Concord Council candidate questions CNWS Neighborhood Alliance endorsements

CNWS neighborhood alliance, concord cnws candidate endorsements, terry kremin kathy leasonMs. Gleason’s letter in the Contra Costa Times, “Picking right candidates for weapons station future,” (27 Oct), regarding the CNWS Neighborhood Alliance‘s endorsed candidates for Concord City Council is misleading, misrepresents other candidates, and plays on the fears of residents.

All plans for the Concord Naval Weapon Station include a minimum of 2387 acres be granted to East Bay Regional Parks District as part of the transfer of the property from the Department of Defense and is not an exclusive issue to the Neighborhood Alliance candidates, and there is no reason to fear losing that.

She also implies that only their three candidates do not have developer ties when in fact at least three other candidates for city council (including myself) have no developer ties. I support slow, smart, and considerate development of the weapon station property. I also support conservation, and keeping the character of our wonderful city intact. Other candidates also share these concerns and there are other choices that can assuage the fears of overdevelopment.

Unlike their three candidates, however, I (and others) have no ties to organizations that are still pushing and attempting to circumvent the process and go back to the concentration and conservation plan that would not only place all of the burdens and impacts of development solely on North Concord residents, but increase those burdens for those few while keeping all development from impacting their own neighborhood.

The current Clustered Villages plan was developed with the entire city in mind and by a consensus of the residents of Concord that participated in the process for many years. However, as Ms Gleason states, three votes by city council members can completely undo that entire planning process in less than a minute and revert to a plan favored by one neighborhood in an alliance with groups from outside of Concord to protect their own self-interests and promote their own agendas over those of the city. So which three candidates the voters chose is vitally important.

We live in a community. That entails everyone accepting changes and sharing burdens in the growth of our city, not forming alliances or making pledges to protect a few neighborhoods while sacrificing others. I live between Denkinger and West, and yes, when houses get built on the land adjacent to that area, those streets should be incorporated to share the traffic load across all neighborhoods.

I urge all Concord voters to research the candidates, and vote for candidates that have the best interests of ALL of Concord residents at heart, and to not succumb to the protectionist fear mongering of a group consisting of 1% of our city’s population.

From the Oct 27 Contra Costa Times Your turn:

A VOTE for three Concord City Council members can make the difference between preserving maximum open space, parks and recreation and overdeveloping the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

From an environmental viewpoint, the stakes are high. Now is the time to help guarantee future generations will have access to open space, parks and recreation, and a great East Bay Regional Park.

Now is the time to ensure that wildlife will be protected and continue to exist on the CNWS. Now, in the planning process, is the time to take a close look at the impact of traffic, noise and air pollution on family, friends and neighbors.

The CNWS Neighborhood Alliance is an all-volunteer group of local residents dedicated to maximizing open space and parks and minimizing traffic, air and noise pollution impacts in the development of the CNWS.

We believe that Carlyn Obringer, Ed Birsan and Laura Hoffmeister are three candidates who will follow through with their commitment to preserve open space, parks and recreation.

In addition to environmental issues, they share a commitment to address the overall economic and safety issues facing Concord.
We understand it will take many years to develop the CNWS. Let’s put the pieces in place now during the planning process. Let’s preserve what we can.

If open space and the environment are concerns today, how important will these quality-of-life issues be in the future?
How important will they be to you, your family and neighbors when development of the CNWS actually begins?

Look to the future. The CNWS is Concord’s largest development ever. Let’s do this correctly. Put candidates in place now to make decisions that will improve the face and future of the city.

These three candidates truly represent the people and have no developer ties. Vote for Carlyn Obringer, Ed Birsan and Laura Hoffmeister. Vote for a green future for Concord.

Kathy Gleason
Kathy Gleason is the co-founder of the CNWS Neighborhood Alliance and is a resident of Concord.

Share the joy
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments

  1. anonamom says

    BGR–You’re joking, right? The NA and their fav’s discuss “runaway budget deficits, more taxes, and less than transparent city government!”??

    Don’t hold your breath!

  2. says

    The endorsements by the Neighborhood Alliance and discussions about its line in the stand over development at the Concord Naval Weapons Station can’t be more pointless.

    It is a huge MacGuffin. Nothing is going to happen there for years. Debate about this is worse than inconsequential but tends toward time-vampire status. It’s like a pot head suddenly discovering the day is over and they once again did not get anything done.

    Let’s hear what the NA and their favorites have to say about runaway budget deficits, more taxes, and less than transparent city government!

  3. Paul Poston says

    As Kathy should know also..the Navy still has to convey the land to Concord as well. So there is a possibility of that going awry also. Not only did the CAC vote on the Clutered Village Plan but the Council as well and theirs was the final vote. So where were those 95% of the people that “wanted” what the Alliance was going after?

    I was and am still for the open space provided by the Clustered Village plan as well as the EBR Park.

    As a North Concord resident for over 26 years and living here in Concord for 59 years I was willing to compromise on the plans to get what was passed by both the CAC and the Council even though the plan still severly impacts the area I live in. I was there addressing the issues trying to get the best for ALL .

    One Candidate of the Alliance voted for and supported the Clustered Village Plan. One candidate is still for the Concentration and Conservation Plan. The last..well you do not know what they are for as they have not come out with specifics just generalities…I am for the EBR Park I am for the Open space..I am for affordable housing..But what Plan are they for???? Of course this person was also heavily involved in the process..I “attended meetings” and “I spoke” on the plan. Speaking one time on one part of the issue and “attending” is hardly participating.

    Read and research the Candidates and see who has been doing what. See who is behind them. See which ones are “career” polititions or doing this for personal gain and which are there because they actually care about our City and how it should be run.

  4. says

    I stated that no candidates are contesting the transfer, and all the plans included the transfer.

    I also clearly stated the letter implies through careful wording to make sure it doesn’t necessarily exclude, that the three candidates are the only ones, not that it claims they are the only ones.

    And thank you for re-emphasizing my point that nothing is final and three votes could also decide to give the entire CNWS area to EBRP, something the CNWS Neighborhood Alliance has sought from the beginning. Or at least at about the time when they found out they weren’t going to get paid for having more traffic, or get free land given to them if they happened to have fence line properties. Ms. Gleason – you do remember your letter to the city extorting monetary an/or land grant compensations for development?

    How do you think the older neighborhoods felt when the houses now belonging to the Neighbor Alliance were built on what were farms and ranch and open property? Do you want to have all of those people evicted and the properties returned to the 1950’s/1960’s state? Or is it that now that you have yours, nobody else should get any?

    Things change. Cities grow. That is a fact of life. Regretfully some few don’t understand that, or feel they should be privileged and exempt, and that it should only affect ‘others’.

    More spin doctoring, fear mongering, and misleading statements from the Neighborhood Alliance do not help the situation. There has been enough of that already.

    What we need is to move forward. We cannot freeze time, or reverse it, but we can move forward in smart and controlled ways. The original letter implies, once again IMPLIES, that only the Neighborhood Alliance candidates have that vision. That is incorrect, as I attempted to point out.

    The vitriol I have received from the Neighborhood Alliance, particularly on the Claycord blog, as well as all of the spin doctoring there, reminds me of a show I watch with my daughter – Penguins of Madagascar – when the Skipper waves his flippers ominously and says “you didn’t see anything.”

    Kool-Aid may be okay for kids, but this adult is not drinking your Kool-Aid. The more vehement the responses keep getting trying to get me, and others, to drink your Kool-Aid only make it more clear I shouldn’t. I won’t be bullied, or bought, and neither should the city or the City Council.

  5. Kathy Gleason says

    As a Concord City Council candidate, Kremin should know better than to assume EBRP is a done deal. He has not done his homework. Until the Navy conveys land to EBRP, anything can change.

    My letter does not state the endorsed candidates are the only three candidates without developer ties. The letter was carefully worded not to imply that. This was Kremin’s interpretation.

    In both instances he drew quick incorrect conclusions.

  6. Rob says

    I disagree with Gleason AND Kremin. Gleason deludes herself that taking the same number of homes as originally proposed but making them cheaper, tackier, subsidized for indigents, and stacked on top of one another is ok, so long as they aren’t in her backyard.

    Kremin, the interminable local blog comment writer, who is a stay at home Dad with a Ph.D., and who prefers to be called “Dr.,” is so new to Concord he is not familiar with what the NWS process was all about. Clustered Villages sucks.

    The plan is a camel intended to be a horse, designed by a stacked citizens committee full of Nimby’s, environmentalists, subsidized housing advocates, construction unions, homeless advocates and many others who have nothing but disdain for the middle class. How dare we think that we are entitled to elegant homes with nice views on spacious parcels in gated settings, with plenty of space between us and the guy next door? Who do we think we are Danville?

    The result is that 90% of the nearly 13,000 homes to be built will be at 15 to 50 units per gross acre and many will be subsidized. And people are offended by little in-fill projects here and there. Wait until they see the wall of apartments and four story schlock that will rise up from the ground that used to host grazing elk. If Gleason was the champion she claims to be, she would have held out for 50% open space and half the number of homes that were approved. I am not impressed.

  7. anonamom says

    Kudos to Mr. Kremin for standing in favor of the Entire City, while others align themselves with the South Concord NIMBY crew.