CA Coastal Commission to revoke [ALL] OHV access to Pismo Dunes

[Mike W.]

LOL..Do you really A.Believe the majority wants closure? B. Believe science has anything to do with what's being done.

I've watched it for 45 years. And yes I can better speak to why the sand blows than a person who has driven by..A rough figure in the last 40 years I have spent 960 days enjoying the dunes..

Science is nothing more than an opinion, again lets go back to global warming..where has that science got us..absolutely no place..it never will. My opinion, you have yours I'm good with it..in the end neither will matter one tiny bit..

 

[shade]

LOL..Do you really A.Believe the majority wants closure? B. Believe science has anything to do with what's being done.

I've watched it for 45 years. And yes I can better speak to why the sand blows than a person who has driven by..A rough figure in the last 40 years I have spent 960 days enjoying the dunes..

Science is nothing more than an opinion, again lets go back to global warming..where has that science got us..absolutely no place..it never will. My opinion, you have yours I'm good with it..in the end neither will matter one tiny bit..

I don't think you understand what majority is in play.

The majority of Californians are either pushing for these closures (or are at least indifferent about them), and a sizeable portion of Americans think they're a good idea, too. Whether the number of Americans that supports closures is in the majority, I don't know. I suspect that more people are for closures than the number of Americans that are impacted by the closures, and the people pushing for the closures are better funded & organized, which allows them to steer public opinion.

I'm sure sand blows on beaches, but whether sand blows isn't the issue; it never was. I don't know why that continues to escape you, other than it could undercut your opinion, so it's easier for you to attempt to reframe the discussion.

The amount of sand that's blowing, the size of the particles, the impact of whatever is blowing, the cause of the size of the particulates, etc. Those are questions that science can answer, not you sitting on the dunes for 960 days. So no, you can only speak with anecdotal evidence and offer your opinions. To me, that doesn't allow you to speak better to what's going on with sand blowing at Pismo than a scientific study, and I doubt I'm alone.

"Science is nothing more than an opinion" - That's amazing statement coming from someone that lives in the modern world. You win.

 

[Mike W.]

So you believe science is fact? Science is based on data..data as we have seen many times can be manipulated to what ever outcome the end user wishes..Science uses data to form..not facts but opinions. Ya I trust my own eyes more than I trust the opinion of science..

 

[shade]

So you believe science is fact? Science is based on data..data as we have seen many times can be manipulated to what ever outcome the end user wishes..Science uses data to form..not facts but opinions. Ya I trust my own eyes more than I trust the opinion of science..

No, I don't think science is fact. Even science doesn't think science is fact. Do you realize you live in world that relies heavily on science?

You either can't or won't understand a scientific approach to this issue. Combining that with your anti-science, opinion based worldview only helps strengthen the standing of Closers.

 

[Mike W.]

Science doesn't strengthen the standing of the closers..Dollars do..be realistic. If they close the dunes just how much beachfront property can be turned into Condos..That my friend is the entire reason this is happening..it always has been..Fact..

 

[shade]

Science doesn't strengthen the standing of the closers..Dollars do..be realistic. If they close the dunes just how much beachfront property can be turned into Condos..That my friend is the entire reason this is happening..it always has been..Fact..

Science isn't fact, but your opinion is fact. Got it.

The Closers have most definitely been using scientific studies to support their conclusions & policies throughout the world, and they've been using it to support closures to trails and areas just like Pismo. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Whether those studies were conducted properly, or their conclusions were correct, is open for debate - at least it should be. Just like free speech, the response to science you disagree with should be more science, not a regression into an opinion-based worldview. Proving them wrong requires proof, not opinions. Otoh, if the evidence still proves you wrong, you need the strength of character to admit it and move on.

The majority of people may not understand science, but they generally believe its conclusions. Pushing public opinion back against Closers trying to shut down Pismo and similar places requires supporting evidence that can only be derived scientifically. Maybe that evidence exists, maybe not. That's why studies are performed.

 

[Mike W.]

Science isn't magic and I disagree that most believe it..95% of the public could care less. 2% are true environmental believers and will believe is science if it draws the conclusion it wants..only then. 2% are those who either use the dunes or are dependent on them to make a living..The final 1% paid for the study and are pushing it..purely for financial gain.

The state needs revenue and probably lose money on the dunes. By backing the closing the developers who funded the study can build..City and county governments make money through building permits, school taxes and property tax..There is about 2 miles of land that could be developed.

This is and old tried and true method the state and local government have used for decades. Check Guadalupe where the old back gate to Oceano once was when the dunes where open completely..Early 90's it closed took less than a year to start building.

Ask the farmers in the central valley and this method, water rights taken, perfect growing soil shut down..I made lots of money in the late 90's through 2010 thanks to the Coastal Commission..so we agree to disagree..but past knowledge I know you can't win the battle..ask our farmers..your stance on science is commendable..but misguided..

 

[shade]

Science isn't magic and I disagree that most believe it..95% of the public could care less. 2% are true environmental believers and will believe is science if it draws the conclusion it wants..only then. 2% are those who either use the dunes or are dependent on them to make a living..The final 1% paid for the study and are pushing it..purely for financial gain.

The state needs revenue and probably lose money on the dunes. By backing the closing the developers who funded the study can build..City and county governments make money through building permits, school taxes and property tax..There is about 2 miles of land that could be developed.

This is and old tried and true method the state and local government have used for decades. Check Guadalupe where the old back gate to Oceano once was when the dunes where open completely..Early 90's it closed took less than a year to start building.

Ask the farmers in the central valley and this method, water rights taken, perfect growing soil shut down..I made lots of money in the late 90's through 2010 thanks to the Coastal Commission..so we agree to disagree..but past knowledge I know you can't win the battle..ask our farmers..your stance on science is commendable..but misguided..

Where did you get those percentages? : )

As I said, science is a tool that can be used to good or bad ends. That doesn't make science a bad tool, no matter what your opinion is of the process. Most everything in your world was developed through science. Since you didn't see the work that led to the development of all of your modern conveniences, does that mean you don't believe in them, either?

Btw, when you posted your observations from your times at Pismo, you were conducting science. Uh oh!

If you want to discuss water use in the desert, that could be another thread. The way things stand today was predicted in 1890 ... by a scientist.

 

[Mike W.]

Your saying in 1890 a scientist predicted politicians who completely screw up the eco system..the system worked fine..Sacramento failed.

Last message, we agree to disagree I'm fine with that..enjoy..it was enjoyable.

 

[rayra]

went up 6 more cents today and there's another increase slated behind that. As a percentage of total price, CA now makes more off a gallon of gas (11.75%) than "Big Oil" does (9%).

California Gas Tax Makes State’s Gas $1 More Per Gallon Than The National Average
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/07...kes-states-gas-1-per-gallon-national-average/

 

[rayra]

Sacramento County Is Saying It's Illegal To Work On Your Car [or anyone else's] In Your Own Garage

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• YOUTUBE

July 5th, 2019



Post Categories

• News

This set of codes in Sacramento County is rough news for California residents. It was brought up in the Grassroots Motorsports forum and has brought attention to the fact that basically almost any auto repair you do on your property is illegal.

The Sacramento Zoning Code states that any “minor vehicle repair” or “minor automotive repair” is legal at a residence. It's described that “minor automotive repair” is anything that:

• Brake part replacement
• Minor tune-ups
• Change of oil and filter
• Repair of flat tires
• Lubrication

And that would seem fair, except for the fact that what follows is a bit confusing. It goes on to say that it is unlawful for any person to engage in, or permit others to engage in, minor vehicle repair or maintenance in any agricultural, agricultural-residential, residential, interim estate and interim residential zones under any of the following circumstances:

• Using tools not normally found in a residence;
• Conducted on vehicles registered to persons, not currently residing on the lot or parcel;
• Conducted outside a fully enclosed garage and resulting in any vehicle being inoperable for a period in excess of twenty-four hours.

So that then leaves residents with the question: how do you define “tools not normally found in a residence?”. It's pretty open-ended and up for interpretation.

The second point is in place to prevent people from running off-the-books repair shops, which makes sense but what if you’re working on a friend’s car?

And the third point basically means you can’t do anything unless you have an actual garage and also have the project done in one day, which we all know sometimes isn't possible.

And that being said, although "minor automotive repair" if done accordingly with the above guidelines, is legal, “Major Automotive Repair,” is not. And a user in the forum, nimblemotorsports, mentioned that he’d already received a $430 fine for working on his car in his garage.

And to reiterate, this isn't an HOA issue or apartment complex being fussy. This is an entire county. The reason given for such codes is that "The chemicals involved in major automobile repair can pollute neighborhoods and endanger the health and wellbeing of residents. Furthermore, this kind of activity increases vehicle traffic and the visual impact can negatively impact property values."

That being said, there has to be a compromise with keeping the aesthetics of the county and cleanliness without essentially banning all DIY work.

 

[shade]

Sacramento County Is Saying It's Illegal To Work On Your Car [or anyone else's] In Your Own Garage

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• YOUTUBE

July 5th, 2019



Post Categories

• News

This set of codes in Sacramento County is rough news for California residents. It was brought up in the Grassroots Motorsports forum and has brought attention to the fact that basically almost any auto repair you do on your property is illegal.

The Sacramento Zoning Code states that any “minor vehicle repair” or “minor automotive repair” is legal at a residence. It's described that “minor automotive repair” is anything that:

• Brake part replacement
• Minor tune-ups
• Change of oil and filter
• Repair of flat tires
• Lubrication

And that would seem fair, except for the fact that what follows is a bit confusing. It goes on to say that it is unlawful for any person to engage in, or permit others to engage in, minor vehicle repair or maintenance in any agricultural, agricultural-residential, residential, interim estate and interim residential zones under any of the following circumstances:

• Using tools not normally found in a residence;
• Conducted on vehicles registered to persons, not currently residing on the lot or parcel;
• Conducted outside a fully enclosed garage and resulting in any vehicle being inoperable for a period in excess of twenty-four hours.

So that then leaves residents with the question: how do you define “tools not normally found in a residence?”. It's pretty open-ended and up for interpretation.

The second point is in place to prevent people from running off-the-books repair shops, which makes sense but what if you’re working on a friend’s car?

And the third point basically means you can’t do anything unless you have an actual garage and also have the project done in one day, which we all know sometimes isn't possible.

And that being said, although "minor automotive repair" if done accordingly with the above guidelines, is legal, “Major Automotive Repair,” is not. And a user in the forum, nimblemotorsports, mentioned that he’d already received a $430 fine for working on his car in his garage.

And to reiterate, this isn't an HOA issue or apartment complex being fussy. This is an entire county. The reason given for such codes is that "The chemicals involved in major automobile repair can pollute neighborhoods and endanger the health and wellbeing of residents. Furthermore, this kind of activity increases vehicle traffic and the visual impact can negatively impact property values."

That being said, there has to be a compromise with keeping the aesthetics of the county and cleanliness without essentially banning all DIY work.

Good for you, Sacramento County! Way to embrace the precepts of pre-crime.

"Folks, we've got a red ball! Felonious use of brake cleaner will occur in 28 minutes. Let's move it!"

 

[shade]

Frenchie, they already have a solution for you.

Ride the bus.

 

[shade]

Would that be the Short Bus?

Using the example I gave above;
That was a good idea. When I lived in Ramona for 37 years. The route to get to El Cajon 20 miles away went out the east end of town from where I lived. Took me past the San Diego Wild Animal Park to Escondido (north and west). From them their I would switch buses to San Diego Mission Valley (South). Catch the bus (east) to El Cajon transit center for another bus switch (North) and arrive 2 hours and 45 minutes later. I could also take the Trolley from Mission Valley to El Cajon transit center for another bus switch and arrive in 2 hours and 35 minutes. This was eight years ago before I left California and maybe they have something better now, I do not know or care.

The problem was I started work at 7:00 AM and the first bus out of town was at 6:00 AM. I would be right on time every day (late). Mass transit can work some places but limited to cities and highly populated locations.

The drive was only 25 minutes from Ramona to El Cajon.

Shade, you probably saw this from a different thread we were on, https://expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/overland-off-roading-and-trailer-buyers.206169/
Opinion on - We may not say this out loud but you have thought this.“I want a law to protect me from being responsible for decisions I make.” I also do not want laws to infringe on my rights. Opinion off.

If we do not take the initiative to get involved we will be subject to what they think is best for us however inappropate it is for people with common sence.

Da Frenchman

Frenchie, they already have a solution for you.
Move closer to work, preferably into a government housing development of our choosing.

For some people, there is no problem that government can't solve.
For others, government is always the problem.
I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[shade]

I'm not against protecting things and changing policies, but I want evidence to support proposals, and a fair debate based on that evidence.

WRT blowing sand, it may be that the dune traffic has caused a problem (more blowing sand, finer blowing sand, finer blowing sand harming people's lungs, etc.), or it may be that some people are inflating the significance of blowing sand to support their position. The same can be said about protecting plants & animals, or any number of other reasons/excuses used to prop up policies based more on emotion than evidence.

No one knows until the data is available, and only then can rational decisions be made. Not everyone will be happy, but at least there will be more supporting a decision than popularity and emotion.