November 4, 1998

Exploring the frontiers of open space

When the Catholic Church declares someone a saint, there's generally a substantial cheering section for the newly honored church hero, as there will be when Mother Teresa of Calcutta is canonized, 10, 50, or 100 years from now.

However, the Catholic Church, with the experience of hundreds of years and several hundred saints to draw on, has learned the value of skepticism to dampen enthusiasm and bring in a reality check. It appoints a "Devil's Advocate", a conscientious man whose sole job is to gather and bring forward all the reasons why the person in question should NOT be declared a saint. The same cautionary attitude might well be brought to setting aside open space.

Otherwise it can easily cut down on tax sources, take tax money from the poor to buy viewsheds for the elite and rich, and squirrel away so much land in non-productive or under-productive uses the land that's left comes at an exorbitant cost and is short of our needs.

Open Space is good, but only when there isn't too much of it in the area. It's good when some truly irreplaceable resource is protected.

Open Space is bad when a community can't afford the luxury. Or when the open space values are marginal at best.

Or when there's too much open space relative to the city's total area. (Is Pacifica's huge (almost half), government owned open space too much, just right, or not enough?) It's bad when a community needs the taxes resulting from productive land use, or when private property owners are squeezed out of their lands by overbearing open space advocates, as almost happened when the Regional Open Space District tried to bully the Russian nuns who wanted to build their convent on Skyline.

I was recently told the Pacifica Open Space Committee, of which I'm a member, MUST not explore the negative aspects. We must be "Pro-Open Space!"

I strongly object to this. If the committee cannot review

why a given property should be subdivided and developed rather than being set aside as perpetual open space, then we, and therefore the city that created the committee, will forever pass through one way doors that operate like roach motels. If the committee can't examine reasons for property to be used for, in the words of the tax code, "its highest and best use," then we're on a slippery downhill slide indeed.

Open space has value. But so does space used to house families, grow crops, build skyscrapers, serve commercial businesses, public and private schools, provide jobs, and the myriad other reasons why Pacificans and other Americans need to use parts of the land we call home.

Some people think if landowners are "compensated" when they lose their land, that should be enough. I remember vividly how insulted some local ranchers were when I suggested they'd be millionaires if they sold out to Cal Trans for the Devil's Slide Bypass. I learned a lesson from that. Land is more than money, to be paid for at the rate some judge thinks is adequate. Land is an asset that can never be fully paid for in money. It means much more.

Paul Azevedo started life on a dairy ranch. His grandfather's favorite comment was "If the thief knew the value of manure, he wouldn't steal anything else." Wise words indeed.