My last letter was wordy, so I’ll make this one brief. Read the Measure, and not just the sales pitch that is the preamble, but the exhibits. Particularly Exhibit C.
Then ask for both letters of endorsement from the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. And if you are provided such letters, please forward them to me because until I see them in writing, I must call BS. And since this measure uses the trigger term, Environmentally Sensitive Lands, from the Sierra Club’s website:
Environmentally sensitive lands are defined as:
-old-growth forest
-roadless areas 1000 acres or larger
-vital habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered under state or federal endangered species acts
-designated protected areas (National and State Parks, State natural areas, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic River corridors, Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Areas, etc.), or areas advocated by the Sierra Club for inclusion in one of these conservation system designations
-environmentally important wetlands; or
-scientifically recognized rare ecological communities.
Pine Meadow’s 27-acre golf course, nor any areas this measure proposes to “protect” really fits these definitions. So, what are we really protecting?
– Linda Meza
Except Martinez has an Evironmentally Sensitive Land destination in the general plan. Which are Environmental Conservation Districts in the zoning code.
So much has been said by so many that I feel a perpetual Jerry Maguire moment coming on. Particularly from someone named Anonymous.
If proponents seek to leverage the Sierra Club banner in their ill conceived measure as a way to tout their ‘conservation’ cred, then I don’t think it unreasonable the definition of “Environmentally Sensitive Lands” be borrowed by that austere body of conservationists.
plus, Anonymous conveniently ignores the rest of the admonition – read the measure – back to front. And pay close attention to Exhibit C