By Maureen Nandini Mitra 
September 02, 2010 Rufus Jeffris The premise for the story is good. The reporting is atrocious. The site and area where the development is proposed is a decades-old industrial salt operation. The project does not propose to "pave over 1,400 acres." In fact, the project proposes to restore and preserve about half that area as viable baylands and open space. Development would be concentrated on the half that was the site of the most intensive industial salt production operation, has the least ecological viability -- even according to federal environmental officials -- and would require hundreds of millions of dollars to restore from its former industrial use. The volumes of documents that describe the project and site are all public and easily accessible. You should read them and get informed.
Dear Mr. Rufus Jeffris, I am aware that this is what the builders have proposed. They say the project will pay for 436 acres of wetlands restoration, 368 acres of parks and trails as well as levies and flood control infrastructure. Thank you for pointing it out and yes, I should have included it in the pitch. I shall edit the text to incorporate this information. I understand your concerns regarding this story since DMB Associates is one of your clients... link: http://bmwlandpartners.com/clients/ link: http://bmwlandpartners.com/team/#Jeffris
Thanks, Maureen. My firm's affiliation with the project is certainly the reason I was originally drawn to your pitch. My 15 years as a reporter and editor at a handful of Bay Area newspapers, however, also informed my comments. And is the reason I kicked in a contribution. Best wishes in getting your story funded. I look forward to a thorough, fair and balanced reporting of the topic.
