News

Open space board to vote on $300 million bond measure

The board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is expected to vote Wednesday to place a $300 million bond measure on the June ballot.

The district says the money would be spent on projects to expand public access; protect redwood forests; manage land that feeds lakes, streams and waterways; preserve agriculture along the San Mateo Coast; and restore native vegetation.

The increase in the property tax rate would not exceed $3.18 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, the district says. Passage would require approval by two-thirds of the voters in the district, which includes large parts of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and a portion of unincorporated Santa Cruz County.

The regular board meeting starts at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 26, at the administrative office at 330 Distel Circle in Los Altos.

More information is available on the district's website.

— Menlo Park Almanac staff

Comments

Posted by yes, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2014 at 10:26 am

We're voting yes. Public parks are way cheaper and more fun than watching TV or going to the gym.


Posted by Hiker/Biker, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2014 at 11:14 am

Its one thing to be surrounded by beautiful open land, its another to be allowed liberal ACCESS to that land. I lived in San Luis Obispo for many years, a place known for its beautiful vistas and undeveloped land. Unfortunately most all of that open land is privately owned by ranchers or other groups, keep the public off it entirely. You can look, but always from a distance.
After moving the the Bay Area, it became apparent that open land it just 1/2 the equation. Open and Accessible land completes the formula.
We're voting Yes


Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community
on Feb 26, 2014 at 11:37 am

What about housing?


Posted by Fail Finder, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Garrett,
What would you like the board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to say about housing, and why? Do you want housing in Open Space land?


Posted by yes, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2014 at 1:04 pm

The land that the open space district owns is in the flood prone bayshore area and in the earthquake zone west of I-280. Building more housing is not very practical in either area. Preserving this land as parks and wildlife refuges makes perfect sense.


Posted by Martin Omander, a resident of Rex Manor
on Feb 26, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Good point about housing -- we definitely need more of it! But we should get more housing by rezoning existing areas in Mountain View, not by paving over open space with suburban sprawl that requires everyone to drive everywhere.


Posted by Free Riding Renters, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Why are renters getting a free ride here? The POSC should charge a usage based entry fee, so those folks who use it can pay for it. And why $300M? Sounds like a lot of pork for the entitled few who can afford to drive out to the coast. But what else should you expect from a tax authority?

Garret is exactly right. The majority of this land should have housing on it. POSC is partly responsible for the limited housing stock in the bay area.


Posted by Negative, , a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 26, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Omander, this is not about housing, but about open space.

Mt. View can not handle more housing. It's saturated as it is already. There are a lot and i mean a lot of housings going up in San Jose. Just look at H85 and Cottle.


Posted by Steve, a resident of another community
on Feb 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm

What's $300 million between friends? This is certainly something that Google should pay for.


Posted by yes, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Come on, renters are not getting a free ride. Of course, landlords are passing along that $3/year to their tenants.

Remember that the total that is advertised here is going to be spent over 40 years. This is not like a highway project that costs billions every year.


Posted by Smacker, a resident of Gemello
on Feb 27, 2014 at 5:11 am

"...the entitled few who can afford to drive out to the coast."

Aside from the point that the original poster is clueless about areas closer by like Ranch San Antonio, I'm just gonna let that quote stand as an example of how the original poster views tings. People who can drive 35 minutes are entitled. I guess other entitled folks can choose to drive to Tracy in the other direction. Anyway, now you can consider the source and the validity of their argument.


Posted by Garrett83, a resident of another community
on Feb 27, 2014 at 6:46 am

Garrett83 is a registered user.

I am not saying build housing on upended space land, but lend support to the idea of in fill on El Camino Real and elsewhere.

Open land should be referred to as greenfields. El Camino Real and most of Mountain View and cities have giant brownfield sites.

Greenfields. Forests, grazing land, farms, meadows, marshes or food production land.

Brownfields. Homes, apartment buildings, strip malls, office parks, warehouses, parking lots, parking lots and paved over places.


Posted by Back On Track, a resident of Slater
on Feb 27, 2014 at 7:01 am

Garrett83, its apparent that you're very confused about the abilities, goals and land holdings of Mid Pen. It seems you want a complete re-evaluation of MV's zoning of land within city boarders. That has nothing to do with Mid Pen...nothing at all.


Posted by Garrett83, a resident of another community
on Feb 27, 2014 at 7:04 am

Garrett83 is a registered user.

That should be unbuilt open space not upended open space.

I support open space and farmland protection, it seems we will save a farm next to a major job center. Allow farms to be paved over because we don't high density near the job.

Saving views is more important then saving vegetables grown in a valley.


Posted by Garrett83, a resident of another community
on Feb 27, 2014 at 8:53 am

Garrett83 is a registered user.

Mid Pen has done a out standing job, vote yes and keep the wonders of open space. I just think the open space supporters need to work with idea preserving greenfield sites and work with smart growthers.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

On Tour at Selective Schools: Chapman, La Verne, Redlands, Whittier
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,898 views

The dress code
By Jessica T | 17 comments | 1,782 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,163 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,104 views

Camp Glamp
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 961 views