Tony wrote on Dec 13, 2007 10:45 PM:Sounds like a regulatory "taking" to me, which means the Fish and Wildlife service has to reimburse the owner for the decline in property value caused by their decision. While they're at it, they need to mitigate the damage caused by their decision by opening up an equivalent amount of land for development.

Thank God for Small Favors . . . wrote on Dec 13, 2007 11:23 PM:. . . in small packages - these fairy shrimp may have single-handedly (even if they don't have hands) saved San Marcos from being completely paved over. I'm all for people having a right to develop property, but we can't have developers running roughshod over the city like they already do, and if it takes a fairy shrimp to stop it, that's all the better for the rest of us. Do we really need another shopping center on Las Posas? The one we have now is serving us just fine, thank you, and has brought enough traffic to last us many years. And by the way, Hal - fairy shrimp aren't the only things that eventually die; so too do political careers, and one can only hope that yours will wither and fade like the springtime blossom on the Coastal Sage with the next election. And take your protege Rebecca with you, please.

EthnicStudent wrote on Dec 13, 2007 11:39 PM:Isn't this the same place that floods every year?

San Marcos is a nightmare wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:39 AM:I hate to go near there 18 of the 24 hours in a day. Just what we need, kill all the shrimp , and put up a parking lot.

Endangered means in danger wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:44 AM: So Martin in his "wisdom" has decided that the US Fish and Wild Life Service is wrong. If he had his way, we would be rid of every bird, plant flower, and animal that gets in the way of his vision of the future. Endangered species mean just that - they are in danger of being wiped off the face of the earth. Now what happens to the vernal pools and gnatcatchers they found at Palomar Station. That wetlands has been there for thousands of years ? We had all better sit up and take notice of what is going on.

Tiome to re-think projects wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:50 AM:Now is REALLY the time for the City of San Marcos to re-think its decision on a couple of projects. They need to take a new look at the Palomar Station and its wetlands with the new decision. The vernal pools, fairy shrimp, and gnatcatchers that exist at the project site have now been given added protection. There are so many ways that we can preserve them.

Where's the map of habitat wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:54 AM:Where do we find the map of the "commercial sites" in San Marcos that have been designated habitat by the US Fisgand Wildlife Service? Why were the habitats ignored in recent EIR's. They certainly were repeatedly called to the attention of the Planning Commission and the City Council as well as the city staff. How can improtant habitat just be ignored ?

Brian wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:06 AM:... Mr. Texan is a land specualtor. Nobody is guaranteed a profit on their land. Would we allow Yosemite to be turned into a strip mall? Our few remaining vernal pools are worth saving, with unique plants like mesa mint and animals like the tiny fairy shrimp. San Marcos' pools would make a great mini-preserve for local schools to visit and learn about stewardship of our treasured natural wonders.

esteban wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:33 AM:Can we eat the shrimp? I don't think SM needs another shopping center, but this is ridiculous!!!

Robert24 wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:42 AM:Why doesn't the Fish and Wildlife Service buy this property from Mr. Upham for fair market value? That would solve everything; Mr. Upham would get the profit he deserves (so what if he is a land speculator; don't hate him for being that smart)and all the tree-huggers (and savers of fairy shrimp and gnatcatchers, etc.)would be happy as well. Maybe the ones that have a soft spot in their hearts for fairy schrimp and gnatcatchers would be willing to chip in for the purchase price. If I was as smart as Mr. Upham and purchased that piece of property, I would feel the same way he does. It's called progress people. Maybe you should go back to living in caves.......

oh brother wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:48 AM:can you say inverse condemnation?

Let Them Buy It wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:13 AM:If the Faery Shrimp can afford to buy the land that they are trespassing on, then they can keep their pools. Otherwise, they're squatters and need to leave. This property belongs to someone who paid money for it. It's wrong for the tree huggers and government to declare it unbuildable because of some shrimp who can't afford to buy it.

mike wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:34 AM:Does it matter that not only the fairy shrimp will be saved, but also the dozens and dozens of other unique plants and insects that require these pools to survive? Does it matter that the flowers and other plants that bloom in consecutive rings around the pools as the pools dry were here when elephants and saber tooth cats roamed San Marcos? Does it matter that destroying them destroys genetic lineages that go back hundred of thousands of years? Does it matter that these genetic lineages are rich genetic libraries that we have not yet read? Short sighted people like our Texas developer friend and his supporters here are of the same ilk that burned down the library in Alexandria. Others like them burned the Mayan codex libraries. We are Americans. We are better than that. I am sorry that so many have been conned into repeating the nastiness of the Radio Con Jobs. Those con jobs are paid to con as many Americans. The goal is to make the wealthy even wealthier. What does it matter if our national natural heritage is destroyed as long as their employers can make a profit. If only our descendants had a voice in the destruction. But they do not. Wouldn’t it be nice to leave them something? Wake up. Quite repeating the paid to lie Con Jobs thoughts and think for yourselves. Think about an America that only values the wealthy and the destructive and has left nothing of beauty for our descendants.

interesting!! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:48 AM:While I don't think San Marcos needs another shopping center on Los Posas, given the Creek Project will be along in a few years, I wonder if the land belonged to Mr. Martin, if he'd be so callous about his response. I agree with either the Fish and Game buying the land at fair market value or the city buying it turn it into a great park and learning center for San Marcos. Look how successful Jack's Pond is....kids love it. Let's think outside the box, instead of more box stores.

Concerned-1 wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:16 AM:There are a great many so-called environmentalists that have one thing on their minds: stop all development. I know of no one who wants to see Southern California paved over. And once you build a shopping center, it pretty much dictates the land use for decades to come. That said, we do need development, but it should be in harmony with nature and what the public needs. There are too many enviro-whackos out there who do more harm than good. See the recent fires on Catalina for case in point.

Norco wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:37 AM:San Marcos doesn't need another shopping center. New York has a park in the middle of the city...so why can't we? I think the Indians had it right all along. Respect and honor the land we live in.

To : "Let them buy it" wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:48 AM:Boy...you're heartless ... with a label gun. It's pretty obvious what dictates your life. Huh? So sad for you. Try stepping outside of yourself for a minute and take notice that the world will not bow to you.

What happened to the map wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:07 AM:Where is the map that delineates the protected habitat in San Marcos ? Why didn't you include it in your story ? Please add the map as there are many interested in the locations of protected habitat.

David wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:21 AM:It's not about promoting one extreme or the other. It's about doing what's right and fair according to our constitution and the "golden rule". If people shop at a shopping center and tenants lease the spaces, then by definition that shopping center is "needeed". Conversely, if the "public" really wants the benefit of someone else's land, in order to preserve fairy shrimp or weeds, then the "public" simply needs to compensate the landowner who will be deprived of their private development opportunities and rights. Oddly enough, the "public" never gets to make that decision nor does the "public" know how much it's costing to support all the dubious environmental theories that lots of otherwise unemployable activists, biologists and attorneys are making money from. If you make the so-called "environmentalists" prove their theories and pay for the "public" benefits they demand, you'll suddenly find there are no "environmentalists". In fact, it's the much maligned developers, ranchers and other private property owners that provide all the open space, conservation and other public benefits. When was the last time the Southwest Center or any other self-proclaimed "environmentalist" dedicated any open space, built a public park, or paid to create new habitat? It's easy to deprive private property owners of their land ownership rights under the guise of public benefit or "environmentalism" when it doesn't affect your wallet, but doing so is simply wrong. Would you want that done to you and your family? As for the enviro wackos who see every human act as "destruction", they apparently don't recognize that humans are a deliberate part of the natural order, which is full of change, death, destruction and renewal (humans killed the dinosaurs?, ever seen the destructive impacts of a volcano, drought, flood, earthquake? ever watched a big cat eat its prey?). Such is the ignorance and arrogance of so many self-defined environmentalists who presume to know so much more than the rest of us, and then demand to be paid for their greed and mindlessness. If their theories of human destruction were correct, then their continued existence is sheer hypocrisy and they should exterminate themselves to save the planet. But don't expect these kind of people to lead by example or put their money where their big mouth is.

What happened wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:27 AM:to land being owned. This is crazy. If the evnvironuts want to save the the fairys buy the land themselves. Better yet send them to Hillcrest.

To Thank God for... wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:30 AM:would you be saying that if you bought the land for investment years ago. How about the fish and game taking where you live now and making it a protected habitat. People like you don't get it. The man owns it, bought it and should be able to do what he wants with it. This is a RIGHT not a privlage.

Reardon wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:35 AM:EVERY one of these current environmentalists LIVES on what was once "habitat" that may have even held "fairy shrimp." Probably some previous environmentalists opposed the current environmentalist's home being built, and the shopping centers that today's environmentalists use on a daily basis was opposed by previous environmentalists. I'll take all of them seriously when they tear down their homes and return their properties to "habitat."

What? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:42 AM:Comparing a 33 acre parcel to Yosemite or Central Park is silly. Central park is 843 acres. Yosemite is 761,266 acres. I like the idea of buying the land from the owner. I mean it seems to me that the last one to build is the one to get the screws put to them. As I recall all of the land bounded by Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos Blvd and Grand Ave at one time not so long ago was sutible for vernal pools. Yet all of those land owners got to develop their land and profit by it.

Concerned-1 wrote on Dec 14, 2007 1:46 PM:It's true that the environmental lobby has run amuck. I know of a five-acre parcel along a creek that a developer had to grant in "perpetuity" as a "natural habitat reserve." It is now planted with all native vegetation, at a major expense to the developer. As part of the bargain, there can be no human traffic whatsoever on the "reserve." Today, it looks like crap and will eventully grow into a major fire hazard. The developer would have gladly paid for a park with natural, or zeroscape, landscaping that could be enjoyed by students, scouts or other groups. But nooooo. The brain trust at the state had a better idea.

Mike wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:31 PM:So its the developers land? That means he gets to do with it what he wants? Did he make the land in his factory somewhere? No, for one brief moment in history he has control so you “conned folks” say he gets to wipe out 100,000 years of genetic history? You Limbaugh listeners take the cake. Haven't you heard of zoning laws? If Mr. rich Texan wants to build a topless bar next to you child’s elementary school, you conned people should cheer it on. Right? It is his property. How could you Con Kool-Aid drinkers say no? Try to think about why we have zoning laws. If you want no zoning regulations and land owners who can put toxic waste dumps next to your house move to Mexico. There are no zoning laws enforced there at all. In fact pick a third world country anywhere and you will find no enforced land use regulations. One reason this is still a beautiful country is we do limit the selfish, greedy, dangerous, and exploitive uses a temporary land owner can decide to use his land for in those few yearsthat he controls that land. Selfish, selfish, selfish, all for me; none for the next generation that is the mantra of the Radio Con and his pathetic followers. And to think I used to vote Republican.

saver$ wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM:Get real people fairy shrimp ? there dead then come back to life just add water. Hmmm is it legal to package and sell these criters ? Then been doing it for years. I think Fleas are also a endangered species and ants and lizards. We're not protecting them . Maybe we need to bring back the dinosauors.Fish and game is way out of whack the enviromental lands just cost us over two billion in damages. The wildfires loved the fuel. Get a clue there costing every Californias billions everyday its time for change or taxes will continue to climb. Add up ALL your taxes dmv.state,federal.sales,gas,property,parking tickets.donations,misc bs fees for building . just to let you know its over 65 percent of your income people in California are fed up and moving businesses and their lives out of this State. We can build a Ocean in Las Vegas and still live cheaper.

Hey "To Thank God . . . " wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:56 PM:No one has a "right" to develop; you have the privilege. If the project doesn't belong, that's why we have "General Plans" and oversight . . . no one is condemning already-built property. It's shocking that, if this piece of land is so developable, it's been vacant for almost 40 years. That tells me there's something less than profitable about it. It's people like YOU who don't get it - if you were in charge, I imagine every square inch of land in the county would have some sort of cuilding block sitting upon it. The ultimate question here is this: Do we need more development in San Marcos? I think we're overdeveloped as it is. Traffic is nightmarish, shopping isn't all that fantastic, and quite honestly, we're beginning to look like our hodge-podge neighbors Escondido and Vista. Is that what was envisioned by the architects of the General Plan? I doubt it highly.

Every living thing is important wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:16 PM:All of the San Marcos wetlands that have been officially declared as habitat haven't changed in many years, except to be more and more threatened by development. There were gnatcatchers on the Las Posas on/off ramp site as well as other endangered species, but their habitat was destroyed. What little is left is presently at risk. If anyone thinks that protecting an endangered specie is foolhardy, they should go back to school and learn WHY every specie is important. The wetlands (vernal pools) were here before we were. At least a small portion of them are being set aside to protect habitat.

Where's the map ? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:30 PM:You had a great descriptive map on the front page of the North County Times today. The map is very informational, especially since it shows the protected habitat areas in San Marcos as well as Carlsbad, Ramona, and other habitat sites. Please print the map and include it with tomorrows edition of the NCT.com. It would be very helpful for everyone. Good coverage. We all need to appreciate our surroundings. We have miles and miles of trails, sites like Jack's Pond, and now it appears we will have Habitat Parks.

Concerned-1 wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:32 PM:Mike step away from the coffee machine buddy. Take a deep breath. Not everyone here is out to get you. Now, some of the points you seemed to be missing are A the enviromental community is out of control, B they don't know what they are doing, and finally C they often do more harm than good. Now, whether or not this property is a viable commercial property is yet to be determined, however, the person who has title to it (yes Mike people own land) has a right to compensation for it. Have a nice day and watch out for the Boogie, err I mean, Con Man.

Did you ever visit ...? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:44 PM:In the past, San Marcos has alwys protected its own. We now have the distinction of having a large portion of the Federally-protected habitat declared in our city. Instead of people being angry, shouldn't they be very proud to have the opportunity to protect our most critically-endangered species ? How many of the nay-sayers have ever been to a museum. the San Diego Zoo, the Wild Animal Park, Scripps Oceanography ???Did you consider the visit to be a burden to you ? Did you feel that the plants and animals you saw there had no right to exist ? San Marcos is supposed to wish to be the educational hub of North County. Let's enjoy what we have been given. It is truly a wonderful gift !

Disappearing Act ! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 5:07 PM:How in the world does this story keep disappearing from the "Top Stories" and find its way into complete obscurity ? There are so many people interested in the subject matter that it is not too difficult to imagine that there is somebody who doesn't want the story seen. Please give ths story the adequate coverage it deserves.

Other commercial sites ? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 5:32 PM:What are the other sites in the commercial area of San Marcos, other than the Upham property ? Where are they ? Please give us more on this entire story ?

Special people like... wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:12 PM:With special people like Martin and Upham, why should we have a worry in the world. They would have us believe that there aren't any endangered species, or if there are, they didn't get there naturally, but got there by accident. They are wrong. Those wetlands have existed for centuries, with their inhabitants. There are very few areas of wetland (vernal pools) anywhere in Southern California. San Marcos is so very fortunate to have them. We must protect these endangered species habitats.

Educational plus ! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:24 PM:What is wrong with declaring these protected habitats San Marcos parks ? How are we doing in the Parks department ? What an educational benefit could be gleaned from the study of the wetlands and vernal pools - by every student in San Marcos ! If we found a cave with ancient wal murals, we would certainly preserve it. The same is true here. The only difference is that the property owner, Upham, is crying "foul", when he has always known about the vernal pools on the property. On the same subject, isn't he lucky that the Grand Plaza got developed ??? Maybe someone should look more closely at that EIR and see if misrepresentation occurred ?

Which came first ? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:28 PM:Please give us more in-depth articles about the San Marcos vernal pools. How many years have they been here ? Were they here before we were ? Sort of like the Lusieno indians that inhabited this valley, especially along Las Posas, which has always been a source for water. Look at our valley's history. Protect our past and protect our future. Thanks to the North County Times for the coverage on this important issue.

Hey Martin wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:19 PM:You say habitat preservation belongs outside city boundaries? How about the area behind Palomar College then, COUNTY LAND, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, that you want to exploit by paving a road through it and building high density housing? Does the defeated Highlands project sound familiar to you? What a hypocrit. You don't want preserves ANYWHERE!! Please, point out the spot you want to save, we are all very curious as to what the hell you are talking about.

Pappy wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:27 PM:To Norco who said “I think the Indians had it right all along. Respect and honor the land we live in." Are these the same Indians that are popping out casinos, hotels and motels, roads, pavement and parking lots like there’s no tomorrow?

Albert wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:31 PM:To those of you who think he should be paid fair market value for his property. This is a city issue, if the city has to pay him for the property they'll have to raise everyone else’s property taxes in the city to pay him.

I hope there are more wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:38 PM:I hope there are more along the San Marcos creek where they want to build their high density mess they want to call downtown! NCT, could you look into this and keep us informed? Great story about out of state speculators. You buy a swamp, you got a swamp. Upham knew what he bought, he's known all along. No surprise!

To David wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:05 PM:You know very well that environmentalists have bought and preserved land all over this nation, including locally. They do it all the time. Yet, those like you gripe even when they do. Yet developowacko's want the right of eminent domain just to build another shopping mall. Whose the crazy? Check your mirror.

To ALbert wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:49 PM:The city buys land all the time. They buy parkland too. Mostly they like to buy land to develope and compete with free enterprise, allowing perks that individuals can't have to develope their land. Where do you think the parks we have come from? We buy it as a community of taxpayers. We should buy this land as a habitat park for all to enjoy. We need more than just soccer fields to protect our future.

Bob wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:01 PM:This guy is 82 and could care less if there is any open space or non human species left on the planet. This is not entirely his fault. He is of a different time, where the majority of this country was rural. That is clearly not the case anymore. Someone has to take responsibility for protecting other species on earth. It's always "just a this" or "just a that." I'm sure that he is plenty loaded with money and for him, it's just a matter of principal.

Treehugger Hal wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:09 PM:Remember when Hal was oh so upset about ripping up trees along San Marcos Blvd for an intersection? What a phony. Apparently he's only bothered by trees that have been paid for and planted by the city being removed. Doesn't care about the one's God plans. Oh, wait, he IS GOD! No, that's Desmond? So confusing when we have such hypocrits on our council.

82 & Texan wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:04 PM:82 & lives in Texas. That says it all. This out of city speculator doesn't care about San Marcos at all!!! Greedy mindset. Those with the most toys still dies...and you can't take it with you. Donate it for preservation & write it off as a speculation loss. Don't let the city buy it, it needs to be donated to a land trust. The city can't be trusted with it.

Near CSUSM wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:58 PM:I do think the poor guy is from a different time. He did buy it and he owns it. Maybe it would be a good idea to turn it into a park however, then we will pay more $$ for the park service too. I am interested to know if there are more fairy shrimp in the area parallel to SM blvd and Discovery. It floods there every time it rains and there is always a mucky swamp there. Interesting.......

To Saver$ wrote on Dec 15, 2007 12:02 AM:You don't sound too bright. Are you a city council member? I have some beachfront property for sale in Vegas. Are you interested in buying?

Mike wrote on Dec 15, 2007 6:37 AM:Poor little conned people who only repeat what their favorite paid radio liar tells them to think and say. Fair market value, your land was once protected habitat, too, owners have rights not privileges, out of control environmentalists, etc. Pathetic. The Texas developer must have known that the vernal pools were there and subject to possible future protection when he bought the land. The fairy shrimp and the vernal pools should have been no surprise to him. When I was a student at Palomar College in the early 70’s, we were taught about vernal pools and their unique habitats and the VERY limited numbers of them and places that they occur. Full disclosure is the law in California. If the previous owners did not tell our rich Texas "friend" about the fairy shrimp and the vernal pools, then that owner violated California Real Estate law. Mr. Speculator should sue them. But I am betting that he was told and he got a “deal” on the land. He decided to speculate on the land. Maybe he could make the right political contributions to the right council candidates/members and bulldoze anyway. Okay he lost. So what? Why do you conned folks fight so hard for the “rights” of a wealthy out of town absentee speculator? The only reason you care is you have been motivated by some radio Con Job whose sole purpose is to influence enough weak minded individuals to hurt themselves and their descendants so the that the already rich can get richer. Not only do your radio con job gods get paid for advertisements placed by the wealthiest of the wealthy CEO’s, the radio con jobs get under the table payments to push agendas of the wealthy because the radio Con jobs are “people of influence.” These payments in the 1950’s used to be called payola. They were illegal then. But under the fiat of Ronald Reagan destruction of the fairness code, radio con jobs do not have to be impartial or allow for various views. They do not have to disclose the bribes they take to spew CONS to their “listeners.” Turn off your radios and try to think for yourselves.

Maybe now they understand wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:15 AM:Maybe now the City Council and the Planning Commission will decide to take a closer look at the recent decisions for projects that are partially approved ? Maybe. Don't hold your breath. I sure won't. One thing for sure is that these protected habitats will remain and we can certainly enjoy them. What about the entire San Marcos Creek environs ?

There must be a reason wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:23 AM:Maybe thee are some people who just don't care about endangered species. Maybe they don't care about our past and our future, except as to how they can profet or look more important. We all need to care, otherwise we will destroy ourselves eventually. It is too bad when a segment of society feels they must humiliate those who are concerned. Obviously, our Federal Government has felt the necessity of declaring these properties as protected habitat. They removed over half of the protected habitat in San Diego County, but have pointed to the San Marcos vernal pools in particular, along with several others, as being significant and worthy of protection. There must be very good reasons for that. Very good, indeed.

Where do we go from here ? wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:43 AM:What do we do now ? Do we lobby our city council to protect these habitats as parks ? We need the help of the UCSM and Palomar College experts, as well as all of our residents and neighbors with knowledge in the art of protecting these valuable habitats. Council members need to step up to the plate and get the ball rolling. We need to create our own independent task force, if necessary, to assist in the process.

Just where is that map ? wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:49 AM:I keep reading about a map. Even this story is now hidden in obscurity. Why ? Who brought pressure to bear on the North County Times to keep this out of the public's eye, anyway ? I would think that this story is BIG NEWS. Also, what about the Discovery/San Marcos Creek area ? Where's the map ? Please ? The NCT ran a story in June of 2005 about the endangered plants - the story has the same photograph, and is all about the vernal pools and the plants around them. It was a botanical survey or something.

Vernal pools can't be moved wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:55 AM:So habitat preservation belongs outside of city boundaries, according to Martn. Vernal pools CANNOT be moved. The very survival of the life within the vernal pools and around them, the protected endangered species, will be eliminated by the destruction of the vernal pools WHERE THEY ARE. They just CANNOT be moved. They are protected. We need to protect them and enjoy them. What a great opportunity for every teacher in San Marcos. The time is now to create the environmental parks, the wetlands parks.

Albert wrote on Dec 15, 2007 8:41 AM:To - To Albert, I realize the state buys land all the time and that's a good thing. They mostly by land that's for sale. Usually it's best not to allow the government to buy things (forced by Eminent Domain) that aren't for sale by the person that owns them. This is about whether this plot of land should allowed to be confiscated from its rightful owner by the government because of environmental concerns, paid for by my taxes.

San Marcos Resident wrote on Dec 15, 2007 10:38 AM:Please publish a map of the protected areas in San Marcos and adjacent county property. Those areas needs to be publicized (not kept secret!) and signage added to describe the boundaries of the areas and the species that depend on them. And these areas need to be maintained. There is growing public recognition of the need for protection of species that have existed for thousands of years, and of the fact that open natural areas of healthy wildlife add to the beauty of San Marcos and its citizens quality of life. Another thing: someone who buys land IS NOT GUARANTEED TO MAKE A PROFIT! That guy's a dinosaur, soon to be extinct.

Hey Mike wrote on Dec 15, 2007 9:37 PM:Mike, you are so right!!! I wish we had someone like you on our city council. Have you ever considered running? San Marcos needs to clean the slate of cons we have. They just don't get it, it's all about them and city profits; nothing about the needs of citizens.

To ALbert wrote on Dec 15, 2007 10:05 PM:To purchase this property, the city does NOT have to raise everyones property taxes. In fact Prop 13 doesn't allow it. Fair market value for this property is what its worth as habitat. Don't expect commercial property prices because it has no value in that. Money to purchase openspace is set aside from developers that pay into a pool of money rather than put park area in their projects as required. This would be a big opportunity to have parkland that is also educational rather than just more soccer fields. If the owner doesn't want to sell it, that's fine too. He can sit on it another 30 years for all I care. That works too!

Upham Scored Next Door wrote on Dec 15, 2007 11:04 PM:This guy Upham also owned the property across from it which now is the shopping center with Nordstrom Rack etc. The NCT wrote an earlier story about him owning both these properties. He won big on that one, so I don't feel sorry for him on this one. He knew what he bought and just counted on a council letting him build on it anyway. Thank God for our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protecting it, our greedy, ignorant, Council would never have protected it!!

Private property: Let the enviros buy it if it is so important wrote on Dec 16, 2007 3:04 PM:We have a perfectly reasonable, and simple, way for people who believe that must be saved. Get enough of your friends together and buy the property. Then you can do as you please with it, to include preventing anyone from setting foot in it. The problem is that "Environmentalists" are also Communists who don't believe in private property. Simple economics would show just how important all these things that needed to be protected were to enough people. If there really was the total groundswell of support that these activists claim, they wouldn't have any problem raising the funds to buy the land they feel is so important, and they wouldn't be whining that the feds aren't giving them enough in the court cases, because they'd just buy whatever they felt was necessary. What goes on now is a travesty. It's not up to the city, state, or federal government to pay for the beliefs of the enviros. What we have is the state establishment of Gaianism/Deep ecology/Secular Socialism, which is a Religion, as the official one of the US.

Commies? Oh my! wrote on Dec 16, 2007 6:03 PM:Private property...you just don't get it. We are all dependent upon the environment. Take it away and we die. What do you think provides us the air that we breathe, the food that we eat, the water that we drink? We are dependent upon it. It is sad that you think only "Commies" care about the future. You are obsolete, from an era that thought the earth was industructible. Some of us have evolved and understand...obviously you are still stuck in self preservation only mode.

What do Fairy Shrimp have to do wrote on Dec 16, 2007 6:42 PM:With the air I breathe, the water I drink, or anything other than your religion? If you and your fellow travelers think it's so important, whip out your checkbooks, and buy the land. You claim tens of millions of adherents, it would probably cost pennies each. I'm none of the things you allege. And the Endangered Species Act isn't about any of the things you claim are relevant to "the Earth being indestructible". BTW: We can't destroy the Earth, we can make it uninhabitable for us. The connection between the Endangered Species Act and a healthy environment for people is tenuous at best. I reiterate my assertion that the Enviro movement is an establishment of religion. It's not about clean air and water for people. In fact, many proponents hate the human race.

Dan Fogelberg said it best... R.I.P. Dan wrote on Dec 16, 2007 9:37 PM:Blind To The Truth by Dan Fogelberg In the overcrowded cities where the nights are bright as day You spend your weekly paycheck and turn your eyes away From the crisis we've created with our self-indulgent ways Living like there's no tomorrow, well that just might be the case Now they're tearing down the forests and the jungles of Brazil Without a second thought about the species that they kill But extinction is forever and still the forests fall And push it ever closer to extinction for us all But you're so... Blind to the truth, blind to the truth And you can't see nothin' 'Cause you're so blind to the truth, blind to the truth And the judgment day is coming Now the politicians bicker on the early evening news Pledging their allegiance to whoever they can use The corporate bosses snicker as they watch the profits soar They don't care what they make next month just as long as it is more They take our farms and marshlands, drive nature to the wall Just so they can build another Goddamn shopping mall And it doesn't seem to matter if they cannot see the stars As long as they can keep on building obsolescent cars They're so... Blind to the truth, blind to the truth No they can't see nothin' They're so blind to the truth, blind to the truth But the judgment day is coming Now you cannot drink the water and you cannot breathe the air The sky is ripping open and you still don't seem to care The soil is tired and toxic and unable to provide The clock is running out and there is nowhere left to hide Now there's laws that we must live by and they're not the laws of man Can't you see the shadow that moves across this land The future is upon us and there's so much we must do And you know I can't ignore it and my friend neither can you Unless you're... Blind to the truth, blind to the truth And you can't see nothin' You're so blind to the truth, blind to the truth But the judgment day is coming

The die is cast wrote on Dec 17, 2007 2:57 PM:This story focuses on a property owner that had property on both sides of Las Posas Road in San Marcos. Both properties had environmental issues. To get the project approved through the EIR process on what is now the Grand Plaza, the property owner allowed the endangered species to be moved to the other side of Las Posas, on the property that is the subject of this story. You cannot move vernal pools, it is impossible for the survival of the species. Now he has this property which will be protected habitat, as well as others will have this protected habitat on their properties along Las Posas Road.

Pappy wrote on Dec 17, 2007 3:14 PM:To R.I.P. Dan - Huh?

To Pappy wrote on Dec 17, 2007 4:32 PM:Dan Fogelberg died yesterday of prostate cancer. Very Sad, a great and talented artist who will be missed. Only 56 years young.

miko wrote on Dec 18, 2007 6:48 AM:Build the Strip mall... This land is nothing but a home to the homeless and gang drug trade... Let the owner clean it up an build a place that the community can be proud of.

Dan Fogelberg is... wrote on Dec 18, 2007 8:15 AM:Since several writers have mentioned Dan Fogelberg, I decided to look him up. He wrote "Leader of the Band" which EVERYONE knows, and he released over 20 albums. He died of prostate cancer - tragic loss to all of us. Anyone who is diagnosed should seek medical help and men should be tested regularly - advice from his website. Such a loss.

Miko...read it and weep wrote on Dec 18, 2007 9:08 PM:No mall can be built. You'll just have to live with that and cross the street to shop till you drop. Didn't you understand the story? Read it again.

escondidoresident wrote on Dec 19, 2007 10:53 AM:Hal Martin is the reason san marcos has everything and escondido has taco shops, check cashing places, and tatoo parlors. Leadership from Hal has brought you costco, best buy, lowes, in n out, pat and oscars, and the list goes on. Why dont you take our city council and we'll trade for Hal and others. Be thankful you have leaders with foresight of what a city should look and be like. You also have a nice brand new high school while we add portables here in escondido.

Jay wrote on Dec 19, 2007 11:17 AM:I simply don't believe in Fairies. You people are nuts.

To:escondidoresident wrote on Dec 19, 2007 2:13 PM:Just exactly where have you been ? Do you REALLY believe Hal Martin is the reason San Marcos has everything ? If you do, then who were the others on all of the City Councils in the last 15 or so years that brought this all about ? The only other person on today's city council that had a hand in it was Mike Preston. The others are off the council. Too bad, too. They really did care about the future of San Marcos.

Hey Escondio wrote on Dec 19, 2007 3:44 PM:PLEEEEZE TAKE HAL!! You have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like Hal talking about himself, or maybe his sidekick Rebecca. You would do us a GREAT FAVOR here in San Marcos if you can convince him to move and run in Escondido. He's almost termed out here anyway so so you could help us a lot so we could be rid of him!! How about taking Desmond too? Wow, that would be so great for San Marcos!!!

Enlightened citizens wrote on Dec 21, 2007 7:41 AM:It is unusual for an environmental article to get such a big reaction from people. Is it because people know about the existence of the vetlands, vernal pools, and are somewhat aware of their endangered inhabitants. It is enlightening that our citizens are that informed. The areas that are the subject of this article and the "Critical Habitat" are endangered themselves. There are developers who would love to sacrifice the land and its residents for their profit. The new San Marcos elementary school has actually set aside wetlands and made their existence educational. That is what must happen here. No doubt about it.

Time for a park wrote on Dec 21, 2007 7:52 AM:The Federal Register lists our own San Diego Fairy Shrimp as of December 12th, and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on December 19th. San Marcos is the "Critical Habitat" for the SD Fairy Shrimp, and it appears that it may be for the CC Gnatcatcher. Time for a park ! We have world-renouned botanists and biologists as well as Palomar College and Cal State San Marcos to help classify and identify all of the plants and animals in the wetlands and vernal pools. There are opportunities to turn this into something truly spectacular.

Vista Granny wrote on Dec 21, 2007 7:55 AM:The man in Texas bought the property. He owns it. But, he does not own the right to put anything he feels like putting there on the property. All cities have zoning laws and other requirements. Without those, you who dislike government "interference" in free enterprise just might have a pig farm, or nudie night club next door to your sacred home. The shrimp may be a valuable link or source some day. Perhaps the cure for cancer is in those little guys -- who knows?

RobertM wrote on Dec 21, 2007 6:45 PM:Okay, so he can't build a pig farm or a nudie bar. He ought to be able to build something. By not letting him build anything the government is making his land valueless without compensation. Imagine if the government said, "There is an endangered rat living in your car so you can't drive it anymore and you can't sell it and we won't pay you anything for it."

Choices made... wrote on Dec 22, 2007 10:31 AM:The owner of this property is the same owner of the Grand Plaza property which had "some" endangered species on it. At that time neither property was considered "critical habitat" and he moved the endangered species from the Grand Plaza site to the present 33 acres so that the Grand Plaza site could be used. He made his choice, nobody else did. Now that the "critical habitats" have been specified, those same sites will be protected. Why is it for some people that it always is about the money ?

More than 33 acres ! wrote on Dec 24, 2007 8:50 AM:This "Critical Habitat" we keep hearing about is not just these 33 acres, but it intails other properties, at least according to the Federal Register for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. What about stories about those properties and how these rulings will have an effect on them, please.

Martin vs. Environment wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:06 AM:If all of our council have the disdain that Martin is showing for the "Critical Habitat" and "Endangered Species", then we are in BIG trouble. It is this sort of disdain that has caused the species to be brought to the brink of extinction. All life is sacred. It really is. We should embrace this as an opportunity to be the forerunner in protecting endangered species by creating an Environmental Park. We need to retain the wetlands which provide life for so many species. This is not the "World According to Martin", or at least it had better not be !

Martin's Way... wrote on Dec 26, 2007 5:58 PM:Martin is quoted as saying "They're all going to die, it's just a matter of time." and it doesn't make sense to hold onto a tiny wildlife reserve in the middle of a city. Well, if everyone felt that way, nobody would ever visit any of the sites where we nurture the endangered, as we do find meaningful in this country. It is lucky that not everyone shares Martin's zeal and passion for the elimination of our environment. Not everyone feels the way Martin so deftly puts it - "...they're going to die anyway..." What a guy !

Fairy shrimp are elsewhere, but... wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:33 AM:There are still many more sites where the fairy shrimp exist, as well as the particular sites that have been declared"Critically Endangered Habitat" by the Federal Government. Those projects must find suitable sites for their fairy shrimp as well as other species, whereas these selected sites must remain - they are "Protected" thoroughly. Make the best of it. Create parks or at least nature preserves on the sites.

San Marcos could be a leader... wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:39 AM:San Marcos needs to follow the Federal Government's rules on this one. They need to take a much closer look at the "Habitats" and create an everlasting park and an everlasting preserve. One thing for certain, Many other cities as well as San Marcos are faced with needing sites for their endangered species that are not in "Critically Endangered Habitats" so these sites can serve more than one purpose.