|
|
 |
|
The Treasure Island Plan
Sustainable Development, or Government Mismanagement?
The vision for the $6 billion plan for the redevelopment of Naval
Station Treasure Island in the middle of San Francisco Bay sounds too
good to be true: a new, environmentally sustainable and economically
mixed neighborhood with 8,000 housing units and a 300 acre park, all on
an artificial island 10 minutes from downtown San Francisco by ferry,
all paid for by real estate revenues and not costing the city’s general
fund a penny. San Francisco Chronicle urban planning columnist John
King, a prominent supporter of the plan, wrote that Treasure Island could be “the world’s first green urban neighborhood.”
However, many believe that the proposed
redevelopment is too good to be true. While San Francisco’s political,
media, and environmental establishments have come out in full-fledged
support of the plan, a diverse array of voices has spoken out against
it. Their main arguments center around interpreting the science and
policy of environmental risks: they question whether the current plan
has adequately prepared and budgeted for mitigating against climate
change, or cleaning up environmental pollutants on the former military
site. These groups predict that the Treasure Island development, rather
than being a model of sustainable urban development, will flounder,
making money for developers and leaving the city government on the
hook. On a public affairs radio show about Treasure Island,
Eric Brooks, a member of San Francisco’s Green Party one of the plan’s
critics, expressed his uncertainty with the government’s portrayal of
science. He said, “We need to pull back, find out what the sea level
rise is really going to be, and then we need to develop a plan to
remove all the chemicals from Treasure Island, before any further
redevelopment plan proceeds.”
Is Treasure Island a model of sustainable
development or government mismanagement? As of now it’s too early to
tell; the redevelopment of Treasure Island could turn out to be a boon
or boondoggle for San Francisco. The full Environmental Impact Report
for the latest iteration of the plan will be released late in the
summer of 2010 and it is unknown exactly how much the bay will rise in
the future, or how much on-site clean-up will cost. However, it is
clear that both those who support and those who oppose the current
development plan believe the science is on their side. Government
agencies and developers have faith the current development plan does
enough to adapt to a rising bay and be safe for future residents, and
that new innovative technologies and approaches to neighborhood design
can create a model sustainable community. Even environmentalists argue that Treasure Island presents “the opportunity to inspire a new
generation to transform their lives through scientific
innovation.” Meanwhile, those who oppose the development doubt
that a site with as many environmental challenges as Treasure Island
can become a viable neighborhood.
These different interpretations of science are not
uncommon to environmental controversies. As Stephen Bocking writes in
Nature’s Experts, “Controversies often stem from divergent scientific
views regarding the existence, significance, and responsibility for
environmental problems.” (29) Treasure Island proves this: the
supporters of the plan take an optimistic view of scientific progress,
and view Treasure Island in the larger context of solving global and
regional problems such as carbon emissions and sprawl. Meanwhile,
detractors focus on a different scale and point out place-specific
scientific issues they believe can derail the entire project. These are
both examples of groups interpreting science to their own advantage:
the government in favor of its planned development, and activists who
have historically opposed growth against it. Those opposing Treasure
Island continue the tradition of casting doubt upon official science, a
common practice ever since Silent Spring sparked the environmental
movement. Bocking writes, “This dual character of science – as
authoritative knowledge, and as knowledge whose authority has widely
been challenged – is central to understanding its place in
environmental politics.” (17)
Debates similar to the one surrounding the development of Treasure Island will likely
continue as more sustainable, emissions-cutting developments are
proposed on marginal lands, and as communities across the world attempt
to weigh the costs of new development with adaptation to sea-level rise
and remediation of environmental contamination. Using local media
sources and government documents, this website analyzes how the
different political actors interpret and communicate complex scientific
issues surrounding the proposed redevelopment of Treasure Island. The second page offers a short history of
Treasure Island and the island’s roots in technological optimism. The third page goes through the current plan for redevelopment, and
describes how the city government intends to deal with the
environmental hazards of future sea level rise and environmental
contaminants. The fourth page describes opposition to the redevelopment
plan and weighs the strengths and weaknesses of both groups’
interpretations of science concerning the development.
|
Figure 1: The sign at the entrance to Treasure Island
|
Last updated: 5/7/2010
|
