The Bay Issue - SF Magazine's Take

For some unknown reason, I get the San Francisco magazine delivered in my mail for free.  Every time I go into Mollie's and see it on the newsstand for $4.99 I crack up because I cannot figure out why mine is free.  But I do read the thing since we B'gamers are inextricably linked to EssEff--for better or worse.  The April 2014 issue focusses on The Bay itself--our water mass and the politics around it.  It's worth a read but here is a spoiler alert--I am going to net one of the articles and tell you why they may be able to print in glossy but can't think in plain text.  First, the issue reviews the history of The Bay back to when the gold miners dumped tons of excess dirt into the feeder waterways that muddied the waters for decades.  Then the mag describes why this is both bad AND GOOD since the marshes in the South Bay need silt to survive.  They note

The loss of gold miner-era silt in the bay has led to two major, and unexpected, problems.  First, and seriously, it has threatened the restoration of the bay's marshes.  The wetlands were originally seen as unhealthly swamps standing the in the way of progress and were unmercifully filled in.....But marshes need sediments, and the sediments created by heedless gold rush miners are no longer there.

Here's the hook

The fact of the waterfront's unconquerable complexity is grounds for concern:  How do we know we'll take care of it properly?  The narrative of the human relationship with the bay in the last century is overwhelmingly one of success, but there are new challenges:  emerging contaminants, sea level rise, algae growth, marsh formation.

OK, so you know where I am going with this right.  They use five or six pages to tell us how complicated and "unconquerable" the  bay ecology is--which according to them is down to 548 square miles--but right there on page 67, these same geniuses warn that

Global warming is projected to bring 16 inches of sea level rise to San Francisco Bay over the next 36 years, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.  That will be enough to flood the highway that connects the East Bay mainland with the toll plaza and the (Bay) bridge beyond.

The good news is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission "does plan to address sea level rise going forward".  I'm relieved.  This the issue you are looking for to read it for yourself.

Comments

[Joe]

The Examiner had an interesting piece about the EssEff waterfront after Tuesday's election:

San Francisco voters have made up their minds when it comes to development heights along much of The City's eastern waterfront: Any proposal above current height limits should go to the voters.

That message was loud and clear after Tuesday's election. Proposition B, which will give voters a say when it comes to heights along the shore, won with roughly 59 percent of votes cast, raking in 53,636 votes in all, according to preliminary results with 100 percent of precincts reporting. The measure received 36,626 votes in opposition.

Here's the full link: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/waterfront-height-limit-measure-earns-convincing-victory/Content?oid=2814012

I like the part about the building trade unions, the Chamber of Commerce and the Democratic party all being opposed and the Proposition passing by 19 points!