News Subscribe to Our Newsletter Sign up for Email Updates CGF In the News Press Inquiries Past Articles Calendar			Almanac March 31, 2004   Open space district  expansion to coast: charges and responses By Marion Softky  Over the last month, emotion and rhetoric have flown  sky high over the proposal of the Midpeninsula  Regional Open Space District to expand its jurisdiction to include  the San Mateo County Coastside -- 140,000 acres -- from the southern boundary  of Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line.  So far, more than 100 speakers have addressed the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) at two public hearings. Two more hearings are scheduled: on Tuesday, March 30, in Half Moon Bay, and Wednesday, April 7, in Redwood City. LAFCo, the county agency empowered to rule on changes of government boundaries, could make its decision in April.  Speakers have covered a wide range of opinion. Supporters   view the district -- known as "Mid-Pen" on the coast -- as providing a  tool to help save the open space and agriculture that make the San Mateo  County coast a national treasure. Opponents level a myriad of charges;  some fear another layer of government will take away property rights and  personal freedom. Founded in Santa Clara County in 1972, the open space district can buy and manage land for open space, agriculture, natural resources, and low-intensity recreation. In 30 years, it has preserved almost 50,000 acres in 23 preserves in the Baylands, foothills, and mountains of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, from Los Gatos to San Carlos. If the expansion is approved, the district plans to purchase and manage some 12,000 acres of coastal land in the next 15 years. Purchase would be from willing sellers only. The district says it would levy no new taxes, and it would adjust the boundaries of its seven wards so that residents of the Coastside could vote for its directors.  To help sort fact from fiction and clarify issues,  the Almanac has prepared  a summary of charges leveled during the hearings and responses to them.  Material comes from testimony at hearings, interviews, and documents. Charge: The expansion is not necessary. The district can already buy and manage land outside its boundaries. Response: Without expanding, the district can annex land only if  it is adjacent to its present boundaries near Skyline. Any land it buys  that cannot be annexed is subject to taxes. To manage land that is not  contiguous, the district must go through LAFCo for each parcel. The purpose  of the expansion is to look at the entire area, and not do things piecemeal.  The charge of LAFCo is to define ultimate boundaries or sphere of influence. Charge: Another government agency will cause  loss of personal freedom and is a threat to property rights. Response: The Mid-Pen expansion would have no effect on property  rights and personal freedom. The open space district is not a governing  body; it only administers land it owns or leases. Zoning and use of private  property on the Coastside are controlled by San Mateo County, not Mid-Pen.  The Coastal Commission also has some authority in coastal areas. Claim: There are two dozen or more government agencies  with some activity on the Coastside. Present zoning and other restrictions  are sufficient; we don't need another agency. Response: No other government  agency on coast has the sole function of buying and managing land for  open space. Mid-Pen will control only land it owns or leases. The district  will buy land only from people who want to sell; it has given up the right  of eminent domain, that is, the right to take private property and pay  for it. A bill, AB 1195, to remove the district's the right of eminent  domain from the coastal expansion area has passed both houses of the state  Legislature, and is on its way to the governor. Claim: People should be able to vote on their  future. "We have a right to control our own destiny." Response: Many zoning, land use, and other decisions are made by  local, state and federal government without an election. Coastside residents  would be able to vote for members of the district board. The legal process  LAFCo is going through now allows the possibility of a vote on the proposed  expansion in the affected area. If LAFCo approves the expansion, it holds  a further "protest hearing." If between 25 and 50 percent of the voters,  or owners of between 25 and 50 percent of the land, file a written protest,  the expansion will go to a vote. If the protest numbers are less than  25 percent, there is no vote, and the expansion occurs. If the protest  is more than 50 percent of either voters or land area, the expansion is  defeated. Charge: Annexation will cause a tax burden. Schools  and services will suffer loss of income from taking lands off the tax  rolls. Response: Annexation will not affect individual taxes. The district  has reached an agreement with the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District  to reimburse it for lost taxes, and to provide environmental education  programs. The open space district has also reached an agreement with the  County Fire Department to make up for any tax loss, to provide a water  truck, and to cooperate on fire prevention and suppression. Fiscal impacts  on other services are non-existent or minor. Claim: Crowds and traffic will overwhelm  roads and facilities. There are no visitor-serving facilities, such as  restrooms and parking lots. Response: Crowds and traffic are not coming  primarily to the open space preserves and farms. They are coming to the  beaches and state and county parks, which have facilities. Some facilities  may be built. Claim: The district is a bad neighbor. Preserve visitors  trespass on neighboring private land. Response: The district attempts  to work with neighbors and has adopted a "Good Neighbor Policy." The district  admits some problems with neighbors, but claims it has good relations  with most of the thousand or more neighbors of its preserves. Rangers  attend to many problems and call the sheriff when necessary. Claim: The district doesn't take care of the  land it now owns. It has eliminated grazing on some lands and allowed  invasive weeds to build up. Response: The district spends about $3 million a year -- 25 percent  of its operating budget -- on resource management, including eliminating  invasive weeds and reducing fire danger. It has grazing leases on some  lands, but got no takers for Russian Ridge. Claim: Two controlled burns on Russian Ridge  got out of hand. Response: Of three controlled burns conducted by the California  Division of Forestry (not the district) on Russian Ridge, one "leaked"  out of the prescribed area and burned an additional 12 acres. Claim: With all the controls, there's no threat  of development in the proposed annexation area. Response: For-sale signs, large tracts of unused land, and uneconomic  farms suggest there is a long-term threat of cumulative development that  could transform the coast over a period of years. The pressures are unremitting.  The development threat is not so much wall-to-wall subdivisions as large  houses and estates that squeeze out farming. The district could give another  option to people wanting to sell land or easements, and help keep land  open and rural into the future. Claim: Private land is well-protected by  farmers, ranchers and owners. There's no need for another agency. Response: Yes, but many of the farming families are getting older,  and their children do not always want to farm. With the new global market,  it is getting harder to make farming pay. Mid-Pen could buy land or agricultural  easements from people who want to keep their land in production. Claim: Land is being bought by public agencies  and land trusts such as the Peninsula  Open Space Trust (POST), and taken out of agriculture. Response: Mid-Pen is not POST. Issues involving POST do not apply  to Mid-Pen. Mid-Pen has signed an agreement with the Farm Bureau to work  jointly to promote agriculture, plan individual farming projects, and  protect the unique landscape of the coast. The Farm Bureau board voted  13-0 to support the expansion. New alternatives such as this are essential  to stem the tide of urban sprawl. Claim: Pescadero is dying; this will make things  worse. Response: There is economic hope in tapping into the huge market over the hill. Some farmers, the Half Moon Bay Chamber of Commerce, and environmentalists suggest that a local kind of eco-tourism could attract people and help revive the economy. Many farmers sell their freshest produce to local restaurants and farmers' markets, and some welcome the public to "U-pick" fields of berries and kiwis. Mid-Pen could play a key part in supporting these farmers. Page last updated April 5, 2004 .