We're voting yes. Public parks are way cheaper and more fun than watching TV or going to the gym.

Its one thing to be surrounded by beautiful open land, its another to be allowed liberal ACCESS to that land. I lived in San Luis Obispo for many years, a place known for its beautiful vistas and undeveloped land. Unfortunately most all of that open land is privately owned by ranchers or other groups, keep the public off it entirely. You can look, but always from a distance.
After moving the the Bay Area, it became apparent that open land it just 1/2 the equation. Open and Accessible land completes the formula.
We're voting Yes

What about housing?

Garrett,
What would you like the board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to say about housing, and why? Do you want housing in Open Space land?

The land that the open space district owns is in the flood prone bayshore area and in the earthquake zone west of I-280. Building more housing is not very practical in either area. Preserving this land as parks and wildlife refuges makes perfect sense.

Good point about housing -- we definitely need more of it! But we should get more housing by rezoning existing areas in Mountain View, not by paving over open space with suburban sprawl that requires everyone to drive everywhere.

Why are renters getting a free ride here? The POSC should charge a usage based entry fee, so those folks who use it can pay for it. And why $300M? Sounds like a lot of pork for the entitled few who can afford to drive out to the coast. But what else should you expect from a tax authority?

Garret is exactly right. The majority of this land should have housing on it. POSC is partly responsible for the limited housing stock in the bay area.

Omander, this is not about housing, but about open space.

Mt. View can not handle more housing. It's saturated as it is already. There are a lot and i mean a lot of housings going up in San Jose. Just look at H85 and Cottle.

What's $300 million between friends? This is certainly something that Google should pay for.

Come on, renters are not getting a free ride. Of course, landlords are passing along that $3/year to their tenants.

Remember that the total that is advertised here is going to be spent over 40 years. This is not like a highway project that costs billions every year.

"...the entitled few who can afford to drive out to the coast."

Aside from the point that the original poster is clueless about areas closer by like Ranch San Antonio, I'm just gonna let that quote stand as an example of how the original poster views tings. People who can drive 35 minutes are entitled. I guess other entitled folks can choose to drive to Tracy in the other direction. Anyway, now you can consider the source and the validity of their argument.

I am not saying build housing on upended space land, but lend support to the idea of in fill on El Camino Real and elsewhere.

Open land should be referred to as greenfields. El Camino Real and most of Mountain View and cities have giant brownfield sites.

Greenfields. Forests, grazing land, farms, meadows, marshes or food production land.

Brownfields. Homes, apartment buildings, strip malls, office parks, warehouses, parking lots, parking lots and paved over places.

Garrett83, its apparent that you're very confused about the abilities, goals and land holdings of Mid Pen. It seems you want a complete re-evaluation of MV's zoning of land within city boarders. That has nothing to do with Mid Pen...nothing at all.

That should be unbuilt open space not upended open space.

I support open space and farmland protection, it seems we will save a farm next to a major job center. Allow farms to be paved over because we don't high density near the job.

Saving views is more important then saving vegetables grown in a valley.

Mid Pen has done a out standing job, vote yes and keep the wonders of open space. I just think the open space supporters need to work with idea preserving greenfield sites and work with smart growthers.