If HP had 534 acres of beautiful redwoods appraised for $13 Million and sold it to two land trusts for $4 Million, why would Half Moon Bay pay POST $3 Million for 20 acres of weed-producing land that POST negotiated the purchase price for?

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6026631?nclick_check=1

The City of Half Moon Bay should take immediate steps to get POST to write down their note and take a big loss.  Basic economics folks.

Location, location, location?

(I’ll be posting our video of the city council’s parks budget “workshop” in the next day or so, and we’ll have a lot more context for this discussion)

Bad, Bad, Bad.

Very odd that Mr. Lynch thinks this is something to be “joking about…”

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/2029/

Perhaps we should name the park after one of the many contributors to one of Mr. Lynch’s favorite politicians, Mr. Leland Yee:

http://tinyurl.com/2ko6kq

How about?

“AT&T Community Park at Half Moon Bay Right Along 92”

“Agua Caliente Band of Indians Park”

Maybe some of the various gambling and liquor interests could be combined.

Brian, which land would you propose be acquired by HMB for a park / parks?  Please be specific as to location, and while you’re at it, estimate the cost to the city.

The City already owns plenty of land.

The one lesson I took away from Wednesday’s workshop is that even if the city holds on to all the intended parkland it owns, it will be inadequate to meet the needs of the current population, let alone the future population.

Regardless of how one feels about how the land was acquired, I don’t think there is any doubt that future generations will regard it as a tremendous lost opportunity if the city lets this slip through its fingers.

Brian, your comment slipped in while I was writing mine.  Please explain what you mean by “plenty of land”.

Ok, Brian, please identify specifically which city-owned land should be made into city parks.

Sewer Plant Road.

“Regardless of how one feels about how the land was acquired”

That there is capitulation.  Nice to have two non-HMB taxpayers here in the discussion.  You do NOT have to pay for it with future reduced services.

You might want to investigate what happened previously when HMB talked about putting a park on the sewer plant road site.

(You might also want to go visit the site during various wind conditions and see how great it would be to have a park downwind of a sewer plant.)

Personally, I don’t really care <u>where</u> HMB puts their parks.  But I won’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen (except when I’m downwind of the sewer plant.)

On a related note, HMB is the biggest obstacle to the re-organization of the Granada Sanitary District to a Community Services District so that GSD can provide parks in El Granada and surrounding unincorporated parts of the District.

Sewer Plant Road.

That’s it, huh?

Why not Sewer Plant Road and Pilarcitos Creek? I’m not saying these can both be done right away, but it might be a mistake to opt out of either site permanently. Especially if you’re doing it out of spite.

“Regardless of how one feels about how the land was acquired”

That there is capitulation.  Nice to have two non-HMB taxpayers here in the discussion.  You do NOT have to pay for it with future reduced services.

It has nothing to do with capitulation. HMB needs a park next to downtown, and within walking distance of the high school and middle school. I suspect that killing the deal looks more like spite than good economics. But the city has never done a genuine economic analysis of walking away from the Pilarcitos Creek deal, versus moving forward.  Why not?

I don’t believe that HMB taxpayers are such cheapskates they won’t pay taxes to improve their community. I know Jim Larimer (another nonresident) has been urging the city to get its parks on the cheap out of the crumbs from the developers’ tables.  It’s an OK source of neighborhood parks, but is completely inadequate to the needs of a real community.

In the words of the immortal Lon Simmons, “Tell it Goodbye!”

half-moon-bay.ca.us/calendar_2007/cc_agenda_special_mtg_06-05-07.pdf

By the way, it occurs to me that the County paid a total of $6M for approximately 45 acres of Mirada Surf.  The East side parcel has a significant amount of wetlands identified and therefore has extremely limited potential for active park use.  The West side parcel is eroding at a rate which over the long term averages 3.5 - 4.5 feet per year, so half of it will be gone within our lifetimes.  I understand that there are also some sensitive habitat areas there.

$6.0M / 45 ac = $133,133 / ac for Mirada Surf.
$3.1M / 21 ac = $147.619 / ac for the N.E. parcel which is likely much more developable for a community park than Mirada Surf is.

Mirada Surf is zoned RM/CZ (Resource Management / Coastal Zone) which is quite limiting in what’s allowed.  The N.E. parcel’s UR (Urban Reserve) zoning is somewhat more limiting for many decades but could be rezoned in your grandchildren’s lifetime.  The RM/CZ restrictions are forever.  I’d say that the N.E. purchase price is consistent with the M.S. purchase price.  Of course, there is this nagging echo of me saying that County overpaid for M.S. (by enough to have bought the Burnham Strip outright and more.)

What was the price / acre paid by POST for the Pillar Point bluffs, also zoned RM/CZ with very limited development potential?  I bet it was in the same ballpark as the above numbers.

When Brian says “plenty of land” I think he means the following…

The list of APN within San Mateo county indicates the following in rank order.

San Mateo County 219 parcels
State of CA—171 parcels
POST 147 parcels
HMB 73 parcels
SMC Harbor 11 parcels,
MWSD 11 parcels,
Audubon 10 parcels
HMB Open Space Trust 7 parcels
Sempervirens 7 parcels
City of Pacifica 5 parcels.—-compare with 73 for HMB ! !

The Midcoast Recreational Needs Assessment Report, Oct 29, 2002 lists 12 parcels in the Midcoast totaling 936.3 Acres in their list of Existing Facilities (includes Quarry Park, Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, McNee Ranch, Gray Whale Cove, Montara State Beach, Mirada Surf, and 6 others.)

The South Coast of SMC has tens of thousands of Acres of open space and parks.

I believe as Brian states that we have “plenty of land” dedicated for the purpose of parks, but not enough money, or will, to maintain them as “parks” for ourselves or for eco-tourists.  What if we were to simply consider maintaining what we have before buying more?

Number of parcels is relevant to…number of parcels. Nothing else regarding parks. Without size, location, and features of properties relevant to various park values and uses, there is no discussion. And if places in Pacifica are going to be thrown into a list of park properties, any list must include federal lands in and contiguous to cities, county, state, and districts.

Carl May

” any list must include federal lands in and contiguous to cities, county, state, and districts.”

Why is that Carl?

<<” any list must include federal lands in and contiguous to cities, county, state, and districts.”

Why is that Carl? >>

Because federal lands in the GGNRA on Sweeney, Milagra, and Mori Ridges are a big part of open space and provide much in the way of “passive” park values for Pacifica.

Carl May

Carl, That is correct ...number of parcels IS number of parcels..

I provided a list of over 650 parcels in response to the issue of “plenty of land”.

Since POST is a major conduit to government ownership for parkland, let me just cite the LOCATION and SIZE of FIVE of the 147 parcels owned by POST

Corral de Tierra….4262 Acres—-Montara/Moss Beach
Wicklow….461 Acres——El Granada
Johnston Ranch….862 Acres——HMB
Madonna Creek Ranch….564 Acres——HMB
Cowell Ranch….1270 Acres.——HMB

I know that I will never be able to satisfy certain folk that “we” have “plenty of land” but Actually we do.  It is easy to go through ALL of the 650+ parcels and locate and price them…MAYBE some of these gov or NGO might consider selling them?...and we could even consider using those resulting funds to put in a boys and girls club?  or a soccer field?  or a community center? or a baseball diamond? 

Now GGNRA is coming into SMC and will help us expand their “largest urban park in the world”...into our world, while many of our own coastsider folk here continue to lament that we have no parks.

My position is that we DO have the land, just not the will or the $$$ to develop and maintain the land as one might expect for a park…for people….with benches, water, restrooms, playing fields, etc.

Terry Gossett

One more thing—-

Since the city of HMB, and County of SMC, and the State of CA, and NGOs like POST and HOST (or whatever they are called today) are all ostensibly working to provide us services—especially open space and park services…...Why is the theme of this thread that we do we not have any?...or at least enough? ...or that there is not “plenty of land” available in and around HMB?

Oh, By The Way, I did not even mention Sempervirens, Green Foothills, Save the Redwoods, Sierra Club, COSA, Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, Greenbelt Alliance, etc, etc.

And yet I cited over 650 parcels in this county…from the county of SMC APN records…So, what is going on here on our beloved SMC coast?

Why is nothing happening on parks?  Real Parks…for people and children, for sports and community centers, for swimming or soccer or baseball or hockey, not just vacant land owned by the government or Non- Gov Organizations (NGO)

Where are the proposals? 

Just curious….

Terry Gossett

POST went out of their way to help parks happen in Half Moon Bay. They lent the city $3.1 million at 0% to buy a park site and offered to give them another year interest-free to get their act together.

There are no comparable park sites within walking distance of Main St., HMBHS, and Cunha. The sewer plant site would be drive-only for a much larger percentage of the population.

As far as I can tell, we don’t have parks because our governments—San Mateo County and Half Moon Bay—have never considered it a priority.  The county hasn’t cared because we don’t have the votes. I have no idea why HMB doesn’t care enough to get itself some parks. It’s not about money. It’s about priorities.

Barry,

Please excuse me for repeating myself…

With all those 650+ parcels I listed, (for all those agencies) one might consider selling 2 or 3 or even 8 parcels So that WE might afford to develop and maintain ONE park. 

I agree with you about priorities, But, It is not just priorities,

IT is using common sense, and looking at the Total Balance sheet of what the City, the County, the State, the HOST, the POST, the COMMUNITY ....OWN…...They own LOTS of land…Our Land…

In other words…That is, WE OWN,  I repeat, WE OWN this land…and you are telling me WE can’t do anything?

We can do Something…Do the Right Thing…for our kids, our seniors, our future.

Build a Park…Just like Moss Beach did…

your neighbor,

terry gossett

Using gross number of parcels as the basis for debate on a specific kind (out of many possibilities) of land use is to create a non sequitur. Only the characteristics of a given piece of property are relevant as to whether or not it is a candidate for a particular desired park. As Barry posted far above, location is a huge factor, as are others such as size, shape, topography, etc.

Carl May