| Author |
Message |
    
C.W. Posse
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 03:59 pm: | |
The California Watershed Posse stops COSA RICO Mob from stealing Proposition 84 Bond funding BILLIONS! http://www.cwposse.org/pebble/html/2006_April_31_Eco-Terrorist_Racketeering_COSA _BORever.html
Just as in Watergate...it's aways the cover up that brings down the corrupted ruling class politcal elite!
Nancy Pelosi and the Baghdad By The Bay Area media have known about the California Watershed Posse's COSA Eco-Terrorist Racketeering Activities Referred to AG's Office since April 30th 2006. Who ordered the media blackout? http://www.cwposse.org/pebble/html/2006_April_31_Eco-Terrorist_Racketeering_COSA _BORever.html
Did Nancy Pelosi order this Bay Area media blackout on the Restore Hetch Hetchy eco-terrorism and racketeering activities AG referral?
How long has Nancy known about the Posse's AG eco-terrorism & racketeering referral?
The public has a right to know what Nancy Pelosi's role was in the Sierra Club Restore Hetch Hetchy conspiracy to drain the 2.4 million Bay Area water users Hetch Hetchy regional water system? http://www.cwposse.org/pebble/html/2006_May_1_911AmbientALERT.html
What is Nancy's relationship with Rex Maugham, the billionaire and sole owner of Forever Resorts, the largest National Park System private concessionaire with over 57 resorts located in our nations federal and state parks?
Will Nancy provide "full disclosure" of her relationship with Rex Maugham prior to the November 7th election?
Will the "Voice of San Francisco" Pelosi kill the Posse's funding proposal for the 911 ALERT Bay Area Homeland Security System?
Why did Nancy Pelosi and Leland Yee put their political careers ahead of protecting the Bay Area Water Users only regional water system? http://www.ambientalert.com/intro.html
Please Say It Isn't So Nancy!
-------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/16/MNGTUK06P91.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 16, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
A MILLION ACRES/Conservation advocates set goal of doubling Bay Area open space Chuck Squatriglia, Chronicle Staff Writer
Bay Area conservationists have set a bold goal of preserving another 1 million acres of land within 30 years, an unprecedented effort that would profoundly shape where and how we live by doubling the region's permanent open space.
Never before has so vast a metropolitan landscape been protected, and the very idea alarms some who say a region with a critical housing shortage and ghastly commutes cannot afford to set aside 46 percent of its land.
Conservationists argue preservation and growth can occur simultaneously.
They concede there will be compromises all around as they work with landowners, developers and policymakers. And they know reaching their goal will require a level of money and public will that may be difficult to muster.
Yet they do not see these challenges as insurmountable and believe setting aside so much land is essential to retain the region's natural splendor as the population grows by a projected 1.6 million in the next 25 years. And though it took more than a century to protect the first million acres, conservationists say the second million must be protected within 30 years if it is to be protected at all.
"The next couple of decades are key and the last real chance for us to do this," says Walter Moore, vice president of the Peninsula Open Space Trust. "They say, 'Once it's paved, it can't be saved.' That's true, and that's the pressure we face."
It's tough to see the concern. From Point Reyes National Seashore to the tiniest urban tot lot, the Bay Area enjoys what is likely the most open space of any metropolitan area in the world, conservationists agree.
Developers note that just 16 percent of the region's 4.5 million acres have been developed, and some feel the conservationists are being alarmist.
But most of what people think of as open space isn't protected. It's private land that can be developed at any time.
A report the Greenbelt Alliance released in May found that 1 of every 10 acres in the region is at risk of development within the next three decades -- the figure is 1 of every 5 acres in Contra Costa and Solano counties.
Young Canyon, 18 acres on the north face of Mount Diablo, marks conservationists' first step toward their next million acres. With its panoramic view of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and Carquinez Strait, it would have been a fine place to build a home.
And for years, that's exactly what Gilbert and Phyllis Young dreamed of doing. They never got around to it, and their four children inherited the land in 1999. Two of them donated their share to the conservation group Save Mount Diablo, which brokered a deal, announced June 28, to buy out the other two siblings for $300,000.
Save Mount Diablo had wanted the land soon after botanist Mary Bowerman founded the organization in 1971. The canyon is bisected by the mountain's only band of mottled green serpentine rock, and it is home to 123 species of flowers. Its acquisition adds another small piece to the 89,000 acres on and around Mount Diablo that have been permanently protected.
"It's only 18 acres, which isn't much when you look at 1 million acres,"says Ron Brown, executive director of Save Mount Diablo. "But you can see its value in the context of the entire mountain."
From Young Canyon you can see the town of Clayton approaching from the north. The Kirker Hills lie to the east, passing through the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The station is being turned over to the city, and the debate has started over how far up the hills to allow construction.
One million acres is the sum of those projects that conservation organizations have identified as individual goals, says Bettina Ring, executive director of the Bay Area Open Space Council, a coalition of 55 local, regional, state and federal land preservation and management groups.
In the coming months, conservationists will map the areas they'd like to see protected and identify what the region will need to accommodate a population regional planners expect to grow 23 percent by 2030. They won't offer any specifics yet because they worry doing so will drive up prices or make it tougher to acquire land.
Among their top priorities are creating urban parks, preserving agricultural land, linking existing parcels of public land and protecting critical wildlife habitat.
In the future, the size of individual acquisitions will be relatively small, such as Young Canyon, because most of the vast tracts remaining in the region have already been protected or divvied up into smaller parcels.
And whereas most of the land already protected was purchased, conservationists say land donations and conservation easements -- contracts in which a landowner agrees to preserve the land but retains ownership of it -- will become increasingly common, in no small part because of the skyrocketing cost of land.
Local land conservation organizations are heavily supported by philanthropists, foundations' individual donors and other sources. The groups are also counting on Proposition 84, the $5.4 billion water and parks bond on the November ballot. If approved, the bond would provide at least $1.3 billion for wildlife and forest conservation, local and regional parks and nature-education centers. So far, the proposition has no formal opposition.
Four years ago, Californians approved Propositions 40 and 50 by comfortable margins, providing $6 billion in bonds for park and water-quality projects.
"We've found a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for creating more public access to open space and parks," says Mark Baldassare, director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California. The institute's polls since 2000 have consistently shown that a majority of Californians support using tax dollars to expand open space.
But some residents say the idea goes too far, and they question the need for more open space when much of what we have goes unused. Indeed, a Public Policy Institute poll found that two-thirds of Californians do not believe there is a shortage of such lands.
"Virtually no one uses the 1.1 million acres we now have," says Novato resident Rex Allen, who says he often finds himself alone when he visits the parks around his home. He calls the conservationists' goal a "land grab." "Why do we need another million acres, costing taxpayers more millions?"
Others worry protecting that much land will curtail construction, driving up prices in a region where the median home price was $631,000 in May.
It's a point echoed by the Homebuilders Association of Northern California, which argues people will be driven deeper into the Central Valley in search of affordable homes, further clogging congested freeways and adding to already hellish commutes.
"I think it's myopic to suggest that 46 percent of the land available in the Bay Area ought to be permanent open space," says Joseph Perkins, the builders association president. "What they're saying is those who don't own property will be part of a permanent class of Bay Area residents who don't own land. Will it be easier or harder for our middle class to acquire property if they realize their goal? That's what it comes down to."
Conservationists argue that is true only if we continue building ever more suburban tract homes. They admit that they'd like to push the Bay Area toward greater use of urban redevelopment, infill construction, high-density housing, transit villages and smaller homes on smaller parcels.
It's called "smart growth," and planning experts join conservationists in saying it will allow the region to grow while providing sufficient open space to accommodate that growth.
But Perkins argues infill projects and redevelopment construction simply won't provide all the homes the region needs, and even if it did, not everyone wants to live in an urban setting.
"Three-quarters of residents of the Bay Area want to live in communities that the Bay Area Open Space Council would categorize by the pejorative term 'sprawl,' " he says. "One person's sprawl is another person's dream come true."
Conservationists recognize the idea of setting aside so much land will spark debate, and that's one reason they've announced their goal. With development pressure mounting and the population growing, they say now is the time to begin the discussion. They don't expect everyone to agree with them, but they believe everyone can agree the landscape must be preserved to some degree. And so they're confident they can forge consensus on a balanced approach to preservation and growth.
"The idea of mobilizing the region around open space is unprecedented,"
says Amanda Brown-Stevens, field director of Greenbelt Alliance. "Open space is something we all value, and the devil is in the details. But I think people are very excited."
By the numbers
4.5 million
Total acreage of Bay Area land
720,000
Total acreage of developed land
1.1 million
Total acreage of protected open space
2 million
Total acreage of protected open space sought by conservationists
Source: Green Info Network Bay Area Protected Lands Database, Homebuilders Association of Northern California
E-mail Chuck Squatriglia at csquatriglia@sfchronicle.com. Acreage of open space by county
County Acres
Alameda 115,712
Contra Costa 125,296
Marin 194,884
Napa 132,846
San Francisco 5,453
San Mateo 111,970
Santa Clara 197,973
Solano 70,899
Sonoma 144,144
Sources: Bay Area Open Space Council, Green Info Network Bay Area Protected Lands Database |
|
