Return-Path: <gpo@internetoutcomes.net-DeleteThis> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA11881 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT) From: gpo@internetoutcomes.net-DeleteThis Received: from msgbas1x.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.58]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA14667 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iml102.datareturn.com (iml102.datareturn.com [216.46.226.234]) by msgbas1x.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006F6475 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:53:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from noc0012 [158.252.208.6] by iml102.datareturn.com (SMTPD32-6.04) id A6AE212012A; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:53:34 -0500 Reply-To: <gpo@internetoutcomes.net-DeleteThis> To: <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis> Subject: XSFO Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:54:33 -0500 Message-ID: <NDBBIAJGKMBECLHFJNHNEEHCCEAA.gpo@internetoutcomes.net-DeleteThis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Disposition-Notification-To: <gpo@internetoutcomes.net-DeleteThis>
More XSFO news...
Wow, bad press for THE CITY and XSFO in a local paper.
Hard to believe...
However, it also includes more discussion that ASSUMES that the runways HAVE
TO BE BUILT and that the salt ponds are adequate mitigation.
Remember, those that define the terms of a debate have won more than half
the battle. We need to get to the table to help define and determine the
agenda and assumptions that are going to be used to determine the fate and
future of the bay.
S.F. Officials' Self-Centered World View
Airport salt pond swap shows city's brazenness
SFGATE.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/08/29
/MN22141.DTL
And yet, when SFO officials want to build new runways poking out into San
Francisco Bay -- into waters that are the jurisdiction of either San Mateo
or Alameda counties, but not San Francisco -- that's a matter of crucial
regional importance, and everyone must support it.
And, amazingly, everyone climbs on board.
As you may have read, there is a proposal pending in the state Legislature
to allocate $150 million to acquire salt ponds at the southern end of the
bay. The ponds would serve as the environmental balancing act for SFO's plan
to build the runways.
As a companion piece, a proposal pending in Congress also would allocate
$150 million to acquire the very same salt ponds.
By sheer coincidence, the amount of money SFO officials say it would take to
acquire the salt ponds as offset for the runways is $300 million.
Somehow, I had been laboring under the misimpression that SFO was going to
pay for the runway- land swap itself.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:45 PDT