ABC 7 Bay Area News/Associateted Press, 1/4/14, "New Year brings new battle over Half Moon Bay's Martins Beach."
 |
| Public rights |
| Property rights |
| Not exactly a loss for Vinod Khosla, the property owner will be compensated |
San Francisco Chronicle/Peter Fimrite, 10/1/14, includes 14 slides. "New law lets state reopen Martins Beach to public if property owner refuses to do so." "SB968, by Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, requires the State Lands Commission to negotiate with Khosla for one year in an attempt to find a permanent
solution. If an agreement can't be reached within a year, the
commission may acquire all or a portion of the property by eminent
domain to create a public access road. .... The bitter dispute has focused national attention on California laws
that are supposed to guarantee public access to coastal areas. It has
also provoked widespread public criticism of Khosla, who paid $32.5
million for the beachfront property, which includes 45 leased cabins
along the coastal cliffs, in 2008."
Reference - CA Senate Bill SB968, Legislative Council's Digest. "Public lands: Martins Beach property: access road. (2013-2014, Chapter 922, approved by Governor, filed with Secretary of State, 9/30/14. SB 968, Jerry Hill.
Public lands: Martins Beach property: access road. (1) Existing
law establishes the State Lands Commission in the Natural Resources
Agency and prescribes the functions and duties of the commission. Under
existing law, the commission has jurisdiction over various state lands,
including coastal lands. Existing law authorizes the commission to
acquire a right-of-way or easement across private land in certain
circumstances by purchase, lease, gift, exchange, or condemnation."
Note: Photographs: surfers by John Green, Mercury News, 9/25/14; houses Reuters; fishing by Michael Short, San Jose Mercury News 9/25/14. ABC 7 article link to the San Mateo County Times article: unless you've purchased the electronic subscription you'll likely be locked-out. Related Fix Pacifica blog article reprints: search "Martins Beach".
Posted by Kathy Meeh
Posted by Kathy Meeh
This feeble minded idea that a property owner has a right to do as he pleases belongs in the back woods of Alabama, not the coastal zone of CA.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as property rights without zoning. It goes back hundreds of years. earls and dukes were granted land but were told what to grow and raise. It's the same today. Zoning, state, federal and local laws and ordinances control what a person can or can not do on their property. .
Regardless of this gazillionaire's ideas about his rights I know one person who is making a killing, the law firm representing him. I bet they saw him coming a mile away and just started drooling over how much the firm would make because their client was just another rich uninformed high tech rube.
Todd,
ReplyDeleteYour "wealth envy" is an embarrassment.
It seems to be the only lens you and your ilk look through.
Thank goodness there are enough people on this planet who are not chronic victims and actually move humankind forward.
Comrade Braysky- You really should move here to former Soviet Union where the people have no rights at all. Here, Mother Russia extends your concept of "property rights" to the State mandating the color of your carpets and drapes and pretty much everything else in your life. Although there would be no forum for your nasty, mean-spirited, arrogant comments (no LTE in Pravda Today), overall you would be much happier here. Dasvidaniya, comrade.
ReplyDeletewow. Todd states some facts about zoning and gets accused of "wealth envy" and being a communist. What some of you don't understand about planning and property rights would fill a large book.
ReplyDeleteOh, please 653, no thinking!
ReplyDeleteMr Bray,
ReplyDeleteYou might remember that during those times of Earls and Dukes, all the property belonged to "unrepresentative" Monarchy.
And the subjects of the state were beholden to the state. It was the time of Serfs.
You might also remember, that the rejection of "unrepresentative" Monarchy it is inherent basis of the creation of this nation
There have been zoning laws in this nation for a hundred years. The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926. By the late 1920s most of the nation had developed a set of zoning regulations. Zoning in the United States includes various land use laws falling under the police power rights of state governments and local governments to exercise authority over privately owned real property.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like zoning laws, move to Houston which has none.
So what happened on Palmetto? WTF kind of zoning was done there? A real seaside "ghetto" which will take more than a few new lamp posts and planters to change. That's Pacifica.
ReplyDelete@ 2:56 PM
ReplyDeleteIf I don't like zoning laws, I can also challenge them in a Court of Law and have them changed or all together have them dismissed. Thank you very much.
Law is not absolute. It is open to interpretation. This is also along with rejection of "unrepresentative" Monarchy the inherent basis in the creation of this nation. And this is also why the State and Religion are to be explicitly separated and to be forever remained divorced from each other.
Your logic is similar to the kind that is used by Wahabbi's and Jihadists. You may be a danger to yourself and may not realize it.
It's not my "logic." It's statements of fact and rulings by the Supreme Court. Of course you can challenge any zoning law in court. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many legal challenges to zoning regulations. In 1926 the United States Supreme Court upheld zoning as a right of U.S. states (typically via their cities and counties) to impose on landowners. The case was Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926). The village had zoned an area of land held by Ambler Realty as a residential neighborhood. Ambler argued that it would lose money because if the land could be leased to industrial users it would have netted a great deal more money than as a residential area. Euclid won, and a precedent was set favorable to local enforcement of zoning laws. In doing so, the court accepted the arguments of zoning defenders that it met two essential needs. First, zoning extended and improved on nuisance law in that it provided advance notice that certain types of uses were incompatible with other uses in a particular district. The second argument was that zoning was a necessary municipal-planning instrument.
Local libertarian & Anonymous 4:12 You are both right.
ReplyDeleteLocal zoning laws are both a legal and time honored municipal planning tool, and they can be challenge in court an sometimes overturned. (Generally when they are poorly) written.)
Tom, love constitutional law more than life itself, but, since you're here/there, how about some zoning-in-action? What is the zoning for the OWWTP site on Beach Blvd? Is it zoned for Public Buildings? If so, any idea how easy it is to change that to include commercial or residential within the coastal zone controlled by the CCC? Just wondering how big a charade we've been watching these past 5 or 6 years? Whatever will we do if the big bad CCC will not allow us to build anything but a library/council chamber? On my!
ReplyDeleteThe short answer to your question is that any avenue that the City takes to change the zoning of the W.W.T.P.from public to private uses will wind up in front of The C.C.C.
ReplyDeleteThe zoning for the OWWTP is for a WWTP. As Tom points out any change to that requires a CCC approval. Our city staff asked the CCC staff to help with language for a new ordinance and re-zoning of the property and the CCC sent a draft of the zoning change they would approve.
ReplyDeleteThe only right a property owner has is the right to apply to improve the property. There is no inherent right of approval. As an example a property may be zoned for 35', but there is no guaranty an approval of 35' will be given. You have the right to apply for that, but that is all.
Thanks, Tom. Just an opinion after 10 years of watching the dog and pony show coming out of city hall re Beach Blvd...I think the CCC will make a perfect scapegoat. What a villain! They'll torpedo the hotel and make the housing unprofitable. Our plucky Council had no choice other than to creatively fund and build a library/chambers and public plaza. Hey, is that a hot dog cart I see? Big money! How many dogs they gotta sell to make up the million they've spent on plans for Taj I and Taj II?
ReplyDeleteAt least one of the posters served a full term on the planning commission.
ReplyDeleteService on the Planning Commission should be a requirement for a seat on City Council. The obstacles to development in a coastal community are many and complex. Ignorance of them leads to wasted effort, wasted money
ReplyDeleteand no growth.
Maybe I'll run next time.
ReplyDeleteService on the school board gets you on city council.
ReplyDeleteIf service on Planning Commission was required for a seat on City Council, that would ensure that only those who were favored by City Council appointment could run. That's anti-democratic cronyism. Very bad idea.
ReplyDelete"Service on the school board gets you on city council." Didn't work for Eric Ruchames.
ReplyDelete11:03
ReplyDelete2 out of 3, isn't so bad.
1102 You sound like a Girl Scout. Un-democratic cronyism is pervasive in all levels of government. In Pacifica, I'd worry a lot more about foolish dreamers and egotists who hold the purse strings and haven't a clue about what can be done and how to go about it. We're saddled with 5 right now although I think one will learn very quickly. An enviro, of course. The school board folk do work well with others.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough it was probably Eric's actions on the school board that cost him crucial votes with the "school crowd". That's the group that elected Nihart, Ervin, O'Neill, supports Digre, and even old what's his name with the skateboard. They don't like you? You're dead.
ReplyDeleteWhether it's true or not that "Un-democratic cronyism is pervasive in all levels of government"in Pacifica, it's still no reason to institutionalize it by requiring that people be appointed to the Planning Commission before they can run for council. That shuts out both good guys and bad guys, it excludes mavericks and people who may have a lot of expertise to offer. It prevents the voters from having a real choice and electing the person they want to elect. If the government is corrupt and the only way you can be part of the government is by being appointed by the corrupt government, you ensure government corruption as a permanent condition. Reformers could never get elected in such a system.
ReplyDeleteWell, it wasn't Eric's actions on the school board that cost him the city council election. It was his take-no-positions non-campaign.
ReplyDelete410 Ruchame's large base didn't need to hear his opinions because they already knew where he stood on the issues and they trusted him. They'd elected him before. He lost much of his "school crowd" base because of some decisions he made as a school board member. Then he lost the election. Guessing you were never part of his base. Were you pro-widening? If so, Eric was your guy. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteBefore the debate goes to far a field the only requirements to run for Pacifica City Council are that you are a resident of Pacifica, and can get a small number of fellow residents to endorse you. (no I don't remember how many but it was no challenge)
ReplyDeleteRuchames' large base clearly wasn't large enough. And the pro-widening base wasn't large enough either. Sue Digre (anti-widening) was the top vote getter by a large margin and John Keener (anti-widening) beat Ruchames by a large margin.
ReplyDeleteOne more time. Prior to the election Ruchames had the support of the school crowd. He lost it due to his decisions as a school board member. The school crowd votes and they lobby others to vote. It's a voter bloc that has determined the winner in many recent council elections. Eric lost them and then he lost the election. Coming out as pro-widening might have earned him a few more Fixxie votes, but still a loser.
ReplyDeleteTom, I'd love to see you replace Nihart. She should have gone with Stone. We sure could use another straight-shooter up there. However, it isn't worth your health. Probably not even worth your time.
ReplyDelete9:55
ReplyDeleteGood thing you posted annon, you wouldn't want Mary Ann to place you in the sleeper hold.
Im afraid to say but the only thing that will get Mary Ann out of office is term limits.
Pacifica is stuck with her.
9:52. I don't completely buy that, but I'm open minded. What decisions as a school board member did he make that lost the schoolie constituency? I don't recall any contentious issues in which he was a swing vote. For that matter, I don't know what he did during his two year tenure filling out Mike's term.
ReplyDeleteCandy Canes asked the question I was about to. I don't remember any controversial decision. Nothing that Ruchames did on the school board could have alienated a large enough number of school board voters to have cost him the city council election. It doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteRuchames was appointed to the school board by the board, not elected. Big difference.
ReplyDeleteFollow the money! Very contentious contract negotiations with teachers began March or April and ran right through the election. Teachers very unhappy with the board including Mr. Ruchames. Very unhappy. Ask around. Elected or appointed, he lost that old school spirit which has been so important in a Pacifica election. Key voices and key votes.
ReplyDelete744 Oh, now, she's just darling. You think she grinds her teeth? How's she feel about Digre being Mayor Pro Tem?
ReplyDeleteTodd, he was appointed when Mike left, but remember he had been elected and served long ago. Mike kept the seat warm for him.
ReplyDeleteTodd has a good point. Unlike for Karen Ervin and Mike O'Neill, there never was a voting bloc for Eric Ruchames on the school board. Incumbents have a big advantage because the people who voted for them before will vote for them again. Past behavior predicts future behavior. Ruchames never had that group of voters who had marked their ballot for him before. It makes a big difference.
ReplyDeleteHe was elected long ago. Voters have short memories.
ReplyDeleteSchool teachers and friends can get real nasty when you offer them a measly 2% raise to their low wages and mess with their health benefits. And Ruchames is getting what, like a $100K CalPers pension?
ReplyDelete1237 Ruchames' loss sort of reminds me of Bill Moore. Popular guys, Moore with the St. Peter's crowd and Ruchames with the school and library mob, but just couldn't get it done. Moore had some loud and polarizing friends and Ruchames didn't get the enthusiasm he needed from supporters that usually work hard for their candidate.
ReplyDeleteRuchames' CalPers pension 2013 was $107,534.04 for 31.83 years of service according to Transparent California website. Well-deserved. To be fair, public school teachers also have great pensions and benies through CalStrs. Parents, don't push doctor and lawyer for your kids. Better they should be public employees and get a real pension.
ReplyDeleteEric had much higher name recognition than Keener and should have had tons of support. Just never got that campaign off the ground. Something definitely missing.
ReplyDelete"Something definitely missing." Yeah, like positions on the issues.
ReplyDelete237 Fickleness. For you, personally, it was his reluctance to commit on the issues. For the powerful school crowd who knew where he stood it was the fact that he did commit to an unpopular position during teacher contract negotiations. Damned if you do...
ReplyDeleteRuchames and Faust were the two school board members whose seats were up for election. Faust came in 4th out of 4 in his bid for re-election, which should tell you that there was definitely a backlash going on, which also cost Ruchames a lot of votes - maybe not enough to have beaten Keener, but there's no question that it was a factor.
ReplyDeleteWhat 1109 said.
ReplyDelete