Dept. of Clarification: Memo #1

This is the last sentence in the Examiner's account of the latest legal moves in the Bicycle Plan litigation: "Anderson's lawsuit claiming The City didn't do proper environmental studies before approving the [bicycle]plan was supported by a judge." ("Bike plan still awaiting decision on injunction," Will Reisman, SF Examiner, October 14, 2009)

I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again: The city did no environmental studies at all before it adopted and began implementing the 500-page Bicycle Plan to redesign many city streets on behalf of city cyclists. 

This is the line the folks at the Bicycle Coalition like, the implication that our successful litigation forcing the city to do an environmental impact report on the ambitious Plan was based on legal technicalities ("the City did not comply with the procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in reviewing its official City Bike Plan"). 

Hard to say what the people at the Bicycle Coalition really understand---except that Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad---but it's simply untrue. Judge Busch could have ruled against us, but the law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is very clear on the issue: if a project even might have an impact on the environment, an environmental study must be conducted, which is the very essence of that law, the most important environmental law in California.

The Bicycle Coalition's press release on Judge Busch's decision.