Stop, Drop, and Roll has a message for Alamedans and its elected leaders, we find ourselves, once again, at a crossroads in Alameda. Regardless of where you may stand on the issue of Measure A, for or against, I think that we can all agree that open discussion on any issue is one of the foundations of our democracy, which is why, as SDR as pointed out, it is time for some strong and decisive leadership on the issue that comes before the City Council next Tuesday, excerpt:
Alameda civic discourse is once again in the crosshairs. Like a circular dream, the issue of measure A and its effect on development in this city is raised, lawn signs and apocalyptic sloganeering ensue, timid civic leaders choose the path of least resistance and quietly ignore the issue all together and the city continues to grow in unsustainable ways.
The latest round of this tragedy began recently when the Alameda Planning board, on a vote of 6-1, decided to form an ad hoc subcommittee in order to discuss having a meeting to discuss Alameda’s “Measure A.” Topics to discuss include how that meeting would be structured, who might be invited to speak, what the end-product of the meetings would be and how those goals might be attained.
These plans of a possible meeting structure would then return to the Planning Board, where the entire board would hold yet another public meeting to discuss how to set up a meeting that would then discuss issues surrounding Measure A. (For those counting at home, that’s two public meetings about holding a public meeting, super secret stuff.)
That was the day the world ended in Alameda.
So, is it, as suggested by some die-hard Measure A proponents that the Planning Board is looking to subvert Measure A? Or is it as simple as what the Planning Board said they wanted to do, hold forums to discuss Measure A in a formal setting? There are some that would have you believe that the Planning Board (minus one) has publically announced their disdain for Measure A and have gone on record as saying they want to do away with it. But when pressed for recorded proof of these statements (all video archives of the Planning Board are available to be checked out at the Main Library reference desk upstairs) nothing is produced.
Rather than engaging in intelligent and thoughtful debate about the topic of Measure A, instead we are exposed to seven word signs (well eight if you consider an “=” a word) as though that were all that needs to be said on the issue. Right now, folks that brought you your friendly neighborhood lawn sign are probably crafting talking points, possibly making colorful T-shirts to try to provide visual proof that they are large and in charge. As Public Enemy once said, “Don’t believe the hype.”
On Tuesday, May 15, against my better judgement and gut instinct that the meeting is going to devolve into yet another episode of “who can shout the loudest and say the most insulting things” I’m going to go to the City Council meeting. And even if it’s just to say, “pleasesupporttheplanningboard’sdecisiontohaveforumsonmeasureabecauseitisimportanttohaveongoingcommunitydialogueontheissue.” I’ll sit through all the other stuff because it’s time for the another side to be represented in this dialogue. And, even if you are the biggest fan of Measure A, would you be happy to know that Measure A was “protected” by stifling public discourse? How does that make for a healthy community? I hope that some Measure A proponents will break rank and speak up at the meeting on Tuesday asking for these forums to commence, because if not now, then when?
Oh, and if you simply cannot get out to the meeting on Tuesday, which I hope that you will all try, regardless of how you feel on the issue of Measure A, write into the City Council and tell them how you feel. It’s as easy as Access Alameda.
The League of Women Voters, which has NOT taken an anti-Measure A stance, despite what misinformation has been widely spread asserting that it has, will be there and making a statement supporting public discussion of the issues surrounding Measure A. We will also be advocating holding such discussions with a professional facilitator so that those speaking will be respected and the exchange conducted in a civil manner.
A key principle of good government is that the free exchange of information and opinions on issues of public policy must be not only allowed, but encouraged. Supporting discussion is not advocacy.
The League believes there are issues needing discussion and that our community can exercise enough discipline to conduct ourselves civiliy while talking about the problems and opportunities Measure A offers. So, rather than continue the vituperation, threats, personal attacks and shouting, wouldn’t it be a big point in Alameda’s favor to show ourselves to be considerate, well-reasoned in debate, and capable of mutual respect even when our opinions differ?
Comment by Kate Quick — May 10, 2007 @ 7:36 am
I think the main reason that pro MA folks are concerned is that virtually all of the “relax, we just want to discuss it” crowd are anti Measure A. To we MA supporters, it seems disingenuous, if not actually dishonest, to preach about the virues of discussion when one’s agenda is obviously repeal or alteration. If anyone is an exception to that, please chime in.
And I find it interesting that many of the “relax we just want to discuss it” crowd are complaining about Pro MA yard signs. Isn’t putting a sign in one’s yard a way to discuss a political issue? Isn’t stating one’s opinion still a right, and still an integral part of discussion? Make up your minds, anti-sign people.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Dave,
I’m with you on signs, in that it’s free expression and I’m indifferent. If the message is lame that is the problem of those who post them. The Daily Noose piece on signs was very funny.
I expect John P. will “chime in” soon as he has clearly been an adamant supporter of the right to discuss MA, but also says he still supports it. A minority, but he has some company I’m sure. Are you opposed to the discussion?
I say to the pro MA folks, so tighten your sphincters, we should still discuss MA.
I am not anti MA and that is not disingenuous. It needs to be amended, so that where it does serve well it is unimpeachable and yes, it should be modified for the Point.
Comment by Mark — May 10, 2007 @ 8:15 am
Mark:
Of course I’m not opposed to the discussion, I’m merely suspicious of the motives of the “let’s discuss” crowd. It smacks of “relax, honey, I just want to TALK about having an affair.”
—–
I’ve stated this before, but it seems fitting to say it again in this thread:
When I first began wasting time time on this blog, I was an unqualified MA supporter, inalterably opposed to any modification. I’ve learned alot by hanging out here, and have come to appreciate and at some some level agree with the idea of modifying MA for the Base. After all, the rest of the town is mixed use for the most part, why shouldn’t it be so West of Main St?
But I have 2 significant concerns about it:
1) Traffic. No matter how transit friendly the Point is made, there are still going to be a lot of car trips down Atlantic to the tube and back. Not everybody is going to work in Downtown SF or downtown OAK, which is where public transit is geared to. Many will work elsewhere, and of course there are the myriad non-work trips that will be done by car. Even if Point households take fewer than avg number of car rides, the gross number will be high, especially if there’s a large number of multi-families built. The anti-MA crowd either foolishly denies this traffic impact, or simply plays the “deal with it, that’s progress” card. I suspect that none of them had to use the tube the day of the carpet fire last fall.
2) Opening the base to such development endangers the rest of the island to a repeal of MA. It is not inconceivable that an alliance of develepers and affordable hosuing do-gooders could sue for an opening of the rest of the island. Cue the bulldozers, it’s 1965 all over again. I’ve said many times here just how unique this place is, but feel I must say it again to a certain cadre of newcomers & idiots: We enjoy a small town ambiance and low key pace of life while living in the shadow of a bustling world class city. Think about it, that’s a big part of why you moved here, isn’t it? We have beautiful architecture and safe tree lined streets that are in danger of dissappearing if we don’t preserve them.
In a perfect world, the answer is zoning. Zone the base into areas of retail, residential, multi-family, etc. If I had any faith in the system, or any faith in current leadership, I’d advocate for that. Having none, I’m left to advocate for the admittedly imperfect status quo. It’s imperfect, but it’s better then the next alternative.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Tuesday night the City Council not only chose a new master developer, they made some pretty strong statements about moving away from the all-housing focus to a job-generation focus for the Point. “Attract a corporate campus” was one statement I heard. Not that there will be no housing, but the traffic/transit/overall density issues might be different if not so many homes were in the plan. I also heard talk of adaptive re-use, which should gladden the hearts of preservationists. Under the current provisions of Measure A, the types of re-use allowed would likely preclude it being done because it would not be economical.
All the more reason to talk about the impacts of Measure A constraints/opportunites on future development,
Comment by Kate Quick — May 10, 2007 @ 10:29 am
In comment #2, Dave points out what he sees as the hypocrisy of calling for open discussion and criticizing the “Keep Measure A” lawn signs. He talks about “anti-sign people,” but as far as I know, nobody is claiming that it’s wrong for people to put up signs expressing their opinions and beliefs. I have seen criticism of the messages on the signs, and I have heard people argue that to launch a full-fledged lawn sign campaign is an overreaction to the current situation. Both of these are legitimate topics for debate. For example, I’m sure the folks putting out the signs would argue that the messages are true and that the issue is so important that they are not overreacting. It’s not disingenuous to raise such issues.
It’s also not disingenuous for someone with an opinion on Topic X to say, “Hey, let’s talk about Topic X.” I’m surprised that fervent Measure A supporters aren’t looking forward to bringing ways to strengthen Measure A to the table. If Measure A is undeniably the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread, and if everyone but a handful of “shills” and “do-gooders” supports it, then a logical outcome of the community discussion would be to take Measure A to the next level, say, by increasing the minimum lot size or by providing a some kind of incentives for tearing down multiple-unit buildings and replacing them with single-family homes. I’m all ears.
Given that there is clearly community interest in discussing the issue, isn’t it disingenuous for supporters of clean and open government to argue that the Planning Board must not hold a public forum? If the case for Measure A is so strong and if those of us who favor taking a second look at it are truly such a tiny, out-of-touch minority, then what is Action Alameda afraid of?
Comment by Michael Krueger — May 10, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Dave also refers to anti-measure A folks as “idiots” in comment #2. Another example of measure A supporters much touted (in name only) small town values!
Comment by Roberto — May 10, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Re: 6
Mr Krueger:
Be honest. All, or virtually all, of those calling for “meetings” are agitating for a change or a repeal of MA. They’d have a lot more credibility and their movement would gain more traction if they were forthright about this. The only reason anyone is calling for meeting is as a prologue to truncation or repeal, AND YOU KNOW IT.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 11:36 am
re #7
Well, some of em are.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Dave,
Re: point number one. As another not “anti-measure A” person, I’m for a solid discussion of the issues and studious exploration of the best possible community design at the Point which includes what trade offs are made in rigorously applying Measure A.
Like you, I’m willing to acknowledge that Measure A may not lead us to the best plan. I fully understand the concerns you voice about density and its perceived and real tradeoffs. These negatives must be included in the conversation.
Unless you feel that people who want to protect measure A with their lives are the only people who should have a voice in this town (and I don’t think you do, though there are certainly those who do), whether people advocating a discussion about the issue are typically “anti-measure-a” or not is really not that damning an argument. Of course people interested in looking at change are the ones wanting to have the discussion. Those who are happy with the status quo of regulations have no interest in discussing them. And yet, I know a number of pro-measure A people who support discussing it. They just don’t show up at meetings to say so, it’s not a priority for them.
Certainly we can agree that having a public discussion about Measure A is not going to cause voters to amend it, unless that discussion provides significant information that indicates to Alamedans that there are solid benefits to doing so.
I also agree that the lawn signs are certainly public discussion. My only problem with them is that they are wrong. Less Density Less Traffic. Imagine the outcry if HOMES put out signs that read “Triple the housing, everyone will ride the bus.” They’d be called every name in the book (“liars” being one of the nicer ones, I’m sure).
Housing is going to be built at the Point. Whatever the number of units is built, creating a denser configuration will generate less traffic. 1700 single-family-homes create more auto trips than 1700 condos and apartments (not that I’m suggesting only building condos and apartments). If one is concerned about traffic and feels it is the primary issue around homebuilding, one should be arguing for the fewest homes at the densest configuration.
Finally, I’d like to address the continuous use of “the Carpet fire” as a tactic which contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion of development and traffic except displaced fear. Are you, and others, suggesting that an amendment of Measure A at the Point would necessitate the removal of the Park Street Bridge?
The Park Street Bridge carries ~21,000 cars a day to Oakland. One would have to build 10,500 households that each have two cars both of which are driven to Oakland through the tubes every day to get those numbers. That would assume that everyone goes through the tubes, nobody stays home, nobody works in Alameda, nobody rides the bus, everyone in a car to Oakland. It’s not even in the stratosphere of the discussions that have taken place around the Point.
When people speak of fear-mongering around the issue (covered here), the carpet fire is a perfect example (whether it was meant to be or not).
Comment by John Knox White — May 10, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Dave, it’s hardly shocking news that a majority of those calling for a meeting currently favor or are leaning toward making some kind of change to Measure A. As Mr. Knox White said, folks who are perfectly happy with the status quo have no reason to call for a discussion. I don’t know why you’re implying (in comment #8) that I’m not being honest, because I’ve never claimed that the people calling for a discussion are all perfectly neutral on the issue. I’ve never denied that there are people who think it would be better for Alameda to change Measure A, and I’ve made no secret about the fact that I’m one of them. I’m sure there are also people who favor a complete repeal of Measure A, with no other protective measures in place, just as there are those who favor keeping Measure A exactly as it is or even strengthening it; I don’t agree with either of those extreme positions myself, but I do believe that these folks should be allowed to join the discussion and make their respective cases, too.
Comment by Michael Krueger — May 10, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Mr. White,
You are among the more reasonable denizens of this corner of the net, and you are one of the people from whom I’ve learned a great deal, as I said in #2. But some of the things you say today leave me flummoxed.
You refer to yourself as “not anti MA” but also advocate for multi-family housing, which is contra to MA. Splain that, please.
The whole Less/More/Density thing seems a silly exercise in semantics, something I’d think you wouldn’t get stuck on. You know very well the intent of the sign — by “density” the sign-crafters are talking about number of households, multifamilies, etc, not the actual acreage that these homes might occupy. That they could use a thesaurus is quite beside the point, the idea behind it is obvious. It is always been one of the primary goals of MA.
And 1700 condos vs 1700 houses? Well, maybe. The number of car trips depends heavily on the work habits and demographics of the residents, which can vary widely and cannot be controlled by zoning or fiat. Efforts to do so would probably have an effect only in one very negative direction – reducing the number of children living there. Is that a desirable outcome?
All I know about the carpet fire is that taking out the Park St Bridge added 1 hour (ONE HOUR) to my drive into Oakland that day. This hour was spent going West on BV from Park to the Tube. I’m no traffic engineer, but that tells me that entry and egress to/from this island is getting toward a tipping point if losing 1 of the 5 routes causes such problems. Already the tube can get pretty slow at rush hour.
Am I suggesting removal of the bridge? Huh? What planet do you think I’m from?
Lastly, I repeat and stand firm on the point about the meetings. The impetus behind this seemingly innocuous call for discussion is alteration and/or repeal. Those calling for the meeting ought to be honest about that instead of cloaking it in some junior high Civics boilerplate about democracy & public discourse. Honesty might also have the added advantage of winning you some converts.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Re 11
Mr. Krueger:
Start a “Can Measure A” organization. Circulate petitions. Be honest about your intention and clear about your goals. That I would respect. But what I see now is not starightforward. “C’mon, it’s just a little meeting about a meeting. We just want to talk about this, we’re not actually trying to overturn anything.”
That’s bullshit cloaked by false sincerity.
We can agree to disagree about this, and it sounds like we’ll have to. But what I’m telling you is your discussion will be more productive if you are more clear about your intent.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Dave, you act as if the only choices for Measure A are “keep” and “overturn.” I can say with all sincerity that I’m “not actually trying to overturn anything” because I’m not; I am, however, arguing that Measure A should be changed, which is not the same thing as abolishing or overturning it. If you see that as insincere or as bullshit, or if you’ve already written me off as a do-gooder, a newcomer, or an idiot (or perhaps all three, for the trifecta!), then I guess there’s not much hope of our having any kind of a nuanced discussion about a complex issue.
Comment by Michael Krueger — May 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Mr. Krueger,
I am well aware that there are alternatives, in fact I discuss them AND EVEN MENTION THEIR MERITS in post #4. I have done so in greater detail in other threads. Furthermore, MORE THAN ONCE in this thread I mention alteration along with repeal as possibilities. (alter = change, at least in English it does)
What I label as “insincere bullshit” is cloaking activism in innoccous discussion. I couldn’t have been more clear about that. Decide for yourself if that label fits your activity.
This is not the first time you have failed to read properly a post of mine. May I suggest more careful perusal before you rebut in error?
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
What if…….
No one was allowed to talk about changing prop 13 until after the law was changed.
No one could talk about the problems with poll taxes until after a voting right law was passed.
No one could talk about segregation until after it was abolished.
No one could talk about global warming until after laws had been enacted curtailing pollution.
No one could talk about budget problems at AP&T until after they went bankrupt.
There are a large number of people in this community who believe there are limitations in Measure A that should be reviewed before we take on a development of such significance as Alameda Point. There is an enourmous body of data (read a few of Lauren’s posts presenting some of the studies) about smart growth and the positive impacts of transit oriented density.
The impetus behind the call for the meetings is that something is broken and it needs to be fixed. Watch where you sling the bullshit dave, some of it is sticking on you.
Comment by notadave — May 10, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Notadave,
Go to the dictionary and look up “sophistry.” After that, look up “specious reasoning.” Consider these, and then re-think your above list of whatifs.
I’m going to type this very slowly so you understand it: If you want to amend or repeal MA, start a movement to do so. Be upfront about it. Start your own slate complete with yard signs. Don’t use public resources to have meetings about meetings, while insisting there is no agenda but talk. It’s America, you’re allowed to have an agenda. Put it out there and act on it FORTHRIGHTLY. While I disagree, mildly, with the agenda, I make no claim AT ALL that you cannot act on it. I fervently dislike the dishonest methods used to forward it.
I stated these, and other points, rather gently early in this thread. It is unfortunate that I must restate them so stridently for you and your ilk to understand the point.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Last year the League of Women Voters’ Alameda Chapter sent a letter to City Council to put MA on the ballot while offering no plan. It was rejected. Over the previous year LWV claims to have held several public meetings on MA, but they said the meetings were “poorly attended”. I find it impossible to believe the in this town a public discussion on changing MA would be poorly attended. (Unless you understand the big presence of HOMES in the Alameda LWV, and that maybe they use the term ‘public meeting’ in a less than sincere respect.)
Anybody is allowed to openly discuss what ever they want – Isn’t America nice? Even members of the planning board can join any conversation they choose.
They should all go to a coffee shop and have a nice chat about MA. It should not involve city staff workers while “on the clock”; it should not cost the taxpayers from any city budget. If HOMES and the developers have their discussion they can bring a plan to the public and if enough people agree with their plan we can sign petitions to have the plan put on the ballot.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 10, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
David be careful what you wish for people may have to disuss this issue in coffee shops and other venues, then all of a sudden there is an initiative ready for the ballot and the vast majority of people in this city may not get the information that they could have through open forums.
Your opinion as a citizen is that Staff should not participate. My opinion is that the City is the proper agent to get all the information to all the people.
So we just have a difference of opinion, thats America. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — May 10, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Hey DAVE as Nancy said to George B. Slow down and take a deep breath. This going to be a long battle John P.
Comment by John Piziali — May 10, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Dave, I did read all of your posts carefully. I know you have talked about the possible benefits of changing Measure A, and that you have decided that the benefits are not worth the risks. All of that is to your credit, and I’ll thank you now in case I haven’t thanked you before.
When I said “you act as if the only choices for Measure A are ‘keep’ and ‘overturn,’” I was talking specifically about what you said in comment #13. You wrote, “Start a ‘Can Measure A’ organization,” a wording that means abolition or repeal, not alteration or change. I was responding specifically to this statement, not to everything you’ve ever written on this blog. I’m sorry I didn’t make myself more clear, but I thought it was obvious from the context.
I still fail to see why it is disingenuous or dishonest for someone with an opinion or even an agenda to promote the discussion of an issue. I have spoken forthrightly about my views on Measure A. If I’m not marching around with a “Can Measure A” sign, it’s not because I’m dishonest or trying to hide something; it’s only because I don’t claim to have a simplistic solution — one that will fit on a bumper sticker or a lawn sign — to a complex problem.
Comment by Michael Krueger — May 10, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Mark Post #3 You are correct I’am very adament that this issue be discussed in a public venue with experts from outside of this city and they should come from both sides of the issue. Also the forum should have a facilitator that would be considered neutral by both sides.
I have said before and I will say it again, if I had to vote on measure A today I would vote to not change it. The reason for that is simple I do not have the information that I need to make an informed vote. If we the people are forced to dicuss this outside of a City venue then I can only expect that the forum will be driven by one side or the other. That is not what I want for my City.
My advice to Dave or Action Alameda folks would be that you are going to force this discussion outside of the mainstream, and when you do that eventually people will get thier information elswhere. You may just turn off enough people with your tatics to destroy your cause. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — May 10, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
John P.- if you and HOMES can get 10% of registered voters to put “something” on the ballot I am sure the rest of us will know what it is…
As this story continues the people who want to change Measure “A” have NOT said said what they want to change or how they want to modify MA. I have heard nothing but full exclusions for areas of the city. Seems obvious to me that will not be acceptable to voters.
Do any of the ‘anti – MA’ crowd have a PLAN of what they want at AP? Something voters could actually vote on?
Comment by David Kirwin — May 10, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Dave: “You refer to yourself as “not anti MA” but also advocate for multi-family housing. Splain”
I know you’re going to call me insincere, but please understand that I believe what I am saying.
I am not “anti-measure a” I have no great desire to change measure a for the sake of changing measure a. I understand the goals of Measure A. I can even get behind many of them (less traffic, small town environment, sustainable community). I don’t believe that the charter amendment will get us there at Alameda Point. So I favor examining the effects that measure A has had in the one place it exists (Alameda), and then using that information to inform the discussion on development at Alameda Point.
I strongly believe the city/developer should produce a couple of non-measure A compliant plans for the point and analyze the effects on traffic, etc. I then think that voters should be given the opportunity to decide which plan they prefer for the development. I can see how you might call this “anti-measure a” by looking at it from one perspective, I see it as pro-good community design and pro-community input into major development issues.
I do think that looking at options is a good thing and have a sneaking suspicion that many of the concerns around development (like traffic) could actually be mitigated by some type of change to the charter at Alameda Point. I honestly don’t know specifically what that change is. I do know that it would be limited to Alameda Point and not affect the current areas of the city covered by Measure A. I don’t spend time advocating to change measure A East of Main Street and believe that with only a couple of examples (long term in the business districts and the Northern Waterfront), any change East of Main would have little effect. So for me, the discussion is pretty moot anyway.
The discussion about density vs. housing is not semantics. Measure A is mostly about housing and somewhat about density. It’s ham-fisted at best. Keeping the same density/acre as allowed by measure A, but allowing for variety in lot size and housing types would achieve the same number of houses with many possible benefits for the community.
The argument on the sign takes one of the arguments FOR density—reduced traffic when comparing like numbers of housing (plenty of research that spans decades that show this)—and says the opposite.
If KeepMeasureA wanted to make the argument about housing numbers, they should make it, not make a totally incorrect, absolutely wrong argument. Increasing the number of houses MIGHT cause more traffic depending on whether one increases the number of houses and how you configured it. The number of cars per household directly correlates to density. Car ownership is one of the key indicators of traffic. The signs, as written, hurt debate around development because they encourage people to misunderstand basic planning principles around density.
Comment by John Knox White — May 10, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
DK,
I swore I wouldn’t be baited into responding to your posts again, but #18 is so typically fatuous that I have to take a stab at it.
MA is an incredibly important and central issue to Alameda and to not have it handled directly by staff is rediculous, even if that is only for them to do an RFP for consultants to mediate a forum under city oversight.
Any discussion sponsored and held privately by HOMES or any similar group ( hell, even LWV) would only be disparaged by MA zealots as proof of it’s illigitimacy and it being bought and paid for by evil developers, blah, blah, blah.
Such a forum is less likely to be well attended than an official City forum, just like the LWV forums were “poorly attended”, because they often are poorly attended even though many, like the ones on ranked choice voting were fascinating and full of great information.
The privately sponsored meetings which draw big, are those like the Democratic club with guests like Bruce Cain from the poly-sci department at Cal or Marshall Windmiller.
Have a chat over coffee, “Isn’t America nice?” What disinfgenuous drek!
No dude, America is seriously
F–ked and both the cause and solution in many respects resolve at the grass roots. California infrastructure is in ruins, prison guards get $74,000 a year while a teacher starts at under $40,000. This seems like a tangent, but the problems are systemic and inextricably linked. People, like Robert Rodd in the Sun today, who think that maintaining their sacred little bubble of small town ambience should supercede all other concerns, are simply self centered or at the very least myopic.
Waahh! I want my MTV!!!
Comment by Mark — May 10, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Dave,
It’s the blogging hour. Lots of posts, 19 through 24 while I was drafting #25.
I empathize on a gut level about the “relax, it’s all good” angle, but I thought MK and JKW were equally compelling and well thought in posts #6, 10, 11. I especially like the last paragraph of #6.
Comment by Mark — May 10, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Mark,
Maybe if CA had the extra $250,000,000,000.00 which is being siphoned to private developer corporations by groups like our CIC without voter approval, maybe then our school systems would be better funded.
I certainly would vote for a change in the CA Redevelopment Laws. Would you also be against a grass roots attempt to change that? Or would you help to get our tax money to schools instead of developers?
What do your comments do have to do with HOMES not being able to create a ballot initiative which is their right in this country? How is the pay for prison workers a problem created by “grassroots” organizing? What are you doing to get more funds into our school systems?
Using Alameda’s public funds to suit the desires of a handful of developers like MS. Souse of HOMES in an attempt to overturn MA is not the correct procedure for dealing w/ with this issue.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 10, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
re 24
A most insightful post, Mr. White. I can only briefly respond now, more later, but here’s a stub: I like your ideas alot and think they have much merit on paper. However they do not allay the worries I originally expressed in post 4.
More later.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Re: post 27.
Uh oh, somebody missed his nap today.
But you’re right, Mark, DK is so obviously regurgitating lines fed to him by Action Alameda, it’s really pointless to respond.
(P.S.: Nimby, is that you?)
Comment by Linda Hudson — May 10, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Wow, doesn’t anyone work. This was posted this morning and the same people respond every few minutes. I just got home from work and don’t have time or energy to read all the post…but I do notice that the Ferry in the morning and evening are full now (look at the parking lot), especially after the freeway connector collapse…but even before than it was busier. Don’t you think it would make more since to build higher density around these areas?
Comment by Joel — May 10, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Ah Linda – you’re so funny.
Do you have any thing real to add in agreement or otherwise, or are you unable to think for yourself? (And so percieve this trait in others.)
Comment by David Kirwin — May 10, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Wow! Prop 13 has nothing to do with California’s economic woes after all. The real root of the problem is ALL in REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS! I should have listened to the learned Professor Lipow last year at the privately hosted Alameda Public Affairs Forum where he presented a stacked deck of speakers on redevelopment issues in Alameda.
Jezus christo Kirwin, you’re in no position to make fun of others for not being original. Look up sycophant in the dictionary and then run to the mirror.
I actually have a life, but when I get locked into a duel with a loser I feel it’s because I must be one too.
Why is it Dave gets respect and you get none, David Kiriwn? For the longest time there was this continuing temptation to believe that you were worth the trouble, like seeing you as a real person being a dad to your kids at the Mastick meeting. But you are so irritating that my only impulse now is to try to squish you like a bug. And what does that make me? a schmuck!
You’re right Linda, I need to extricate myself from this revolving door nightmare or be doomed to repeat history.
Why couldn’t I be clever enough to have written the screen play for “Shawn of the Dead”? I’m freaking living it….
Comment by Mark — May 10, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Mark,
Shaun of the dead was awesome…I agree.
DK, show us where all this money came from and where it would have gone.
Redevelopment money is basically fiscally neutral on schools, especially in Alameda where pass through agreements adequately cover any possible lost funds and current redevelopment law covers the rest.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 10, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
It’s not as black/white as Kirwin says, but redevelopment does siphon a lot of money of the tax base of countless localities across the state, and indeed the country. CA’s school funding problems are primarily caused by the 1-2 punch of prop 13 and centralization of funding at the state level. Redevelopment is gas poured on that partic fire.
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
re 24
Mr White:
What you say here in 24 is an idea I can get behind:
The discussion about density vs. housing is not semantics. Measure A is mostly about housing and somewhat about density. It’s ham-fisted at best. Keeping the same density/acre as allowed by measure A, but allowing for variety in lot size and housing types would achieve the same number of houses with many possible benefits for the community.
Sounds good on paper, I like it so far. Two questions: This is prob not legal within current MA statute, but I don’t know for sure — is it? And given that MA calls for approx 21 dwellings per acre, what does your acre look like? Give us a back of the envelope sketch.
I like that prt of your plan, but it still has one great flaw in my mind: assuming it requires a change in charter, and it sure appears to, it does open up the rest of the city to change via the courts. I’m still unwilling to risk that. Can you envision a design of multiple housing types that does stay within the 2000 squares standard?
Comment by dave — May 10, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Re: 34
It is not just the $ siphoned out of all the localities by Re-development laws – the biggest damage is the lion’s share that is siphoned from the state. I never claimed it is black and white, but only a few here will claim that 100’s of billions of state tax revenue will better serve private developers than the public. The kicker is they get our tax money without our vote.
Obviously Mark finds his own statements in #25 indefensible and has to return to stooping to attack the messenger when the argument is lost.
Same old behavior…
Comment by David Kirwin — May 11, 2007 @ 12:03 am
I consider myself a MA moderate and have previously posted what changes my vote would approve for MA, and under what conditions.
However, I am very cautious of those I do not trust. Many here, especially those on the Transportation Commission make up a lot of stories and play innocent while manipulating truths to mask their actions and intentions.
According to the TC’s meeting packet of 12-13-06 (about page 24 of 92, under item 6A) http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2006/pdf/061213_tc_packet.pdf
Our City can eliminate the “significant environmental impact” of traffic with such simple steps such as just accepting that a 55 second delay at an intersection should not be considered a “significant environmental impact” requiring mitigation. (It currently is.)
Oakland and Berkeley did that – therefore all we have to do to get rid of traffic problems is redefine them. (We can do the same with airport noise and jet pollution if we want to build more homes and schools under jet take-off paths, or, how many police, fire fighters, or any public services we need per capita. Hey, crime levels can be okay too. In fact this is the easiest way to solve all our world’s problems.)
If your daily trip to Oakland takes an hour – we can decide that is not a problem too. Clearly the easiest (and cheapest) way to fix any problem is to just accept it. It is so simple, I’m so glad I now see the light.
I have learned from this blog that traffic problems aren’t caused by the number or density of homes, it’s car ownership. Therefore at Alameda Point we NEED to follow the precedence of SF & NYC where there are fewer cars per residence. Build high rises at Alameda Point now so people use buses, if they still don’t use buses – build more high rises on the unused land until they do. And remember – if all else fails, we can redefine limits of acceptability again. That will always be faster than planning ahead to avoid traffic problems, way cheaper than mitigating them, and hey Alamedans MUST be mistaken about wanting to save our present quality of life – 1.5 million New Yorkers can’t be wrong about density – it must be wonderful or they wouldn’t live there. What was I thinking?
Comment by David Kirwin — May 11, 2007 @ 1:12 am
DK,
This is a very strong statement:
Many here, especially those on the Transportation Commission make up a lot of stories and play innocent while manipulating truths to mask their actions and intentions.
Care to elaborate with examples?
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 11, 2007 @ 6:13 am
Traffic impacts related to development come in many shapes and sizes. They include road widening (the original Alameda Landing EIR (from many years ago, had plans to widen 8th Street at Central Ave, removing Park-land to do it).
The existing one recommends turning the intersection of Atlantic and Webster into an 8-9 lane monster.
EIR’s typically look at moving traffic through neighborhoods as quickly as possible with no regard for the effects of that traffic on the area.
It has been shown that as traffic volume and speed increases, the communication between neighbors drops. People stop crossing the street to talk to their neighbors on the other side, and even stop walking up the street to meet with those on the same side.
In Alameda, with our much Ballyhooed limited ingress and egress, traffic problems in the tubes and at the bridges is going to be related much more to what’s happening in Oakland and on the Freeways than from capacity in the tube or on the bridge.
Future projections for 880 traffic show the tubes getting bad, because as traffic backs up on the on-ramps, it will back up into the tube. So how much sense does it make to build our intersections to enable traffic to fly through them during the 30-40 minutes of peak traffic, when they are going to drive 1/4 mile up the street and stop at the tubes?
The EIR policy that is referred to above says (paraphrase ahead):
Since there are just a few intersections in town that will see increased congestion and the lead directly to congestion points like the bridges and tubes, then lets not negatively impact the surrounding areas by building speed and Volume increasing mitigations at intersections that do not benefit the overall travel time of people leaving the city. It suggests that developments should be approved with an ope understanding that traffic will occur and that in approving such projects, that traffic is acknowledged.
A lot of the safety problems on Otis near Lum school are created by the freeway like conditions of Otis: Wide multiple traffic lanes built to accommodate so much traffic that nobody ever need slow down. They could have been built like High Street, and like High, they’d probably see some delays during a very short, limited time of the day. But the neighborhood would be a lot more “livable” with the slower speeds and the more walkable environment. (same goes for Fernside and others).
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 11, 2007 @ 6:32 am
Re-Read past blogs such as where you and MK claim I said all sorts of things I did not say – then defend said claims as “it was just a mind experiment….”
That and many other fictitious statements about traffic while never mentioning the above solution TC is really making – Just redefining traffic as not being a problem rather than actually dealing with the problem.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 11, 2007 @ 6:40 am
Dave, surprisingly, or not, I am also in agreement with you regarding the vision laid out by John Knox White. The questions you raise are exactly the reason we need to have a public forum. How do we craft a change in a charter that will allow some of this to happen, without opening up the flood gates? I have been very supportive of the move to change measure A, but even I don’t have the answer to that. That is why I would love to sit down with a number of experts, look at what measure A has done and look at what could be done differently, and hopefully better (As far as promoting diversity of housing and transportation) at ALameda Point, without threatening the qualities we have on the rest of the island.
Comment by notadave — May 11, 2007 @ 8:00 am
JKW ,
Re 41: your response seems a bit “wonky”
Seems to me “traffic” (common usage meaning congestion of vehicles) is an impact of development.. What you call impacts of traffic are really attempts to mitigate the problems associated with traffic. Often these mitigations do little more than stagger the back ups as you pointed out. Because of the fact that Alameda is limited in what we can do to mitigate traffic, you think we should just accept more cars, less safe streets, more delays in commuting, increased pollutuion etc as a standard of practice, and we should just continue to add to the problem with more development.
“Traffic” – again, ‘the heavy congestion of vehicles resulting in a diminished level of service of our road system’ is caused by trying to force our road system to service more vehicles than it was designed to handle. We had determined what those levels of service should be, but because the planned growth exceeds that, your concept seems to be that we should just accept diminished safety and more delays and keep building. You have a right to that opinioin but I am disappointed that our Transportation Committee shares that view. More disappointing is that I assume the PB, CC and TTT agree as well. Now it appears that the city is setting a precident in regard to what traffic should be accpetable.
I see this as a major blow to our city’s safe residential quality.
I don’t think residents who moved here for the safe streets are getting what they expected.
I think the Transportation Commission has had a positve effect for our community but this kind of action will have a lasting effect on my opinion of where the TC really stands as far as protecting the quality of life here in Alameda.
So now that traffic resulting in 55 second delays at traffic signals is now acceptible in EIR as “No Significant Impact”, what is to be unacceptible in our new paradigm?
Comment by David Kirwin — May 11, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
A non wonky response: You have got it wrong yet again using bad, cherry picked information to come to a conclusion that you had already predetermined.
I won’t even begin to address your arguments, but will clarify one of you quotes for the public record.
So now that traffic resulting in 55 second delays at traffic signals is now acceptible in EIR as “No Significant Impact”, what is to be unacceptible in our new paradigm?
First off, you forget to tell everyone that your quoting from a first draft of the policy and that the “adjusted” version, which is directly below it and labeled “Adjusted” does not include any of the above language. Secondly it’s an “example” of what the policy might accept. The beginning of the sentence ”For Example”, which you conveniently leave out of the quote, would suggest that this was not being accepted as policy but being used to inform what the policy might look like.
Here’s the full text of the TC approved language. I’ve highlighted the section that specifically says that the level for what is acceptable has not been set, and will indeed discussed at mulitiple public meetings in order to determine what “acceptable” is at various intersections.
Have a great weekend!
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 11, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
JKW:
Actually my copy does not say “draft” It says “EIR Policy #7 rewrite per council request.” It has the “original” and the “adjusted”, and they come under the dec.13, 06 TC meeting, Item 6A, which are the recommendations “reconciling TMP policies with the 7 new policies”. I thought the “original” I was quoting was the version the TC desired as new policy and the “Adjusted” per CC, as a more proficient attempt to hide the truth by using language so difficult to interpret. (What ever happen to that plain talker from Texas – Ross Perot? – We need more plain talking, truth telling folk, that even I can understand…) I used the TC original version because I was talking about the TC, but it does look like the CC wants to say that the traffic increases that would be unacceptable which they can’t (or won’t) do anything to mitigate, should just be acknowledged as a by-product of development and accepted.
Please explain what the rest of it means “accepted with the on-going funding of TDM measures. The General Plan Amendment EIR process for the TMP and EIR policies will identify intersection congestion concerns. This information will be used to facilitate discussion at multiple public meetings concerning allowable congestion levels at specific significantly impacted intersections.”
OK the ‘TDM’ is Transportation Demand Management – If the City decides to accept traffic resulting in long delays at traffic lights; what would the funded TDM program do for an accepted condition?
More important to me, could this “Adjusted” policy result in an amendment to the General Plan to accept similar future traffic issues stated in EIR’s in the same way? I.e. – just accept them as by-products of development so the will not be a “Significant Impact” in an EIR??
Excuse me for being so daft, but it has been a tough week and I do want to understand what is being sought as changes which will impact our community. I would rather make mistakes here than where more people would be misinformed.
I appreciate you making clarifications, I am sure you do want as many people to be informed as possible, but from the TC meetings I have attended (1 by accident, 1 intentionally) it looks like less than half a dozen (if I total attendance at both meetings) citizens-at-large get informed at the “public meetings” which are neither televised nor recorded, but may play a substantial role in increasing allowable island traffic conditions.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 11, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
DK,
The EIR process will identify intersections that might see significant traffic congestion. Public meetings will be held to discuss what level of congestion will be acceptable at those intersections.
TDM reduces the demand on a given system. just because the city decides not to make absolute congestion mitigation a goal doesn’t mean steps would be taken to attempt to reduce the impact.
If the congestions accepted at an intersection identified in the General Plan EIR as Significant is identified as being acceptable at any level at the “Multiple Public meetings.” It is still highly unlikely that no mitigations would be in place, however, it is also quite possible that congestion would be accepted to exist as a by-product of development.
At that point the Planning Board and the City Council would weigh the decision to ccpet the development against the identified congestion (which is required to be identified in a much more detailed way).
Having personally secured a number of front page stories in the Journal and Sun on the TMP process and upcoming meetings, in order to ensure public awareness and participation, you are correct. Public Awareness is high on my priority list. Short of knocking on doors and dragging people to meetings, we have done everything we can to increase public involvement in the process.
We even started the city’s first email announcement list for the project. Go to http://ci.alameda.ca.us/tmp/ and enter your email in the box on on the left side and you’ll be alerted everytime a meeting on the plan is scheduled (task forces, TC, whatever. (This too has been featured in the major news outlets as well as ADN.)
If you have further recommendations on getting the word out, let me or PW know.
As to Ross Perot: He turned out to be an incredibly paranoid kook that nobody could take seriously.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 12, 2007 @ 7:36 am
What is “General Plan EIR”?
I thought EIR’s where project related which is why I tried to question if this whole TMP revision thing is a policy change to the General Plan which would accept new standards of traffic for Alameda, (as measured by significant increases of length of delays at intersections) The new standards are unacceptable according to our present General Plan..
Is this a correct understanding?
If you are truly seeking greater public participation you should learn to adapt to “plain talk” I understand the development of language often tries to convey more information with less words, and that is why specialized committees, departments and the like, often adapt or adopt a vocabulary which many of us “plain folks” just can’t follow. I try to keep up with ongoing changes and may be better informed than most people, and if I am having this hard a time comprehending simple city documents I imagine the “officious language barrier” prevents most people from even trying to participate.
I meant it when I said that I appreciate the many good ideas I credit to the TC. It is a great idea to narrow our 25mph ‘freeways’ like Otis. Adding bike lanes and planned strips (if affordable to maintain) to reduce the subconscious urge to increase driving speeds is a good idea. I am not advocating eliminating any roadway lanes at this point though. I think proper enforcement of speed limits is a superior idea to raising speed limits to what speeds people want to drive.
I agree with Council Matarrese that it would have been better to add plantings and lower the limit to 25 mph on Appezzato Pkwy then to install those high sound walls around Bayport.
I encourage more stop signs. Although I am thankful to Tony Daysog for taking a lead on getting so many of the high visibility crosswalk signs spread around our busiest ‘school related’ crosswalks, if my 4th grade son stays at Earhart for an after school activity, he cannot ride his bike home. This is because after the crossing guards are gone, cars will simply not stop to allow a boy to push his bike across the road. If he has an after school activity I usally meet him at school on my way home from work then continue home and wait at that intersection of Island Dr & Maitland, where invariably I must walk into the intersection waving my arms overhead and point at the crosswalk (which has red faux pavers and broad white lines – easily visible) before I can get cars to stop. By slowing traffic additional stop signs also encourages more bicycle use – makes it safer and perhaps makes the trip faster than by car.
Thanks in advance for you help with paragraph #1.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 12, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
EIRs (Environmental impact Reports) are done as “programmatic” and “project” based. Meaning, Alameda Point, Alameda Landing, The Northern Waterfront, General Plan, etc. all have Programmatic EIRs that look at the overall effect of policies that are proposed and their impacts without getting into the nitty-gritty of where every single road is going and what the design of every building will look like.
Each project within those plans then may be required to do an EIR that looks at the specifics of the plans. An example, the Alameda Landing EIR has been approved, it identifies new roadways,modifications to signal timings and Programs directed at reducing traffic as necessary to mitigate the effects of the overall planned development.
When the 300 housing units planned for Alameda landing are proposed, the specifics of that portion of the project will undergo a “project EIR” and look at the proposed layout and design of that section.
So the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is slated to become the section of the city’s General Plan related to traffic (Called the “transportaion element of the general plan”) and will go through an EIR process to look at the effects of the proposed policy changes. If the EIR is accepted, then the city council can adopted the revise Transportation element (same as TMP).
Hope that helps.
Comment by John Knox White — May 14, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Thank you. That helps a grat deal. Who is it that accepts “programmatic” EIRs? And when will the new “Transportation Element” proposal go thru the acceptance procedure to be an ammendment to Alameda’s General Plan?
Comment by David Kirwin — May 14, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
All EIRs are recommended for approval by the Planning Board and accepted/rejected by the city council.
The Transportation Element should head to the council in September, they have not hired the EIR consultant yet.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 14, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
When will it go to the PB?
Comment by David kirwin — May 14, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
While different than the “programmatic” EIR, hasn’t the CC already been accepting policies relevant to implementation of Transportation Element changes to the Alameda General Plan which were created and recommended to CC by the TC?
For example: Roadways will not be widened except for transit exclusive and non-motorized vehicle lanes?
Comment by David Kiriwn — May 14, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
Per #50: I’m not being sarcastic when I say “when the EIR is completed” Sometime this summer most likely.
Per #51: The council unanimously “approved” the concept and direction of the EIR policies, but they will still be considered in the EIR and then will need to be adopted as a part of citywide policy by the council.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 15, 2007 @ 6:23 am
Thank you. In #49 you stated when it would go to CC leading me to believe it had already been to PB, which is the prior step per your post in #49.
Thanks.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — May 15, 2007 @ 6:45 am
CAn you list what other directions, concepts, policies etc, the CC has already approved re: the new TE plan?
Comment by David Kirwin — May 15, 2007 @ 6:47 am
Yeah, having watched a number of these things go through the process, I’m not putting too much money on the dates right now.
Oops….just looked at the TC’s March agenda and realized the dates were pushed back, here’s the schedule (as it stands now:
Boards and Commissions May/June 2007
Environmental Review Process: Summer/Fall 2007
Planning Board consideration: November 2007
City Council Consideration December 2007
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 15, 2007 @ 6:49 am
“Boards and Commissions” refers to the draft that is circulating for comment before the EIR is conducted.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 15, 2007 @ 6:50 am
EIR policies 1-6 were accepted pending environmental review. EIR policy 7 was accepted in concept with direction that it be re-written to clarify that a public process would be involved in determining congestion levels, etc.
EIR-1 Roadways will not be widened to create additional automobile travel lanes to
accommodate additional automobile traffic volume with the exception of increasing
transit exclusive lanes or non-motorize vehicle lanes.
EIR-2 Intersections will not be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway with
the exception of a single exclusive left turn lane when necessary.
EIR-3 Speed limits on Alameda’s new roads should be consistent with existing roadways and
be designed and implemented as 25mph roadways.
EIR-4 All EIRs must include analysis of the effects of the project on the city’s transit,
pedestrian and bicycling environment, including adjacent neighborhoods and the
overall City network.
EIR-5 EIRs will not propose mitigations that significantly degrade the bicycle and pedestrian
environment which are bellwethers for quality of life issues and staff should identify
“Levels of Service” or other such measurements to ensure that the pedestrian and
bicycling environment will not be significantly degraded as development takes place.
EIR-6 Mitigations for future development should be solely directed at reducing traffic through
TDM measures and transit, bicycle and pedestrian capital projects, as well as more
efficient use of existing infrastructure via traffic signal re-timing, etc. in order to reduce
the negative environmental effects of development, rather than attempting to
accommodate them.
EIR-7 After the implementation of quantifiable/verifiable TDM measures (verified on a yearly
basis), and mitigation measures, including identification of how multimodal
infrastructure relates to congestion concerns, some congestion may be identified in an
EIR process as not possible to mitigate. This unmitigated congestion should be
evaluated and disclosed (including intersection delay length of time) during the EIR
process, and acknowledged as a by-product of the development and accepted with the
on-going funding of TDM measures. The General Plan Amendment EIR process for the
TMP and EIR policies will identify intersection congestion concerns. This information will be used to facilitate discussion at multiple public meetings concerning allowable
congestion levels at specific significantly impacted intersections.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — May 15, 2007 @ 6:58 am
JKW-
On all of the previous information in the exchanges here with DK: pretty good for a musician, you learn all this in the conservatory?
Comment by Mark — May 15, 2007 @ 8:43 am
jkw – thanks.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 15, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Who is this JKW ? I think that I would vote for him if he was running for city council. By the way is he really a musician?. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — May 15, 2007 @ 7:02 pm