Jul 1, 2008

Drop open space initiative, council member says

Redwood City holds special meeting about controversial measure

By Shaun Bishop / Daily News Staff Writer

Proponents of a controversial Redwood City initiative that would require a public vote on developing open space have long acknowledged that they have a specific site in mind - a 2.2-square-mile expanse of land owned by Cargill Inc.

But the city attorney says the proposed initiative's wording would rope in dozens of other properties, including city parks and private land.

On Monday night, a city council member issued a bold proposal to the proponents: scrap the current initiative and let's draw up a new one that addresses only their main target - Cargill.

"Let's just hit it straight on," Jim Hartnett said at a special meeting. "Let's talk about the issues."

Hartnett and the rest of the council sat through 90 minutes of impassioned comments from two dozen residents on either side of Open Space Vote, an amendment to the city charter which would require two-thirds of residents to approve any development on land considered "open space."

The initiative doesn't refer to it by name, but proponents have their sights on 1,433 acres east of U.S. Highway 101 owned by Cargill, which the company has eyed for a combination of wetlands restoration and development. The environmentalists say it should all be restored.

But critics said it will have the unintended consequence of forcing a vote for developments in other areas of the city that the measure's wording considers "open space," including parks, the Docktown Marina area and a sewage treatment plant in Redwood Shores.

"What's being proposed is going to tear apart this city," said longtime resident Jack Castle.

Advocates primarily from several environmental groups backing the idea - including Oakland-based Save the Bay and the local Friends of Redwood City - found out last week they have more than the 5,300 signatures required to put it to a vote.

The council plans to formally put it on the November ballot at its meeting July 7, and supporters urged that move, saying there is broad support in the community to weigh in on the measure.

Several residents who back the measure say they resent the assertion that only "outsider" groups are supportive of it.

"I feel we should have our constitutional rights accepted," said Tim Martin, a member of the Friends of Redwood City and a Woodside resident.

But Hartnett said they should withdraw the initiative before it's placed on the ballot and a new one should be drawn up that would get to the heart of the matter - how residents feel about developing the Cargill property - without encompassing other parcels. Several other council members expressed support for his idea.

"The elephant in the room is the Cargill site," said Council Member Barbara Pierce. "Let's face it, it's gosh darn big."

The majority of public comments came from residents who oppose the measure, saying its two-thirds requirement is undemocratic, especially since the amendment itself only takes a 50 percent vote to pass.

"An unelected, secretive, unaccountable minority can hold the majority of Redwood City hostage to their views," David Amann said.

E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com