|
| Yee's proposal for Beachwood is just another legislative shuffle Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:07 PM PDT Wouldn’t it be ironic if state Sen. Leland Yee’s proposal to end the Beachwood strife originated with the very lobbyist he lambasted only a week earlier? Late last week, Yee mounted his white steed to ride to the rescue of Half Moon Bay. From his Friday press release: “Sen. Leland Yee today offered a proposal to resolve the recent controversy regarding a settlement agreement between Half Moon Bay and a developer who won a $41 million judgment against the city. ... Yee’s proposal, which has no opposition from environmental organizations, would provide up to $10 million in Proposition 1C monies in order to create a public park at the Beachwood property.” This bit of public relations came only days after Yee cringed at an alliance between the city and the Beachwood developer, which together agreed to pay for a consultant/lobbyist in an effort to hammer through AB 1991. Yee called that alliance an “atomic bomb.” It’s time to climb down off that high horse. The truth is much less heroic and couched in the usual backroom deals that lend a stench to much of what happens in Sacramento. To begin with, Friday’s proposal didn’t originate with Yee alone. His communications director says it evolved out of consultations with Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. That would be the same Don Perata who once employed as his own communications director a man named Jason Kinney, who works on Half Moon Bay’s behalf for that evil lobbyist, California Strategies. Could Yee’s proposal have originated with California Strategies, the very firm Yee portrayed as a snake in the grass one week earlier? Even Yee might not know. And those few who do know aren’t talking. But Half Moon Bay City Council members knew of the proposal to use Prop 1C money to offset the $18 million judgment at least a week before Yee’s announcement. It was mentioned on the council’s agenda for a workshop on Aug. 8. It’s all very interesting, isn’t it? There is no wrongdoing here, no legal nor ethical breech exactly. It’s only politics as usual. But don’t let anyone play the hero. For one thing, Yee’s proposal would seem to create the same sort of precedent his champions complained about with AB 1991. Just as that Assembly bill would have exempted Beachwood from environmental regulation, encouraging other governments to do likewise, this proposal prevails upon California legislators to use state funds to bail out a local government that ran into trouble. By the way, you may be wondering what Proposition 1C monies were going to be spent on, back when voters approved it in 2006. According to the official summary of the proposition, it was “for the purpose of providing shelters for battered women and their children; clean and safe housing for low-income senior citizens; homeownership assistance for the disabled, military veterans and working families; and repairs and accessibility improvements to apartments for families and disabled citizens.” You have to dig deep to find the $200 million provision for parks hidden in that $2.8 billion deal. Under Yee’s proposal, the city would have three parks — one near the sewer plant, another along Highway 92 and the third at Beachwood — that are parks in name only. Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of the word “park” is. If your idea of a park is a wet scrub field with no parking and absolutely no amenities, why you’re in luck. Having said all that, the City Council would be wise to take this money and run — just as it was wise to seek development rights for Keenan instead of simply paying the man. The City Council’s first obligation is to right the city’s listing financial ship. Concern over precedent, misuse of state funds, and who gets the credit for all that, belongs elsewhere. — Clay Lambert |