Wavecrest resumes farming on Thanksgiving

The “seeds” that the Wavecrest developer is planting are quite unique. When the seeds are deprived of moisture by destruction of the surrounding wetlands, the seeds will germinate and grow into about 300 monster houses.

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Nov 26  at  6:25pm  •  All my comments • 

The weather was beautiful, wasn’t it?

Barry, since you didn’t give a credit for the pictures, did you take them or did Mr. Canary?

I’m assuming that you took them, but a clarification would be useful for some curious folk.

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 26  at  6:36pm  •  All my comments • 

I’ll always give credit to myself or anyone else who wants it.

Interestingly, these photos came from two different sources who prefered to keep their privacy. I took some photos, but there weren’t as good as these.

Perhaps I’m missing something; it wouldn’t be the first time. Judging from the pictures, which are nice by the way, I see a couple tractors, a broadcaster, several people, a few trucks, a security car (shame it has to be that way), and a nicely disked field. What I can’t seem to find, however, are Jack’s magic seeds that Mr. Lansing is apparently writing about.

As for moisture deprivation, well, it’s raining. I’ve done a little farming myself (although I’ve only had the pleasure of using ‘regular’ seeds), and I’d say our friendly farmer got it done at just the right time; and it looks good. Funny how farmers seem to work well with Nature. Too bad we don’t see more of it locally.

By the way, I wonder how many CA coastal towns have local coverage as good as ours when it comes to chronicling someone farming? I, for one, am on the edge of my seat looking forward to this magical crop.

George

Many Coastside Farmers were planting cover crop these past few days before the predicted rains came.  Many more will be doing so as soon as it dries up before the next rains.  If anything, this recent activity reinforces that they truly are farming this ground.  This is not suspicious.  Let’s try to keep the faith.

Emma Lane

I hope our “endangered frogs and snakes” have enough smarts to move out of the way of the noisy farming equipment.

Of course the City or Coastal Commission could enact legislation requiring special noise making devices on tractors to protect these helpless animals in the event that their senses aren’t delicate enough to hear all the noise.

If they are too dumb to move out of the way of a large vibrating tractor, perhaps they will go the way of other extinct species.  Unless, of course, we support reverse Darwinism - survival of the dumbest.

Its also a very sad commentary about the Coast that people have to hire security guards to protect their property from some of the extremists that live here.  But don’t forget that this is the home of the HMB Torch.

I find these statements odd:

“I’ll always give credit to myself or anyone else who wants it.”

Not the “credit to myself” part.  You deserve credit for the hard work.

Any “news” source that is going to at least try to remain objective HAS to credit a photo or not run it.  That is simply a journalistic principle and not one that is subject to any interpretation or

“Interestingly, these photos came from two different sources who prefered to keep their privacy. I took some photos, but there weren’t as good as these.”

Keep “THEIR PRIVACY??” They took pictures of an activity on privately owned land, did they not?

I think the word you were looking for was “anonymity.” That said, the “canary” should be ashamed that they lack the fortitude to stand up and be accounted for.

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 28  at  12:02pm  •  All my comments • 

Privacy is the goal. Anonymity is the means.

Take another look at Terry Gossett’s rant about anonymous canaries on Talkabout:

http://talkabout.hmbreview.com/topic.php?t=30&c=8&d=m

Or Mary Bordi’s comment on that posting:

“I uploaded the photos of Mr. Canary to a certain website, but then decided not to make it public. That seems sooo childish. (One was really clear and in the other one he was shielding his face with his hands--it’s really quite amusing!)”

Or this incident where a developer physically took a camera away from a woman:

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/696/

It doesn’t surprise me that some people feel intimidated.

What difference would it make if the photographers were named?

In both cases where I’ve run anonymous photos (farming at Big Wave and at Wavecrest), I was on the site the same day that the photos were taken and believe them to be an accurate account of what was happening there based on my personal experience.

“It doesn’t surprise me that some people feel intimidated.”

Does not surprise me either.  If a person is doing something on their privately-owned land and another party is taking their picture without their approval, why would the person just stand by and wave?

I fail to see why privacy (personal or ordinary property rights - remember “quiet enjoyment?") gets sidetracked here for the sake of “reporting.” There is absolutely no overriding public need here (especially not for one that is doing farming).

yes, we have seen anonymous photos before, and I think many of us think you should replace them with your own, no matter the quality.  I think it improves the “quality” as a whole.

Mr. Parr writes:  “Privacy is the goal. Anonymity is the means.”
I must say that the way things have become in our once nice town, I did not think any one was ever entitles to privacy ever again.  With all the Anonymity going around, cowards are entitled to remove one’s privacy. 
Sorry to say, worse to see and believe. 
Thank you.
Emma

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 28  at  4:11pm  •  All my comments • 

Farming at Wavecrest is news. The owners have business before local, state, and federal agencies which is affected by agricultural activity.

As far as I can tell, the only reason someone would want to know the identity of the photographers is for purposes of intimidation. If not in this case, then as a warning to citizens who might contemplate photographing news events in the future.

I could care less who the person is.  Makes no difference to me. 

The point is - you cannot simply defend the position that publishing anonymous photos of private activities is not a serious breach of journalistic principles.

You would not have the burden of trying to protect someone’s anonymity if you simply took a higher road and decided to not use anonymous photographs.  The burden is borne because you have decided that you think pretty pictures are more valuable than something else.  I would vote for something else.

Speaking of anonymity, who is the farmer anyway? And who are the people driving the disking apparatus? Who is the security guard?

Last time I checked, the owner of the land was in the development business, not the farming business. We weren’t born yesterday. These disking activities are not about farming. They are about destroying wetlands and habitat (under the guise of farming) to facilitate future housing development.

The owner of the land has a development agreement with the City of HMB. So let’s stop pretending that this story is about farming.

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 28  at  10:24pm  •  All my comments • 

The farming isn’t a “private activity”.  When you engage in an activity in an open field next to a busy highway you have no expectation of privacy, regardless of whether the open field is private property.  Brian’s conflating two entirely different definitions of the word “private”.

Comment by Cheri Parr  on  Nov 28  at  11:38pm  •  All my comments • 

As a photographer here on the coast, primarily for Coastsider, I can tell you from personal experience that scare tactics and intimidation happen all the time.

While shooting for Coastsider, I have personally been threatened, bullied, screamed at, and in one case had a 250lb construction worker run at me full speed to take my equipment.  He stopped short upon seeing my cell phone to my ear.  I was on public property, bothering no one, and just trying to do my job.  I wonder Mr. Gina where my right to work, and my expectation of personal safety when doing nothing illegal stops?

I understand why the “canaries”—as you’ve so graciously labeled your neighbors—have concerns about putting their name to their work. In addition to my own experience, I have first-hand knowledge of two other people who had cameras wrenched from their hands when they were shooting in a public places on the Coastside.  Another thought - If those being photographed are not breaking the law, might they in fact be helped by the existence of those very photographs?  Documentary photography may well be the only sustaining evidence to protect everyone involved.

As a mother of three young children, I often worry that one day the threats will become action.  In this small town, there is no real anonymity. Perhaps people’s desire for anonymity is a reaction to your own animosity Mr. Ginna, or a reaction to those who use threats, bullying and intimidation to keep people with legitimate concern quiet.

Is there any issue or topic concerning matters between Pescadero and Pacifica that actually has a middle ground for discussion. Or must extremes and unsubstantiated statements always be the norm.

The legality of taking photographs and the legality of publishing someone’s photos are easy to research and find. And so are laws governing personal safety and harassment.

Like belly buttons, everyone has an opinion, but that doesn’t make an opinion fact or law.

Perhaps those with righteous indignation about reporting news with attached photos could point to the laws that were violated. Otherwise, read the story, add your comments, take a deep breath, fold up your soap box and get over it.

We may have a monarchy in Washington DC, but so far not here on the coast. So lets all give each other a present of civil debate for Christmas.

Comment by Cheri Parr  on  Nov 29  at  1:48pm  •  All my comments • 

I agree Bob.  For those interested in a primer on the issue of photography rights, etc.  follow this link to an excellent recap by USA Today’s Andrew Kantor.  In his article are links to PDF’s, legal opinion, case law etc.  A good read for anyone interested in fact over opinion.  http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

Years ago, I took a shortcut across idle ag land to take some photos of questionable activity.  (The land hadn’t been farmed for years, in hopes of developing it.  Those hopes have been permanently killed, and since then it’s again being farmed continuously.) When I got home there was a threatening message from the property owner on my answering machine, which was interesting because he was not around that property.  He was more upset by my taking photos of suspicious activities than by my trespass.  He threatened to take my camera, which as I read the article at the link supplied by Cheri, would be a significant crime, unlike the trespass.

BTW, under trespass law, given the circumstances which existed at the time and place referred to above, if they had called the sheriff the sheriff could have done nothing other than ask me to leave the property immediately.  A refusal to leave would lead to trouble, however.

Mrs. Parr,

1.  You have mistakenly assumed that I think intimidation, by any means is appropriate.  I believe I am entitled to an apology for your inference that my actions or words would cause some sort of intimidation that leads to a desire for anonymity.  I did say that I would wonder why someone would “stand by and just wave,” not that they would resort to something threatening.

2.  I did not label anyone a canary, others did.  I quoted.

3.  I have no animosity in this regard, nor towards any of my neighbors.  Oddly, your interpretation of my opinion is pretty much your opinion (and nothing factual either).  My opinion is simply stated as having photographs with no credit is a journalistic misstep (this is only tangentaly related to the link you provided - which is, surprise, another opinion!).  Perhaps that is not a problem here.

Here’s the deal, kids. If you are on public property or adjacent private property where you have permission to be, you can take pictures of private property, even over objections of the private property owners or people conducting activities on the private property. Heck, you can even sell those pictures for editorial (educational/informational) uses, though you may not sell them for advertising or other promotional uses. You may not, however, go onto private property without permission to take pictures of that same private property.

The same basic rule applies to taking pictures of people in public or from public places.

This is First Amendment stuff, well worked out over the years for editorial photography, including journalistic photography.

Carl May

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Nov 29  at  7:48pm  •  All my comments • 

Hey folks, I don’t think the question is: Does someone have the right to take a photo… The discourse started with: Why did the photographers feel the necessity of being anonymous?

Fear of intimidation is a nice cop out. (Golly, there are so many big strong guys who respond negatively to my posts in this forum that I’m afraid to go outside my house, let alone shop in HMB...) feeble attempt at humor disclaimer for the impaired

Also, the reference that Barry made above to my statement about the picture of Mr Canary (that I uploaded to the web but decided not to give the link out to the public) was another matter. That picture was taken by a farmer who had photographed “Mr Canary” who was photographing the farmer as said farmer was farming. I can name the farmer, who now goes armed with a camera when he farms. Perhaps my hesitation to make it public was due to an up coming court case? Who knows. hmmm, disclaimer or not?

Why do you suppose Mr Canary is hiding his face in one of the pictures?

There was a beautiful afterglow from the sunset this evening as I was coming home. But my camera battery was dead!

Why are some of you so fixated on having to have a name for who took the photos. And assuming that there is something nefarious because the photographer isn’t identified. There are about 25,000 residence on the coast. Could you please explain why it is so vital to know which of those 25,000 took the picture? And if there was a name, how that would change the news one iota. Activity on that property is news and is reported on by the local newspaper so why the brouhaha over news about the property when it is on Coastsider.

Those wanting the name assume that there is an opinion implied by the photos and it bothers some that there is an “anonymous” opinion. The level of “upsetness” would appear to be directly correlated with the writers disagreement with the implied opinion. It can’t be about “anonymous” because if it where so, there would be a large outcry about all the “anonymous” opinions in the local paper.

Since this particular “anonymous” appears to be different than other “anonymous” for some, let me offer to help. While I didn’t take the news pictures, I am one of the 25,000 and I’ll volunteer my name to be used. So now those that need a name have one. And if it helps, had I happen to drive by and had I had a camera and had I had time, I would have gladly taken the pictures for Barry because I would have thought it was news. It would not have been because I had a single opinion about farming.

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Nov 30  at  9:59am  •  All my comments • 

Thank you Bob Ptacek! I think (my opinion only, of course) that we have finally gotten on track here!

Mr. Ptacek said:

“Why are some of you so fixated on having to have a name for who took the photos...There are about 25,000 residence on the coast. Could you please explain why it is so vital to know which of those 25,000 took the picture?”

For myself, I don’t care who exactly took the pictures. I probably don’t even know them, wouldn’t recognize their face because I don’t know all that many of the 25,000 residents (if a resident took the pictures).

Barry Parr requests that people who post here use their name. Or at least a real name. I have no idea if anyone is using a nom de plume or not. But the idea of having a name to attach to a post gives it more credibility (or it would seem so). This is what I think about the pictures, also.

“While I didn’t take the news pictures, I am one of the 25,000 and I’ll volunteer my name to be used.”

It would be fine with me if Barry wanted to use your name for any pictures posted here that the real photographer didn’t want to own up to.

Anyone else?

Why are YOU so fixated on our fixation?  People are being nosy (and this is not news-y - it is NOT in the local newspaper), so why is the fact that some might be nosy a problem?

Are you standing beside YOUR soapbox or on it?

Brian, you may want to spend $0.75 this week to buy the current paper. While I know the paper HAS reported in the past about Wavecrest, look at the editorial cartoon. “Wavecrest” is used twice. They apparently do feel there are things about Wavecrest to put in the paper.

What’s really amazing and reflects poorly on our community is the fact that property owners have to hire security guards to protect their property from over zealous people with questionable intentions.

Obviously this spineless photographer knew these pictures would create news but didn’t have the guts to put their name to their work.

The guards were probably there because of people like this.

Steven Hyman

OK, I was not the first to use the term “Anonymous canary” but first heard it while interacting with the SMC Building and Planning Dept when I applied to add on to my home in 1999.  “He”, cant recall his name, said that on the SMC coast many folk called authorities at the drop of a hat, for whatever reasons, and the “county” called them “canaries” and that many were anonymous.

Sorry for not fully acknowledging that attribution during my earlier “rant”....

In the article I posted on Anonymous canaries referred to by Mr Parr, I was trying to compare the atmosphere of intimidation here on our lovely coast, with a typical community over the hill. (equally lovely, BUT friendly to boot)

I feel that it is intimidating to have anonymous canaries lurking about day and night, creating an atmosphere that hurts the sense of neighborhood and community that we all “say” we want. False claims may even cause delays and costs that might best be borne by the responsible parties (if we could identify them)

NOW, we have canaries anonymously posting pictures on a local blog, coupled with some dire warnings by folk, some of whom may be either That anonymous canary, or a group working in concert, or other folk that say the source of the journalistic material is not important.  So now will all future canaries be named Mr Ptacek as he offered?  What a solution…

Is this process and reasoning acceptable for our community?  It is certainly not transparent or open.

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 30  at  5:45pm  •  All my comments • 

Most likely, the guards were there to keep people off the property. Clearly this bit of plowing has generated a lot of interest among a lot of people. I can think of plenty of reasons, both reasonable and unreasonable for doing this. It would be a mistake to read motives into it either way.

But I still don’t understand why folks have worked themselves into a lather over the identities of the photographers. If we were talking about an eyewitness account, I can understand wanted to know whose description were were hearing. And even then, anonymous sources are not uncommon in the press. But these are photos. I’ve been to the site to see the activity myself and I know that they’re accurate.

I’m getting a lot of hand-waving about “ethics”, but no explanation of the ethical principle in question. And no one has explained why they have this burning desire to know who took the pictures.

Could it possibly be that I know, and you know who took the pictures? 

And that the person(s) have good reasons for not being identified?

Barry as you state “And even then, anonymous sources are not uncommon in the press.” Are you suggesting articles published on your website follow that same approach?  If so, why do you require real names?

Alternatively, IF, as you require, one must identify oneself to post on your website, then with your rules regarding photos, that same person can attach a photo from unknown sources to his article just as you do...If that IS the case, commentary and conclusions resulting from future postings may be very interesting…

If you wish to corroborate any of these tentative conclusions, then you may have a new wave of contributors to your site.

In answer to your statement “I’m getting a lot of hand-waving about “ethics”, but no explanation of the ethical principle in question.” I am merely seeking an ethical, consistent, fair, and open rationale for your rules for contributors to your website, for all their input (including photos or caricatures), as well as rules or expectations for your own input.

Mr. Hyman,

You often make these smug and accusatory remarks, and when challenged, say things like “I guess I won’t make a very good politician.”

It is equally possible that the guards are hired to keep people from photographing what is going on for use in future hearings by the Coastal Commission regarding whether any endangered or protected creatures were ploughed under; an inconvenient thing, and one which I understand happened in the past.

And, as there is no history in our area of any violence against anyone doing what the owners were doing at Wavecrest, it is also a lot more likely that the guards were there to add drama or to keep away onlookers.

I continue to be mystified by your need to characterize others in such a negative way, and the casual way in which you do so.

And I am likewise mystified by people like Ms. Bordi, Mr. Ginna, and Mr. Gossett, who are more interested in who provided pictures of what was visible in public, than they are in what the pictures show.  It is very clear that Wavecrest is controversial, and that the developer has long been avoiding having the presence of various environmental elements officially cataloged at that location.  And that the shenanigans that have gone on have cost local taxpayers millions in increased expense and years of delay in building a new middle school, despite approval of the requested funds ten years ago now, as well as being a polarizing force among the local population.

Hal M. Bogner
Half Moon Bay

A written statement’s credibility depends almost solely on the reputation of the author, so author names make sense for posting.  A photo speaks for itself.

Consider TV news.  There are named anchors.  There are anonymous TV crews.  I’ve seen some TV news stories which were narrated by the anchor because there was only a camera-person on site.  The camera-person is never named.  Ever seen a print newspaper photo captioned something like “AP News”?  The Half Moon Bay Review does not credit all of their photos.

So how are unattributed photos on Coastsider.com any different?

I remain totally convinced that this fixation on knowing who took the photos is for the sole purpose of intimidating people who might take photos.  Nothing in this discussion has given any other real reason.  I’ve personally been maliciously intimidated twice for taking photos, once by a call from a Half Moon Bay police officer.  Given what I know now, I should have filed a formal “abuse of authority” complaint when that happened.

As to Terry’s complaint about all the anonymous canaries lurking about making life difficult, if you are following the law in both letter and spirit, maybe those canaries would have better things to do than complain.  I propose that there are more complaints here because there are more people here who try to push the County-fostered “wild west” anything-goes envelope.

Okay.  I think everyone is taking this too far.

Let’s get off the internet and enjoy our real lives and families.

See you all at the night of lights.

Emma

Hey Leonard...IF I had moved here from LA I might also be paranoid, but I came from Los Altos Hills where neither I, nor my neighbors, ever had ONE incident of anonymous canaries in 30 years..yet here on this lovely coast it is a weekly occurence.

WHY is that?  ...and more importantly, WHY are some people defending anonymous canaries so vociferously?

This is hardly the forum for dialog of this sort-- so, I offer you what I offered Mr Ptacek and many others...Would you like to meet me for coffee or tea---anytime, any place, and resolve this as neighbors (which is what we are).  I am in the phone book and I think you have my email address..

I view you as a friend with common concerns for our coast.  Why as friends would we ever continue with this sort of diatribe? 

ps-- Remember our fervent discussion on growth rates for the coast and how to best measure those rates for compliance with the law after a recent RCD meeting?  (and I think we were in violent agreement) We should do that more often.

your friend

terry

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 30  at  9:17pm  •  All my comments • 

There is no doubt that the regulatory burdens on builders are high on the Coastside. I think that on balance it’s a good thing.

But people responsible for enforcement can’t be everywhere at once. This flaw in the system can be exploited.

If you’re flouting the law as a business strategy, you must strike quickly and hide the evidence before anyone can contradict you. The existence of digital cameras in the hands of the citizenry makes it a lot harder to do that.  Everyone should keep a digital camera in their car. Someday, you’ll be glad you did.

I’m not saying that every citizen with a Canon is a righteous crusader, or that anyone specific is breaking the law. What I’m saying is that, like a cop on the beat or the lock on your door, this process helps keep everyone honest.

This year, I’ve published some interesting photos taken by people who prefer to remain anonymous. You never saw the ones I rejected because they were misleading or not newsworthy. But there have also been several times this year when I thought, “Damn, I wish someone had a picture of that site yesterday!”

So, my hat’s off to all those citizens who care enough about our community to take some pictures when they see something they don’t understand and want to understand better, or something interesting that they know won’t be there tomorrow. Regardless of whether they want to be identified.

Mr Parr

I think I understand your position. 

Trust you to do the right thing… However, you basically distrust others to do the right thing.

So, is no one trustworthy but you, and your designees?

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Nov 30  at  11:38pm  •  All my comments • 

My position is similar to that of the fortieth president of the United States, “Trust, but verify.”

That’s the rule here at Coastsider, too. If you have a problem with the factual content of the story or the photos, feel free to share it.  That’s why we have comments. Otherwise, your obsession with the identity of the photographers looks like a diversion to me.

There are real questions here, but not about the identity of an anonymous source (an age-old and accepted journalistic practice) nor about those seeking the identity (they are, quite transparently, trying to change the topic and shoot the messenger at the same time).

The real question here is in what way does the disking and seeding of the land at Wavecrest represent a legitimate use of the land versus an attempt to circumvent the law?

As we all recall, many of the questions from the Coastal Commission from the last “holiday disking” centered on whether the disking made sense from a rational business point of view if the real purpose was for-profit farming. That’s what all the questions about the costs of security, etc were about. If the costs were clearly to high to allow any expectation of profit then a reasonable person must assume that there was some other purpose to the disking.

And so here we are today. Another holiday disking. Sigh. At least it wasn’t by tractor headlight this time! All of Terry’s talk of “neighborliness” must be having an effect. George’s talk about respect for the law must be sinking in.

So how does it look from a business point of view--if this really is agriculture? What sort of crop will justify these holiday pay rates for farm workers and security guards? What kind of seeds are they? Opium? Magic bean stalks?

Can you even imagine the legal fees?

Those must be some seeds…

--Darin

Leonard pretty much nails it: the big newspapers, media corporations, editorial photo agencies, and wire services (AP being one of the best known) frequently do not credit photographers by name. Indeed, in some instances of exposes of wartime activities or government malfeasance, the photographer would be placed at risk or have their cover blown by being named.

Carl May

Let’s face it.  For the last six years we’ve been ruled by an administration whose response to “inconvenient truth” is to shoot the messengers.

Dick Cheney & George W. Bush have already set the tone for the nation.  Their disregard for the environment, laws protecting the environment, and those who enforce environmental laws are well documented.

I applaud those who step up to document illegal or questionable land use activities.  If they wish to remain anonymous, I certainly understand.  Even if the law is in their favor, it offers no protection unless the intimidators are caught in the act.

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Dec 01  at  10:22am  •  All my comments • 

Darin Boville mentions “holiday disking” and “holiday pay rates for farm workers” so he is obviously unfamiliar with the history and economics of our local agriculture.

I do not know the particulars of the operation in question but here are a few of my observations of farming on the coastside from a personal vantage point of nearly six decades and a family history of six generations of farming.

Dryland farming was once practiced on a large scale here. (Oats, barley, oat hay, flax. And straw, a by product of the oats and barley that was harvested for grain). Much of this was accomplished on land that did not belong to the farmer (he either paid rent or farmed on shares).

This is the time of year to plant oats. And you have to do it when conditions are right. If it gets too late because it’s been too wet or you’ve been working your other job, you can plant barley, say, up until March and still get a crop.

Because I mentioned above-- “other job”, I should add that today’s coastside dryland farmer would have another job that pays money and has benefits. The other job could be agriculture related but probably isn’t. That would explain the “holiday disking”. You not only make hay while the sun shines, you do it on your day off from your paying job. Possibly none of the farming crew were hourly workers either.

Perhaps the developers have an ulterior motive--I certainly couldn’t say. I do know that a lot of the land that was farmed here on the coast in the past was owned by absentee owners. The guys doing the farming in question may just be a younger generation of farmers, eager to farm the same land their fathers farmed but did not own.

We should be glad to see that some locals still want to continue the tradition of dryland farming. We should also not judge local farming methods by the way we think it “should” work or the way that our own employment in another field (is that a pun or what?) works.

I think that disking of idle ag land should be allowed with a condition placed on it:  no applications for development can be accepted or processed until 20 years after the most recently planted crop is harvested and sold.  This would keep true ag land in production.  Does anybody think that the Wavecrest “farmers” would agree to this?

Darin is absolutely correct about those trying to change the topic.

Dan Blick hits the nail on the head with his description of the federal administration and his implication that the same thing is happening here on a local basis.

Terry, you have (probably intentionally) missed my point.  (And what it has to do with being from L.A. is beyond me.) I’m guessing that in Los Altos Hills, you didn’t have people flouting the law as is done here (it’s harder to do in an incorporated city!), and therefore didn’t have the canary issue there.  BTW, in L.A. developers can’t get away with ignoring the law, so they just buy politicians.  OTOH, here they just fund their campaigns… (Little-known fact:  the campaign manager for long-time L.A. Mayor Bradley built the library tower in downtown L.A., which I heard was then the tallest building west of the Mississippi.)

I don’t think security guards were hired soley to prevent photographers.  With high powered lenses, you could take detailed pictures from HWY 1.

I sadly suspect that they are there to prevent tresspassers from either interferring with their farming operations or possibly planting frogs or wetland vegation.

I have heard from reputable geologists that that has happenned here before.  And don’t forget that the Beach House was tortched during its construction.

But if anyone is really interested in finding out why guards were there, they could easily contact the owners and hear their reasons for this costly expense firsthand.

Steven Hyman

Steven Hyman wrote:
“I sadly suspect that they are there to prevent tresspassers from either interferring with their farming operations or possibly planting frogs or wetland vegation.”

That’s right, there’s no naturally-occurring frogs or wetlands around there. They’ve all been “planted” by those pesky environmentalists--the same people who keep insisting that developers obey the law. Realtors like Mr. Hyman could make a lot more money if developers would just get on with plowing under the frogs and wetlands and build more houses.

It’s time for a CDP on this topic. A Canary Defense Proposition. On behalf of the thousands of our avian feathers friends that gave their lives to save the lives of miners in the days before the behemoth mining operations, it is disingenuous to associate some nefarious intention with “canary”. They do not deserve that demeaning association for being a vital early warning signal that saved thousands of lives.

Unless the county bureaucrats are trying to indicate that “canary” is actually providing a vital early warning signal today, which I doubt, I’d like to speak on behalf of those beaks that can’t.

Stop using them to insult others. We are the dominant destroying species on the planet, if one wants to insult someone, do so directly and clearly. Quit beating around the bush with cutesy words. Or are those that can’t insults clearly actually related to the canary’s poultry cousins.

Since the “canaries” have lost their job to test poisonous air, all they want to do is sing beautiful songs and eat seeds. They should not again be recruited to be used in a different form of poison. And lets not forget they are perfectly capable of producing an EIR (Equal Insulting Record) for both sides of an argument.

Hi Mary,

Your description of farming here on the coast sounds just like farming elsewhere in the country, such as in Ohio where I grew up, or in Maryland where I lived just prior to moving to California. It can be tough to be a small farmer.

It can also be tough to be a major San Mateo County land investment firm, such as Concar Enterprises, the more aggressive of the trio of owners of the Wavecrest properties (the other two are institutional owners).

Doing a quick Google search shows the Larry and Jeff Atkinson, who run Concar, as very active in the county land investment market but no mention of farming. Once source cited Concar as “building most of the sidewalks in San Mateo County"--no mention of oats, barley, or hay.

Their grandfather was L.C. Smith. The real estate firm at 470 Concar (same address as Concar Enterprises) is no doubt named after him.

So you are suggesting that one or both of the Atkinsons were out there on their day off, plowing their old family farm, living out their heritage, a tear in each eye as they recognize the end of a way of life, a way of life being destroyed by greedy investors who care not one whit about what it means to b a farmer--complicated in an interesting postmodern way by the fact that it is they themselves who are the ones who are doing the destroying? Raw greed meets the fading American agricultural soul, all in one person?

I love your stuff, Mary. Keep it coming.

--Darin

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Dec 01  at  3:37pm  •  All my comments • 

Darin Boville--did you actually read what I wrote about farming? You statement about our farming being like farming in the area where you grew up or lived may be true (I have only lived and been involved with it in San Mateo County) but I still wonder if you are judging farming by the way you percieve it to be (there or here), not the way it is lived by those doing it.

Did I say that the absentee owners, now or in the past, were the ones out there farming? I said that it is well known that farming and ranching have been conducted here much of the time on land that was not owned by the farmer/rancher. I beg your pardon if I was not clear in my statement.

On the other hand, there are families that still own the land that they have worked for generations. So please don’t misinterpret what I said above to say something like all farming has been done on land owned by absentee owners, either. :) <-- please note crude but hopefully cutesy smiley face

Did your google on L.C. Smith turn up any info on his awesome six horse hitch of Clydesdales?

Besides, the Clydesdales as a diversionary subject is much more on topic for the coastside than canaries.

I normally desire not to post on this list as most of the posters are a bunch of mud slingers w/o any basis in fact.

When Steven Hyman started to post I thought that he would bring a breath of fresh air to this list. Sorry to say he is as bad as the rest.

Why? Look at his statement:

“I have heard from reputable geologists that that has happenned here before.  And don�t forget that the Beach House was tortched during its construction”.

He has made a most strong inference that the Beach House was torched by people who plant endangered species W/O ONE THREAD OF EVIDENCE.

In fact the Bureau of ATF who investigated the fire stated that it was a professional job. No one has ever been arrested. Interesting enough, Ron Delgado our Fire Chief, had BFI open on the weekend and most of the Beach House construction had been cleared, even to the concrete foundation...Those are facts-not here-say.

John Lynch

This thread reminds me of a story a heard about a town called Washington about six years ago. Seems all the canaries were scared away by hawks.
The unfortunate results were:

An immoral and illegal war with thousands of American and Iraqi citizens and others massacred for oil and corporate profits.

Torture became fashionable and even legalized into law.

The rights of habeas corpus in effect since 1305 deleted.

Illegal wire taps and snooping replaced habeas corpus.

The Constitution destroyed.

Moslems become the new Native Americans, replacing African Americans, who were the first to replace the Native Americans as the preferred target of bigots.

Orwellian new speak became the fashion rage with The Healthy Forest Initiative giving control of the hens to the wolf. This was followed by the prescription drug initiative, no child left behind. War is Peace, they hate freedom, and a never ending barrage of nonsense designed to increase profits for criminal corporations at the expense of the environment, third world countries, and the American people.

Did I mention an Idiot was made commander and chief?

I for one feel good that here in our town someone is watching the old farm.

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Dec 02  at  7:43pm  •  All my comments • 

May I take this opportunity to invoke Godwin’s Law?

(Read what Wikipedia has to say about Godwin’s Law.)

And how does Godwin’s Law apply to this coastside issue and Jack Sutton’s story? Check out this article from Harper’s Magazine. (Trust me, many of you will love it!)

So am I guilty of invoking the codicil to Godwin’s Law (from the above referenced Wikipedia article)?

Only I know my motives but I’ll give you a hint: It has something to do with protecting the anonyminity of the Phalaris arundinacea growing at Wavecrest.

(PS--I may have been mistaken about L.C. Smith’s Clydesdales. It might have been an eight horse hitch, not a six horse hitch.)

Mary,
Perhaps I missed the point here or you are confusing Orwellian with the N word as described by Mr Goodwin. To my recollection I did not mention the N word or the H word in my post. Perhaps you yourself have been trapped by Mr Goodwin’s Law.

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Dec 04  at  7:01pm  •  All my comments • 

Jack Sutton wrote:

“Perhaps I missed the point here...”

I most certainly agree that you did!

Jack Sutton wrote:

“Perhaps I missed [Mary’s] point here...”

Jack, you’re not the only one.

I think Mary Bordi had the most incisive comment regarding farming on this thread and our coastal history, So she comes under attack, and now nobody seems to understand what Mary is talking about… N words, H words..

Maybe we ALL need to go back to the start of this thread on FARMING, read it all, take a deep breath, and decide...Do we want to work together on issues of farming OR shall we just flame each other and rationalize our individual points of view, while gaining no new insights or understanding of our community.  What is our model for life and farming on the coast?-- Russian life in the 30’s?  With canaries, spies, intrusiveness, and accusations.

I urge folks on this thread to NOT throw away comments about the rich heritage of 5-6 generations of coastal farmers and to at least try to understand Mary’s message.

I tend to take a dim view of folk that want to spout rules for farming when they have never turned over one clod..  and then disparage the folk that make a living with the earth…

Anyway, guys, we can do a LOT better than the way this thread is turning out...Or the way it began..  Just My opinion… but willing to change...Let’s talk.

Anyone want to meet for coffee or tea...and talk about constructive solutions for our community?

terry gossett
563-9508

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Dec 05  at  9:56pm  •  All my comments • 

Terry:  It seems to me that Brian and Mary and you were the ones that wanted to take this into a discussion of the ethics of photography.  I was trying to answer their concerns, but kept on saying that I thought it was a diversion from the issue at hand.

I know that the Coastal Commission has asked Concar some pretty detailed questions about the economics of farming at Wavecrest:

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/1525/

I estimated a couple of years ago that the yield to Concar from leasing this property for farming would be under $10,000/year, which is unlikely to cover the cost of the attorney’s fees and heavy security.

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/340/

I’m sure the farmer is making money from this, or he wouldn’t lease the property. So, I’m not questioning the farmer’s motives.

Concar’s motives are much less clear and that is the crux of the Coastal Commission’s inquiry.

So, who is the bigger friend of farming as a way of life: The developers that lease their land to landless farmers until they can cover it with pavement, or (say) POST, which leases their land to farmers until they can sell it to to the farmers with an easement that will assure it will stay in agricultural production for the foreseeable future?

I support family farming on the coast.

Which reminds me of something a friend said to me yesterday.

If I understand it correctly, preventing the Wavecrest owners from building on their property then that may constitute a “taking.” That’s one point of view, at least.

But now assuming the owners are sincere about making this a for-profit farm (rather than just a dodge on the way to building a big development) haven’t the owners sort of shot themselves in the foot? If this is viable farmland could we simply rule out the development idea and consider farmland vs. wetland?

How about it Terri? How about it Mary? Would you support our local farming heritage by making the Wavecrest property farmland in perpetuity?

Or do you support farming only as a debating tactic, all the while eyeing the land’s potential for new residential development?

--Darin

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Dec 06  at  8:44am  •  All my comments • 

Barry, thank you for giving me the perfect segue into this quote, which I encountered the other day:

“With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.” Henry A. Wallace

Since there may be others besides Mr. Sutton and Mr.Lansing who “don’t get it” I must stress that I am not addressing this use of the F word at you or Coastsider, Barry.

(I was curious about Henry A. Wallace because my grandfather was Henry Wallace A. and I found I am just a little too young to be aware of Mr. Wallace’s political career. My google on him was very educational!)

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Dec 06  at  10:33am  •  All my comments • 

Let’s try to keep on topic here. Fascism is off-topic.

I’m really interested in this question of the long-term fate of farming on the Coastside in the face of the fact that most of the farmland is no longer owned by farmers, and that the landowners are investors who are seeking the kind of return that leasing land for farming cannot supply.

Barry, POST has acquired over 55,000 acres of land and I only know of two cases where they sold any land at all back to a farmer...(if you know otherwise please advise).....so I would say a private owner is a better option for a farmer over POST.  MROSD in a report to LAFCO in 2004 indicated only 98 acres in AG out of over 50,000 acres, so they don’t get my vote either as a friend of the farmer...and they refused to hire an Ag professional as requested by Grand Jury..

Comment by Barry Parr  on  Dec 06  at  3:50pm  •  All my comments • 

How much of MROSD’s and POST’s land was in agricultural production when the acquired it? Has POST or MROSD taken any agricultural land out of production?

I know less about how MROSD operates, but I get the impression that POST has acquired a lot of its land when it was on the verge of being taken out of agricultural production. If that’s true, the fact that they’re keeping it in production should be looked upon as a victory for farming.

Do you see the Wavecrest/Big Wave model of agriculture as being a better strategy for the survival of farming on the Coastside?

A more appropriate question would be “Has POST ever refused to sell land to a farmer?”

POST does not buy land to hold it—they buy land as a stop-gap to keep it from getting developed because they can act faster than government agencies.  When POST buys land, it is always their intent to sell it to another entity which will keep it open, so that POST can recycle the money for another acquisition.  If a farmer wants to buy land which has had the development rights stripped by POST via a permanent ag / open space easement, it is inconceivable to me that POST would not sell.

Most likely, the tenant farmers just can’t afford to buy the land, so POST leases it to them.

Leonard-- IF you have any data to support your assertion, I am all ears.  In over 20 years I can only find 2 times POST has sold land to a farmer...How many times can you cite, given your statement “Has POST ever refused to sell to a farmer? “

Typically POST is the only buyer of SMC coastal properties (they set the price) and then they sell to MROSD, which is not an AG friendly agency. PS--Did you note the salary of Audrey Rust in a prior posting?  go to guidestar.org

I voted for MROSD in 1972 and also (I think) in 1976, but after watching their policies for private property owners and farmers and ranchers, I do not currently support them.  Why is it that MROSD is the only gov agency with a “Good Neighbor” policy, when state and county parks have no such policies YET seem to have no problems with their neighbors.

Darin,

Is it time to meet for some coffee? 

Do you want to deed your land to the county or GOV or to a Cause, in perpetuity, to “save it”, so other developers won’t prosper when you leave?  So, if NOT, why do you offer that to Concar?

What is wrong with the concept of shared stewardship between private and public sectors?  That is the concept I ascribe to. 

The RCD is attempting to do just that, by helping private owners take better care of their land.  What is wrong with just following the applicable laws and processes in the Coastal Act? (as managed by the coastal commission, but not necessarily by an errant, or overly aggressive north central staff)

Why, as I understand your position, is it necessary for GOV to Absolutely own land to “save” it.....in perpetuity...Where is the sense of community...when people are gone?...driven from their land? by regulatory “takings”, or whatever you call them…

Do you believe people cannot be trusted to do the right thing?...or even to follow the law?

Do you think the Bordi’s have not been good stewards of the land?...for 5-6 generations?  or the Indians before them? 

It is clear that you have great faith in your GOV...Does that also apply to city, county, state and national levels for all endeavors, possibly including IRAQ?

I repeat...is it time for coffee?

your friend...really.  email sucks in many ways...hard to show intensity very well, or accurately..

where is a happy face for me to paste in here.....Mary, how do you do that stick figure? ? ?  Got one for a Old Fat Rat?

happy holidays.

Barry--

Of the 50K acres MROSD bought over 2000 acres of land was in AG, and now that is less than 100 acres, according to Craig Britton in 2004.

In discussions with several farmers, POST, and related agencies, have impacted the ability of farmers to work their land, and they quit.

So the answer to your question is YES--both POST and MROSD have taken ag land out of production..

ps, we could do this property by property, like for Corral de Tierra, but coastsider is hardly the forum for this .

Comment by Mary Bordi  on  Dec 06  at  9:27pm  •  All my comments • 

Darin Boville asks:

“Would you support our local farming heritage by making the Wavecrest property farmland in perpetuity?”

Perpetuity. Now where have I heard that word used lately? Oh, I remember! The folks complaining about YMCA Camp Jones Gulch’s NTMP (timber harvest permit) are against granting the permit because it would allow the YMCA to log the property in perpetuity. Isn’t logging sort of like farming?

I don’t think I wanna go there just now. Let’s see how the logging thing comes out first. (Hope that isn’t too far off topic! I’ve been scolded enough.)

Mr. Boville also asks:

“Or do you support farming only as a debating tactic, all the while eyeing the land’s potential for new residential development?”

If the you you are referring to is me, well, I certainly support farming by those who want to do it. I don’t understand your remark about eyeing the land’s potential for development, though. How would I stand to make any profit from that land? The only land I own is not for sale and is going to the next generation.

Somehow I think you not only have misperceptions about farming, you also have them about people you are interacting with here on Coastsider.

But that can be remedied. Maybe you’d like to meet with me and Terry (as he suggests above) for coffee or tea and talk about constructive solutions for our community?

Terry Gossett asks:

How many times can you cite, given your statement “Has POST ever refused to sell to a farmer? “

Terry, notice the question mark at the end?  That makes it a question, not a statement.  What I’m asking is for you to produce data showing that someone wanted to buy land in order to farm it and that POST refused to sell to them, since it was your original statement that I was responding to.

Mary Bordi asks

Isn’t logging sort of like farming?

Well, that depends.  Did the YMCA plant and grow the trees that they want to cut down?  The tree farms along SR 92 are in fact farms—they plant the trees, they grow them, and then they harvest them.  That’s farming.  It’s extremely disingenuous to liken mass cutting of old trees to farming.

For decades I have said that timber harvesting should only be allowed to cut down trees which were planted for the purpose of timber production.  I.e., no mass cutting of old growth trees.

Wow I see this post is still active. If you go back to the original news item: If a land is considered farmland, and the owner of the land decides to prepare the land for farming, what right would the citizens have for saying the owner should not farm? What if the owner was truly a farmer that raised crops each year on this property. Would the owners actions be under a microscope like what we are seeing right now?

Ray, if the owner of the land is a farmer who makes a living by farming, it’s in the entire community’s interest to butt out and let him/her farm the land as they see fit.

If the landowner is a developer who makes a living developing properties, it’s difficult to see those [contracted] farming activities as anything but a means to an end—that is, circumventing environmental restrictions and developing the property.

Can you, Ray, or any of your cohorts honestly tell me that disking environmentally sensitive habitats and potential wetlands is consistent with the spirit of the law?

If you can, let’s hear your argument.

If not, shame on you.  Don’t play us for fools.

-- Dan

Ray Olson wrote ”What if the owner was truly a farmer that raised crops each year on this property.”

Yes, what if?  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  If the owner’s intent truly was farming for the long term, this discussion would not be taking place.

The reason that this comment thread is so long is that it’s painfully transparent what’s going on here.

”Would the owners actions be under a microscope like what we are seeing right now?”

Of course not, and that’s the whole point, which you obviously know.

Dan,
Thanks for your response. First off. I have no cohorts other than my wife and kids. I’m just looking at this logically, trying to understand why some people think they have a right to butt into someone elses business.

Second, isn’t this land designated as farmland at the moment? You’ve sort of made my point by saying it is “potential wetlands” when by law it is not? Let’s put it another way.. Let’s say you knew for sure a farmer truly owned this farmland and had been farming on it every year for the past 10 years. Would you consider it any less of a farmland? Would you consider it wetlands?

The reality of course is if you let any of our property alone (including my house and your house here on the coast) it would probably revert to what you say as “potential wetlands”. But my property is residential and I choose what I want to do with it (abiding by laws of course). Same goes for the owner of farmland. He could farm on it every year, every other year, or every 10 years. Why would I (or you) feel like we should intervene? That is my argument Dan…

Ray

Hmmm.  Sounds like time to update the zoning, as PUD isn’t the proper zoning for ag land, as I recall.

As someone who has followed the failures and refusals to cooperate of the “Wavecrest developers” for quite a few years, I am cheered by the apparent decision to abandon the project and turn the land to the purpose of productively raising crops.

Perhaps someone with an understanding of whatever agreements existed between the developer and the City of HMB could explain the status of any existing development agreements in light of recent developments.

Hal M. Bogner
Half Moon Bay

PS - I would hope that the City could now explore purchasing Smith Field, so as to ensure the permanence of the ball fields, if the “Wavecrest development” episode in the life of this section of blufftops is over.  It is a shame that the “city mothers” who presided for decades prior to the “slow growth” City Councils of the mid-to-late 1990s never purchased such active-use parkland.  It takes a lot more money now to do so than it would have taken back then.