We’re talking about Strawberry as a “Priority Development Area,” a designation that comes with some kind of baggage.  People argue exactly what that baggage is, but is that the point?

Isn’t the point really that Strawberry has a community master plan, which hasn’t been updated since 1982?  And that the assumptions behind the PDA – creating a walkable, transit-oriented community in accordance with Plan Bay Area – aren’t consistent with most of the expectations of the Strawberry Community Plan, which include:

–  Increase the community authority and responsibility in future development decisions
–  Retain the local setting of open hillside and open Bay waters
–  Retain the existing fine grain character of the community by limiting the construction of large scale urban density developments
–  Stem the increasing rate of traffic congestion, air, water and noise pollution

It’s clear you’re proposing a “compromise” of a smaller PDA.  That’s not a compromise to a community that doesn’t want ANY PDA.

Instead of forcing through a PDA against the wishes of the community, wouldn’t good government be removing the PDA designation and taking this opportunity to build a bridge to the community and engage us in updating the Strawberry Community Plan, to create a shared vision of Strawberry that the community can support – and then see if the PDA fits?

Are you really in such a hurry to get the “Belvedere sidewalk study” done?  Is this really the rational approach to our community?

Instead of hearing Strawberry say “no,” why not work with Strawberry to find out what Strawberry says “yes” to?

Strawberry residents don’t want a PDA designation foisted on us against our wishes, one that we all believe does something you say it doesn’t, and is clearly contrary to the Strawberry Community Plan.  You can either respect the wishes of the community and engage in really planning Strawberry’s future, or jam it through against our wishes and watch us resist – which of these is good democratic government?