Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letter: Council should oppose huge Cargill project

Original post made on May 27, 2009

News of Cargill's development plans for 12,000 homes and 30,000 new residents on the Redwood City baylands should attract the attention of Menlo Park's City Council.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 12:00 AM

Comments (13)

Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 27, 2009 at 7:54 am

Editor, Steve Schmidt takes a position against what I see as sustainable development of the Cargill property.
I take weekly walks, and have taken thousands of photos, along the beautiful Bayside trail around Pacific Shores. Cargill's proposal is synergistic with the surroundings and is a clearly sustainable use of the property.
Water is not an issue. There are copious amounts of recycled water available to the North and South of the project. Enough, in fact, to turn the old Marsh Road dumpsite into a year round Emerald Isle with an environmentally friendly golf course. And, some of the economic "green" that would produce wouldn't hurt our local economy.
I ask these would be stewards of the land to address some of the other land use issues in the County.
How about stewarding the vast amounts of open space owned by the public? Surely, stewards of that land could bring in some "green" to help sustain them.
Where were environmentalists when the I280 compromise added a half mile to the commute each way to placate the "horsey" people? Have you noticed that the added exhaust fumes from that half mile have fertilized an invasive species to the detriment of the checkerspot butterfly habitat?
And, what about the SF Water Department Grant of Scenic and Recreation Easement(January 15, 1969), part of the compromise, which included 5 golf courses in the I 280 corridor.
Perhaps the Tiger Woods Foundation could collaborate with the Committee for Green Foothills to bring back some of that green stuff(both kinds) to San Mateo County.

Jack Hickey
243 Ferndale Way
Emerald Hills, CA 94062

Posted by stunned, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 27, 2009 at 9:10 am

Is this a joke? The developer wants 12,000 homes and all the roads and other infrastructure needed to support them on bay wetlands? Is anybody really entertaining such a proposal? What hubris! What stupidity.

Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 27, 2009 at 9:50 am

This "anonymous", negative post is inappropriate.

Posted by another idea, a resident of Atherton: other
on May 27, 2009 at 9:59 am

I would like to see a WalMart mall plan in Emerald Hills.

Posted by Law and Order, a resident of Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on May 27, 2009 at 11:39 am

I am in favor of the Cargill development provided that a Federal Maximum Security Prison be erected at Bay Front Park to replace the prison in Gauntanamo Bay Cuba.

Posted by Hello and Welcome!, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 27, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Jack Hickey:
"This "anonymous", negative post is inappropriate."

Welcome to the forum, Jack - and get used to it. It's actually quite tame and friendly compared to say, the Palo Alto Weekly forum.

By the way: 12,000 houses built on low-lying land is "sustainable development"?

While flaming Libertarians like yourself (and our own Hank Lawrence) might think so, I dare say the vast majority of the 98% non-Ron Paul zombie followers out there don't think so.

So good luck trying to get this one through!

Posted by Gern Blanston, a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 27, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Jack Hickey wrote, in part: "Cargill's proposal is synergistic with the surroundings and is a clearly sustainable use of the property."

The apparently earnest use of the woefully ambiguous "synergistic" immediately discredits you, Jack. Which specific synergies do you imagine the wetlands and surrounding communities will enjoy from this proposed development?

I am not anti-development, but I think this proposal is easily the worst idea I've heard since moving to the Bay Area more than twenty years ago. Regards,


Posted by baylandsgal, a resident of another community
on May 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm

It is difficult to believe that any forward thinking public official would even consider allowing Cargill/DMB's proposed development.
Making matters worse, the RC Council directed the planning department to remove this 1400 acre property from the General Plan process.
Welcome to our own theatre of the absurd: the Redwood City Council, who has never seen any development they don't like.

Posted by local observer, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 28, 2009 at 2:29 pm

While our council should certainly go on record as opposing the obnoxious Cargill project, they should be looking much closer to home.

The Bohannon project with its 140 foot high buildings and 1 million square feet seems to be getting huge staff support. It should be stopped, the sooner the better. We would have to be nuts to want a project like that, with its 2200 to 2400 more workers and all the traffic generated and making the housing and school situation much worse here in town. So I say, lets worry more about this local project.

Posted by Saul A, a resident of another community
on Jun 2, 2009 at 12:41 pm

I am in favor of the Bohannon development provided that Willows Oak Park is condemned and a Federal Maximum Security Prison be erected in its place to replace the prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Posted by aghast, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jun 3, 2009 at 10:37 am

I had to read "12,000 homes and 30,000 new residents" several times before believing my eyes. The developer wants to put this kind of project on baylands? I hope Redwood City officials have evolved to the point where environmental protection and overall sanity trumps capitalist greed.

Posted by Robert Dixon, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 18, 2009 at 11:42 am

I am strongly opposed to any filling in of the bay. When do we stop?
Should we tear down San Bruno mountain and fill in the bay?
I encourage everyone to see the PBS series called "Save the Bay".
If we have so much water available, why are we asked to ration?
Why do we need more development? Are there local government people drooling over the property tax revenue potential?
The traffic congestion near Hiway 101 and HIway 84 is already serious.

Posted by Edward Whittington, a resident of Woodside: Kings Mountain/Skyline
on Feb 12, 2010 at 6:43 pm

I am really pleased to hear that there are those who care.

Love the post Robert Dixon!

Web Link

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,796 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,994 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,169 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,129 views

Getting High in Menlo Park
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 745 views