 |
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
Question: Is it the purpose of POST & MROSD to keep their land holdings in its natural state for future generations to enjoy? Or is MROSD trying to protect the old growth Redwood trees?
It's The "OIL" Stupid!
Does POST or MROSD keep the land free of Oil drilling?
Nearly 30 years ago, local elected officials proposed that the Golden Gate National Recreational Area take control of coastal San Mateo County. Some of the Coastside farmers got a copy of USGS Map I 905 which showed the proposed project area for government take over focused only on oil bearing coastal land. After these USGS maps were revealed, the coastal annexation plan was put on hold but was reborn about 20 years later as the 1994 “Coastside Protection Initiative” sponsored by Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) and Mary Hobbs of the Sierra Club. CGF, POST and MROSD had believed farmers and new coastal residents had forgotten about the tell-tale, condemning oil maps. The California Watershed Posse POSTed contains all the known San Mateo County watershed studies on record. In 1997, CGF sponsored Measure “F” aka MROSD Coastal Annexation Initiative. The GGNRA Coastal Annexation plan repackaged as the MROSD Coastal Annexation plan.
Oil-Bearing Rock report by Richard G Stanley U.S.G.S.
Oil bearing sands map U.S.G.S report I 905.
Compare this to Golden Gate National Recreation Area Point Reyes , Peninsula Open Space Trust and Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District coastal annexation area maps. As of January 2003, nearly 95 % of all San Francisco Peninsula coastal watershed lands are owned by government, POST or their partners MROSD.
Brown shaded areas of maps indicate oil bearing sands. A quote from this U.S.G.S. report states: "Fortunately, within the bay region the mineral commodities needed in large amounts for construction and industrial use could be found and extracted locally, hydrocarbon and geothermal energy resources were available, and some mineral products, such as saline’s and mercury, were even abundant enough to be exported. However mineral resources being nonrenewable, can be mined to exhaustion, or urban expansion can make them unavailable by covering them with streets and buildings".
The California Watershed Posse believes that the POSTed records speak for themselves; CGF, POST & MROSD have pursued a hidden agenda in their campaign to acquire the entire San Mateo County Peninsula Coastal Watershed .
Hayden Coggins, a Coastside rancher drilled 13 water wells off Alpine road of which 12 of the wells had oil. Oil has been a part of this area, and in the past there was evidence found of an operating oil refinery. Mr. Coggins told us Standard Oil leased his land for the oil rights back in the fifties. POST bought the Driscoll 3,000. acres ranch located in the La Honda for $21,000,000, but only offered $7,000,000. for the Moore ranch located near the beach. The market value for beach land is many times more valuable than the La Honda land. Could there be more oil near La Honda as indicated by the U.S.G.S. maps ?
Bob Marsh and Aldo Giusti, local Coastside farmers, purchased their farm lands from POST without the water, oil and mineral rights, all retained by the seller POST. After nearly a century of continued use, POST suddenly stop allowing the Giusti's to use the surface waters from the Arroyo Leon for farming . Why? Is it land or is it minerals and water rights POST and MROSD are after? Does open space exist for the publics’ interest, or for their own, private profit and agenda?
These are some serious questions that POST and MROSD need to answer before they should be allowed to continue their empire building Coastal Annexation. Has POST and MROSD provided the public “full disclosure” regarding their land holding? Shouldn’t they be required to give some written guarantees that the land will not fall into to the hands of big oil. Keep in mind our elected officials get large donations form big oil. These same County officials set us up and sold us out to oil back in the 50’s & 60’s. Can we trust the MROSD, POST and Government to protect our Coastal watershed lands. Why does POST buy the Coastal lands and keep the water and mineral rights, then sale the land to their partners MROSD? Are we taxpayers and the public being duped by corrupt big oil, POST and MROSD hidden agenda...again?! Fool us twice...Shame on us!!
Jack Glass, a local rancher protected the old growth trees during his life. After Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) got control of his land, many of the old growth trees on that property were cut down. We believe MROSD used the money to acquire more land in order to exploit the natural resources in our coastal watershed. Rather than protect the Redwoods, we suspect MROSD used the property to harvest the Redwoods. We would like to be proven wrong on this suspicion. We also wish that these majestic trees were still living. MROSD should be held responsible for this shameless, greedy destruction. Explore the old Jack Glass - Mac Donald ranch property, which is the red barn off Highway 84 and check this out for your self, let us know what you find. You may have to trespass, as hiking permits may not be given out by MROSD. Also check out the logging devastation we believe was committed under the control of MROSD in the name of “preservation” off Tunitas Creek road.
Does MROSD partner Peninsula Open Space Trust keep the land open for hiking?
Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) places many restrictions on public hiking access. After decades of hiking with her dog in the undeveloped Montara coastal watershed, local resident Nina Pellegrini was prevented from hiking in the open space park after it came under the ownership of POST. Nina requested an access permit from POST offices and received a public access permit application form faxed from "Cargill Inc." Redwood City offices in response to her request. Cargill Inc. is the 4th largest agricultural & mineral resource company in the world having a dubious record for bay and wetlands exploitation in the San Francisco Bay Area . What is the connection between Cargill Inc., POST and MROSD? Why does the public need permission from Cargill to use land they’ve paid for that is supposedly set aside for preservation and the public’s enjoyment by MROSD & POST?
POST and MROSD have promised more open trails access to use for equestrian, off road bikers and families with children that include additional comfort stations. The California Watershed Posse studies haven't found any evidence of this happening.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
October 1, 2001
Ms. Loretta Barsamian
Executive Officer
1515 Clay St., Suite 1400
Oakland California 94812
Subject: STOPPP’s Pollution Control Efforts and Eco-terrorism
Dear Ms. Barsamian:
On September 11, 2001 the Bay Area lost one of it’s finest environmental protection soldiers. Alan Beaven former Chief Clean Water Act Legal Counsel for our non-profit Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka Save Our Bay died on the terrorist hi-jacked United Airline Flight 93 bound for San Francisco. Alan’s fearless passion was the protection of the Bay Area’s drinking water, its quality and the watershed’s natural systems. He was instrumental in the formation of the SOB California Watershed Posse and the Watershed Quality Protection Program (WQPP). Alan’s last endeavor on behalf of the WQPP was to bring the new owners of an illegal landfill into full compliance. This open space landfill has no NPDES Stormwater Permit, as required by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec.1311(a) and has the potential to pollute, if it is not already doing so, the steel head stream Arroyo Leon, it’s adjoining wetlands and coastal waters. Unfortunately, Alan did not live to see the fulfillment of his efforts. On behalf of the WQPP and as a tenured guest on the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP TAC, I am requesting your support and that of the State RWQCB staff members Susan Gladstone, Habte Kifle and Ann Crum, in fulfilling Alan’s quest for the owners of the unlicensed landfill, Peninsula Open Space Trust - to come into full compliance or be investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney Office as a "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Orgaanization" (RICO).
This past week, our WQPP Executive Director, Oscar Braun provided an extensive briefing to the FBI Terrorism Task Force outlining risk assessment for the SFPUC and Peninsula watershed unsecured areas and suspected eco-terrorist activities in San Mateo County. San Mateo County harbors many organizations that have gone to  extreme measures to prevent the sustainability of SF Peninsula communities dependent on the Hetch Hetchy regional water system. These organizations have lobbied for decades that the Peninsula coastal zone, which comprises 75% of Peninsula watershed, should only be provided substandard levels of law enforcement, fire protection, water , sewer, emergency access roads and other infrastructure elements required to sustain watershed dependent communities and their natural systems. The Natural Resource Defense Council 1999 & 2000 report has identified San Mateo County as containing the most polluted waters in the Bay Area, posing the highest level of risk to the publics health and safety. Decades of a anti-infrastructure policies has virtually killed the SF Peninsula’s urban watershed.
 The Bay Area’s drinking water supply is at greater risk now more than ever: From disruptions and shortages in the event of a Peninsula watershed wildland area firestorm, drought or arson/chemical/biological terrorist attack. All Bay Area community elected officials should take immediate steps to reduce the risk of a catastrophic outage for more than 2.5 million regional water system users. Now is the time to increase our efforts to protect California’s future by joining a new Watershed Quality Protection Partnership (MOU) and implementing it’s goals. I have enclosed the some of Alan Beaven’s case documents regarding his illegal landfill compliance efforts, WQPP program information and some background material on anti-community activities for your files.
Sincerely,
John Plock, RCE 26066
Chair, Environmental Review Director
CC: .Honorable San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Rep.Anna Eshoo, Senator Byron Sher, Rep.Joe Simitian, Rep. Louis Papan, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator John Burton, Mayor Willy Brown, HMBFPD Chief James Asche, CDF Chief Steven Wert, SFPUC Watershed Manager Joe Naras, BAWUA Executive Director Arthur Jensen.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
10/22/03 "TOM LANTOS H.R. 532 "PAY TO PLAY' BILL HALTED"
Feds may take over 4,300 acres of coastal open space
10/29/03
By Jeanine Gore--Half Moon Bay Review
A subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation this week to allow the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to expand into Montara. The parks subcommittee passed H.R. 532, a bill allowing GGNRA to include nearly 4,300 acres of Rancho Corral de Tierra property - which includes Montara Mountain and parts of Devil's Slide - into its boundaries.
While action prompted applause from open space proponents, it also came with an important hitch they're not too happy about. About 232 acres of prime farmland - currently used to grow artichokes, pumpkins, brussels sprouts and fava beans - was removed from the bill, following lobbying from agricultural interests. This means that, if the 232-acre parcel isn't reintroduced into the final version of the bill, the GGNRA will not have an option to purchase it. GGNRA will, however, still have the option to buy up surrounding land. Jack Olsen of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau said omission of the 232-acre farm was important to the agricultural industry because it acts as a safeguard, ensuring that land always remains in production.
However, Audrey Rust, president of Peninsula Open Space Trust, disagreed. The trust owns Rancho Corral de Tierra, and removal of the farmland, she said, was "difficult" and "frustrating" for POST. She said the trust had "always intended to sell (the 232 acres) to the farmer," who currently leases the land. But without the possibility of selling to the GGNRA, the land doesn't look as appealing to the farmer, she said. "If he has no option of selling to the federal government, he loses a very good potential buyer," Rust said. This means POST could be left holding the deed on this small parcel, with no one to sell it to. "We don't want to keep the land - it's a hassle for us to keep the land," said Deirdre Holbrook of POST. Holbrook said the trust is focused on "making sure that (the farmer) can buy the land." Giving him the option of selling to GGNRA, she said, makes it more appealing - because he may one day want to sell and recoup his long-term investment.
The farmer, David Lea, owner of Cabrillo Farms, Inc., said in a June 10 letter to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that he favors the boundary expansion, which would include his land. "I would like it known that I am in support of the (GGNRA) Boundary Expansion," he wrote. Lea was unavailable for further comment. Rancho Corral de Tierra comprises the four main peaks of Montara Mountain, the Devil's Slide Bypass right-of-way and an area along Devil's Slide on Highway 1. Despite opposition from the farmer on the land and from the open space trust, officials with the San Mateo County Farm Bureau are pleased about the removal of those 232 acres from the bill. Olsen said he considered it a victory for agriculture. "A small little tiny parcel," he said, "but look at the bigger picture. For us, it is a significant victory in a significant issue. "It's important because protection of every inch of agricultural land in productivity is one of our goals and precepts." The Farm Bureau's main concern is protecting farming interests, and that's exactly what has happened, Olsen said. By leaving that farmland out of the bill, it guarantees the parcel will remain as it is, he said. "Our position is protecting the long-term health and viability of the agricultural land into perpetuity," he said. "By POST's own admission, this is some of the finest agricultural land in San Mateo County."
The next step in the legislative process for this bill will be a review by the Committee on Resources, which is expected to meet before the end of October. Lynne Weil, spokesperson for Congressman Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), who introduced the bill, said the debate over the 232-acre parcel is not yet over. The land could be again included with the legislation, she said. "We are hoping as the bill advances to the committee that there is something we can do to get the ag land back in there," Weil said.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
January 17, 2002
To: Honorable Jerry Hill, President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
From: Oscar Braun, Executive Director, WQPP California Watershed Posse
Subject: Final Notice of Violations: POST, Half Moon Bay Sealing & Paving, Wildlife Associates
Dear Jerry,
Enclosed please find three Notices of Violations (NOV) of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Coastal Act presented to the County of San Mateo over the last twenty five months. The Coastside Watershed Posse has requested that the County:
- Require the three cited violators to apply for the required Coastal Development Permits (CDP).
- Require the three cited violators to conduct EIR studies for their illegal development within a delineated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)
- Require POST to fully comply with State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order No.97.03 by applying for a permit to operate a landfill.
- POST must comply with the 1998 County of San Mateo’s order to conduct a full sub-surface level II (soil) assessment/survey on the entire landfill area (250 acres) while being supervised by SWRCB certified engineers. NOTE: The sworn declaration of Anne T. Jensen, R.E.H.S. provided by the County to the Court stated in part….”Defendant provided me with a copy of its Level I and Level II assessment of the property. The Level II assessment contained the analysis of three (3) soil borings .No water quality samples were included. At no time was I notified of the implementation of this investigation and therefore, I am unable to comment on the adequacy of the sampling. (attached please find Jensen’s signed declaration before the Court)
- POST must place water quality monitoring wells throughout their Johnston Ranch landfill operation area
- POST must acquire a NPDES permits for discharging pollutants into the States’ water bodies.
The Coastside Watershed Posse has petitioned the Court to appoint the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation as a conservator of the POST Johnston Ranch landfill holdings. The Foundation intends to establish an environmental remediation fund to benefit the Arroyo Leon and the ground water reservoir lying only fifteen feet below the landfill. The C.W.Posse is requesting for the final time that the County exercise their regulatory responsibility by enforcing full compliance with the CA, CWA, ESA environmental protection laws. Without enforcement, the County and the Foundation will not be able to secure any Proposition 13 funding because of these three cited commercial and industrial non-permitted violators. We are respectfully requesting that the Planning Administrator Terry Burnes notify our Executive Director Oscar Braun, by close of business Friday the 25th of January of the County’s intentions regarding issuing their Notices of Violation (NOV) for the above captioned violations.
"Scheme” Kills Fed Highway Funding
"Save Devil’s Slide FHWA Funding " Sec. Norman Mineta
Sincerely,
Oscar Braun
Executive Director
CC. Marcia Raines, Terry Burnes, Mark Delaplaine CCC, C.Sproul EPA, Loretta Barsamian RWQCB, FBI Task Force, R. Slaughter TE/GE IRS, Willy Brown, Dianne Feinstine, John Burton, Anna Eshoo, Byron Sher, Joe Simitian, Louis J. Papan
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
Set My People Free
Coastside Group Pushing New City
By Tim Hay, STAFF WRITER Saturday, October 11, 2003 - HALF MOON BAY
A newly formed Coastside group wants to wrest control of some 30,000 unincorporated acres from an open-space agency and form a new city: the Town of Rural Lands. The new town would be free from the "tyranny" of County government, environmental groups and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, said Oscar Braun, founder of the Rural Lands Incorporation Now Committee. It would be the first new incorporated area since 1983 when East Palo Alto was formed. "We're an agricultural community. We have virtually nothing in common with the urban areas, but our rights are determined by the urban majorities," Braun said Thursday from his home just outside Half Moon Bay. "People (on unincorporated coastal land) want self-governance, self-determination. What we have now is a kind of apartheid system." Braun, a retired Johnson & Johnson executive, founded the group with former Woodside mayor John Blake, retired civil engineer John Plock and several other Coastsiders. "This is an attempt by the residents of rural lands to take control of their own destiny," Plock said from his home Thursday.
More than 100 people out of the 6,500 or so that live on rural land have already joined his crusade, Braun said. On several bellicose Web pages that quote liberally from the Bible and the Constitution -- and feature moving images of wild pigs -- Braun and other committee members denounce "Enviro-cults" and "racketeer-influenced" government, and lay out in detail the plan for the Town of Rural Lands. The town would be governed by a five-member council, and operate on the property taxes that the open-space agency now receives from Woodside, Atherton, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Redwood City and Portola Valley, Braun said. City leaders would also collect vehicle-license fees, franchise fees and an assortment of other routine charges. Government services could be kickstarted by an initial general fund balance of $100,000, Braun predicts. The group must get 25 percent of the 3,200 registered voters of the rural lands to sign a petition in favor of forming the new town, which would be submitted to the County's Local Agencies Formation Commission.
The commission has jurisdiction over all boundary changes and annexations on the Peninsula. If LAFco approved it, the plan could be put before voters in the next general election. But Martha Poyatos, LAFco's executive officer for the County, does not exactly gush with joy when asked about the prospect. In a March 27 letter to Braun, she brought up conflicts with the County's General Plan and Local coastal Program, and said a thorough study of the idea could cost the committee more than $100,000. "Of even greater concern is the fiscal viability of a new city in the current climate of local government finance in which well-established cities with diverse sources of local revenue are being forced to cut vital city programs," Poyatos wrote. But to Braun, fending off special districts and environmental groups is well worth the risk. Braun, who formed Save Our Bay and the Half Moon Bay's Surfrider Foundation, has been a thorn in the side of every agency, supervisor or environmental group that has tried -- successfully or not -- to regulate or control unincorporated areas. "These cults are trying to undermine our communities and our governments," he said. Braun has fought the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District since it announced in 1997 a plan to annex some 140,000 acres from Skyline Drive to the coast. He and others have said the agency has no plan for the area, cannot provide fire safety and has diminished residents' water rights.
In an effort to boost membership in their organization, the proponents of the new town are hosting a forum on Oct. 16 at the 4-Cs ranch off Highway 92 at 7 p.m. It will be moderated by a consultant who works with LAFco in Santa Barbara. The 4-Cs ranch is owned by John Cozzolino, who tried unsuccessfully to get a permit to bring elephants to his farm for this month's pumpkin festival in Half Moon Bay. County Planners shot down the permit, fanning the anger of Braun and others. "There's a group of urban officials deciding a farmer can't have something on his land that's permitted by law," Plock said.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
October 29, 2003 San Mateo County Times
Open Space District files expansion application
By STAFF REPORTS
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District submitted a long-awaited application Tuesday to extend its boundaries to the San Mateo County coast. The application was received by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. The program would bring 140,000 acres of open space stretching from Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line under the jurisdiction of the district.
Question: Total Parks & Open Space San Mateo County? Answer: Shared Vision 2010
Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log
Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres!
Sustainable San Mateo County Database: LAND USE DATA
| Allocation of Land Uses by County |
| County |
Urban% |
Rural% |
Greenbelt% |
Estimated
UDI1 |
| Alameda |
29.2 |
56.9 |
21.6 |
25 |
| Contra Costa |
30.2 |
46 |
23.8 |
16 |
| Marin |
14 |
35 |
51 |
14 |
| Napa |
4 |
75.8 |
20.2 |
16 |
| San Francisco |
79.4 |
1.3 |
19.3 |
92 |
| San Mateo2 |
26.2 |
39.1 |
34.7 |
22 |
| Santa Clara |
21.5 |
56.9 |
21.6 |
21 |
| Solano |
9.7 |
71.1 |
19.2 |
8 |
| Sonoma |
6.3 |
83.7 |
10 |
18 |
|
Source: Greenbelt Alliance: Greenbelt at Risk 2000
1. Urban Density Index (UDI): Total housing units/urban square miles/100. Source: US Census 2000
2. Total area of San Mateo County is 285,339 acres. |
"The district's Coastside Protection Program is the only way to protect and preserve the coast, while also ensuring accountability to local residents through fair and democratic representation," said Craig Britton, district general manager. In what district officials call an act of goodwill, their board of directors agreed to eliminate their ability to use eminent domain in the plan's coastal area and to only purchase property from willing sellers. In addition, the program will only use existing district funds and will not request any additional taxes from area residents, officials said.
County Supervisor Richard Gordon, whose district would be most affected if the application is passed, said he has not yet taken a position on the issue. John "Jack" Olson, executive manager of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau, said his organization will most likely oppose the plan, but will wait until members can take a closer look at the application. The ultimate decision on the program will be made by LAFCO.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
May 28, 2003
To: Board of Directors of the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD)
From: Oscar Braun, Executive Director, California Watershed Posse
Re: MROSD Coastal Annexation Area FEIR & NOI Petition for Writ of Mandate
The Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka California Watershed Posse (CWP) has reviewed the above captioned MROSD FEIR in order to determine “both whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the agency’s decision”. (Citation) The Coastside Fire Safe & CRMP Council review of the MROSD Annexation project FEIR has determined that the “No MROSD Coastal Annexation Project Alternative” causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment while being consistent with the local and regional planning. MROSD Coastal Annexation Area FEIR is inadequate and fails to meet the standards of review required by CEQA.. The CWP hereby provides Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a Writ of Mandate requiring judicial review of any MROSD project alternative findings within a certified “Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) other than a “No Coastal Annexation Project Alternative”. Why ? Because reasonable coastal Rural Lands residents could not reach the conclusion reached by the urban MROSD Board of Directors.
Standards of Review: Sierra Club vs. CCC Petition for WRIT of Mandate
The standards which governed CWP review of your agency’s decision are set forth in the Court of Appeals opinion in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (1993). “The agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order….By focusing….upon the relationships between evidence and findings and between findings and ultimate action, the Legislature sought to direct the reviewing courts attention to the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. In so doing, we believe that the Legislature must have contemplated the agency would reveal this route.” (Citation)
“In determining whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s reasoning process, the trial court must look at the whole record (Citation) “The “in light of the whole record” language means that the court reviewing the agency’s decision cannot just isolate the evidence supporting the findings and call it a day, thereby disregarding other relevant evidence in the record. (Citation) Rather, the court must consider all relevant evidence, including evidence detracting from the decision, a task which involves some weighing to fairly estimate the worth of the evidence. (Citation) That limited weighing is not an independent review where the court substitutes its own findings or inferences for the agency’s. (Citation) It is for the agency to weigh the preponderance of conflicting evidence (citation). “Courts may reverse an agency’s decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency.” (Citation)
On behalf of the CWP, I will be addressing the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the MROSD, Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 7P.M. in the San Mateo County Supervisors Chambers, Hall of Justice and Records, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
NEWS FLASH 10/27/03
MROSD Carpet Baggers Seek Santa Clara Court Venue
Dear Editor:
I enjoyed reading Deborah Ettinger's October 23, 2003 letter to the editor. She points out that the proposal by Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to annex of San Mateo County's Coastside is based on a false sense of "protection" that is both unwelcome and unneeded. What your readers may not know is that over 95% of the rural coastside lands is already in the hands of public or private open space organizations.
With less than five percent of the lands held by private taxpayers, and much of that preserved under the Williamson Act, the coastal farming community is now an endangered species. Can these taxpayers depend upon MROSD or their elected officials to protect them? San Mateo County is the only County out of California's 58 counties where Supervisors are elected by a County-wide election rather than a vote limited to the district they represent. It is no wonder that many of the 3,600 voters that live in nearly 100,000 rural acres feel disenfranchised. As Ms. Ettinger suggests, their best hope is incorporation into a town of there own. Given their fight against taxation without representation, perhaps they should call the new town "Liberty" or "New Boston".
But what of MROSD desire to annex jurisdiction over our lands? There offer of "protection" is reminiscent of the British offer of "protection" given colonists by the British practice of "quartering"--- forcing colonist to accept British Soldiers into their home even if they were unwelcome. Even a docile group of cloistered nuns is not safe. Just think back a few years ago when MROSD voted 6-1 to seize the 284-acre property owned by nuns in the rural hills of our County using their power of condemnation, bringing them to financial ruin in the wake of the legal battle. Perhaps this is why both the Councils for both Menlo Park and Woodside declined MROSD's request to support the annexation.
Feeling a lack of elected representation, MROSD's annexation plan is now being challenged by coastsiders in court. As one of the attorneys fighting MROSD in our local court, I can tell you how much MROSD trusts the residents of our County. MROSD has filed a motion to disqualify the local judge assigned to the case as "prejudiced" and has filed a motion to change venue to Santa Clara County. If MROSD doesn't trust a local well respected judge (who the voters of San Mateo County have retained for decades) or trust the people and courts of San Mateo County to hear the case against them, should we trust them to annex and control our lands? MROSD's offer of "protection" is both unnecessary and suspect. Local management and control is a better solution, and another reason to support the incorporation of our local rural lands. Support democracy and incorporation, not annexation and extinction, otherwise you may be inviting an unwelcome soldier into our homes, armed with the power of eminent domain.
Ted J. Hannig of Woodside is a community volunteer and the recipient of two Community Start awards.
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
Chuck Kozak's Non-Facts About MROSD Open Space OP/ED 11/1/03
There Chuckie Kozak goes again. You all remember Chuckie? He's was the Sierra Club's "Think Tunnel" Sooner, Safer, Cheaper! campaign media guru. Well urban neighbors, the California Watershed Posse has come to your rescue again with "Just The Facts" provided by the official San Mateo County Shared Vision 2010 publication found online since 2001 (see Rural Lands Demongraphics below). With regards to the total Coastal Rural Lands area Chuckie's 40% figure is only off by 55.18%.
How about that 1998 Coastside Advisory Vote for the MROSD 140,000 acre Annexation? The unincorpated Rural Lands area vote on MROSD Annexation was 56% NO to 44% YES. The MROSD Annexation Advisory Vote ONLY passed in the Sierra Club Envirocult occupied No Growth URBAN territories of the Coastside where Chuckie is still acting as Minister of Prapaganda for the Mid-Coast Advisory Council.
MROSD has fully retained their Eminent Domain powers and has promised not to use it until the next farm family or church organization tries to develope their lands ( remember the Russian nuns). And finally with regards to the MROSD rangers being on their MROSD lands to watch CDF put out the fire with air tanker drops... the Coastside Fire Safe Council says thank you for being there rangers.
Chuckie, my blessed Mother used to say to me, "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!" On behalf of the resident majority of the SMC Coastal Rural Lands Chuckie..."THINK RLINC"
SAN MATEO COUNTY RURAL LANDS AREA DEMOGRAPHICS:
Total Rural Lands Area: 99,621 Acres (100%)
Total Privately Held Taxpaying: 4,811 Acres (4.82%)
Total Government & Land Trust : 94,810 Acres (95.18%)
Dr. Andrea Braun, Co-Founder of the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka California Watershed Posse www.cwposse.org SMC Rural Lands
POSTed
Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database
The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
|
