The final fate of the Seeno Project was supposed to have been decided on June 3, 2008. But, that decision has now been postponed until October 2008…..
To back up a bit, in case you are not familiar with the Seeno project, it is a huge 527 acre commercial/industrial development proposed for the rolling hills in the north-east section of Benicia. It is officially named the Benicia Business Park but is commonly referred to as the Seeno Project because it is owned by Discovery Builders, an Albert Seeno company.
It is a controversial project because many citizens contend (with ample evidence) that the project, as currently conceived and designed, would radically damage the character and livability of Benicia forever. It fails to conform to many important goals in the General Plan relating to environmental and economic quality and sustainability, and the type of commercial businesses proposed for the development would likely weaken the Downtown as the City's central commercial zone, contributing to urban decay.
Following is a very rough outline of the review process so far on this project :
2007: The year of 2007 saw countless months of City Council meetings, votes, public hearings, public forums and presentations, and voluminous written and oral public comments on the Seeno Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was well documented by citizen comments that the EIR was inadequate in many ways and did not conform to the requirements of the Calif. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Feb. 19, 2008: In spite of its flaws, the Council approved the final EIR, but this vote did not approve the project itself. The Council told the applicant (Seeno) that the project itself could not be approved unless they came back with a revised project containing significant environmental improvements and substantial documentation to support it such as a supplemental EIR and a new urban decay analysis.
April & May 2008: In April the applicant brought forth a significantly changed project containing several environmental improvements but still lacking the degree of improvements that were needed and called for by the Council, and lacking the supporting documentation that was expected.
There were several hasty hearings in April and May, with insufficient time for review and documentation, because of a statutory requirement that mandated a final vote on the project by June 3, unless the applicant approved a time extension.
June 3, 2008: (actually 1:00 a.m., June 4) Sensing that they did not have the necessary three votes for approval of the project, the applicant agreed to a time extension so that an additional traffic study could be conducted (after school resumes in late August) to determine the extent of traffic congestion on E. 2nd Street.
Oct. 7, 2008: The results of the traffic study will be presented to the Council, and the applicant will pressure the Council to approve the project.
A citizens’ committee, Benicia First, is calling for denial of the current project, so that a new project can be designed that is a better fit for Benicia and for the environmental and economic constraints and opportunities that we now face in the 21st Century. To read more about their ideas for an alternative vision for the Seeno project, see the Benicia First Website at http://beniciafirst.googlepages.com
(To read more details about the review process chain of events, see the Benicia First Blog at www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com )
Showing posts with label urban decay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label urban decay. Show all posts
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Martinez: A Cautionary Tale of Urban Development and Campaign Finance
By Norma Fox
The sad tale of once small town Martinez was poignantly described by former Martinez City Councilman Bill Wainwright in a recent Contra Costa Times article (Nov.10,2007, pg. A19). [Wainwright, an incumbent, was defeated in 2006 due, in part, to funding by out-of-town developers who supported his opponents.]
Once a compact community surrounded by ranch lands and orchards, in the1950s Martinez began to meet the fate of many a small town that embraces without restraint the “improvement” schemes of wealthy real estate developers. Over a series of years, the peripheral open lands were annexed to the city and converted into housing developments. Now, just a few decades later, the population has jumped to 36,000 and Martinez struggles with a decaying town core, surrounded by sprawling subdivisions and shopping malls.
Why would the elected leadership of a vibrant community choose to adopt development plans that drain away the town’s charm and vitality? Were they suddenly put under a hypnotic spell by the corporate developers? No, they were gradually replaced. Over time, the outside developers simply poured huge sums of money into the election campaigns of candidates who were inclined to agree with their vision of urban development.
The hijacking of a town begins with the hijacking of elections, relentlessly and methodically, over a series of several election cycles. Here is Benicia, after our recent election, we now have a second chance. Although big money did its best to mesmerize our town with a tidal wave of slick and deceptive mailers (2/3 of all money spent came from outside special interest groups), there were enough alert voters (a mere 178 to be exact) unwilling to take the bait, that their efforts went down to defeat. Now let’s take the necessary steps to prevent the fate of Martinez from happening to our town. “The necessary first step,” says Bill Wainwright, “is to get big money campaign contributors out of local politics.”
Here is the Martinez tale in Bill Wainwright’s own words:
“Martinez is, like many older towns, a divided community. It’s divided between its older town core and the larger periphery that was annexed between the 1950s and 1980s.
Then, real estate developers sold “tax base improvement” to the town “fathers” (no town mothers then), starting a democracy-eroding relationship that continues to this day.
Subdivisions replaced ranch land and orchards. Most of the new residents in those subdivisions never connected with the old downtown core that was losing commercial vitality to freeway-accessible, suburban shopper-convenient malls and the new I-680 bridge that replaced the ferry [in 1962].
The developers needed votes on the council to get their projects through. They continue to contribute heavily to local campaigns, looking for and finding candidates willing to oblige their needs. They now have all five council members on their side.
With 60 percent of Martinez voters now living in the subdivisions periphery, it’s easy to win an election with slick mailers and big signs financed by developers.
The now infamous 2004 Measure M redevelopment advisory vote saw developers outspend opponents 5 to 1.
Voters and their candidates who have an actual connection with the town are regularly outgunned.
To reconnect our city government with its people, the grip of big money on elected officials has to be broken.”
The sad tale of once small town Martinez was poignantly described by former Martinez City Councilman Bill Wainwright in a recent Contra Costa Times article (Nov.10,2007, pg. A19). [Wainwright, an incumbent, was defeated in 2006 due, in part, to funding by out-of-town developers who supported his opponents.]
Once a compact community surrounded by ranch lands and orchards, in the1950s Martinez began to meet the fate of many a small town that embraces without restraint the “improvement” schemes of wealthy real estate developers. Over a series of years, the peripheral open lands were annexed to the city and converted into housing developments. Now, just a few decades later, the population has jumped to 36,000 and Martinez struggles with a decaying town core, surrounded by sprawling subdivisions and shopping malls.
Why would the elected leadership of a vibrant community choose to adopt development plans that drain away the town’s charm and vitality? Were they suddenly put under a hypnotic spell by the corporate developers? No, they were gradually replaced. Over time, the outside developers simply poured huge sums of money into the election campaigns of candidates who were inclined to agree with their vision of urban development.
The hijacking of a town begins with the hijacking of elections, relentlessly and methodically, over a series of several election cycles. Here is Benicia, after our recent election, we now have a second chance. Although big money did its best to mesmerize our town with a tidal wave of slick and deceptive mailers (2/3 of all money spent came from outside special interest groups), there were enough alert voters (a mere 178 to be exact) unwilling to take the bait, that their efforts went down to defeat. Now let’s take the necessary steps to prevent the fate of Martinez from happening to our town. “The necessary first step,” says Bill Wainwright, “is to get big money campaign contributors out of local politics.”
Here is the Martinez tale in Bill Wainwright’s own words:
“Martinez is, like many older towns, a divided community. It’s divided between its older town core and the larger periphery that was annexed between the 1950s and 1980s.
Then, real estate developers sold “tax base improvement” to the town “fathers” (no town mothers then), starting a democracy-eroding relationship that continues to this day.
Subdivisions replaced ranch land and orchards. Most of the new residents in those subdivisions never connected with the old downtown core that was losing commercial vitality to freeway-accessible, suburban shopper-convenient malls and the new I-680 bridge that replaced the ferry [in 1962].
The developers needed votes on the council to get their projects through. They continue to contribute heavily to local campaigns, looking for and finding candidates willing to oblige their needs. They now have all five council members on their side.
With 60 percent of Martinez voters now living in the subdivisions periphery, it’s easy to win an election with slick mailers and big signs financed by developers.
The now infamous 2004 Measure M redevelopment advisory vote saw developers outspend opponents 5 to 1.
Voters and their candidates who have an actual connection with the town are regularly outgunned.
To reconnect our city government with its people, the grip of big money on elected officials has to be broken.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
