 |
|
|
Greenbelt Alliance In the News
February 2, 2007
Misleading signs
Editorial
MOTORISTS DRIVING over Kirker Pass from Concord to Pittsburg and along Highway 4 are being treated to a bit of absurdity on the side of the road. It's a series of billboards on builder Albert Seeno's property that claim "radical" environmental groups -- the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance and Save Mt. Diablo -- are fighting the widening of Highway 4.
[see photo here]
The billboards direct viewers to a Web site (www.widenhwy4.com) that poses three loaded questions about environmentalists and highway construction. Readers of the Web site are told their answers to the questions will be sent on to lawmakers.
Seeno has locked horns with the environmental community for years regarding housing developments. But although there are some environmental extremists who think highway construction inevitably leads to suburban sprawl, none of the groups listed on the billboards has opposed widening Highway 4.
In fact, Save Mt. Diablo endorsed Measure J, which raised funds for Highway 4 improvements. The Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance were neutral.
Besides, Highway 4 widening has been approved and funded, and construction has been moving ahead, albeit slower than most people would like. Also, Seeno won a Pittsburg ballot measure that expanded the urban limit line, allowing the developer to build as many as 1,650 housing units under Pittsburg's general plan.
Christina Wong, spokeswoman for Greenbelt Alliance, is right in saying that the signs on Seeno's property "are a ham-fisted smear campaign" against three environmental groups that have nothing to do with blocking Highway 4 improvements.
Seeno and other builders are likely to continue to have disputes with environmental groups regarding land use. Decisions will be made by publicly elected, local and state officials or directly by the people on the ballot.
Seeno or any other property owner has the right to put signs on their property. But smearing environmental groups with misleading billboards and Web sites does not constructively add to the debate regarding land-use policy.
### |
