Received: from hpindck.cup.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA00730; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 19:51:56 -0700 Return-Path: <kenb@hpindck.cup.hp.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hpindkb.cup.hp.com by hpindck.cup.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+IOS 3.20+cup+OMrelay) id AA16452; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 19:51:36 -0700 Message-Id: <9409150251.AA16452@hpindck.cup.hp.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: 3rd ave In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Sep 94 18:31:18 PDT." <9409150122.AA06224@mri.com-DeleteThis> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 19:51:36 -0700 From: kenb@hpindck.cup.hp.com-DeleteThis
boehm@mri.com-DeleteThis (Geoff Boehm) wrote:
> I think you are all missing the point here. I don't think FC is
> concerned about the cost of improvements, or the fire truck access.
> They are concerned about asserting their property rights.
Exactly. And the public has rights to that property as well, due to it's
prior use of the land to access the Bay. Those rights and interests are
supposed to be protected by the BCDC. The balancing point between those
rights is not written in stone - it's subject to negotiation - unless there
is some sort of ruling by a judge on the matter.
Remember, the parking lot was put in as a result of an agreement between
BCDC and FC. It was a compromise because FC was going to TAKE public access
at the old launch. FC is always aggressive in asserting their rights, so
I don't think we can afford not to be.
Access rights includes the ability to park. I'm not sure if there is a legal
precedent, but just look at other bayfront developments. There are several
spots along the bay where there are small strips of public park along the
water, along with a mostly business parking lot. But some number of those
spots are denoted "public access" parking spots. One example is the
Genentech parking lot out at the point between Oyster and Tigers (the one
that would be a great launch if the rip-rap weren't so bad and if it weren't
smack-dab in the middle of the wind shadow). There are others. I'm sure
these are there only because of the efforts of BCDC. The number of spots
designated "public access" is surely the result of negotiation, and I would
guess that one factor is anticipated demand.
Jeez, a bizzare thought just struck me. Would it be better if FC *did*
try to develop it? That would at least grab BCDC's attention big time,
and it might make for an opportunity to maybe negotiate for even more
public access parking as a condition of BCDC's approval to develop.
Hmmm....
> What we have to realize is that such concerns are valid. It would be
> nice if we could think of a way to alleviate those concerns, but the
> truth is that we can't - because whenever they decide to take back the
> parking, they WILL have a fight. So they aren't going to be receptive
> to any improvements, even if there is no cost, because that will only
> make us want to hold on to the parking that much harder.
Excellent point. The problem for us is that FC is happy with the
status quo (for now) and we are not. We need an incentive that will
counter, in their mind, the potential loss of property value down the
road that may occur from their allowing new public parking now.
Unfortunately, I don't think pay-for-parking in whatever form is
going to do it - I just doubt that the numbers add up. ShrED the
lawyer man - any ideas on precedents for public usage of an area
creating a government obligation to improve an area? Seems like a
reach (pardon the pun) to me, but you never know...
What are our defences if they do try to take it back? I would hope that
there is something in paper that at least gives a permanent public access
easement on the existing area, including both the parking lot and the
rigging area. If not, I'd say BCDC screwed up big time.
> It seems our only real hope of a solution is to make them feel secure
> that they can take the land back at any time, and then hope that it's a
> long time before they do. One way to do that might be to lease the
> property at a low rate - then it's a business transaction with a fixed
> timespan. Then it's real clear that we are paying for a privilege that
> can be revoked on short notice, and we can only hope they don't sell it.
I think this is the worse thing to do - it would imply that we recognize
their having a right to take the land back for whatever they want to do
with it, whenever they want. I, for one, do not believe they have such
a right. I doubt many readers of this list would want them to have it.
*******************************************************************************
Ken Brown +\ SnailMail: Hewlett-Packard
kenb@cup.hp.com-DeleteThis ... + \ 19420 Homestead Road
Voice: (408) 447-3089 <: \ MS 43LT
Fax: (408) 447-3660 ... <:o__.\ Cupertino CA 95014
<:K" \ USA
... <:l\ )
y---------
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
****** "It is a far, far better jibe I do, than I have ever done before" ******
- C. "Jibemeister" Dickens
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:05 PST