Former Assemblymember Joe Canciamilla has authored a pretty persuasive opinion piece in today’s Contra Costa Times arguing that Shaw Environmental’s bid for the Concord Naval Weapon Station merits – at least – a very close and serious evaluation.

"…While I understand the initial shock in the Concord community to the proposal to transfer the Naval Weapons Station property to Shaw Environmental, I would like to register my support for continuing to research how this type of transfer might potentially benefit all of Concord.

For example, it is possible that by trading military construction services for the property, Shaw Environmental could receive title to the land at a market rate that includes Concord’s plan for public benefits.

If this is possible, the Shaw proposal could represent a huge windfall for the city of Concord and its residents…."

I’m sure there are strong arguments for continuing with the current BRAC process – but as best I can tell the positive aspects of the current path can – with Council and City staff leadership – be melded into a new process that might lead to greater rewards and control for Concord residents.  That deserves evaluation and public discussion.

Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s column in today’s Contra Costa Times – A tiff about transit villages – explains in greater detail the fears expressed by Mary Phelps in yesterday’s letters.  It also confirms my point about it not being about developers:

"Ironically, the bill is intended to produce more housing within transit villages, not toss Grandma onto the street.

It originated at BART where staffers are pushing cities and counties to intensify development around stations into transit villages.

Studies show that people who live or work near a station are more likely to leave their cars at home and use public transit, and heaven knows BART needs more riders and the Bay Area needs more housing."

Thanks, Lisa.  Just helping people connect the dots.

Mary Phelps writes a "Your Turn" letter in today’s Contra Costa Times entitled "Stop scary transit-village bill".  I’d point to it – but the Time’s website and RSS feed are currently making it unavailable.  It’s on page A21 of the print edition.

Mary expresses very legitimate concerns about the Supreme Court’s recent "Kelo" decision on eminent domain and Senator Tom Torlakson’s Senate Bill 521 to create redevelopment-like zones around transit stations.  In her view both are the work of developers – regarding SB 521 she writes:

"This bill looks like the developers are, once again, in control of our lives."

"Looks" is the key word in that sentence.  As we all know looks can be deceiving.

The Kelo case, in my understanding, was driven by public officials looking for additional tax dollars.  Whether you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision – it was about clarifying local government’s authority over land-use.  Blame the developers for what?  Asking the question?

Torlakson’s SB 521 – transit village bill is more a product of zealous environmentalists and transit advocates than developers.  The enviros want everyone to live in higher-density housing near transit to protect "open space" and prevent urban sprawl.  The transit advocates know that people who live in close proximity to transit are more likely to use it.  They want the ridership numbers to improve because there are growing questions about costs per rider and transit spending/usage in overall transportation funding discussions.  If the bill is approved and ever implemented – yes, developers may build it because that’s what they do.  But they’re not to blame.

Finally – if Mary is concerned about SB 521 she should also be interest to learn that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has just adopted a policy requiring jurisdictions to plan for higher densities at transit stations before it will allocate any transportation dollars it controls for those facilities.  I believe developers took no direct position on that policy other than to question its fairness to the Bay Area’s suburbs.  But it passed anyway – so blame the developers?

There is an article in today’s Contra Costa Times that illustrates why overzealousness (is that even a word?) almost always backfires.  And while the headline and beginning of the story lays blame at growth – or the provision of shelter for humans – the recovery efforts are also paid for, in part, by developers.  My favorite line in the story:

"The story of the bay checkerspot shows how hard it can be to protect the most innocuous of creatures; how acts of nature and human disregard combine to do them in; and how the best of intentions can backfire."

Unfortunately – this is not the lead paragraph, but buried later in the story.  I imagine the reporter or her editor thought it was not alarmist enough to pull in readers.

Link: Growth means bye, bye butterflies.