Treasure Island Redevelopment
Introduction
Island of Sand: The History of Treasure Island
The Redevelopment Plan
Criticism and Conclusion
References & Resources
Comments & questions to:
druiz@macalester.edu
|
 |
Ecotopia, or Sunken Treasure?
The city’s
environmental, political, and media establishment has by and large lined up behind a
vision of Treasure Island as a 21st century ecotopia. But critics
say the Treasure Island redevelopment is doomed, mainly because
government agencies have not accurately taken into account the
potential costs of environmental risks. Below, some of the critics, and
their views on the science and policy behind Treasure Island.
Tony Hall
Tony Hall has been the most vociferous opponent of the island plan. The
former manager of the Treasure Island Redevelopment Authority, Hall was
pushed out by mayor Gavin Newsom under uncertain circumstances. While
Newsom said Hall had mismanaged Treasure Island, Hall claims it was
because he had found evidence that the redevelopment plan was actually
a sweetheart deal with local developers. In articles for neighborhood
newspapers, Hall has laid out issues that he says causes the numbers in
the plan to “not pencil out.” One of the principles issues is he says
the Navy, which, according to the deal with the city, is on the hook
for environmental remediation, will only clean up to federal standards,
leaving government to pay for more strict state and local standards.
Hall says this will add “hundreds of millions of costs to SF
taxpayers.” Hall also writes that seismic stablization of the island
fill will cost tens of millions more than currently projected. Hall
writes, “What interest would the mayor’s office have in promoting this
Treasure Island scheme? The answer is simple: smoke and mirrors. A
quick-fix poster board attempt to polish his image. It looks good. That
is, before actual analysis.” According to Hall, the redevelopment is a
mere political ploy, and city officials are colluding with developers
to create a development that will not work because science shows that
it cannot pan out.
Eric BrooksAnother critic, Eric Brooks, of the local chapter of the Green Party, appeared on a local public affairs call-in show
to critique the development plan, saying he is, “really worried that
we’re foolishly allowing real estate profit motives to drive this
process because we’re in such a bad economy.” In addition to echoing
Hall’s accusation of corruption, he says the city has not done to
address the two primary environmental risks, environmental
contamination and sea-level rise. “Because these areas were owned by
the Navy, they’ve all still got toxic and radiological materials in
them,” Brooks says. You can never get rid of all that stuff.” Brooks
finds the contamination especially disturbing given that there are
plans to farm on the island. In addition, he says that the plan does
not allow for enough mitigation of sea-level rise. He says that
unprecedented amounts of sea-level rise are possible, and that the
trend with climate models has been one of worsening warming, which will
make other factors worse, such as seismic stability and environmental
contamination. Using James Hansen's (whom he calls, “the climate
scientist who gives us the best information about sea level rise.”)
prediction of a 5-meter sea level rise , he argues that the development
should not be built at all, and that Treasure Island should instead be
entirely restored to wetlands. Brooks expresses doubt in the
government’s view of science, and instead advances his own, more
skeptical view, picking experts such as Hansen, and expressing doubt in
the possibility of any environmental cleanup.
Conclusion
Despite the presence of an adaptive management plan, the fact that
Treasure Island is just as low-lying as other vast tracts of the Bay
Area which were also built atop fill, and notes about plans to mitigate
against sea-level rise in the local media, a substantial portion of
citizens in the media are doubtful that the project mitigates against
sea-level rise enough. Although Treasure Island is just as flat as many
other developments built on fill (see Figure 4a), it is so overtly
man-made and flat that people
sea-level rise provides a rationale for citizens who often reflexively
oppose growth. All in all, Treasure Island serves as an example of how
debates become However, I believe Treasure Island is precisely
the type of ambitious development societies must do to counteract
climate change and sprawl. Without more developments like it around the
world, much
other land will also be underwater.
|
Figure 4a: This
map from the Pacific Division of the AAAS shows that many low-lying
areas of Northern California are at risk of submersion in the case of a
1.4 meter sea level rise.
|
Last updated: 5/7/2010
|
