Town Square

Tri-Valley Hero: Save Mount Diablo embraces lofty goal

Original post made on Dec 2, 2013

Volunteers working at Save Mount Diablo booths are often asked, "What's wrong with the mountain? Why does it need saving?"

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, December 1, 2013, 5:31 PM


Like this comment
Posted by local resident
a resident of Green Valley Elementary School
on Dec 2, 2013 at 7:50 pm

Save Mt. Diablo supported the horrible SummerHill development in the Diablo Road area which was just approved by Danville's Council. Save Mt. Diablo used local residents' opposition as a bargaining chip to get what they wanted (SummerHill gave them a hefty contribution), then they came out in favor of the project and moved on, leaving the local residents to deal with the resulting mess. Save Mt. Diablo should keep out of the approval process for developments having nothing to do with Mt. Diablo!

Like this comment
Posted by Check Check
a resident of Danville
on Dec 4, 2013 at 9:45 am

I believe Save Mt. Diablo saw the open space from the SummerHill development as a way to Save Mt. Diablo. It made perfect sense to me.

Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Danville
on Dec 5, 2013 at 11:11 am

Actually, the development as proposed is quite decent. For those that want to see the privately owned "Magee" never developed, well, you did little to take it off the table for future generations. You raised, safety, water quality, traffic and other impacts, however that is not the same as raising money for its outright purchase from Jed Magee. Since an earlier poster besmirched Save Mount Diablo for supporting this development, perhaps you can propose a better development plan, that accepts the right for private individuals to develop their land and the public goals of habitat and open space protection?
Hiding behind Measure S is a temporary solution to blocking current plans. Long term zoning laws allow for property to be converted over time to higher density uses. So all you could have managed to have saved was temporary. Now the benefit of the objections that were raised is a better development proposal for the general public.
Sounds like the mouthing off to me is driven by a view that believes the world should warp to their views.

Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Dec 5, 2013 at 2:55 pm

I'm not going to get into this particular political discussion, even though I am normally happy to do so.
As far as suggestions though, what about the burn area? It seem like the one common type of scrub brush that often fills in these areas on the more arid hills, though often described as "natural", "native", "part of the healing process", etc, isn't really much of a bio-diverse landscape. This dark colored scrub in fact seems to choke out other plants for a long time to come. In the Bay area, in the Sierra foothills, and in Southern CA. As soon (or should I say if ever) as some rain comes, maybe re-planting some small trees and actual native plants that will help hold the soil would be a good plan. Seek volunteers. Bring back the Conservation Corp. And whatever is done, do not, I repeat DO NOT, plant any eucalyptus.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Walnut Creek

on Sep 11, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?