Posted by Acitizen, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm
The Planning and Transportation Commissioners have already ended the Rein of Terror by Permeable Materials in the Open Space District. The Wise and All Knowing Commissioners have declared all materials used on any properties in the Open Space District to be Impervious(At the June 13, 2007 meeting). So why do they want more restrictions ie; the talk of Maximum House size, Slope Density Formulas, FAR etc....?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I remember when Enid Pearson cost PA a few million dollars when she downzoned some hillside property. There are developed hillsides in the Bay Area and anyone upset by the vistas of such areas are bent. We get all dewy-eyed about a collapsing mansion and yet today Juana Briones would be denied a building permit. I say require, if we must, on site mitigation of runoff, but let successful people build their castles and let those offended by works of people wear appliances to obscure upsetting views. Anyone want to demolish Filoli? If not, then let's go with Filoli 2.0.
Posted by R Wray, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I would like to sympathise with the property owners. But I wonder how much in the past under other circumstances they may have not supported real property rights. Have they instead supported the bundle-of-sticks theory of property where the government is given the right to take some sticks such as through taxes and zoning restrictions? If they haven't been consistent in supporting rights, then they should live with what they have propagated.
Posted by An Observer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 12:13 am
I have no idea what R Wray is saying. As I recall the city annexed the area which was zoned one acre in the county. They assessed the property owners for installing 2 one million gallon and 1 1 1/2 million water tanks, and a large sewer line. Then the Committee for Green Foothills ( a group from Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills) worked to form the Regional Open Space District then these groups got the city to down-zone the properties (many thousands of acres, ) so that it could be bought cheap.
I would call this unethical and many people would too if their property was down zoned to prevent its use. Why hasn't Los Altos and Portola Valley down zoned land in their areas.
Is it the USA policy to prevent people from build houses on their land? Was this done as the "Right" people didn't own it? Is Palo Alto a "Third World" city where only certain people have property rights?
If down zoning the western portion of Palo Alto is ethical how about doing a similiar thing to a large portion of Palo Alto that is actually a "Flood Zone/Area" for the safety of the people living there. One of the biggest disasters that can occurr in Palo Alto is major flooding like in New Orleans. The city needs to take action that will cost the city little like posting signs in the flood areas showing how deep a 100 yr flood would cover the area with water. They could require everyone in the flood zone to have rubber boats and concrete walls around their perimiter and a large supply of sand bags on hand and sump pumps, etc.,etc. It should be made clear that property owners along the creek are held responsible for the flooding if they own part of the creek.
Posted by tired of bickering, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 9:17 am
An Observer -
While the City has not required boats and sandbags, homeowners in the flood zone area are required to get rid of their basement if they are doing a large enough remodel. New homes can't be built with basements in the Flood Zone. This could also be considered "down-zoning". Single Story zoning has been applied to whole neighborhoods. This could also be considered "down-zoning". Its not just the foothills who are subject to changes.
Posted by Brian Schmidt, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Hi folks, I work for Committee for Green Foothills. I think the vast majority of people will agree that helping start MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District was one of our greatest achievements and a crucial region why the South Bay has the open natural spaces it has today, as opposed to looking like Los Angeles.
Everyone's free to have other preferences, of course, but in a democracy, the community as a whole determines zoning and tax rates.
Please enjoy the brown hills that you can walk freely on, and remember that if they'd been turned into lawns as is being suggested, our current water crisis would be worse, and the early 90's water crisis would have been disastrous.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm
You like them, buy them. We find water when we need it, even better when primitivists are not allowed to hex all works of man. Most of the Los Angeles hills are beautiful and of far more utility than our dusty dunes. The general public has always shown a willingness to be generous with the property of others. That may well be the original sin plus one. We came to land made livable by the efforts of those who came before us. Our refusal to accomodate the next generation is a shame. Wave bye to our kids as they seek shelter where it is still permitted. Just hide your halo and wings around me, I ain't buying it.
Posted by aw, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The community as a whole went through an eight year democratic process with many hearings to update Zoning in 2005. There was ample time to comment throughout that process.
Technical errors should be corrected, but this is a proposed way to backdoor a conceptual change. There is no absolute size limit on building in OS districts. OS development guidelines encourage building placements that are not visible from the road and encourage permeable driveways.
People do make plans based on the outcomes of democratic processes. Let's leave the Code alone for now.
Posted by R Wray, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 5:05 pm
We are not a democracy. We are a republic based on individual rights. In the 1920's we began to lose property rights. Now the government has so many "takings" that property owners are in many cases considered lucky if they can use their land to have a picnic.
Posted by Mary Ellen Davis, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm
The comments of Brian Schmidt illustrate how Environmentalist fervor easily can turn into fanaticism that overrides our basic freedoms.
Brian says, "Everyone's free to have other preferences, of course, but in a democracy, the community as a whole determines zoning and tax rates."
This sounds good: who can be against democracy?
But as you think about this, you'll likely come to the conclusion that you don't want to live in a place where your property can be taken away by majority vote. If we all vote to confiscate Brian's house because we'd prefer to see an empty lot where it stands, I doubt if Brian will cheerfully acquiesce to this straightforward outcome of the democratic process.
The founders saw the dangers of this, which is why they wrote certain rights into the Constitution that can't be taken away by democratic vote. Maybe Brian should read the 5th amendment: property rights are one of these important rights.
Posted by A Citizen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Brian Schmidt's quote: "Please enjoy the brown hills that you can walk freely on, and remember that if they'd been turned into lawns as is being suggested, our current water crisis would be worse, and the early 90's water crisis would have been disastrous."
You can only walk freely on public land. These "down size rules" are affecting private property owners. If you want to completely ignore property rights, you should get your eco-buddies together, raise enough money to buy at fair market value the land and the value of a 5000 sq ft house plus toss in a bit extra to get the property owner to sell without the feeling of duress, then give the land to the city / county / open space groups. Just because a vocal group wants open space, does not mean people's rights should be trampled. Try moving out of Palo Alto / Bay Area and move to a place where "master planned" communities that include open space are being built and leave rightful property owners alone.