Ray Redux! One of the best features of the old, more-or-less objective, Coast Weekly was the brutally honest restaurant reviews by Ray Napolitano. I've always rather suspected that his removal had a lot to do with that integrity. Congratulations on calling-out the Forge(ry) in the Forest for forgetting what a restaurant is about: it's the food, stupid! I look forward to hearing more from Mr Foley.
Posted by aallison on November 2, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
Re: Props to 37 (Letters, 10/25
I fear that it Ms Ainsworth who is confused.As I wrote, there is no such thing as a non-GMO.Whether the modification is by mutation, breeding or in the lab is irrelevant. Personally, I feel more comfortable with carefully managed experiments than random changes.
The simple fact is that the proposition, which permits organisms injected or fed lab-designed GMOs, is ridiculous on its face and is has no business being on the ballot. Vote for common sense, not voodoo nonsense!
Posted by aallison on October 27, 2012 at 1:45 p.m.
The simple truth is that there is no such thing as a non-GMO, and that includes you, dear readers. Everything that we are and eat is a result of genetic modification, whether random (a.k.a evolution), hybridization, or in the lab. Are you ready for your GMO tattoo?
Because of this small inconvenience, the Editor was forced to make some amazing leaps, for example, comparing the ingredients of two recipes one of which, shockingly, contains high-fructose corn syrup. Where's the the GM? Oops, it's the tomatoes in both recipes. Her attorney friend, while making a good point demonstrates the same lack of understanding with, "The answer can't be a formula list of obscure chemicals . . . " The subject is genetically modified organisms, not chemicals (which are already required by law to be listed).
The sheer inanity of the Proposition is illustrated by the exemption of food from animals which have been fed or injected with genetically modified material but not genetically engineered themselves. If feeding an animal genetically modified material doesn't do anything to the animal, why do you suppose it's being done?
Posted by aallison on October 6, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
Don't succumb to the blackmail!
If our reprehensatives (that's not a typo!) succeed in blackmailing you into approving Proposition 30 by threatening schools, they'll soon be back for more.
Why would you trust the wastrels who want to build a $168-billion train to nowhere with another dime? Here's a different proposition: cut all State budgets by 10% immediately and start living within our (the taxpayer's) means.
Posted by aallison on September 28, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
Quite apart from the eminent domain issues, given the fact that most municipalities are awash in unfunded liabilities, who on earth would lend them the money with which to acquire the properties?
The issue is how the current losses are to be distributed and, perhaps, recovered. In the example given, the amount of the loss is increased by the $4,500 fee to MRP and the other costs of the transaction. With regard to potential recovery, if we assume for the sake of argument that housing prices will revert to their long-term trend, how should the gain on sale be distributed? Shouldn't the mortgage holder who is, in effect, making an investment (the loss) have first claim on future gains?
The fundamental problem which the MRP plan overlooks is that the trusts which hold the mortgages are themselves owned by investment vehicles such as pension plans and hence, indirectly, by individuals, not the big bad banks, and it is they who will take the loss.
Wouldn't it make more sense all around for the mortgage holders to re-write the loans to market value with an equity-sharing agreement and hope for a market recovery? Any other approach would amount to a windfall for the borrowers paid for by the innocent current beneficiaries of the mortgages. Given an opportunity to recover their losses, the original lender might even be persuaded to participate.
Posted by aallison on August 25, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
Stuck in Park
An inquiring mind would like to know: has anybody looked at the environmental impact and cost of locating the MST facility about a 20-mile round trip from its operational center? Wouldn't it make more sense to minimize the non-operational miles driven? Is all they really need is a place to park buses so that the existing facility can be expanded? That seems like a much less costly and environmentally-sensitive way to go.
Andrew Allison, Carmel
Posted by aallison on April 15, 2012 at 12:20 p.m.
Not being a resident of Seaside, it's not really any of my business, but I must point out that the City of Seaside's response of the loss of redevelopment funds is very similar to what happened after the passage of Prop 13, namely, how can we most hurt those whom we are supposed to represent. A few questions residents might consider asking of their city council: why does the city need a deputy city manager; why are former members of the redevelopment agency still on the city payroll; and why are the proposed cuts only directed at public safety and recreation? Wouldn't a significant cut in city overhead be a good place to start saving money?
I'd be happy to support an environment-friendly restaurant that was also customer-friendly. $30 for "shrimp in a bag" or lamb chops? Haven't you and Schooners noticed the economic situation on the Peninsula? They, of course are free to commit hara-kiri, but as the go-to source for (among other things) Peninsula foodies, shouldn't MCW be featuring affordable restaurants?
Posted by aallison on January 28, 2012 at 2:24 p.m.
Hasn't the water madness gone on long enough? If you live in a Monterey Peninsula city, please call or write your city council immediately to point out that, given that one-third of CalAm ratepayers live in unincorporated Monterey County and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) is the local government agency charged with managing our water, there's absolutely no possibility that a JPA which excludes them can survive challenge by ratepayers and the PUC. Proceeding on this course will simply waste even more time and money. The only way forward is to put the interests of all the ratepayers first.
Posted by aallison on January 20, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
With apologies to Captain Renault, I'm shocked, shocked to find that the MCW failed to challenge the institutional response to "The Great Uncrowding". I would have thought that solution was obvious: was the offense against society, or the individual, e.g., public drunkenness, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, etc. Give the givens, wouldn't it make more sense to release the latter to probation?
p.s. comments incompatible with FF
Posted by aallison on September 26, 2011 at 5:38 p.m.
Forge in the Forest
Ray Redux! One of the best features of the old, more-or-less objective, Coast Weekly was the brutally honest restaurant reviews by Ray Napolitano. I've always rather suspected that his removal had a lot to do with that integrity. Congratulations on calling-out the Forge(ry) in the Forest for forgetting what a restaurant is about: it's the food, stupid! I look forward to hearing more from Mr Foley.
The Public Voice
Re: Props to 37 (Letters, 10/25 I fear that it Ms Ainsworth who is confused.As I wrote, there is no such thing as a non-GMO.Whether the modification is by mutation, breeding or in the lab is irrelevant. Personally, I feel more comfortable with carefully managed experiments than random changes. The simple fact is that the proposition, which permits organisms injected or fed lab-designed GMOs, is ridiculous on its face and is has no business being on the ballot. Vote for common sense, not voodoo nonsense!
LOCAL SPIN: Hey, Ho, GMO
Oh, no! GMO
The simple truth is that there is no such thing as a non-GMO, and that includes you, dear readers. Everything that we are and eat is a result of genetic modification, whether random (a.k.a evolution), hybridization, or in the lab. Are you ready for your GMO tattoo? Because of this small inconvenience, the Editor was forced to make some amazing leaps, for example, comparing the ingredients of two recipes one of which, shockingly, contains high-fructose corn syrup. Where's the the GM? Oops, it's the tomatoes in both recipes. Her attorney friend, while making a good point demonstrates the same lack of understanding with, "The answer can't be a formula list of obscure chemicals . . . " The subject is genetically modified organisms, not chemicals (which are already required by law to be listed). The sheer inanity of the Proposition is illustrated by the exemption of food from animals which have been fed or injected with genetically modified material but not genetically engineered themselves. If feeding an animal genetically modified material doesn't do anything to the animal, why do you suppose it's being done?
LOCAL SPIN: Capital Conundrum
Don't succumb to the blackmail! If our reprehensatives (that's not a typo!) succeed in blackmailing you into approving Proposition 30 by threatening schools, they'll soon be back for more. Why would you trust the wastrels who want to build a $168-billion train to nowhere with another dime? Here's a different proposition: cut all State budgets by 10% immediately and start living within our (the taxpayer's) means.
A Blueprint for Recovery
Quite apart from the eminent domain issues, given the fact that most municipalities are awash in unfunded liabilities, who on earth would lend them the money with which to acquire the properties? The issue is how the current losses are to be distributed and, perhaps, recovered. In the example given, the amount of the loss is increased by the $4,500 fee to MRP and the other costs of the transaction. With regard to potential recovery, if we assume for the sake of argument that housing prices will revert to their long-term trend, how should the gain on sale be distributed? Shouldn't the mortgage holder who is, in effect, making an investment (the loss) have first claim on future gains? The fundamental problem which the MRP plan overlooks is that the trusts which hold the mortgages are themselves owned by investment vehicles such as pension plans and hence, indirectly, by individuals, not the big bad banks, and it is they who will take the loss. Wouldn't it make more sense all around for the mortgage holders to re-write the loans to market value with an equity-sharing agreement and hope for a market recovery? Any other approach would amount to a windfall for the borrowers paid for by the innocent current beneficiaries of the mortgages. Given an opportunity to recover their losses, the original lender might even be persuaded to participate.
The Public Voice
Stuck in Park An inquiring mind would like to know: has anybody looked at the environmental impact and cost of locating the MST facility about a 20-mile round trip from its operational center? Wouldn't it make more sense to minimize the non-operational miles driven? Is all they really need is a place to park buses so that the existing facility can be expanded? That seems like a much less costly and environmentally-sensitive way to go. Andrew Allison, Carmel
Feeling Drained
Déjà vu all over again
Not being a resident of Seaside, it's not really any of my business, but I must point out that the City of Seaside's response of the loss of redevelopment funds is very similar to what happened after the passage of Prop 13, namely, how can we most hurt those whom we are supposed to represent. A few questions residents might consider asking of their city council: why does the city need a deputy city manager; why are former members of the redevelopment agency still on the city payroll; and why are the proposed cuts only directed at public safety and recreation? Wouldn't a significant cut in city overhead be a good place to start saving money?
Going Fish
I'd be happy to support an environment-friendly restaurant that was also customer-friendly. $30 for "shrimp in a bag" or lamb chops? Haven't you and Schooners noticed the economic situation on the Peninsula? They, of course are free to commit hara-kiri, but as the go-to source for (among other things) Peninsula foodies, shouldn't MCW be featuring affordable restaurants?
Water-Supply Polo
Hasn't the water madness gone on long enough? If you live in a Monterey Peninsula city, please call or write your city council immediately to point out that, given that one-third of CalAm ratepayers live in unincorporated Monterey County and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) is the local government agency charged with managing our water, there's absolutely no possibility that a JPA which excludes them can survive challenge by ratepayers and the PUC. Proceeding on this course will simply waste even more time and money. The only way forward is to put the interests of all the ratepayers first.
The Great Uncrowding
With apologies to Captain Renault, I'm shocked, shocked to find that the MCW failed to challenge the institutional response to "The Great Uncrowding". I would have thought that solution was obvious: was the offense against society, or the individual, e.g., public drunkenness, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, etc. Give the givens, wouldn't it make more sense to release the latter to probation? p.s. comments incompatible with FF