Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 14:09:02 -0800

From: Francisco Da Costa <>

Subject: The Muwekma Park and the proposed Bridge


Cc: David Erickson <>,

 Michael Burns<>,

 Sophie Maxwell<>,

 Greg Asay<>,

 "Benjamin K.Leung" <Ben_Leung@Ci.SF.CA.US>,

 Matt Gonzalez<>,

 Leland Yee<>, Chris Daly <>,

 Yolanda Harris<>,

 Vince Harris<>,

 "Mark W.Lozovoy" <>, jory bell <>,

 Nieret Mizushima<>,

 Mary Ratcliff<>

X-Priority: 3




It was nicemeeting you yesterday - after the small event. As you recall we two had a talkcovering many issues. I want to reassure you in writing that I have nothingagainst you, Nieret, Dan (who is no more with you), Peter and a few other S.F.Port Officials.


As you arefocused on the project given to you - I am focused on the impact on thestakeholders - the constituents and the constituency. Hundreds came to me forhelp and since I understand the issues - I thought I would be of assistance.What I see is no LEADERSHIP and absolutely no ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY.


The issue athand is the Muwekma Park which could have been used as a mitigation factor -favoring the S.F. Port Authority but now it has become a sore problem - thathas to be resolved. I did my best to act as a mediator and facilitator. As youagreed we do not have a common clearing agency or Point of Contact (POC) onthis issue.


You seem to feeland think that some of us and I in particular do not understand the issues ofthe proposed bridge and Muwekma Park. Believe me I do.


There arevarious levels of contacts and communication involved with the Muwekma Park.The good thing is that it is no more a drug infested locality. Thegood thing is that most people recognize it as a Park. The sad part is thatthis recognition and the good that incurred has been destroyed by the sewercollapse.


The partiesconcerned should make good  - theharm done. If the City and County of San Francisco, MUNI, S.F. PUC, the S.F.Port Authority - wishes to be in good books with the PUBLIC and the community -they will have to listen to those who are stakeholders. The S.F. Port mustalways remember all of its land that comes under its jurisdiction belongs toall the people of California. As Trustees the least they can do is listen. Thisis not easy but it is a valid requirement and process.


At this time Iwould "kindly" like to remind the S.F. Port Authority that it did nottake care of what is today know as the Muwekma Ohlone Sanctuary for over adecade. David Erickon, hundreds of volunteers, did the right thing - theyrestored a vacant lot, infested with drug needles and other toxic paraphernalia- cleaned it and made it into something nice. Today - the collapsed sewerpipe has destroyed what was once good.


I would like toread the Environmental Impact Studies or Reports linked to the site where thesewer collapse took place. I would like to read and review the 'soil assessmentreports" linked to to the site where the sewer pipe collapsed. These maynot be issues directly linked with the S.F. Port Authority - but I would liketo make known to you and others - the process that would lead to those whothought they could pull a fast one and bluff the constituents.


In my subjectiveopinion the second issue - regarding the proposed bridge was NOT addressed in aforth right manner. It was not addressed in the right manner because many knownfactors were NOT told to the PUBLIC or at the small targeted communitymeetings. My position and that of the thousands of artists is very clear - we do not need the bridge and thetraffic on land that first belongs to the citizens of California and is givenin trust to the S.F. Port Authority. The mandate given to the Trustees is topreserve and protect the environment and the land.


It does notmatter that some entities who did not favor building the bridge now want it.And this includes Mr. Spencer. It is paramount and very important thatthousands of artists - " do not want the bridge on IllinoisStreet".  It may matter to theS.F. Port Authority - because they have a hidden agenda. The S.F. PortAuthority is swayed by money and politics. It does not sincerely have theinterest of the Public. This is my subjective opinion and I do inter act withthe Public who trust me and confide in me. Time will tell.


The whole SouthEast Sector has been targeted with so many projects mostly aiding greed,  big corporations and developers. TheCity and County of San Francisco, MUNI, San Francisco P.U.C., PG&E, PacificBell, numerous developers, consultants, do not have the interest of the constituencynor the constituents. This has been stated at all the Public Meetings. MUNItried to pacify the community members at one meeting - but to date has notdelivered on its promises.


I am invitingyou to attend the meeting on February 4 and 6 at the S.E. Community Facility.None of these meeting directly involve the S.F. Port Authority - but one canalways learn from these meetings.


The SanFrancisco Port Authority has lost a case with lawyer Angela Alioto at thehelm. Some long standing tenants were pitted against the S.F. Port Authority.The concept of having a couple of piers to accommodate the Cruise Business onthe Water Front is encountering serious problems. Mission Bay expansion isrift with problems. The present economy demands that Redevelopers do not preyon innocent constituents - at the moment they are doing just that.


Most importantlypolitics is everything for the S.F. Port Authority. The appointed not selectedCommissioners - do some one's bidding. I have tried my best to be sincere and Icannot lie. The road ahead is a tough one for the S.F. Port Authority as I seeit. That proposed bridge should never be built.


I will attendsome meetings where the appointed commissioners are present. So far I havetried my level best to cooperate with the S.F. Port Authority. I believe thatthe constituents and the community should be heard. As you can see the petition on the <>http://www.islaiscreek.comsite is growing. These are citizens who live in San Francisco, the Bay Area,and in California.

As I statedbefore - I will state again - they are "stakeholders" in thearea  where the proposedbridge will be built. All of them agree with me that there is no need for abridge - the existing infrastructure can be maximized with American ingenuity.Many of us have given you maps and current data to aid you with  better options.


The area isquestion does not need heavy truck congestion and pollution.


Development atthe expense of the constituents where pollution and other adverse impacts -kill the environment and life should NOT be encouraged by any personwho is well informed and caring.


So far the Cityand County of San Francisco, MUNI, S.F. Public Utilities Commission, PG&E,Pacific Bell, some S.F. Supervisors, the developers, consultants have favoredbig money and greed.


I will not bebold to say either be for us or against us. How ever the issues at hand linkedto the the "proposed bridge" and the " Muwekma Park" -require qualified input from the constituents at large and those directlyimpacted, they have cooperated as best they can. So far they have not been toldby you or the S.F. Port Authority what are your final plans. I guess they arestill in the pipe line waiting the input from the politicians and big money.


In a way thecollapsed sewer pipe opened a can of worms. We are still counting the worms -it was a real eye opener!


Who will takethe challenge who will make good things happen. Good leaders know the way, showthe way, and go the way. I see no one on the horizon!


Francisco DaCosta