HALF MOON BAY: $36.8 million award for undevelopable land 'devastating to city'

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/30/7 | John Coté

[SmithL]

Judgment amounts to more than 3 times the annual budget

-- Half Moon Bay -- Half Moon Bay city officials said Thursday they are stunned by a federal judge's order that the city pay a landowner $36.8 million for coastal property the court says the city damaged.

The award amounts to more than three times the city's annual operating budget - or roughly $3,000 per resident.

"It's devastating," Vice Mayor Bonnie McClung said Thursday night as the City Council prepared to begin a special closed-door meeting on how to deal with the verdict. "It's personally devastating to me, and it's devastating to the city."

The ruling by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco on Wednesday settled a long-running dispute over a 24-acre property that Palo Alto developer Charles Keenan bought in 1993 for $1 million in a foreclosure sale.

Keenan wanted to build an 83-unit subdivision on the land, which is east of Highway 1 and north of Terrace Avenue. But his plan hit obstacles as issues arose over whether the land was a protected coastal wetland, and if so, how it became one.

Residential development on protected wetlands is prohibited in California's coastal zone, which includes all of Half Moon Bay.

The case focused on who was responsible for the property, known as Beachwood, becoming a wetland.

Walker, in a 167-page ruling, found that it was largely the city's doing that the property became a wetland - and thus undevelopable.

[SmithL]

The Eco-Nazis should have to pay for the damage they do. It's a shame for the taxpayers, but they did get the government that they elected.

[TXnMA]

No sympathy for the taxpayers here. They made their own choice to live in Sham Fascistco.

[Carry_Okie]

This ruling is a direct result of Del Monte Dunes v. City of Monterey. It's high time. This is going to help give economic worth to natural habitat, open space, etc.

[SmithL]

The taxpayers are in Half Moon Bay.

The paper is in San Francisco.

[goldstategop]

I agree. The city should pay the damages since it prevented the owner from making full use of his own land.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[NativeNewYorker]

googlemapping this shows the site is about a mile from the shore, on the other side of a major highway, along what looks like a hillside. coastal wetland? i don’t think so!

[JLS]

You shouldn’t try to steal sometihng you can’t afford to buy. The good news is that with 83 more houses and tax payers, perhaps they can afford to pay to buy the land of the next developer.

[longtermmemmory]

The left hates consequences.

Hopefully the developer will get his money or forclose on the whole city.

[Leisler]

Sweet! Good the guy had the money to defend himself against the tyrants. Most people can not.

[martin_fierro]

But Walker disagreed that it had always been wetlands, at one point calling the city's expert witnesses "uninformed" and their opinions on topography and drainage "baseless."

That had to hurt.

[Enterprise]

Bump!

[Enterprise]

Ping!

[martin_fierro]

The council now has the unenviable task of dealing with an enormous fiscal problem not of its making, the SF Chronic noted sympathetically.

[HotTubDave]

Actually puttting economic value on wetlands, etc. is a good thing and helps some of the smarter environmental groups like the nature conservancy.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Half Moon Bay

Soon to become Keenan Bay.

[from occupied ga]

HALF MOON BAY: $36.8 million award for undevelopable land 'devastating to city'

Good. I wonder if anyone was worried before when the developer got a financial screwing by the turds in the city government turning his property into a "wetland".

[Alberta's Child]

I'd be curious to know how they came up with this value for the land. It seems a little odd that the court would render a $38.6 million judgement for a piece of property that was originally purchased for $1 million.

I'm sure this case isn't over, either . . . the city may just decide to grant the approval in lieu of paying the $38.6 million.

[agooga]

That is a sweet verdict. I had my own land essentially stolen from me by the city of Port Townsend, Washington. I KNOW the pain of eminent domain.

My stupid liberal friends had no sympathy. Even after my story they still proudly voted no on California Prop 90, eminent domain reform.

It’s very hard to remain friends with these folks and it’s hard to understand how they can be so blind to the suffering it causes the innocent. But they believe it is decisions like these (on the behalf of “evil” developers) that will destroy small towns and cities, etc.

My belief is that it will only take a few such cases until cities that can ill-afford to steal land will simply stop doing it.

Then their belief is that “wetlands” and pristine areas will all be destroyed by development.

And so it goes...

[cinives]

Probably the value of 86 residences on the land.

[raybbr]

Courtesy of Google Earth.