in and see our lovely prison."  YUCK!!!!alyssaSpeed doesn't kill, but sudden deceleration is dangerous.alyssaj_AT_netcom.comDate: 10/13/95 06:27:08 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.At 11:10 AM 10/12/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>How about building a "for profit" prison, where you rent cell space to >either the state, or to the City of San Francisco.  They can be attactive >looking, [from the outside], they provide local jobs, do not polute, and >the trend is clearly towards growth in this sector of the economy.  A >minimum security prison probably would be easy to "forcast" a revenue >stream on,Errrrrr ... as a civil libertarian, I can't say this idea enthusesme very much.  The majority of people being put away in prisons right now are non-violent offenders who are better off being re-habilitated than warehoused, while violent offenders go free or doconsiderably less time.  There would be much more space in our prisons if we put the people who deserve to be there in there anddid something else with the others ...>well educated lot, and our community less than most might not have the >NIMBY objections.  Where else could you find a less poluting industry, >heck, you don't even have the air polution that the cars bring to >retail.  A decent architect could landscape the thing to make it >disappear, put it up by the treatment plant, or perhaps on the flat spot at >the old quarry excavation.Well not to throw cold water on your plan ... someone managed to escape from the SF county jail up San Bruno way just off SharpPark road and this was one scary character.  I live in Moss Beach(yeah not a Pacifican) and I was looking in the shadows around myhouse and making sure all ground level doors and windows were locked.If you want to put something in the quarry that would fit withthe site, and provide the economics for retaining the open space, why not a small low density office and specialty/boutique shopstype complex?  There are lots of possibilities for sighting the thing and with the right type of design it might be possible to capture some of the small specialty firms in the high tech industry... like Passport in Half Moon Bay.Someone mentioned an aquarium, and unless well and carefully doneis almost guaranteed to be a money loser.  Besides aquariums arenot really very humane places (for the animals who are condemned to swim in endless circles) generally ... tho' I consider the Monterey Bay Aquarium as being one of the best and most humane ...Steinhart is in that category as well. ......... Cynthia (Moss Beach)--Date: 10/13/95 06:27:11 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaOn Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Bruce Hallman wrote:> OK, we know what you don't like, but you shouldn't take the easy out and > simply say what you don't like, you should suggest something realistic that > you do like.  sometimes that's easier said than done....however, what i'd really like to see is rockaway beach turned into an area in which _i'd_ like to shop, instead of driving up to serramonte or stonestown, and i don't mean that i want to see some huge, sprawling factory outlet mall.  i'd love to see shops like periwinkle's, little cafes where you could buy a nice latte, etc.  it'd just be nice to have some place like that in pacifica where you could drive to one spot instead of 5 different spots.  know what i mean???> You say, "let's keep it that way!!!"... but you are talking about someone > elses private property.  How much right do we have over other peoples > private property?  There is a limit.true, but the city does have quite a bit of say over what can and cannot be put there, i believe.  frankly, i would rather see pacifica focus on putting in something which would entice pacificans to shop here instead of working on drawing in out of towners......besides that, if pacificans like it, i'm sure the drive-by tourists will, too.alyssaDate: 10/13/95 06:27:14 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.Date: 10/13/95 06:27:17 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Dave Yuhas wrote:> I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors -> primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's wrong> with that?beats the hell outta me!!alyssaDate: 10/13/95 06:27:38 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in PacificaOn Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Bruce Hallman wrote:> OK, we know what you don't like, but you shouldn't take the easy out and > simply say what you don't like, you should suggest something realistic that > you do like.  sometimes that's easier said than done....however, what i'd really like to see is rockaway beach turned into an area in which _i'd_ like to shop, instead of driving up to serramonte or stonestown, and i don't mean that i want to see some huge, sprawling factory outlet mall.  i'd love to see shops like periwinkle's, little cafes where you could buy a nice latte, etc.  it'd just be nice to have some place like that in pacifica where you could drive to one spot instead of 5 different spots.  know what i mean???> You say, "let's keep it that way!!!"... but you are talking about someone > elses private property.  How much right do we have over other peoples > private property?  There is a limit.true, but the city does have quite a bit of say over what can and cannot be put there, i believe.  frankly, i would rather see pacifica focus on putting in something which would entice pacificans to shop here instead of working on drawing in out of towners......besides that, if pacificans like it, i'm sure the drive-by tourists will, too.alyssaDate: 10/13/95 10:20:44 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.Cynthia wrote:>>...while violent offenders go free or do considerably less time. [snip]> someone managed to escape from the SF county jail up San Bruno wayI acknowledge that a prison doesn't feel right.  But I'd bet that the risk to Pacifica from the early releases due to shortage of prison space far exceeds the potential risks of escapees from a prison.  My point is: 1) That with the forecasts for the need for increased prison capacity...2) With the certainty that most other cities will have a "not in my back yard" NIMBY opposition to building prisons guaranteeing a shortage of prison space...3) If we were to build a "for profit" prison on part of that land.Then we would be very certain to receive a stable cash flow which would allow us the luxury to do whatever we dream for the rest of the land.>why not a small low density office and specialty/boutique shops>type complex?  Actually, Pacifica has a NIMBY attitude which would oppose a prison, and office/boutique is probably the only thing which is politically feasible.  I fear that the office/boutique economics are much more dicey .  Are card clubs the best route?  If I were the banker being asked to give a loan I would choose: 1) a "for profit" prison.2) a card club.10) office/boutique complex.No need to guess though, it should be possible to make "forecasts" of the economics of our options.   Date: 10/13/95 10:20:47 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.bruce,there's more to life than money.  yes, ensuring pacifica's financial future is important, but at what price?  a card club???  a prison???  YUCK!  these are things which would seriously make me think about moving.  let's try to focus on things which improve quality of life in pacifica, not just cash flow.  in the end, if your quality of life sucks, it doesn't matter how much money you have...alyssaSpeed doesn't kill, but sudden deceleration is dangerous.alyssaj_AT_netcom.comDate: 10/13/95 10:21:00 AMFrom: Michael Slaughter (slaughtr_AT_crl.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.This is unbelievable . . . suggestions for malls, "for-profit" prisons [read: slave labor], and those opposed are execrable NIMBY's, unAmericans, and probably pinko Commie perverts. Prisons: The USA's #1 growth industry. Get on board or lose out.Unbelievable.P.S. Why not go whole hog here--I mean, let's go for the REALLY big bucks: Let's build a nuclear waste dump.Date: 10/13/95 10:21:06 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.At 07:25 AM 10/13/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>My point is: >>1) That with the forecasts for the need for increased prison capacity...Not to turn this discussion into one on the issue of crime and punishment, but the so called need for prison capacity is a manufactured one.  The only reason there is a need for more prisoncapacity is because acts that should not be, are being criminalized.>3) If we were to build a "for profit" prison on part of that land.>>Then we would be very certain to receive a stable cash flow which would >allow us the luxury to do whatever we dream for the rest of the land.Hmmmmmmm ... but at what point do we stop looking at the economicsof something and take a look at what is right?  Should we be enablinga process which is dehumanizing people whose only crime was to smokesome weed, sell some sex, or be down on their luck and homeless?When at the same time rapists, batterers, and killers do considerablyless time ... or none at all?My point is stable cash flow or no, supporting such a venture isfrom a humanitarian perspective just plain crazy.>Actually, Pacifica has a NIMBY attitudeYou know I really hate that term because it is frequently used as asilencing put-down by those whose ideas are being opposed.>I fear that the office/boutique economics are much more dicey intended>.  Are card clubs the best route?  As a Calif. Green, my perspective is to work for and encourage thedevelopment of businesses that serve the local community first.  Weneed to encourage the sort of development where people can shop locally, buy locally produced (as much as possible) products, and provide jobs close to home.  For example I shop at the local marketon Main Street in Half Moon Bay instead of at Safeway.>If I were the banker being asked to give a loan I would choose: >>1) a "for profit" prison.>2) a card club.>10) office/boutique complex.You would be a banker who has an eye for the "buck" and not for thewell being of society and the long term health of the community frommy point of view. >No need to guess though, it should be possible to make "forecasts" of the >economics of our options.This is what troubles me ... the reduction of everything to an economicformula which most often fails to consider human concerns ... just some investor's bottom line.For what it is worth as someone who lives just the otherside of the slide from ya all, I want to see Pacifica prosper, but in a way thataddresses human concerns.......... Cynthia (Moss Beach)Date: 10/13/95 10:21:11 AMFrom: LSTEERE.US.ORACLE.COM (LSTEERE_AT_us.oracle.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.--Boundary-15141631-0-0I actually think along those lines someone should propose a worldclass surfer's museum--you now, the history of the sport, samples of old surfboards, surfing classes, and so on. Draw people from all over the world? Leslie Steere Managing Editor, Oracle Magazine 415.506.6576				We like people who meet deadlines. Date: 10/13/95 10:21:19 AMFrom: J Couch (jcouch_AT_slip.net)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Development of old quarry siteThere has been much discussion of what to do with this location.  Ithink that both the mall and "for profit" prison would be about asclose to hell as I wish to be in this life (or any other).  I think that a less offensive shopping district, with restaurants,boutiques, a small movie theatre (ala the The Roxie/SF) would be theway to go.  I think that this type of neighborhood would be ideal forthe city and its citizens.  Instead of attracting the "grab n' go"crowd malls tend to attract, we might actually find Bay Area peoplewho make Pacifica their final destination.In the southwest corner next to the beach, would be an ideal locationfor a park.  This would play up Rockaway's natural beauty, as well asoffer an alternative to the Linda Mar beach.My 2 cents.----------------------------------------John Couch       "Sacred cows make the best hamburger."  A. HoffmanDate: 10/13/95 12:27:22 PMFrom: Bruce Hallman (deadfish_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.Cynthia wrote:>>...while violent offenders go free or do considerably less time. [snip]> someone managed to escape from the SF county jail up San Bruno wayI acknowledge that a prison doesn't feel right.  But I'd bet that the risk to Pacifica from the early releases due to shortage of prison space far exceeds the potential risks of escapees from a prison.  My point is: 1) That with the forecasts for the need for increased prison capacity...2) With the certainty that most other cities will have a "not in my back yard" NIMBY opposition to building prisons guaranteeing a shortage of prison space...3) If we were to build a "for profit" prison on part of that land.Then we would be very certain to receive a stable cash flow which would allow us the luxury to do whatever we dream for the rest of the land.>why not a small low density office and specialty/boutique shops>type complex?  Actually, Pacifica has a NIMBY attitude which would oppose a prison, and office/boutique is probably the only thing which is politically feasible.  I fear that the office/boutique economics are much more dicey .  Are card clubs the best route?  If I were the banker being asked to give a loan I would choose: 1) a "for profit" prison.2) a card club.10) office/boutique complex.No need to guess though, it should be possible to make "forecasts" of the economics of our options.   Date: 10/13/95 01:37:31 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.I'm realistic enough to see that the concepts of a mall and/or a "for profit" prison is offensive to too many people.>I think that a less offensive shopping district, with restaurants,[snip]>we might actually find Bay Area people who make Pacifica their final >destination.I am also trying to be realistic, can Pacifica with it's population of below 40,000 support a new shopping district?  If so, just barely, we are small.  [I bet that Serramonte Center alone has parking for 10,000 cars!]Can we attract people "outside" to change their habits and come into town to shop?  I doubt that we can change people's habits much at all.We must face reality that Pacifica is small and out of the way of the normal shopping traffic patterns.Not so with the "Sunday driver" tourist traffic, we are right on line with the Scenic Highway One driver.  We should play to that strength, that is why I like the idea of a retail development catering to the pass through tourist.Don't get me wrong about prisons, I strongly opposed "three strikes" and prisons give me the creeps.  My suggestion about a prison is partially tongue in cheek, but I'm trying to illustrate a real problem with any potential quarry option.  The cash flow from a prison is about as near a certain thing as I can think of.  A quarry project desperately needs a rock solid cash flow.  Don't forget, we need to find 11 million dollars to make this dream work, or it simply won't work.  I venture that everything that can raise 11 million dollars is offensive, we need to identify the options and choose the one that stinks the least.  [$11,000,000 / 11,000 Pacifica households = $1000, so it is possible.]Somebody please suggest how else we may raise 11 million dollars.  Remember, without funding, all this is just an empty dream.   Date: 10/13/95 04:09:01 PMFrom: Mike Vasey (mvasey_AT_sfsu.edu)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.These are some pretty interesting ideas and debates.  Is any of thisgetting to the Quarry committee?MikeDate: 10/16/95 06:20:46 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Mike Vasey writes...To: pacifica-l_AT_netcom.comFrom: mvasey_AT_sfsu.edu (Mike Vasey)Subject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.Okay.  How about this for an idea.Many high tech firms are growing and need "campus" like environments tocompetively attract good employees.  If these firms, or even one large andsuccessful firm, are domeciled Pacifica, the city would be entitled to 1%of their annual gross earnings.  In the case of multimillion dollarindustries, this can result in a pretty significant annual return.  A goodexample of a real situation is Borland Software located in Scott's Valleyin the old Santa's Village.  My understanding is that this has beenextremely good for the town.The beauty of this type of solution is the following:  the amount oftraffic is minimized because it is largely restricted to employees andvisitors;  the whole idea is to make the complex visually attractive;  withsuch a complex as an anchor, some of the area could be folded into thecurrent Rockaway "village" to foster more arts/entertainment and maybe asmall public park to enrich the environment;  and it would attractresidents and provide more people to patronize Pacifica's businesses.With Pacifica's ideal location near the City, the airport, and in thisnaturally beautiful setting, why not???Mike   Date: 10/16/95 06:20:51 AMFrom: Roy W. Forgy (Blueslvr_AT_gnn.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Mike Vasey writes...On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:43:13 -0700, you wrote:>:-)To: pacifica-l_AT_netcom.com>:-)From: mvasey_AT_sfsu.edu (Mike Vasey)>:-)Subject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.>:-)>:-)Okay.  How about this for an idea.>:-)>:-)Many high tech firms are growing and need "campus" like environments to>:-)competively attract good employees.  If these firms, or even one large and>:-)successful firm, are domeciled Pacifica, the city would be entitled to 1%>:-)of their annual gross earnings.  In the case of multimillion dollar>:-)industries, this can result in a pretty significant annual return.  A good>:-)example of a real situation is Borland Software located in Scott's Valley>:-)in the old Santa's Village.  My understanding is that this has been>:-)extremely good for the town.>:-)>:-)The beauty of this type of solution is the following:  the amount of>:-)traffic is minimized because it is largely restricted to employees and>:-)visitors;  the whole idea is to make the complex visually attractive;  with>:-)such a complex as an anchor, some of the area could be folded into the>:-)current Rockaway "village" to foster more arts/entertainment and maybe a>:-)small public park to enrich the environment;  and it would attract>:-)residents and provide more people to patronize Pacifica's businesses.>:-)>:-)With Pacifica's ideal location near the City, the airport, and in this>:-)naturally beautiful setting, why not???>:-)>:-)MikeMike, This is the best idea I have seen on the subject.  Just imagine going towork at a building on top of the hill overlooking the Pacific.  What a greatincentive to attract employees.  Although it will increase the rush hourtraffic I can imagine the boost to local business it there were several hundredpeople working here.Roy W. Forgy (blueslvr_AT_gnn.com)Pacifica, CADate: 10/16/95 06:21:14 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.Too bad we can't get people to just send us their money without coming over to deliver it in person.  Anybody got any experience running a lottery or starting a successful chain letter?        -- MarkDate: 10/16/95 06:21:27 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Development in Pacifica     > We intend to give this problem [Esplanade/Manor] top priority on our      > new code enforcement program.  We will require that the property      > owner control sand and improve the frontage of the land.                 You mean that piece of beach is privately owned?  By whom?  Seems nice      of them to allow the rest of us access.             -- Mark     Date: 10/16/95 06:21:32 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: Development in PacificaHow do other bedroom communities raise money?  There seem to be lots of such towns in the Bay Area (and other places) that don't seem to have to turn themselves into theme parks, factory towns, or shopping meccas.   Do they all have secret government grants?  We're an integral part of a thriving socio/economic region.  Why are we struggling?        -- Markthe pacifica-l EMail: listserv_AT_netcom.comDate: 10/16/95 06:21:35 AMFrom: JMorrall_AT_aol.com (JMorrall_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Re[2]: The quarry.i don't live in pacifica, i live in el granada, but since you're tossing outsuggestions, and it sounds as if the quarry space may be transformed, whatabout something historical?jmorrallDate: 10/16/95 06:21:38 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: The quarry.     How about we convert the Sweeney Ridge trail into this awesome      waterslide?  We could have it run on through the Fishing Pier and use      the Pacific Ocean as our wave pool.  Put in a ski lift running up from      the ShellDance parking lot, a glitzy restaurant on the Ridge with      tinted windows, and in the winter, plastic snow on the hill for      skiing.        -- MarkDate: 10/16/95 06:21:42 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[2]: The quarry.          >>I'm sure that widening the highway to include a double lanes for      >>left turns and right turns would work just fine.  A traffic engineer      >>could certainly resolve the access flow, Tim???  As I see it, there      >>are all sorts of possibilities due to the width of the available      >>space adjacent to the road to work within.             Right, let's go all the way and extend I380 to the beach ..               >>The "known visitors" are one thing, but I envision that we want to      >>entice the thousands of "drive through" tourists who head south      >>through town each weekend, before they go on to spend money in Half      >>Moon Bay.          How about a toll booth, or a speed trap?             -- Mark     Date: 10/16/95 06:21:46 AMFrom: Robert Olague (rgolague_AT_slip.net)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.At 07:40 PM 10/12/95 GMT, you wrote:>I'd like to see a world-class aquarium at the quarry; maybe the>California Academy of Sciences would consider building a new one>rather than trying to patch up Steinhardt?>I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors ->primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's wrong>with that?I too like this vein of thinking. I once heard that there was someoneconsidering buying the quarry and digging it out to create a marina. Perhapsif we lured some commercial fishing in we could have a fishermans wharf typearea. I cant' imagine this being a cheap project though.---                          /*****Bob Olague******\                         /**Rgolague_AT_Slip.Net***\                         /***Pacifica, California***\Date: 10/16/95 06:21:49 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development of old quarry siteAt 04:23 PM 10/13/95 GMT, J Couch wrote:>I think that a less offensive shopping district, with restaurants,>boutiques, a small movie theatre (ala the The Roxie/SF) would be the>way to go. Actually, I think this is a very attractive idea as the one thingboth Pacifica and the HMB coastside lack is a movie theater (well you do have the Seavue) ... it could be a quaint cozy shopping district with a theater that shows art/foreign films.......... Cynthia (Moss Beach)--Date: 10/16/95 06:21:54 AMFrom: Dave Yuhas (dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Re[2]: The quarry.On Thu, 12 Oct 95 13:30:41 pdt, you wrote:>     >>I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors - >     >>primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's >     >>wrong with that?>     >     Several weekends a year, various and sundry surfers and other known >     visitors descend in volume on Pacifica, typically tying up Rt 1 and >     making it impossible for residents to get to the beach.  I have no >     problem with that happening occasionally, but I have no desire to see >     it become the norm.>     >        -- Mark>>I doubt that will ever happen.  The beaches and the ocean are already there; no permits battles tofight.  Why can't we maximize what we already have instead ofdesperately trying to attract god knows what?dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.comChristine Krenzel, CPADate: 10/16/95 06:21:58 AMFrom: mla_AT_dolby.com (mla_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Development in PacificaForgive me for butting in; I am not sure that I am even qualified since:1) I am not from Pacifica, I live in San Bruno2) I am not even American, I moved here from England 6 yrs agoBut...I love Pacifica. I have explored Montara Mountain from the entrance at Higgins through to Montara by Mountain bike. Also from Sweeny Ridge through to Dog Meat behind the orchid greenhouse. The ridge above the sea break south of the fishingpier is breathtaking and the 'dump' - sorry, mussel rock transfer station, down to the ocean is quite spectacular. I have even scrambled down the drainage pipe located behind the Pacific Manor area onto the beach and headed south to the 'disused beach' (about 1/2 mile).If I want good food then there is the Saddle Town Ranch Cafe buried deep in the hills (I have scoured the bay area for good food since I arrived; this place does the best omelets for breakfast). For ethnic dining there is Tams at Manor place.Have I made my point yet ? You are all lucky enough to live in a gorgeous part of the world. Crime is low. The majority of the populus appear to be both happy and intelligent (OK so you are lucky to have Dr. Mark Davis in your midst!) and gainfully employed.I have also hiked around the quarry; I loved it. I don't think that it is an eyesore - I am not sure that I would say the same about the mobile home park as you head south into Pacifica on Hwy 1 from 280 south...In my opinion tourism may be the solution. But as Mark previously pointed out - he doesn't like the idea of zillions of visitors (just like Half Moon Bay).I don't like the idea of a prison or a mall. I do like the idea of worthwhile contribution to the community which will also attract extra business without upsetting the local balance that you all appear to currently take for granted.But what do I know... I am just a foreigner..Mark Atherton.Date: 10/16/95 06:22:04 AMFrom: Dave Yuhas (dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:35:54 -0700, you wrote:>Dave Yuhas wrote:>>>I'd like to see a world-class aquarium at the quarry; maybe the>>California Academy of Sciences would consider building a new one>>rather than trying to patch up Steinhardt?>>Just a wild guess, but I bet the C.A.S. is strapped for cash.  >The CAS has a bond measure on the ballot plus they can raise moneyprivately.  I don't think this will ever happen, but it is the kind ofdevelopment I would like to see.>Does the Monterey Aquarium have a good cash flow?Are you kidding?  They have a license to print money!>>The idea of a prison ... That means hundreds (thousands?) of staff>>members commuting into Pacifica.  >>We need more local jobs, live here work here.  Besides, there is plenty of >excess capacity on the highway in the "reverse" commute direction.  Prisons >mean more than "staff" employees, but I'm sure there would be lots of >"buy-out contracting" ancillary supplies, provisions, laundry, etc., kind of >like what you see around a military base.>>>I don't think the shopping center idea, any kind of shopping center,>>will fly.  The access just isn't there.  >>I'm sure that widening the highway to include a double lanes for left turns >and right turns would work just fine.  A traffic engineer could certainly >resolve the access flow, Tim???  As I see it, there are all sorts of >possibilities due to the width of the available space adjacent to the road >to work within.   It's not a question of how wide the highway is, it's _where_ thehighway is.  There's no secret about where Pacifica is located.  Ifthere was a market here for a factory outlet, or whatever, attemptswould have been made to build in Pacifica.  >>>I'd like to see Pacifica develop facilities for the known visitors ->>primarily those folks who use the beaches and the ocean.  What's wrong>>with that?>>The quarry site, though near the ocean doesn't really have good access to >the ocean.  Not to mention that the Linda Mar beach serves the beach/ocean >folks just fine, being more sheltered than The Rockaway Beach cove.>>The "known visitors" are one thing, but I envision that we want to entice >the thousands of "drive through" tourists who head south through town each >weekend, before they go on to spend money in Half Moon Bay.Pacifica is just too close to SF to be considered a _destination_.It's my opinion that most people don't pack up the car to drive 10miles.  Pacifica is merely some place to drive through to get to therest of the Coast.  dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.comChristine Krenzel, CPADate: 10/16/95 06:22:09 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.At 11:10 AM 10/12/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>How about building a "for profit" prison, where you rent cell space to >either the state, or to the City of San Francisco.  They can be attactive >looking, [from the outside], they provide local jobs, do not polute, and >the trend is clearly towards growth in this sector of the economy.  A >minimum security prison probably would be easy to "forcast" a revenue >stream on,Errrrrr ... as a civil libertarian, I can't say this idea enthusesme very much.  The majority of people being put away in prisons right now are non-violent offenders who are better off being re-habilitated than warehoused, while violent offenders go free or doconsiderably less time.  There would be much more space in our prisons if we put the people who deserve to be there in there anddid something else with the others ...>well educated lot, and our community less than most might not have the >NIMBY objections.  Where else could you find a less poluting industry, >heck, you don't even have the air polution that the cars bring to >retail.  A decent architect could landscape the thing to make it >disappear, put it up by the treatment plant, or perhaps on the flat spot at >the old quarry excavation.Well not to throw cold water on your plan ... someone managed to escape from the SF county jail up San Bruno way just off SharpPark road and this was one scary character.  I live in Moss Beach(yeah not a Pacifican) and I was looking in the shadows around myhouse and making sure all ground level doors and windows were locked.If you want to put something in the quarry that would fit withthe site, and provide the economics for retaining the open space, why not a small low density office and specialty/boutique shopstype complex?  There are lots of possibilities for sighting the thing and with the right type of design it might be possible to capture some of the small specialty firms in the high tech industry... like Passport in Half Moon Bay.Someone mentioned an aquarium, and unless well and carefully doneis almost guaranteed to be a money loser.  Besides aquariums arenot really very humane places (for the animals who are condemned to swim in endless circles) generally ... tho' I consider the Monterey Bay Aquarium as being one of the best and most humane ...Steinhart is in that category as well. ......... Cynthia (Moss Beach)--Date: 10/16/95 06:22:14 AMFrom: Dave Yuhas (dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:39:34 -0700, you wrote:>I am also trying to be realistic, can Pacifica with it's population of below >40,000 support a new shopping district?  If so, just barely, we are small.  >[I bet that Serramonte Center alone has parking for 10,000 cars!]>>Can we attract people "outside" to change their habits and come into town to >shop?  I doubt that we can change people's habits much at all.>>We must face reality that Pacifica is small and out of the way of the normal >shopping traffic patterns.>>Not so with the "Sunday driver" tourist traffic, we are right on line with >the Scenic Highway One driver.  We should play to that strength, that is why >I like the idea of a retail development catering to the pass through >tourist.The flaw here is that Pacifica is not perceived as being part of"Scenic Highway One."  It's an extension of Daly City.  It's notrealistic to expect people driving down to HMB or Monterey/Carmel tostop and do a little shopping in Pacifica.  There is no "magic net" tocapture tourists with.What's the first thing folks driving down Hw1 from the north see ifthey get off the highway at Manor: the grungy shopping center.  (Itmay be apocryphal, but someone told me that, several years ago, agroup of city planners from around the state did a study of Pacificaand reached the conclusion that the city had squandered its scenicresources.)>Don't forget, we need to find 11 million dollars to make this dream work, or >it simply won't work.  I venture that everything that can raise 11 million >dollars is offensive, we need to identify the options and choose the one >that stinks the least.  [$11,000,000 / 11,000 Pacifica households = $1000, >so it is possible.]>>Somebody please suggest how else we may raise 11 million dollars.  Remember, >without funding, all this is just an empty dream.This is a pipe dream unless the state or the  feds come up with thecash.  Or some sort of developer who would put up the bucks.  I neverthought the city took out the option with any expectation that thecity itself would purchase the land.  The option was taken, I thought,to give the city time to find a suitable developer/buyer.  And Iassume the option can be extended; what's the owner going to do withthe property?dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.comChristine Krenzel, CPADate: 10/16/95 06:22:23 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re[4]: The quarry.        Um, are you familiar with Pacifica's history??                  How about an ocean-side Drive-In movie theatre?  Joe-Bob would be pleased.        -- MarkDate: 10/16/95 06:22:28 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.At 07:25 AM 10/13/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>My point is: >>1) That with the forecasts for the need for increased prison capacity...Not to turn this discussion into one on the issue of crime and punishment, but the so called need for prison capacity is a manufactured one.  The only reason there is a need for more prisoncapacity is because acts that should not be, are being criminalized.>3) If we were to build a "for profit" prison on part of that land.>>Then we would be very certain to receive a stable cash flow which would >allow us the luxury to do whatever we dream for the rest of the land.Hmmmmmmm ... but at what point do we stop looking at the economicsof something and take a look at what is right?  Should we be enablinga process which is dehumanizing people whose only crime was to smokesome weed, sell some sex, or be down on their luck and homeless?When at the same time rapists, batterers, and killers do considerablyless time ... or none at all?My point is stable cash flow or no, supporting such a venture isfrom a humanitarian perspective just plain crazy.>Actually, Pacifica has a NIMBY attitudeYou know I really hate that term because it is frequently used as asilencing put-down by those whose ideas are being opposed.>I fear that the office/boutique economics are much more dicey intended>.  Are card clubs the best route?  As a Calif. Green, my perspective is to work for and encourage thedevelopment of businesses that serve the local community first.  Weneed to encourage the sort of development where people can shop locally, buy locally produced (as much as possible) products, and provide jobs close to home.  For example I shop at the local marketon Main Street in Half Moon Bay instead of at Safeway.>If I were the banker being asked to give a loan I would choose: >>1) a "for profit" prison.>2) a card club.>10) office/boutique complex.You would be a banker who has an eye for the "buck" and not for thewell being of society and the long term health of the community frommy point of view. >No need to guess though, it should be possible to make "forecasts" of the >economics of our options.This is what troubles me ... the reduction of everything to an economicformula which most often fails to consider human concerns ... just some investor's bottom line.For what it is worth as someone who lives just the otherside of the slide from ya all, I want to see Pacifica prosper, but in a way thataddresses human concerns.......... Cynthia (Moss Beach)--Date: 10/16/95 06:23:05 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Re[2]: The quarry.On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 mfd_AT_dolby.com wrote:>      How about we convert the Sweeney Ridge trail into this awesome >      waterslide?  We could have it run on through the Fishing Pier and use >      the Pacific Ocean as our wave pool.  Put in a ski lift running up from i'd rather do that than have a prison or a factory outlet mall!!alyssap.s.  too bad it's a little impractical, eh? :)Date: 10/16/95 06:23:08 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development of old quarry siteOn Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Moonshadow wrote:> you do have the Seavue) ... it could be a quaint cozy shopping > district with a theater that shows art/foreign films.no offense, but i don't see a whole lot of pacificans going to see art/foreign films...however, i would love to see a movie theater done up like the cineplex odeon near serramonte mall.  too bad the seavue is such a dump!!alyssaDate: 10/16/95 06:23:13 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry.Date: 10/16/95 06:23:16 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development of old quarry siteOn Sun, 15 Oct 1995 Rick776_AT_aol.com wrote:> Maybe that would be an idea for the Quary site. Put up a combination movie> theater and skating rink.  Either Ice or Roller.  Either one would probably> do well .sounds good to me!!  btw, a theater doesn't need 8 million screens to be a theater people would like to go to....the odeon only has 2 screens, but we go there whenever they're showing a movie we like 'cause it's such a nice theater (nice velvet-feeling seat backs, etc.). :)alyssaDate: 10/16/95 06:23:19 AMFrom: Rick776_AT_aol.com (Rick776_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development of old quarry siteIn a message dated 95-10-15 12:55:03 EDT, alyssaj_AT_netcom.com (Alyssa Jenkins)writes:>.however, i would love to see a movie theater done up >like the cineplex odeon near serramonte mall.  too bad the seavue is such >a dump!!I agree. We need a nice theater. Something like the Century Plaza or theUnited Artists metro . We don't necessarily need one with  6 differenttheaters. But one real nice one would be a definite plus.  I keep seeing addsabout how the seavue is improved, but it really is a dump. It would be niceto be able to go to a nice theater, without having to go over the hill to getthere.Maybe that would be an idea for the Quary site. Put up a combination movietheater and skating rink.  Either Ice or Roller.  Either one would probablydo well .Date: 10/16/95 09:13:34 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.Mike Vasey wrote...>Okay.  How about this for an idea.>>Many high tech firms are growing and need "campus" like environments to>competively attract good employees.  I agree, a high tech industrial park is probably the best option which could "fly" politically and maybe be financially feasible .  I like the idea though I am skeptical.[now, allow me to put on my skeptic's hat...]You can be sure that every small town in the country is vying to get clean high tech industry to locate in their town.  In other words, any company "shopping around" for a place to locate would be in position to negotiate terms on the "1%" tax revenue.This is not the case for prisons, Pacifica would be in the strong bargaining position and could set the terms of the deal.>If these firms, or even one large and successful firm, ...A good>example of a real situation is Borland Software While Borland used to be large & successful, (I only loosely follow this news) but I recall reading that they have fallen on hard times.  My point is that "high tech" companies are notoriously unstable which means that any financing is risky (costing more), and the City would probably be left holding the bag when things go sour.  The trend is for software companies to relocate to Asia, Eastern Europe, and to India which have vastly cheaper labor/housing costs.Not so with a prison, the forecast need for "beds" is growing and very stable well into the future.  I agree with Cynthia that prisons are the evil result of our society's failure to deal with it's social problems.  But I don't think that as a society we should refuse to build prisons to house our criminals.  The alternative is to let them out early, or to crowd them inhumanely in the existing prisons.  The demographic projection is crystal clear, in the next few decades California will need more prison beds and we are not building prisons.  If Pacifica were to take lead on this, we could be in a strong bargaining position to lease our prison space at a high profit.>...located in Scott's Valley in the old Santa's Village.  A difference in our case is that the "infrastructure" doesn't already exist at the quarry site, and who would pay for the development?  A loan agaist a future and unknown "high tech" tenant?  To beat the March'96 deadline, we should be looking around now for high tech companies to pay the rent.>The beauty of this type of solution is the following:  the amount of>traffic is minimized because it is largely restricted to employees and>visitors;  Ditto for a prison.  In fact, prisons are one of the least polluting industries I can think of.  Illegal dumping of the solvents used in high tech industry in Silicon Valley has seriously damaged their water table.  [Is Silicon Valley free of traffic problems?]  The traffic impacts from a prison can be spread out better over the 24 hours of the day.  >the whole idea is to make the complex visually attractive;  Serious question:  Why can't a prison be made visually attractive?  With a good architect, earthen berms, landscaping, etc.. the thing could blend it so that we wouldn't even need to notice.  >such a complex as an anchor, some of the area could be folded into the>current Rockaway "village" to foster more arts/entertainment and maybe a>small public park to enrich the environment;  With the stable revenue from a prison and it's ancillary business, we could afford a *large* public park.   Date: 10/16/95 01:30:37 PMFrom: LSTEERE.US.ORACLE.COM (LSTEERE_AT_us.oracle.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Mike Vasey writes...--Boundary-15177630-0-0I vote for an aquarium. And/or a conference center. Why go to Carmel or Monterey for those things? What if there were a nice oceanside conference center 12 minutes from San Francisco? The kind with high-class lodging, hot tubs over the ocean, good restaurant(s), little gift shops... I'd rather have that then a prison at the bottom of the hill I live on, and it would certainly bring a crowd with more disposable income and the freedom to spend it. Leslie Steere Managing Editor, Oracle Magazine 415.506.6576				We like people who meet deadlines. Date: 10/16/95 03:15:20 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: The Indian history of Pacifica.It is dawning on me that the history of Pacifica includes the era of the Spanish Missions.  Especially interesting are the conflicts between the Franciscans and the Native People.  The San Francisco Mission kept a outpost at what was later to become the Sanchez Adobe, (corner of Linda Mar Blvd/Adobe Drive).  An enticing reference to the baptism of a rebel Indian at San Pedro is kept at a UC Santa Cruz Web page, and I have added a link in my Pacifica page to this early bit of Pacifica's history.   Date: 10/17/95 06:34:18 AMFrom: LSTEERE.US.ORACLE.COM (LSTEERE_AT_us.oracle.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development in Pacifica--Boundary-15182917-0-0I wouldn't call anyone like Mark a foreigner! Hey Mark, welcome to us! If you want to learn how to save the area from a nasty freeway, call me at the number below! Leslie Steere Managing Editor, Oracle Magazine 415.506.6576				We like people who meet deadlines. Date: 10/17/95 06:35:05 AMFrom: Mike Vasey (mvasey_AT_sfsu.edu)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Eric Lloyd Wright!Status: RAs I understand it, they do plan to build the card club at the same site asthe once proposed conference center.  That, in fact, is right out at theend of the Point on the very prominent ridge overlooking Sharp Park.  IfI'm right, it will be a very noticeable structure that will not only blightthe natural quality of the ridge but also will require a major road betweenthe wetland and hills.  The road constitutes a major problem for the SanFrancisco garter snake since it uses the uplands for most purposes(sunning, hibernating, nesting, etc.) and the wetlands for foraging.  Thiswas one of the primary difficulties faced by Lasker et al. for theconference center proposal.I really don't care how beautiful the design may be, or whether it isdesigned by Frank Lloyd Wright himself, the card club idea doesn't appealto me and placement of it, or anything comparable, on Mori's Point will bea big environmental problem unless a solution to the snake-unfriendly roadis solved.MikeDate: 10/17/95 06:35:09 AMFrom: Michael Slaughter (slaughtr_AT_crl.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarryThis is unbelievable . . . "for-profit" prisons [read: slave labor] in Pacifica. Those opposed are deemed execrable NIMBY's, unAmericans, and probably pinko Commie perverts who need to get a job.Golly, look at the benefits:* Prisons: The USA's #1 growth industry. Get on the bandwagon or miss out on this incredible opportunity! * Help keep the USA #1 in the world--in percent of population in prison. We MUST stay ahead of South Africa!* Help those angry white capitalists in suits suppress minorities and the (ugh) underclass!* Prisons mean jobs, jobs, jobs! (Read: profits, profits, profits--for the privileged few)* Consider the incredibly cheap prison labor pool, the least expensive this side of Haiti. They don't have a union and they can't go on strike! * USA--founded on genocide, perpetuated by slavery. Let's keep it that way!* Prisons for profit--the more prisons, the more prisoners, the more profits!* Slavery is freedom, war is peace, ignorance is truth.Unbelievable.P.S. Why not go whole hog here--I mean, let's go for the REALLY big bucks: Let's build a nuclear waste dump.Date: 10/17/95 06:35:12 AMFrom: Christi603_AT_aol.com (Christi603_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Development of old quarry siteRick writes:>Maybe that would be an idea for the Quary site. Put up a combination movie>theater and skating rink.  Either Ice or Roller.  Either one would probably>do well .Bravo!!! Clap Clap..!!!  Do you know how long this place has needed somethingfor the kids & kid at heart in Pacifica? Since I was one :) And now my Kidsare board. A nice movie theatre and a skating rink Would be an excellentIdea. Too bad this has already been shot down in the past! Maybe this time itwill pass if the other option is a Jail at the Quarry. On one hand we have aplace for kids to go to entertain themselves and stay out of trouble. And onthe other we have a place to put them when their so board all they can do isget into trouble. I know where my vote will be! :)Date: 10/17/95 06:35:16 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Eric Lloyd Wright!> the natural quality of the ridge but also will require a major road between> the wetland and hills.  The road constitutes a major problem for the San> Francisco garter snake since it uses the uplands for most purposes> (sunning, hibernating, nesting, etc.) and the wetlands for foraging.  This> was one of the primary difficulties faced by Lasker et al. for the> conference center proposal.the question to ask is "have they done an EIR?"  they have to finish the EIR process before they can start building..there's time in the EIR process to allow for public review.  get the EIR, and look at the actual project design, as well as proposed mitigation measures.  that's the only way to know for sure what's going on....and then, if the mitigation measures are unsatisfactory, you start to fight the EIR...alyssap.s.  i feel the same as you do about card clubs........ewww!!Date: 10/17/95 10:10:11 AMFrom: mfd_AT_dolby.com (mfd_AT_dolby.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Mike Vasey writes...     >>With Pacifica's ideal location near the City, the airport, and in      >>this ..          The location is nice, and we residents seem to like it a lot, but it's      not ideal.  It's too hard to get here and too easy to get lost,      especially from the airport, especially on the (ahem) occasionally      foggy day.  With all those hotels just south of the airport, plus      Silicon Valley, plus San Francisco, there's some serious, industrial      strength commercial competition.  Still, a small, lucrative little      software company or two might not be too bad.  Anybody got any ideas      for a killer app, some free time, and a spare garage ..?             - Mark          Date: 10/17/95 10:10:15 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: $2,400 per dayChristi603_AT_aol.com writes:>>A nice movie theatre and a skating rink would be an excellent idea. To pay an $11,000,000 loan off over a 30 year period at 7% rate requires a payment of $2,400 per day.  It will take more than a movie theater and a skating rink to make this kind of money.   Date: 10/17/95 10:10:19 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Eric Lloyd Wright vs. the SF Garter snake!>The road constitutes a major problem for the San>Francisco garter snake since it uses the uplands for most purposes>(sunning, hibernating, nesting, etc.) and the wetlands for foraging.Are you refering to the wetlands to the south of the Mori Point hill (Calera creek/future wetlands restoration associated with the sewage treatment plant), the wetlands to the north (golf course), or both?   Date: 10/17/95 10:10:24 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Are their rational reasons to not build a prison?Michael Slaughter wrote:>>This is unbelievable . . . "for-profit" prisons [read: slave labor] in >Pacifica. Those opposed are deemed execrable NIMBY's, unAmericans, and >probably pinko Commie perverts who need to get a job. I hope I am correctly interpreting Michael Slaughter's well written sarcasm, expressing his opposition to the idea of a "for-profit" prison in Pacifica:Distilling it down to an essence, he objects to the class (racial?) conflict that the prison system embodies for our society.  I agree.  The quickly increasing number of people in California being sentenced to time in prison is a very sad reflection of our failure to deal with the problems of our society.  But Michael appears to argue that due to our failure, we should not follow through and imprison the people we sentence to prison!  Very few people would agree that the people convicted of crimes should not be required to spend their time in prison.  Therefore, if California intends to keep the increasing numbers of people they are sentencing to prison IN prison, then we need increasing numbers of prisons.  Failure to do this either means that criminals are to be released early, or that they are to be subjected to inhuman crowding (or both).  This has nothing to do with "slave labor".I am trying to understand the reasons that Pacifica should oppose the building of a prison here, and Michael gives one:  1) As a statement of principle in protest to our society's failure to deal with it's social problems.B) The other I hear is that prisons are "not nice" and we don't want "not nice" things in Pacifica.C) Another is that it doesn't feel safe to know that criminals are locked up in town and they might escape [though to not know about the early release of criminals in town is OK].I accept all three of these reasons.  All three are based on emotions (and the first two I share).  Emotions can be valid reasons to make decisions.  I am just curious, are their rational reasons to not build a prison here too?     Date: 10/17/95 12:42:08 PMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.At 08:26 AM 10/16/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>Not so with a prison, the forecast need for "beds" is growing and very >stable well into the future.  I agree with Cynthia that prisons are the evil >result of our society's failure to deal with it's social problems.  But I >don't think that as a society we should refuse to build prisons to house our >criminals.  The alternative is to let them out early, or to crowd them >inhumanely in the existing prisons.  Do you realize that if we stopped sending people who *do not* belongin prison to them, we would have plenty of room for the offenders who*DO* belong there?  *sigh*>The demographic projection is crystal clear, in the next few decades >California will need more prison beds and we are not building prisons.  If >Pacifica were to take lead on this, we could be in a strong bargaining >position to lease our prison space at a high profit.I honestly can not believe what I am hearing ... this is a ludicroussuggestion.>Ditto for a prison.  In fact, prisons are one of the least polluting >industries I can think of. *SIGH* ............ Cynthia Date: 10/17/95 12:42:14 PMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Are their rational reasons to not build a prison?At 08:56 AM 10/17/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>But Michael appears to argue that due to our failure, we should not follow >through and imprison the people we sentence to prison!  Very few people >would agree that the people convicted of crimes should not be required to >spend their time in prison.  Bruce ... if I were a citizen of Pacifica I would not want to be a part of a system that is imprisoning the *wrong* people.  If communitiesrefused to build any more prisons, the state would have to look at differentsolutions to the problem.  Solutions that could include diversion programsfor non-violent offenders, decriminalization of certain types (or all) of drug use, and shelters/housing for the homeless.  As it stands rightnow, the people who really should be serving long sentences are not,because all the beds/cells are filled with non-violent offenders.>Therefore, if California intends to keep the increasing numbers of people >they are sentencing to prison IN prison, then we need increasing numbers of >prisons.  Failure to do this either means that criminals are to be released >early, or that they are to be subjected to inhuman crowding (or both).  This >has nothing to do with "slave labor".This is not an argument for building more prisons!  If anything itis an argument for a long hard look at who we send to prison and why.We need to be working to redefine our corrections system before it eatsus up and we're all arguing about this from the other side of the wall.>I am just curious, are their rational reasons to not build a prison here >too?  See above!......... CynthiaDate: 10/17/95 03:46:35 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.Cynthia wrote:>>Do you realize that if we stopped sending people who *do not* belong>in prison to them, we would have plenty of room for the offenders who>*DO* belong there?  Yes.  But realistically, this won't happen any time soon.  And in the mean time, what should we do?  Here are my suggestions:1) triple funding of research on crime & society.2) triple funding of the education of our children.3) require people to see conditions inside our prisons.4) require people to see conditions inside our schools.5) somehow encourage public debate on crime & society.6) to lessen crowding & early releases, build more prisons now.                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^7) somehow find a way *politically* to repeal "three strikes laws"    and mandated sentencing.8) ...?As a small town, Pacifica has some control over 2), 4), 5) and 6).How about this?  Build a "for profit" prison in Pacifica and earmark the money to fund our schools.Do you propose *not* building prisons sufficient for the projected population because somehow inhumane overcrowding coupled with the inevitable "front page scandals" from early releases will exert political pressure solving the problem of crime in our society?  Now THAT is ludicrous .In the mean time, while we find a solution; we better build some prisons, either here, or in someone else's back yard.  I see no other practical humane alternative.   Date: 10/18/95 06:35:35 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.At 03:16 PM 10/17/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>Yes.  But realistically, this won't happen any time soon.  And in the mean >time, what should we do?  Here are my suggestions:>>1) triple funding of research on crime & society.>2) triple funding of the education of our children.>3) require people to see conditions inside our prisons.>4) require people to see conditions inside our schools.>5) somehow encourage public debate on crime & society.>6) to lessen crowding & early releases, build more prisons now.>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bruce ......... I submit that this is *not* a direct concern ofPacifica, and in fact to build such would actually depress propertyvalues in the immediate vicinity of any prison built.>How about this?  Build a "for profit" prison in Pacifica and earmark the >money to fund our schools.*arrrrrrgh* ... >Do you propose *not* building prisons sufficient for the projected >population because somehow inhumane overcrowding coupled with the inevitable >"front page scandals" from early releases will exert political pressure >solving the problem of crime in our society?  Now THAT is ludicrous .Hmmmmmm even in undercrowded conditions, some of the prisons beingbuilt today are inhumane ... I suggest you check out the conditionsat Pelican Bay ...particularily in the SHU (security housing unit).>In the mean time, while we find a solution; we better build some prisons, >either here, or in someone else's back yard.  I see no other practical >humane alternative.If a prison needs to be built, it shouldn't even be in a residential area to begin with ... the hazards are simply too high ... the costin real estate values is also too high ... and FWIW there are betterways to generate income and tax base for Pacifica.......... CynthiaDate: 10/18/95 06:35:46 AMFrom: David Macy (David.Macy_AT_efi.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Are their rational reaso        Reply to:   RE>Are their rational reasons to not build a prison?Bruce Hallman wrote>I am just curious, are their rational reasons to not builda prison here too?I don't know how rational you would consider this second hand report to be, butI remember seeing/reading (I don't know which) a report about the negativeeffects on prison towns caused by the families of prison employees. Thisreport/study or whatever it was indicated that prison guards were oftenperpetrators of domestic violence and various other forms of family abuse orneglect, carrying their tense and violent work atmosphere into their homes. Thereport further found that children of prison guards were involved in andisproportionate number of criminal and gang related activities. I'm sure youcan see where this is going in relation to effects on the town.Date: 10/18/95 06:35:51 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Are their rational reasons to not build a prison?From owner-pacifica-l  Tue Oct 17 18:49:41 1995Return-Path: Received: by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)	id LAA27740; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:19:52 -0700Received: from blob.best.net by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)	id LAA27690; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:19:33 -0700At 08:56 AM 10/17/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>But Michael appears to argue that due to our failure, we should not follow >through and imprison the people we sentence to prison!  Very few people >would agree that the people convicted of crimes should not be required to >spend their time in prison.  Bruce ... if I were a citizen of Pacifica I would not want to be a part of a system that is imprisoning the *wrong* people.  If communitiesrefused to build any more prisons, the state would have to look at differentsolutions to the problem.  Solutions that could include diversion programsfor non-violent offenders, decriminalization of certain types (or all) of drug use, and shelters/housing for the homeless.  As it stands rightnow, the people who really should be serving long sentences are not,because all the beds/cells are filled with non-violent offenders.>Therefore, if California intends to keep the increasing numbers of people >they are sentencing to prison IN prison, then we need increasing numbers of >prisons.  Failure to do this either means that criminals are to be released >early, or that they are to be subjected to inhuman crowding (or both).  This >has nothing to do with "slave labor".This is not an argument for building more prisons!  If anything itis an argument for a long hard look at who we send to prison and why.We need to be working to redefine our corrections system before it eatsus up and we're all arguing about this from the other side of the wall.>I am just curious, are their rational reasons to not build a prison here >too?  See above!......... CynthiaDate: 10/18/95 06:35:55 AMFrom: Dave Yuhas (dave.yuhas_AT_pobox.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.At 03:16 PM 10/17/95 -0700, you wrote:>4) require people to see conditions inside our schools.Bruce,I spent 8 months working on a telecommunications project for the SFUSD.  Itwas a volunteer thing.  I got to see what conditions were like at a coupleof schools and I talked to lots of people, both administrative types andteachers. The feeling I came away with was that the parents of the studentsare largely to blame for the present mess.  The project I was involved withneeded parental involvement; we didn't get it.  I'm convinced most parentsof children in the public system care more about the school as a day carecenter than what kind of education their kids are getting.More money will provide better day care, not a better education.Just my 0.02 cents worth.Dave Yuhas                         Christine Krenzel, CPADave.Yuhas_AT_pobox.com               415 912 5840Date: 10/18/95 06:36:13 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.At 08:26 AM 10/16/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>Not so with a prison, the forecast need for "beds" is growing and very >stable well into the future.  I agree with Cynthia that prisons are the evil >result of our society's failure to deal with it's social problems.  But I >don't think that as a society we should refuse to build prisons to house our >criminals.  The alternative is to let them out early, or to crowd them >inhumanely in the existing prisons.  Do you realize that if we stopped sending people who *do not* belongin prison to them, we would have plenty of room for the offenders who*DO* belong there?  *sigh*>The demographic projection is crystal clear, in the next few decades >California will need more prison beds and we are not building prisons.  If >Pacifica were to take lead on this, we could be in a strong bargaining >position to lease our prison space at a high profit.I honestly can not believe what I am hearing ... this is a ludicroussuggestion.>Ditto for a prison.  In fact, prisons are one of the least polluting >industries I can think of. *SIGH* ............ Cynthia Date: 10/18/95 06:36:21 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Without funding, this is just an empty dream.At 03:16 PM 10/17/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>Yes.  But realistically, this won't happen any time soon.  And in the mean >time, what should we do?  Here are my suggestions:>>1) triple funding of research on crime & society.>2) triple funding of the education of our children.>3) require people to see conditions inside our prisons.>4) require people to see conditions inside our schools.>5) somehow encourage public debate on crime & society.>6) to lessen crowding & early releases, build more prisons now.>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bruce ......... I submit that this is *not* a direct concern ofPacifica, and in fact to build such would actually depress propertyvalues in the immediate vicinity of any prison built.>How about this?  Build a "for profit" prison in Pacifica and earmark the >money to fund our schools.*arrrrrrgh* ... >Do you propose *not* building prisons sufficient for the projected >population because somehow inhumane overcrowding coupled with the inevitable >"front page scandals" from early releases will exert political pressure >solving the problem of crime in our society?  Now THAT is ludicrous .Hmmmmmm even in undercrowded conditions, some of the prisons beingbuilt today are inhumane ... I suggest you check out the conditionsat Pelican Bay ...particularily in the SHU (security housing unit).>In the mean time, while we find a solution; we better build some prisons, >either here, or in someone else's back yard.  I see no other practical >humane alternative.If a prison needs to be built, it shouldn't even be in a residential area to begin with ... the hazards are simply too high ... the costin real estate values is also too high ... and FWIW there are betterways to generate income and tax base for Pacifica.......... CynthiaDate: 10/18/95 06:36:26 AMFrom: David Macy (David.Macy_AT_efi.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: The quarry        Reply to:   RE>>The quarryOn 10/17/95 Michael Slaughter wrote:>This is unbelievable . . . "for-profit" prisons [read: slave labor] in >Pacifica. Those opposed are deemed execrable NIMBY's, unAmericans, and >probably pinko Commie perverts who need to get a job.>Golly, look at the benefits:>* Prisons: The USA's #1 growth industry. Get on the bandwagon or miss >out >on this incredible opportunity! >* Help keep the USA #1 in the world--in percent of population in prison. >We MUST stay ahead of South Africa!>* Help those angry white capitalists in suits suppress minorities and the >(ugh) underclass!>* Prisons mean jobs, jobs, jobs! (Read: profits, profits, profits--for >the privileged few)>* Consider the incredibly cheap prison labor pool, the least expensive >this >side of Haiti. They don't have a union and they can't go on strike! >* USA--founded on genocide, perpetuated by slavery. Let's keep it that >way!>* Prisons for profit--the more prisons, the more prisoners, the more >profits!>* Slavery is freedom, war is peace, ignorance is truth.>Unbelievable.>P.S. Why not go whole hog here--I mean, let's go for the REALLY big >bucks: Let's build a nuclear waste dump.Thanks Michael for clarifying the benefits of this proposal. I was havingtrouble seeing why we would want a prison, but after reading this my red, whiteand blue blood pumps from a quickened heart, anxiously awaiting Pacifica's newrole in the Gingrich Militia.Date: 10/18/95 06:36:32 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Are their rational reasons to not build a prison?From alyssaj  Wed Oct 18 06:12:57 1995Return-Path: Received: by netcom13.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)	id GAA15467; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:12:56 -0700Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:12:56 -0700 (PDT)From: Alyssa Jenkins Subject: Re: Are their rational reasons to not build a prison?To: Bruce Hallman cc: pacifica-l_AT_netcom.comIn-Reply-To: <199510171556.IAA16240_AT_netcom20.netcom.com>Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCIIStatus: R> I accept all three of these reasons.  All three are based on emotions (and > the first two I share).  Emotions can be valid reasons to make decisions.  > > I am just curious, are their rational reasons to not build a prison here > too?  here's rational:  it would anger the community. :)Date: 10/18/95 10:25:04 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: How to unsubscribe pacifica-l & other tips.EMail mailing lists can be confusing.Here are a few helpful "operating instructions".***The "pacifica-l" mailing list is one of many lists run by a software program at Netcom which acts kind of like a robot.  It accepts commands, sent via EMail to the address:listserv_AT_netcom.comAt any time you can send "listserv_AT_netcom.com" an EMail message with the word "help" in the body and it will send you back an automatic reply with descriptions of how it works.  The subject line of your message is ignored.Other useful commands for the listserv besides "help" are:who pacifica-l      Which will return a list of current subscribers.unsubscribe pacifica-l YourEMailAddress                    Will remove you name from the subscription list.You can subscribe & unsubscribe as often or as frequently as you wish.The spelling of your email address is critical, and sometimes it is helpful to do the "who" command first to be sure you are spelling it correctly according to what the listserv expects to see.***It is IMPORTANT to notice that the address:  listserv_AT_netcom.com is to be used for sending commands to the mailing list robot.If you want to send messages to the people on the mailing list use the mailing list address of:  pacifica-l_AT_netcom.comIt is poor style to accidentally send commands intended for the listserv robot to the whole readership of the list.And yes, that is a small case letter "ell" in "pacifica-l", not a number "one".  It stands for the word "list".  For some reason I don't know, it is conventional to name listserv mailing lists, "blahblah-l", even though it is confusing.***Two common mistakes are that... most EMail mail programs will automatically "reply" to the writer of the message and not to the entire list.  If you want to send a message to the entire list, you must be sure that it is manually addressed to "pacifica-l_AT_netcom.com".Another common mistake is that if you respond (follow up) on a message to the list, you should not "CC" the original writer.  [Who is already a member of the list, and then gets a copy of your message twice.]***Other courtesy items... Do not send "chain letters", "get rich quick" messages to the list out of respect to the others here who don't like "junk EMail".  Though any thing of general interest to Pacifica is appropriate.And, it is always courteous to include only small edits from the letters you are responding too.  You shouldn't not include the entirty of the previous letter, as this just wastes peoples time.This list is now set up to only accept messages from people directly subscribed to the list.  If you ever want to post a message from a location other than the one you originally subscribed, temporarily subscribe the new EMail address, post the message, and then unsubscribe.***If you ever cancel your EMail account, do me a favor and unsubscribe yourself from this list first as it saves me the hassle of getting your bounced mail.And last, I am more than happy to help anybody with anything about this list.  EMail me at "bruce_AT_hallman.org" at any time.   Date: 10/18/95 04:08:35 PMFrom: Christi603_AT_aol.com (Christi603_AT_aol.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: Web page.Bruce,          It's down..:( But I have another at http://home.aol.com/SpamGoddesOh and a friend of mine, Rob Kirby..Just had his page put up for Taxes heowns Kirby Financial Group on Francisco Blvd.http://home.aol.com/TheTaxGuy1ThanksChristiDate: 10/19/95 06:46:00 AMFrom: Alyssa Jenkins (alyssaj_AT_netcom.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: How about a nursing home?On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Bruce Hallman wrote:> Cynthia wrote>> >to build (a prison) would actually depress property values > > David Macy wrote>> >the negative effects on prison towns caused by the families of prison > >employees> > OK, I fear both of these things too (and they both are NIMBY).  I'm bruce, no offense, but i see your catagorization of their opinions as being "NIMBY" as a way of dismissing their statements.  i think they're both saying NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....and cynthia's dead-on right......there's no way in hell that i would want to live 1.2 miles from a prison!!!!!!  and i'm quite sure i'm not alone.> vote that we can make room for a new nursing home(s) as part of a > developement plan in the quarry.  Nursing homes bring local jobs, and > presumably are more friendly to SF gartersnakes than a casino on a hill. personally, i don't like this idea, either.  i think that, on the whole, far more resources are devoted to the old than to the young.  i would INFINITELY rather see something for teens, something to keep them off the streets, or at least give them something to do in this town other than sit around and drink and smoke pot, both of which they do in great abundance.  (wanna know my source?  i'm a high school teacher....i've taught at 3 different schools in the district, including terra nova.)please don't take my statement to mean that i have no respect or compassion for the elderly:  i do.  lots of it.  but there are already 2 nursing homes....and still no arcade/roller rink/etc for teens....and that's my $.04 (inflation :)!alyssa :)Date: 10/19/95 09:38:16 AMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....alyssa wrote> i think they're >both saying NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....Of course you realize that if we don't build enough prison space somewhere to handle the number of people that we are convicting to prison two things will happen.  First, we will be forced to crowd them in, which is cruel and inhumane, then the courts will say that cruelty is unconstitutional and then we will be forced to let them out early.  David, Michael, Alyssa and Cynthia have not yet said:1) how to quickly reduce crime, which is needed to reduce the rate of convictions of criminals to prison....and they don't deny that the number of people being convicted to prison is increasing so they implicity (passively) support...2) the cruelty of crowding prisoners in the existing prisons and/or the early release of convicts.---I believe that we should not be cruel to criminals, and that we should not release prisoners early [except under controlled parole procedures].That being the case, I believe we have no choice but to build prison space while we figure out a way to reduce crime.  If we are to build prison space, in which backyard if not ours?  If we were to choose ours, we could try to build a model prison, one which wasn't cruel and one which actually tried to rehabilitate criminals, etc..  Not to mention that it could be a dependable source of funds & jobs for the benifit of our community.---P.S. I still think a nursing home could fit into the equation as part of a Quarry development plan, socially and economically.   Date: 10/19/95 09:38:30 AMFrom: LSTEERE.US.ORACLE.COM (LSTEERE_AT_us.oracle.com)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....--Boundary-15245323-0-0I really can't believe that this prison talk is serious. You all are really just talking about prisons in Pacifica in order to get some dialogue going, right? I didn't really buy property on the hill above the quarry and move to Pacifica in order to raise a child in a good environment just to see a prison go in below my house. We are fighting to preserve the beauty of Pacifica while helping to find ways to make it an economically viable city. I think businesses catering to those who come to appreciate the beauty--conference center/spas, aquariums, tasteful gift shops, nice eateries--will attract much more the kind of people we'd like to have live in and visit our town than a PRISON. Please say you're joking. Leslie Steere Managing Editor, Oracle Magazine 415.506.6576				We like people who meet deadlines. --Date: 10/19/95 09:40:10 AMFrom: J Couch (jcouch_AT_slip.net)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....Alyssa stated:>> i think they're >>both saying NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....To this, Bruce responded:>Of course you realize that if we don't build enough prison space somewhere >to handle the number of people that we are convicting to prison two things >will happen.  First, we will be forced to crowd them in, which is cruel and >inhumane, then the courts will say that cruelty is unconstitutional and then >we will be forced to let them out early.  While I agree that overcrowding is a huge problem in the prisons, considerthe amount of laws on the books that automatically call for prison time.  Isit right that drug-users are locked up?  The amount of jail sentences passedout to drug-users are at the root of the current overcrowding problem.  Justyesterday, I understand that just yesterday, Pete Wilson signed a law thatwould authorize police to arrest people who simply LOOK like they could beselling drugs.  With a mindset like this, it is no wonder overcrowding issuch a problem.>David, Michael, Alyssa and Cynthia have not yet said:>>1) how to quickly reduce crime, which is needed to reduce the rate of >convictions of criminals to prison.I know legalization of drugs is just about as unpopular as the notion ofbuilding prisons in people's backyards, how about at least decriminalizingtheir use.  This may not quickly reduce crime, but it would certainly cutdown on needless convictions.  Drug users should be treated as if they had amedical condition, not as a convict.>...and they don't deny that the number of people being convicted to prison >is increasing so they implicity (passively) support...>>2) the cruelty of crowding prisoners in the existing prisons and/or the >early release of convicts.Bruce, that's kind of a reach, don't you think.  I don't think that anyonepassively supports the cruelty of crowding prisoners.  Nor do they supportthe early release of convicts.  I think you'll find that most people whoknow that overcrowding is a problem realize that a lot of the problem is dueto the many laws on the books that require some prison time.   >I believe that we should not be cruel to criminals, and that we should not >release prisoners early [except under controlled parole procedures].I agree, as well.  But should we be so cruel to the kid who got bustedsmoking some pot, as to lock him up with murderers and rapists.  There arealternatives. If there is any passive support to be found in this arguement, it is thefact that we have a democracy where the majority simply does not vote.Therefore, giving voiceless approval of the crazy laws enforced by ourgovernment.>That being the case, I believe we have no choice but to build prison space >while we figure out a way to reduce crime.  If we are to build prison space, >in which backyard if not ours?  If we were to choose ours, we could try to >build a model prison, one which wasn't cruel and one which actually tried to >rehabilitate criminals, etc..  Not to mention that it could be a dependable >source of funds & jobs for the benifit of our community.Part of the crime problem, is this crazy idea that prisons are, and somehow,should be a dependable source of funds and jobs.  Sure, imprisonment hasbeen a problem throughout history, but it only became such a huge one eversince society deemed it as such a wonderful revenue source.  Just listen tothe way prisons are now casually referred to as "an industry."  Does anyoneelse see the connection?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Couch             "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." -- A. Hoffman-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date: 10/19/95 10:58:21 AMFrom: Moonshadow (lthrdyke_AT_persephone.org)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....At 08:46 AM 10/19/95 -0700, Bruce Hallman wrote:>Of course you realize that if we don't build enough prison space somewhere >to handle the number of people that we are convicting to prison two things >will happen.  First, we will be forced to crowd them in, which is cruel and >inhumane, then the courts will say that cruelty is unconstitutional and then >we will be forced to let them out early.  Or perhaps we will see the error of our ways and stop sentencing peoplewho *DO NOT* belong in prison to prison!  The USA has the highest incarceration rate of any western nation, and it is climbing with eachand every day.  And has it had any effect on the crime rate?  Of coursenot, because it does not address the causes of rising "crime.">David, Michael, Alyssa and Cynthia have not yet said:>>1) how to quickly reduce crime, which is needed to reduce the rate of >convictions of criminals to prison.This is a simplistic statement that fails to consider why we are sentencingso many people to jail/prison. >...and they don't deny that the number of people being convicted to prison >is increasing so they implicity (passively) support...>>2) the cruelty of crowding prisoners in the existing prisons and/or the >early release of convicts.Not at all ... what I support is for our government, and the voters, to reconsider who we are putting in prison/jail, and why we are putting them there.  Building more prisons (wherever they are sited) only serves to exacerbate the root problems which are inappropriate laws and sentencing.>I believe that we should not be cruel to criminals, and that we should not >release prisoners early [except under controlled parole procedures].Granted ... but early releases take place due to the criminalization ofacts that should not be, due to inappropriate sentences, and an unhealthyfocus on imprisoning people who are better dealt with by other measures(ie: rehabilitation, halfway houses, fines, or perhaps loss of variouspriveleges)>That being the case, I believe we have no choice but to build prison space >while we figure out a way to reduce crime. Wrong! ... that only is a bandaid approach which will lull us intoputting off addressing the larger issues.>in which backyard if not ours?  If we were to choose ours, we could try to >build a model prison, one which wasn't cruel and one which actually tried to >rehabilitate criminals, etc..  Not to mention that it could be a dependable >source of funds & jobs for the benifit of our community.Personally, I think prisons belong out in the country where they have traditionally been sited surrounded by agricultural, desert, or forestland.>P.S. I still think a nursing home could fit into the equation as part of a >Quarry development plan, socially and economically.Yes a nursing home would indeed fit in, but I must agree with Alyssathat we have not really focused enough of our resources on our children--our future.  They need healthy recreational activities they can be involved in.  Where are the roller rinks, theaters, venues like "Harry'sBug Bistro" that existed in HMB this past summer, and other such projectsdesigned to help our youth?As our environment becomes more and more urbanized we are losing the things that are of value in raising our children--even of value for adults.I live in Moss Beach because I believe the urban peninsula and "The City"are unhealthy places to live ... I try to seek employment close to whereI live, and if I were raising children I would want them to grow up inan environment that values them as opposed to rampant growth for growth'ssake, and the endless chase of the forsaken dollar.We need to focus on projects that are truely beneficial for the communityas opposed to what brings the most dollars.  Value and benefit can notall be reduced to an economic formula.  If every decision is based onthe dollars and cents benefit rather than the *human* benefits to thecommunity we will soon be very very poor.......... Cynthia-Date: 10/19/95 12:07:42 PMFrom: aaa (deadfish)Via: Netcom SFSubject: Re: NIABY......not in _anyone's_ backyard.....Leslie asked:>>I really can't believe that this prison talk is serious. You all are really>just talking about prisons in Pacifica in order to get some dialogue going,>right? I regret that not in my wildest dream would I expect that Pacifica would allow a prison to be built here.  Yes, I believe that we should have a dialogue about the values which we bring to a decision as important an option to purchase the quarry site.I am asking that Pacifica at least acknowledge that we bring a "not in our backyard" attitude into this decision.  I admit to trying to encourage dialogue about this and other issues important to our community.Personally, I am upset that I belong to a society that can sweep under the rug such looming problems as the coming prison crowding crisis.  The majority of people here (and elsewhere) are happy putting this problem out of their mind for *other* people to solve even though when we stop to think we can see there are no *other* people.  I wish society would act responsibly and solve this problem.  And, why shouldn't responsiblity start at home in our own backyard?  Isn't this fundamentally a question of karma?  I don't want any part in bringing the SF Garter snake into extinction, nor do I feel good about ignoring this looming prison crisis opting instead for boutiques and a casino.  I am morally torn, s