Editorial: Redwood City salt ponds not the right place for massive development
The Redwood City Council will likely approve a contract Monday for an environmental impact report on a proposal to build a small city on 1,400 acres of salt ponds bordering San Francisco Bay. The project is so controversial that more than 100 elected officials and several environmental groups, led by Save the Bay, are demanding it be killed now.
That's unlikely. Developer DMB Associates is determined to forge on — the project would be extremely lucrative — and council members have said they want a full analysis. DMB is footing the bill, so it's not outrageous for Redwood City to proceed. But our question is: Why bother?
The opposition from environmentalists is not just aesthetic. Concerns include the sea-level rising, liquefaction in the case of an earthquake and the viability of a controversial deal for a future water supply. We need housing, but this isn't the place for it.
This region has long been committed to restoring the fragile bay ecosystem. Despite DMB's pledge to restore about 400 acres to wetlands as part of the project, putting up to 12,000 houses and 25,000 people on this site would represent a stark reversal of that commitment. Redwood City's own General Plan puts it best: "Due to the sensitive nature of these open-space areas, it should be assumed that they will remain as open space forever."