A couple of responses to the posts from my two entries:
Dr. Bagus writes:
Why do you hate seals, fireworks and the Chargers?
It’s hard to tell whether your comment is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but I’ll respond anyway. First, I don’t hate seals, and in fact I’ve spent a fair amount of time working with others to protect them at the Children’s Pool. I don’t hate fireworks either, but they pollute our water, air and ambiance with virtually no environmental regulation. And regarding the Chargers, while I’m not much of a fan of professional team sports, they are the best example of society putting enormous amounts of time and energy into something that at the end of the day is essentially recreational. My point was that given the relatively huge impacts on our lives of bad transportation planning, lack of affordable housing, and cruddy water quality, we could be spending less time on some of these other things.
I carpool to work every day. I traded my van for a smaller, more economical sedan. I use the trolley to attend school, and combine my shopping trips to save gas. … What do you do personally to save gas, help the environment, and reduce traffic congestion?
Pretty much my entire career is dedicated to helping the environment. But to specifically address your question, first, I work only a couple of miles from my house. Hence, there’s almost no commute. Also, back in January I traded in my Outback for a Toyota mini-van because it was safer for my family (and young child.) I quickly realized that this wasn’t economical for trips back and forth to court and meetings, so now, when I’m driving alone, I have a small VW Golf. But the real issue of my post was that we need more expanded transit alternatives, which will require vision, investment, and what is most lacking, leadership.
Basic Civics writes:
[Y]ou forgot to explain in any great detail why the Public’s involvement in the Transnet program is a benefit beyond that it effects traffic and water quality. How about addressing the facts of Transnet 2 and how it is not the greatest piece of legislation. … I.e. it is biased toward new construction vs. maintenance of existing infrastructure.
I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, along with Coastkeeper, Surfrider, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity, I actively opposed the TransNet extension as a total sellout for the environment. As my second post noted, continued focus on highway building will get us nowhere. The involvement with Sandag I am promoting is regarding the 2007 RTP, which will contain a transit-heavy SOFAR alternative. We CAN turn the tide on the discretionary monies in TransNet and that are available from the feds and state bonds, but we’ll have to stop focusing so much attention on the deck chairs to get there.
Have you or your firm received money from supporters of Bajagua, which, it’s been reported, you also support?
Let’s be absolutely clear about this: I represent the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, and have since about 1998. Since 1999, Surfrider has supported the ideals upon which Bajagua is founded (more treatment, in Mexico, with reclamation opportunities, paid for by U.S. taxpayers). In 2004 I formed Coast Law Group with Gary Sirota, a past president of the Surfrider Foundation Board of Directors and, and consultant/attorney for Bajagua since about 1997. Bajagua continues to pay Coast Law Group for Gary’s services, while the work I do on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation is uncompensated. Surfrider and Bajagua share an identical goal of completing the project, and both have waived any potential conflict due to mutual representation. While you may dislike the appearance of bias, there has never been any hesitation to publicly disclose our arrangement and the history of all involved is vindication enough for us to sleep at night. Thanks for caring enough to ask.