HMB’s biggest farmers upset with LCP revision

posted by Barry Parr on Aug 25, 2005 at 05:13 pm in  Planning & Development
4 comments • Click to email this story

Half Moon Bay’s biggest farmers are unhappy with restrictions the city’s proposed Local Coastal Program puts on development of their land, reports the Daily Journal.

Part of the massive Local Coastal Program amendment being discussed by the City Council would not allow any new buildings on urban reserve zoned property. For all practical purposes, that only applies to the five major farms remaining in the city. The hope of the city is to protect the extremely large properties from falling into the hands of developers and turning into massive housing developments.

Additionally, to also protect open space on the coast, the city is proposing any new water wells on the farm properties require a conservation easement. That means the property, regardless of owner, could not be built on.

While the agricultural land is already zoned for limited development, creating an easement would require the land to remain untouched even if the zoning is changed.

At the same time, an easement devalues the property value. Oftentimes, that is a farmer’s largest and only major investment. They use the assessed land value to borrow against and use the money to purchase business materials or more land, said land use consultant Kerry Burke, a former planner for Half Moon Bay.

The issues raised by farmers in the article have to do with their ability to build homes for their own children who will work the land, or to replace a barn that has burned down.

But if they’re concerned that development limitations will limit the amount of money they can borrow, they must plan to borrow more money than can be paid back with simple agriculture.

Comments

Comment 1 by Dennis Paull  on  Aug 31  at  2:14am  •  All my comments • 

Dear Coastsider,

The availability of locally grown food will likely become a major issue here on the coastside. As the cost of transporting food drives food prices higher at the markets, locally grown produce will become a mainstay.

I don’t know how to arrange it, but I encourage the City Council to find a way to encourage our local farm families to stay in the farming business. I have no problem with keeping the farms from becoming new housing developments, but keeping farmers from living on their land seems counter productive. With a little creativity I’m sure that the Council can arrange a compromise that will benefit the whole community.

Dennis Paull Half Moon Bay

Comment 2 by Elizabeth Tyler  on  Sep 01  at  1:25pm  •  All my comments • 

Mr Paull’s proposal sounds nice. Unfortunately there is a local faction that thinks farmers are in league with developers and are just waiting to cut up their land. I guess they could keep on farming if they did what this faction told them, perhaps down to planting the crops that “the faction” thought the coastside needed. After all, humans don’t eat hay or grain, which were once grown in great abundance here.

How about the farmers who still exist who farm rented land? I’m not sure if there are any within the city limits, but they do farm in the area. They need a place to live, too, besides at home with Mom and Dad.

I gues my main point is the vocal locals who want to be “in charge” of everything. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Audry

Comment 3 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 01  at  1:54pm  •  All my comments • 

I’m not sure I understand your objection. It appears that the goal remains to keep farm land in agricultural production, which is consistent with the needs you’re expressing here — especially for farmers who must rent their land. Renters are especially subject to displacement by development or by subdivision of working farmland into hobby farms.

Comment 4 by Dennis Paull  on  Sep 01  at  4:58pm  •  All my comments • 

Dear Editor,

I am not familiar with the zoning restrictions on ag properties. Would it be appropriate to set the zoning such that there could be one residence on each parcel of xx acres, maybe 20-40 acres for example? That would allow a farmer to live on his/her land and still not allow the land to be developed.

I don’t know what qualifies as a ‘hobby farm’. We will be needing locally grown food and using the ag zoned properties for growing something else seems counter-productive to the community even though it might make economic sense to the land owner. I am not the person who wants to make that decision.

Dennis Paull HMB


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.