How Save The Bay Spins Measure V

The above door hanger, with arrows added by us, was distributed widely throughout Redwood City at the end of August, 2008 by Save the Bay. In many ways, this door hanger crystallizes the entire anti-V campaign by Save the Bay. Here is our view of every line of this unique campaign piece. Welcome to the world of super spin.

Missing in Action: "subject to legal challenge"

This door hanger does not says Measure V is "subject to legal challenge." The absence of the "Measure V is illegal" argument is very telling as it was the major tenant of Save the Bay's first attack on Measure V. We believe it is because the argument was lacking any substance. For more on this subject, please see: Is Measure V Legal?

No Park Protection, but Protection by Measure W is Limited

"Measure V doesn’t protect any parks"

Measure V targets Cargill Saltflats. It does not protect parks as it was not designed that way. Measure W is not great for park protection either as it only covers about 50% of the parks in Redwood City. The target of Save the Bay's campaign has always been Cargill Saltflats. That was their core message. The fact that Measure V does not target parks, which was never its intent, is used to hide the fact that Measure V does target Cargill Saltflats.

This prompts the other question: Are parks really under siege in Redwood City? Last we checked, Redwood City was attempting to expand the number of parks. If we have to spend money on elections, litigations and big payouts, then what is left for parks?

Public Vote on Cargill

"...[Measure V] doesn’t guarantee a clear public vote on specific development projects on Cargill salt ponds"

§          "Shall a Charter Amendment requiring majority voter approval for the future development of the Cargill Lands, consisting of approximately 1,450 acres east of Highway 101 and south of Seaport Boulevard, with exemptions for takings and vested rights, be adopted?" See Ballot Language

This is not foggy, clouded, nor mixed inside of multiple paragraphs like Measure W, a giant legal maze where nobody can escape. This is very simple: Measure V gives you, the citizens of Redwood City, a vote on Cargill.

Gives Us a Vote on Housing and Traffic

“opening the door to thousands of new housing units and tens of thousands more daily trips on our already congested roads.”

We're missing the connection here. How is it that by giving the citizens of Redwood City a vote on the future of the Cargill Saltflats, "opens the door’"to thousands of houses and more traffic? It does the opposite. Measure V gives citizens a vote by which they can decide on such issues. Trust the voter or trust Save the Bay. You decide.

Measure V: The Developer’s Measure, huh?

“Measure V is the developer’s 'counter-measure'"

This was covered in depth here: Is Measure V the Developer's Initiative?

• None of the major campaign organizations supported by developers say 'Yes on V' or 'Vote for V'.
• Measure V hurts Cargill by imposing a major hurdle for development.
• Measure V is created by the City Council to address concerns brought by affected homeowners and residents who are the collateral damage of Measure W.

Confuse Voters: Measure V or W

“…to confuse voters…”

Measure V was placed on the ballot, because Measure W was designed to confuse voters, saying it is for open space and then targeting a large swath of private and developed properties. Measure V was created by the City Council at the request of affected homeowners who are the ‘collateral damage’ of Measure W’s language.

Measure V Hurts Cargill: Where's the Benefit?

"...and undermine Measure W for the benefit of Cargill."

We know it is beginning to sound a bit redundant, but Measure V hurts Cargill by imposing another hurdle that they must cross before proceeding with a project. The assertion that imposing a vote is for the ‘benefit’ of Cargill defies logic.

Simple, Clear, and Legal

“Measure V is weak, vague, and full of loopholes”

Measure V says: "Shall a Charter Amendment requiring majority voter approval for future development of the Cargill Lands, consisting of approximately 1,450 acres east of Highway 101 and south of Seaport Boulevard, with exemptions for takings and vested rights, be adopted?"

Ok, let’s walk through this: Cargill proposes a project, voters vote on the project. This is very simple, not weak, vague, and full of loopholes. Some people bring up "spot zoning," a red herring, and cast doubts on the validity of Measure V. That argument is not valid in so many ways, because Measure V does not change existing zoning for Cargill. For more detail, please see: Is Measure V Legal?

Measure V Checks Cargill

“Measure V is a blank check for traffic and massive development...”

Oh, please. Measure V imposes a hurdle to Cargill development plans by giving the voters a vote on those plans. If the voters reject development on the Cargill Saltflats, then there is no issue with traffic and massive development.

Protects Open Space and Baylands

“…allowing developers to destroy open space and baylands.”

Measure V locks the existing zoning and general plan designation for the Cargill Saltflats in place. To date, Cargill and its developer DMB have not formally submitted a plan to Redwood City, so we have no idea what the impact would be. If their plan destroys open space and baylands, then Measure V allows the citizens of Redwood City to vote it down.

Who's the Schemer?

“Stop the Cargill Scheme”

Neither Cargill nor any other developer gave any input into Measure V. All developers are supporting the 'No on W' campaign. It’s just us, affected residents and homeowners, who asked for and continue to support Measure V. After looking at all the misstatements, outright deceptions, and massive attempt to confuse voters, the question is who is the real schemer concerning Measure V, Cargill or Save the Bay? 

Just Politics

Then again, this is a political campaign. Perhaps, misleading and confusing voters is a normal practice by the political professionals. The question is, considering the massive damage Measure W brings and the fact that Measure V gives the voters what they are asking for, why is any organization still supporting Measure W? In fact, why should anyone believe anything Save the Bay says? Why are they willing to hurt so many people and then fail to create or restore a single acre of open space, while campaigning AGAINST the very thing that they said they support, a vote on Cargill?

Land Use and Charter Amendments

What is missing from this anti-Measure V door hanger? Just like Measure W, Measure V amends the City Charter for land use management. The reason that is missing is simple. If Save the Bay makes that argument, then it undermines their entire political campaign on Measure W. We will be the first to say City Charter is not the right instrument for dealing with complex land use issues. However, over 6,500 residents had signed the petition. We respect their wish to have a say on the future use and development of Cargill Saltflats. This is why we appreciate the City Council for placing Measure V on the ballot. Measure V offers straight forward language allowing the voters to have a choice. Please see: Should We Amend the City Charter?

Assume the door hanger is copyrighted material, and thus its use is not applicable to the creative commons license. The hanger's use here is allowed as 'fair use' in the context of providing literary and political criticism and comment. All comments, as usual, are our opinion.  This article is an opinion piece, but if you feel the need to write a response, please post it on your website and we will provide a link to that response. You may use the Contact form here.

This work, with the exception of the image, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.