Lowe’s spent close to $400,000 and two years on environmental studies to gain approval to build a 140,000-square-foot store on the northeast corner of the 120 Bypass and Airport Way in Manteca.
In 2008, they hoped to be within six months of breaking ground when a state agency decreed they had to do yet another environmental study. This time it was $80,000 to examine the impact of idling trucks unloading freight on air quality.
The simple and least expensive solution would have been to require that all semi-tractor delivery trucks cut off their engines when they are unloading. It’s what they do at Home Depot in Manteca. But the EIR regulations fashioned and expanded by the state do not employ common sense.
The environmental study delays pushed the project timetable back enough that Lowe’s pulled the plug after the housing bubble burst. Given the economy, that may have been a good development for Lowe’s but if they had been able to build and open the store they likely would have increased net municipal sales tax receipts and employment even if they pulled business from Manteca’s Home Depot.
Keep in mind the EIR process took two years for a 140,000-square-foot home improvement store basically because of a little detail such as idling trucks.
Now compare that to one of the most intrusive public works projects ever pushed by the State of California - high speed rail. The high speed rail authority - comprised of many former politicians and bureaucrats that help expand the scope of the environmental review process for development in California - wants the EIR fast tracked and basically done in less time than it takes to get the EIR adopted for a typical shopping center or large scale housing development in the San Joaquin Valley.
The reason is simple. They have to finish the first segment through the poorest region of the state from Madera to Fresno by September 2017. To put this in perspective, it is doing to take Caltrans three to four years to widen Highway 99 and put in new interchanges in a 13-mile segment of Highway 99 from Yosemite Avenue to Arch Road.
One would assume there aren’t any significant issues such as idling diesel trucks to contend with in the environmental review portion of high speed rail.
Guess again.
The stretch just from Merced to Fresno will
•cost up to $6.9 billion
•displace upwards of 343 homes and force the relocation of 1,000 residents.
•force as many as 323 businesses to be located impacting nearly 8,200 employees.
•mean nearly 1,481 acres of “important farmland” critical to saving as determined by state laws. The quality growing soil would be lost to the rail alignment. That land is classified either as prime, of statewide or local importance, or unique.
That’s for starters.
The Fresno to Bakersfield segment will
•cost almost $7.2 billion.
•require 375 homes to be destroyed forcing the displacement of 1,190 residents.
•mean 380 businesses would need to be relocated impacting 2,060 employees.
•mean the loss of 2,200 acres of important farmland.
High speed rail backers point to statistics such as all the construction jobs that will be created and the savings in freeway construction.
Job estimates have been consistently revised downward and there is no real addressing of the net loss of jobs overall from the loss of almost 4,000 acres of highly productive farmland. Supposedly $100 billion in expanded freeway and airport construction will be saved. But how many jobs will that cost? If it is fair to count the temporary construction jobs for building high speed rail it is only fair to tabulate the jobs lost from freeway construction in the region.
As for improved air quality being the means to justify the ends where will the power come from to power the electric bullet trains? Try to get new non-polluting new power sources in California such as large scale solar farms advanced without major environmental issues cropping up.
Maybe they can build a nuclear power plant in Bakersfield.
Considering it’s the San Joaquin Valley, they could probably get away with declaring a negative declaration meaning there is no significant environment impact from plunking down a nuke plant in the valley.
This column is the opinion of managing editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of The Bulletin or Morris Newspaper Corp. of CA. He can be contacted at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com or 209-249-3519.
