"NIMBYs", Endangered Species "Takes" & State Bad Manners

Two years ago, it would have been scarcely believable to imagine state bureaucrats employing name calling to push ther ambitious plans for regional growth.Yet astonishingly, there it is---the N__ word---embedded twice in an official state publication.

“NIMBYism can be prevented.” “Good Design Beats NIMBYism In Irvine.”

Oh, but it’s true. These quotes are to be found in a publication titled “Myths And Facts About Affordable And High Density Housing” published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Simply go online, type the title in the search box---which brings up the state-sponsored brochure---and then scroll down to Page 7.

Up for further amazement? Drop to the end and view the credits, citing a galaxy of state sponsored studies and experts---some 54 references in all.

The point is that the bureaucrats of the state’s alphabet agencies (ABAB, MTC, BAAQCB, BCDC, et al) now think they no longer need or want to hear dissenting views on their proclamation that “Density….at between 20 and 50 units per acre can be designed to fit in most California communities.” (See page 6.) 

Apparently, if you raise a democratic voice in opposition, you just haven’t correctly understood. You simply have failed to recognize the benefits of what futuristic state planners envision as a multitude of perfectly designed, perfectly dense, perfectly diverse and socially equitable multi-story developments located near transit. Quite possibly coming, sooner rather than later, to a suburban neighborhood near you.

The Bay Area Plan Draft EIR is a marvel in the care and attention given to possible impacts on flora and fauna. The section on “Biological Resources” fills 80 pages of the  1000+ page EIR. Predictably, state planners foresee no impacts on sensitive species once ample mitigation measures are deployed to potential construction sites.

Consider breeding raptors. The state proposes to establish a “no-disturbance buffer zone around active nests during the breeding season until the young have fledged and are self-sufficient….” For raptors, that buffer is a minimum of 250 feet. (Page 66).

The state has good reason to tread cautiously here.

“‘Take,’ as defined in Section 9 of the FESA (Federal Endangered Species Act), is broadly defined to include intentional or accidental ‘harassment’ or ‘harm’ to wildlife.” (Page 39, PBA Draft EIR.)

Yet, in all 80 pages, state report writers make zero (0) mention of possible impacts to the human ecosystem and human “nesting” sites once single-family neighborhoods are designated Priority Development Areas, rezoned accordingly and dense multi-story development goes forward. How very odd considering that many in suburbia bought their homes to escape the very urban noise and congestion that state planners now want to re-insert. Do state report writers tacitly assume that human beings are less biologically significant than breeding raptors? How about the “take” of human quality of life?

Add NIMBY name-calling and you’ve got a serious case of STATE BAD MANNERS.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Those who wish to comment on this issue are advised to make their own study and assessment of Plan Bay Area Draft and the PBA Draft EIR, both of which are posted online. Online comments may be submitted at www.OneBayArea.org. Comments in writing may be sent to MTC-ABAG , Plan Bay Area Public Comment, 101 8th St., Oakland, CA 94607. Comment period closes Thursday, May 16 at 4 pm.