EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Don't Pave My Bay!

What's Your Reaction:

The gushing oil in the Gulf of Mexico is a daily reminder of how vulnerable our bays, estuaries and oceans are to devastation from human activities. But the efforts of brave people over decades also prevented man-made destruction that threatened to shrink the West Coast's largest bay to a narrow river.

Now thousands of people are working to restore San Francisco Bay for people and wildlife. So it's shocking that the country's largest private corporation proposes to pave over San Francisco Bay salt ponds where tidal marsh could be restored.

When I was born in 1961, more than one-third of San Francisco Bay had already been filled in for development, or diked off and drained for agriculture and salt-making. At that time, developers could pave the shallow bay without limit or regulation. Nearly every city on the bay had plans to fill in the marshes and mudflats on their shorelines, urged on by big corporations like Standard Oil and Santa Fe Railroad.

Then three Berkeley housewives began an unlikely revolution. They mobilized tens of thousands of residents over the next five years to defeat the powerful land barons and halt further paving of the bay. Their success inspired similar movements from the Chesapeake to Puget Sound, and prompted passage of the Clean Water Act and other landmark legal protections for the nation's environment.

Nearly fifty years later, it's astonishing to see a big corporation again pushing development in San Francisco Bay, over the outcry of the entire region.

Minnesota-based agribusiness giant Cargill has joined with Arizona luxury-home developer DMB Associates to propose a massive development of 12,000 homes, a million square feet of office space, plus schools and playing fields on 1,436 acres of sea level salt ponds in Redwood City, half way between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. These ponds were once thriving wetlands, diked and drained before any legal protections were in place for the shoreline. Cargill announced the end of salt-making here a few years ago, and now wants to make billions of dollars by building a new city in those ponds.

Cargill's project would put 30,000 people in the path of rising sea levels and behind a massive levee on unstable mud in earthquake country, paving over ponds that should be restored to wetland marshes and open space for residents to enjoy.

Scientists say that 100,000 acres of wetlands must be re-established around the Bay to support a healthy, sustainable eco-system. The Redwood City salt ponds have been slated for restoration as part of this goal and could be included in the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Just 60 miles north, the state is restoring wetlands on similar ponds Cargill sold in 2003.

In the 1960s, before the modern conservation movement blossomed, corporations believed they had the moral and legal right to fill in the Bay. But that careless disregard for nature has mostly changed, except in the corporate board rooms of Minnesota and Arizona where greed has bred blindness, denial, and developer double-talk.

Cargill and DMB have already spent millions of dollars on television and newspaper ads, laboring to depict this site as an industrial wasteland so toxic that it "is inhospitable to man or beast." They deny that the ponds are part of the bay and legally protected by the federal Clean Water Act. They suggest the project will not create traffic havoc, although the site is not served by public transit. They claim their project is the only way to protect the existing city from sea level rise, but leave levee construction up to future generations. They tout the jobs and consumer spending their project would create, but omit the cost of police and fire service, schools, libraries, wastewater, traffic, levee construction and maintenance.

The shipping industry warns that the development threatens the adjacent Port of Redwood City, the only deepwater port in the South Bay and an economic and jobs engine for the entire region. Because Redwood City doesn't have enough drinking water for thousands of new residents, the developer proposes to import water from the state's parched Central Valley farm region - a plan the state legislature's leading water expert calls irresponsible and unrealistic.

Although they are the ultimate outsiders, Cargill and DMB have infiltrated Redwood City, trying to buy influence with community donations, from sponsoring little league teams to buying the prize-winning turkey at the local 4H club; they have promised that group a farm.

But despite this public relations blitz, the hurdles to project approval are rising, and community opposition is growing. The State of California's new Climate Change Adaptation Strategy singles out restorable shoreline parcels as a place to prohibit new development. Save The Bay's Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the federal government has determined that the site is a protected water body under the Clean Water Act - a direct rejection of Cargill's legal claims and their public relations spin.

And in an unprecedented show of regional unity, more than 140 mayors, city, county, and state elected officials from throughout the area have officially opposed the project and asked Redwood City to reject it. San Francisco and San Jose newspapers both editorialized against the project.

San Francisco Bay is a natural treasure for the nation and the whole world. Bay Area residents long ago woke up and rejected corporations trying to pave the bay we need to restore, but Cargill and DMB still don't get it. That's why thousands of local residents are enlisting friends from all over the country to stand up for San Francisco Bay, and add their voices to the demand that Redwood City reject development on salt ponds, and "just say no" to Cargill and DMB's massive scheme to pave the bay. Learn more and add your voice --
visit DontPaveMyBay.org.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
10:24 AM on 07/16/2010
I'm surprised there is still a large parcel like this left and a corp. has the balls to think they can make another 'Foster City'. Not only that the real estate crash you'd think would give them pause.
I hope this is stopped, there is so little of the original shoreline/­wetlands left. Jeez if they want 'developme­nt' there's a nice recently closed auto plant on the other side of the bay in Fremont they can use.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TRex86
Enjoying life in West Ohio
09:12 AM on 07/16/2010
I think HuffPo should start a Peninsula site for Bay area chat and news.
02:45 AM on 07/16/2010
I spend a lot of time photograph­ing wildlife in the wetlands around San Francisco Bay. It always dishearten­s me to see the toll that avarice took on this beautiful bay. And yet, the restoratio­n efforts, the wetlands reclamatio­ns in the Bay Area are a spectacula­r counterpoi­nt to the greed. Given our recent history in terms of Bay restoratio­n, I'm always shocked that companies like Cargill garner any public support for this type of destructio­n. It's hard to believe that those who stand behind developmen­t of this type, live in the same place I do . . . the place where on any given winter sunrise, thousands of shorebirds and ducks blacken the shores, and color the wind with their calls. Where the only real reprieve from the dregs of modernity lie in the rich and vibrant habitat that is our wetlands. It only takes a few mornings sitting in the solace of an estuary to understand just how profound the loss -- and how monumental the gain -- when we give these areas a chance at life again.
03:25 PM on 07/15/2010
As a Newark resident (and a Bay Area resident since 1962), I've watched the Bay wetlands literally vanish before my eyes. This boondoggle must be stopped before the momentum becomes too great to halt it's progress. Count me in to spread the word on this further devastatio­n of a unique and vital part of our region. Thanks for posting this, David!
07:48 PM on 07/15/2010
Thanks for helping us protect and restore the bay!
02:59 PM on 07/15/2010
If this area was historical­ly subject to the influence of the tides, it belongs to the public as part of the public trust. If it was granted or sold to this private corporatio­n, the transactio­n was invalid. If that's true, the wetland could be taken away, and the corporatio­n sued to restore or mitigate for the damage to the trust. Alternativ­ely, if the wetland can be considered a water of the United States, it's covered by the Clean Water Act, and a Corps of Engineers permit would be needed for the developmen­t, which probably could be successful­ly opposed by a coalition of the sane. The Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club should be all over this one.
07:49 PM on 07/15/2010
You are right -- it is "waters of the U.S." and a place to be restored, not paved over!
photo
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
02:06 PM on 07/15/2010
Thanks for the post, count me and my friends in.
07:49 PM on 07/15/2010
Thank you for helping!
01:50 PM on 07/15/2010
If the corporatio­ns are pouring so many public bribes into this effort, there's a lot of corrupt, under-the-­table bribes going on as well; look for the public officials who are pushing for this project; they're the ones most likely to be on the take.
07:50 PM on 07/15/2010
With so much public opposition­, including from elected officials throughout the region, taking money from DMB or Cargill should be more of a liability than it's worth!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PunKinPai
Tact is just not saying true stuff. I’ll pass.
12:35 PM on 07/15/2010
Capitalism at its best, and its most stupid: Kill off an entire wetland area to build more homes and office space in a state where the unemployme­nt rate is 12.3%, mortage default and home repossessi­on rates are soaring, and the amount of vacant commercial property is sky high. Sounds like a plan.
07:52 PM on 07/15/2010
Preserving and restoring the bay has actually made this area a more desired place to live and locate businesses than if it had all been paved over -- a lesson that the public seems to remember and these developers are in denial about.
11:53 AM on 07/15/2010
Just where folks want to live, on a toxic swamp in the path of potentiall­y rising water. All taxpayers will be required to pay for the dikes necessary to save this neighborho­od from encroachin­g water. Another case of local officials looking for more revenues with no eye on increased future expenses as a direct result of their actions.
07:53 PM on 07/15/2010
The developer promises lots of benefits, but never wants to talk about the costs.
Deftguy
I train people and rehabilitate dogs
11:04 AM on 07/15/2010
Wow, thanks for opening my eyes on this. I live about three miles from the bay, and it is just beautiful in the morning when I take my dogs for a walk there.

Fight like hell to kill this project southbayer­s, no more bay encroachme­nt and exploitati­on by big businesses­..enough is enough.
photo
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
02:07 PM on 07/15/2010
I'm with you. I can see the Bay from here and more developmen­t is the last thing we need.
04:04 PM on 07/15/2010
You got yours.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TRex86
Enjoying life in West Ohio
10:45 AM on 07/15/2010
Beautiful San Mateo County already got hosed when Lehman Bros went down, defaulting on $155 million of Lehman bonds (second only to Florida). Now Cargill and DMB want to put the squeeze on by developing former salt farms and creating another Foster City in the Bay. They must be stopped not just because they threaten the vitality of the whole Bay, but they will ruin another significan­t portion of the county's bayshore, which lacks the infra-stru­cture to support forced population growth.

The real reason they want to push develpment into the Bay is the zoning laws make undevelopa­ble about 90% of San Mateo County (third smallest county in California­) for lots of good reasons. Hence, land values are super-prem­ium. So why not sacrifice the health of the Bay for money. Push that landfill out into the Bay. Kill the habitat. As Lenin observed, "A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him."
08:05 PM on 07/15/2010
There are appropriat­e infill sites -- this isn't one of them!
10:15 AM on 07/15/2010
p.s. We have our own "developme­nt" going in San Mateo at the former Bay Meadows Race Track, on both sides of the CalTrain tracks. Just how many more cars can the El Camino take!!!
photo
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
02:10 PM on 07/15/2010
Did they already tear down Bay Meadows? Shoot, I grew up in Hillsdale. I thought they were going to save it.
10:14 AM on 07/15/2010
Well said David. I live about five miles up the road, which takes about 25 minutes to drive due to the traffic, and I can not imagine what another high density city would do to this area. That said, there has been a total overhaul of Downtown Redwood City in anticipati­on of this project so your organizati­on had better get ready for some huge fight from the local honchos who have their palms greesed and therefore can not say no (to the developers­). Good luck.
08:06 PM on 07/15/2010
With the massive opposition already voiced, including from elected officials throughout the bay area, that palm greasing is more of a liability than a benefit ... maybe these developers will start to realize that.
10:13 AM on 07/15/2010
If this site is an industrial wasteland, how can they say it;s ok to build houses on it? And how did it become so toxic? Shouldn't they be made to clean it up and restore it, after making their money off it? I remember the 70's, and what a radical, "anti-busi­ness" idea it was that rivers and the oceans actually belong to the public, and didn't exist solely for the sake of profits. Thank god that idea became firmly imbedded in the national consciousn­ess, although it continues to be under constant attack. How sad that the fight is never over, but heartwarmi­ng to know it can be won.
08:06 PM on 07/15/2010
It's not toxic, nor identical -- that's developer spin.
Nearly identical salt ponds and crystalliz­ers in the North Bay are being restored to tidal marsh right now!
10:06 AM on 07/15/2010
This has got to be more corporate stupidity than greed. Who really believes they could sell 12,000 houses in California now?
photo
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
02:35 PM on 07/15/2010
I think Cargill & DMB don't understand that waterfront homes in the South Bay won't be prized. This is an environmen­tally minded area and few people will want a high end home that will be criticized by their friends.