Half Moon Bay to Santa Cruz = no development, why? (San Francisco: homes, utilities)

[total_genius]

On my last trip to San Francisco I was shocked how a area with 6 million people could limit development along the coast all the way from Half Moon Bay to Santa Cruz. You would think the developers would make the necessary campaign contributions and the government would open up that huge area for housing. It is beautiful and I am sure the land would be worth millions.

How have they been able to limit development in so much of San Mateo County?

[sonarrat]

Basically by stonewalling it incessantly, and in a manner that is deeply and thoroughly corrupt and opaque. This Wednesday, though, the State Senate will consider a bill to build 129 homes in HMB along the coast - the so-called Beachwood development which it originally denied in 2000.

As for the coastline south of there, I doubt there's much interest. There are a few homes in San Gregorio, but they're so distant to everything. It takes over an hour just to get to western Redwood City. Is it worth it for a freezing beach and easy access to Jones Gulch? I doubt the answer is yes for many people.

[MichaelinWA]

Here's hoping that they can continue to preserve and protect the beautiful coastline, for future generations.

[MichaelinWA]

Or at least a significant part of it.

[mdwstrnkid]

Even if developers were able to build up in that area, it would be necessary to construct a significant amount of new road infrastructure in order to allow people on the coast to get into the Peninsula in an efficient manner. Highway 92 is already packed during commute hours and I can't imagine many people wanting to drive in to work along the windy roads of Highway 84 on a day-to-day basis. So, unless the county or state would want to fund such a public works project, I can't imagine a lot of people wanting to move to the coast given the existing infrastructure.

[Sgoldie]

A long time ago California made a policy that the vast majority of coastal waterfront would be publically owned so that everyone would have access. A very smart move on their part and one I hope is never changed.

[sav858]

Since most people like temperatures above 60 degrees and aren't huge fans of wind and fog, the Northern CA coast isn't exactly an ideal location climate wise. It has the scenery and all but the climate sucks. But that's probably a good thing, I like how the Northern CA coast is not developed and somewhat desolate. I wish there were more parts of the Southern CA coast like that.

[ImRandy]

The California Coastal Conservancy does a lot to regulate growth and together with various open space groups and reluctance to change agricultural zoning lock a lot of land up. Lack of access and limited utilities also help prevent growth pretty effectively. Requests to increase the number of lanes on 1 and 92 have been repeatedly shot down for fear of increased development pressure. You practically have to win the lottery to get water hooked up in some parts of the county if you're in an area that doesn't allow a well.

The weather along the coast is wonderful though and if I could afford the land and the commute I would definitely live there.

[Bluesbabe]

Originally Posted by MichaelinWA

Here's hoping that they can continue to preserve and protect the beautiful coastline, for future generations.

I agree. Let's leave some places in their pristine state!

[another_hot-day]

Originally Posted by MichaelinWA

Here's hoping that they can continue to preserve and protect the beautiful coastline, for future generations.

Here here!!!