There was talk about Alameda suing the Oak to 9th project in Oakland. Oak to 9th is a huge proposed development on the Oakland waterfront. It actually took me a while to figure out which part of the Oakland waterfront this was planned for because there is so much blighted and unattractive Oakland waterfront. So instead, they decided to form a panel to talk about traffic and all future development issues around the border between Oakland and Alameda. I think that this was probably the best solution, considering that –regardless of any naysaying on the part of some Alamedans — eventually Alameda Point is going to be developed and it would look silly of Alameda to have impeded the development project of a neighboring city.
Chip Johnson has a great op-ed in the Chronicle regarding the Oak to 9th project which I think really relates well to the development at Alameda Point. Eventually, the site needs to be developed (both Oak to 9th and Alameda Point), it would be a shame to let little details stand in the way of this opportunity:
“The questions surround, namely, roadway improvements, access to public schools and pedestrian-safety upgrades because the project will sit across the street from a busy rail depot and freight lines.
Those are details that must be addressed to make the project a success, but they are certainly not sufficient to block a project with so much promise.
…
Calling for a referendum on this project seems an extreme measure and a potentially dangerous one. If the group succeeds in getting the measure on the ballot, the Oak-to-Ninth project becomes a political pressure point for the Oakland city council and the activist community. Development by referendum is no way to do business.
And to risk the city’s best opportunity in decades to clean up toxic sites and turn an industrial junkyard into housing and parkland is too large a risk to take.”
There are those that talk about the Point being developed as open space and recreation space, but who is going to pay for all that? The city doesn’t have the budget to both pay for such an undertaking and maintain it as well without some added revenue stream into the budget. There is a happy medium between what the two disparate sides want, and I bet that most Alamedans don’t fall into one camp or the other, that they want both the retention of the historical charm of Alameda, but they also want Alameda to move forward toward real progress through smart development.
A commentor mentioned that my views don’t align with many other anti-Measure A folks, well…just like every poster here has their own views, I have my own opinions as well. Since I don’t know this cabal of anti-Measure A people, I wouldn’t be able to respond one way or the other as to whether I fall into line with their message or all their talking points. A lot of people with different interests can band together and agree on one issue together to make the message stronger. And even though they may not agree with me about Target or Bayport or the price of wool in Scotland, I do agree with them about exempting Measure A for Alameda Point and right now that is the issue at hand.
Lauren – I’m truly flattered that you keep responding to my comments, if even you don’t identify me directly.
Comment by keepmeasurea — August 17, 2006 @ 11:23 am
I’m afraid this blog is being hijacked by keepmeasurea’s inane comments. Care to step out while we folks attempt to have a conversation?
Comment by Ed — August 17, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
On Oak to Ninth, we can sue at any point and I was told it makes better sense to sue over EIRs on individual segments of the project as they come out.
For ten years I lived in the blight Lauren refers to in the privately held land at the foot of Fifth Avenue. Try bicycling through the neighborhood or touring that shore of Oakland by boat. It’s interesting.
Comment by Mark — August 17, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Easy on the personal attacks there Ed. That’s one for “intolerant” and two for “inane.”
Just ’cause you don’t like my opinions….
Comment by keepmeasurea — August 18, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
The city of alameda paid Oakland china town $600,000 over the impact of the Bayport Homes. The City of Alameda should have filed against the Oak to 9th becasue the 3,100 units to be built will severly impact the traffic flow from the Tube and the Park Street exit (especially the Tube).
However the signatures have been turned in, in Oakland in order to put the project before the voters in Oakland either by special election or in the spring.It’s too late for November or the city council could act on it.
By the way “what does SMART DEVELOPMENT really mean?
Comment by gretchen — August 19, 2006 @ 12:31 am
I think the 9th to Oak would be a great development. It is close to the transportation centers and you can walk to Bart in 5 to 10 minutes. Have you drove by there something needs to be done to clean up that area and the City of Oakland doesn’t seem to have the money for more parks. They have some great parks and don’t seem to have the money to maintain them.
In my oppion if you wanted better access to Alameda you could stop all the double parking in China Town. My other suggestion is to make the right lane coming our of the tube a turn only. It is dangerous how people there try to cut in front of others. Somehow a traffic study could be done and I am sure things can be impoved.
Comment by Joe — August 29, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Take a bike ride along the Okaland waterfront, from Park St to Oak st
You’ll see that the Alameda side is equlayy if not more blighted
Comment by dave — September 7, 2006 @ 12:18 pm