Talk:Pleasure Point, Santa Cruz, California

This article was nominated for merging with Pleasure Point, California on July 12, 2011. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Thank you

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

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)[reply]

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] (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)[reply]

please refer to the Pleasure Point plan

The following will show that the information is based on NPOV

[1]

p. 15-16

Please see the comments for community desire at

[2] and at ipetitions.com/petition/saveroadhouse/signatures.html

For the petition supported by the developers please see

[3] Pleasure point 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pleasure Point, California

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

While a Census area may be called "Pleasure Point" it does not meet the designation of Pleasure Point that is defined by the Surf Culture that designated the area that is bound by the Pacific Ocean, up Moran Lagoon to 30th Ave, along Portola Dr to 41st Ave and back to the sea as Pleasure Point. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasure point (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can see arguments either way. The census area is named for the actual point, but agree boundaries are not exact. There could be a seperate article about the geographic feature which might be where the surf break info would go. But history belongs with the demographic info. This article is probably a misnomer, since culturally it is part of "Santa Cruz", legally most of it is outside the actual city boundary I think. So I would lean to merge them. Also this one and the roadhouse article need to be cleaned up to have fewer pictures and inline citations that support any assertions instead of inline links. W Nowicki (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Same place. Exact boundaries are somewhat arbitrary anyway. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.