Rules, rules, rules. Everybody wants to make up more rules about
what hillside property owners can and cannot do with their
land.
Rules, rules, rules. Everybody wants to make up more rules about what hillside property owners can and cannot do with their land.
Santa Clara County is crafting a three-tiered review and permitting system based on the size of the proposed house. The rules will be presented to the County Board of Supervisors for consideration several months hence.
In the meantime, the Greenbelt Alliance is gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative that would prevent rural landowners from building on any parcel smaller than 160 acres.
Michele Beasley, South Bay field representative for the Greenbelt Alliance, says that the initiative will ensure that residents who exit city limits will still have a place to hike and enjoy the natural settings of their surroundings.
Hogwash.
City residents do not have the right to hike across private land, whether that land is divided into parcels of 160 acres or 10. Hiking across private land is trespassing.
The public does have the right to hike in public parks, and we have many parks to choose from in Santa Clara County. We have city parks, such as Christmas Hill Park (51 acres) or the adjacent Dennis DeBell Uvas Creek Preserve (125 acres.)
We have county parks such as Mount Madonna (3,219 acres) and state parks such as Henry Coe (more than 87,000 acres.) Mount Madonna and Henry Coe are virtually deserted if one hikes further than a half-mile from the parking lot.
It is absurd to tell the owner of a property three times as big as Christmas Hill Park that he cannot build a house.
Let’s be honest: the real reason we city folk would like to prohibit development of hillsides is that we like the view of green hills in the wintertime and golden hills in the summer. It is a refreshment to our spirits to be able to lift our eyes above the roofs of our neighbors’ houses and the asphalt roads that connect our homes and workplaces, and bathe them in the green upon green folds of the uplands.
But buy hillside property of our own? Too inconvenient, too expensive, too few services, too far from shopping, too isolated.
Selfishness may be a basic part of the human personality. But it goes far beyond mere selfishness for flatlanders to tell hill-dwellers that they cannot build on their property because it would spoil our view.
Meanwhile, there are county ordinances on the books about visibility. These regulations are not being enforced. We should be enforcing the regulations we have, not dreaming up more to encroach on the rights of the law-abiding and be ignored by scofflaws. County Board of Supervisors for consideration several months hence.
In the meantime, the Greenbelt Alliance is gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative that would prevent rural landowners from building on any parcel smaller than 160 acres.
Michele Beasley, South Bay field representative for the Greenbelt Alliance, says that the initiative will ensure that residents who exit city limits will still have a place to hike and enjoy the natural settings of their surroundings.
Hogwash.
City residents do not have the right to hike across private land, whether that land is divided into parcels of 160 acres or 10. Hiking across private land is trespassing.
The public does have the right to hike in public parks, and we have many parks to choose from in Santa Clara County. We have city parks, such as Christmas Hill Park (51 acres) or the adjacent Dennis DeBell Uvas Creek Preserve (125 acres.)
We have county parks such as Mount Madonna (3,219 acres) and state parks such as Henry Coe (more than 87,000 acres). Mount Madonna and Henry Coe are virtually deserted if one hikes further than a half-mile from the parking lot.
It is absurd to tell the owner of a property three times as big as Christmas Hill Park that he cannot build a house.
Let’s be honest: The real reason we city folk would like to prohibit development of hillsides is that we like the view of green hills in the wintertime and golden hills in the summer. It is a refreshment to our spirits to be able to lift our eyes above the roofs of our neighbors’ houses and the asphalt roads that connect our homes and workplaces, and bathe them in the green upon green folds of the uplands.
But buy hillside property of our own? Too inconvenient, too expensive, too few services, too far from shopping, too isolated.
Selfishness may be a basic part of the human personality. But it goes far beyond mere selfishness for flatlanders to tell hill-dwellers that they cannot build on their property because it would spoil our view.
Meanwhile, there are county ordinances on the books about visibility. These regulations are not being enforced. We should be enforcing the regulations we have, not dreaming up more to encroach on the rights of the law-abiding and be ignored by scofflaws.
