Voice of the Coast

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.