|
To benefit from it, fence it and clear it!
Either Zacharia Pineda is confused, or I am. One of us doesn't seem to know
the exact location of the Fish and Bowl. In a letter to the editor the San
Bruno resident praised the F and B as a secluded yet accessible piece of
beachfront property, and says how much he enjoys using it for recreation.
My comment is certainly not meant to belittle Mr. Pineda. I went for years
hearing about the Fish and Bowl without knowing exactly what area was being
referred to.
I've the feeling Mr. Pineda probably refers to the west side of Palmetto
just south of Fairmont West. I believe the Bowl, however, is east of
Palmetto, and the Fish next to it.
If Mr. Pineda does come to Pacifica regularly to use the actual Fish and/or
the actual Bowl, he should be made aware he's using private property not
his own.
If I were the owner of the Fish, and/or the Bowl, and I kept hearing people
comment how much they enjoyed my property to walk dogs, hike, or simply as
open space, and I wanted to benefit financially from this property I owned,
I'd do a few things to defend my ownership rights, by making it clear the
Fish and Bowl is private property.
I'd put up a (legal) solid board fence completely around the property. No
more viewshed. No more unobstructed open space. Then I'd mow and chop down
the coastal scrub, weeds and especially any endangered botanical specimens
to the ground. That's a bit hardnosed, I'll admit, but the alternative
would be to give up my right to use my own private property as I chose.
Then I'd post the property with signs that sharply pointed up the rules
against criminal trespass.
Removing all plant life would accomplish another goal. It would discourage
animals, wild or tame, from using the property. Those property owners who
own undeveloped lands within our city allow their ownership rights to be
compromised every day.
If, twenty years ago, the owners of Mori's Point had legally criss-crossed
their property with solid board fences, legally and regularly removed
grasses, trees and shrubbery, and legally removed or destroyed any
Red-Legged Frogs or San Francisco Garter snakes which had the bad judgment
to visit, they might have sold it for several times the bargain price paid
by the land trusts which recently took it off the tax rolls.
It's expensive to cut grasses, trees and shrubs. It's expensive to put up
hundreds or even thousands of feet of board fence. It goes against the
grain to remove wild creatures, especially those endangered. By not doing
so, however, property owners weaken their position. If you can swear
truthfully, "No San Francisco Garter Snakes. I killed those I found and
made life untenable for any others," you've removed one more obstacle to
receiving the financial benefits owning a property should confer on you.
If those persons who write me giving blissful accounts of delightful hikes
on Mori's Point instead had been arrested for trespassing on posted
property, perhaps they wouldn't do it again.
Do I expect property owners to follow my advice? No. It's expensive and it
goes against the grain. No one likes to ugly-up his property. Very few
people would deliberately kill endangered subspecies. Actually I might not
even follow my own advice, though it makes a lot of sense. But every time
environmentalists make it more difficult for an owner to make good use of
his land, there's more of a temptation to do what I've outlined.
Paul Azevedo has been observing Pacifica for almost 39
years. His e mail address is Paul@thereactor.net. Check
his website at http://www.thereactor.net.
|
