Talk:Pleasure Point, Santa Cruz, California

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

message: 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] (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveroadhouse/signatures)
[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)
thread_title:  POV  

message: The following will show that the information is based on NPOV
p. 15-16
Please see the comments for community desire at
and at ipetitions.com/petition/saveroadhouse/signatures.html
For the petition supported by the developers please see
Pleasure point 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please refer to the Pleasure Point plan

message: 1) Pleasure Point, Santa Cruz, California and Pleasure Point, California appear to refer to the same general locale. The latter is purely demographic and geographic data. The former (while a bit messy and problematic) is about the culture. Unless there is a good reason for the census defined area to be kept separate, the information should be treated in a single article. At the very least, the articles should cross-reference each other.
2) Unless there are multiple places named "Pleasure Point" in California, this article is incorrectly named. 
older ≠ wiser 15:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Pleasure Point, California]]