Re: Fairwell, Mike Reynolds!

We barely got to know you...

https://tinyurl.com/y3n3pyp5

The rest of the story. https://tinyurl.com/yy435t92



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2019 05:43PM by troutwild.

Interesting that the Restore Hetch Hetchy folks are in favor of allowing an electric ferry and kayaks on the reservoir. Seems to me like it would have the opposite effect of what they hope for, which is to say would make people enjoy the reservoir quite a bit more than they already do.

Quote
abetterpitchfork
Interesting that the Restore Hetch Hetchy folks are in favor of allowing an electric ferry and kayaks on the reservoir. Seems to me like it would have the opposite effect of what they hope for, which is to say would make people enjoy the reservoir quite a bit more than they already do.

My guess is that is multi faceted. Probably one is to piss off SF water and bring more attention Restore Hetch Hetchy cause But the more likely one is that one of the arguments for restoring Hetch Hetchy is that you can still get the water at downstream reservoirs like Don Pedro. Don Pedro allows boating and other recreation on it and therefore its water is not deemed as cleaned as the water from Hetch Hetchy (per SF) as they put pollutants in the water. But with electric ferry and kayaks, there should be no waste deposited in the water. This puts SF in tricky situation, as they would be would have to make the case that it does have significant pollution or other negative impacts. Basically it is negative publicly for SF water, which helps the Restore Hetch Hetchy cause


As an aside, that this is the reason that Mike Reynolds was removed as superintendent is laughable. San Francisco has significant legal rights through the Raker Act (which created the reservoir) and because it provides significant funding to the park. I guess it maybe possible (hypothetically) for the superintendent to push this through, but it would be a herculean task at great cost for relatively little gain. Not something you would stake as the hill to die on.

There is a lot of stuff going on in Yosemite and who knows if there might be other reasons for Reynolds to be reassigned. For example, Naturebridge's water well failed and they now are working with Mariposa County to tap into Yosemite West's water supply. The discussion with Naturebridge and Mariposa County was initially done with out owners of Yosemite West property knowledge. Then there is the Yosemite Conservancy that bought land in and adjacent to Yosemite West. Again, without the prior knowledge of property owners, someone that is a consultant for the Yosemite Conservancy is lobbying for Mariposa County to change the zoning so high density housing could be built in what is now zoned rural. This would allow the Conservancy to built large housing units on some of that property. Not saying this is part of the reason or not but still interesting.

Personally, I feel that re assigning Mike Reynolds is a huge setback for the park. After the fiasco of Neubacher's tenure and other previous Superintendents, Yosemite finally had a Superintendent that was willing to make things better for everyone.

Quote
parklover
Then there is the Yosemite Conservancy that bought land in and adjacent to Yosemite West. Again, without the prior knowledge of property owners, someone that is a consultant for the Yosemite Conservancy is lobbying for Mariposa County to change the zoning so high density housing could be built in what is now zoned rural. This would allow the Conservancy to built large housing units on some of that property.

I've had mixed feelings over the years about what, exactly, the Yosemite Conservancy is conserving (their restoration of the Wawona fountain was well-done although it seems to have been done at an extremely unreasonable price but things like providing additional bus parking near Tenaya Lake are nothing that I want to support) and I've stopped more donations to them on more than one occasion because of this. If they are now essentially getting into real estate development, I do not want to be funding their efforts in any way, shape or manner!

My understanding of the Conservancy's purchase of the land adjacent to Yosemite West was that it is to be used to help alleviate the critical shortage of employee housing. NPS can't fill many seasonal positions because housing that seasonal employees used to be able to afford has now been priced out of their reach because of the short term rental market, i.e, AirBNB and VRBO. Seasonal applicants interview and are hired but then back out when they see the cost of housing in Mariposa and elsewhere. Kind of ironic that owners of property in Yosemite West, the large majority of whom make money in the short term rental market, and whom are partly responsible for the housing shortage, are complaining about this.

Quote
azhiker
My understanding of the Conservancy's purchase of the land adjacent to Yosemite West was that it is to be used to help alleviate the critical shortage of employee housing. NPS can't fill many seasonal positions because housing that seasonal employees used to be able to afford has now been priced out of their reach because of the short term rental market, i.e, AirBNB and VRBO. Seasonal applicants interview and are hired but then back out when they see the cost of housing in Mariposa and elsewhere. Kind of ironic that owners of property in Yosemite West, the large majority of whom make money in the short term rental market, and whom are partly responsible for the housing shortage, are complaining about this.

I agree that there is an issue with housing for both the Conservancy and the NPS and would support scattered small housing units through out the property they own. However, there are property owners in Yosemite West that live there all year round. Some that bought second houses that they will use only as vacation home and some may live there full time when they retire. These are the people that bought there because they wanted a rural experience and NEVER rent out their properties and will be negatively affected by a zoning change. With older owners leaving Yosemite West, many of those houses that were never rented were bought by people who rent them all the time to short term visitors. Believe me, the people that have places up there that are just used for rentals are not complaining at all. They really don't care and some of them don't even stay in those properties - all they care about is the money they make. And yes, some of those people are the ones that no longer rent to employees because they can make more money as a vacation rental.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2019 08:23PM by parklover.