In December, 2004, the City announced an agreement to purchase 20 + acres from Nurseryman’s Exchange, located on the south side of Hwy 92 just east of Hilltop and Cypress Cove, directly across the street from Foothill Blvd., for $3.1 Million, to be used as a park. POST lent the City the $3.1 M for 3 years (due 11/07); interest free, to get it done. We owe that debt. The Council members, at that time, were Mike Ferreira, Jim Grady, Sid McCausland, Marina Fraser, and Toni Taylor. Mr. Ferreira was the Mayor during negotiations.

The current City Council, as well as the public, was aghast at the price tag for the development of our newly not yet paid for ‘park’ ($12.1 Million to $14.5 Million, including purchase cost). It is my understanding that we have already spent over $500,000.00 (not towards the purchase), in consulting and design fees, and studies. I agree, the price of development is nerve rattling, but believe that to be the secondary issue here.

In order to address an issue, and this is certainly an issue, one must start at the beginning to get a clear understanding of where we are now. The beginning was the agreement to purchase this ground.

That prompts some questions that need to be asked. How many of these questions can you answer?

Who initiated the purchase/sale of the parcel (specifically)?
Who was involved in the ‘negotiations’?
Why were the negotiations conducted behind closed doors?
Is that legal, as it is public money appropriation (and debt) being discussed?
Once it was determined that this parcel was to be designated a park, why wasn’t the Chairperson of the Park & Rec Committee notified (at least) of the ‘purchase’ until after it was completed?
What studies were conducted prior to the ‘purchase’, on behalf of the buyer?
What other studies should have been included prior to the ‘purchase’, on behalf of the buyer?
Were any biological or environmental studies done?
If so, what did these studies show?
Did the irrigation pond located on that parcel offer advantages, or disadvantages?
Was sensitive habitat considered?
Were there any endangered species located on the property?
How much data was given to the public prior to the financial obligation?
Did the City follow the same guidelines that we would be required to follow regarding the purchase of property with the intent of development?
How well thought out were the negotiators on the City’s behalf?
What motivated the City’s negotiators to obligate the City to such a large sum?
Realistically, how could the City spend money (not including the $3.1 Million purchase price) on a project without owning the ground free and clear first?
Should the purchase, complete with expectations, have been on a ballot for all who have been obligated to the expense to vote on?
Why was the deal done in such haste?
Why weren’t the residents of Cypress Cove asked for input?
Why was the City sued by Cypress Cove?
Who won, and why?
Why were we obligated to spend over three times fair market value for 20 + acres, zoned Urban Reserve (UR), which offers only 9 ½ acres of usable active space?
Approximately one year earlier, an identical piece of ground, 20 + acres zoned UR, in a better location on HWY 1, approximately ¾ of a mile from the ‘park’, was purchased for approximately $900,000.00. Is that a more accurate reflection of market value?
Does that mean we were obligated to an erroneous, exorbitant amount?
If so, why?
How did POST get involved, exactly? They lent the City $3.1 M, interest free, for three years. Why? What’s in it for them?
Could this deal have been done without POST?

All these questions, and more, lead to the real question; Was this obligation in the best interest, and for the benefit of the residents, tax payers, and voters of HMB?; or for personal gain (whatever that may be) of the City’s negotiators?
 
This was originally posted on Talkabout. Although there were some good comments, there have not been any answers forthcoming, to this point. One of the comments / questions that was posted to this piece that hits home was from Mr. Gossett. His comment was “even today POST has far more knowledge of the details of the park purchase than any of the people in HMB that will be paying the Bill”. He finds that fascinating. He’s not alone.

Perhaps someone intimate with the ‘deal’ can enlighten us debt bearers with answers to the above questions. It would be appreciated.

George Muteff

Mr. Muteff,

While you are raising questions about the custodianship of public funds, I would suggest that we turn a bright light onto the school district’s Cunha rebuild project; the monies are not yet spent, and quick attention could make a difference of millions of dollars, and perhaps quite a few millions.

My issue is that - once upon a time - CUSD was intending to build a new middle school at Wavecrest, and they let a contract to an architecture firm back in the 90s as part of that plan.  They got a design for that, and they presumably paid for it.

Now that CUSD has bowed to reality and committed to building a new Cunha middle school on the existing campus, for some reason, Dr. Bayless has chosen not to follow good process and take bids for architectural services, or for design ideas/alternatives.  I have personally heard from two different, and presumably credible, sources (one being a local builder, and the other being an award-winning architecture firm that does schools and public buildings in this region) that the project ought to cost a lot less than the numbers CUSD says it will cost.  There is little doubt in my mind that the costs are defined in the design phase, and the design phase *should* be put out to competitve bidding.  Perhaps the firm already preferred by Dr. Bayless would be the winner, but at least we (the public, the taxpayers, etc.) would have a good reason for believing that the price being paid is a fair one.

It frankly amazes me that Mr. Gardner - a self-professed expert in the field of managing major constructions projects (I am told he currently is managing one portion of the Bay Bridge project, for instance) - is not leading his fellow CUSD Board members in making sure the public funds are used responsibly by seeing to it that the school district follow the same good process that is standard throughout industry and throughout many areas managed by government.

Now, it also amazes me that the City of Half Moon Bay owns so little parkland.  I don’t know how much acreage adjacent to downtown - the property you are discussing in your post - ought to cost.  But over the last half-century, past city councils failed to look ahead when land was so much less expensive than it is today, and instead did things like leasing ball fields for $1 per year until the owners finally got around to wanting to do something else with their land.  Sure, it got city kids a lot of years of being able to play ball, but where will kids play next when the owners of Smith Field move on to doing something else.

In recent years, I’ve been spending some time up on a friend’s ranch outside the northern Sonoma County city of Cloverdale, and the contrast between HMB and Cloverdale is quite striking.  Cloverdale has a population of about 10,000 - similar to HMB - but it has plenty of parks, and it even has a first-run, four-screen movie theater.  How much longer should HMB’s citizens wait?

Hal M. Bogner
Half Moon Bay

George Muteff - 01 October 2006 01:36 AM

Why were the negotiations conducted behind closed doors?

Because real estate negotiations are always conducted in private.  When you’re buying a house and discussing with your agent how much to offer, do you do that with the seller listening?

Is that legal, as it is public money appropriation (and debt) being discussed?

Yes.  The relevant Brown Act section of the Government Code is:
54956.8.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease.

  For purposes of this section, negotiators may be members of the legislative body of the local agency.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve merged Parts 1 & 2 of this post.

If I was a cynic, I might say that given the current City Council’s objection to the park purchase, maybe the development costs were maximized in the presentation to allow the Council to justify not developing the park and perhaps selling it.

Personally, I think the development plans are overblown.  Reduce the development plan to something reasonable and the cost should go down to something reasonable.

Of course, I’m still waiting to hear what parks have been developed by the “houses everywhere” faction that’s currently in control.  HMB was incorporated in 1959.  The “houses everywhere” faction controlled the city for most of those 47 years.

Mr. Woren,

First, thank you for your thoughtful response. It is your type of response I’m looking for; answers.

I respectfully disagree, however, with at least your first response regarding negotiations behind closed doors. There is a huge chasm between private party real estate negotiations and public agency real estate negotiations. Since you chose to use private real estate deals as an example, I will continue that thread. I might suggest it’s rather like you buying a house without your wife’s knowledge (don’t know that you are married; if not, ask anyone that is). Unless you’re Bill Gates, where money & ability to pay the debt is not an issue, you have just obligated your spouse to a debt, without her knowledge, that she is equally liable for. Might work for you, but I don’t think the partner would sit still.

Regarding your second point, I don’t remember the deal ever being public until after it was done. I’ll have to go back and double check on that. As to the Brown Act posting, if memory serves me, there’s more to it than that, and interpretation is everything. I’ll go back in my data and check. I don’t like to shoot from the hip, so I’ll do what I need to and get into more detail on this shortly.

I’d like to use this opportunity to be more direct on something alluded to in the post (no play on words intended). “Could this deal have been done without POST?” More to the point, if the City decided to sell this piece, would they be able to get the original price of $3.1 Million, let alone any value for appreciation, and the over $500,000.00 ‘invested’ in that ground? It is my belief that this deal could not have gone through a typical lending institution because it wasn’t worth the price paid by the buyer, to the buyer. Notice Nurseryman’s didn’t carry the note.

As I’ve stated before, I have no bone to pick with Nurseryman’s Exchange. They run a business, and do a pretty good job of it, too. My bone is with process. I find it interesting that I feel the need to post articles in local publications in an attempt to get legitimate answers, because the public records fall so short in that regard. Doesn’t that trouble you as well Mr. Woren?

One more thing; thank you, Barry, for the merge. It runs better this way.

somewhere, Mike Ferreira is wishing Leonard would stop.

” However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate.”

When was the open public session before the closed sessions in September 2004?

For the most part, I want to stay out of this issue, and you may have noticed that I’m limiting my comments to narrow areas.

I don’t think that any public agency ever conducts real estate negotiations in public, your feelings on this notwithstanding.  I would agree that there should have been public discussion along the lines of “we’re thinking of buying this land for a park, and it will probably cost more than $2M.”  I stand firm on my claim that it’s totally inappropriate to discuss actual numbers in public before the deal is closed.  Clearly it would have been advisable, once the negotiations were concluded and the actual price nailed down, to have a public session discussion before signing on the dotted line.  In other words, once both sides had agreed on the price, there should have been a public discussion to allow the Council to evaluate the general public opinion and decide whether or not to go through with it.  But you know what they say—hindsight is 20-20.  In the end, in this country we elect representatives to conduct our business, and trust that they will do what the majority wants done.  Even though I would personally like it, it’s just not practical to run a pure democracy in which EVERY decision is made by popular vote.

BTW, regarding merging the two parts of your post, if the second part had been done as a reply to the first part instead of starting a new thread it wouldn’t have been necessary for the editor to merge the two parts (which was actually my suggestion.)

Oh… don’t forget to enumerate the parkland that HMB has acquired in its 47 years.

Brian Ginna - 01 October 2006 09:47 PM

” However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate.”

When was the open public session before the closed sessions in September 2004?

Here’s one:  http://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/ccagenda91702.pdf

I stopped looking when I found that one via Google.  There may have been more in the numerous search results.  Note that (unfortunately), the Brown Act does not require that all of the information be listed on the agenda—the legislative body is allowed to state the required information orally.

But now we have a problem.  For logistical reasons, local agencies which hold closed session prior to the regular open session meeting generally don’t videotape the very brief open session that’s required to preceed the closed session.  Second problem.  The Brown Act allows agency-created recordings to be destroyed after 30 days, and virtually every agency does so.  I’d like to see that provision in the Brown Act changed to require permanent retention, but agency attorneys will fight that change.

Leonard,

That was a notice for a closed session.  The parcel number, APN 056-260-090 shows up on 9/16/03, 12/9/03, 1/6/04, 4/20/04 and 5/4/04, all for closed session, “conference with real property negotiator” nonsense.

I agree with your retention idea, particularly because digital storage is dirt cheap, but let’s stick to the park subject (Mr. Bogner included.  Please try hijacking some other thread).

I TOO want the city to own more parkland but this is not the way to go about getting it.  This deal is a terrible one for Half Moon Bay taxpayers.

There are several points of interest in Mr. Woren’s post on Oct 1; at 2:51. I do agree that public Agencies don’t generally negotiate real estate deals in public. I believe I’m not challenging that point. I also agree, and this is one of the basic premises, that the Council should have publicly stated their interest in that property prior to entering into negotiations to get public input. Further, I whole heartedly agree that the Council should have gone public, once the numbers were ‘nailed down’, to have/encourage public discussion prior to sealing the deal.

For a moment forget about the estimated finished cost, and focus simply on the purchase. HMB runs a budget of roughly $9.5 Million annually. We didn’t, and still don’t have the money for that outright purchase. That, then, would make the consummation of that deal a significant long term obligation for the buyers…US. I, for one, would have had a strong interest in expressing my thoughts and opinions, particularly observing that the initial cost is approximately 30% of our annual budget; and that’s simply the initial cost. That wouldn’t include studies (bio, EIR, feasibility, etc.) nor development costs, which can be, and in this case certainly are, significantly higher than the purchase price (debt) alone.

Mr. Woren, it would appear that you and I are in complete agreement regarding one of the fundamental points raised in the piece above, except that to say ‘hindsight is 20-20’ rather appears that this particular wheel was never invented. It has been invented, tested, tried and true, over and over.

Open government is the real issue here. Not just ‘allowing’ public input, but openly encouraging public input, particularly when we see what’s at stake. Public buy-in is critical; a must! It’s rather like a marriage. The preparation for that event is laborious. The discussions are numerous, and can get intense. The walk down the isle can make a grown man sweat, and once both parties are exchanging vows, knowing what’s at stake, all else disappears and the union is complete. Then, it’s party time. Imagine, for a moment, how it might feel to wake up one morning, with a sparkling yellow band on your left hand ring finger, seeing someone whose name you can’t remember bringing you breakfast saying ‘hi honey’. Which marriage would you prefer?

That brings me to my final point; one that, Mr. Woren, you raise and I also agree with. I don’t believe, as you state, that ‘EVERY decision’ should be made by popular vote. I, for one, have never even inferred that position, and don’t believe that to be the point here. My agreement is that we elect people, based on our thoughts, feelings, information, and hopes of ‘trust’. Trust is earned. It’s earned by doing the right thing, consistently. It is earned through communication and deeds. This is a clear example broken trust by public officials, not doing the right thing, and saddling us with significant debt as a result. The majority of those Council members are gone, but the debt isn’t. In fact, it has increased by as much as five fold.

It’s no secret that I was not a fan of the prior Council. This is a good example of why.

When a real property negotiator is appointed, it’s done in open session.  So when you see a closed session listing for “conference with real property negotiator”, at some point prior there was an open session item to appoint the negotiator(s) and identify the property, etc.

As to whether consideration of this purchase was a secret until it was completed (in mid-2005?), here’s some history:

October 1, 2003 front page article with property photo:  City to acquire 22 prime acres

George Muteff - 01 October 2006 01:36 AM

Once it was determined that this parcel was to be designated a park, why wasn’t the Chairperson of the Park & Rec Committee notified (at least) of the ‘purchase’ until after it was completed?

Snippet from the article at the link above:
[...]but Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Leslie McCarthy, [...] said the land deal would be major news for open space in the city, particularly for a parcel of its size.

December 3, 2003 editorial supporting the acquisition:  City Council: Give us a park we can use
Here are some snippets:

While we believe the 22-acre park would be an excellent location for ball fields and picnics and all the amenities this town needs and wants in a park,

Our comment to the current City Council is that we need action. If the council is really serious about acquiring the 22 acres, let’s see some immediate movement forward on the project

The Mayor’s December 10, 2003 response to that editorial

Does anyone read the Review?  Or does everyone just have short memories when it serves their political purposes?

Note:  it seems that Mr. Muteff and I were composing our latest replies above at the same time and our letters “crossed in the mail.”

Those are all interesting tidbits, but POST did NOT own the land or hold an interest in it until July 2004.  POST got an option on the land and sold the option to the City.  Was the City negotiating with POST all along?  Was that fact disclosed in public session?

Would the City agree to buy the property “as-is, where-is” in the manner POST did?  Not only is the City stuck with an overpriced piece of land but probably a very dirty overpriced piece of land.

From George’s post:

> Were any biological or environmental studies done?
> If so, what did these studies show?

Hello?  It was a nursery, not a piece of “raw” land.  You would not in your right mind buy a piece of land like that “as-is, where-is” without EXTENSIVE studies.

Mr. Ginna, I am in awe of how much you know about the park purchase and have always been impressed with all of your appearances before the city council to register your heartfelt concerns about our pubic finance. Your research is almost beyond my comprehension it is so vast and articulate. The part of the public who doesn’t want any civic amenities at all is well served through your vigilance. Mr. Muteff’s too.

That said, you and Mr. Muteff failed to examine the city’s due diligence report that is available at city hall and which Mr. Ferreira held up four weeks ago at the Sept. 5 council meeting—it has biological, chemical, herbicide, pesticide, etc. reports giving the land a cleaner bill of health than anything that’s been sold around here ever. Funny that Mr. Muteff failed to take that in as he was sitting directly next to the lectern that night. I know that you must have been there as well, I just don’t know what you look like.

Funny, again, how you think you can call someone’s comments negative.

Is there a reason why Barry has not posted the reports here?  Too busy posting reports which try to show that Concar has done something wrong?  Maybe he is trying to run a spreadsheet to figure out how much Farmer Iacopi lost when he was beginning to farm at the Big Wave site.

Sure, show up at more City Council meetings to listen to more of your bluster.  That is a good use of my time.  What does it matter to you what I look like?  That is really kind of weird.  Do you really like showing up on video?

You have no idea what I am looking for in terms of community amenities.  You also do not know how many hours I devote to my chosen volunteer endeavors.

Always blame someone, especially Barry. Good idea. Sure, he ought to have links to every public document the city and county has related to all Coastside topics. Too bad he has a day job so he can’t go broke making Coastsider look like a public archive instead of the sprightly concoction it is. (Oops, sorry Mr. Larimer, I mean an Orwellian labyrinth.)

Mr. Ginna enjoys gratuitously bandying about Mike Ferreira’s name, which mainly underlines his own obsession. Leonard Woren showed that the park was anything but a secret deal, and despite evidence to the contrary and past public corrections, Mr. Muteff insists on using faulty evidence to unsell the park. What happened to Mr. Sunshine who assumed the mantle of positive thinking toward doing things for our community?

I don’t care about Mr. Ginna’s extracurricular activities, and he doesn’t care about mine either. I and a couple of dozen others spent hundreds of hours doing community outreach to help tailor a much needed and useful park. We all found the community eager to have one. Attempts to overturn it by those cynical enough to suggest that nearby open space is just as good as a public park are mainly ill-intentioned and plainly wrong.  Gerorge Muteff’s letter, his false evidence, and those supporting his line of thinking assault common sense through economic distortions. Their effort is an affront to citizen participation.

I am grateful for some of the responses; the ones that attempt to answer, or at least respond to the questions above. Productive dialog goes a long way in educating the public. I’ve noticed, however, that some of the dialog has drifted off topic, and this is a very serious topic. Perhaps, if we take the questions in bite sized pieces, the resulting focus may help educate us all.

Let’s start with one of the more narrow questions above; why weren’t the residents of Cypress Cove asked for input? Many people have thought that the ‘park’ would provide many great benefits to the residents nearby. Even Barry Parr said, “Perhaps HMB should assess the residents of Cypress Cove for the increase in the value of their homes resulting from the new park next door”.

That raises more questions. How would the tax be collected? How much would this tax be? How would it be assessed? Would this assessment radiate out geographically? In other words, what about Hilltop (north side & south side). Would they also be assessed? Would the north side be assessed more than the south side because they’re closer?

I don’t know if the narrowing of focus will help in getting answers to the numerous questions this ‘deal’ has spawned, but it’s worth a shot.

I don’t remember the context, but the suggestion to assess the residents of Cypress Cove for the improvement in the value of their homes was clearly in jest. Although I don’t doubt for a second that the park would increase the value of the homes in Cypress Cove.

C’mon, Barry.  Answer Mr. Muteff’s questions.  You proposed a tax in jest, and now you’re stonewalling.  A more effective tactic migt be to answer one or two of his six questions, and then to change the subject.  Scanning this thread, you could choose between (a) Leonard’s request that someone enumerate the parkland that HMB has acquired in its 47 years, and (b) my questions about the school district’s wasteful refusal to seek bids for the Cunha rebuild project design, which I believe is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.  There’s a bonus if you change the subject to (b), because that rewards my own attempt to hijack this thread, increasing the likelihood that Mr. Muteff won’t get his answers from you, and that Leonard won’t get his answers, either (plus, Mr. Ginna won’t like it, too).

If this is a “serious topic” as Mr. Muteff councils, why does he introduce a straw man into the discussion, namely the unprecedented (and impossible to apply) idea of taxing folks on perceived value of their homes? He appears to like the idea enough to push it quite far, but it is off the main discussion he says he wants to get back to. Notice he won’t acknowledge that many of his questions were addressed long ago, although new readers here may be unaware of that. Like the Due Diligence report on the 22 acres the city bought which Muteff and Ginna happily ignore. On to new red herrings! The possibilities are limitless! The smell of rotting fish in the fall air.

Others above addressed why the public doesn’t get involved with real estate negotiations, but saying the Cypress Covers have no say in the park is to ignore the fact they had three residents on our 22 person committee, and a dozen more who attended all of the meetings, by far the largest contingent from the community. It’s fair to say the ultimate park design addresses most readily their chief concerns to have it quiet near their homes.

Responding to various commentators on this issue let me repost a letter published in the HMB Review in November, 2004.

************

Researching data from The Trust for Public Lands for the year 2000, reveals some interesting data that pertain to the City of Half Moon Bay.

For low density cities in the United States, on average, there is 15.8 acres of Park/Open Space per thousand residents. Half Moon Bay presenttly has around two acres per thousand. If we were average we should have over 200 acres of Park/Open Space.

For years and years the city leaders have not agressively pursued the purchase of such lands. Now when the city council is pursuing the purchase of 22 acres (Nurserymen’s Exchange land on Hwy. 92 and an 11 qcre community park north of Oak Street adjacent to Pilarcitos Creek, they are being excoriated by a former city council member and the Half Moon Bay Review.

One has to wonder why because you would think that they would be jumping for joy. Go fiqure.

John Lynch

There has been some interesting banter and conjecture in the posts here. One post cites that many of the questions have been addressed long ago. That’s true; just not answered! That particular post goes on to state; ‘but saying the Cypress Covers have no say in the park is to ignore the fact they had three residents on our 22 person committee, and a dozen more who attended all of the meetings, by far the largest contingent from the community’. What does that have to do with the purchase of the property? Nothing! I guess some might say that addresses at least one of the three questions asked addressing the Cypress Cove residents’ questions / concerns (back door approach? / see above).

I have collected a fair amount of data regarding the ‘park’ purchase. I have to admit, a lot of it is pretty dry, but some is interesting, and the whole of it is interesting as well, not so much for what it contains, but rather what it doesn’t. That might include the infamous redacted document that the then Mayor, who signed the deal, countered with comments of reasoning describing legal strategy.

The same poster quoted above actually spoke to the ‘park’ purchase during Oral Communications at the Council meeting of October 3, 2006, asserting our savings of $465,000.00 in interest over three years, while at the same time enjoying the benefits of ‘24% appreciation’ on the property. He went on to state, ‘that means that if you take the high estimate of $4.6 Million, which was the estimate that the City bought it on, that’s $5.8 Million that that property is worth’. Tell you what; I’d be happy to give my best effort to get the Resale of the ‘park’ to you, by the City, for $4.6 Million, affording you the same ‘discount’ the City received. I do believe the City would, at least, Agendize that item for consideration. You’d be putting yourself in a great position financially, according to your ‘logic’, while at the same time relieving the City of a controversial issue and amping our General Fund! I, for one, would greatly appreciate that. We could pay off the loan, on time, and bring in a cool $1.5 Million in profit.

Mr. King, I failed to address one more thing. In your post of 02 October 2006, you refer to a report that Mr. Ferreira held up at the Sept 5 Council meeting that supports the homework done by Mr. Ferreira’s Council. That would be the ‘Due Diligence’ report. My question to you, Mr. King, is which ‘Due Diligence’ report would that be? The one that was originally written, or the redacted version that was out to the public, only by court order, after the Cypress Cove residents sued the City and won, which was based on public disclosure (which was still thwarted through redaction)?

It is, after all, very difficult to read a document when it’s been blacked out (redacted, like the Watergate tapes; same principle).

Just another Red Herring, Mr Muteff.  Why not stay on the subject?  You asked six questions in your original posting as though you weren’t aware of the answers contained in the report that you were quite well aware
of.  That appears disingenuous to me, and maybe to others.

The redactions in the city attorney’s confidential report to the City Council in Closed Session were upheld by a judge.  If you think that you deserve better, I suggest you take it up with the judge.

I am, and have been, right on point. I suspect that you are viewing things using the vision you described at the 10-03-06 Council meeting; the one where you describe seeing and hearing Mr. Lingren. Neat trick, as he was in Sacramento at the time, I believe; at least not in HMB.

To be extremely clear, so that nobody misses the point, COMPLETE OPEN, HONEST GOVERNMENT, all the time, that encourages public input, and incorporates that input is the type of government that we (yes, Mr. King, even you) should expect and deserve.

As angry and myopic as you are towards me, from my perspective, the type of government described above is not only our right, but our obligation. I don’t need a judge to know and comprehend my (our) rights as an Americans.

For the record, Mr. Muteff, I’m not angry at you, and in fact, enjoy your energy and your occasional whimsy; I’m unable to detect anything I said in response that signals that emotion at play. However, I do feel the need to hold you to account when you veer off track (Red Herrings), engage in logical fallacies, employ faulty premises to reach invalid conclusions, and the like. Your causes and my causes are almost always at odds, but that doesn’t mean there has to be any personal animus, at least to my way of thinking.

Your little speech about honest, open government is nice, but it’s not playing out locally since your friends occupied city hall. You are free to go on pretending that everything is now bathed in the Bright Light of Day. This is America, after all, and each of us is entitled to our own opinion. My view is that with this kind of light we’d be better off growing mushrooms than pumpkins here.

Mr. King, I will express the same suggestion to you as I did, on another thread, with another person; get the facts, all the facts. I suspect you, in fact, may be privy to more ‘inside’ thoughts than most of us, due to your close relationship with the signatory of the ‘deal’, Mr. Ferreira, thereby somewhat slanting your public approach. It’s understandable, but a bit ‘disingenuous’.  Perhaps you could get him to give us all the real skinny behind the ‘deal’, for once. I’d love to hear it, and those of us in HMB that are now saddled with the debt that he gave us deserve to know the truth….the complete truth. It’s OK, he can say it. It would simply confirm what some (perhaps even most) of us already know.

BTW, I guess your level of passion regarding the ‘park’, or perhaps your need to defend your friend is stronger than I thought. I applaud your level of energy, while at the same time am glad that I’ve been able to amuse you. I think there is a bit of reciprocation here, because the second paragraph in your reply, 09 October 2006 12:23 AM, discusses the current Council in two veins; one, as my friends (if favoritism is your point, why then don’t you say it, and why didn’t they appoint me to fill the twice vacated 4 year seat, once by your buddy Sid, next by your buddy Dave?); and second, in my humble opinion, your friends have messed things up sooo badly, for sooo long, it’s going to take quite some time to completely unravel. But I digress; it’s the ‘park’ that we are focusing on, not friendships or vision.

I like to look at the glass as half full. In that light, this Council should be busy through the end of this decade, and the ‘park’ purchase is a fine example of why. Would that be considered job security? At $300.00 p/month, before taxes, per Council member, times the number of members (5) is $1,500.00 per month out of the budget. We probably should plan ahead for such a chunk of the budget. Could it be that these 5 members simply have HMB’s future in mind?

Is life great, or what?

Since Mr. Muteff brings up again the canard of open government, and my question in a different topic has not yet been answered, I must ask again for the list of changes which have been implemented by this city council to further the (claimed) objective of “open government.”

3rd paragraph first: I don’t get your point, except maybe through inference which may be wrong, so I’ll just comment on the first sentence, “I like to look at the glass as half full.” The diatribe that you began this discussion with belies your claim, obliterates it totally. Nothing “half full” about it at all. Show me that I’m wrong about this because I’d love to be. Honestly.

2nd paragraph: Your friends showing favortism toward you personally? Surprised you bring it up because I didn’t suggest it above. Better counterevidence than no nomination for Gorn’s seat is that no one nominated you for one of the seven open seats on the planning commission. But since you raise favoritism as a topic, I recall that you have a pending zoning change that brought you back into politics two years ago. Knowing your persistent nature, I wonder about your progress with the city on that front and how it’s all coming in the Bright Light of Day?

1st paragraph: “Perhaps you could get him etc, ” Mike Ferreira is on record at council meetings and in the Review. “Getting him” to do anything he hasn’t already volunteered is probably like getting McClung to do something you want—not easy in other words. I’ve been present at the same council meetings you have, and if Lindgren wasn’t the attorney who explained the legality and routine nature of the redactions, it was his occasional stand in, Joe Chapman. I heard it explained and so did you. Of course you disagreed with it, but the judge supported it.

Your mantra about facts, nothing but the facts seems to permit you to cherrypick yours while distorting or ignoring relevant ones that confound your conspiracy charges. I rebutted all of your questions (implications) about the condition of the land at the time of purchase by referring to the documented scientific set of studies available at the counter in city hall, but you switched the topic to the attorney’s redacted due diligence, which is not the environmental due diligence set of reports I referred to.

Facts? You bring up a so-called land sale well removed from downtown (and higher property values) for $900k instead of the parkland appraisals of $4.6 million and $2.5 million (without the house or infrastructure) as the only “fact” you put up to show how you employ facts in the service of, what? The truth? Citizens’ right to know the word according to an unbelievably slanted interpretation from someone who always sees the glass as half full? Half full of poison?

No, I’m not mad or angry, but I am disappointed that you are so locked into your own point of view (“myopic” was your word) that you think these tactics constitute fair and reasonable play in public discourse. To an unbiased observer they don’t, not even close. Because this is your blog I imagine that you are likely to continue stumbling along in the same vein, and maybe like Alice’s hole that leads to Wonderland, the rules of logic really are different here. If so, I’m afraid I’m ill equiped to apply them.

Mr. King,

Would you consider yourself an “unbiased observer?”

Barry,

You have presented over 20 documents, 1 video and at least 5 guest pieces on the situation with the Fire Boards.  Obviously, the situation there is critical and has a great impact on the entire Coastside.

Cursiously, you have presented 0 documents, 0 videos and not yet analyzed any recent aspect of the park situation nor had input regarding any of Mr. Muteff’s questions or information.

Why the news blackout?

Anyone can submit an article and documents to Coastsider.com although I’d guess that there are some requirements for being able to verify the facts.  I think that Barry has made it pretty clear that he welcomes submissions; he does have a job other than Coastsider.com.  There have been some really good articles submitted by readers.  And Barry didn’t do the work of acquiring the documents on the fire boards—most of those documents were obtained by concerned community members and forwarded to Coastsider.com.  I suspect that there would be no problem putting up documents obtained from the City, although one has to ask why they’re not on the city’s web site.  Wouldn’t “open government” suggest that documents on controversial subjects be made easily available, which means on the web?

And just another reminder:  I’m still waiting for the list of changes that the current city council has made to support their campaign plank of “open government.”

interesting story about the Cargill salt ponds appraisal:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/15729945.htm

what are the chances that the appraisal used for the “park” is flawed in the same ways?

Mr. King, we are still anxiously awaiting your response to the Resale of the ‘park’ to you, at the same ‘discount’ the City got (based on your financial analysis), of $4.6 Million. You obviously support the purchase, including the process of the City acquisition, and you have every right to do so. I applaud your ‘logic’ in that regard. So when should we expect your ‘offer’, so the City can Agendize the ‘offer’, negotiate the deal through consummation, and collect your escrowed money so we can pay off the $3.1 Million debt to POST, and our $1.5 Million profit (at least 1/3 of which will have to go to pay off other purchase related debt)?

I might add, responding to your last post (#29), which I quote; “Facts? You bring up a so-called land sale well removed from downtown (and higher property values) for $900k instead of the parkland appraisals of $4.6 million and $2.5 million (without the house or infrastructure) as the only “fact” you put up to show how you employ facts in the service of, what? The truth? Citizens’ right to know the word according to an unbelievably slanted interpretation from someone who always sees the glass as half full? Half full of poison?
The site to which I refer abuts Farmer John’s pumpkin patch on Hwy 1. So called land sale? No, Mr. King, actual land sale. Check County records (that research can be so cumbersome, huh?). Well removed from downtown? I think not. Better location? I think so. Better access? I think so. As the crow flies, perhaps ½ mile separates the two parcels! Probably worth more? Undoubtedly! What’s so hard to understand?
All of your attempts to redirect this thread are, in my opinion, a waste of time. Since Mr. Ferreira doesn’t seem to want to come clean here, I suppose we’ll just have to take your justification of the purchase as basis.

By the way, since you never seem to be short on answers, perhaps you would share the answers to a few long standing questions; who shot JR, who assassinated JFK, and where is Jimmy Hoffa really buried?

Have a nice day.

Mr. Muteff omits the actual land appraisals, makes a bogus comparison and sticks to it. He ignores the 180 page (my guess) folder of environmental docs that gave the parkland a clean bill of health and which addressed most of his questions meant to imply they’d been unanswered. It’s easy to see how CCWD’s Chris Mikelson could have the temerity to state in public that the previous council paid three times the appraised value of the land given Muteff’s disinformation floating around in his circle.

Muteff’s humor is appreciated though.

C’mon Ken, is that the best you got? I was hoping for the offer to purchase the ‘park’. Will that be in a soon to be released posting from you?

By the way, I don’t guess. All I do is obtain the data and, hopefully, get it out to anyone interested. Facts are facts; that leaves zero room for guessing. Guessing is merely opinion, and I’m quite sure everyone knows by now what your opinion is. Seems to consistently mirror the former Council member you so vociferously defend. Coincidence?

Educating our neighbors on the coastside (supplying good, complete data, giving solid resources for more, and asking questions) is the best way I know to help them continue to make good, informed political decisions. After all, it results in a better quality of life for us all.

Another interesting article on having an appraisal be public before a land purchase can be made.  The Cargill salt pond valuation is an interesting example of just how awry these public purchases can go.

http://www.mercurynews.com:80/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15765731.htm

Interesting comments from Donna Eshoo:

``This should not be left to a handful of bureaucrats,’’ Eshoo said. ``They are not paying for it. It is the taxpayer who is paying for it. Unless there is transparency, any of these projects with sizable price tags will suffer in the credibility category.’‘

As for the argument that potential sellers would be scared away, ``That’s baloney,’’ Eshoo said. ``That’s an excuse.’‘

I noticed that a lot of the City’s equipment seems to have been moved from the “city yard” area lately.  Is it being stored somewhere else?  used?

Is there anyway to work the dinosaurs into the new “park.”  Perhaps fees could be charged to take pictures of kids in the dinosaur jaws.  $10/pop would go a long way towards retiring the mounting debt.

I just thought I’d bump this topic, since the discussion on the main Coastsider page (here and here concerning the park is acutally more about what Reveiw publisher Debra Godshall had to say about it (Here and here.)

POST (Peninsula Open Space Trust) has sent out a letter to supporters “explaining” what’s going on. Here’s a link to it.

After I read it I had some questions. Of course, since I don’t live in HMB, the park has been in the periphery of my vision. Perhaps that is why the letter left a couple of things unclear to me.

The letter from POST states:

“In June 2004, POST entered into an option agreement to purchase this property along Highway 92 from Nurserymen’s Exchange for the purposes of public recreation and natural resource protection. Three months later, the City of Half Moon Bay voted 3-to-l in favor of taking over the option to acquire the land directly.”

So, did the city ask POST to enter into the option agreement and then vote to take it over or did POST enter into the agreement and go looking for a likely entity to take over the option? (Please notice the “public recreation and natural resource protection” statement.)

When POST assigned the option to the city

“at that time, it was the stated understanding of all parties involved that the City’s intent was “to preserve the property as open space and park land.”

(Now it’s open space and park land.)

Later on the letter mentions

“playing fields for the youth of Half Moon Bay,
picnic areas for local families, and hiking trailheads connecting to established
trails… Set aside as parkland, this property would also help protect a lush riparian corridor and rich wildlife habitat along Pilarcitos Creek.”

Something for everyone. But what is the real intent of POST? To see a park for HMB or to set aside the area for open space? Wildlife habitat?

(Continued…)

(...continued from previous)

POST is well known for its careful crafting of letters and press releases. I urge all who are interested in the history and the future of the park to read the POST letter.

While you’re at it, you might want to see what some other folks over the hill are doing about the park Here and here about something that affects the residents of HMB.

If the residents of HMB do not make their opinions known, people from over the hill will and there are a whole lot more of them!

Mary Bordi - 26 June 2007 02:43 AM

When POST assigned the option to the city

“at that time, it was the stated understanding of all parties involved that the City’s intent was “to preserve the property as open space and park land.”

(Now it’s open space and park land.)

It’s not clear to me what you mean.  Could you elaborate on the last line I quoted here?  Mostly I’m stuck on what “now” is intended to mean in context.

Thanks Leonard—I did not intend to be unclear but I certainly see what you mean!

(See end of post for my lame excuse!)

To clarify what I was trying to point out: I did not mean to imply that I thought the property was “now open space and parkland” which is obviously is not. I was attempting to draw attention to the purposes for which POST felt the property could be used. POST first mentioned “the purposes of public recreation and natural resource protection” and then “open space and park land” (which I should have claified by saying, “Now they are saying open space and park land” instead of what I did say: “Now it’s open space and park land”). Lest anyone be bewildered about why I even mention these terms and think I am trying to point out some sort of discrepancy on the part of POST, I am not. I’m only pointing out all the different suggested uses and wondering which are most important to POST.

There was also mention of “playing fields for the youth of Half Moon Bay, picnic areas for local families, and hiking trailheads connecting to established trails, including sections of the California Coastal Trail. Set aside as parkland, this property would also help protect a lush riparian corridor and rich wildlife habitat…”

Certainly all worthwhile uses for a park, depending on how one defines “park” of course.

Well that’s my explanation of what I meant though I am not certain that it is clear even yet.

Now for my lame excuse: I have been experimenting with some of that dishwashing foam that comes in a plastic pump bottle. You’re supposed to pump out a dollop onto a sponge and use it to “do” your dishes. I have always prefered a dishpan of soapy water myself, but I thought this stuff might save water use. Well, the side effect, as we can see from my posting problem, is the fumes from this stuff. I felt light-headed all evening after doing the dishes with it and could not think clearly. Now I am wondering what on earth to do with the remainder in the bottle. I don’t want to dump it down the drain—it can’t be good for my septic tank. I don’t want to take it to the Pescadero Transfer Station (my local option for trash disposal) because it can’t be good for the landfill. I might experiment and see if squirting it into the cracks where ants are entering the house might deter them. Otherwise I guess it’ll go to the hazardous materials disposal station.

I haven’t seen any evidence that either the city council or POST expected the Pilarcitos Creek site to be used for open space instead of a community park.

That accusation has been consistently hurled by people who don’t want to see a park on this site, but has never been supported.  I think the city council’s handling of the Cypress Cove NIMBYs is sufficient evidence that they planned to create a park.

Off topic, but…

Mary Bordi wrote: “You’re supposed to pump out a dollop onto a sponge and use it to “do” your dishes. I have always prefered a dishpan of soapy water myself, but I thought this stuff might save water use. Well, the side effect, as we can see from my posting problem, is the fumes from this stuff. I felt light-headed all evening after doing the dishes with it and could not think clearly. Now I am wondering what on earth to do with the remainder in the bottle.”

Mary,

You may be on to something. It’s not every day a new “legal” high comes along. So…consider selling the stuff. Maybe at AJ’s when things really get ripping on a Saturday night.

Carl May

To my mind all of the other concerns about the proposed park are secondary to the question of whether HMB can afford it. No point in worrying about all the rest if it is simply unaffordable. And the most pressing part of that question is the POST note.

Is it unaffordable? No one in power seems to have seriously explored this issue. Just looking at POST along out of a number of potential funding sources we see that

1)  POST is willing to lose money on this deal if the end result is a park. Maybe they would forgive part of the loan and take payments on the rest—if only someone would ask.

2)  They have offered to help find and use alternative funding sources. This from an organization that has raised $200 million or so—they seem to know how to do it. They would happily help if only the City would ask them to—but the City hasn’t even talked to them, it seems.

3)  I wonder why we don’t ask POST this: “We’ll build a park here but if we get stuck on environmental issues we left holding a big debt and a 22 acres open space—not fair and we can’t afford it. Let’s put a clause in the agreement that if we get stuck and can’t build a recreational park that you will buy the land.”

We’re not helpless in this deal. POST doesn’t want to get into a nasty, public situation here and the money is small beans to them.

All HMB has to do is pick up the phone…

—Darin

Update:

I have just returned from the HMB City Council meeting where Naomi revealed that they recently met with POST to discuss alternative funding and were planning on meeting with then again at the end of the month.

Others may have more information on what went on in this first meeting but I want to congratulate the City on taking this step. Much better than simply insisting that funding was not available. Maybe now we’ll fin dout what the financial options really are.

—Darin