Lennar's litmus test - Page 3

Lennar Corp. is proposing to build 10,500 new homes in southeast San Francisco, mostly on publicly-owned land. Will the Board of Supervisors stand up to its juggernaut?

|
(3)
Lennar Corp. is proposing to build 10,500 new homes in southeast San Francisco, mostly on publicly-owned land

Bloom reserved gravest concern for plans to cap, not remove, the contaminants from the shipyard's Parcel E2. "The concern is that if you put a cap on E2 without a liner then contaminants could scootch out during a seismic event, or over time, and cause problems because of the parcel's close proximity to surrounding groundwater and the San Francisco Bay," he said. "But to place a liner in there is very expensive because you'd have to excavate E2, at which point you might as well replace it with clean soil."

Bloom acknowledged that the Navy has argued that excavation would cause a nasty smell and nobody knows what is going to be released in the process.

"But long-term Bayview residents like Espanola Jackson have made the point that the community already lives within nose-shot of the southeast sewage treatment plant and would rather put up with a few years of nasty smells, given the relative benefits of cleaning the yard up," he said. "And how do we know a cap will be protective given the Navy's argument that we don't know what's down there?

"The thing that makes the most sense here is to clean up the shipyard to the best possible extent, but the city isn't planning to do that," Bloom added. "And the environmental community's bottom line has always been the bridge [over Yosemite Slough, which the Sierra Club opposes]. So the sense is that if the bridge goes away, so does their problem."

Comments

state and re-state that they want this blighted area developed before the same tired cast of "not at any price" actors and groups will allow it to go forward?

"That means going back to square one." What bullshit - CARE doesn't want this redevelopment to happen AT ALL - they'll do anything they can to stop it. The excuse of "49ers-related pressure" is absurd - how can that be quantified by the opponents of redevelopment in the area? Using that standard anyone could halt any project where a FEIR is required on the basis the FEIR was unduly influenced by "political pressure." Isn't "political pressure" what the opponents of the project are using to stop it?

This is why people hate the hypocrisy of politics. The Guardian will piss and moan about how important it is that the "will of the people" be respected when it comes to the voter's wishes (like with public power). Except, as in this case, when the voters go against what it is The Guardian wants - then they'll cheer each and every attempt to thwart that will.

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jul. 01, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

All the Guardian wants, Lucretia, is for the residents of San Francisco to get the best deal they can out of these massive development plans. A deal that doesn't turn into a slippery fish the minute project approvals get signed.

And I'm tempted to bet that you haven't yet cracked open the 7,000 pages of documents in the project's final EIR. Because when you do, you'll see first hand why folks in the know sense this is a political rush job with the 49ers being used as one of the biggest red herrings in San Francisco's long and twisted history of corrupt land use deals.

Posted by sarah on Jul. 01, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

You know - you're a great reporter, determined and thorough, even though I disagree with many of your conclusions. I often doubt the outcome but I don't doubt the hard work you put into getting there.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jul. 01, 2010 @ 5:49 pm