When the powers that be were anticipating a "Privatized Beach".......
Posted on August 7, 2008 at 06:51:41 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
When the "powers that be" were anticipating a "Privatized Beach" the Beach in front of the seawall was at least 50 yds wide (probably 75 yds) anyhow it was wider than it has ever been in the last 20 years.
One other anticipatory preparation was the traffic sign which directed traffic towards the jetty only (no right turn or left turn only????). In a nutshell the maintenance on that portion of the right of way (at that time) was designed to create a spacious widened version of beach real estate adjacent to and extended from the seawall flamboyantly in anticipation of a demanding elite influx of human flesh. The maintenance has been once again downgraded so the beach front will recede and disallow vehicle passage as exemplified and used as argument to once again blockade our access to our beach. If we cant drive our vehicles on the beach we are effectually restricted from that portion regardless of assurances, handshakes or blueprints. Mc Cutchon just cut his own throat. He must be seeing dollar signs or has vested interests.
Councilman Michael McCutchon wants to pass the issue to voters, but needs at least four of his fellow council members to agree.
August 2, 2007
kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13 - you are a total hipocrit! You judge others so harshly while doing the very thing you claim you hate. Every morning your SPAM emails jam my computer up at work and I can't get my work done for about 5 - 10 minutes until your crap finishes downloading (kinda like you did with this opinion section). When asked to stop emailing the DMC campus you don't even reply or stop. You think you are so justified in raising a stink- but when others don't want to hear your opinion you cram it in their face anyway. YWith your approach - even if what you are saying is true- no one wants to hear it because it's SO obnoxiously done. You need to get the log out of your own eye.