Please read the whole article by Lennie Roberts from the October 2002 Green Footnotes (a publication of Committee for Green Foothills).

This is a link to the Green Footnotes article. --> Click here <-- Please read it before continuing.

Below are comments from concerned residents of the coastside:

A letter to the editor

Detailed comments:

The article states:

“Measure F, the advisory vote on the expansion of the District, passed handily back in 1998 due to strong support from the Mid-Coast and Half Moon Bay area. In the South Coast, however, the measure did not pass - largely due to a misleading campaign of scare tactics, including threats that the District would take people's homes.”

The election results for Measure F for the whole area were as follows:

Yes 5300 or 54.8%
No 4379 or 45.2%

You decide if that was "handily" or not, considering that it didn't pass handily in the South Coast area (which is, of course, the least populated section of the proposed annexation).

As far as taking homes goes--it was done in the Skyine area. People don't trust MROSD. It's not that they don't like park land--southcoast residents have co-existed with state and county parks for years.

“Because the District's potential use of eminent domain was so threatening on the south coast, coastal environmental leaders obtained pledges from many landowners that they would support the annexation if MROSD would drop eminent domain.”

Perhaps we have a problem of semantics here. MROSD has said they will not use eminent domain. As a legally constituted governmental entity, MROSD has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain. (See page II-4 of the Environmental Impact Report) MROSD claims that their policy will be to buy from "willing sellers" only. Many people feel that a policy can be changed and they want complete assurance that it won't be. In other words, they feel that the "adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the use of eminent domain" is not the same as the elimination of the power of eminent domain.

“The Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council (PMAC), representing 800 voters in the South Coast, now has some of the most ardent opponents of the District on its board. Some of these opponents had signed the pledge, but are now opposing the annexation.”

Why do you suppose this is? Perhaps people didn't receive the assurance that eminent domain would be eliminated. Can't people change their minds? Perhaps MROSD and CGF and other organizations might explore the reason instead of whining about it.

“It should be noted that most coast agricultural land is owned by absentee owners, who lease their land on a year-to-year basis and have not encouraged long-term investment in the farming enterprise.”

It should also be noted that "absentee" does not translate to "developer". In the case of farms and ranches, an older generation that holds title to the land may no longer live on it yet a younger generation continue to farm it and live on it. Did GCF undertake a study or are they just supposing?

“It's ironic that for many years landowners and developers have repeatedly trumpeted: 'If you want to preserve open space, buy it!

Note the use of landowners and developers.

“Now when faced with exactly that prospect - an agency devoted to preserving open space is offering fair market value to willing sellers only - these same voices seem to be saying, 'we already have enough open space; we would rather have more development, thank you.'”

So it has to be "either/or" does it? If we are not for more publicly owned open space then are we advocating more development? What happened to large privately owned parcels of land? Not allowed anymore or what?

"Landowners and developers" who trumpeted "buy it" are not the same voices who are protesting now. No one is saying "we already have enough open space", we would not "rather have more development". We just want the right to retain our privately owned open space without the threat of eminent domain or another layer of "management".

As Chris and Veronica True write in a letter printed in Skylines, a newsletter of South Skyline Association, "We are obviously supporters of open space because we have kept our land intact for generations. However, we are against the annexation of coast side properties because we feel MROSD is unable to adequately manage their existing lands."