Friday, April 12, 2002

 
Tiburon antenna critics claim proposal is flawed

Well, once again, Tiburon is coming out with all guns firing.

The Radio Authority has proposed building a 65-foot monopole but its license authorizes an antenna of only about 35 feet, said Gary Izing, an engineer with VikinGlobal Corp. hired by the antenna opponents.

"It's a major flaw," said Izing, who has overseen the deployment of wireless networks in metropolitan areas. "I'm telling you this is a serious matter."

The licensing discrepancy was discovered by the Washington D.C.-based law firm of Patton Boggs, which the opponent groups recently hired. A challenge to the modification of the license could tie the project up for months if not years, Izing said.

He also questioned the effectiveness of placing an antenna at the Mt. Tiburon site. Izing said his analysis showed better radio coverage could be provided by placing an antenna at the Fort Baker sewage treatment plant, south of Sausalito.

"Opponent groups" (read: the local residents) not only hired a Radio Systems Expert, but also a Washington D.C. based law firm! The Patton Boggs web site says:

We solve problems, often in unconventional ways.

but this one is my favorite:

Patton Boggs was among the first national law firms to recognize that all three branches of government could serve as forums in which to achieve client goals.

Tiburon will probably win this one. The project is over budget and behind schedule as it is. The heat is going to start turning up very soon to get this project complete, so time is on their side. Although the Radio Authority has some intersting plans in the works as well:

Tiburon Town Manager Alex McIntyre said yesterday that he was concerned, however, by the Radio Authority's vote to consider altering the indemnification of its members, which includes the town of Tiburon. McIntyre said the proposed change, which could be approved at the Authority's next meeting, would remove the legal protections that Tiburon and other members of the authority currently enjoy related to the radio system.

posted by Marin Hot-Tubber 12:20 PM

Monday, April 08, 2002

 
Views differ on housing plans

Back to the St. Vincent's land development project...I just have to start going to these meetings (I hear the last one had over 30 people!).

The proposal of a major housing development in San Rafael that has polarized environmentalists and advocates for workforce housing drew mixed responses among city residents yesterday.

But all agreed on one thing: Marin needs more affordable housing.

As long as it's not near me:

Karpman said she'd prefer to see affordable housing created on smaller pockets of land within already developed areas.

You know...there's already al those, like, warehouses and stuff...why can't they just live there?

And today's obvious statement award goes to Haley Nolde:

Density, however, means business to many local merchants.

Now, of course, the reason for the "affordable housing" (units start at $195,000) is because of a state mandate requiring a certain number per capita as part of the general plan. The developer has upped the percentage from 20% to 25% to curry favor with locals and blunt the protests, but all it's really doing is showing the true colors of the locals. They don't want them po' people around. (There's also the envirofanatics, but you get those everywhere.)

Now, if county residents could figure out a way to exempt themselves from the "affordable housing" mandate, without coming across as heartless Grinch's, they would be all over it. I know how it could be done, but I'm hesitant to give them any ideas (add to that, I'm against the technique that would be used to make it happen, as well).

More kind-hearted voices from the great progressive North Bay ;)

posted by Marin Hot-Tubber 11:10 AM

 
Plan to protect views debated in Strawberry

The County of Marin is considering an ordinance :

A proposed ordinance that would allow Strawberry residents to require neighbors to remove trees or other landscaping if they blocked views or sunlight that existed when they bought their property is causing some people in this unincorporated area of Mill Valley to see a brilliant color of red.

Now the article goes into details of extra property rights this would grant to some over other based on when property was purchased blah blah blah. This is really the wrong reason to attack this ordinance and here's why. Consider this (horrid) diagram:



Consider that to the North (the top) is a bad view (some kind of blight) and to the west is a good view. There is a row of trees along the north that block the blight to the benefit of Homes A, B, and C. Now, on property A there is a tree that is part of that growth. However, it blocks a piece of the good view from property B. To cut down that tree would increase the property value of House B while lowering the value of House C, probably by an equivalent amount. So who decides this one? Not to put too much of a fine point on it, please remember that the tree exists on the property of House A, and is at least 75 feet away from any structure, so it does not present a threat.

Put yourself in each Homeowners position, and then remind yourself that the tree is on the property of Homeowner A.

posted by Marin Hot-Tubber 10:02 AM