Re: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlkingame Planning Commission

From: Kirk Lindstrom (kirk_69@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Tue May 11 1999 - 19:25:01 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA124056563; Tue, 11 May 1999 19:36:03 -0700
Return-Path: <kirk_69@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA138916560; Tue, 11 May 1999 19:36:00 -0700
Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id TAA07144 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 May 1999 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA07328 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:28:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sji-ca12-49.ix.netcom.com(205.186.214.177) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007287; Tue May 11 21:28:21 1999
Message-Id: <3738E67C.C6EEA39E@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 19:25:01 -0700
From: Kirk Lindstrom <kirk_69@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlkingame Planning Commission
References: <199905112054.NAA28954@unetix.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

What about an "informational picket" at the place of business for the new
chairman?

Jonathan Hahn wrote:

> > Yes - it was a rather depressing evening. One of the strangest things that
>
> I also think the results are depressing but are they that unexpected?
> It reminds me of the efforts of some friends who organized to
> preserve burrowing owl habitat in the mountain view area east of
> 101; the field in question was the area that they're building the
> new Microsoft campus on (@ 101 & Shoreline). Does anyone really
> think that kind of development would be halted due to environmental
> concerns unless it's beyond the control of the city to allow it
> (i.e. prohibited due to state or federal law)?
>
> So I'd be surprised if a $$ transaction was materially changed due
> to such "intangible" reasons. But then I wonder if the loss of a
> resource could be made tangible. If the developer and city damage,
> destory, or make unusable a natural resource, can they be held
> liable? Would this be something the BDCD or the Sierra Club Legal
> Defense Fund or some similar organization might get involved in?
>
> -jon

--
best regards
Kirk Lindstrom
Editor Suite101.com - Personal Finance and Investing
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/investing
Writer/Analyst - Financial Savvy Investment Newsletter
http://pweb.netcom.com/~kirk_69/SavvyPromo/WhatLetter2Buy.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:27 PST