More open space, just what every broke city needs.
San Mateo County Times/Aaron Kinney, 12/21/12. "Peninsula Open Space Trust announces big acquisition in Pescadero.",
 |
| View from Butano Farms land, Pescadero, CA * |
The trust paid $9.96 million for the land, known as Butano Farms, which has been used for ranching as well as vegetable and flower production for the past century. The northern end of the property runs right up to downtown Pescadero, a tiny oceanside community that is increasingly desirable to Silicon Valley multimillionaries who want to own a rustic retreat.
.... The property would have been particularly attractive for development, according to POST, because San Mateo County regulations would have permitted the construction of as many as 10 homes. The land would have promised both expansiveness and privacy --its interior hilltops yield spectacular panoramic views stretching as far as the Marin Headlands but cannot be seen from the roads below." Read more. The article includes a 1:08 minute embedded video, and 8 photographs by John Green (including the one above).
Reference - Peninsula Open Space Trust, (POST).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
46 comments:
How many times do we hear the bitching from developers and their yapping lap dogs that if conservationist want to preserve land they should buy it?! The yapping doesn't stop.... ever.
Is that correct or a typo that 10 homes would have been allowed? 10?
That wasn't going to put much money in the county coffers no matter how big the homes.
The noobes should put money where their big fat mouths are and buy the quarry property and keep it open space.
Shit or get off the pot.
Seems like Anon December 22, 2012 8:51 is on the pot!
Oh anon851, Why bother? Why would they spend money to keep it open space when it is open space and will probably always be open space. Once the sewer plant landed next door lol the regulatory protection became very restrictivel. Bulletproof? Not to say whoever owns it couldn't market it to POST or some other conservation group. But again, why bother? They know it's already extremely safe from development and while it may be Pacifica's crown jewel, it's not that special compared to a lot of other "open space" needing their protection.
@1213 does his best work there.
"..10 homes would would have been allowed?" Anonymous 12/22/12, 12:17 AM.
10 homes are allowed under current Pescadero zoning maybe. However, the property future would have remained available for future development, with zoning changed, altered, or not.
But, once the property has transferred to permanent "open space", it is part of the National/State/Regional Park System, and it remains permanent "open space", with a no development future. By selling this land to POST, Pescadero is shrinking its city; the land will be outside city control and jurisdiction. This is similar to GGNRA and other permanent "open space" properties in Pacifica.
From Peninsula Open Space Trust, "who are we, our impact" section. "Since its founding in 1977, POST has been responsible for saving more than 70,000 acres as permanent open space and parkland in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. These lands are now part of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, California State Parks, county and city parks, regional preserves and private farmland. They are places of natural beauty and abundance that have come to define our region."
Pescadero isn't a city its county.
So okay Anonymous 2:00 PM, Pescadero is a small town, an unincorporated community.
Does that alter the transfer of land to "open space" result? I don't think so, and the town has infrastructure and revenue problems. Sounds familiar? More "open space", probably more financial problems for a city or a town.
When did this become "Fix Pescadero"?
County has much deeper pockets for infastructure repairs and maintence then the city of Pacifica.
None of these unicorporated areas have fiscal problems nor does the county
Unincorporated communitiesBroadmoor
Burlingame Hills
Devonshire
El Granada
Emerald Lake Hills
Highlands-Baywood Park
Kings Mountain
Ladera
La Honda
Loma Mar
Menlo Oaks
Montara
Moss Beach
North Fair Oaks
Palomar Park
Pescadero
Princeton-by-the-Sea
San Gregorio
Sky Londa
West Menlo Park
Ms. Meeh, One all-important point here, the city of Pescadero didn't sell the land to POST because they didn't own the land. The Dias Family chose to sell to POST. They chose to sell land that had been owned by their family since 1885. Could have made more on the open market but chose not to do so. Private property.
@348 you make an excellent point.
"..unicorporated areas have fiscal problems.." (Anonymous 3:48 PM
Oh sure, thanks to Don Horsley, Pescadero finally got $4 million to help fix their long term flooding problem. Compare to Pacifica that finally got $4 million to help fix our long term highway 1 (bottle neck) widening problem.
You said these unincorporated areas have no fiscal problems? The list of towns and areas are uneven in ability to produce local revenue. But going without services, grants, or sharing cost to provide services is generally the answer to that. Of course, we also do that in Pacifica.
"Pescadero didn't sell the land to POST because they didn't own the land." Anonymous 5:38 PM
Nor did I suggest they did.
According to the article, POST wanted that land which would connect with their prior land acquisition. In total these two parcels would produce 10 miles of consecutive "open space". The deal was probably good enough that the Family Estate, took the money. Who knows maybe they even wanted their farm land to remain "open space". But, again, having so much "open space" works against balanced economic development for a community.
In Pacifica I've heard the stories of families with larger parcels being pressured to gift the land to "open space" and take the tax break. At least the Family Estate in Pescadero got paid.
Kathy, in your response at 147 your statement was "By selling this land to POST, Pescadero is shrinking its city; the land will be outside city control and juridiction, this is similar to GGNRA and other permanent "open space" in Pacifica". If this was your statement it just didn't reflect the facts of the sale very well. Perhaps you just meant the privately owned land was in/near Pescadero. In fact and as we've all noted, Pescadero didn't sell the land, the Dias family did. The fact that they got paid and perhaps also have some continuing use of the land for ag just goes to show how foolish Pacifica has been. Clearly. Does anyone know if this city ever got a dime for all the land given to GGNRA? A tax break? And what were the properties owned by the city and transferred to GGNRA? It's a number I'd like to know when I see new taxes and fees on the ballot.
"By selling this land to POST, Pescadero is shrinking its city; the land will be outside city control and jurisdiction, this is similar to GGNRA and other permanent "open space" in Pacifica" Anonymous 11:00 PM.
Well I see the confusion, but I was not talking about the sale, which involved the Family Estate. I was talking about the zoning and the affect on the city itself-- in response to Anonymous 12/22/12, 12:17 AM "10 homes would would have been allowed?" And those are the facts (since you made a point of "facts").
Now you're talking about the city selling-off land, and I never was.
Except for when you said the city sold the land.
Anonymous 10:05 AM, here you go again. Argue with the sentence construction, but my reply was about allowing 10 homes to be developed (a private deal). And the further clarification was about zoning and economic development.
So, from my view, you're avoiding the argument and implication of land transfer to "open space" (an important discussion). And, replacing that city/town concern, you continue to be petty under anonymous cover. How long do you want to continue this?
Pescadero having more open space is actually beneficial to Pacifica, which is what this blog is supposed to be about for those who've forgotten.
"Pescadero having more open space is actually beneficial to Pacifica," Anonymous 12:43 PM
Beneficial? How does that work, since Pacifica is already 50-60% Open Space (thanks to 30 years of NIMBY manipulation). And at the same time, Pacifica is described as 90% built-out.
Again, thinking back to the purpose of this blog, which you so often and obviously forget, how does more open space 50 miles south of Pacifica hurt our city?
".. how does more open space 50 miles south of Pacifica hurt our city?" Anonymous 9:39 PM
Compare to your 12:43 PM comment, "Pescadero having more open space is actually beneficial to Pacifica.."
Are you confused or confusing (mixing-up information on purpose) again? And what are you suggesting is the "purpose of this blog", other than dialog and information, which trends toward a balanced city economy bias? Do tell us, I can hardly wait for this one.
There is more than one poster using anonymous. Mind boggling, I know, but there it is. Puts some of us sometime on the defensive. It's not a gang, don't freak.
"There is more than one poster using anonymous." Anonymous 1:43 AM
In this instance, no. One identity only. The 12/22 12:43 PM and 9:39 PM one compounded sentence each comments includes: 1) a complaint about "blog purpose", and 2) an allegation that Pescadero open space is beneficial, or not hurting Pacifica.
Nothing "mind boggling" about these two sideways, one-liner comments. But then much of the anonymous commentary on this threat has been "mind boggled". That may be you, Anonymous 1:43 AM.
the purpose of the blog is to fix pacifica, I assume. unless you change the blog name to "chat pacifica"??
Anonymous, 2:24, again NO.
Its clear YOUR purpose on this thread has been to "jerk around" comments of others (particularly my comments this time). And your comments? Well, there are contradictions in those.
Fix Pacifica is a blog, we chat, we share information. But your comments? Rather than share information addressing comparisons, reflections and solutions on this thread, your effort has been confusing or confused noise.
And on your own terms, it follows that your assumptive reasoning would limit Pacifica Riptide to Pacifica riptides (?); Pacifica Patch to Pacifica patches (?); Pacifica Tribune to Pacifica tribunes (?). etc.
Fixing Pacifica is up to you, a blog is a forum.
Confusing and confused noise? Physician, heal thyself.
if webmaster rules anon comments are permitted, why does Kathy Meeh continue to obsess about anon comments? You would think that her complaining about something that is both permitted and also never gonna change to her liking would be ENOUGH to get her to stop complaining about the matter.
"...why does Kathy Meeh continue to obsess about anon comments.." 9:46 PM
Again no, I'm not obsessing. I'm responding to your obsessive series of goofy, fictional comments, which continued as a "dialog". But as you say, that is "permitted."
Assuming you are the same Anonymous, you're still hiding, deflecting, mixing-up information and playing games. Steve Sinai (the Blogmaster) may allow that to continue, but I say such confused comments are worthy of spam.
One thing, such nonsense drags-down better blog conversation. But, assuming that's you, that's probably your purpose. So why are you "complaining about the matter?" "You should stop, ENOUGH" (all your words).
The sale of this farmland to POST makes financial sense to the sellers. There may not be another generation that wants to farm the land, and the family that has owned it for generations may not want to see if developed. So, if POST is willing to pay them what they want, then who are we to criticize?
last Kathy Meeh post at December 25,2012 10:05 PM proves yet again tighter editing is required. Off-topic and assorted snide comments should not be posted. When debate has run its course on a subject, close the thread off.
Chasing various anons and making all manner of accusations is really tiring...
".. assorted snide comments.." IamSpecial Anon 7:14 AM
Agreed, posting as an Anonymous should be a privilege, not a given. FMV most of that commentary seems to have come from one Anonymous.
-----
"...if POST is willing to pay them what they want, then who are we to criticize?" Anonymous, 6:45 AM.
So, when the Pacifica quarry is sold again to a national company to be developed, this time "who are we (or you) to criticize," (your words). And through your own reasoning, we find extended agreement which will be beneficial for the economic benefit of Pacifica. What great day this is!
Kathy if anyone out there is still dumb enough to even look at the quarry much less buy it they will be inheriting the same set of land use issues as all the other dumb asses that came before them.
"..they will be inheriting the same set of land use issues as all the other dumb asses that came before them." Todd Bray 10:38 AM
Yes, but as long as the Pacifica quarry does not transfer to permanent "open space", there is some hope that some "dumb ass" (ha!) will develop that property.
The amount of permanent "open space" this city has divested itself of is an economic threat to the survival and improvement of this city. And its reasonable that city residents might expect a better "deal" than living with substandard, dysfunctional conditions.
Agree or not, as always I appreciate and value you signing your name to your comments (and your art work).
The Quarry is already approved for commercial and I believe limited housing. No vote needed.
I think if we can show potential builders that we NOW have a pro development council and the people are behind them (as evident by the last election) we have a good shot of getting something in the quarry. I even believe that a measure L type vote would pass this time.
"Limited" housing (whatever that is) is not approved. Any housing requires a public vote.
Yo Todd, Guess we should be eternally grateful to those pacifica nimbys in west sharp park who parked a malfunctioning, malodorous sewer plant and all the regulatory issues/agencies that go with it right next door to our prime development parcel. that's an only in pacifica story. poison pills and massive regulation for the last large developable parcel in town. maybe another developer will see it as a chance to gamble with other people's money and walk away with most of it. meanwhile some locals dream the same old dream.
Hutch, you're in for big disappointments boyo. This council and voter sentiment are not what you think they are.
@ Anon 505, You're wrong ma man and here's the proof. Rich Campbell who was the environmentalists candidate was tromped on by Mike O'Neill, a strong pro growther. That's called a mandate kiddo, and it enabled this council to take a bold step last week and skip over Sue Digre (anti development hippie) who's turn it was for mayor pro tem and nominate pro growth Mary Ann again.
Hutch has a good recall(recall is big in Pacifica)of the facts but his interpretation of them is, well, it's his interpretation. And, it's no more meaningful or accurate than that of anyone else this early in the show. Are we seeing real change or just run-of-mill political posturing and new alliances? No one is more nimble or in tune with local trends than the small town politician. Time will tell, kids, time will tell.
oh Hutch you can read the tea leaves anyway you want but keep your wallet handy because nothing has changed other than we now have 4 tax and spenders and the Rock will probably just go along.
O'Neill had great name recognition on the ballot and Nihart wants to be mayor again and again and again. Big surprise. Wallet. Handy.
I'm glad you brought up recall Anon 722. The recall against Pete and Sue helped to educate 1000's of voters. Many didn't know we were almost bankrupt and that we desperately needed pro growth candidates. As a result (IMO) Mike O'Neill won by a very wide margin. You can thank Therese for that.
Hutch is 100% right about this town being nearly broke and in need of pro-growth leaders on council. We've elected candidates who claim to be pro-growth. Now let's see what that means once in office and with a majority. No miracles are expected but try to do the job openly and honestly. Therese Dyer's recall died a quiet little death off the radar of most voters. Provided no info or insight other than about Ms. Dyer.
No animals were harmed in the production and no candidates were cursed with her active and public endorsement. Lucky for us.
"Hutch is 100% right about this town being nearly broke and in need of pro-growth leaders on council." Anonymous 12/26/12, 10:54 PM
"Hutch is 100% right" period. The further negative comments about Therese Dyer are pure rubbish.
Recalls are hard to control in a limited time period. Therese made a good effort, and as Hutch said "Therese educated voters" that otherwise were not as aware of city issues or informed. And, of the city councilmembers named for recall, only Sue Digre remains on city council.
Richard Campbell made his intentions clear, and he lost. Remember he was also endorsed by the Sierra Club. And these days, receiving a Sierra Club endorsement may be the "kiss of candidate death". The Loma Prieta Sierra Club interference in our city infrastructure is known, and includes: 1) anti-quarry development, 2) anti-highway 1 widening, 3) anti-Sharp Park golf course. Yes, it looks like our city may have finally had enough of extreme NIMBIES and the Sierra Club.
Therese Dyer was only concerned with removing ineffective city councilmembers, and that occurred, whether by personal attrition or by political pressure. Either way, hurray for Therese and the recall effort. Only Sue Digre remains on city council, and she should be voted out in 2 years.
therese dyer, the kingmaker
only 4 days left to surpass that one
Post a Comment