mime-attachment-1

Defending our beavers has been a constant struggle against threat of one kind or another. We were warned that lives could be lost, that buildings would collapse, that supporters would be sued, and that the website would be come a target for hate-mail the world wide. With each subsequent challenge the threats would increase. Of course when you feel most threatened, you instinctively feel most vulnerable and unable to achieve your goals. However I have learned through painstaking observation that the reverse is usually true.

The closer you get to power the more ominous the response, and the surer your success. Threat comes when you are strong, not weak.

I mention this because this weekend one of our beaver loyals ran into a certain councilman who kindly wondered whether the “beaver people” were planning some kind of anti-Redevelopment campaign. He expressed concern that this could harm the beavers and bring “Stigma”, and he hoped that wasn’t true.

Are we both hearing the same theme song in the background here? “Nice Colony, shame if something were to happen to them”. (I mean other than lowering their dam by three feet, removing all their food and installing sheetpile through their lodge.) It would be a shame for the beavers to be tainted by a controversial issue that has been dramatically argued in this city since 1950. We wouldn’t want to bring controversy to these peaceful uncontroversial and uncritically accepted rodents, right?

For the record, Worth A Dam doesn’t have an “official” position on the Redevelopment issue. We’re beaver people, and we are committed to beavers. We are a heterogeneous group, and voted for Kennedy, Alford, McCain, Obama and Ron Paul. This is the way its supposed to be, where people set aside their differences to work on common goals, support each other’s shared interests and make space for things that they can’t agree on. I don’t expect readers of this website to agree with my opinion on everything, including RDA. You know how to contact me and express your thoughts as well. To be honest, if the city had ever sat me down and said, ‘if you will make sure beaver people don’t have any opposition for our RDA we’ll keep them safe and build the most beautiful habitat for them you’ve ever seen’, I’d have seriously thought twice. But of course the city didn’t do that. They didn’t ever view us as important enough to promise anything, or even vote on the issue. They just want to threaten that if we offer any opposition to an RDA they’ll support the beavers even less than they do already. (Get your nano-tools so we can measure the incremental shift.)

Honestly, their sheetpile-palooza was for me the single best indicator about whose interests they are likely to protect in this city, with or without an RDA. Warning a beaver loyalist that talking about RDA could harm the beavers is italian old school. Here’s the kindest version of what I think about that particular councilman’s concern for the possible stigma my having an opinion will bring the beavers…

[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=0LnJskwydvM&feature]

Hundreds came to the shoulder-to-shoulder town hall meeting with George Miller Saturday, but only tens showed up for the council retreat later that afternoon. Beavers were mentioned at neither, sadly. There were massive cameras and reporters at the first, and only the Gazette at the non-recorded second. Can you guess which spent a greater percentage of time on questions, incorporated greater audience feedback and created a friendlier atmosphere?

Lets be clear: my interest in local politics was generated by exactly two furry creatures in Alhambra Creek about two years ago. There are big historic fights in Martinez that I know nothing about. Still, advocating for these animals has required me to be at fairly close quarters with our city council, to hear their thought processes, listen to their promises, and see how they weighed decisions. If any single issue has forced you to do that at one time or another, you know the result of this discomforting intimacy. Here we are, almost at anniversary of the subcommittee report being delivered, still without a vote on whether the beavers can stay. When I proposed planting to replace the alarming vegetation loss caused by the flood plain scraping, I was told to let “nature take its course”. Staring at the faces who made the decision to install a sheetpile wall in front of what they knew was another sheetpile wall I saw that they were simply relieved that their real commitment had been honored. Each was completely unburdened by wondering how vastly flood conditions would have improved for the entire town if they had voted to invest that half a million dollars somewhere else, say the creek banks by the adult school.

I say this to preface on my remarks. The no-retreat retreat started with city manager Phil Vince outlining the plans for using measure H money by rebuilding the Rankin Park Pool. This was responded to by Lara Delaney who wondered if it might not make more sense to use that money to rebuild the pool somewhere more centrally located in Martinez. Mark Ross reminded her that the bond measure specifically talked about rebuilding the existing pool, and she said again that it didn’t make much sense to go all the way across town for a pool. The city manager even added that the weather was warmer south of highway 4. Mayor Schroder cautioned them away from these speculations saying that the voters might feel this was a “bait and switch” technique to get money approved for one project and use it for another.

All in all, it took 20 minutes for our elected representatives to remind each other that they had an obligation to implement the will of the voters. Whew. Time well spent.

Janet Kennedy raised the issue of a city wide disaster plan, and talked about our failure to provide one. Then it was off to the blue-light special of the day:

A Redevelopment Agency for Downtown Martinez.

Phil Vince began this talk by saying that Martinez had enormous jewels to offer, the open space, the Marina, the train station, but that no city’s general fund should be forced to carry the burden of managing these things on its own. It was time for Martinez to form an RDA. He had worked most recently in Moraga which wasn’t “right” for an RDA because it was just “open space on either side and a few shopping centers in the middle” and did not “have enough blight”. (Never mind that Martinez is equally landlocked by open space, a refinery, and the marina. Apparently we have enough of the blight that Moraga lacked. Interestingly, Moraga didn’t have enough, but apparently Lafayette did.) He said that this time around the city would invest funds and effort to educate residents about the benefits of an RDA.

40,000 of our tax dollars set aside to teach us what we should think.

The fact that this had been a divisive issue in the past for Martinez was raised, stressing the need for unity. The city manager reassured that this education money would outline the pros and cons of a Redevelopment agency and then simply let the voters decide. Janet Kennedy said that she had never seen an RDA that didn’t improve the city she was in, including San Pablo where they used it to fund a casino. Mark Ross said that if you didn’t have your own RDA on board your funds were siphoned into other projects in the county. Given the fact that 40,000 dollars was going to be spent to teach us pros and cons, someone from the audience asked the council to list any “cons” they could think of.

They could not name one. .

After I raised my concerns about it (which are in yesterday’s gazette and hopefully wednesday’s record) Lara Delaney argued heatedly that an RDA is just a tool, and that it can be used for whatever the city needs, and if there is a powerful tool that can help the city, she was going to use it.

Here’s my thought about the “tool” argument. An RDA is powerful tool, yes. So is a chain saw. It is not the kind of tool you hand to just anybody and promise they can use for the next 40 years. We are in an economic crisis which means that any RDA is going to be poised to siphon a greater portion of any recovered city wealth until 2050. Think of it this way, with the economy down each of our homes have lost value, maybe 30% of their value. That wealth will come back when the dust settles, but forming an RDA now means that any taxes on that recovery will belong to the RDA, not the schools, not the fire department, not the general fund. Yes cities can be responsible and create “pass-throughs” to protect that money, but how good has our city been at saying “no” to big money interests and protecting the needs of residents?

(Consider the Albatross).

It’s time to ask ourselves three important questions: