May 9, 2001
Marge
Kolar
U.
S. Fish & Wildlife
Freemont,
CA
Fax
510-792-5828
Re: Opposition to Baylands Refuge Mapping
process
Exempt
Canalways and Silveira St. Vincent and any other property owners with that
request
Dear
Ms. Kolar:
This
letter is sent in the interest of clarifying impressions I have developed about
the Baylands Refuse process. I would
appreciate any guidance from you if you believe my conclusions are flawed. Thank you in advance for your response, time
and perspective.
In
following your Baylands Refuge process, I have been confused and troubled by
the manner in which the process has been conducted. Initially, you did not notify landowners that you wanted to put
their lands in a refuge. In that step,
you did not even inquire as to whether they wanted to have their land
considered for inclusion in a Fish & Wildlife mapping process. You then apologized to the public and the
cities of San Rafael and Novato for failing to notify all of the landowners in
a timely manner. Next you promised to
find the correct and up-to-date addresses for the landowners and have some
proper and timely public hearings.
If
I have the right facts, I am saddened and fearful that your process does not
reflect the spirit of our country’s bedrock principle of having individuals
control their own lands, for which they pay taxes and provide the dirt upon
which so many or our people can enjoy their freedom.
If
correct, my understanding of how you conducted your procedures gives credence
to the belief espoused by many in our community that this Baylands Mapping
process may have been instigated by Marin groups who call themselves
environmentalists, but who ironically oppose such ecologically sound ideas such
as using Marin’s existing train tacks to reduce pollution and provide
walk-to-able affordable housing. Since
there is no evidence that first you contacted the cities of Novato or San
Rafael or the property owners before starting this process, why would our
government on its own put properties into a proposed Baylands Refuge if the
property owners desire otherwise? This
concerns me. As I requested earlier, I
would appreciate it if you would please respond to this question.
Marin,
although affluent, has serious housing, traffic and even revenue generating
issues that are of much higher concern than putting a devaluing stamp of
‘Baylands Refuge’ on a piece of property.
Does Marin, with 84% of its land in open space, park and farmland, need
more open space? I respectfully submit
that it does not. It certainly does not
need to have additional problems placed on land owners and developers that come
with having to rebut the perception of having their land labeled ‘Baylands
Refuge.’ It certainly does not need to
lose land that could provide jobs and housing.
And it clearly does not need to lose the property tax revenue that
results from placing lands in a refuge or devaluing its property by appraising
it as such.
I
look forward to your answer to my question and strongly support you exempting
Canalways, Silveira’s and St. Vincent’s property and any other land owners who
so desires from being included in your mapping process.
Sincerely,
Philip
W. Jonckheer
417
Laurel
San
Anselmo, CA 94960
CC:
Gale
Norton, Department of Interior
Mel
Martinez, U.S. Department of HUD
Julie
Bornstein, California Dept. of Housing
Bill
Pavao, California Department of Housing
Mike
Spear, Regional Director USF&WS
Marshall
Jones, USF&WS , Acting Director
Charles
Houghton, USFWS Refuge Director
Cathy
Osugi USFWS
San
Rafael Chamber
San
Rafael Dredge Committee
Congresswoman
Woolsey
Senator
Boxer
Senator
Feinstein
Marin
& Sonoma Supervisors
Bay
Planning Coalition
Mayor
Al Boro & Council Members
San
Rafael Planning Department
Assemblyman
Joe Nation
North
Bay Agricultural Coalition
Novato
Council
Pacific
Legal Foundation