NO!

Sincerely,
Suit-wearing, sane moderate who does not value damage created by individual automobiles over the environment.

Scott - You are a brilliant marketer. Posts like this normally include images of freeways and traffic jams. But somehow you figured out a way to include a picture that is both relevant (sort of) and fabulous.

To Anonymous

Funny... I haven't seen many "suit-wearing, sane moderates" riding the bus lately, but I assume since you are against "individual automobiles" you must have an empty garage and get around via public transit. Right?

What does valuing the environment over the route choice of the extension of the 241 have to do with transit? The 241 extension as it is currently proposed is opposed by more than just the "lunatic hippie finge".

Sincerely,
Suit-wearing, sane moderate who does not support new highways through State Parks.

So where would you put the alignment? For ten years they've studied it. EPA, US Fish & Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers and other environmental public agencies were part of that selection process.

Opponents say just widen the I-5. And if it takes out 1,200 homes and businesses, so be it. Anyone who favors bulldozing homes and businesses over going around the community is hardly a moderate. You may wear a suit, but you are definitely way left of center.

Opponents say just widen the I-5. And if it takes out 1,200 homes and businesses, so be it.

Opponents say no such thing.

Opponents are on record saying that widening the I-5 is the answer for traffic relief. Caltrans, our state transportation agency that would coordinate the engineering, says that widening the I-5 would take out 1,200 homes and businesses. Ergo, opponents favor bulldozing 1,200 homes and businesses instead of completing a roadway that goes around the City of San Clemente.

Both the LA Times and the Coastal Commission prefer taking the homes and businesses of human beings to the possibility of disturbing toads and mice.

Jubal, please site specific sources.

Coastal Commission Staff Report
October 2007

"Numerous alternatives are feasible... including widening I-5. Southern California highways are regularly implemented using condemnation procedures."

LA Times
September 29, 2007

"Staff members disagreed with the agency's assumptions that the high economic costs of the alternatives and disruptions resulting from property condemnations are more important than wildlife habitat and recreational and archaeological resources."

There are already too many cars on the roads in Orange County. More roads are not the answer!

Trust Republicans to use sex to distract from substance.

The Coastal Commission isn't concerned with people. Or mice. Or what people on OC Blog think. They're concerned about compliance with the Coastal Act. Plain and simple. From their report:
"...TCA’s assumption that community disruption and higher economic cost can be accorded higher priority than the exceptionally limited and valuable sensitive habitat, recreation, and archaeological resources is in direct conflict with the resource protection priorities spelled out in the Coastal Act. Southern California highways are regularly implemented using condemnation procedures. Freeway dependent southern California would not exist as we know it if this were not the case. Unlike the more easily quantifiable social and economic mitigation typically associated with condemnation, the type and extent of adverse impacts to coastal resources this toll road would cause cannot be mitigated and would be irreversible. Therefore, based on the priorities established in the Coastal Act, the proposed project does not represent the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and is, therefore, inconsistent with the alternatives test of Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act."

Also, you're not just arguing with the Coastal Commission Staff, you're arguing with all the relevant agencies with whom they consulted. Like the Regional Water Quality Control Board, who thinks the TCA's talk of actually "cleaning up" water in the San Mateo Creek and Trestles is wrong-headed, misguided and also ineffective to boot. Again, from the report:
"[T]he Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff has raised a number of questions about the adequacy of this plan, as have hydrological consultants to Surfrider Foundation (Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.), who have questioned the scale of TCA’s hydrological analysis.
San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks are healthy, unimpaired and among the healthiest streams in southern California, because their watersheds are far less developed than most southern California watersheds. The proposed detention basins on I-5 TCA proposes to construct may help offset impacts on the watershed from the increased runoff and pollutant loadings from 8-9 miles of highway being constructed along San Mateo Creek and its tributary, Cristianitos Creek, but it is not clear how substantial a benefit this would provide. In addition, while TCA states that it is providing these collection facilities voluntarily, and beyond what would be required for its project, the RWQCB staff discounts this assertion, noting that State Water Board policies require installation of such BMPs [Best Management Practices] when improving existing roads. The RWQCB staff further notes that none of the available data suggest an existing water quality impairment, that the lower portions of San Onofre and San Mateo Creeks have not been proposed to be listed as impaired, and that quantifying benefits from the proposed project is difficult without adequate baseline data. Finally, the RWQCB staff also indicates that TCA’s monitoring plan is deficient.

Alex -

"Trust Republicans to use sex to distract from substance"

Seriously? That is rich!

Ahhhhh, the environmental nutballs are going to be out in full force over the next week.

I have lived in this county for well over 50 years, and have probably spent more time at Trestles and San Onofre in one year than all of these nutcases have spent in their entire lifetime. And there is no chance that any of these hysterical sky is falling premonitions of doom in gloom is going to occur with this toll road.

But what is the most comical is the hypocrisy of these people. Maybe they all should practice what they preach and get out of their own SUVs and their manicured tract homes and go live with the non existent toads and lizards that they feel so obliged to protect. Fat chance of that happening.

Alex:

You are about as honest as the Coastal Commission report, which is to say, not very.

The RWQCB quote doesn't come close to squaring with your description of it.

You have been a anti-241 hack during and since your time with the Weekly. No one buys your pretense of being fact-driven.

What makes one a hack?

I have neither received money nor favors from anyone who opposes the Foothill-South (241) toll road.

Can Matt Cunningham a.k.a. Jubal say the same? No, he can't.

What does in "perpetuity" mean today? No longer does it seem to mean "forever". In our world today it only means forever so long as no one is willing to except a bribe or compensation of some sort. So long as there are highly paid lobbyist representing developers out there pushing to override our understanding of "perpetuity" we have to fight back.

The proposed six lane 241 Tollway Extension will bi-sect a narrow piece of nature preseve called the "Donna O'Neil Land Conservancy". This is mitigated land that was given to the public in "perpetuity" for the developement of the community of Talega in San Clemente. It was not mitigated land given in perpetuity with an approval clause of putting thru a six lane tollway. How few, if any of you in favor of this tollway, have taken the time to investigate and visit the land and see how it will be destroyed. The dictionary meaning of perpetuity is - "the state or quality of being perpetual; forever". What a legacy to be teaching our children - "given in perpetuity" is not something you can trust - people can be bought! The existing 241 and the 73 have not provided traffic relief of the 5 nor will the extension of the 241.

The current reports now state that as few as 68 buildings/homes would have to be removed for the improvements of the 5. This is far less than stated in the TCA's biased report that shows 800+ homes and business impacted (an obvious scare tactic).

State parks, nature preserves, wildlife, quality of life in San Clemente and those visiting our parks will all be greatly impacted should such an unneccassary road be appproved.

Perpetuity is a promise, perpetuity means "forever". Let us continue to protect our parks, beaches, quality of life. Let this not set a new precident that these wonderful areas given to us the people - can be taken and destroyed.

Mike, you really need to get your facts straight. There is no "perpetuity" for the San Onofre State Park. This land is federal land owned by the US Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton. The state has an expiring lease for this land and once that lease is up, the state would have to pay fair market value for that land - not the $1 per year the state is paying the Marines today.

The EPA and US Fish & Wildlife recommend cutting through a portion of the Donna O'Neil Conservancy because the environmental sensitivity of the land in the conservancy is lower than the land outside the conservancy. TCA will provide land "in perpetuity" for the conservancy to the east.

You are delusional if you thik the 241 and 73 haven't provided traffic relief. About 300,000 cars per day use those roads. If they weren't there, all those cars would be on the I-5 and our city streets. Yes, the toll roads provide traffic relief.

We need the 241 to be completed. 25 years of planning and 10 years of environmental review is enough. We need it to connect to the I-5 to offer a traffic relief alternative.

Now, what are these "current reports" that show widening the I-5 will "only" take 68 homes? Surely you aren't referring to the Surfrider's "Smart Mobility" transportation report conducted by a couple of enviros from Vermont, are you? Even Surfrider itself admits that report was flawed. Caltrans - you know, the official California transportation agency - is the agency that worked with TCA to develop the analysis of the I-5 widening alternative. And yes, it's going to take 838 homes and about 500 businesses.

But what if it were "only" going to take out 68 homes? That is preferable to you rather than going around the city and taking NO homes? I just want to make sure that is your position.

Hey Traffic Relief Now:

1. I never said the SOSP was in perpetuity. I was refering to the DOLC.

2. If you've ever taken the time to visit the DOLC you'll see that the road will go through the most beautiful part of the DOLC (the original DOLC, not the barren grass land to the east).

3. So let me get this straight. "TCA will provide land "in perpetuity" for the conservancy to the east." Will someone be able to build a freeway through their land that's in "perpetuity"?

4. Even with the 73 and 241 there's bumper to bumper traffic on the 5 and 405. My point is that naive people believe the TCA when they say the 241 will provide traffic relief through SC. Even with the 241 there wil be grid lock during rush hours and summer weekends. That's a fact.

5. The TCA's report is b.s. They put the number of homes and businesses high to scare people. That's how they play the game. Next time you drive through SC take look at the land already available north of Vista Hermosa to widen the freeway. Some homes and businesses will be impacted south of Vista Hermosa, but everyone knows it's way less than the TCA's fake number.

Educate yourself on the facts and do some research. Just don't believe what you read in the OC Register and on the TCA's web site.

Can Matt Cunningham a.k.a. Jubal say the same? No, he can't.

It's nice to see Alex Brant-Zawadski reduced to personal attacks on Jubal. To those of us watching this issue have read him twist and distort the facts of this issue, it is a sure sign he has nothing of substance to say.

You have a talent for the language, Alex. It's too bad you generally have little to say underneath all the verbiage.

Oh, believe me, it's purely a professional attack. I've met Matt Cunningham in person at a TCA hearing and he's a perfectly charming fellow. I respect his ability to do his job and do his job well. Intelligent minds can disagree. I am simply trying to do my job well, which in certain cases demands an occasional defense of my objectivity and/or pointing out issues which could create the appearance of lack of objectivity in others.

8-2 against the road! Go Coastal Commission!