LA Times Should Breath Into A Paper Bag Before Opining On 241
Posted by: Jubal | 01/29/2008 2:23 PM
Today's Los Angeles Times editorial opposing completion of the 241 tollroad led me to wonder if a) they let California Coastal Commission staffer Mark Delaplaine ghosted the editorial for them or b) they have ever actually been to the San Onofre State Beach.
For example, the editorial states:
For those who haven't seen the "pristine" "wilderness preserve" park the LA Times rhapsodizes about, I'll post some pictures.
Here's a pristine stand of old growth power lines along the proposed route of the 241:
I wonder if proximity to the power lines is giving the arroyo toads cancer?
Following are some shots of the pristine valley. You can see Camp Pendleton base housing on the other side of the farm operation. Toll road opponents don't like to call attention to the fact the park is part of Camp Pendleton and is only leased to the state (a lease that runs out in less than a decade):
Here's a shot of San Mateo Creek, over which the anti-241 crowd does much hand-wringing. In fact, American Rivers ranks it as America's second most endangered river!"
Readers can be forgiven for not recognizing San Mateo Creek as it looks 98% of the time. It's what the enviros call an "intermittent river." Just think of the gutter in front of your house as becoming an "intermittent waterway" whenever a neighbor leaves his hose on. It certainly sounds better than "dry creek bed."
Anti-241 groups like American Rivers prefer to use pictures like this:
It's much easier to get folks ginned up with a scene of Huckleberry Finn serenity than just another dry creek bed.
My point in posting these photos is the counter the hyperbolic emotionalism upon with the anti-241 campaign is based. San Onofre State Beach looks pretty much like any other stretch of Orange County back country, of which we have puh-lenty. And only 10% of the park's visitors ever set foot in the above sections of the park. Everyone else goes to the beach part, which is closer to Interstate 5 than the inland campground will be to the tollroad (and without 241's mitigation measures).
Recognizing that reality is a necessary part of having a rational discussion on completing the 241. Unfortunately, the anti-241 mob and its fellow travelers on the Coastal Commission staff are too accustomed to framing things in apocalyptic terms. There is no compromising with them, and so there's no alternative to simply beating them.
Not that I would expect the LA Times editorial page to apprehend as much. So much easier to re-package the Coastal Commission staff report and pass it off as an editorial.
For example, the editorial states:
As planned, the toll road would cut through a wilderness preserve in eastern Orange County and then traverse the length of a narrow, pristine canyon that makes up most of San Onofre State Beach, one of the most popular California state parks.Most Southern Californians have never been to San Onofre State Beach, so if they were to rely on hysterical editorials they can be forgiven for thinking completing the 241 entails paving over paradise.
For those who haven't seen the "pristine" "wilderness preserve" park the LA Times rhapsodizes about, I'll post some pictures.
Here's a pristine stand of old growth power lines along the proposed route of the 241:
I wonder if proximity to the power lines is giving the arroyo toads cancer?
Following are some shots of the pristine valley. You can see Camp Pendleton base housing on the other side of the farm operation. Toll road opponents don't like to call attention to the fact the park is part of Camp Pendleton and is only leased to the state (a lease that runs out in less than a decade):
Here's a shot of San Mateo Creek, over which the anti-241 crowd does much hand-wringing. In fact, American Rivers ranks it as America's second most endangered river!"
Readers can be forgiven for not recognizing San Mateo Creek as it looks 98% of the time. It's what the enviros call an "intermittent river." Just think of the gutter in front of your house as becoming an "intermittent waterway" whenever a neighbor leaves his hose on. It certainly sounds better than "dry creek bed."
Anti-241 groups like American Rivers prefer to use pictures like this:
It's much easier to get folks ginned up with a scene of Huckleberry Finn serenity than just another dry creek bed.
My point in posting these photos is the counter the hyperbolic emotionalism upon with the anti-241 campaign is based. San Onofre State Beach looks pretty much like any other stretch of Orange County back country, of which we have puh-lenty. And only 10% of the park's visitors ever set foot in the above sections of the park. Everyone else goes to the beach part, which is closer to Interstate 5 than the inland campground will be to the tollroad (and without 241's mitigation measures).
Recognizing that reality is a necessary part of having a rational discussion on completing the 241. Unfortunately, the anti-241 mob and its fellow travelers on the Coastal Commission staff are too accustomed to framing things in apocalyptic terms. There is no compromising with them, and so there's no alternative to simply beating them.
Not that I would expect the LA Times editorial page to apprehend as much. So much easier to re-package the Coastal Commission staff report and pass it off as an editorial.
CATEGORY:
241 Tollroad
It's about time!!!!...
I have not been to the Grand Canyon, but that does not mean I would want to see it destroyed with a highway running down the middle of it.
As far as compromising, why can't the TCA compromise the route they are proposing and not go through Trestles? Compromise is not just for those who are environmentally-supportive to just stop their defense of the environment, regardless of the amount of visitors it has.
Looks like Anonymous 10:14 got his wish! The completion of State Road 241 will NOT go through Trestles! In fact it won't come any closer to Trestles than the I-5 does today.
Jubal nails it. When the project opponents talk about the park being the "5th most visited in the state" what they don't mention is that 90% of those visitors go to the beach - west of the I-5... the part completely unaffected by the 241.
Another issue that often gets lost in the shuffle is that this State Park is a temporary lease. The land is owned by the US Marines, not the state. Once the lease is up, new federal law requires the state to pay fair market value for the land if they want to continue leasing it. Considering the financial situation of the state, it is doubtful they'll have the means to continue operation of this park... that is, unless they accept the $100 million being offered by TCA.
Being bribed by $100m to destroy parkland just doesn't seem right. Does the money make it ok? If there was no money being waved would this project be worth the destruction? As for the photo's, I'd remind you we live in California, a semi-arid desert. Native land is canyon, meadow, dry and seasonal riverbeds, sage, and scrub oak, all leading to the ocean. Thats what California naturally looks like.
If your argument is against the power lines and eminent domain aquired right-of-ways thats another matter.
Whether or not this project gains support from the Costal Commission, the determining factor should not be a $100m payoff. The decison should be made on fact and the projects impact to public and coastal lands. That is the job of coastal protection that the commission is entrusted with, isn't it?
What destruction? Would it be possible to get something a little more intellectual than "it doesn't seem right"?
As for the photo's, I'd remind you we live in California, a semi-arid desert. Native land is canyon, meadow, dry and seasonal riverbeds, sage, and scrub oak, all leading to the ocean. Thats what California naturally looks like.
Just...Asking:
The point of the photos is to focus attention on what the affected parkland actually looks like -- and highlight it doesn't fit with the gauzy, misleading descriptions the enviros use to whip people up.
Look at anti-241 materials. They invariably use picture of the beach and ocean -- which the 241 doesn't touch -- or pictures like the American Rivers shot that fool people into thinking San Mateo Creek is an actual flowing body of water. The anti-241 campaign is a campaign based on emotionalism and manipulation.
Those photos are what California looks like, Which is the point. The land in question is not unique. It looks like any other part of Southern California. If covered with a farm operation and bordered by base housing. You can here Marine Corps artillery practice from the San Mateo campground. Let's not make it out to be something more than it is, or pretend that building a road through it is going to "destroy" the park.
All environmental rhetoric aside, what is the benefit of a 16-mile 6 lane freeway that dumps off in North San Onofre? If the goal is to move people from the Inland Empire to San Diego faster, then this addition only gets them 10.1 miles further down the 5 than the 74 exit. Why not extend the 241 to the 74 for now and come up with a plan, likely through Camp Pedleton East or with the 15 to nearly eliminate coastal traffic caused by people having to go from the 91 to San Diego? The fact that the Coastal Commission, which is lead by a developer, mind you, has flatly rejected the TCA's proposals out of hand shows that the risks to benefits have been considered thoroughly. The 74 is a natural end to the 241 and a complete alternative to the 5 truly connecting the 91 to the 5/805 connector is what is needed. This proposal is simply an artery to allow future development in South Orange County and Camp Pendelton and does absolutely nothing to offer an alternative to the 5 Freeway as stated.