August 30, 2000

"Manteca Joe" and the Red Legged Frog

It's my understanding the Red Legged Frog was the creature celebrated by Mark Twain in the "Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County." Which means the Red Legged Frog is rather widespread, thriving at least as far away as the Sierra foothills. It's fine if we have more of them, but it's unlikely to become instinct if there should be fewer in Pacifica. Red Legged Frogs serve the same purpose for garter snakes McDonald's hamburgers serve for people. Lunch!

Since the San Francisco Garter Snake is a subspecies of the Common Garter Snake, a snake so common it's known as such, I think it's also likely it can interbreed with the several other subspecies as needed to perpetuate the species.

However, thinking like this would negate the real value of both the Red Legged Frog and the San Francisco Garter Snake, which serve so admirably as road blocks to progress. Frog and snake are the creatures from which Environmental Impact Reports are made. A whole cottage industry is involved in the creation of EIRs. Huge volumes of turgid prose are ground out yearly, at great expense, to prove whatever points someone wishes to prove. No one's ever been known to read an entire environmental impact report, unless, of course, they were being paid by the hour to do so. EIR's are often as big as the San Francisco yellow pages. The yellow pages are usually a better "read."

If frog and snake didn't exist, we'd have to invent'em. They're indispensable whenever there's progress to be forestalled, development to be blocked, stagnation to be encouraged.

Which reminds me of a recent trip to Yosemite. We stopped at an Italian restaurant in Manteca to refuel on ravioli and ice water, when the ladies at the next table started talking about their friend. (Let's call him Joe). Joe leaves for his San Francisco job every morning at 4 a.m. and returns at 8 p.m. Joe's a symbol of the new commuters, who sacrifice their sleep and their leisure time in the process of polluting so much of the air of the Great Valley of California.

If there was less pressure to stop all growth around here, or at least slow it to a slow crawl, Joe and his fellow commuters could buy houses in Pacifica at less unreasonable prices. By doing so, he'd be able to work in San Francisco, arrive home for the six o'clock news, get up at six a.m., and reduce the smog load on the Altamont Pass.

There'll come a day when my Linda Mar rancher will be sold. I'll move, perhaps to the Sierra foothills where so many Bay Area retired expatriates now reside. Or perhaps I'll prove mortal. In any case, the home I bought so many decades ago will be available. The artificial scarcity of local housing that's been created will work in my favor, or that of my heirs. A house located in Pacifica, or San Jose, or Los Altos Hills is worth a good deal more than one in Redding. The Redding house may have more intrinsic value. It may be better built. It may have cost just as much to build or buy in 1960. But Pacifica homes cost more today, mostly because the Friends of Pacifica and their counterparts in other Bay Area communities insisted on controlling growth. Because they've succeeded, all Bay Area housing costs far more than it would in a rational housing market.

Paul Azevedo may be reached via e-mail at reactor@wenet.net