Council delays Open Space vote

Frustrated Redwood City council members delayed a decision Monday on whether to put the controversial Open Space Vote initiative on the fall ballot as division emerged for the first time among its backers.

[mark fassett]

As one who commented, I'm a little surprised the author of this article left out a serious issue. There are seven residences that will be directly impacted by the "open space" initiative. These seven are adjacent to Red Morton Park... nowhere near the bay, and are not open space... just homes. This initiative is poorly written. If the authors of the initiative wanted to preserve open space they should have done a couple of things. 1st, make sure only to address OPEN SPACE. Second, write the initiative in a way that incorporated all open space in redwood city. As it's written, many parks are excluded. I am an environmentalist, and this STINKS. You'll be hearing a lot more about this.

[Tegan]

mark fassett wrote:

As one who commented, I'm a little surprised the author of this article left out a serious issue. There are seven residences that will be directly impacted by the "open space" initiative. These seven are adjacent to Red Morton Park... nowhere near the bay, and are not open space... just homes. This initiative is poorly written. If the authors of the initiative wanted to preserve open space they should have done a couple of things. 1st, make sure only to address OPEN SPACE. Second, write the initiative in a way that incorporated all open space in redwood city. As it's written, many parks are excluded. I am an environmentalist, and this STINKS. You'll be hearing a lot more about this.

Actually, those seven houses are zoned as park land. The council years ago wanted to buy those houses to expand Red Morton park and rezoned them to make that possible if the owners ever sold. Nothing ever came of it but the home zoning stayed as park land. That's hardly the fault of the writers of the initiative. Legally you can't say that a portion of space zoned for parks is exempt while all other park space is kept in. Having said that, the easiest thing for the Council to do is rezone those seven houses. Nobody wants those homeowners harmed. This is easily solvable if the council wants to do it.
But let's get to the real issue. Which is Cargill and how they have colluded with the city council to try and put through a development that will add approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people to RWC's current population of 75,000 on land that is not zoned for housing. Cargill a $90 billion a year corporate colossus that was named as one of the 10 worst corporate polluters in the country two months ago by Conde Nast; Cargill which knowingly buys agricultural produce in Africa from plantations using slave labor; Cargill which is one of the major contributors to destroying the Amazon rain forest: and the same Cargill which in the last 10 years has been the biggest polluter of San Francisco Bay. If this city council would spend more time paying attention to homeowners like yourself instead of planning secret deals with Cargill, we wouldn't be having this furor. Try calling Mayor Foust and asking her why she doesn't immediately begin the process to get your house rezoned. The council made this mess, they should clean it up.

[mark fassett]

Sorry Tegan, you are incorrect. We are all zoned R-2. They are NOT zoned as "park." You're confusing zoning with the city plan.
You are also incorrect about it being "easily solved." The initiative takes a snapshot of the General Plan (again, not zoning) as of March 8 of this year.
I am a long time Sierra Club member and environmentalist. I have long supported open space initiatives. Unfortunately, this one has come to bite me in the butt. I understand the desire to protect the Cargill land, and that is to be commended. However, by writing this initiative poorly, they have impacted me and 6 of my neighbors on our residential land. I frankly am appalled IF Save the Bay knew about this and went ahead with it anyway. Doing the RIGHT THING is more difficult, but it's what I expected of environmentalists, and it's what I've always supported. This is NOT doing the right thing!

[Tegan]

mark fassett wrote:

Sorry Tegan, you are incorrect. We are all zoned R-2. They are NOT zoned as "park." You're confusing zoning with the city plan.
You are also incorrect about it being "easily solved." The initiative takes a snapshot of the General Plan (again, not zoning) as of March 8 of this year.
I am a long time Sierra Club member and environmentalist. I have long supported open space initiatives. Unfortunately, this one has come to bite me in the butt. I understand the desire to protect the Cargill land, and that is to be commended. However, by writing this initiative poorly, they have impacted me and 6 of my neighbors on our residential land. I frankly am appalled IF Save the Bay knew about this and went ahead with it anyway. Doing the RIGHT THING is more difficult, but it's what I expected of environmentalists, and it's what I've always supported. This is NOT doing the right thing!

Agreed, but you are still in this position because of past decisions by the City. If you were the homeowner who spoke last night, I commend you as being just about the only one speaking who didn't have a hidden agenda. You may have gotten sympathy from the council, but be aware some of those same council people are happy your in this situation because it gives them a campaign issue to fight the charter amendmentand helop Cargill. The city can solve your particular issue, if they want to. I think they will wait until after the election however. No one that I know of wants to limit the prerogatives of existing homeowners on their on property. Since the city didn't know until a couple of weeks ago that your property was involved I can't see this as being deliberately planned by Save the Bay. For what purpose?They simple used the city plan as they had it from the city. Again, you are clearly the wronged party here, I just think the city is part of the problem, not just Save the Bay.

[mark fassett]

Of course it's the city's problem to begin with by having us as "Park" in the General Plan. But it's also Save The Bay's problem. IF they went ahead and did this knowing of our situation, that says a ton about their operating practices. If they did this without knowing, then it says a lot about their planning process. EITHER WAY, Save The Bay made a BIG mistake. I understand the City could very well use my situation to their advantage if they choose. Save The Bay better realize this and figure out a way to get us out of this situation, because if they don't, I will do everything I can to make sure this thing fails, and fails badly. I know a lot of people in the city and I'm not afraid to go door to door on this, speak to community organizations, etc. If Save The Bay wants to protect wetlands (which I have almost always supported), they should be supporting wetlands and NOT making this into something else. I am VERY disappointed in the way they are doing business. I expect environmental organizations to be above board and do the RIGHT thing, not engage in these practices.

[Tegan]

mark fassett wrote:

Of course it's the city's problem to begin with by having us as "Park" in the General Plan. But it's also Save The Bay's problem. IF they went ahead and did this knowing of our situation, that says a ton about their operating practices. If they did this without knowing, then it says a lot about their planning process. EITHER WAY, Save The Bay made a BIG mistake. I understand the City could very well use my situation to their advantage if they choose. Save The Bay better realize this and figure out a way to get us out of this situation, because if they don't, I will do everything I can to make sure this thing fails, and fails badly. I know a lot of people in the city and I'm not afraid to go door to door on this, speak to community organizations, etc. If Save The Bay wants to protect wetlands (which I have almost always supported), they should be supporting wetlands and NOT making this into something else. I am VERY disappointed in the way they are doing business. I expect environmental organizations to be above board and do the RIGHT thing, not engage in these practices.

You and your neighbors must be protected. Good luck.

[mark fassett]

Tegan wrote:

<quoted text>
You and your neighbors must be protected. Good luck.

Thank you.