Adam Hill is not sorry, and blames the media

April 19, 2012

Adam Hill

Controversial San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill moans about media coverage of his personal life and public outbursts during board meetings in Thursday’s New Times’ cover story.

Hill starts his interview  by lamenting the negative coverage he has received in CalCoastNews and the New Times and said discussing it  would sound like a “bunch of whining,” but then goes on to repeatedly chastise CalCoastNews.

For example, he blames CalCoastNews for prompting him to illicitly turn off a speaker’s microphone during public comment before having the Los Osos activist escorted from the podium. Hill justified his action by claiming Linda Owen was reading from the divorce records of Public Works Director Paavo Ogren, something  he thought she took from a CalCoastNews article.

However, CalCoastNews never posted Ogren’s divorce documents and Owen, at the time Hill cut off her microphone,  was addressing her concerns about what she labeled a lax investigation by the county into allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Ogren and former Los Osos CSD board member Maria Kelly.

When asked by the New Times where the line should be drawn between his personal and professional lives, Hill responded by castigating CalCoastNews for covering his contentious divorce and a crank call he made pretending to be his opponent, Pismo Beach Councilman Ed Waage.

“And I have been offended by, I don’t think you guys necessarily go there, but certainly the Congalton, Cal Coast access has been despicable, quite frankly.


Loading...

116 Comments

  1. Reality Check says:

    Getting back to the point of CCN’s summary of the New Times article featuring Adam Hill. Why do I think Ed Waage is the BEST candidate to serve the 3rd District as well as make decisions beneficial to the entire county?

    The County needs a highly competent, well balanced Supervisor from the 3rd district. In addition to land use and development, there are many issues such as growing good paying jobs in a sluggish economy; dealing with the crumbling streets and roadways; maintaining employee morale while negotiating salary and benefits under growing fiscal constraints; etc, All these and more require the sensible; fact based approach that Waage has successfully demonstrated during his term on PB City Council.

    Hill has not proven in 3 1/2 years that he has the requisite personal and analytical skills necessary to lead the County through the continuing difficult times. Hill has repeatedly proven his lack of self control; poor judgement and his poor coping skills. Hill’s own words in the New Times article revealed poor grammatical skills and rambling almost incoherent thought processes. Hill’s own words simultaneously sounded arrogant, self absorbed and whiny. His behavior and his own statements call into question his fitness to hold office.

    Hill violated numerous legal rights as well as common courtesy owed to a woman who was addressing her government leaders. She was pointing out a situation of a management employee reportedly engaging in inappropriate conduct with a member of the LOCSD. Why should she be allowed to bring up that personal behavior? BECAUSE the public has a right to expect that its top leadership will address inappropriate behavior that may have influenced any part of the decision making process. Instead, Hill used his power to cut off the mic and had the woman escorted out of the chamber. That one incident alone is enough to demand Hill’s resignation.

    Hill engaged in dirty tricks when he impersonated Waage. CCN covered the story and provided a link to the recording. The tone of the voice in that impersonation doesn’t sound joking. Its another clear example of Hill’s poor judgement.

    Hill has shown his lack of self control and lack of ability to identify when his behavior is wrong. In the New Time article, Hill blamed others for documenting his behavior. I see potential for costly liability for the County. Hill is in a position of power and he has repeatedly demonstrated that he misuses the power granted to him by the public.

    Hill tells us in his own words that he doesn’t like the board room; the suit and tie; the formal setting. Simple enough: Make him more comfortable ~~ elect Waage ~~ send Hill home.

    Next week New Times says it’ll run an article about Waage. I’m eager to read that story.

    (0) 6 Total Votes - 3 up - 3 down
    • Disgusted says:

      Excellent posts, Reality Check. All of them. I hope you’ll engage the readers of The Tribune when the time comes.

      (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
  2. Typoqueen says:

    @Reality Check

    “The ABCs of water: The City of PB has three robust sources of water: Lopez Dam; well water and State water. In addition during a drought, the City can claim a share of the State Water assigned to the County.”

    For the current build-out, yes they do. You are talking about the ABCs of water according to the developers. Are you saying that the water report and the LAFCO were wrong?
    Why did the city completly stop pumping from their ground water supply.

    “Over the years that I have watched the parade of council members making decisions and setting policy. One of the areas where this City has gotten it right in the past is the long range planning for reliable and robust water supply. City Councils have currently and historically sought to provide diverse and abundant water supplies.”

    Obviosly the experts disagree. I have read the Shibatani report as well as the past water report and I also disagree.

    “In addition, the improvements to the sewer treatment plant a few years ago provided for a future ability to treat water to a level acceptable for use in irrigation by residents. Its sometimes referred to as the “purple pipe system” because purple pipe is used to distinguish which is potable water and which is irrigation water.

    I recently learned that the water required for irrigation of our lawns, gardens, etc is the biggest water usage. Converting water to use for irrigation rather than drained into the ocean will help maintain / enhance the City’s water solvency.

    Typo, please rest easy: Waage .and the rest of the City Council have maintained and improved policies and practices that sustain and protect the City’s water supply”

    Thanks to the LAFCO. If the city had it’s way we would soon be out of water. During the last LAFCO meeting the the city used reclaimed water as one of their sources of water. was a roar of laughter when the city c

    (0) 12 Total Votes - 6 up - 6 down
  3. Typoqueen says:

    @Reality Check

    “The ABCs of water: The City of PB has three robust sources of water: Lopez Dam; well water and State water. In addition during a drought, the City can claim a share of the State Water assigned to the County.”

    For the current build-out, yes they do. You are talking about the ABCs of water according to the developers. Are you saying that the water report and the LAFCO were wrong?
    Why did the city completly stop pumping from their ground water supply.

    “Over the years that I have watched the parade of council members making decisions and setting policy. One of the areas where this City has gotten it right in the past is the long range planning for reliable and robust water supply. City Councils have currently and historically sought to provide diverse and abundant water supplies.”

    Obviosly the experts disagree. I have read the Shibatani report as well as the past water report and I also disagree.

    “In addition, the improvements to the sewer treatment plant a few years ago provided for a future ability to treat water to a level acceptable for use in irrigation by residents. Its sometimes referred to as the “purple pipe system” because purple pipe is used to distinguish which is potable water and which is irrigation water.

    I recently learned that the water required for irrigation of our lawns, gardens, etc is the biggest water usage. Converting water to use for irrigation rather than drained into the ocean will help maintain / enhance the City’s water solvency.

    Typo, please rest easy: Waage .and the rest of the City Council have maintained and improved policies and practices that sustain and protect the City’s water supply”

    Thanks to the LAFCO. If the city had it’s way we would soon be out of water. During the last LAFCO meeting the the city used reclaimed water as one of their sources of water. was a roar of laughter when the city c

    (-2) 10 Total Votes - 4 up - 6 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      Oops got cut off.

      …there was a roar of laughter when, even though they haven’t started building it yet and they don’t have the money for it yet they assured the LAFCO that they would have the recycling of the water up and running in 3 years. They are hoping to get some grants to fund it,,, don’t have those grants yet but they’re hoping. That was one of the sources of water that they were planning on.

      (-2) 10 Total Votes - 4 up - 6 down
  4. Typoqueen says:

    @Mr. Waage, the real issues are on the bottom of this post so please for once address those issues. The citizens have not been able to get answers oh those real issues from anyone on the city council, so this is your chance. But the following is in response to your post.

    “I never participated in a vote on the 68 lots she talks about since either I was not on the council at the time or I recused myself because I live close to the project.”

    Which was it? (BTW, ‘she’s right here) But I was wrong, you were on the planning commission. I hope that you reused yourself regarding the approval of 3 homes on Driveways Del Mar which will now be called Ghost Town Del Mar.

    “The Draft EIR for Price Canyon has not even been considered yet by the Council.”

    http://www.slolafco.com/Documents/Price%20Cyn%20Plan%20Area%20GP%20DEIR%20comments%2011-9-10.pdf

    http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/5595/whats-developing-in-price-canyon/

    From the New Times article: “Pismo Beach submitted both the request for a city annexation and the project’s draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in a single massive document to the commission in September 2010.”

    “I have never had a victory party in a hotel owned by Price Canyon developers. (Mine was at the Mission Inn and we paid for the party.)”

    Yes, I remember that one, but you know the one that I’m referring to. There was a victory party at Lougheads hotel, pretty sure you were there. I believe that 3 of you were celebrating at that hotel, and I believe that you were there. Perhaps that was just the other three council members victory party so I’ll give you that one as I can’t provide anything to back up that claim.

    “I have never stated whether I would vote for the Price Canyon project. I will decide after reading the DEIR and listening to public comment.”

    Please refer to above links. You know that you have already made up your mind on this, all of you have as evidenced by Mr. Vardis using his seat on the LAFCO to fight for both LRDM and PC. Are you just hoping that PC goes before the LAFCO after the election so you don’t have to state your stance on these? If so then let me assure you that the citizens already know by your previous votes on these projects and your field trips with the developers how you feel and how you would continue to vote.

    Regarding the LRDM project Shelly was the only one that opposed that one,,for a short time. This is from the Santa Maria times last Aug.:
    “Higginbotham was the lone dissenter in the vote to approve an addendum to the project’s environmental documents, however, she did vote to approve moving forward with the annexation request.” What environmental docs that YOU voted for were they discussing, it doesn’t really matter though you have shown support for both of these massive projects without any practical reasoning.

    Are you willing yet to go on the record as to why you have supported these two projects? And please don’t give us the run around again by saying something like ‘I haven’t heard everything’, or ‘I haven’t made up my mind yet’. You know enough about them, you know that our population is shrinking along with the need for more housing. You know that you approved those 24 ugly squeezed in homes along the beautiful Price Canyon view corridor even though we can’t sell the homes we have now.

    At the CC meeting before this last one, K. Rice said that the LAFCO and one of the speakers during public comment was wrong, that there was plenty of water for LRDM and he was quite snarky about it. You didn’t speak up, you didn’t site where the Shibatani water report was wrong, do you also say that the the LAFCO was wrong or are you going to finally going to stop pushing LRDM?

    Read more: http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/annexation-request-moves-forward/article_c4f81e24-c17f-11e0-881b-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1spJcwM00

    There is a new EIR coming out at the end of the month, lets see how you feel about the new one. The residents of Pismo pretty much know how how you feel, but it really doesn’t matter what we think. I’m sure you’ve already seen it, it’s coming out within a few weeks. A member of our Save Price Canyon group/Oak Park Community Group asked you on Facebook why you were supporting these developments (Price Canyon and LRDM). She made a copy of your post and sent to all of us (almost 200 emails), I can get that copy if you’d like. She asked you why you supported these projects and your response was that you supported them because you felt that ‘they were in the best interest of the city’, it appears that your mind is made up. Sadly you never responded as to WHY you felt that they were in the best interest of the city. Would you mind explaining that now?

    At the LAFCO meeting in I believe it was last Sept. to annex the Godfrey property, all of the council were in favor of this annexation even though at every LAFCO meeting there has been an overwhelming response by the residents to stop these developments, there as always been overwhelming opposition by the residents to these two projects. They city of AG has also expressed it’s opposition to these annexations. So do you really think that any of us believe that you will make up your mind after listening to public comment, you haven’t cared about what we want in the past. There are plenty of studies and meeting minutes out there that you have given your stamp of approval on these projects.

    “Our city has a projected $2.3 million budget surplus this year in addition to our 20% reserve and like all cities we are dealing with employee benefits issues which affect our long term cash flow. We have a five year street pavement plan to completely resurface all streets that need it. We are replacing the aging Pismo Heights water pipes, improving our ocean water quality and dealing with ocean bluff erosion which affects our critical infrastructure.
    Elsewhere she falsely states that our city manager is leaving because of the poor financial situation. He is leaving because he wants to retire and he is leaving the city in good shape.
    The city is doing well but we need to continue to watch costs.”

    With each budget meeting/review over the past year Kevin Rice has become more pessimistic and more concerned with the financial status of Pismo Beach. I can post a clip later of him expressing his concerns when I get more time. I don’t know if that’s why he’s leaving but from his demeanor while discussing the financials it does seem to appear that he’s very concerned. He has said that you need to cut back on expenditures including not hiring new people and perhaps laying off current employees. But I don’t really care why he’s leaving, that’s not relevant. I didn’t say that is why, only he knows why, that was and still is simply my opinion.

    We all know now that you are reading this, so this is you chance to publicly explain why with a shrinking economy, homes not selling, cost of building, golf courses losing money etc, please explain why you are supporting or have supported LRDM (300 homes), Price Canyon (golf course, 600 homes etc.), Price Canyon Villa’s, the huge development approved behind OSH? Are you going to approve the new change to the Land Use Element to allow developers such as M. Spangler to develop on property that is currently zoned ‘permanent’ open space, as it is now only (I believe) 1/3 of OS1 zoned property can be developed, are you going to vote for another developer? Does ‘permenent’ mean anything? Those are real issues, those are issues that are concerning the citizens of Pismo that people outside of our city don’t know much about, but I have yet to hear you really address them. So this is your chance to explain your take on these issues. Please don’t say that you haven’t heard enough about them, you have, we all have. Why are you supporting massive developement? One last question, why did Pismo stop pumping ground water a few years back?

    Please excuse typos, typed too fast.

    (-5) 13 Total Votes - 4 up - 9 down
    • just the facts please says:

      @typoqeen. I wouldn’t typically respond but in your case I feel I must. I have never seen anyone
      manipulate the facts like you have. Very clever of you to write comments that appear to be an accuratereflection of the record but leave keys points out, making them support your position but totally
      incorrect.

      If you see your role as informing voters on the issues I applaud you but, in doing so it is your
      responsibility to get the facts straight and not try to mislead the public in the manner that you have
      up to this point.

      No need to get you poison pen out as I have made my point and will not respond.

      just the facts please

      (10) 14 Total Votes - 12 up - 2 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        Poison pen?

        I’m not misleading anyone. The issue is simple, if you want over developement then vote for Waage, if not then vote for Hill. That’s my stance and that’s all I’ve been saying, simply explaining what they stand for on issues that are important to many of us. Maybe over developement and a strong personality doesn’t mean anything to you, then fine vote for Waage. What is inaccurate about that? There is one thing that I might have been wrong about and that is the campaign party. I can’t remember but I still think he was there but that’s not really the main issue anyway, everything else is provable.

        (-8) 12 Total Votes - 2 up - 10 down
      • Reality Check says:

        Thank you @just the facts please. You made my point very clearly. Typo either purposely or due to lack of ability to understand complexity and nuance gets it wrong and tries to persuade readers that she is learned and accurate. I replied to her rants because I saw her taking one set of information and applying it to a different situation(s) that are not connected to the supposed facts that she spews.. Very deadly. Poison Pen nails it.

        (8) 12 Total Votes - 10 up - 2 down
        • Typoqueen says:

          Now this is what I expect from the Waage camp, instead of addressing concerns and questions that many constituents have, just go ahead and attack me. Thanks for the intelligent response.

          (-7) 11 Total Votes - 2 up - 9 down
    • Ed Waage says:

      @typoqueen.
      Re the 68 lots, it is both: I was not on the Council for the main part of the approval and I recused myself on my second meeting of the Council when a final map approval was on consent. I recused myself years earlier when on the planning commission and the project came before us. As I stated, I live near the project and I was required to step down.

      I was leading the effort to deny the flag lots on Vista del Mar which you call Driveways del Mar. I think I may have been the lone vote against it.

      The DEIR for Price Canyon went back for further revision and another draft is coming out.

      After the 2010 election I attended about five victory parties that night including the one you mention. It was not my party

      We all took field trips by the developers for Price Canyon and I announced my trip in open session.

      On LRDM, we approved the same project submitted earlier but with state water. The city was sued by the developer and by allowing state water and resubmitting the same project, the city settled a $50 million lawsuit.

      LAFCO was wrong about the water. We have rights to 700 acre feet of groundwater per year by the adjudication of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and it is not diminished when we take less than that.

      For items not on the agenda such as the LAFCO issue, there is limited opportunity to discuss them under the Brown Act.

      My comments on the status of the city finances stand. We are in good shape but we have to continue to watch employee benefit costs. We have the lowest employee costs as a percentage of general revenue of all the cities in the county.

      I am in favor of reasonable growth and I make up my mind on each project. I do not make up my mind in advance of projects coming before us.

      Price Canyon Villas are 24 existing legal lots which were created at the same time as lots in Pismo Heights and they are within the city limits. There was an effort to move the project to open space closer to the city and I opposed that, partly because it was designated open space and partly because there were other constraints to putting homes there. I and others on the council and Planning Commission tried to limit the visual impact with screen planting and earth colors. They are legal lots so the developer had a right to put them there.

      I was on the Planning Commission when we approved the OSH project before the economy went south.

      Regarding the change to the land use element on the open space on Shell Beach Road at the entrance to the city. When a proposed project came before the council, we did not take a formal vote, but I expressed opposition to the proposal as presented and we directed the applicant to meet with staff. I then met with the developer and the most vocal opponent to the project to see if there was a compromise and there was not. That project has an interesting history and you should get some background on it. Not enough space for me here. That particular area is fill from Highway 101 and it does not fit the usual description of “open space”. That issue will come back before the Council at some point.

      I am not sure what you are talking about when you say Pismo stopped pumping ground water. I don’t ever recall that happening. We use more surface water when that is available to conserve groundwater.

      I believe I have responded to all of your comments. I have supported some developments and opposed others.

      (8) 12 Total Votes - 10 up - 2 down
      • NorCoMod says:

        Mr. Waage.

        Exellent respone to typoqueen’s usual diatribe without taking the bait.

        As far as victory partys I’m looking forward to the next one….your on June 5th.

        (9) 13 Total Votes - 11 up - 2 down
      • racket says:

        Waage seems to make a reasonable response to the accusations.

        Waage 1
        Hill/Typo 0

        (5) 9 Total Votes - 7 up - 2 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        “I was leading the effort to deny the flag lots on Vista del Mar which you call Driveways del Mar. I think I may have been the lone vote against it.”

        Driveways Del Mar is the 65 barren lots and the new 3 unsold new homes, I would think that as many times as its been brought up that you would know that by now. I agree with you on Vista Del Mar.

        “The DEIR for Price Canyon went back for further revision and another draft is coming out”

        You and another poster said that there wasn’t a DEIR so at least now you are admitting that there was. You said that you were waiting for the revised DEIR to see what it said but you already approved the past DEIR so lets makes sure that everyone understands that this is a stamp of approval on your part. The only reason that it’s being revised is because of the LAFCO not because of the city.

        Glad you were able to settle the lawsuit but what if it had been approved by LAFCO? If approved it would have been due to you and the other 4 members of the council. If that project would have been approved by the LAFCO then it was because the city didn’t fight the lawsuit and instead caved into it at the risk of 312 homes that we don’t need.

        “We have rights to 700 acre feet of groundwater per year by the adjudication of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and it is not diminished when we take less than that.”

        Why did Pismo completely stop pumping the ground water, don’t you want to know that? Was it as Mr. Gibson at the LAFCO meeting said, simply out of the goodness of the city’s heart? The city was also using recycled water as a water supply to mitigate the needed water which you are not set up for nor do you have the funding for it. According to the city engineer at the last LAFCO meeting you are waiting for ‘grants’ to help with that. You expected to get a project approved on water that wasn’t there. All you have is paper water. Even if the ground water is good it isn’t enough. You don’t even have the 100 asf of water that the developer is buying from the land owner whose property is in foreclosure. Your study shows that the purposed homes needed,,I believe it was 87 sf of water when the state average is 120. You were counting on the new residents to use low flow appliances and that they will water their yards less but there’s not a guarantee that will happen, how do you enforce that they buy front load washing machines? If that doesn’t happen then we will run out of water. Did you read the Shibatani report? How can you say that this expert was wrong, it’s pretty basic and it’s black and white, no matter how much the city denies it there simply isn’t enough water.

        “I am in favor of reasonable growth and I make up my mind on each project. I do not make up my mind in advance of projects coming before us.”

        You have made up your mind regarding Price Canyon, the Villas and LRDM. You have approved studies and are trying to get PC and LRDM pushed through, if not then why are you still trying to annex PC? You know about those projects and have voted in favor of them so your mind is made up, if the LAFCO hadn’t denied it then the developers would be breaking ground now and ruining that beautiful property and Mr. Mankins would be FORCED by the city to have road through his property. That statement does get me a little peeved because you have made up your mind, so you are still beating around the bush on that issue. Thank goodness that the majority of the LAFCO has the citizens best interest in mind when making their decisions. You have signed off on every aspect of PC that has come before you. BTW, why do think the City of AG has written letters in opposition?

        Regarding the development behind OSH, the population of Pismo has been in decline for the last 10 years, there was no demand for more housing when you approved that huge developement. The city has demonstrated by all of these projects that you seem to take the developers over supply and demand and what the community wants.

        Regarding the Villas, you tried to limit the visual impact with the colors? How about cutting the size in half so they don’t look like squeezed in apartments? IIt’s really a shame to destroy that beautiful area. As always the city is in favor of getting has much developement as possible even if it means squeezing it in to make it look cluttered. The city doesn’t need these homes, they look terrible and they are the start of ruining what is a beautiful corridor. I can understand the developer having the right to build on his property but he shouldn’t have the right to just do what ever he wants. That project is just ugly, there should have been 12 homes on those lots not 24 and once again you guys didn’t listen to the public. It was brought to your attention that children will have to walk along the very busy and fast Price Canyon Road from the Villas to get to a school bus because the school district has said that they can’t take a bus out there. I can’t imagine having my child being forced to walk along Price Canyon Road to school. You agreed and raised an objection to that but as usual you voted with the council to approve it.

        If you deny changing the Land Use Element from ‘permanent open space’ then that would be great but after hearing the planning commish and after hearing Carolyn J. I don’t’ think that will happen. In all due respect 99% of the time you do follow what ever the staff and the other council members do. I would love to see you debate them over something that you disagree with but you don’t, you are just very passive with them. I would love to see the stats regarding how many times you’ve opposed them. I’m not saying you need to be disagreeable all the time but I have seen you on a number of times disagree with them only to vote with them when its time to vote.

        I know the entire history regarding Spanglers property, I’ve read everything that can be found on it including the letter to the Coastal Commish that the city wrote to get that property changed for Mr. Spangler, the letter that was sent out and approved by the council members without informing the public first. I know that it was once designated as low income housing and I also know that it has native artifacts on it. I just can’t imagine you not going along with it. I find that the council usually sticks to the staff and sticks together on these things. Time will tell. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the Spangler property because it hasn’t come to you yet (land use).

        Just a reminder, the city of Pismo used to use 100% ground water until it showed signs of salt water intrusion. As soon as that happened the city immediately stopped using it and hasn’t used it again. We don’t know if the ground water is reliable because the city hasn’t used it again…I just want to make sure that’s clear.

        I appreciate your response but the one question that doesn’t seem to get answered is why you have approved the annexation of PC. You have signed off on past studies including the DEIR. You said that there isn’t a DEIR but there was and you signed off on it. The project was rejected by the LAFCO so you are having the old one revised and it is due at the end of this month. If you approved the first one why on earth wouldn’t you approve the revised one? Many of us want to know why you have up to this point given that project the green light? What is the gain to the citizens of Pismo? That is million dollar question that gets asked at all of our meetings (Save Price Canyon and The Oak Park Community Group), how do these two developments improve the city? We would love to know that and so far all of you refused to give a clear answer to that question.
        So please just answer that question, why are you in favor as evidenced by your prior actions of the PC development. How do PC and LRDM benefit the citizens of Pismo? Even if you won’t admit to being in favor of PC please explain the gain for us?

        (-4) 8 Total Votes - 2 up - 6 down
        • korie says:

          Again, this is humorous. If you feel this way about protecting beauty of a community, building as zoned, ensuring water supply, reasonable density, safety in children walking to school etc, how in the world can you support Adam Hill? For someone as purportedly open-minded as yourself, you have some serious blinders on regarding everything but your own pet projects. Adam Hill does not care one bit about any of the issues you mention.

          (5) 7 Total Votes - 6 up - 1 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            Sorry korie, I can’t debate a topic that I don’t know that much about. I can only go by what I do know. I don’t know which project it is that you are objecting to. If you would like to explain the details then I would love to hear about it. Keep in mind that I keep on about Hill and Waage because I am in their district and I understand the issues facing the so. county, but I’m always willing to learn new things.

            (-2) 4 Total Votes - 1 up - 3 down
  5. Paperboys says:

    Just read the New Times piece. A few things stick out.
    First, Adam Hill is a tad crass with a potty mouth. Guess you can take the boy out of Jersey but can’t take Jersey out of the boy.
    Second, the piece shows how dangerous it can be when you record an interview and report it verbatim (no editing). People don’t speak in complete sentences and their thoughts often are wandering, mixing up ideas and statements to the point where they are almost incoherent. Makes a person seem stupid or at least hampers their ability to make a point.
    Third, he REALLY hates Congalton, Karen and CCN. He was pretty critical of their reporting on what he thinks are stupid little issues that don’t really matter. Problem is, he doesn’t get to say what is important to the readers of a newspaper or website. The writers and editors do that.
    Fourth, he is really full of himself. I noted not one iota of humility out of him.
    Now, moving forward, I’d like to see CCN investigate the cozy relationship between Hill and the woman from CAP-SLO who runs the homeless programs.
    This NT article shows that CCN’s work has had an effect on Hill. No retreat, no surrender!

    (10) 16 Total Votes - 13 up - 3 down
    • Cicero says:

      But there is more.
      Adam Hill doesn’t like the weekly hearings, or discussing policy at the hearings.
      He doesn’t like being at meetings with the people he represents, and is offended by having to shake all those hands, pretending he likes them.
      Mr. Hill says he is just acting when he goes to forums to talk about issues and people’s needs.
      And he doesn’t think people should be concerned about his, or other government officers’ personal betrayals or infidelities because “Presidents and Kings have had mistresses.”
      He says he really liked teaching, and was happier teaching.
      Hill’s erratic nature goes way beyond edgy, and the way he regularly abuses his position reminds locals of the practices that lead Mike Ryan’s supporters to deny they ever supported him. Printing Hill’s interview, in his own unfiltered words, was the best gift New Times could have given the public.
      Ed Waage donors should be lining up. Hill just dropped himself out of being the odds on favorite to win re-election. It looks much more like an even chance that Hill will lose to Waage.

      (10) 16 Total Votes - 13 up - 3 down
  6. racket says:

    I take umbrage to the headline in this article.

    To whit, I believe Mr. Hill is *quite* sorry. In fact, of the supes I have had the displeasure of watching, he is among the sorriest.

    (12) 32 Total Votes - 22 up - 10 down

Comments are closed.