Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Feb 28, 2014
Increase my property taxes to take away my neighbor's land by eminent domain? How about simply opening up the large percentage that is closed and have the district live within their means? Raise revenue by allowing deer hunting during hunting season. Hunters would pay a premium for the opportunity. Every few can take advantage of equestrian trails.
MROSD, a public entity, should quit allowing POST, a private entity, to hand over (sell) land to them to manage and instead focus on managing the land that they already own. If this bond measure passes, it should be used solely for management,accessibility and restoration and not for more acquisitions. How can MROSD budget their funds appropriately when POST is determining their course of action?
I'd rather see all the money used for acquisitions and none of it for management, myself. I mainly value the viewshed and rural atmosphere in the hills.
Who else wants to float a bond issue and raise property taxes by supposedly small incremental amounts? Sequoia High School District $265 million, Menlo Park City School District and other elementary schools all want approval for more bonds too.....it all begins to add up to lots of dollars....aren't we already taxed enough?
You have to appreciate the folks from Atherton who call themselves "Empty Wallet" :-)
How about they actually pay property taxes on the land they own? They have basically taken millions of $ out of those rural school districts that so badly need it.
How is Mid Peninsula or POST compensating the Pescadero and La Honda schools for the thousands of acres they acquire and take off school tax roles? Pescadero schools are Title I which mean 40% or more of the students are at poverty levels. Coastside families want access to decent public schools for their children.
When is it enough? Every time you raise taxes and take more land you contribute to rising housing costs. It is already out of reach for the middle class and even our kids if we don't help them (assuming we can). We have plenty of open space here already. The elitist limousine liberals are simply protecting and expanding their own "cherished rural atmosphere". That is great if you already live here and can afford it but lets not kid ourselves who this is for and who it benefits. The hundreds of millions spent on this will primarily benefit the rich. So when is it enough?
Much of this acquired land is also sadly being removed from active agricultural use - which is not in society's long term interests.
It's time to boot this predatory agency out of San Mateo County and let County Parks and Recreation take over that land. Maybe we would then see some recreational uses of the land. They might even use some of it for revenue producing activities.
I support the mission of MPROSD, but do not support this bond measure. I live in the heart of rural SM County and I think there is plenty of open space that has been preserved. Development is severely discouraged in rural SM County because of the cost and requirements of SM County Building & Planning, more than anything else, so it doesn't seem that over development of the Coastside is a realistic possibility from where I sit. When large properties go up for sale, what doesn't get scooped up by POST or MPROSD gets scooped up by the Silicon Valley elite. Some of them have been great stewards of the land and contributors to the local community. Some not so much. And so it goes...
In answer to the comments of others, when MPROSD annexed the Coastside, they made an agreement with the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District to pay LHPUSD each year the amount of $$ that LHPUSD was receiving for those properties prior to them being acquired by MPROSD. So, LHPUSD does get something, but not as much as they would get if these properties were kept on the property tax rolls.
[Portion removed. Please don't attempt to guess the identity of anonymous posters.]
Finally, MPROSD has maintained agricultural use on some of the lands that they manage.
I am in agreement with another poster who said they would support this if it was management of the land that they already own, not to procure more land.
And I disagree with the person who said they should leave the land unused. People do actually live out here. It is our home and our community. Our children grow up out here in these hills that you would prefer just to look at from afar. There's plenty of land out here for everyone to enjoy, including our ubiquitous mountain lions, deer, raccoons and owls. Leave some of it for people to live on, too, O.K.?
Thanks for listening.
I wasn't guessing and he didn't post anonymously. He posted using his name and he is a realtor.
I have commented, in other topics, suggesting that proper stewardship of open space lands should include environmentally compatible revenue producing uses of a small percentage of open space land. One such use is golf courses developed by third parties under a land lease agreement. I suggest that a local entrepreneur, Robert Trent Jones, could effectuate a plan which would produce enough revenue to maintain open space land and obviate the need for a $300,000,000 Bond Measure(Measure AA).
Each golf course would require less than 90 acres of active area. The active area of six golf courses would need less than 1% of the total open space land owned by MROSD. Let's think about alternative funding(non-tax}.
Jack - we do not need nor want a water guzzling, pesticide leaching golf course in the Santa Cruz mountains of San Mateo County. Nor do we need the traffic on roads already stressed by commuters heading for work on the Peninsula and tourists driving, biking and motorbiking out to the beaches and parks and open space. We just need MPROSD to maintain their lands, keep agricultural use viable and open up a reasonable amount of the lands for hiking, biking and horse-back riding. AND we need them (and the residents of the Peninsula who come out here to use these roads and facilities) to support the local infrastructure.
...and while we're at it, could you folks from the other side of the hill please pick up after yourselves when you come over here? We're getting a bit tired of picking up the trash that you throw out of your cars or from your bikes. This is our home. Thanks.
I was suggesting alternative funding to do the things you want. It would help if Coastsiders paid their fair share of property taxes.
> Coastsider wrote: "when MPROSD annexed the Coastside, they made an agreement with the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District to pay LHPUSD each year the amount of $$ that LHPUSD was receiving for those properties prior to them being acquired by MPROSD. So, LHPUSD does get something, but not as much as they would get if these properties were kept on the property tax rolls."
I was curious about this as it sounded like it must be costing MPROSD a pretty penny to compensate for this revenue. So I went looking for the fiscal analysis and found it here:
The estimated loss to the LHPUSD annually was estimated to be (drum roll) $273/yr. ($4100 total over a 15 year period). In lieu of direct cash compensation, the district and MPROSD agreed to permanent funding of an environmental education program satisfactory to the district.
I would suggest that it is unlikely that LHPUSD would be getting more if the property was held on the tax rolls. Most of the land acquired was held as limited liability corp, reit, or partnership which has as a rule exploited the commercial transfer loophole which transfers ownership via the shares without triggering reassessment.
Jack Hickey wrote, "It would help if Coastsiders paid their fair share of property taxes."
What a bizarre thing to say! We pay the same tax rates under the same rules as any other Peninsula homeowner. Our properties get reassessed when they change hands or are significantly remodeled, just like everyone else. If you are referring to Williamson Act land, that applies only to agricultural land. Not everyone who lives on the Coastside is a farmer.
Coastsider, I stand corrected. However, your property taxes do not support the MROSD.
Funding is provided by a small share of the annual
total property tax revenues collected within District
boundaries, except on the San Mateo County
> your property taxes do not support the MROSD
This will be the first opportunity that the residents of the Coastside Protection Program area will have to vote on being taxed since being annexed in 2004. If measure AA passes, the approx 3% of MROSD residents who live in the Coastside area will be taxed at the same $3.18/$100K rate as any other MROSD resident.
Currently, my property tax rate in support of MROSD is $17.85/$100,000. If AA were to pass, that would rise to $21.03/$100,000. While coastsider contribution would be only $3.18/$100,000.
Coastsider said: Jack - we do not need nor want a water guzzling, pesticide leaching golf course in the Santa Cruz mountains of San Mateo County. Nor do we need the traffic on roads already stressed by commuters heading for work on the Peninsula"
Currently, many Peninsula golfers travel to Watsonville and beyond for golf. Allowing creation, of 5 "revenue producing" golf courses designed to enhance and protect the environment on less than 1% of open space land, would reduce the total number of miles driven by golfers. And, golfers I know, avoid traveling during rush hour traffic.
___Revenue from land leases would provide sufficient funding for MROSD to further enhance and maintain it's current and future lands without the need for a $300,000,000 Bond measure.
As for water guzzling, these golf course would love to guzzle some of the reclaimed water currently being dumped in the Bay.
> my property tax rate in support of MROSD is $17.85/$100,000 .... coastsider contribution would be $3.18/$100,000
Nope, I believe that you will find that you are in error. One of points of annexing the Coastside Protection Program region was to join the MROSD Tax Rate Area in 2004. Does that mean revenues went up? No, others already belonging to the district went down ever so slightly to keep revenue constant. So does that mean that the other TRA's of which Coastsider payed into recevied less? Nope, Coastsider was almost certainly subsidizing cities by paying a greater share of their county of school cost (at a higher TRA rate) then those who live in incorporated cities.
I see from another Almanac posting that you have part of the San Mateo County TRA database on your website. Unfortunately it doesn't include Coastside data for me to illustrate the point more directly. I would note that as somebody who lives in the unincorporated land, you probably "pay" MROSD at an even higher rate than what you quote as I see that my own rate in unincorporated county area is $22.29/$100K.
But I wouldn't take this TRA stuff too literally. LAFCo's are not directly entitled to thier apportionment based upon how much folks in their TRA's pay but rather how high their tax rate was in 1978 which was then retroactively proportioned into the new global 1% rate. TRA's matter in that AB8 improved the original SB154 apportionment plan so that if assessments in your own TRA's increase at a higher rate than other's outside your TRA that your TRA will get to see the increase in revenue.
I might mention on a similar note that if you were ever able to succeed in your mission to dissolve the Sequoia Health Care District that those dollars would NOT simply become available for the TRA's in which you belong. Instead any other LAFCo's which claimed a fiscal impact of your dissolution would be able to make a claim for funds. If dissolution was considered not to be an impact of service then those funds would subject to a decision approved by the SM County Supervisors where they would most probably end up funding either the county or other special LAFCo districts which would be countywide and far from your local area.
"Funding is provided by a small share of the annual
total property tax revenues collected within District
boundaries, except on the San Mateo County"
Coastside. This is quoted from the MROSD website.
I received confirmation of this by phone from the MROSD controller. The District receives NO revenue from property taxes of the coastside annexation area.
___To receive revenue comparable to that which they receive from areas annexed before 1978, other agencies sharing boundaries would have to give up a tiny portion of their revenues. I suggest that that should happen. It does not raise anyone's taxes, but merely makes a slight shift in priorities.
Regarding dissolution of the Sequoia Health Care District, it is most likely that the distribution of those taxes to other agencies would be based upon the percent which they currently receive.
I recommend NO on Measure AA
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
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
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Atherton: Lindenwood
- Atherton: Lloyden Park
- Atherton: other
- Atherton: West Atherton
- Atherton: West of Alameda
- Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
- Menlo Park: Belle Haven
- Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
- Menlo Park: Downtown
- Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
- Menlo Park: Felton Gables
- Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
- Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
- Menlo Park: other
- Menlo Park: Park Forest
- Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
- Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
- Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
- Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres
- Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
- Menlo Park: The Willows
- Menlo Park: University Heights
- Portola Valley: Brookside Park
- Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
- Portola Valley: Ladera
- Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde
- Portola Valley: other
- Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
- Portola Valley: Westridge
- Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands
- Woodside: Emerald Hills
- Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
- Woodside: Kings Mountain/Skyline
- Woodside: Mountain Home Road
- Woodside: other
- Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
- Woodside: Woodside Glens
- Woodside: Woodside Heights
- Woodside: Woodside Hills
- Belle Haven Elementary
- Corte Madera School
- Encinal School
- Hillview Middle School
- James Flood Magnet School
- La Entrada School
- Las Lomitas School
- Laurel School
- Menlo-Atherton High School
- Oak Knoll School
- Ormondale School
- Willow Oaks Elementary
- Woodside High School
- Woodside School
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Continuation of Office Cap Discussion
By Steve Levy | 13 comments | 3,022 views
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 2,282 views
Ramen shop replaces Muracciís in Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 2,033 views
"Itís Not About the Nail"
By Chandrama Anderson | 3 comments | 1,625 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,194 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Menlo Park
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
Mountain View Voice
© 2015 The Almanac
All rights reserved.