The community benefits when the guiding philosophy strives to make community decisions based on the values that make the Coastside the wonderful place it is to live, raise a family, work, play, and relax.
We urge you to learn about the Voice of the Coast’s picks for the community-values candidates and then get out and cast your vote!]]>
]]>
But here on the coast, divisiveness can easily derail good intentions. We saw this phenomenon recently, when the school board was sailing toward a decision to break from Wavecrest and finally get the new middle school built – a decision that was building a tremendous amount of community good will, and a decision that was scuttled and delayed at the last minute for political purposes (that is, a few divisive, behind-the-scenes people didn’t want good news about the school to make the current City Council look good right before the Nov. 8 election). This divisive element also stymied the process for updating the Local Coastal Plan, and it even denigrated and scoffed at the idea of acquiring and building a new 22-acre park in town.
The point is, it’s easy to be negative and angry and derisive, it’s easy to make snide comments about whatever the city is doing. It’s easy to slightly twist the truth and get people worked up about the city’s plans, no matter what those plans might be.
What is more difficult in this town is bringing people together, building something, making things happen.
In the City Council election Nov. 8, the contrast between candidates is striking. This election is crucial, because the two styles of politics vary so wildly.
One candidate in particular, George Muteff, is the epitome of divisive politics. His recent appearance on inflammatory “Hot Talk” radio showed what he was really about — lots of talk about how “crazy” things are in Half Moon Bay, and bad-mouthing current Council members with the nastiness and derision that are the hallmarks of his speech.
Naomi Patridge supports this guy by passing out his campaign literature. She may be a nice lady, but her politics are not always so genteel. (Patridge, during her previous terms on the Council, from 1985 to 2001, was not known for her inclusiveness; she did not build bridges with opponents. And during those years in office, she managed to approve the building of 1,500 new homes, too. That many homes would have meant about 4,500 new people in Half Moon Bay, and in a town of 12,000 people that’s a pretty significant jump.)
In contrast, there are two City Council members running for re-election, Jim Grady and Mike Ferreira, and a community activist, Steve Skinner, who do things in a different manner.
• The current Council, with Grady and Ferreira leading the way, managed to resolve lawsuit after lawsuit that stemmed from all of those large-residential- subdivision approvals from the Patridge years.
• The current Council, with Grady and Ferreira leading the way, managed to build bridges and settle with Wavecrest Partners – a significant testament to their ability to work with everyone, and made more significant by Wavecrest’s endorsement of the two of them for this election.
• The current Council, with Grady and Ferreira leading the way, also bridged the wide gap with the Cabrillo Unified School District board, to the point where the city and school district are working together on plans to build the new middle school – wherever the school board decides it should end up being built.
• The current Council, with Grady and Ferreira leading the way, have worked with the California Coastal Commission to resolve the Kehoe Ditch problem. Grady and Ferreira have worked with county officials and farmers to fix the failed wells problem. Grady and Ferreira have worked with the Transportation Authority, the county and the state to secure funds for the widening of Highway 92.
All of those accomplishments have come about because the current Council works with neighbors and government officials to resolve problems. It’s a laborious process, building consensus, but it ends up with good results. Extreme politics of divisiveness, however, only succeeds in bringing plans crashing to a halt. The my-wayor- the-highway approach may work with football coaching and with dictatorships, but in democracies, it just makes problems worse.
This election is vitally important, for that reason. We have a similar dynamic in the Coastside County Water District race, as well, where Jim Marsh takes a reasoned, listen-to-all-sides approach – while Chris Mickelson is one of the most divisive, snide and close-minded officials on the Coastside.
No matter how you vote, please make sure you do vote on Nov. 8. This election is important, and we urge you to vote for Jim Marsh for the CCWD water board, Gary Burke and Ron Taborski for Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District, Vince Williams for the Point Montara Fire Protection District, and Jim Harvey, Paul Perkovic and Bob Ptacek for the Montara Water and Sanitary District.
And please vote for Mike Ferreira, Jim Grady and Steve Skinner for Half Moon Bay City Council.]]>
Ascher and Mickelson recently voted to raise water rates by 15%, claiming that the rate hike is needed to compensate for money siphoned off by recent state budget actions. Their claim is disingenuous. The additional cash coming in from higher rates will actually help pay for a big increase in infrastructure spending (a major pipeline expansion project), and a dramatic increase in employee compensation. In the last four years, the average staff salary has risen 30%, and retirement contributions an astonishing 385%.
The balance of the financing for the infrastructure spending will be drawn from CCWD’s multi-million dollar horde of cash reserves. Under Ascher and Mickelson, CCWD is forcing current residents (whose past excess bill payments have built up the cash reserves) to subsidize the cost of delivering water to future housing developments.
Good stewardship of the public’s funds requires CCWD to rebate excess cash reserves to current customers, not to subsidize future development on the Coastside. Jim Marsh is quite correct is stating that the water board’s current interests lie more with developers than with ratepayers.
Kevin J. Lansing
Half Moon Bay]]>
You’d think that City Council candidates could at least get their 300 word ballot book statements to say something that makes sense. Maybe that’s expecting too much from Old Guards in sheeps’ clothing.
Naomi Patridge says that the City Council lacks balance and that this lack of balance has somehow distracted the City from assisting in completion of the Boys & Girls Club and attending to deferred maintenance. This is foo-foo. In reality, I was actually on the City Council with Naomi when we voted 5/0 to:
(1) Lease City-owned land chosen by the B&G Club to the Club at $1/yr for 50 years. (That location was later found to have insufficient traffic capacity.);
(2) Approve a N. Wavecrest Project that included a B&G Club. (Jurisdiction over this project was later taken away from the City by the state Coastal Commission when “substantial issues” (e.g. developer hanky pank in draining and delineating protected wetlands) was discovered on appeal (the appeal having been filed not by the City or some environmental group, but by other developers who felt left out of the project); and
(3) Set aside $600K/yr of hotel tax revenue to establish a dedicated street maintenance fund, which was an unprecedented move at the time, but now after several years shows positive results to any resident who looks out their front window.
Bonnie MccClung says that the City has not addressed issues like improving schools, completing Highway 92 improvements, building a new library and expanding recreation facilities. This is serious foo-foo. In reality, I was actually on the City Council (but not with Bonnie who has never been elected) when we voted 5/0 to:
(1) Approve a N. Wavecrest Project that included a new middle school. (Jurisdiction over this project was later taken away from the City by the state Coastal Commission when “substantial issues” (e.g. developer hanky panky in draining and delineating protected wetlands) was discovered on appeal (the appeal having been filed not by the City or some environmental group, but by other developers who felt left out of the project).
(2) Design, redesign, fund and refund a Highway 92 intersection improvement project, which is dependent on outside agencies for more than 90% of its $15M funding and despite the City’s commitment, has been stalled more than once by priority changes, tax revenue shortfalls and other machinations of outside agencies.
(3) Spend $200K for new library design, commit to providing $3M towards new library construction, and submit a competitive enough proposal for $12M of state library bond funding to twice end up on the top 10 list of finalists among nearly 100 other cities and counties.
(4) Begin acquisition of 22 acres of prime parkland on Highway 92, far removed from the problematic and stinky 15 acre sewer plant site emphasized by past City Councils for community park use.
George Muteff says that City Council is somehow out of balance in addition to being too secretive and too responsive to outside agencies. This is serious foo-foo. I was actually on the City Council (but not with George who has never been elected) that finally:
(1) Restored the balance between public and private interests by focusing more on meeting resident needs and less on meeting developer needs;
(2) Opened up its public process after decades of developer-friendly decisions, smoke- filled rooms, sweetheart deals, and favors for good buddies;
(3) Rehabilitated the City’s once sordid reputation with the state Coastal Commission (which has ultimate legal jurisdiction over land use here and which now readily and successfully assists the City when the City’s environmental policies and practices are challenged by law suits from deep-pocketed developers).
With billions of dollars of development at stake (7500 more Coastside houses if nothing is done), let’s hope that voters don’t get fooled by the foo-foo and return us to the bad old days.
Thanks for letting me get that out. DC
Dennis Coleman was a HMB Councilman from 1995-2003 and Mayor during 1999 and 2003.]]>
To my knowledge, the MWSD challenger has not stated what’s wrong and what should be done differently. That is, unless you count some ill-considered proposal for a water pipeline to the tunnel, which would cost a very large amount of money to build (who would pay for it?), would delay the project by who-knows-how-long, and is something that CalTrans doesn’t have any interest in because it’s unnecessary. Sounds like political posturing to me.
The current MWSD board has correctly decided that such a pipeline is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Beware of challengers who don’t provide specific, clear reasons why you should vote for them. And while I’m at it, why vote for someone for Half Moon Bay City Council whose sole reason for running is that he’s annoyed with the development restrictions on his property?
The LCP-endorsed candidates are much more than just environmentally conscious — they are the ones who are interested in what’s best for the community as a whole.
Leonard Woren
2-going-on-3-terms on the Granada
Sanitary District Board]]>
Political debate suffers when candidates aren’t able to address each other directly because of format constraints. A moderator asked questions. Tuesday night, candidates answered serially, one question, one answer per candidate. In this format, later respondents can make debatable statements without challenge. This frustrates the candidates and the audience. Even so, clear differences emerged from the discussion.
Opposition candidates George Muteff, Naomi Patridge and Bonnie McClung suggested land use planning (the Local Coastal Program) hasn’t been open to public scrutiny. “The public needs to be invited to the table,” McClung said. Mayor Grady noted over 70 public meetings on it in the last four years. Muteff, Patridge and McClung alleged closed-door decision-making is the chief problem, and they say they are the answer.
Their evidence? They say the City is causing too many lawsuits, costing taxpayers too much money. Patridge proposed firing the city’s law firm (one that specializes in defending small cities) and hiring permanent staff instead (with all this implies about overhead, office space, pension funding, etc.—hard to see any savings here since the City’s pending structural deficit is due to escalating pension costs).
Mike Ferreira pointed out that the City has successfully defended itself, and that it has chosen the legal option rather than caving into special interests that routinely use legal challenges as a bullying tactic. Patridge, Muteff and McClung also said the City should compromise more often with those wanting to build, and proposed liberalizing zoning to allow anyone wanting to build on their property the ability to do so easily. Naomi Patridge’s past record includes having approved large developments the current council has fought to whittle down.
Muteff expressed hostility to “unnecessarily involving the Coastal Commission with local planning decisions,” as if there is another choice—he said the Commission will go along with strong leadership from the City. This rugged individualism overlooks what it takes to adhere to the Coastal Act, the law affecting every square inch of Half Moon Bay.
The challengers want to be elected, but presented an entirely negative set of reasons to vote for them. Patridge talked about what she wants to do, not about what she did in her sixteen years in office. In contrast, the incumbents, Grady and Ferreira, spoke to their positive record of accomplishment
The surprise of the Tuesday evening debate was the overwhelmingly positive response elicited by articulate newcomer Steve Skinner. Skinner unequivocally supported Ferreira and Grady’s vision of working with the school board to achieve the rebuilding of Cunha Middle School, continuing to tackle the LCP and submit it in bite-sized pieces to the Coastal Commission for approval, fixing Highway 1 after the Highway 92 project is completed, seeing our parks and trail systems improve, and to continue building better relations with the special districts and state and federal agencies Half Moon Bay needs to work with to continue improving our way of life.]]>
1996 was a big year for the Cabrillo school district. In February, the board received and approved a new Facilities Master Plan, recommending an ambitious round of school construction, including a new $17M middle school. In June, district voters handily passed a $35M facilities bond to help pay for the construction, and in October a site selection committee reported its recommendations.
In nine months, a facilities plan, a bond, and a site: bang, bang, bang.
And yet, nine years later, we find ourselves looking at building a $32M middle school at the existing middle school site, with only $27M left in the bank, and an estimated completion date of 2009, more than 13 years after the bond was passed.
It’s instructive to look back over the history of the project to see what went wrong, if for no other reason than to see that it doesn’t happen again.
Time is Money
While the 1996 Master Plan estimated
that a new middle school would cost $17M
to construct, it warned that costs would go
up with time, doubling by 2010.
Bond Issues
The 1996 site selection committee initially
ranked Cunha as the best site for a new
middle school. However, they subsequently
downgraded Cunha, apparently misinformed
that rebuilding at the Cunha site would violate
the bond terms. Their report refers to an
“attached Bond Counsel opinion”, but despite
repeated requests, the district has failed to
produce a copy of any such opinion.
This was a critical mistake, effectively eliminating the most cost effective and timely site for the next nine years.
The bond problem with Cunha was not undisputed. Jonathan Lundell, in his 2002 and 2004 school board campaigns, argued that there was nothing in the bond language that prevented the district from building the middle school at Cunha.
In October 2002, noted bond counsel Jerry Laster confirmed that the bond language was no barrier to construction at Cunha, in an opinion letter provided to the school board.
Nonetheless, the bond language “problem” was cited again and again, by Jim Larimer, Jolanda Schreurs, Ken Wilson, Chad Hooker and others to justify excluding the Cunha site from consideration.
Nine Years Later
At long last, in October 2005, nine years
after the bond language was first raised as
a block to building at Cunha, the district
consulted its own bond counsel, William
Kadi, who informed them that the “bond
proceeds may legally be expended to
improve the Cunha site.”
After nine years of needless delay.
After construction costs had risen from $17M to $32M.
After the facilities fund had shrunk to $27M.]]>
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.]]>
Consequently, Half Moon Bay’s population doubled, from 4,000 to 8,000, between 1970 and 1990, and added another 4,000 since 1990.
Alarmed Half Moon Bay voters approved Measure A in 1991, limiting residential growth to 3% per year. In 1999, Measure D reduced the allowable growth rate to between 1% and 1.5% (depending on where in the city the growth occurs).
Measure D passed overwhelmingly. Even Bart Colluci, then running for city council against Measure D supporters Dennis Coleman and Deborah Ruddock, saw the writing on the wall. In mid-October that year, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Colucci, who calls himself the ‘common-sense candidate’, said he opposes
Measure D mainly because it fails to exempt senior housing or affordable housing.” But by election day, Colluci’s SmartVoter website conceded, “I will vote For Measure D.”
It was too little too late. Measure D won overwhelmingly; Coleman and Ruddock were returned to office.
Exponential growth
An annual percentage growth rate implies
exponential growth. Measure D limits how
fast the Coastside can grow, but not how big.
Under Measure A’s 3% annual growth rate, Half Moon Bay’s population could double every 24 years; at Measure D’s 1.5% rate, every 47 years; at 1%, every 70 years.
Coastside residents have yet to seriously address the question of how many people should ultimately live here. “Buildout” is only a temporary goal, to be revised when exceeded.
It’s time to consider whether the Coastside will follow the unlimited-growth path of southern California, or even Santa Cruz (how long before Highway One becomes a freeway?), or retain what’s left of our smalltown atmosphere.
The choice is ours.]]>
Another timeless reprint from Voice of the coast, Volume 1, Number 1, March 1972, (page 3)
]]>
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Susette Kelo vs City of New London case was delivered on June 23 and runs to 48 pages. I’m not going to bore you with detailed analysis. You can read it for yourself at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108#opinion1.
But I do want to address the fact that this decision has greatly increased governmental powers in the exercise of Eminent Domain - the Taking of private property for “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Ammendment to the Constitution - and neither I nor millions of other people in the United States are happy about it. Essentially, the Decision allows governmental bodies to use the mere prospect of increased revenue from a prospective development under transferred ownership to be sufficient to meet the test of “public use”.
Excuse me, but I think the Justices got all tangled in their robes on this one. Just think how that power could play out in small cities across the United States. Sam the Buggy-whip Maker convinces his buddies at the Lesser Peoria City Hall to “take” the Toyota carlot next to his factory so he can increase buggy-whip production. City Hall predicts a revenue increase and the taking is done. The buggy-whip market goes soft, however, so poor old Sam has to build condos on the property instead. Darndest thing, that buggy-whip market. Hard to to predict.
Except when used for roadbuilding, the citizens of Half Moon Bay have had an historical antipathy to Eminent Domain, the most vivid example of which was the twoto- one thumping they gave to the North Wavecrest Redevelopment project in 1995. They went along with the South Wavecrest Redevelopment in the early 90s because it didn’t involve “tax-increment financing” but even that went a bit astray when the Eminent Domain cost projections proved to be underestimated and the City ended up foregoing $2 million in revenue to make up for it.
In almost every state in the Union, there are movements to create laws reducing the impacts of the Kelo Decision. Many of them are, in my opinion, a mixed bag and might create more problems than they would solve, but most of those movements will be played out at the State government level rather than the City level.
So what can we do about this at the City level? We can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court and we can’t constrain the State. But we can, if we choose to, pass an Advisory Measure - hopefully by a big margin - advising future City Councils that the citizenry of this City emphatically do not want their City government to take anyone’s property solely on the Kelo Decision’s basis of predicted higher future revenue as constituting “public use”.
The City Council has asked the City Attorney to present a draft of such a measure at the next Council Meeting on August 1. If the wording adequately reflects the intentions of the Council we’ll put it on the ballot. Maybe we’ll have something to vote on in November that will bring all of us together, if only for that moment.]]>
I honestly believe that if you don’t make a decision about the middle school tonight, it could make people doubt our ability to work together. It could make people doubt what the actual intention is. It could make people doubt whether their children will ever get to attend a new middle school. That may seem rather harsh, I know. But I have talked to so many people who just have this sinking belief that the middle school is never going to get built. People used to tell me that the Devil’s Slide tunnel would never get built. And I say this with all due respect, but we passed Measure T in 1996----the same year that the middle school Measure K was passed----and now it looks like the tunnel is going to be finished before the middle school.
I understand that you have concerns about the financing of the Cunha project. Of course you don’t want to spend money that you don’t have. But I truly believe that — with the weight of the City Council behind you, with the amount of grant funding that can be obtained from other sources, with ideas about energy saving construction — the financing issues can and will be resolved.
If we harness the energy and the intelligence of everybody in the commmunity, many of whom have not been in agreement with the school board over the past nine years, then we know we can make this happen. But we need the school board’s leadership, to say, starting here, starting now, we want the middle school built. And based on the expert information that we’ve received, Cunha is the only viable option.
We haven’t figured out all of the fine details yet. but the school board has to make a decision that something is going to get done. And that is to build at Cunha. We must challenge everybody in the community to come together and actually help with this. To become part of the process. But the school board has to set the tone as leaders.
Sometimes it’s a bit scary to decide things when a lot of the details still have to be worked out. But this is something that has be done. Nothing is going to change by putting off the decision by 4 weeks or 4 months. This just delays the first step that everyone in our communtiy is waiting for you to take. So please take that first step.
Thank you.”]]>
Are we going to tell our junior high school students to get out of town, to stay out of our library, our coffee houses, bakeries and shops? It may “take a village to raise a child” in some communities, but not here. On the Coastside, it’s take a bus and go home. Don’t be seen walking our streets after school.
Sound harsh? I think so. But then I like meeting my grandchildren after school at M. Coffee and hearing about their day. I delight in watching them develop a sense of who they are, which includes being a part of this unique town we live in.
We, the adults in this community, recently approved a $35 million school bond. Part of what we voted on spending the money for is the construction of a new middle school. Now the question is where to put it? The Cabrillo Uni- fied School District Governing Board appointed a site selection committee this summer to research possible sites. They narrowed it down to five choices: the Podesta property, which is adjacent to Half Moon Bay High School; 25 acres west of Highway 1 near Friendly Acres horse stables; an undetermined number of acres in North Wavecrest; 41 acres adjacent to El Granada Elementary School; and the Cunha Intermediate School property.
The committee was given a list of criteria to aid them in determining an appropriate site. This list was developed by the state’s School Facilities Planning Division. When the committee rated the five sites, using the state criteria, the Cunha site received the highest rating. After pondering the results of this evaluation, committee members decided this wasn’t really their first choice and decided to rate the five sites based on their individual preferences. The results of this rating placed Cunha as the committee’s fourth choice. Their first choice was the Podesta property adjacent to the high school.
The committee’s recommendation is now being considered by the school board and open for public discussion. That’s you and me! I think locating a junior high school right next to a high school is a bad idea. I think we have the best possible location for a junior high school. It’s property we already own right in the middle of town—Cunha Intermediate School.
Cunha sits on 17.07 acres. The average middle school in San Mateo County sits on about 11 acres. Cunha is in walking distance to the library. Cunha has a good gym, a good shop and a track. Are we so rich we can let these resources go unused? Cunha is located right in the middle of town. Our kids are included, not excluded, from the community. This allows them some safety at a time in their lives when they are able to extend their boundaries.
To quote Mac Parker of The Cub Inquirer, the Cunha school newspaper, “It is important to leave the middle school right where it is, in the middle of the community. See, I like walking around town after school and having the library when I need it. This is the age when we get a little more freedom.”
Does Cunha need improving? Absolutely. It needs to be repaired and expanded. A great deal of this work could be done during the summer. New buildings could be built while the students are using the existing classrooms. The architect hired by the district has said that this could be done. It has worked in other districts.
If the population on the coast continues to increase, we may need two junior high schools. It makes no sense to get rid of the one we already have.
The district needs more elementary school space now. This year we were able, because of state funds, to lower class sizes in grades one through three. This is great news!
We need to identify where the children are going to be and build an elementary school there. Obviously, they are not going to be in downtown Half Moon Bay. Elementary schools should be located in the neighborhoods where the children live.
There is a tremendous challenge here for all of us who care about our town and the children who are growing up in it. Let’s make wise decisions based on sound reasoning. Let’s take something that works and make it much better. Let’s keep our junior high kids in town.
[notice of a meeting that next week deleted] Let the board know how you feel.]]>