Bay Area's long-term plans draw criticism


As the San Francisco Bay Area has grown through the years, state and local governments -- and residents -- have continually stressed that a cohesive blueprint for planned growth in the nine-county region is necessary.

Under development right now is Plan Bay Area, Bay Area's long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation and housing and how it envisions the region to be in 2040 with a beginning target date of 2015. The plan is a coordinated effort between the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

The plan is also a first, in that it is the Bay Area's first such plan to incorporate a sustainable communities strategy. Locally, in the Tri-Valley and San Ramon Valley areas, the so-called "New Farm" development proposed for the Tassajara Valley east of Danville would fall under this type of strategy.

In recent weeks, the MTC has been presenting regional workshops throughout the nine counties to gain feedback from residents and businesses about the growth blueprint during the next three decades. One of those regional workshops was held for Contra Costa County on Jan. 23 at Richmond's Civic Auditorium.

More than 400 people attended the Monday night conference. There were three workshops, and for those attending each of the sessions, a thumbnail consensus reveals that most Contra Costa County residents are unhappy with what they are learning of the plan thus far.

"I'm not too keen about having a local agency like the MTC tell us what to do in our neighborhoods, or dictating to us how our neighborhoods should be shaped over the next 25 to 30 years," says Al Demetrios, a longtime Concord resident. "From what I've seen of the plan tonight, it seems very ill-conceived. I get it that it takes public meetings like these to get feedback from residents, but one look at what they showed us here and nothing makes sense."

The MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county Bay Area. It is one of the purposes of the commission to ensure that regional transportation functions smoothly and efficiently, and to coordinate a growth plan that meets the future mobility needs of the Bay Area's growing population. State and federal laws require the MTC to develop a 25-year plan to guide "transportation investment" in the Bay Area.

Planning agencies, like the MTC and ABAG, forecast an increase of 2 million residents in the Bay Area by 2040. As a result, one of the key goals of the 25-year-plan is to identify methods that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2040 throughout the region. Officials say this can be achieved by working with local governments to plan for more residents to live closer to their jobs and other essential services, in tandem with better access to mass transit and other modes of transportation – in other words, getting people out of their cars so they do not need to drive as much.

Even though the Plan Bay Area workshops – nine of them to be held throughout the Bay Area before the end of this month – are considered public meetings, reserving an opportunity to attend a workshop was suggested.

Numerous activists and protesters from Tea Party and environmental groups have been signing up for many of the meetings and recently disrupted the Alameda County session . At Monday's meetings in Richmond, more than a dozen activists protesting the plan voiced their concerns about it, also holding up signs, some stating that the plan is "rigged."

"It's big brother telling us what to do," said Anne Marlowe-Kent, of El Cerrito. The 72-year-old retired grandmother was not an activist or protester, but wanted to attend the meetings to learn more about what is planned for her community and how it could benefit future generations.

"I don't think these government agencies have any idea what they're talking about," Marlowe-Kent said. "To listen to them tonight, and to look at the maps they have created for us to see, it doesn't sound very well thought out. It's upsetting to me. The plan doesn't hold water."

To learn more about Plan Bay Area, visit


Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Alamo
on Jan 26, 2012 at 7:11 am

Big brother is trying to take control of your property and your lifestyle. They're attempting to tell you where you live, how you live, and what type of vehicle you'll be permitted to drive. Their concept of utopia doesn't mesh with the free America many of us are struggling to preserve. The public meetings they're holding are anything but open... they're strictly controlled, manipulated, and rigged to say the least. We're the frog in the pot of cold water, folks. The heat's being turned up on us and I'm hoping we figure it out before we're cooked. Enough.

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of San Ramon
on Jan 26, 2012 at 7:32 am

Having a plan for future development is vital for quality of life and the economic success of the Bay Area.

Like this comment
Posted by Rick Pshaw
a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2012 at 8:37 am

Go look up Agenda 21 and then be afraid, be very afraid.

Like this comment
Posted by Julia
a resident of Alamo
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:43 am

George is 100% correct. But we the people see nothing. We let them do as they pleased and we ask how much more may I give you...I love giving. These are the brain dead people. Unfortunately they are growing in numbers. Did you happen to look into the eyes of those idiots in D.C. and the CONTROLLER spoke. You thought the Lord was speaking to them.

Hey Rick Pshaw...Where can I find Agenda 21....I would love to read it.

Thanks for listening, Julia Pardini from Alamo

Like this comment
Posted by guynextdoor
a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:13 am

Rick and George are right. Plan Bay Area is in my opinion an extension of U.N. Agenda 21. You can google it. Beware of the word "sustainable". We are already being ruled by unelected bureaucrats in the U.N. and our own government agencies. The U.N. and our own administration are herding us in a direction no one wants to go. We had better start the housecleaning in the next election.

Like this comment
Posted by Mike McCormack
a resident of Danville
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:48 am

I have to applaud the goal of creating sustainable communities, which incorporate good design into our metropolitan areas.

However I strongly disagree that the proposed "New Farm" development, commonly referred to as "Fake Farm," is a good example of such. First it is outside the voter approved Urban Limit line. Government, "...of the people, by the people and for the people...," should respect the wishes of the majority and NOT accept development proposals outside the Urban Limit Line. "Fake Farm" is an attempt by developers and their hired "consultant-lobbyists," who have cozy insider relationships with certain county supervisors, to get approval for such deals in clear violation of the voter mandate.

"Fake Farm" is nothing more than a housing development dressed up to pretend to be sustainable development. In fact it is a developer funded, cozy insider driven attempt to sneak yet another housing development through the county. Do not support Fake Farm.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

GE's re-organization reaches San Ramon digital headquarters
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 2,033 views

Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 77 comments | 1,228 views