Want the news summarized?
Subscribe to The Morning Report.

In response to El Cajonian, who wrote:

Geoff, I know nothing about your board or your positions other than what you’ve posted here, but your positions do sound “anti-development” to me. Could you please articulate what exactly you are for? Also, from my experiences in the Bay Area, I found many folks and groups similiar to yours that claimed to be acting in the public interest, but it was a nice coincidence that “acting for the public” actually benefitted their financial self-interests by increasing the value of their homes (through limiting new home supply). How would you counter the argument that you’re simply acting in your own self-interest by opposing new developments to drive up your home values?

What I am for is making developer’s respect the land development code and the community plan. The infrastructure in the Peninsula is old and does not have the capacity for unrestricted development. The streets have the same problem, there are only a few ways into and out of the community because we are a Peninsula. This is an old area with a lot of historic character that many of us believe should be preserved. We don’t have enough park space on the Peninsula. This is a desirable area to live and the pressure to increase density is unremitting. I live in a very small home that is already worth much more than it should be. Because property is so valuable here, the more units developers can squeeze in, the more money they make. Everything suffers, sewers, water lines, streets, trees, green areas, traffic, you name it. If this continues unabated, the quality of life will not be sustainable. Look to beaches of LA.

In response to Mr. Varley, who wrote:

It is Mr. Page that twists the facts and when that fails he attacks the writer. The candidate they claimed was not eligible was in fact declared eligible by the City Attorney, a fact Geoff creeps around. The motions to unseat this candidate were made by Geoff and the incumbant board. There was no compromise. They motioned to unseat the candidate and seat Cynthia Conger. They also motioned ,that if the first motion failed, the board was to be expanded and Conger re-seated. Hardly a compromise. The City Attorney declared those motions illegal as you can not change the rules after an election when you do not like the results. Mr Page did not mention those FACTS. Mike Agurrie is hardly a friend of developers so Mr. Page often declines to mention the rulings.

Mr. Varley is again twisting the facts. There was no motion to unseat the candidate. The candidate was never certified, none of the candidates were ever certified. I did not make a motion, but our motions are a part of our meeting minutes, so if Mr. Varley can find that, I will stand corrected. I have not “creeped” around the city attorney’s decision; a great many people hold the same opinion and a number of them are attorneys. I stated my opinion of this decision clearly. Look at the meeting minutes of a regular board meeting and tell me or any intelligent person that the candidate forum was a meeting. Mr. Varley was correct, there was no compromise because the other side refused to compromise; it takes two sides to do this. Finally, I did not “decline” to mention the decisions of the city attorney’s office; I have discussed those decisions here today. The two pertinent decisions were that attendance at the candidate forum satisfied the meeting attendance requirement and that we had to have a run-off election because our by-laws call for a majority vote — 51 percent of all voters — and we have historically gone with a plurality, i.e., the top vote getters are seated.

In response to CMR, who wrote:

The Pennisula Community Planning Group, because of its ridiculous behavior, is generally dismissed by both the community and, to the detriment of Point Loma, City Hall. Planning groups are ADVISORY and their power comes from being seen as fair, legitimate, open minded, and focused on striking a balance between the interests of developers and those opposed to development. In that way those charged with making land use decisions (the Planning commission and the City Council) can trust that the advice coming from a planning group is the product of objective, in depth fact finding by open minded When they lose that legitimacy, they become irrelevent. That seems to be a lesson Mr. Page has still to learn.

First, I will repeat what I said earlier, I have little respect for a person who hides behind a pseudonym rather than reveal their name. The PCPB is not dismissed by the community. One thing that has not come out today is that 336 people voted in the election and the results were almost 50-50. There were only nine votes between the second highest vote getter and the sixth, Ms. Conger. That hardly sounds like a dismissal. Yes, we do run afoul of City Hall, but then that is the natural environment of the development community. On some McMillin projects, half of the City Planning Commission had to recuse themselves because they were doing business with McMillin. In fact, some of us on the PCPB take this criticism as a badge of honor. Finally, much of what comes before the PCPB for review passes through with little if any criticism. Perhaps if CMR ever attended some of our meetings, he or she would know that.

GEOFF PAGE

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.