Letters: Jan. 8, 2010

Pacific View is surplus, Naylor Act applies
Thanks to Ms. Tucker for her excellent coverage of this issue (“Plans for school site get second wind” Dec. 25). I have e-mailed new Superintendent Timothy Baird to let him know that the Naylor Act should apply.
The timeline for the Naylor Act is determined by when the school grounds are offered for sale or for lease. It appears that EUSD is attempting to sidestep the issue by not declaring the land to be surplus? Whether declared so or not, the land has been unused as a school, and is, in fact, surplus.
When former Superintendent Lean King offered the property to the city before, the offer was contingent upon the city purchasing the entire 2.82 acres for $10 million. According to the State Education Code relative to the Naylor Act, 30 percent of surplus property can be purchased by government entities, such as cities or counties for as low as 25 percent of the property’s assessed value. So 30 percent of the schoolgrounds could be purchased for approximately $1 million, or less, because the land was donated, originally. This could be used for the old school house and a small pocket park. A community garden would be ideal!
The assessed value should include a formal assessment report, unlike what we were provided when Encinitas purchased the Mossy Property for a public works yard at an inflated price. An assessment report would take into account current zoning as public facilities, and that the city has said it won’t issue new water meter permits for projects without approved subdivision maps, because of drought conditions. Within eight years prior to EUSD leasing the property to the city for a public works yard, the schoolgrounds were used as fields. By reading the law, one can clearly see that it is disingenuous to declare the Naylor Act a nonissue based on what one attorney has opined.

Lynn Marr
Leucadia

Speak out against ‘revitalization’
Last year Del Mar began the process of revitalizing downtown.
The stated primary goal is to create incentives for commercial property owners to revitalize and redevelop their property (to provide more tax revenue).
To accomplish this goal, City Council determined a new Form Based Code approach should be implemented in lieu of current zoning process.
But why a new process, costing a whole lot more money and confusion? Supposedly, the new FBC process will make it easier for property owners to redevelop. But after almost a year, the new committee appears to not really have a handle on making it easier or clearer to develop property.
While the current zoning process is explicitly spelled out in hundreds of sections of law, the only direction of authority for the FBC is one new paragraph in the law, which doesn’t even mention FBC. So, in the law, there is no such thing for explicit direction, but everyone refers to something privately developed that is hard to understand, and, in my opinion, doesn’t relate to Del Mar.
Why? From what I’ve read, that one paragraph addition to the zoning law was somehow the result of AB1268, which mandated defining “urban smart growth zones” and building more “affordable housing units.” That’s it!
“Urban smart growth” refers to stopping sprawl, making town centers more dense (crowded), and providing more “affordable housing” downtown. Is that what we really want in our little village of Del Mar?
Well, we’re going to get a taste of what’s to come (if we let it) very soon, as the city begins by massaging the traffic downtown with one lane each way and angle parking!
Please pay attention to what the city plans to do to our downtown! If you don’t like it, please let the City Council know it.

Ralph Peck
Del Mar

Share

Filed Under: Letters

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.