|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
More than 450 people participated in a hike Saturday to protest against Creekside Memorial Cemetery proposed for the Tassajara Valley.
The event logistics were organized mostly by San Ramon community members along with some residents from Danville and Dublin.
San Ramon Vice Mayor Phil O’Loane also helped organize the protest. He has been open to the community and his fellow councilmen about his opposition of the plans for the cemetery.
Seth Adams of Save Mount Diablo, an organization that focuses on preserving Mount Diablo’s natural lands, led the hike.
“People brought out tents, cases of water, they developed a traffic control plan and there were volunteers directing parking. They even brought a megaphone because they knew it would be a large turnout,” he said.
Adams directed the group through the Tassajara ridge to the proposed cemetery site and explained the land use planning processes to them. The tour provided a visual of how much land would be developed and the cemetery’s proximity to neighboring homes.
Organizers began planning the protest following a well-attended public workshop held by city council in June to bring awareness to the cemetery project.
Creekside Memorial Cemetery would be located at 7000 Camino Tassajara and occupy 58.7 acres of an approximately 222-acre space in unincorporated Contra Costa County east of the San Ramon city limits.
The plans for the project from developer Sid Corrie include four outdoor mausoleums, one indoor mausoleum, an administrative office and chapel building, storage building, corporation yard and space for over 100,000 burial plots.
Some of the concerns expressed by community members about the development include: the effects on the environment, potentially negative impacts on air quality during and after construction, destroying wildlife habitats, increased neighborhood traffic and lack of an adequate amount of water.
The land that the cemetery would occupy is under Contra Costa County’s jurisdiction. The city of San Ramon does not have voting power over the issue; however, it is an area of interest to the city and some community members living close to the site.
“One of the main goals of the hike was to demonstrate concern, and that concern will ripple out to more San Ramon residents and people from other communities,” Adams said.
I don’t get why anyone would protest a cemetery. The alternative will be more houses and I’d rather have a bunch of dead people taking up the space, then more houses with people driving, using water, and requiring more services. People WAKE UP. It will either be dead people or houses. It will NOT stay as vacant land. Its worth too much and the city wants the tax money.
I heard people were dying to get in!
The land can’t be used for housing developments. If it could, all of the ranchers there would sell their land in a heartbeat. There’s nothing special about the proposed cemetery site except that it’s owned by a well-connected land speculator.
Resident and Been Around? If you’ve followed the conversation, the REAL issue here is, that the Asian contingency (or at least? The Chinese that I’m aware of) now living in the Dougherty valley in the last decade or so? Is very superstitious about living, seeing, being NEAR “the dead”. The irony here does not escape most of us who’ve not only lived in this valley and known its history for decades, and that is that the Seunen, Souyen and Tatcan native American Indians, not to mention? The bodies of many an early settler to the valley, ARE BURIED THERE. Just because these GRAVES remain unmarked/unknown as to where? Certainly doesn’t mean the Dougherty valley like much of America isn’t A GRAVESITE of days gone by! So go figure. In our western culture? We far more hold HONOR, RESPECT and WORTHY MEMORY of our dead…We are NOT afraid. We respect the heritage of the land and its memories. I’m all for Sid Corrie going ahead with the Creekside Memorial Park, as long as water is mitigated and kept most minimal and much hardscape is utilized, which I believe is the plan. It’s a most worthy project in our valley and I support it 100% Our forefathers as Americans (yes, A M E R I C A N )settled this area and frankly? I respect that memory ten fold. How many Americans would purchase land in an Asian country and EXPECT them to bend to THEIR culture and tradition(s) in this regard in particular? Yeah. That’s what I thought.
Hmmm. Quite a contradiction in Save Mt. Diablo’s actions here and its opposition to the public regarding the SummerHill Homes Magee ranch development a few miles away in the Diablo Road area. SMD is supporting the public’s opposition to the cemetery, which is not consistent with the County’s Agricultural land use designation of Tassajara Valley. Yet they helped SummerHill Homes push its 69 plus homes through against the public outcry that the homes were not allowed on Magee ranch’s Agricultural-designated land. Maybe Developer Sid Corrie needs to make some hefty contributions to SMD, like SummerHill Homes did…
“Our forefathers as Americans (yes, A M E R I C A N )settled this area and frankly? I respect that memory ten fold.”
Maybe we should respect their memory by leaving the ranch land as ranch land instead of putting a mega-cemetery there?
@”Follow your money”: Not sure I am with you on your claim regarding Save Mount Diablo actively supporting the Summerhill/Magee project.
First they were not asked to make a legal determination of the city’s actions or of Measure S. And to do so would require allocating a chunk of their hard raised and limited funds to hire a legal team to provide the analysis. It would appear that they have left that to SOS-Danville, which had taken the advocacy lead in this development proposal. That to me is a good business decision.
Second, as I recall, Save Mount Diablo took a look at the development proposal from their perspective, which is land use / land conservation. They were not analyzing it from traffic impacts and other impacts, which are of far more concern to those in the immediate community, which SOS represented. Not wanting to speak for them, I would characterize their comments regarding this proposal as focusing on whether it is a good deal as it relates to land preservation. That answer was yes, because the developers clustered the housing, preserved the ridgelines, provided creek set backs, and I thought provided easements for public access and trails.
That said, Save Mount Diablo is constantly fighting land use proposals that violate all sorts of city and county ordinances, some council passed, some voter passed. In egregious cases of government / developer abuse, they do hire out for legal analysis.
So I would have to say I would think Save Mount Diablo would welcome SOS-Danville and other community interest and advocacy.
I have said this before, If you hypothetically make the assumption that the land is going to get developed, and then are asked is the current proposal better than some of the other “potential” proposals out there, like 5-acre ranchettes covering the entirety of the property, yeah, well then this is a descent compromise.
If you think it shouldn’t be developed at all, then of course it is lousy. But I am sure of one thing, if Save Mount Diablo could make the choice of this land being never developed and developed based on the proposed project, they would take “never” developed.
Than it is my experience that if you want something “never” developed, then it is best to start looking for ways to outright purchase the land from Magee.
So I don’t think it is fair to point a finger at Save Mount Diablo, one of two organizations, the other EBRPD, to have created the incredible open spaces that we all enjoy in Contra Costa County, our backyards.
Ms. Bunny would appear to like all development schemes. She supports the Fiara? Preserve, just not as many units; supports the cemetery, just less buried humans. Time to buy the plot next door to her house and turn it into an adhoc grave site and mausoleum.
As far as it being a truly worthy project, perhaps she should actually read and try to comprehend the business case analysis of the availability and future need of additional burial plots in Contra Costa County.
As far as agricultural land is concerned, I’d rather people cultivate real agriculture, than plant humans 6 feet under. The only reason Sid came up with a cemetery proposal is some goofball allowed this type of use outside the Urban Limit Line. He is just trying to drive the price of his land up higher. Today’s version of greed, like no other. Sid… Karma will get you somewhere…
All I can say is: good thing most of those protesters weren’t unarmed African-Americans.
Ah JT boy, it’s you again…I spent a good deal of life in land use/development, I also spent a good deal of life protecting it and using it wisely in a tempered and seasoned fashion without being a prolific NIMBY hypocrite, like you. You’re not exactly right about F A R I A whatsoever (but then? You never read to the end of most my posts, clearly) If you knew anything about the project? You’d know it’s already passed many hurdles into R E A L I T Y and I was opposed from the start. Now? Legally? Little can be done other than to throw ourselves on the mercy of Lafferty in REDUCING THE SIZE OF THIS MONTROUS development. I have never been “for it” PARTICULARY in this area of north SR between SR and Danville and the existing hillside butchering that will take place and traffic and air quality issues, if not the water issues. But understand a developer’s legal rights to his land and once a project has passed all the steps regardless of registering complaint? I’m not sure WHAT recourse Mr. Smartas* you feel is there (or it would have been taken BY NOW) That DOESN’T mean issues can’t be MITIGATED even now, including size. But then, what would you junior, know about that? Clearly. Less than nothing.
You bet, however, I am in full support of the Creekside Memorial as it stands, once again? Sid Corrie’s land to develop within reason and guidelines set forth by county and city. Sure I’d like to see it remain agricultural. -But I MUCH prefer a cemetery to MORE ugly housing in the already, fairly ugly Dougherty valley – yeah, you’re right on that call.
I WANT TO BE BURIED IN SAN RAMON. I love this town and have lived here for just under 20 years. This seems like the perfect spot. Property values in that neighborhood will tumble, but those ho don’t mind it will remain while the others can vote with their feet. IO
That’s lovely “N”. I love this town also as a long term resident. It is a pretty perfect spot in my travels throughout the USA in more recent years, that is for sure. I wouldn’t even remotely worry about “property values” going anywhere, seriously. A cemetery will only weed out the superstitious and culturally fearful ones from residing in the Dougherty valley, there are, sooooooooooooo many other potential buyers who desperately want to live in San Ramon, and just about ANY part of it! It won’t dissuade the sale of homes one bit OR affect property values. I’d put “money” on this statement if I was a betting woman!
Seems like the perfect gated community, where neighbors keep to themselves. Most of the time?
Love the pic, thanks for publishing it! I hope Sid Corrie and Abram Wilson are getting an idea of how much growing opposition they will face. I think it is shameful for unemployed ex mayors to shill for wealthy developers.
“Growing opposition” ????? Really Anita? As far as I can tell, I don’t think this is truly the case whatsoever from what I gather in the community – just the Dougherty Valley newbies and fearful ones in Dougherty (as in “stepchild” TO San Ramon)
The first comment in the above series of verbiage is simply incorrect, because of the urban limit line, the choice is not between either a cemetery or more houses. A housing development simply can not be built there.
Also, Mr. Rogers, S.R. City manager, was recently quoted in the paper that since the cemetery is not in the jurisdiction of S.R. that the city council ought to ignore the issue(meaning ignore the many S.R. residents that are opposed to the cemetery) and do nothing, not even send a letter to the county board of supervisors. Clearly Rogers cares little about the valid concerns of San Ramon residents. The city council should not shirk their ethical responsibility to represent the will of residents and definitely should provide a written communication to the county sups.
This property is outside the city limits. Should San Ramon comment on projects outside the city limits just because you don’t like the project? Where does it stop? Dublin, Livermore, Danville, Walnut Creek?? This is a county issue. Take your complaints and ideas to the county.
You probably voted against Measure W. If measure W had passed then this WOULD be a San Ramon issue and we would have control. When W failed this and any other development in the Tassajara Valley became county issues and the city has no say.
Scott
@ JT: SummerHill Homes wants to put 66+ homes on 200 acres of Magee ranch land designated for Ag. use. The plan is to take “density” (about 30 homes)from the neighboring 200 acres of Rural Residential-designated land to get to their 66 homes. Those Rural Residential acres are largely economically and environmentally unbuildable due to hillside and ridgeline development prohibitions, and geologic and natural hazards. That is why SummerHill wants to “transfer” the density to the Ag. parcel. Any homes to be built on those Rural Residential parcels could (and according to the Danville General Plan) should be clustered. So the “alternative” is not 5-acre ranchettes everywhere on the 400-acre Magee Ranch. The 200 RR could have a cluster or two of homes. The Ag. parcel is currently in A-4, one home per twenty acres, zoning. To get the 66 homes SummerHill wants to build requires upzoning to A-2, one home per twenty acres. The Ag. land could and should be left in the A-4 zoning. In any case, Measure S requires a public vote before the Ag. land can have any clustered residential development, and that is what Judge Austin stated in the SOS-Danville v. Danville lawsuit.
SMD opposes the cemetery and opposed a previous proposal for housing in the Tassajara Valley on the basis that that land is designated for Ag. use (allowing, by the way, one home per 5 acres max. zoning). Initially, SMD opposed the SummerHill project, yet later they suddenly approved of it and became vociferous advocates for it, despite the sham of putting 66+ homes on Ag. land. Make no mistake, SMD’s support was crucial to giving the Town Council “environmental cover” for approving this environmentally appalling project. If you were at the only Town Council hearing on it, you’d think SMD was an “environmental” organization, which they are not. The Council members actually stated that they were relying on SMD’s analysis of the EIR to tell them it was a good project in that regard. And the Town Council’s attorneys used SMD’s support as the basis of their argument that the project was environmentally sound.
So the point is, JT, that we know SMD got a $10,000 + contribution from SummerHill Homes about the time they became vociferous supporters of a housing project not allowed on Ag. land. Now they say they are opposed to the cemetery because it will be on Ag. land. Total hypocrisy.
Sid Corrie needs to sell the property and take his profit. Stupid idea for a cemetery. The land needs to stay undeveloped. I am opposed to the cemetery on the pristine lands. Watch the property values go down in the area if the cemetery is approved. I thing I can guarantee you is that Asian buyers will no longer be purchasing any property within sight of the cemetery.
SCOTT is the CORRECT one here on all counts.
Kudos for the great info. and A C C U R A C Y.
You’re so right…This is a county matter that will? COME TO FRUITION (-thankfully)
Sorry DL, but ONCE y’all settled in THIS country? No matter what race, creed or color you may be? You need to comply with OUR culture and though of course you still have your time honored beliefs and traditions? I assure you, there will be a CONTINUED slew of buyers and though perhaps not Asian? They are eager to live here (i.e., schools driving them) Property values will remain HIGH (a weak argument on your part) You need to broaden your horizons and attitudes on living in THIS country or return to YOUR “native” land(s)
Am I the only soul who has plans that when death comes a knockin’, that I will be cremated and my ashes will be spread from a helicopter over Plutonia?
hmmmmmm…maybe even over the Tri-Valley!
Not really Cholo, I’ll be “spread” on a beloved 10,000 ft. peak in the High Sierras if my wishes are followed! You’d be surprised where many people who choose cremation desire to be “spread”. I’ve now “spread” 3 people in areas that are? Most unusual…Just following their wishes…
The historic Danville Cemetery is surrounded by houses. Most were built after the cemetery was developed.
Lorie – agreed that homes were built after Danville Cemetery surrounding it and those homeowners knowingly bought the house either it did not concern them or they got a good deal on price. But what is happening here is the opposite. Many would not have bought their homes in Dougherty Valley, Alamo Creek etc. if this proposed cemetery was already there. And also they would not have paid a lot as they have paid for their homes. Plus Danville Cemetery is a small Cemetery operated by a non profit Cemetery district for the local residents- unlike this one whcih is for Profit huge commercial operation and open to the whole bay area with huge footprint for urbanization, water issues, traffic issues, open space etc.
Karma’s a bitch, isn’t it? I have lived here for over 20 years and was opposed to the Dougherty Valley development as it took away from the beautiful rolling hills of the valley and serene back road drive down to Dublin/Pleasanton. It also brought in a bad element with the low-income housing and increased crime in the area. I have no sympathy for these families who are opposed to the cemetery. I don’t think it is the best use of the land, but the Asian/Indian community does need to realize they are now living in the United States and this is the land of capitalism, not cultural beliefs and superstitions.
Douglas,
I have lived here for 45 years and I was opposed to the development of Blackhawk. As a result of that and many of the developments that followed, I learned that you can’t really halt development, only mitigate it the best you can. If we had a crummy crime ridden community, maybe others wouldn’t want to live (and die) here, but we don’t and they do.
Thankfully @Ms Bunny, you will see many people hopping on board to oppose the cemetery… 450+ people showing up on a hike? Are you kidding. I have led and participated in many a hike and protest. 450+ people showing up is absolutely a major statement.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to put together a hike/protest that is in support of the cemetery and we can compare turnouts. As I recall, I believe you are 100% in support of the cemetery, just less dead people, and 100% in support of Faria, just less houses.
Every city needs a cemetary especially for those residents who have committed their lives to that community. I for one have lived here for 32 years and have put my heart and soul into my community thru raising my three children here, supporting the schools and sports, scouts, churches, etc. I moved to this community to plant myself and my family roots which means eventually planting our bodies here at our end. I really appreciate Mr. Corrie for bringing the cemetary to the table because it is needed no matter for profit or not. I personally do not want to be buried in Hayward or other communities where I had no involvement or interest in. As said before the people of Dougherty Valley are already living on buried bodies from the American Indians that lived there before them. There will be plenty of people to purchase homes near the cemetary if the Asian/Indian folks cannot tolerate this. Might be good anyway to mix a little more of the races to keep it more diverse instead of predominantly Asian and Indian anyway.
Debora,
They already tried to build a cemetery in the city of San Ramon in 1999. The citizens of San Ramon revolted and the plan was quickly scuttled. This current plan to build one in un-incorporated county land has nothing to do with the needs of our community.
If you want a San Ramon cemetery, then work with the City Council to develop a plan to put a small, local cemetery in our community.
The mega-cemetery in the Tassajara Valley is not meant for local residents. Local residents could never fill up its 150,000 grave sites. It is meant to be a final destination for the entire Tri-Valley area. It’s supposed to be a super-regional cemetery.
Why you would put such a HUGE regional cemetery so far from the freeway is beyond me. Since all the funeral processions will be driving past our elementary schools to get there.
Hiker,
Recognizing and appreciating your passion for this issue, when can you last recall observing a traditional funeral procession occurring? Virtually anyone who has buried a loved one in the last couple of decades with the caveat that the deceased was not a dignitary or notable public servant (i.e. officer of the peace, firefighter, etc.) will recognize that funeral processions are now a thing of the past. Perhaps, one could take disagreement with this generalization for the most rural of communities. However, most municipalities will no longer provide a permit and/or an escort for a significant procession of cars. Just the way it is these days.
Conservator,
Do you live near a cemetery now?
The planned Tassajara cemetery is very very far from the freeway. It is a location no one knows. No one has been there before and no one knows how to get there.
Even if the police do not provide an escort, there will be ad hoc funeral processions. Three per day. Either they will go through Danville, San Ramon, or Dublin. Those are the three possible routes. Two of those routes go directly next to elementary/middle schools.
People talk like this is some small neighborhood cemetery for Danville/San Ramon residents. This is planned as the Tri-Valley’s go-to destination for burials. It’s a HUGE facility with a huge park lot. None of those mourners live in the Tassajara Valley. They are going to have to somehow get there, and the only way to get there is by driving through Danville, San Ramon, and Dublin neighborhoods.
This is the reason why cemeteries are usually placed near freeway offramps. It is just common sense. You don’t stick a cemetery a 20-minute drive from the closest freeway. That is bad planning.
btw, I call myself “Hiker” because no one who came on the hike and walked up on that ridge and saw the location of the cemetery would support it. Once you see what will be lost, once you see how close it is to schools and homes, once you see how DRY IT IS OUT THERE you know. This is just bad planning, bad land use, and a bad bad bad idea for everyone.
The only reason anyone is even considering allowing a cemetery on that land is the owner’s political influence. It’s obviously a horrible location for any cemetery, least of all a regional mega-cemetery.
Why is a cemetary a bad idea? Isn’t a cemetary, by definition, just a lot of rolling green hills??? To me, it may be a poor business idea, since many people are opting for cremation – but what do I know? So, if you owned this land (let’s say you are a 3rd generation family member who inherited the land) – as long as the entitlements have been cleared through local planning – wouldn’t you want to reap “something” from your investment? I say, tht all those who don’t want the cemetary – then collect up a fund equal to the investment or return on investment of the owner and write him or her a check.
Long Time SR Resident,
Maybe you have been out of town recently. But we are in a serious drought. There is no way to produce “rolling green hills” on that land. It is incredibly dry out there. The plan for the cemetery is to suck the water out of the ground somehow to produce “rolling green hills.” That isn’t a plan, that is a fantasy.
But even if the climate changed overnight and we had plenty of water for the cemetery, or they build a huge desalination plant on the bay and truck in the water every day, you need to look at the plans. We aren’t talking about green hills. We are taking about a a huge parking lot, paved roads, and many large structures. We’re talking about cars and traffic and all the rest. This isn’t a plan for a small neighborhood cemetery with a few burials a week. This is a regional mega-cemetery with three funerals per day with room for 100,000 – 150,000 bodies. All located 20 minutes from the nearest freeway.
Dear Hiker,
Today, I do not live near a cemetery. For disclaimer (not meant to be humorous), we all may live near or perhaps ‘on’ a Native American burial ground as evidenced by what was found when SRVHS decided to upgrade it’s swimming pool.
Again, as I briefly alluded to in my earlier response, I admire your written passion and enthusiasm for addressing this issue. I have no doubt in my mind that you are not a paid hack to simply gin-up the regulars on this post but a motivated homeowner. My response to you was simply that funeral processions, except in rare cases, do not occur with any frequency in today’s society.
I’ve lived all over the country. I’ve lived across the street and just down the street from two different cemeteries. From my experience, there was no bad ‘vibe’ from living by or next to such solemn ground. Again, that was my experience perhaps that is not yours whatsoever. I will state and those that have lived back East would surely wish you good luck in finding a homesite that is not next to or near a cemetery – new or ‘old’. Again, different strokes for different folks.
One consideration. I’ve reached the stage of life where I regularly pay my respects to loved ones now passed. Maybe you’re not at that point in your life. I rarely find the cemetery a raucous eyesore or blithe to the community. Rather, it’s but a quiet place where you’ll usually find a heavy heart sitting in a chair, next to a stone marker or bronze plaque, wondering why their loved one left so soon.
Conservator,
There is nothing wrong with cemeteries. Fortunately, there is plenty of cemetery space available in nearby cemeteries so people can bury their loved ones and pay their respects. Actually, the proposed cemetery is in such an inaccessible location and so hilly, it’s a very poor location for such activities.
There isn’t exactly bus service that goes out there. Elderly people would have no way of getting to the cemetery unless they can drive, and even then, it’s a treacherous long road they have to take.
Danville or San Ramon, if they want a local cemetery, should put one within city limits serviced by bus routes. A small cemetery to serve local residents is completely appropriate. Trying to turn the Tassajara Valley into the Tri-Valley area’s go-to spot for burials just makes no sense.
That last post is from me, Hiker, to Conservator. Not by Conservator.
Hiker,
I get what you’re saying. You really, really don’t want to see this cemetery come to pass regardless.
One assumption that I would encourage you to reconsider, those heavy hearts that I wrote about are not consistently the aged and non-driving seniors. They are often brought by family members. More often then likely expected if you don’t visit a cemetery regularly, it’s relatively young parents who lost a child, former service members remembering a fallen buddy or adult children paying respects to their parents. At least in my opinion, I have come to believe that cemeteries are not really for the dead but rather the living to grieve in a solemn place.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a funeral procession passing a school. What are you trying to hide? School children know more than you think. They know that we all die someday. We are not talking about carrying the dead body on a stretcher exposed. Funerals/death is the way of life. Have you not been to Skyline Cemetary? Talk about hilly and treacherous terrain and that is home to one of the most incredible Chinese Cemetaries there. My husband built that chinese cemetary surrounds. They are beautiful and the grounds are beautiful throughout. Why do we find it ok to build senior housing next to a cemetary in Livermore where my mother is living and also next to a school as well. I do not believe those students or seniors have been affected by the cemetary. Oh and I see many people dropping their kids off to skateboard at the skatepark next to the cemetary too. Obviously life is not affected. Nobody likes change but change is good! I personally have not seen many cemetaries close to freeways myself in any of the surrounding cities or towns. That might be their goal but driving a distance to see a deceased loved one would not be a problem for most people I would think. Plus in driving a distance it would give you time to think and remember that person or persons along with maybe patronizing those businesses like flower shops or grocery stores along the way. Well we can think up all kinds of reasons to have or not have a cemetary but the reality is we need it sooner or later.
@Deborah and others, for many of those that still live here after our eventual passing, they don’t want our bodies left around, either above or below ground.
Being buried below ground in the city you live in is not an entitlement.
If that were so important to those like @Deborah, then most certainly they would not have moved here. And if it continues to be so important to them, perhaps it is time to look at moving to another city that already has a cemetety.
Hiker,
I want to THANK you for your comments about the traffic impacts of a cemetery. I hadn’t thought about the long processions of cars with police escorts and stopping of traffic in order to let the procession flow.
And all the annual visitors, etc..
Yes, that is a significant impact to be considered.
Back at @LongTimeSanRamonResident, perhaps those of you who support a cemetery for San Ramon can pool your money and buy land in San Ramon, near existing water and other utility services and invest in your own cemetery.
The proposed cemetery is in an absolutely amazingly idiotic location.
The owner is proposing this abomination only because some knucklehead decided to write a loop hole into the Urban Limit Line that allows for cemeteries outside the ULL.
As for SMD, I am now quite WARY of them.
There is some good to open space, but a lot of open space is not well used, maintained, or managed and does not give the supposed benefits that are dreamed of.
Often “open space” is just a pay-off by developers to get the profits they are after (from clustered development) and just results in pockets of ugly, weed-infested, areas for dopers and crime. (I’ve seen a lot of development projects over the years.)
In this case, I think the SMD will do like they did before: stir up a lot of protest at the front-end in order to obtain a big compromise settlement in which they get some substantial benefit (either cash or land or management business) out of it which adds to SMD’s empire.
I have mixed feelings about whether SMD is really doing good for us and the community?
In the SummerHill Homes case, SMD sold-out us, common citizens, in our argument to obtain our right to vote (via Measure S) on the land, in order for SMD to obtain cash and “open space” areas.
Open Space and Clustered Housing are NOT ALWAYS in our ultimate best interest.
It is almost appropriate that this commercial development is a cemetery, because if it gets approved, it will be the death of rural Tassajara Valley as we currently know and love. Tassajara Valley will be the first customer at Creekside Memorial Park. The Contra Costa County Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the County Supervisors are leading its funeral procession.
Seriously “LovesDanville” ??? The “death” of Tassajara valley you say? WOW. That’s one BIG statement! While I would love to see the valley remain untouched to a large degree from the taint of new housing, building etc. I’m too realistic to believe that is a possibility in this day and age. Developer rights and county influence are trumping the cities collective rights to protect much of this land. You can count on some further ugly spread of housing UNLESS cities band together. It seems the few grassroots organizations are unable to challenge property owners rights to develop their land as they choose. Until those laws change? Expect more of the same.
wh0cd170538 [url=http://eurax2011.top/]eurax without prescription[/url] [url=http://buysynthroid2013.gdn/]synthroid online pharmacy[/url] [url=http://cytotec9.gdn/]cytotec[/url]
wh0cd476421 [url=http://buycitalopram2017.top/]buy citalopram online[/url] [url=http://atarax0.top/]atarax[/url] [url=http://ampicillin1.top/]ampicillin[/url]