Half Moon Bay Ordered to Pay Three Times Its Annual Budget to Coastal Developer

That...really is something (9.00 / 2)

This had better be overturned.  If I read the article right, the area became a wetland (if it wasn't already) almost 10 years before the fellow ever bought it.  So where's the damage to his property?  He bought a wetland, and should have known it.

If the previous owner had sued, assuming it was his before the designation, I might understand compensating him, though not to such an extreme extent.  But this guy deserves nothing!

---

by: Siri @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:08:08 PM CST

yeah (0.00 / 0)

well... the term "palo alto developer" seemed to play into his treatment in the judicial system, I'd have to say.


-pyrrho-

---

by: pyrrho @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:21:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Half the story, pyrrho (5.00 / 1)

the rest...

here

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:19:56 PM CST

do you know why... (0.00 / 0)

... do you know why this wouldn't mean they are not really wetlands?

or why it is the current owner and not the last with the standing to sue for damages?

-pyrrho-

---

by: pyrrho @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:26:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It would seem this might be on point (0.00 / 0)

Keenan's company bought the property, a rectangular parcel north of state Highway 92, in 1993. The previous owner had gotten the city's tentative approval to develop the property but had been unable to move forward due to a city-imposed moratorium on new developments because the city's sewer system was overloaded.

To upgrade its sewer capacity and allow for development, the city raised roughly $12 million by taxing several properties, including Beachwood. Yamagiwa contributed nearly $1 million to the project, which was completed in November 1999.

When it was finished, however, the city decided not to award Yamagiwa a Coastal Development Permit, finding that the property was dotted with numerous patches of wetland.

So when Keenan bought the property, the city never addressed the issue of wetlands. The purchase was made with tentative approval for development, save for inadequate sewer capacity. It was only after sewer capacity was improved that the wetlands issue came up, despite the fact that it already existed when he bought the property.  

Not sure about the damages, but the complaint sounds reasonable.  

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:36:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

as I read the article (5.00 / 1)

the current owner contributed, through his property manager, $1,000,000 to the sewer project in 1999 that was supposed to alleviate the waste water problem but instead made his property a pond.  

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:42:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (0.00 / 0)

I think it was the older project, from the early '80's that caused the wetlands. I suspect the plaintiff argued that tentative approval should never have been given before he even bought the property, since the wetlands already existed at that time.

But when Keenan's attorneys looked into the origins of the wetland, which was never an issue until 1999, they determined that they were caused by the city's project in the early 1980s to improve stormwater drainage on Beachwood and the surrounding area and build roads for a subdivision on an adjacent property.

The project made the drainage on Beachwood worse, the plaintiffs argued, by preventing water from flowing off the property. And a contractor the city hired dug huge pits on Beachwood to get more dirt for the roads to the south.

As a result, Beachwood turned into "a bathtub," said Burg

What isn't noted in the article, is if the city actually has any control over how they define wetlands. The California Coastal Commission has vast authority, and it may be the coastal commission rules that ban development. Interesting, but unfortunate case.  

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 17:50:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

quite right (9.00 / 1)

the older project ruined the property, but...

"Keenan's company bought the property, a rectangular parcel north of state Highway 92, in 1993. The previous owner had gotten the city's tentative approval to develop the property but had been unable to move forward due to a city-imposed moratorium on new developments because the city's sewer system was overloaded.

To upgrade its sewer capacity and allow for development, the city raised roughly $12 million by taxing several properties, including Beachwood. Yamagiwa contributed nearly $1 million to the project, which was completed in November 1999."

They taxed the owner the entire price he paid for the property to upgrade the sewer and "allow for development" then denied his permit again.

I would like to read the judges decision, if anyone has found it, before commenting further.

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 18:40:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Allow for development" (6.00 / 2)

Yeah, those might very well be key words. In California, cities and counties can't just raise property taxes. Matter of fact, they can't raise property taxes at all. They can add on fees, (within severe limitations)and add on assessments for the benefit of the property owners. Assessments "look" like taxes, but technically they're not. It would appear this would be a sewer assessment. But if this property was never eligible for development during the current owner's period of ownership because of the wetlands issue, expanding the capacity of the sewer system wouldn't have been any benefit. Judge's decision would be very interesting to read.  

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 18:58:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If the city did that excavation (6.00 / 1)

on property it didn't own, then penalized the owner because of the consequences of that excavation ...

the guy may have a case.

---

by: Miss Mannered @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 18:11:46 PM CST