Talk:Pleasure Point, Santa Cruz, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for the Pleasure point entryPleasure point 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for all the work you have put in creating this. The tag is not meant to be a criticism just an encouragement to other editors who know the area to help out to make it clearer for those of us who don`t know the neighbourhood...Andycjp 14:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Many of the new edits are potentially not written from a Neutral Point of View. For example, [with in line discussion]

2001-The sidewalk[29] on lower 30th was the beginning of the end of the surf community.

[POV discussion: "beginning of the end"....a conclusion/opion without any conclusiove arguement or discussion that , when taken in overall context with the posting by author, lead to some NPOV concerns/]

With new "curb appeal", Realtors and developers rush in to replace the historic beach cottages with"McMansions" [30]. M [POV discussion: No factual basis for characterizations presented as fact. Again as above, taken in overall context of post, tone is potentially not NPOV.]

any long term renters are forced out as Vacation rentals and large houses used for a few weeks in the summer replace the garden cottages. The pattern seen in many Southern California beach communities begins to transform one of the last surf communities along the coast.

[POV discussion: No factual basis for characterizations presented as fact. Again as above, taken in overall context of post, tone is potentially not NPOV.]

2001 Park designation for openspace on the S-Turn[31]

2001 The Rodgers project is opposed with a petition signed by a 1000 people against loss of small beach cottage used by surf community and removal of trees that protect monarch butterflies of Moran lagoon.

2004-Permission to build town house next to Roadhouse[35], on one of the last undeveloped lots. Though out of compliance with Neighborhood compatibility standards for similar scale, bulk and style to the surrounding homes; the project is approved much to the dismay of many long term members of the community.

[POV discussion: No factual basis for characterizations presented as fact. Project, although potentially not a good acriteture, was approved thought the legal process based on the complex Santa Cruz County code. Again as above, taken in overall context of post, tone is potentially not NPOV.]

2005- Attempt to list The Pleasure Point roadhouse as a Cultural Resource NR-5. The Trustees, with the help of Realtors and Developers fight the designation in opposition the community desire to save it for a museum and community center. [36] [POV discussion: No factual basis for characterizations presented as fact. In particular, there is no factual and/or varifiable basis for assertions such as "community desire [with an impled majority view] to save it for a museum and community center" Again as above, taken in overall context of post, tone is potentially not NPOV.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfthepoint (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)