Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

May 17, 2003

Snake ruling key to developers

Subheading

But no one is predicting whether the decision will make a significant dent in the East Bay's affordable-housing crisis.

The Alameda whipsnake, found almost exclusively in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, still is protected as a threatened species. Its habitat cannot be destroyed by development.

A judge ruled Thursday that the habitat designated by a federal agency was inaccurate and needs to be revised.

Pro-growth advocates say the ruling by a Fresno judge "eliminates a constraint" in their quest to build more homes, including those for low-income residents. Environmentalists, though, say it will do nothing for the many hopeful home buyers already set adrift by a pricey market.

"It's clearly no," said Jeremy Madsen, field director for the Greenbelt Alliance in San Francisco. "There's definitely a need for affordable housing; we all know that. But, in our opinion, they will keep building homes in the hinterlands of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, where most people with low incomes cannot afford."

A federal wildlife agency that designated the sprawling critical habitat area must present a revised plan after meeting with U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii next month.

In a region gripped by ballooning home prices, the Alameda whipsnake has been caught in the middle of a tug-of-war over the land on which it slithers. The swift reptile, or "striped racer," was listed as a threatened species in 1997.

In response to environmentalists' lawsuits, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set aside 406,598 acres as "critical habitat" to help the snake survive. All but 35,000 acres are in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

Developers and business groups blasted the maps of the protected zones as illogical and poorly designed.

A coalition, including the Home Builders Association of Northern California, sued to overturn the designation in 2001. "We argued that they didn't prove the snakes were in the places they said they were," said Bob Rivett, principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed the suit.

He said a number of private property owners had hired their own biologists to challenge the accuracy of the maps. "And they came back with no evidence of the species," Rivett said. "Yet (the federal agency) still included those areas and did not respond with their own scientific work."

In his decision, Judge Ishii removed the critical habitat designation largely for that reason. The two parties will meet June 2 to determine when the wildlife service will present a new plan.

Developers praised the ruling as lifting another layer of scrutiny in some future East Bay housing projects. "The Wildlife Service just put a paint brush over 400,000 acres and said it was critical habitat," said Jim Ghielmetti, president of Pleasanton-based Signature Homes. "It was a terrible decision."

He said once a new plan is devised, it could only help lift the sagging affordable-housing market. "The more land that is made available, the more affordable housing you will get."

Madsen of the Greenbelt Alliance said he is not crossing his fingers. Developers, he said, need to start focusing on a larger diversity of housing such as infill projects which can provide townhouses or apartments for lower-income residents.

Instead, he said, they simply set their sights on large swaths of land on the fringes of the Bay Area -- where profits are higher and the price of new homes is too steep for many people.

###