by Alan Pryor and Pam Nieberg
Several proposals for the development of the old Haussler homestead off east Covell Blvd. have recently been brought forward by Taormino and Associates. Dubbed the Paso Fino development, the proposal currently in line to go to the City Council for consideration would place eight residential units and four accessory dwelling units on a parcel of land currently zoned for two single-family homes.
To accommodate the additional number of units, the developer would have to acquire, by sale or swap, the entire neighborhood greenbelt abutting the property. Thus, the proposal would develop both the private property and all of the publicly owned neighborhood greenbelt surrounding the property on three sides.
The Sierra Club supports in-fill densification in urban development but believes it must be done in scale with the existing landscape and that consideration must be given to the preservation of urban habitat and wildlife. After reviewing and studying the various recent iterations for the Paso Fino development now under consideration, the Sierra Club Yolano Group opposes the development as currently proposed.
Development of a project of this size and density on this site would have serious environmental impacts by eliminating dozens of healthy, mature trees including most of nine Canary Island Pines on the private property. Canary Island Pines are particularly attractive to Swainson’s Hawks and one of those on the property contains a large stick nest that has been used for years by breeding Swainson’s Hawks pairs. The proposed development would also entail a potentially precedent-setting sale of publicly-owned neighborhood greenbelt to a private developer.
A better proposal for the site was previously brought forward by another developer in 2009 and approved by the City. That proposal addresses most of the Yolano Group’s concerns with the current project. That approved plan was for 4 single family units which fit almost entirely on the private parcel. It did entail a minor land swap of some of the public greenbelt in exchange for part of the private parcel which actually increased the width of the eastern greenbelt, saved the majestic Canary Island Pines by putting them onto public land, and provided an improved green streetscape along Covell Blvd.
That prior project proposal went through an extensive outreach process including working with the neighbors and going before several City Commissions before being approved by then-City Council. Neighbors of the project and other concerned citizens supported that proposal and the Sierra Club did not object because considerable effort was made to retain as much of the urban canopy as possible. The current proposal rescinds that consensus agreement previously accepted by all parties
In conclusion, due to the changed nature of the current project, the Sierra Club Yolano Group now has significant environmental concerns including the loss of important mature urban habitat on both the public and private property. Many of these trees are either heritage trees or trees of significance due to the presence of nesting Swainson’s Hawks.
Further, because the City of Davis does not currently have a policy addressing the sale of greenbelts and has never sold such parcels for development in the past, the Yolano Group is very concerned that this transaction to sell greenbelts to a private developer to accommodate this project could set a dangerous precedent. As a result, we urge the City Council to reject the current proposal(s) and reconsider the more environmentally friendly 2009 plan or a plan more consistent with that one in relation to preservation of the existing urban habitat and public greenbelts.
Alan Pryor is the Chair and Pam Nieberg is the Secretary of the Sierra Club Yolano Group. For more information on this issue, see www.davisgreenbelts.org.
The City of Davis Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposed “Paso Fino” project in Wildhorse at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 24, at City Hall.
Alan & Pam wrote:
> Several proposals for the development of the old “Haussler homestead”
Why not write: “Several proposals for the development some homes that are about the same of the homes that surround them on all four sides on a lot that fronts one of the busiest streets in Davis”? Saying “homestead makes people think that we are developing a 40 acre ranch on the edge of town not a run down big old house surrounded by smaller homes on smaller lots on a busy suburban street.
> The proposed development would also entail a potentially precedent-setting sale
> of publicly-owned neighborhood greenbelt to a private developer.
Why not say “sell a patch of dirt” (since the area has never been “green” or called a “greenbelt” by anyone in Wildhorse.
Maybe the city will send in a “tank” (or “truck designed to keep police safe”) when the Sierra Club starts to protest…
I believe the neighbors in Wildhorse consider it a greenbelt. “Green”belt is becoming a bit of a misnomer for some of the open spaces in neighborhoods now, though….
I live in Wildhorse a couple of blocks away from the GREENBELT. Yes, we Wildhorsisians do call it a greenbelt.
BP wrote:
> Yes, we Wildhorsisians do call it a greenbelt.
I don’t care of they build a single 10,00sf mega mansion, 12 small homes or a 5 story 25 unit apartment on the site, but I’m wondering if BP can tell us a couple times when he used the word “greenbelt” when talking about the dirt area I see every time I drive past the Haussler’s old house (aka “Homestead) or if he has every heard anyone say “Wildhorsisians” out loud…
It’s every bit a greenbelt as many other stretches of brown tree lined greenbelts that I’ve walked and rode my bike on all over Davis.
so you believe that there is no difference between this and a traditional “green” greenbelt?
Walk and bike the city greenbelts sometime, you’ll see many that are just trees and dirt like the Paso Fino site.
South of Davis
What you have written is a beautiful example of how merely choosing different words reflects our differences in values.
What you see as a “patch of dirt” is to my eyes and obviously those of Sierra Club members is a remaining stand of mature trees and the habitat that they provide.
In many of our large cities, people have for years been doing balcony and rooftop plantings and gardens. I believe that as human beings, this is because we recognize the importance of nature in our surroundings. I suppose that one could characterize these as “patches of dirt” that folks have strewn across their lovely skyscrapers, but I think that would be to ignore the fundamental value of what is natural surrounding us regardless of what we have chosen to build.
If you want infill to deter urban sprawl, then there is less room for open space, and you get urbanization of living areas, much as the Cannery will be, with lots of houses on tiny lots, squeezed in tight. There will be some open/green space, but the denser the infill, the less room for open space. Which is it environmentalists, do you want open space or urbanization/infill? You can’t have it both ways.
This is amazing either/or thinking. Cannery project has an urban farm, and some open space areas. There are some big lots in Cannery, as well as higher-density. You CAN have it both ways. They can get more houses in at Paso Fino, and retain the trees, and it will still be denser than it was originally zoned for. This is a false dichotomy that you are presenting. Density and open space are not in complete conflict, as you seem to want to portray it.
Good point Don. For example, you can build a high density housing project that goes up but preserves land around the housing for open space. Just need some creativity.
David wrote:
> you can build a high density housing project that goes up but
> preserves land around the housing for open space
I don’t want to speak for BP or the other “Wildhorsisians” but I’m betting that we won’t have a single person coming out in favor of a four story project on the site to save the open space…
I’ll agree with you on that being that there’s only one and two story houses in that area. Why do you keep dodging the fact that the devoloper wants to build on a greenbelt? That’s the main issue here, not infill.
I was thinking other areas for four stories
Anon
Another example of the importance of word choice. True, you can’t have it both ways. But perhaps you can find a balance.
This is part of why I am very concerned about the overall process here. The previous developer, the city, and the homeowners had reached an agreement. The discussion now is about making arrangements that destroy that agreement with only two of the parties involved. I see quite a dangerous precedent being set here. To put it in very strong words, this could be seen as a
“bait and switch” taken advantage of by the new developer.
Tia wrote:
> The previous developer, the city, and the homeowners had reached an agreement.
Why does this even come up (it came up often talking about the “previous” developer that spent time and money trying to develop the Cannery)? Why are we talking about what SOMEONE ELSE (who could not figure out how to make a deal pencil out) did or said?
If a previous doctor (who never took the job) reaches an agreement with a hospital to work weekends and holidays would it set a “dangerous precedent” if the hospital let the next person that applied for the job take a Sunday off one a month?
SOD, would you be advocating to have a city greenbelt close to your home sold off and have high density housing built on it?
I think not.
BP wrote:
> SOD, would you be advocating to have a city greenbelt
> close to your home sold off and have high density housing
> built on it?
In South Davis a big chunk of (really green) green space I drive by most days just went under contract with a local developer who plans to build high density (real high density not SFRs the same size as the surrounding homes like Paso Fino) condos and I don’t have any problem with it…
Haha, I noticed you said it was really green but never said it was a city owned greenbelt. Nice try.
i’m curious what the difference is, since you seem to think there is a great difference?
Are you talking to me? Great difference between what?
yes i’m talking to you.
he said: “In South Davis a big chunk of (really green) green space I drive by most days just went under contract with a local developer who plans to build high density (real high density not SFRs the same size as the surrounding homes like Paso Fino) condos and I don’t have any problem with it…”
you said: “I noticed you said it was really green but never said it was a city owned greenbelt. Nice try.”
why does it make a difference who owns the land in your estimation?
Because if one buys a house next to or lives in the vicinity of a city owned greenbelt they think that it will always be a greenbelt and that’s probably a deciding factor in why they bought that home. Now if it’s just an open plot of green land that’s owned by who knows who they realise that it might be developed some day. Great big difference.
BP, isn’t that jumping to a conclusion? The land behind our house is farm field that produces at least one crop, sometimes even two crops each year. When we had a neighborhood meeting long ago well over 50% of the attendees assumed that the land would be perpetually green. Several years later that assumption was illuminated for what it was … an assumption … when a 176 home development was proposed for that land.
Mace 391 is another example on point. One of the strong arguments for putting the acres into conservation easement was that it prevented the City, who owned the property, from converting it to non-agricultural use.
decent answer. so you believe that should be the guiding principle for city land use policies?
What, if are you asking if a greenbelt should always stay a greenbelt then I say yes. People make home purchases believing that is the case.
SOD
If there had been a third party involved in making the deal, let’s say a locus tenens firm that was in on the initial deal, but then cut out without any contingency, then I would say that arrangement would be highly inappropriate. You conveniently cut out the third party, namely the residents of the area from your scenario.
I find it very interesting how fast misinformation spreads in this town. It is really sad just how many people jump on a bandwagon, without doing their homework. The article in Sunday’s Davis Enterprise is completely incorrect and full of distorted facts. Being an original wildhorse owner, and a close neighbor of the project, I have been following this subdivision very closely for several years. I feel I have a vested interest in what is built in my neighborhood, but have never been under any delusion that the Haussler property, nor the buffer land that surrounds it would be there forever.
The first thing that anyone who has done their homework will find out, is that the land the NIMBY’s are touting as greenbelt, was actually a buffer zone to protect the Haussler’s from the surrounding neighbors. Buy why not flip the story around, since it makes for a better argument. The second distortion of the truth in the enterprise article is about the Swainson’s hawks nesting in the Canary Island pines. In talking to the City of Davis Wildlife Resource Specialist, John McNerney, there does not appear to be any recent nesting within these trees. “There are active nest within a half mile, but we have no definitive data showing that there is an active nest at this site”. But again, that information does not make for good press.
The third distortion of the facts is their comment “To accommodate the additional number of units, the developer would have to acquire, by sale or swap, the entire neighborhood greenbelt abutting the property”. If the authors had done their homework, they would have realized that the 2009 plan had an approved similar land swap as well. Additionally, the current developers have submitted a plan that abandons the use of the easterly buffer. By my calculations, this parcel without the land swap could be subdivided into as many as 14-16 homes, albeit fairly small and tight like Verona on 5th Street. However, it appears that the developers are striving to match the basic layout of Sargent Court without the mass of unusable asphalt they call a court. Oh, and by the way, in reading the plans and project description which is available to the public, it appears that they are proposing a 36 foot wide driveway including parking, with a hammer head for turning around. I don’t believe that Sargent Court is even that wide.
Originally I was concerned about the city setting a precedent selling our wonderful greenbelts; however, in reading the project submission, it is obvious that this is a mutually beneficial land swap with a remainder piece. Furthermore, I can’t find another similar parcel in the City of Davis that the city could even conceive of selling, even if they wanted to. But why give all the information, that wouldn’t get people riled up.
The latest plans that are currently in for review, appear to be of consistent size and density for the neighborhood. If we are going to continue to ban growth into our precious farmlands, then it is ridiculous to allow this property to be built with just four quarter acre lots, and 3500 sf homes. From what I can derive from the current plans, with eight lots, they have achieved approximately the same density as the majority of homes within the Wildhorse subdivision. Which by the way, is far less than several other more recent subdivisions around Davis. Verona, San Jeronimo Terrace, the nine homes across from the police department, all come to mind. The 2009 plan also had the ability to have eight homes on the land with the addition of four additional dwelling units, which the city is now encouraging.
I am impressed how open and transparent the city staff and developers have been with this project. I am aware of almost a dozen community and neighborhood meetings that have occurred to discuss the project. It is obvious with the transformation of the proposed plan that the city and developers have listened to the neighbors, and tried to come to a consensus. Whether or not we as neighbors and community members all agree on every aspect of the proposed plans, they have made great strides from the original approved plans.
With regard to your comment:
What the Sierra Club article says about the hawks is:
I have some combination of hawks, vultures, owls, and magpies nesting on my property every year. The nests remain year to year, but each specific nest in each tree is not necessarily occupied each season. There is no conflict between what the Sierra Club article said and what the city wildlife specialist said. The loss of those pines would be a real shame. Healthy, well-adapted trees that are decades old should be preserved whenever possible. My understanding is one of the current iterations of the plan conserves more of them than the original Taormino plan did, which would be laudable.
Well said Don.
It is ironic to read the following Letter to the Editor that appeared in The Enterprise on Friday last week. It is the Canary Island Pine Ying to the Paso Fino Canary Island Pine Yang.
That Letter to the Editor of the Elliotts’ has garnered one comment from Elaine Roberts Musser as follows:
I don’t know exactly where that house is, but the trees that look like pines along L Street are Casuarinas. Although they resemble pines, and are sometimes called Australian pines, they are not pines, not actually related to pines at all; susceptible to limb drop, and invasive reseeders. Not to mention being really messy. Certainly well-adapted here, but no longer recommended.
Canary Island pines are very well adapted here.
Matt:
I consider it completely inappropriate that you have cut and pasted an entire letter or article from another publication in order to post it here in the comments (not to mention the comments posted on the other site). You could have easily added a link to the original letter, and quoted a few relevant lines as needed if you wanted to use them as an example or to make a point. You have done neither, nor have you added any significant commentary to justify your absconding with their copyrighted material.
Mark, since when is a reader’s letter to the editor copyrighted? When you have submitted a letter to the Enterprise do you sign a copyright release? I suspect that if you checked with the Elliotts they would tell you that they appreciated the expansion of the audience that their letter was seen by. You appear to have have caught the demons-seeing disease.
No demon seeing Matt. It is just bad behavior on your part, and surprising coming from and Editorial Board Member. You could have linked to the letter, saying it was interesting, and driven some traffic to the Enterprise site, which incrementally increases their revenues. Instead you simply stole the content from them and posted it here without adding anything. In the process you posted a comment from someone who has chosen to no longer comment on the Vanguard. Did you have her permission, or the permission of the letter writers, to post their words on the Vanguard?
If it were an article, I would agree with you Mark and I would have contacted the Enterprise, as I have done in the past. It wasn’t an article. Would you expect Bob Dunning to contact a commenter on the Vanguard and ask that commenter for permission to include one of their comments in one of his columns?
I’m truly sorry that i disappoint you so thoroughly.
Matt: “Would you expect Bob Dunning to contact a commenter on the Vanguard and ask that commenter for permission to include one of their comments in one of his columns?”
That is not what you did Matt. It would have been appropriate, as I pointed out the first time, for you to take one or two of their comments and use it to build one of your own. You apparently didn’t have anything of value to add to the discussion, so instead you took what they wrote and posted it whole without permission (not caring that you were stealing from another publication).
Letters to the Editor belong to the publication they were sent to regardless of whether or not they are published. If they are published, it is under the copyright of that publication. From my understanding, the Enterprise, like the Vanguard, relies on ad revenues to pay the bills, so I would expect you to have some interest in respecting their rights to their own content, just as I am sure David would want to protect his own.
I guess with the new posting policy, the Editorial Board thinks it is more important to protect the feelings of oversensitive extremists, than it is to maintain any semblance of editorial integrity.
Mark, regarding “Letters to the Editor belong to the publication” please read the Enterprise’s language from http://www.davisenterprise.com/submit-letter-3/
I saw no reason to water down the Elliotts’ carefully chosen words and message. They stood very well on their own. My words “It is ironic to read the following Letter to the Editor that appeared in The Enterprise on Friday last week. It is the Canary Island Pine Ying to the Paso Fino Canary Island Pine Yang.” put the Elliots’ words into the context of the Canary Island Pine discussion then currently being discussed.
“the feelings of oversensitive extremists”
ISN’T THAT KIND OF THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.
ISN’T THAT KIND OF THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.
Perhaps, but I don’t steal other people’s work.
to me stealing other people’s work is passing someone else’s thought off as your own. that’s not what happened here.
On line publishers live and die on traffic, as that is what determines their revenues from on-line ads. Had Matt linked to the letter on the Enterprise site he would have provided the information, while at the same time boosting the traffic (and hence the revenues) of that site. Instead he stole the content and posted it here without permission.
Matt and other members of the Editorial Board (plus the Moderator) have recently been chastising others in their demand for more civility on the site (to the point apparently of banning certain extremist words). While I don’t disagree with their intent, when one of them turns around and openly acts in an uncivil manner, I take offense. Call me a oversensitive extremist if you want, what I expect is for these same people to show some integrity and follow their own demands.
Mark, I think you will be hard pressed to find a single instance where “Matt [has] recently been chastising others in their demand for more civility on the site (to the point apparently of banning certain extremist words).”
I look forward to seeing the results of any woody search you perform looking for such a statement.
You are most likely right Matt, but until the Vanguard implements a competent search function for those of us who do not have access to the back end, we will just have take your word for it. For that reason I will apologize to you for egregiously disparaging your character in this manner and at the same time applaud you for the deft way you diverted the conversation.
I look forward to doing better in the future Mark. I know that there is room for improvement on my part.
” that the land the NIMBY’s are touting as greenbelt, was actually a buffer zone to protect the Haussler’s from the surrounding neighbors.”
To me the original intent of the buffer zone has no bearing on its current utility. Greenbelts and other open spaces can have multiple legitimate uses. Take the playing fields at North Star Park which were within one block of my previous house. When they were in use as soccer fields we deferred to the soccer teams. When they had gone home, we used those grassy areas to play frisbee, run, practice soccer on our own. it is where my son taught me how to throw a football pass so he could pretend to be a wide receiver. Just because there was an original intent which is no longer in place, does not mean there is no other value. This is not a distortion, just a difference in values.
You are wrong. The original and complete reason was to buffer the Hausslers from all those wild horses… not the other way around. Buyer beware. When you purchase a property next to open and undeveloped land, there is always the chance that that land will be developed unless it has been squirreled away by Davis’ farmland and open space preservation extremists.
extremists.
[moderator] from the Vanguard Comment Policy:
I’m extremely upset that the city would go to such extreme measures as to sell off this extremely beautiful greenbelt on the extremity of Wildhorse.
[edit]
Is is very interesting to me that my friend BP made this comment even though I am, in fact, commenting in opposition to his opinion.
BP, we are the metaphorical shining city on the hill
[edit]
[moderator]: the editorial board established guidelines and policies about commenting on the Vanguard. We are serious about enforcing those. Discussions about moderation actions will be removed. When language conflicts with the Vanguard Comment Policy, we will respectfully request that the language be changed. Thank you for your cooperation.
Gestapo or KGB
https://davisvanguard.org/vanguard-comment-policy/
Please re-read these policies.
I’m extremely upset that the city would go to such extreme measures as to sell off this extremely beautiful greenbelt on the extremity of Wildhorse.
My first house I owned in Davis was adjacent to an empty lot that had existing plans for a senior assisted living development with a 20′ setback from our property and single story structures. After buying our house and installing a pool, we get wind that the developer had approved changes for a 10′ setback and three story structures… basically given granny and gramps a nice view of me floating around in my pool naked (if I ever decided to do that).
The neighbors all fought it and in the end we got 20′ set back with two stories and a lot of specimen-sized trees to mitigate views.
My point here is that compromise should be the goal.
“basically given granny and gramps a nice view of me floating around in my pool naked”
That would’ve been extremely embarrassing.
Frankly, the neighbors to the Paso Fino greenbelt are willing to compromise. They just think 8 large homes and 4 granny flats are too much for that small area.
I’m crossing my fingers that this post doesn’t get erased. I think I’m the deletion leader but you must be a close second Frankly.
That’s my understanding, and I think now they’ve met with all of the council members and the developer has put various options forward.
Frankly
“You are wrong. The original and complete reason was to buffer the Hausslers from all those wild horses… not the other way around”
I would be wrong if I were arguing that point. I am not.
The fact that when the city put in the North Star playing fields intended for use by soccer teams, they did not also say, ” and so that Tia and her kids can come and play here when the fields are not being used for organized soccer events” does not mean that the fields did not also serve in that capacity. It also does not mean that I did not consider the proximity of the playing fields when as pointed out to me by my real estate agent as an asset when choosing to buy my house.
“To me the original intent of the buffer zone has no bearing on its current utility. Greenbelts and other open spaces can have multiple legitimate uses.”
Original intent vs. current utility? Multiple legitimate uses? Say what? How the heck does medwoman square these Paso Fino comments with her MRAP comments?
-Michael Bisch
DT
Happy to answer.
Original intent in both Paso Fino and MRAP were reasonable.
There is demonstrated value of this open space in the case of Paso Fino in the form of trees, habitat and a “buffer” for the current residents.
No demonstrated uses of the MRAP in Davis, only speculation about possible rare instance of utility as presented by Chief Black.
Tia, when I look at the graphic that David included in the August 4th article, what are the current residents being “buffered” from?
Matt
The owners of the immediately adjacent homes are being buffered from whatever is placed on the Hausler property in exactly the same way as the Hausler property was being buffered from them. Let’s suppose that one of the resident’s of Sargent Court recently bought their home. Let’s further suppose that as is often the case, the real estate agent placed in the ad for the home and told the potential buyer that the property backed onto a city owned greenbelt. Is it much of a stretch to believe that the potential buyer would have thought that it being city ( not privately owned property) that it would be a permanent feature of their home ? Does anyone think that the potential buyer would have reasonably thought that they should check with the city to see if there were any plans afoot to sell off the greenbelt for additional housing ?
I think BP has this right. Ownership and control of the greenbelt are of critical importance here and I am glad to hear that the CC is taking all points of view into account.
Tia, that might have been easy for them to assume, but based on my experience here in El Macero with respect to the 50+ homes on the south side of South El Macero Drive one needs to be very cautious about real estate agent pronouncements predicting the future. In a very heated neighborhood meeting at our house in 2006 regarding the proposed Vineyards at El Macero, the vast majority of the residents of the south side of South El Macero present said one version or another of the words, “Our real estate agent promised …”
During the Wild Horse Ranch vote there were similar complaints from the people who lived on Carravaggio Drive.
Matt, was that a city owned designated greenbelt that was built on in El Macero? We all know it doesn’t matter what any real estate agent says and you have to do your homework. But a city owned greenbelt is a whole different scenario than what you’re putting forward.
No BP it wasn’t, but Mace 391 certainly was.
Great post. Set them all straight.
It is a buffer that was created for the benefit of the Hausler’s. The only utility for the neighborhood is a bike path cutting through to Covell, which the plan still has. The tall trees are on private land and I’ve read letters proposing to seize that land so the trees are on public land. There are no hawks in the trees.
There have been other developments that have gone in against the wishes of immediate neighbors, such as the development behind the Cal Aggie Christian Association, where there was a written agreement that the open space at the rear of the property would not be developed.
Yes. IPAD keyboard issues.
Ipad keyboard issues…big time. Delays in keystrokes and jerky delayed scrolling. Doesn’t happen with the computer but it is crazy making. Frankly, my misery enjoys your company.
For anyone to answer.
I have never argued that the initial intent of the buffer was not exclusively to benefit the Hauslers. That is a historical fact.
However, that does not mean that other folks may not have derived benefit from this arrangement and want to see it continued.
That is my understanding of the compromise that was agreed to by the city, the previous developer, and the residents of
Wildhorse. This apparently occurred after the original set aside of this land and therefore would seem to me to superseded the original purpose of the strip.
The city itself calls it a greenbelt and not a buffer.
Matt
” that might have been easy for them to assume”
Do you suppose that if said hypothetical house purchaser had checked with the city prior to the current controversy, he would have heard anything different from that this is a city owned greenbelt ?
As BP keeps stating, that is what makes this so very different from what you are describing. “City owned” means that all the taxpayers of the city, not just those immediately impacted has a vested interest in this as well as all other city owned property. After all, we are all paying for it. Do I care about this particular greenbelt because it affects me directly ? Absolutely not. Do I care about the principle involved here…..most certainly.
Tia, look at the community dialogue about Mace 391. The community members who worked hard to change the status of that city owned green land into a permanent conservation easement cited the risk that the city was within its rights to sell those 391 acres and convert them from green use into urbanized use.
As a result I believe that the hypothetical house purchaser going into the City Offices inquiring about the zoning of the Paso Fino land would have found that the zoning designation was subject to change if the proper zoning change application process were followed.
Regarding your final paragraph. Please don’t get Frankly and Mark West and Don Shor started talking about how the Mace 391 property fit your description, “City owned” means that all the taxpayers of the city, not just those immediately impacted has a vested interest in this as well as all other city owned property. After all, we are all paying for it. Do I care about this particular greenbelt because it affects me directly ? Absolutely not. Do I care about the principle involved here…..most certainly.