Marin IJ, July
22, 2004
Readers’ Forum
Not-so-smart
growth
Charles
McGlashan’s response claiming Architect Allan Nichol’s July 2 letter misstates
his position on rail needs clarification.
McGlashan
states he support Transit Oriented Developments. For TODs to provide workforce housing, the little land that remains
along Marin’s un-utilized rail line should be environmentally zoned for Mixed
Use European village developments.
McGlashan’s
tentative support of a whopping 100 units at 1420 acre St. Vincent’s Silveira
is not:
o
supporting critically needed TODs;
o
how a supervisor leads in providing housing for fireman, police,
teachers, single parents, etc.;
o
how land near rail must be used to provide train ridership that reduces
pollution, foreign oil addiction, and its terrifying implications.
Candidate
McGlashan, a candidate for Marin County supervisor states he is endorsed by the
Sierra Club, which has a national policy supporting rail. The Marin Sierra Club, however, has long been a staunch opponent of
reviving Marin’s rail by smartly using the land around it. The club helped forced the removal of a
train stop from being designed in the recently defeated auto dependent design
proposal that was forced on St. Vincent’s.
A TOD at St. Vincent’s Silveira would be a healthy option for reducing
Highway 101 congestion.
Marin’s Sierra
Club supports McGlashan. In much of
this country, however, environmentalists working to reduce oil addicting land
uses question the environmental credentials of those who fight smart land/rail
use.
Dwayne Hunn
Mill Valley
McGlashan’s
letter in IJ July 12, 2004
Allan
Nichols July 2 letter misstates my position on rail.
I have been clear in my support of Transit Oriented Development
(TOD), infill, live-work developments, and better use of mixed-use
areas. I am also endorsed by the Sierra Club which has a national
policy supporting rail.
With respect to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) proposal,
the people Nichol criticizes are working to protect the measure from
an untimely death. Rushing to ballot this autumn risks its defeat by
an electorate suspicious of poor cost-benefit analysis unfinished
environmental studies, and weak arguments for its contribution to
reduced traffic.
As the Marin IJ notes in its June18 editorial, ".. SMART isn't ready
to be put to the test. Planning details remain sketchy...". All five
Marin representatives to the SMART Authority Board agreed. Their
support for SMART is strong, but based in the reality of Marin's
careful citizenry than demands strong, fact-based arguments rather
than rhetoric.
Nichols new pick for a supervisor declared his desire to rush this
measure to the ballot regardless of the status of the environmental
analysis. In contrast, l advise finishing the analysis already
underway to substantiate claims of its financial merits and
elucidate environmental impacts and benefits.
As we've seen on the national stage lately, the logic used for
serious public decisions is crucial.
If studies demonstrate that this proposal will decrease automobile
traffic in a cost-effective manner without serious habitat impacts,
I'm all for it. It would be a superior environmental strategy to
continue reliance on gas-guzzling automobiles. Chances are good that
the SMART measure can be brought to the ballot in `06 or before,
when benefits and impacts have been thoroughly vetted.
Doing our homework now is the best way to avoid a train wreck.
Charles MlcGlashan
Mill Valley