Jean Sweeney writes into Alameda Daily News to lament about the recent forum on Land Use and Transportation Options for Alameda Point. First she says:
Last Monday, the Planning Board appointed an Ad Hoc committee to set up forums to discuss overturning Measure A in all of Alameda.
Last Thursday, the Planning Staff hired consultants using a grant from MTC to present a “convincing” case for overturning Measure A at Alameda Point. This charge was led by the Senior Planning staff and the Vice President of the Planning Board.
…
It is all outrageous. Planning has no business using MTC money (our taxpayer money) to campaign for the overthrow of Measure A. It was admitted by their own hired consultant that we will have sufficient density to support mass transit.
First of all, let’s ease up on the alarmist language shall we? The Ad Hoc committee was established to set up a workshop to talk about Measure A…not overturn it. If supporters of Measure A don’t believe in it enough to think it can withstand the scruntiny of a few community meetings, perhaps that is evidence enough that we as a city should be reviewing it and taking a good hard look at it again. And, considering that Jean Sweeney was one of only four people who came out at the initial planning board meeting to talk about why we should not have the meeting we had at Mastick Center, her contention that the Planning Board has “no business using MTC money…to campaign for the overthrow of Measure A” is sort of odd. At that meeting she spoke at, Andrew Thomas cleared up that issue:
At about 2.15, Andrew Thomas explains what the MTC monies were awarded to Alameda for and it was, in fact, largerly to study the impacts of Measure A. So if the forum funded by MTC monies does not involve Measure A, the money will have to be returned to the MTC.
While I thought the presentations were well done and very convincing, it was in no way a “campaign” to overthrow Measure A. They simply presented the facts and their analysis as professionals, and we like professionals remember? We don’t like <insert profession of choice> playing at being <insert other profession of choice>. And I’m not sure what presentation Jean S. was listening to, but I seem to remember the consultant talking about the need to add more housing to open space to maxmize possible transit usage.
Next Jean S. says:
We were told by the Planning Board VP on Thursday that it was hard telling her daughter why she had to be there that evening. I should think it would be hard to tell your child that you have led the charge to overturn our density ordinance after 35 years of protecting our city from over development.
One, I don’t think that Ann Cook is leading “the charge to overturn” Measure A. I believe she is doing what she thinks is best for the City: to reexamine a more than 30 year old law that may or may not still be good for Alameda. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that she did, and if she did, I’m puzzled by Jean S.’s statement that it would be “hard to tell your child” that information. I guess you have to come in with the mindset of “Measure A is the savior of all that is Alameda” but this is not some battle between good and evil.
Then Jean S. says:
Catellus has asked for the overthrow of Measure A in their proposal to be the developer at Alameda Point. If we can’t get a developer to make Measure A work, then we should try one that can. The Preliminary Development plan is compliant with Measure A.
Actually, perhaps Jean S. missed that section in the additional questions to the developers, but Catellus was actually the only developer who pandered to the yay-Measure A side. They said they would be “open” to exploring non-Measure A compliant options through community processes, but never did they ever say they wanted to overthrow Measure A. In fact, they clearly state that they are able to make “Measure A work” for their vision:
Catellus feels confident that our financial goals can be met within the parameters of Measure A. Based on past experience, increased residential density does not always translate into increased revenue. The allowable densities set forth in Measure A are compatible with creating a sustainable and green community.
Next:
AC Transit says that the percentage of Alamedans who ride the bus is as high as any Bay Area community, but the planning staff, not AC Transit, says that we need more density at Alameda Point. We have plenty of development on the West End to keep AC Transit happy.
I don’t think that the idea of Transit Oriented Development was proposed for Alameda Point in order to “keep AC Transit happy.” But rather a way to develop smartly at Alameda Point in order to mitigate the impact of an inevitable increase in population. No one is saying or even implying that transit will fix all the traffic problems that Alameda has and will have, but if you give a person a convenient option to use transit then it becomes attractive. AC Transit saying that the percentage of Alamedans who ride the bus is high comes as a good counterpoint to those who have been beating the drums of “no one rides the bus in Alameda so buses are unnecessary in Alameda.”
And:
Planning Staff leaped at the opportunity posed by a member of the audience who proposed work-live for the existing BEQ and BOQ saying, “I can see a consensus building.”
This is when the meeting actually started to get productive, rather than the red faced shouting and heckling. Rather than pose this as though it is something negative, I wonder what Jean S. would propose the city do with the BEQ and BOQ buildings? If Jean S. has a better use for the buildings we are all ears, but personally I think work/live is an excellent way to reuse the old buildings on Alameda Point.
Just to sum up a few thoughts I had about the meeting, I understand why a lot of folks who may be open to amending Measure A for Alameda Point would be reluctant to speak at a meeting like the one at Mastick, as has been reported in other comments, there was a lot of angry people that spoke at the beginning of the open forum and it set a really negative tone for the remainder of the meeting. It started getting better after a lot of the cranky people left, but I personally, did not feel as though it were a “safe” place for me to speak my mind or ask any questions.
For me, what took the cake was when a young man spoke about the possibility of Alameda Point being a car-free zone, while it was definitely a non-starter, it was his time to speak but before he was even a quarter into his statement people started…it can only be described as heckling…him. This was very disappointing to me because it was not as though it was a bunch of teenagers, in fact, at that point I thought that a bunch of teenagers probably would have been more respectful. Even though folks as a whole may not have agreed with him, the least they could have offered him was a moment to finish his thoughts without interruption. Hopefully, we can do better at the next forum folks.
The Alameda Journal/crossover Alameda Times-Star article characterized the meeting rather politely:
Measure A dominated a question-and-answer session after WRT’s presentation Thursday. At times, it turned emotional.
And this statement from Doug deHaan:
City Councilman Doug deHaan questioned whether the consultants had adequate background information on the history of Alameda Point and said they didn’t seem to have a good feel for the community.
“They didn’t understand the passion for Measure A,” he said.
If they didn’t understand before that meeting, they understand the “passion” now. As to having a “good feel for the community,” I don’t necessarily think that the people at that meeting were representative of Alameda as a whole. Although I can empathize with those that are “passionate about Measure A,” I understand that they are frustrated with folks like me and can’t understand why there is the need to revisit something they feel has served Alameda so well. On the flip side, I don’t know if those that are “passionate about Measure A” can understand folks like me and why I am frustrated with their reluctance to even talk about Measure A. Although I must say that “passion” does not excuse rudeness.
Next, Doug deHaan says:
…the city has approved relatively high-density development within the confines of Measure A at places such as Cardinal Point, a senior community across from Jack London Square, and at Alameda Landing, where Catellus is preparing to build a major mixed-use development.
Cardinal Point is Measure A compliant because it sort of skirts around what is a “housing unit.” If you look at the floor plans, you will notice something missing. That’s right, it’s missing a cooking area, and by cooking area I mean a stove. I’m sure you can do a lot with a microwave, but a kitchen is not a real kitchen without a stove and oven. [I've been told that Cardinal Point does have stoves, so I'm trying to figure out what aspect of Cardinal Point would have exempted it from Measure A...quite possibly the senior housing or the meal plan...stay tuned] And while Alameda Landing is going to be exciting in its mixed-useness, it doesn’t take advantage of all the planning and land use tools to make it truly “smart” because of the limitations of Measure A.
I just love when people choose to use their children as third person puppets:
“We were told by the Planning Board VP on Thursday that it was hard telling her daughter why she had to be there that evening. I should think it would be hard to tell your child that you have led the charge to overturn our density ordinance after 35 years of protecting our city from over development.”
Oh.. I’m sure that her child understood all the garbly-gook political talk. I find it difficult to believe that her daughter in the future would be terribly angry over a mother that might have changed history in Alameda so that her children would have a better chance of affording living here. She might actually be thanking her instead.
The more I read about these meetings, the less respect I have for the seemingly childish, somewhat selfish behavior of some people involved.
Comment by edvard_sloan — April 3, 2007 @ 7:37 am
Jean Sweeney has never really let the facts get in the way of telling a good story. As you might recall, during the election she flung a few shaggy dog stories out there that later had to be retracted. Oh and thanks for reading ADN so that we don’t have to!
Comment by notadave — April 3, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Hey notadave don’t forget we have two ADN’s now and I like the one with a noose far better than the other one, but I’m just a little strange. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — April 3, 2007 @ 8:12 am
Regardless of a Measure A compliant plan, I do hope that the City Council and the soon to be selected developer plan to work with school board to address the facilities needs for the children from Alameda Point.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 3, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Have you seen how big the average house is that’s being built on the point? Those people aren’t likely sending their kids to public schools anyway.
Comment by edvard_sloan — April 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Proponents of ensuring that Measure A is applied at Alameda Point seem to be in favor of: Less Traffic (not more), Preservation of Historic Structures, and Open Space. I don’t think that this is controversial statement.
So assuming we hold the number of residents to populate Alameda Point at a constant regardless of the application of Measure A (which could certainly be done as part of any amendment to the charter) we would have:
1) More people closer to a transit center, which means fewer people driving their cars, which means less traffic than there would be if the same number of people lived widely-spaced and further from transit.
2) We would be able to preserve the historic quarters at Alameda Point. With Measure A compliance, we’d have to tear them down.
3) We would be able to have more and larger wide-open spaces. If people were sparsely populated, that space would be used for streets and back yards.
Of course I’ll be attacked for this logic, but I just don’t understand how the vehemant supporters of continuing Measure A at Alameda Point can actually be in favor of those principles.
Comment by Dan W. — April 3, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Dan–exactly what I have been trying to get out on the table–4 families are four families whetehr they live in single family dwellings, or in a multiple. The resistance is not based on logic, but rather an irrational mistrust of anything new. So Alameda
Comment by Barbara Kahn — April 3, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Actually, Ms. Kahn’s hypothetical two sets of four families are not exactly the same: There is substantial evidence that the set of four families living in the denser configuration (multiple-unit condominiums, row houses, etc.) will own fewer cars and drive less, and they will walk, bicycle, and take public transit more. Thus, although there is a traffic impact in both cases (as I have explained again and again, we cannot add homes or businesses without some increase in traffic), the traffic impact of the four families in the denser configuration is less than the impact of the four families in the low-density configuration.
So, if one assumes the total number of new residents is a constant, then refusal to consider any modification to Measure A actually results in more traffic than the same number of new residents living in a non-Measure-A-compliant arrangement.
Fanatical devotion to Measure A in its current form may make sense on a gut level (”good residents versus evil developers and their shills!”), but if traffic is the real concern, it just doesn’t square with the facts.
Comment by Michael Krueger — April 3, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
“So, if one assumes the total number of new residents is a constant, then refusal to consider any modification to Measure A actually results in more traffic than the same number of new residents living in a non-Measure-A-compliant arrangement.”
I absolutely agree. Anyone that wants to see what happens when no new housing or infrastructure is allowed in an area, drive to Marin.It is almost unnavigable.
A community is like an organism. If it gets bigger, you give it more arms to feed itself. Refuse and it will starve.
Comment by edvard_sloan — April 3, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
A community is like an organism. If it gets bigger, you give it more arms to feed itself. Refuse and it will starve. -
But where are the ‘arms’ from Alameda to the mainland?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 3, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Families with children buy homes (even high priced homes as pointed out by a previous post) provided the schools can demonstrate they are delivering quality compared to its neighbors.
Here is an article studying Silicon Valley prices and Academice Performance Indexes of school districts.
http://www.1siliconvalley.com/silicon-valley-school-rankings-relative-to-housing-prices/
As for Alameda’s academice performance, you can view its standing compared to other school districts in Alameda county here:
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2006Grth_Co.aspx?cYear=2004-05&cSelect=01,ALAMEDA
At our March 13 2007 BOE meeting demographers have submitted an estimate of 270 students coming from the 400+ unit of Bayport (with average prices over $800,000). They also recommended this estimate be revisited in a few years since it was early in the build out phase.
http://mikemcmahon.info/boe_meeting0313.htm#demographics
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 3, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
This argument comes up a lot: “Alameda is an island! There is no way we can physically accommodate any growth!”
Most people assume that mobility cannot be increased without building another bridge or tube, but this is simply not true. As the Alameda Transit Plan explains, 25% of all peak-hour trips through the tubes are by transit, even without any transportation demand management (TDM) programs or special transit priority measures. Merely increasing that share to a modest 30% would add 400 to 500 trips’ worth of capacity to the tubes, without pouring a single foot of concrete.
The Bay Bridge, which employs transit priority measures (a “queue jump” at the toll plaza) has a 50% peak-hour transit mode share. If, by adding “queue jump” lanes and promoting transit use through a TDM program, the same share could be achieved in the tubes, it would add between 2,000 and 2,500 trips’ worth of peak-hour capacity.
This analysis can be applied to the bridges, with similar results. As soon as one stops talking about moving cars and starts talking about moving people, it becomes clear that Alameda has plenty of unused capacity on its bridges and in its tubes.
Feel free to argue that growth is not desirable, but please don’t try to claim that it’s physically impossible by repeating the mantra, “But we’re an island!”
Comment by Michael Krueger — April 3, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
I agree that so long as the total number of residential units proposed for Alameda Point is not increased then configuring the units to facilitate transit access is a good thing and amending Measure A to allow for that should be considered. The argument I have heard from Measure A proponents against doing that is that developers would claim unequal treatment relative to the rest of the island and that would lead to Measure A being overturned in court as it applies to Alameda in general. Is that a legitimate concern? I don’t know. Should an exemption to Measure A only apply to Alameda Point? I think there are certainly a number of other issues that come into play when you start talking about that; historical preservation being one of them.
Comment by Mike Rich — April 3, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Mr. Rich:
That is my primary objection to any change of MA, and I’ll hazard a guess that it’s also the same objection of many others.
Alameda developed organically as a mixed use community. Consider the old train stations along Central & Encinal, surrounded by residential areas. That part of the island has been mixed use for over a century. M-A was promulgated to save the character of the island, which was always mixed use, with a a concentration leaning toward SFH’s.
Then consider Harbor Bay, or Bayport. They are decidedly out of character with the rest of Alameda, due in part to MA restrictions (in part, but not entirely). Think how each could be improved by adding a bit of retail into their mix.
Creating another, very large, Harbor Bay or Bayport at the Point is not as desirable as creating a mixed use community, which is a prime motivation for amending MA west of Main St.
It makes sense, but for 2 very large BUT’s:
1) The camel’s nose would be under the tent, and as you allude above, a complete overturn of the Measure would soon gather strength. Fire up the bulldozers, Emeryville here we come. In a generation’s time, the unique and valubale character of our town could well be gone.
On a tangent, many simply do not trust the city’s current leadership to effect such a change with any deftness. I count myself among those. Given the egregious financial mismanagement we’ve seen under BevJo, this distrust is quite rational.
2) Traffic. I used to think people who complained about traffic in Alameda were simple malcontents. Traffic may bind up here and there but’s it’s a cakewalk compared to muost of the East Bay. But the fire near the Park St bridge last fall suddenly changed my thinking on that. At 7.30 am, it took nearly an hour to detour from the bridge to the tube. It literally would have been faster to walk to downtown Oakland. That got me thinking that the traffic alarmists had a point.
The plans that you and others, notably Mssrs. Krueger and White, do help address that, but this is America, and most people will be driving from the Point to the tube on a regular basis. Adding a large component of multifamilies to the point will obviously be more problematic in this regard than will a MA compliant development.
There are other reasons to object, such as the fact that Alameda is already majority rental vis-a-vis owner-occupied, but those are the twin elephants in the room. It’s a good idea at first look, but its attendant risks & problems are just too great.
Comment by dave — April 5, 2007 @ 10:49 am