turn the terrible tank
2005-07-05 18:39:09.850041+00 by
Dan Lyke
5 comments
Living out here in the San Geronimo Valley, we've been inundated recently with calls to "oppose the tank", a large underground water tank that the Marin Municipal Water District has proposed studying. A few things have seemed fishy about the opposition, one of which is that locals tell us that some of the loudest voices in opposition were also those who, in protesting any involvement with the French Ranch development, a subdivision which was clearly going to be approved, pretty much screwed over the local schools.
So we've been very skeptical, and yesterday got the chance to drill some people wandering around the Woodacre parade with petitions on the details. Today I'm trying to get in touch with the MMWD to see if I can get copies of the September 12th 2000 announcement of the tank mentioned in this article and the May or early June 2003 study mentioned in this one.
Yes, there are a few eminent domain issues I'd like to see if there are better solutions to, but based on what I've been able to dig out so far, the opposition seems like a big case of NIMBY coupled with the desire to loudly protest anything.
[ related topics:
Bay Area Law Current Events
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: Opposing the tank made: 2005-07-05 20:20:54.661072+00 by:
Dave Goodman
I would guess (not knowing the people involved), that they aren't protesting simply from NIMBY or to hear their own voices. They're probably opposed to growth. The only effective way to suppress growth seems to be to avoid building the infrastructure to support growth. As soon as you start adding more sewers, water storage, freeway lanes, etc., you've enabled and encouraged further growth. Malibu used its feeble sewer system to prevent developers from covering it in homes. So developers pressured the Los Angeles city council to improve the sewer system. (Developers pretty much own the LA city council.) To counter that, Malibu seceded from Los Angeles, and LA is still trying to force new sewers on Malibu.
I grew up in Los Angeles. If you don't manage growth, it tends to proceed until the infrastructure is maxed out, at which time you have water shortages, terrible traffic, polluted waterways, and hillsides covered with homes instead of trees. I watched it happen time and time again.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-07-05 21:19:32.954385+00 by:
Dan Lyke
I'm sympathetic to that view, but I think that in this case the growth has already occurred. The only way that some sort of tank won't be built is that we have a large fire, obviating the need for an interim water supply out here in the valley, or we can convince residents that they need to go with extremely low quantities of water for a few months while upgrades to the current processing plant, and then upgrades to the current holding facilities (I finally know where the old railroad tunnel went, it's the primary holding tank for the valley), are completed.
Perhaps we can work with MMWD on that front, but I'm told that several of the individuals involved in this effort screwed the local school out of a few million dollars when they tanked any ability of the school to work with the French Ranch subdivision developers to share certain resources. since the French Ranch subdivision was going to go in anyway, the only thing their opposition did last time was remove resources from the local schools.
I'm afraid that by taking a combative stance, rather than looking for solutions, they're going to do the same thing this time.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-07-05 21:22:00.572954+00 by:
Dan Lyke
Oh, and: Drop me an email some time, since you're local we should do lunch or coffee or something!
#Comment Re: made: 2005-07-06 15:27:52.213196+00 by:
ebradway
Dave: You seem to have made two contradictory statements:
"The only effective way to suppress growth seems to be to avoid building the infrastructure to support growth."
and
"If you don't manage growth, it tends to proceed until the infrastructure is maxed out, at which time you have water shortages, terrible traffic, polluted waterways, and hillsides covered with homes instead of trees."
Did you mean that protestors and city councils tend to fall into the trap of thinking that avoiding building infrastructure would prevent growth - and that it doesn't actually work? That's the pattern I see mostly - unless, like LA, the developers own city council. In Chattanooga, we see the same things except the developer was the Mayor and he owned a large percentage of downtown. Guess what Chattanooga is now famous for? Downtown revitalization. Guess what the roads are like in the outlying areas...
I first saw the "if we don't build it, they won't come" policy in play in Austin, TX in the 80s. Austin doubled in population in the early 80s but the city fell all overthemselves try to find ways to first contain it and then maintain it.
What Dan mentioned: "we can convince residents that they need to go with extremely low quantities of water for a few months" is probably the most effective way. You'd also be surprised the impact on move-ins when they are faced with water restrictions from day one. So both growth and demand are reduced and the infrastructure can upgrade more effectively.
#Comment Just politics made: 2005-07-10 07:12:36.669527+00 by:
TaoJones
In Chattanooga, we see the same things except the developer was the Mayor and he owned a large percentage of downtown.
The (former) Mayor John Kinsey? He weasled a few contracts that increased his "power" by a bit. Politicians do that. But despite his wealth, he's still a newbie compared to the "old money" power base.
Connect "River Valley Partners" with "Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise" for example. Follow the money....
On the flip side, at least our new Administrator of Education, Arts and Culture is Missy Crutchfield - a veteran of soft core porn.