The Amazing Give-Aways

By Leni Schultz

They leased 2.5 Acres Oceanfront property for 50 years for $1250./month! (Commercial Visitor Serving). They leased another 2.5 acres unobstructed oceanview to same developer for 55 yrs. for $1500/mo. and are about to do it again with 6.19 acres. Taxpayers, THIS IS YOUR LAND... STOP ANOTHER GIVE-A-WAY!

• If the general public and other Harbor District user groups don't benefit from doing something the District should not do it.
• Make decisions based on laws and facts, not favors, personalities, relationships or other.
• Development in and around the Harbor should be both fiscally and publicly beneficial.
• None but the best quality development ideas should be adopted. Explore All Options
• The use of discretion to enforce laws like The Coastal Act, CEQA, Harbors and Navigation Code should be applied.
• Require lessees to comply with lease terms or revoke them.
• Long term fiscal management instead of crisis management. (Think ahead)
• If an old plan no longer applies or will not work, revise it
• Don't allow the inherent utility, environment or atmosphere of Harbor District Areas to be compromised.

R.V. Lot (Pillar Point)(See photos: http://www.harborchange.com)

In an amazing give-a-way, the commissioners leased the 2.5 acre Pillar Point oceanfront CVS (Commercial Visitor Serving) recreational vehicle /day use parking facility for the next half century to the same developer who has several other leaseholds on Harbor District assets. This gem could have been a real moneymaking source for the District but for some unknown Reason the District agreed upon $1250/mo. or 3% of gross annual! Granted, the developer invested several hundred thousand in its improvement but at 49 spaces at $38.50 per night at 100 % occupancy the lessee could gross over $600,000 per year while the Harbor District only collects $15,000-$18,000 per year.

Besides a loss of revenue, the commissioners are allowing a loss of maximum public access to this recreational facility by not requiring compliance with the lease agreement. The lessee has rented approx. half of the spaces for "long term" residential stays for $725/28 days. People have Been living there for up to a year. This is a violation of the California Coastal Act policy of 1976 which protects public access to recreational facilities. The Coastal Commission Public Access Manager says no more than 30 days out of a year is allowed so as to prevent a string of residential stays. The Commissioners turn their heads to many other violations of the lease agreement as well. The matter is never agendized for public discussion. The RV facility is a rare chance for the public to enjoy a low cost vacation on the coastside. Isn't this a breech of public trust? The public is entitled to the protection and enforcement of Coastal Act Policy. It applies to any development within the Coastal Zone.

The District should enforce compliance with the lease agreement or revoke the lease. I am not opposed to the leasing of this facility, only to the terms: 25 years renewable, the meager revenue the District collects ($15000/yr.). The restroom was never opened, trash cans were removed from the public day use section, and day use parking spaces are rented 24 hrs.

Post Office Lot (give-a-way) see photos: http://www.harborchange.com

The District leased another 2.5 acre unobstructed ocean view property (Community Open Space /C1, Commercial zoned) for the next half century to same developer holding leases On RV lot, fuel dock, ice concession. The developer will build an 11,500 sq. ft. commercial building on this and pay the Harbor District $1500/ month! While I am in favor of developing the lot, I am amazed at the terms of the agreement: 55 yr. lease only $1500/mo. (+3% gross annual) revenue to the district. This is another fiscal fiasco. This lease was granted at the same time the district was engaged in an unresolved dispute over non payment of State fuel back taxes ($54,000) on another harbor district leasehold with the same lessee. The District should not have granted the lease until the dispute was settled.

Burnham Strip - Stop Another Give-A-Way (see photo: http://www.harborchange.com)

A valued community resource, the last parcel of publicly owned Community Open Space is in danger of being privatized to the same developer who holds leases on the RV Lot, fuel Dock, ice concession, Post Office Lot, etc. The district refuses to agendize this for open Discussion with the public and has kept it in exclusive rights to negotiate with the same lessee. The District seems bent on "giving away the store" at the expense of the community.

I am opposed to the privatization of this property, which lies within a major scenic ocean view Corridor. The district should retain the space for public use and not encumber it in another Lengthy undercapitalized lease. The property can be used for many revenue producing activities such as festivals, sports events, parking, etc. There is NO other space available around the harbor for public use. The communities' children skateboard in the streets for lack of anywhere else to go. The Burnham strip should be retained as a park similar to San Francisco's Marina Green and a "scenic preservation easement" should be declared on this property with its sweeping view of the Half Moon Bay.

Continuing to subsidize health benefits (give-a-way)

In July, 1987 the Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted amended Resolution 28-87. It provides for continuing payment of "existing health, dental and vision benefits and life insurance, at District Expense upon leaving the District employment, or leaving office". The benefit currently costs the district $42,000/year and premiums are rising at significant rates. Currently 3 former commissioners, 1 surviving spouse, and 2 former employees' recieve benefits. The estimated total cost of this benefit from 1990 through June 30, 2000 is approximately $265,000. The Harbor District is in debt for approximately $17,000,000, yet the taxpayers will be burdened with paying ex-commissioners' health insurance long after they are gone.

I believe these benefits should be discontinued. Why should taxpayers have to subsidize ex-commissioner's health insurance?