Reconsidering redevelopment

By Steven T. Jones
My head is spinning after reading both the City Attorney's Opinion that struck down the successful referendum drive challenging the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, and the redevelopment plan itself. Reading the actual 62-page plan and its supporting documents is what Herrera contends voters needed to be able to do before signing the referendum. I contend that few sane citizens have the stomach or tools they need to glean much meaning from this big pile of governtese. And for wonks like me who have a long history of poring through these kinds of documents, I can't say that I found much in there to disabuse me of the notion that redevelopment was, is, and will probably always be a tool for displacement of citizens and subsidies for private developers, with only vague and easily waived controls on how the Redevelopment Agency operates. One exception in this plan does appear to be the outright prohibition of using eminent domain to seize houses -- a needed protection against a tool the Redevelopment Agency used to cleanse the Fillmore of low-income black people -- although other properties can still be seized, despite plan proponents claims that eminent domain is banned by the plan.
But my point here is not to rehash the plan, which you can read yourself (and could have read yourself before signing the petition, whether or not the petitioners had a copy with them for you to spend a couple hours reading on a street corner). No, my main point is that the plan is a big deal, one that should be voted on (at the very least by BHP residents). And it's sad to see city officials circling the wagons instead of allowing that to happen, particuarly when state law calls for city officials to err of the side of letting people vote, as even this opinion concedes.

On the day last week when the signatures on the referendum were certified as valid and the whole thing appeared headed for a vote, Sup. Sophie Maxwell (who represents the area) issued a public statement that began, "I greet today's announcement with a great deal of optimism. This referendum is a unique opportunity to bring a citywide focus to the Bayview Hunters Point community and to our plan to revitalize the neighborhood." Does she still feel that way? After all, this plan was given scant attention by the board or the media (relative to its importance and scope) before being approved. A campaign over the referendum would have allowed a full public discussion of its specific attributes, as well as the tool of redevelopment in general and its long history of abuses and usurpations. A vote would have been -- and could still be -- a healthy democratic exercise.

Comments (1)

alykat

Two sites to mention that have info on Redevelopment in the Russian River area, Guerneville, are

http://www.maherglass.com/monterio
and
http://www.riverpages/redevelop0.shtml

Hard to say if redevelopment is actually going to occur in Guerneville, likewise for the unwanted (and not needed) sewer project in monterio.

Needless to say, much of any ethics surely has not existed. For either project, when it came to voting and ballots were sent out, the county (Board of Supes) which heads both projects said that opposing votes had to be returned by a certain date. If a ballot was not returned or received by the county such ballot "would" be considered as being in favor. Nice bit of reality, eh?

Also consider deceit and false EIR (environmental impact report), or very flawed to say the least. No consideration for the damage that either would do to the wildlife, such as the equivilent of killing the fish in the river. Yup! Kill the fish, it stops otters, birds, and without birds there is less pollenation of plants.

Not to mention that we've been at our max for many years without harming the environment.

But I guess the county doesn't have any other place to dump Santa Rosa's "treated" wastewater (which still contains hormones, drugs, chemicals). Yes, they dump their effluent into the Russian River.

Redevelopment the county hopes will give them more tax money in their coffers. Won't help local businesses as outside developers will come into the area. And as for the Monte Rio sewer project. Not needed, and it would kill the river. It would only make unbuildable properties worth more and make them buildable.

The county also got the Russian River Chamber of Commerce to believe that businesses would benefit, thus most biz's believe that crock. And if anyone speaks out against either, well, many people won't listen.

We got a hard fight here on our hands coming up. Both projects tentatively to continue. The county still doesn't own the meadow that floods where the proposed sewer plant would go. Hard to say what will happen but there are still lots of locals who truly value this redwood area "as is".

I suspect that someone may have pushed Google's button to kill these two opposition sites, but MSN and Yahoo still show them. Google won't comment about why they're no longer listed.

There's a lot of facts on these two sites and if anyone would like to help our fight, then please link to these sites.

And, for redevelopment to occur in an area, the two requirements are that (1) an area be "urban" and that it (2) be "blighted". You got it! Twenty miles from Santa Rosa (in the country and with Guerneville being unincorporated) we are "urban" according to the county. And we are "blighted" on top of that!

Too much misused power goes to Boards of Supervisors, and many of those members can also hold positions as directors with other organizations that can become conflicts of interest.

I just had to chuckle to myself when I read "a vote" would be a healthy exercise. Best of luck.

Posted by alykat | December 18, 2006 03:46 AM

Comments (1)

Post a comment