Is this election all about private property
rights? We think it should be about balancing
private and community interests.
When you attend Half Moon Bay council
meetings, you’ll notice that most speakers
want something having to do with their
property—or their clients’ property, if
they’re lawyers or real estate agents. Almost
by definition, council meeting attendance
is an exercise in self-interest. If you don’t
pay attention to council meetings, odds are
you are satisfied that your own interests are
not being jeopardized.
Those who attend meetings are often there
for a grievance, and the most common ones
involve zoning issues. Zoning is about community
standards, which most people support
as valuable. But some people oppose zoning
requirements that stand in their way, seeking
variances to accommodate their plans. It’s
only human nature for each of us to want to
be treated as exceptions to a rule.
Private property is a traditional right in
our society, but some behave as though it
were the most basic right of all, an article
of faith. No wonder passion is so aroused
in our small town.
Two viewpoints are represented in this
election: one of moderate, controlled
growth, represented by incumbent council
members Mike Ferreira and Jim Grady, and
citizen advocate Steve Skinner; the other
the property rights extremism of George
Muteff, along with development-minded
Naomi Patridge and Bonnie McClung. This
election is critical because the city’s philosophy
of development will radically change
if Muteff and his friends are elected.
Open space and the Age of Limits
You may have noticed big campaign
signs for Muteff and Patridge out in the
country along Highways 1 and 92. Many
large landholders dislike being constrained
by anti-sprawl zoning laws that designate
their land as urban reserve, to be developed
only after urban infill is complete. They
want to shed such zoning constraints, one
reason that Muteff and Patridge are signed
so heavily in open-space areas. You may
also have noticed that Muteff employs the
word “rights” on his signs, as in property
rights. The connection is clear.
The property rights movement began to
aggressively assert itself in the late 1980s.
Why? The “Age of Limits,” for one thing,
recognition that resources are running
out, and that resources such as clean air
and water, energy, land for expansion, even
places to bury our trash are not in infinite
supply. (Notice the ever increased scarring along the rim
above Half Moon Bay as the county landfill expands across
our beautiful hills.) Environmental concerns dawned on
us late in our history, but there has been fierce pushback,
not only from landowners pursuing their interests, but big
business and its allies that control many of those resources,
land included.
“Takings” rhetoric
The so-called “Wise Use” movement, founded in 1988 by
Ron Arnold, meant to serve the interests of corporate free
enterprise, but cleverly disguised itself with conservation
rhetoric: “Conservation means the wise use of the earth
and its resources for the lasting good of men.” But its target
has been all government regulation, which defined as “takings.”
It has been so successful promoting this view that
it’s the rare city council meeting where someone doesn’t
use this term in disgust.
The term “takings” stems from Amendment 5 of the
US Constitution; the last sentence ends, “nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The most famous case, Penn Central v. New York
City, 1978, said that government could significantly cut
into private property rights to bolster public interests, and
that view has been upheld ever since. The recent Kelo v.
New London, CT, case was shocking because it supported
Connecticut’s eminent domain law taking private property
to bolster private interests, so that public interest would
benefit through an increased tax base. By this logic, any one
of us can lose our home to more profitable development
schemes. (You have an opportunity to make sure Half Moon
Bay officials never try this by voting Yes on Measure O.)
The showbiz side of property rights
George Muteff had a recent phone-in interview on talk
radio with KSFO’s Brian Sussman. The interview had a
Looney Tunes, otherworldly character to it, full of paranoia
and conspiracy. Could Muteff have been talking about
Half Moon Bay? It might have all been plain fun, if Muteff
hadn’t inserted absurd allegations regarding Mayor Grady
and Councilmember Ferreira, ones that are easily refuted
should Muteff offer them in print locally.
In response to a question about the definition of “substandard”
lots in the zoning ordinance—lots less than 7500
square feet—Muteff described this designation as “a taking.”
(The City submitted changes to this law to the Coastal
Commission for approval in July, grandfathering in existing
homes like those in Casa del Mar.) Sussman asked, “You
mean like eminent domain?” Muteff agreed. The interviewer
clarified by adding, “So they can blight it, condemn it, and
then turn it into open space?” Muteff readily agreed.
This is the extremist rhetoric of the “Wise Use” movement,
nasty and untrue. Groundless charges like this may
work elsewhere, but they’re clearly out of place here.
Muteff (and Patridge) opposed the new community park,
and McClung, perhaps sensing a political opportunity, voiced
concern about it as well. Private property extremists oppose
public investment in property for public use, so such protest
comes easily. They talk about the cost of the park, despite
its low price, and despite the fact that it adds more value
to homes than its cost and maintenance.
All the enjoyable parks you can remember came about
because the public voted to invest in them. Why should it be
different now? In his KSFO interview, Muteff suggested graft
in the park purchase, that it was a sweetheart deal for the
grower, despite their having sold the property for $1.5 million
under appraisal. Now that the park is a fact, should we turn
over its development to people who are hostile to it?
A balanced approach to the public’s interest
As cities recognize the need for growth controls and
orderly zoning laws, property rights extremists have polished
appealing arguments for self-interest, but it’s important
to note the issues they ignore. For example, zoning
increases value in neighborhoods, despite its impact on
some individuals who wish to be treated exceptionally.
Our government has to balance private concerns with the
public interest or there is no use for government at all.
Please vote for moderation in this election — Grady,
Ferreira and Skinner.
Dear Editor:
An annual percentage growth rate implies
exponential growth. Measure D limits how
fast the Coastside can grow, but not how big.
