serendipity

Misguided and greedy in Redwood City

I've been helping to fight the city council's plan to convert 1400+ acres of restorable wetlands in Redwood City. As a fly fisher and supporter of the environment, I am appalled at the level of greed and short-sightedness being demonstrated by my city. We don't need more condos, we don't need more development, and we certainly don't need any of it here, on the banks of the bay. What we need HERE are wetlands, protection from floods, habitat for wildlife and a healthier ecosystem for our damaged watershed.

Even if we didn't need all of those things, which we do, we simply cannot afford the water and electricity needs of such a massive project. Remember the electrical shortages that resulted in brown-outs? Would you welcome water rationing? You might not think about it now that it's fall and the rainy season, but come summer, we will all remember what that pain feels like.

The city is chasing money, pure and simple. Cargill and the developers won't be around later to reap the ecological rewards of such a misguided plan, and even if they are they'll be too busy counting their money to care.

For a while, it seemed the misinformation campaign they were running was winning, they won at the ballot box by confusing the voters. But now people are discovering how truly awful this plan is and they are starting to do something about it.

I am, and you can too:

Sign the petition.

Spread the word.

Dear karen,

We are glad to report that there is a growing rebellion against Cargill's plan to build a city in San Francisco Bay. We wanted to update you on these developments and ask for your continued support in protecting the 1433 acres of restorable wetlands in Redwood City.

In an important opinion piece in the Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto City Council member Yoriko Kishimoto calls out Cargill's plan as a grave threat to the Peninsula's future: "A proposed development in Redwood City so breathtaking in its size and misguided in its scope that nothing of its kind has been seen in half a century." She points out that "this is not an infill site and this is not the place for housing."

And the Redwood City Daily News recently reported that the Menlo Park City Council is moving to declare the project an environmental hazard to the region. Menlo Park Council Members Kelly Fergusson and Andrew Cohen agree that "the current Cargill/DMB development proposal seeks to reverse long-standing regional and local policies to protect the Bay and its wetlands."

Meanwhile, in an opinion piece published in the Redwood City Daily News Redwood City resident Marsha Cohen expressed concern that the city "is stonewalling requests for public records." She points out that the mayor works for business lobbyist SAMCEDA, a strong public supporter of the Cargill development. Ms. Cohen wants to know what advice was given to the mayor about the conflict of interest.

You can join these Peninsula leaders in the battle to save the Redwood City salt ponds. Please write letters to the editor in response to these pieces, expressing your own opinion:

• Yoriko Kishimoto, Guest Opinion: Salt ponds may become next huge development-impact battle, Palo Alto Weekly, Oct. 16, 2009
• Menlo Park council members take firm stance; 2 lead charge against Cargill, Redwood City Daily News, Oct. 16, 2009 (also in the Mercury News/County Times)
• Marsha Cohen, Guest Editorial, Redwood City officials too secretive about their ties to Saltworks project, Redwood City Daily News, Oct. 13, 2009

Redwood City Daily News letters can be sent to:
[email protected]

Palo Alto Weekly letters can be sent to: 
[email protected]  

Currently, the Redwood City Council is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine whether Cargill's application should move forward. Clearly, many leaders on the Peninsula have found a much cheaper answer: It should be dead on arrival.

Go to www.savesfbay.org/redwoodcity for more information and to sign our petition, and stay tuned for more interesting updates.

Sincerely,

Stephen Knight
Save The Bay Political Director
510.452.9261

 

Pollyanna goes to court

It was a sting operation. I'd noticed the police, mostly on motorcycles, by the side of the road, but since I wasn't even speeding, I didn't pay them adequate attention.

From the freeway I was following a beater car. Nothing special about the guy, it just wasn't a great car. As we approached the intersection traffic piled up and choices needed to be made: pull left for a turn, go straight to cross through, pull right to prepare for the right hand turn. He and I both pulled to the right.

Suddenly a cop appeared in front of the beater car. We both stopped and after a moment's reflection the cop sent the beater guy on his way and indicated that I should pull all the way over.

Huh?

I asked what I had done.

He answered that I "crossed into the bicycle lane too soon."

I asked why he did not cite the car in front of me and he answered that he "had to draw the line somewhere."

Uh huh.

Beater car gets to go, Escalade has to stay. Interesting. This is starting to smell a lot like bullshit.

I accept the ticket and go to traffic court. I tell the judge that I want to contest the ticket, rather than accepting the discount he is offering on my fine.

Three months pass.

I do my research.

I look up my "crime" in the California Driver's Handbook and print out the page that talks about the bicycle lane.  It says "When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time."

Okay, clear enough.  I download the relevant google maps and use the legend to measure my distance from the turn. 140 feet. Slam dunk.

I print out the handbook, maps and the photo I took from the scene (thanks Twitter) that shows where I was pulled over. I practice my story to make sure I can say it without being too verbose. Xav goes with me to court.

I dressed for the occasion, straight skirt, white shirt, business jacket and Stuart Weitzman Mary Janes. No, I don't think the judge will actually see or be impressed by my shoes, but they feel right and they are perfect for my outfit.

I sit in the defendants chair and listen to the cop tell his story. Right away his story is different from every other police officer's story. They all begin with "on such and such date, and being in full uniform I…" My guy begins by talking about the sting operation and how the residents of the area are upset that some vehicles are driving in the bicycle lane. He presents photos of the operation, something no other officer has done, and presents precise-sounding  measurements. His measurements are wrong of course. They put me at almost 400 feet from the corner and twice the distance of what is allowed. He lies too, saying that the car in front of me merged at the last minute - past the line of what was legal.

I argue. I show my pictures, my maps and state my case. I had followed the beater car from the freeway and was less than 150 feet from the corner.  The judge appears to listen to me and questions the officer. I feel more confident, and Xavier is sure that I have won. I feel like I have made my case and so I don't argue more pressingly.

Then suddenly the judge announces "Guilty." He gives me a greatly reduced fine and offers traffic school. I am stunned and appalled. The officer holds the gate open for me and gives me his version of an understanding smile.

Outside, Xav offers to pay my fine, saying that I did a great job, he'd thought for sure I'd won and that the whole thing was obviously rigged. He pointed to the officer who we could now see had a very nice binder that had been prepared for him ahead of time with photos and measurements of the scene. Then it hit me, doh! This was a sting operation. The officer said as much. So of course The City would provide him with the tools to fight people like me, who might not take the (ridiculous) citation lying down.

Looking back now, I'm still glad I did it. My fine was reduced and I made the officer come in to the courthouse and defend the city's bullshit operation. He may have won, but I held my ground. They only won because they cheated.

Would I do it again? Probably. The woman next to me had a pile of google maps in her hand and won because her officer didn't show up. That alone is good enough reason to try.

The thing is, I now understand with perfect clarity that this is a revenue program. The goal for the State of California is to give as many citations as possible and collect the fees, not to protect the people.

How do I know this? Well, I've now sat in court for two days. And while it is clear that there are number of deadbeats who break the law and try to get away with it, there are at least an equal number of people who have gotten caught in the sticky web of revenue generation. The case before mine, for example, was perfect: the guy was cited for not wearing his seat belt, a bullshit law if I ever heard one. Do I wear my seat belt? Yes. I also do not smoke but that is my choice. Anyway, he's supposed to wear it and the officer says "I was traveling northbound, he was southbound, his window was rolled down and I could plainly see he was not wearing his black seatbelt." The guy countered with "the windows of this car don't work, they don't roll down and my seatbelt was tan. I was wearing it." Guilty.

Ah.

Another tale: the officer freely admits she never saw the guy accused of driving without a license (at a car wash) actually driving. Second cop (the first cop's "witness") says "I didn't see him drive either." Guilty.

Okay then.

I swallow my feelings of "but this is America" and pay my bill. You're welcome governor Schwarzenegger, I wish I could believe this will help with our states financial woes.

 

Ps. I'd happily pay the fine if I thought it would keep our state parks open this year, but it won't.