An open letter to UPC on the Brisbane Baylands Planning Survey

Submitted by Greg on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 05:39

Dear Mr. Scharfman,

Thank you for sending me the planning survey on Universal Paragon Corporation's plans to develop the Brisbane Baylands.  I was unable to complete the survey the first time it was sent out, and I am glad to have a second opportunity to participate.

I have a few comments on some specific items in the survey that were impossible to answer in the format provided.  I'd like to start with what I view is the most important question on the survey.

5. ... The only source of funding for this clean-up is the development of the land.  ... Would you support or oppose a well-planned development of the Brisbane Baylands in order to fund the clean-up?

This is the very crux of the issue that faces us with Brisbane Baylands development.  The answer to your question is a resounding yes, I would strongly support a well-planned development of the Brisbane Baylands.  It would be a great benefit to the community if the site could be cleaned up, and I am in favor of using commercial development to help fund the clean-up.  I believe that ultimately, commercial development can benefit Brisbane residents both directly and indirectly.

The key is that the development must in fact be well-planned.  A poorly-planned development project would burden our community and our world with an even greater liability that would be even more expensive to rectify.  The last I heard, part of UPC's plan is to cap and fill the baylands, under presumed assumption that with a sufficient buffer, the toxins in the ground could not reach or affect the people above.  The alternative method is to dig up the sources of contamination and remove them from the site.  In the case of cap and fill, the obvious concern is that the remaining toxins are in fact contained and are not running off into the lagoon or the bay, entering the water supply, impacting wildlife or otherwise affecting the area.  Removing the contamination is not without concern either, as there is the question as to whether the materials, once disturbed, might become airborn, or otherwise travel to contaminate new or broader areas.  Clean up of this site is likely to take years, and neighboring residents do not want to be breathing the dust from this work.

How then are we to be assured that the Universal Paragon Corporation's idea of well-planned matches up with the Brisbane residents' idea of well planned?  How are we to be assured that UPC's designated agents who execute the clean up and development of the Baylands will in fact live up to the standards that are set for this project?  Will the EPA or any other government or environmental group be involved in any stage of the project?  Will the Baylands Community Action Group have any continuing insight into or oversight over the project?  Will Brisbane residents have any other way to monitor the progress of this project?  If these questions have clear and reliable answers, then I am much more likely to support UPC.

The next item that I would like to address is the subject of residential development on the baylands.  There are several questions on the survey that touch on this issue.

S. Preventing Residential Development

I marked this item as "not important" on my survey.  I am not opposed to development, be it commercial or residential.  It is not my intention, nor do I think it is to Brisbane's benefit to prevent development, and yet, historically I have found myself more often than not ending up on the side of those seeking to prevent residential development projects in Brisbane.  The problem is that too many of the recent proposals have not met the criteria of being well-planned.  Too often we are seeing proposals that are unsafe, or that have not done enough to respect the habitat of the wildlife they displace.  The UPC survey asks if cleaning up pollution in the Brisbane Baylands to the highest federal and state standards for housing is important to allowing housing to be built on the Baylands.  I marked this as "not important" because I do not know that the federal and state standards for cleaning up pollution were drafted with superfund sites in mind, nor am I convinced that simply taking a "checklist" approach is sufficient to make the site safe for housing.  If I do not know that the criteria is meaningful, then I cannot let it influence my decision on housing in the Baylands. From what I understand, currently there are a lot of people who say that housing on a superfund site will never be safe, that you can't just bury the problem and make it go away.  The survey asks if a charter high school, sports fields, community centers, low-income housing, public transportation centers and alternative energy generation could sway my vote over to allow housing on the Baylands.  All of those amenities are great, but you can't just buy my acquiescence with stuff purchased at the expense of someone else's well being.  If I am sure it is safe, then I will support housing on the Baylands, but I would like to hear the EPA and environmental groups saying that housing on the Baylands is a good idea before I'm comfortable with that, and quite frankly, I'm not sure that we're ever going to get to that point.

I do have an alternative suggestion, though.

H. Space for existing light-industrial busineses

The survey asks if a portion of the North section of the Baylands should be set aside for existing light industrial businesses.  I think this is a great idea--probably the best idea in the survey.  I would like to take this one step further and extend this category to include freight forwarders. There is an existing demand for freight forwarding facilities in Brisbane.  There is at least one in operation in the industrial park today, and in the past several years there have been multiple applications to the city to expand operations of this type, one of which would have brought 700 trucks per day down Bayshore boulevard.  While I marked reducing traffic congestion within the City of Brisbane as being not an issue, on the survey, 700+ more trucks on Bayshore would have a serious impact on our ability to get into and out of town.  The North section of the Baylands is a better location for this sort of operation.  Its proximity to the freeway, coupled with an existing on-ramp on the North East makes this a much better location for this sort of business.  Of course, it would be even better if everyone just bought local, and we didn't need so many freight forwarders, but given that they are needed, better to locate them in a more convenient location.  If there was a designated area established for new and relocated freight forwarders, then they could be banned in the industrial park.  Some of the relocated business from the industrial park could be moved to the Baylands and replaced with housing; the areas closest to the community park would be best for this.  It is likely that existing owners would be interested in selling to residential developers, or developing residential properties themselves, as this activity appears to continue to be a very profitable business. This plan probably would not benefit UPC as much as a large housing project on the North Baylands would, but it would be a benefit to the city and therefore likely to increase support for the Baylands development plan.

In conclusion, I would like to reitterate that my position is overall one of support for UPC.  It is my firm hope that the development plans can procede safely and sanely, and reach an amiable conclusion that benefits the residents of Brisbane, the new businesses on the future Baylands site and the Universal Paragon Corporation alike.

Sincerely yours,

 

Greg Anderson

 

Tags