Service League - The Spectrum Magazine - Redwood City's Monthly ...

P.S. The People Speak: Letters to the Editor
OSV requires a vote for change
Dear Editor,
The Open Space Vote (OSV) initiative has qualified for the ballot and, if
passed, will give citizens the right to vote on any proposal to develop open
space lands, including Cargill’s 1,433 acres of former salt ponds. With over
6,500 Redwood City voters signing the OSV measure, it’s clear this is a vote
that Redwood City residents absolutely want.
Residents should know this vote extends only to changes in open space
zoning or General Plan uses. Legal analysis of OSV clearly states that all
uses allowed under current zoning can be permitted without a vote. For
example, existing uses allow expanding the Redwood Shores wastewater
plant or the Red Morton Park senior center without a vote. OSV cannot
legally take this permitting authority away from the city. OSV requires a vote
only for changes that would allow development of open space inconsistent
with existing zoning.
Lynne Trulio & Judy Serebrin
Redwood City
Open Space Vote protects neighborhood parks
Dear Editor,
Neighborhood parks are constantly being eroded — for a new fire station,
or day care, or a museum. (All apple pie — how can you oppose these!)
However, these take away open space and recreation area forever. Because
park land is “free,” city councils find it easier to use this land to launch
other needed projects. The latest trend is taking park land for developing
“workforce housing.” (Also apple pie!)
Redwood City’s Open Space Vote measure is visionary in that it protects
parks as well as critical baylands. This is why 20 percent of the registered
voters signed the petition in such a short time to put it on the November
ballot. The council should listen to its constituents.
Gita Dev
Cargill’s infamous corporate environmental record
Dear Editor,
Cargill, Inc., a privately held, multinational corporation, which owns 1,433
acres of Redwood City’s baylands, would have us believe they are good
environmental stewards. Their track record says otherwise.
In 1992, the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP) said that the company
had the worst environmental record in the agribusiness industry. Cargill’s
record was tainted by the 1988 spill of 40,000 gallons of phosphoric acid into
the mouth of the Alafia River in Florida, which killed a large quantity of fish.
A subsidiary, Gardinier, paid a $2 million fine.
In 1995, Cargill and other companies agreed to pay for the cleanup of a
Superfund site along the Fox River in Illinois, where toxic chemicals had
been dumped for many years.
In 1997, Cargill’s Ladish, Wis., malting unit paid $450,000 for criminal
violations in connection with the death of a worker who fell from a grain
elevator fire escape.
In 2000, Cargill’s beef, pork and poultry operations in Waco, Texas, had to
recall 17 million pounds of turkey products after an outbreak of listeria.
In 2001, Cargill’s North Star Steel subsidiary paid $7.7 million to settle
allegations that it misled Arizona officials about emissions from the
company’s plant near Kingman.
In 2001, Cargill paid an administrative penalty of $60,000 to Linn County,
Iowa, for failing to file required air pollution control reports.
In 2002, Cargill Pork paid a $1 million fine for illegal dumping of hog
manure at its facility near Martinsburg, Mo.
In 2004, a Cargill fertilizer plant in Hillsborough, Fla., dumped 60 million
gallons of toxic wastewater into a creek that feeds into Tampa Bay and was
fined $270,000.
In 2005, Cargill signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice
and the EPA that settled charges that the company’s plants throughout the
country had violated the Clean Air Act. Cargill agreed to pay a fine of $1.6
million and to spend $130 million on pollution reduction.
In 2006, Greenpeace protested Cargill’s destruction of the Brazilian
rainforest to allow expanded soybean production.
In 2007, Cargill Salt’s plant in Newark, Calif., was the site of a series of
spills of toxic brine into a canal. The company has been fined several times
over the incidents, the latest being a $228,000 penalty.
In 2007, Cargill announced recalls for 2 million pounds of ground beef
after outbreaks of E. coli poisoning. The recalls included beef that had been
treated with carbon monoxide — a process that makes meat look fresher longer.
The Cargill salt marsh lands are our last remaining bayland parcel, which
should be restored to full tidal wetlands like the South Bay Restoration
Project. This area is highly valuable for recreation, flood protection and
carbon sequestration as well as the migrating birds and wildlife.
Voters in Redwood City need to have a say about their future, not just
Cargill and seven members of the City Council.
Cynthia Denny
Redwood City
Not about open space
Dear Editor,
There are a couple of misconceptions in the Redwood City charter
amendment debate that really need clarification. First, some proponents state
that the homes affected by the measure are really “not affected” because
zoning regulations protect them. This would be true if the measure under
consideration addressed zoning. It does not, however. It specifically addresses
the general plan. While the general plan is a foundation of zoning, it is an
entirely different discussion.
The proposed amendment requires a two-thirds voter approval in Redwood
City on building and improvements on hundreds of acres of private property
designated as potential park and open space in the general plan, not land that
has been zoned park and open space.
These letter-writers also claim that the simple fix would be to redesignate
the property in the general plan. However, the amendment locks all that land
into the current designation, so if the amendment passes, redesignation is not
possible.
That needs to be clearly stated not only in these letters to the editor but in
your news pages as well. I don’t think it has been clearly reported as such, or
we might not be having this discussion.
Second, the amendment is reported to be a protection of city parks and has
been incorrectly reported as such in the Aug. 11 edition of the Daily Journal
(“County to comment on change”). In fact, it only protects half the parks, and
approximately 90 percent of the land covered is actually private property,
much of which is currently used for industrial purposes.
We need to make those distinctions very clear in this debate. This is not
about open space or parks. Those issues are afterthoughts. This is really
about how the citizens of Redwood City can use their own private property.
Lou Covey
Redwood City
What are we thinking?
Dear Editor,
In reading the newspaper a few days ago, I saw an advertisement for voting
“no” on Measure W, which has to do with the subject of open space in the
city of Redwood City. I saw that the Redwood City Parks and Recreation
Department and members of the Parks and Recreation Commission are
all endorsing and asking voters to say “no” to Measure W and not allow
outsiders like a company and/or group from Oakland to purchase the open
space and maybe build something such as a factory and/or plant that might
(continues on page 23)
The Spectrum