Does enchantment pour out of every door? No, it’s just on the street where I live
And by “I” I don’t necessarily mean me, I mean ”I” as in people thinking their street is the best street in the world.
I found this comment by Susan very thought provoking:
Measure A did not protect us from Heritage Bay, Marina Cove, etc. That is unfortunate and probably because 30 years ago nobody envisioned development of entirely new neighborhoods as a possibility.
Howerver, it certainly did protect “Old Alameda”, and I suspect almost everyone hear finds the results charming. What would the older neighborhoods in the West End, Central Alameda, the Gold Coast and the East End look like today, if Measure A had not been enacted? Perhaps block after block of boxy apartment buildings, interspersed with strip malls? -The Victorians, Colonials, Craftsman homes, Bungalows, 1920’s fantasy Tudor Revivals and historic rail stations just a memory from a quainter time?
First of all, 30 years ago, everyone did envision developments of entirely new neighborhoods, which was one of the major driving forces behind Measure A: Bay Farm. Is Bay Farm anything more than tract housing dressed up with a layer of age thereby giving it a modicum of credibility in the eyes of Alameda who cherish the “charm” that comes with wear and years? Whereas most people see Bayport (no uppercase P, thank you very much) and Marina Cove as terrible awful suburban cookie cutter homes that belong in some city that lines the 680 freeway, in fact, the street layout of these communities (not necessarily the housing design) is more in line with more traditional neighborhood design of old than suburban type hierarchical thoroughfare layouts.
While I think that Measure A did the job it intended to do, save older historic buildings in some sort of a bandage remedy, Alameda needs to reflect back on what is it about these neighborhoods that make it so appealing. Is it that the houses are Victorians, Colonials, Craftsmans, etc… that make these neighborhoods so charming? If so, then let’s make historic preservation laws even more ironclad to protect them, if it takes a city charter amendment to make it impenetrable, isn’t that a better option than a crude instrument like Measure A?
Is it the smaller streets and wider sidewalks that make these neighborhoods charming, or the street trees? All of that can and probably have been incorporated into our planning laws, but if it needs reinforcing to also make more ironclad, then let’s do that, isn’t that also a better option than the limiting Measure A?
We have been told that Measure A was “never about Victorians” so if that is your reason for protecting it, wouldn’t it be better to advocate for something that results directly in the goal you are seeking rather than being a side effect of something else.
If it is a lack of trust in designers and city staff and our elected officials to build anything of quality and/or thoughtfulness, I leave you with these highlights from a speech given by James Howard Kunstler at a TND Breakfast:
And really, that’s what the NIMBY (”Not In My Backyard!”) wars are all about. The NIMBY movement is much more profound than it seems. It’s not just about superficial greed and selfishness. It’s really about a lack of faith in the ability of this culture to carry itself forward. All the people who are starting the protests against your project and marching around, they’re doing it because for 50 years they’ve gotten nothing but crap. Everything new that has come into their lives has been crap. They don’t want any more of it. They don’t want a new grammar school next door that looks like an insecticide factory. They don’t want a new segregated pod, which is not only insulting in the way it is thought up, it’s insulting in the way it is carried out and built. They don’t want any more of this stuff. They don’t want houses like theirs next to their houses.
I think one of the great effects of the New Urbanist movement is that it has restored faith in our ability to do things of value. And there hasn’t been enough of it in enough parts of the country to really do it across the board. Now what you’re getting are little pockets all over the nation, where people know that we can do better than what we did between 1950 and 2000. And the more of this stuff that there is, the more faith and confidence there is going to be. Because there is nothing more tragic than a culture that has no faith in its future. And that’s what modernism did to us.
…
America cannot afford to keep sleepwalking into the future. We need to rethink our living arrangements. The need to do that is urgent. You are the people who are building the places where we live and work.
The groundwork has been laid. The new urbanists have dived into the Dumpster of history and they have gotten the knowledge and the skills and the principles out of the garbage can. These are now understood and published and available to you at a cut-rate. These are all the skills that the previous generation did not have; that’s why we got the drive-in utopia that turned out to be such a failure.
We know how to build good places now; there really is no excuse for doing anything less. It’s up to you, the new generation of builders and developers, to take the knowledge and skill and put it into bricks and mortar. It’s up to you to turn America into a land full of places that are worth caring about deeply, and a country that will be worth defending in the future. [emphasis added]
“First of all, 30 years ago, everyone did envision developments of entirely new neighborhoods, which was one of the major driving forces behind Measure A: Bay Farm. “
I stand corrected, because of course the original plans for the development of Bay Farm were a big impetus for the passage of Measure A. When I wrote my comment, I was thinking of my own perceptions when I first moved to Alameda, almost 21 years ago. At that time, when I told people I lived in Alameda, the usual response was either “Oh! Isn’t that where that NAVY base is?” or “Where is that?” Now, since the closure of the base, the invariable response is “Oh! That’s such a nice town!” So, I think Alameda is probably more attractive to developers of expensive homes than it was in the misty long ago.
When I arrived, the industrially-zoned property occupied by Weyerhaeuser was a part of the industrial northern waterfront that had been there since the dawn of time, and the belt line trains ran regularly. It never occurred to me that anyone would want to build housing there. -How would people sleep with the train that regularly blew its whistle at 11:00 PM right outside their bedroom window?
The Alameda drive-in flea market was a bustling place, and a fun place to while away a Sunday. I never entertained the idea that anyone would be interested in tearing it down to build houses; After all, it wasn’t very big. (Who knew then that lot sizes would contract exponentially as home sizes expanded?) –And the Navy Base? It had been firing on all cylinders for 40+ years and was such a presence in the community. It was inconceivable to me that it could disappear.
“…let’s make historic preservation laws even more ironclad to protect them, if it takes a city charter amendment to make it impenetrable, isn’t that a better option than a crude instrument like Measure A? “
I do believe that preservation laws need to be strengthened and the penalties for violations made more severe. Illegal demolition and structural alterations unfortunately do still occur. Given the current penalties, without Measure A, isn’t it possible that there would be a far greater incentive to tear down a structure, absorb the penalty and replace it with a multiple unit dwelling? When it comes to “Old Alameda”, I believe that the preservation ordinance/municipal code, along with Measure A, have been an effective one-two punch.
“All the people who are starting the protests against your project and marching around, they’re doing it because for 50 years they’ve gotten nothing but crap. Everything new that has come into their lives has been crap. They don’t want any more of it.”
There is great truth in that. While many lament the likes of Heritage Bay, in particular, without Measure A, perhaps we fear what might have been built instead? Yes, something nicer might have been built, but given the history of “…nothing but crap”, isn’t it also possible that something far worse could have been built? (I am thinking of Market Square Homes, in Oakland, a city block consisting of 174 condominiums and 28 lofts, totaling 202 units in a six-story structure.) Conversely, we have seen that it is also possible to build something nice under Measure A, a la Marina Village, an example of non-crappiness in our development history, in my eyes.
Lastly, re:
Does enchantment pour out of every door? No, it’s just on the street where I live
I am most fortunate in that I find enchantment pouring out of many doors on many streets in Alameda, although I freely admit that MY house is the nicest house in Alameda. (-:
Comment by Susan — July 12, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Interestingly enough, the street layout at Bayport was a topic of discussion at last night’s forum on Measure A. Former councilmember Barbara Kerr called Bayport a “horrible example” of development, and one of the only specific reasons she cited was the street layout. She said “Bayport is boring” because it is laid out on a grid. In addition to being an aesthetic problem, she said the grid system “ignores the traffic-calming effect of curved streets.” She sang high praises of the Harbor Bay Isle and Marina Village developments, both of which feature a hierarchical street layout with lots of curved streets and dead ends. She also pointed out that some sections of the East End feature curved streets.
To be perfectly honest, this whole discussion doesn’t have anything to do with Measure A, which doesn’t say boo about street layout. However, I think it provides some interesting insight into what kind of development people feel is “good.”
I noticed that Helen Sause also had some harsh words for Bayport at last night’s meeting. I understand what she was getting at, but if I had been the one speaking up there, I wouldn’t have chosen to make Bayport the whipping boy for bad development in Alameda.
Bayport does lack the diversity of housing types and mix of uses found elsewhere on the island. The sound wall is an abomination that never should have happened. The houses do appear much more “packed in” than in older parts of town. Nevertheless, I think Bayport is a closer match to Alameda’s traditional neighborhoods than Harbor Bay Isle, which always receives the highest of praise from great Measure A defenders like Barbara Kerr and Jean Sweeney.
Strictly in terms of their physical similarity to Alameda’s traditional neighborhoods, here’s how I would rank six large developments built since 1950 (this is not a complete list, just the ones with which I am familiar):
1. Bayport
2. Marina Cove (the Kaufman and Broad development along Buena Vista Ave. at Paru St.)
3. California Heritage Bay (the old drive-in site at Atlantic Ave. and Constitution Way)
4. South Shore
5. Marina Village
6. Harbor Bay Isle
If I had to rank these neighborhoods according to where I personally would most want to live, the ordering would change. In particular, some of the less traditional neighborhoods rise in ranking due to their locations, mix of uses, and access to transit:
1. Marina Village
2. Marina Cove
3. Bayport
4. California Heritage Bay
5. South Shore
6. Harbor Bay Isle
Of course, I like my current neighborhood (Santa Clara Ave. between Walnut St. and Willow St.) much better than all of these. Also, there is a huge gap in my preferences between #3 (Bayport) and the bottom three. The low ranking of South Shore on both lists proves that the absence of Measure A (South Shore was built before it was passed) by itself doesn’t guarantee a traditional or desirable neighborhood, at least in my book.
As you can see, no matter how I slice it, Harbor Bay Isle is about as far from my idea of traditional, desirable Alameda as it gets. It is very nice for what it is, but it has more in common with other automobile-oriented suburban developments around the country than it does with the pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly traditional neighborhoods that embody Alameda to me.
Perhaps the struggle over Measure A could be boiled down to this: Harbor Bay Isle or the Santa Clara Ave. transit corridor? Ms. Kerr and Ms. Sweeney strongly prefer the former, I strongly prefer the latter, and thus our visions of what’s best for Alameda are entirely at odds.
Comment by Michael Krueger — July 12, 2007 @ 11:38 am
I know I’m writing way too much, but hey, I’m on a roll. Another issue that links this post and last night’s forum is our faith — or lack thereof — in our government and our other institutions. Ms. Kerr stated it bluntly: “There is a distrust of the City Council and Planning Board.” According to her, Measure A was passed as a way to rein in a government that the people could not trust. She warned against modifying Measure A for Alameda Point precisely because “you would be placing a lot of faith in whoever gets elected.”
I think Mr. Kunstler does a good job of explaining how this lack of faith or trust underlies the prevalent phenomenon of NIMBY-ism. I, too, see the the court house that looks like a thermonuclear bunker, the apartment building that looks like a shoe box, and the school that looks like “an insecticide factory,” and I understand why people are anti-development. I understand why folks don’t trust the governments that allowed — or even encouraged — such monstrosities.
Nevertheless, at the risk of being called naïve, I join Mr. Kunstler in saying that we can do better, that we must do better if we hope to combat problems like peak oil and global warming. We will certainly fail if we cannot maintain a modicum of faith — tempered with a healthy skepticism, of course — in our democracy, in our institutions, and yes, even in our politicians.
Comment by Michael Krueger — July 12, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Micheal:
Responses in random order:
-Street grids. Of the many things that one could dislike about Bayport, the street grid isn’t one I’d have wasted any energy on. What in the Wide World of Sports is wrong with a traditional town grid layout?
And citing Harbor Bay as an example of good design leaves me scratching my head also. I know that’s personal taste, for which I’m told there’s no accounting, but both items seem inconsequential in the larger debate.
-And I’m with you on HB vs. Bayport. Though I care little for either, Bayport does come closer to matching the rest of town. One area where Harbor Bay wins, though, is the spacing and setbacks. They are sufficient to allow mature trees to have thrived in many areas, which really helps dress up an otherwise sterile landscape. Bayport houses appear too close together to allow for large trees to grow.
And re #3:
That 50 years of crap and deep mistrust of the process is a big part of my defense of MA. To wit, whatever its imperfections, we’d be in worse shape w/o it. It protects us in a way our feckless and incompetent “leaders” can’t.
And seeing some of the “crap” masquerading as “Smart Growth” makes me leery of that idea and its proponents. Well, not the idea. The IDEA is great, but the various transit villages, etc leave me skeptical of its standard-bearers’ ability to execute. This combined with the almost messianic blind fealty with which many worship the Smart Growth Gods leaves me nervous. They seem to not grasp that every movement has its unintended consequences (ahem, urban renewal from the 60’s). The seem to believe that Smart Growth is somehow immune to other movements’ pitfalls.
But this verbose riposte aside, you and I seem to agree on many things. I applaud the progress that you’re making.
Comment by dave — July 12, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Shucks, Dave, I appreciate the applause, but I can’t take all the credit for progress toward a better mutual understanding. After all, it’s not so much my position that has changed, but rather the completeness of your understanding of it.
But seriously, I emphatically agree that “every movement has its unintended consequences” and that the “Smart Growth” and “New Urbanist” movements are not “somehow immune to other movements’ pitfalls.” I can only hope that your colleagues in the “Keep Measure A” movement — especially those who appear to espouse a “messianic blind fealty” to a single idea — will heed your words of wisdom as well.
Comment by Michael Krueger — July 12, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
How about a little bit of Bayport (traditional styling) a little bit of harbor bay(ample spacing and setbacks, room for mature tress) through in some mix-use retail/office and there we have it.
Comment by jclo — July 12, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
What can you say about a community that believes that the best days are behind it? So much emphasis is placed on protecting the past, that Alameda is unable to move into the future.
History did not end in 1973 when Measure A was passed. Those living in Alameda today have just as much right to determine its future as those who lived here generations ago. All wisdom did not end 35 years ago. Current Alamedans are entitled to just as much democracy as those in the past.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — July 12, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Some People don’t like Bayport, but I am sure there are a lot of people who do including others who have moved here from other parts of Alameda. The houses even resales seem to sell faster than other parts of Alameda.
I have notice a few comments about cookie cutter houses and I have driven and seen many Victorian and others which have the same floor plan right next to each other…maybe different windows…or porch. Cookie cutter houses are nothing new…drive around Alameda and notice you may be surprised. Twin houses, triplet houses…a family of same houses abound all over Alameda….from the turn of the century forward…it is not a new idea.
I like the sound wall. It is too bad they didn’t build one on the other side of R.A.M.P (Atlantic) to hide the cars in the Apartment parking lots. When every they get around to fixing up the beltway land which run along RAMP, a sound wall or something else would be a big improvement over the nasty fences and parking lots you see now.
Drive along the Tinker side of the development and see the garages…that is what you would have seen on RAMP…if there wasn’t that wall.
Most of us don’t mind the setbacks, we like having the garages in back with a alley…we all would have a much larger yard with the garages in front. If we had bigger lots to have bigger setbacks, I believe we would have each paid $200,000.-$300,000 as 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the house is the land. Plus not everyone want a huge yard. My first thought when I looked at Bayport was the yards are not all that large, but then I thought I don’t have time to take care of a big yard…it is perfect for us.
As far as the street design, most of the neighborhoods in Alameda are on a grid design. The few times I have been to Harbor Island, I get lost as everything seems to go around in a circle. You can drive for miles and end up in the same place.
Comment by Joel — July 12, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Hmmm, a target rich environment invites comments.
I sense the realization is dawning that not every multi-unit project one can conceive is a monstrosity, nor every single family detached residence on a grid is a piece of art (or an appealing home).
To be sure, there are some real dogs out there dating from the turn of the 20th century, and without question the worst apartment buildings ever built were concocted by some developer cutting corners so as to make a financial kiling to buy a new 1965 Corvette.
Among the litany of problems I can identify with Measure A are the fundamentally flawed assumptions and unintended consequences that permanently enshrine 34 year old thinking. I concur with Alameda NayTiff’s comments in #7.
First, if you like Alameda today you have to admit that homogeneity is boring. Alameda homes make this one of the most heterogenous places you’ll ever see this side of Houston. Fortunately, we’re a lot nicer, but I suspect it’s an accident. We have old and relatively old, small, not so small, large and even larger, all jostling for primacy on our little patch of heaven.
Second, you have to acknowledge as you walk around the city that each neighborhood has its own character appreciated and sustained by the residents who self-selected to dwell there, in spite of the desires of any government agency or group of concerned citizens to impose their own standards. Some people call this the pursuit of happiness, others freedom of choice, others the American Dream.
Third, we need to realistically explore ways to house both our young-adult children as well as our aged in residences that they have a reasonable opportunity of owning, with sufficient cash left over every month to enjoy food with every meal.
Fourth, soon we need to discover that we aren’t on an island in the middle of the Pacific, but that we could well be a future case study in “Collapse 2″ by Jared Diamond describing a civilization akin to the Easter Islanders who were so obsessed with competitive preservation that we preserved ourselves into oblivion.
Fifth, (I’m sticking to the fingers on one hand here) it would be really, really nice if we could do all this with thought to what it costs to build and maintain infrastructure, and how we will generate sustainable tax revenue through retail sales, business taxes, transfer taxes and other taxes. In short, sacrifices must be made if you want good schools, police, fire services, emergency medical, parks, libraries, and the myriad services we call civilization.
We will now return you to the original programming scheduled for this space.
Comment by Kirk Knight — July 12, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
I find the idea that somehow places like Bay Farm are ugly and unworthy of being considered real housing sort of ignorant. Homes are just like fashion: tastes and types of houses change.
Funny how that back in the 60’s, there was a folk song entitled “Little boxes” yes… Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made out of ticky-tacky…” Ironic because some of those weird 60’s single level brady bunch looking homes you see along the ocean in Alameda look outright charming and quaint compared to America’s new favorite housing style: Giant Mcmansion stucco things.
In fact, a few months ago, me and my wife were biking around near the Naval base. Just for the hell of it we stopped and looked at the many models that were available to look at at the Bayport development.
I worked in the contractor supply sales for years and am very familiar with building materials. The construction and quality of materials in these minimum 850k homes at Bayport is actually on the cheaper budget end. Mass-manufactured constructed houses with all the dough spent on stainless appliances and whirpools in the bathrooms.
But to be fair, there were a lot of people that thought those now charming 60’s ticky-tacky suburb homes were equally “cheap”. The same goes for those now “historic” victorian homes, which at the time they were built were meant to mimic country estates of the wealthy. Many were actually sold in kits from Sears, trucked in on flatbed trucks or trains, and puked up in a few weeks. Not very much differently than how they build homes now. Who knows? someday we might be living in houses made in plastic molds and we’ll yearn for the days that houses were made out of cheap stick-and-slab materials.
So who are people to scoff at others for the housing and style they choose? If you were to walk up to a person in say- Bay Farm- and said: “Boy I bet you just HATE living in your ugly square looking Rancher house” you’d probably get a funny look. Obviously they live in the house because they LIKE it.
We don’t live in a time bubble, and neither do our houses.
Comment by edvard — July 13, 2007 @ 11:20 am
E.S. #10-
I get your drift, but I’ll bet there isn’t a Sears house on this island. The lagoon homes on the Utah company fill, and ranch style homes of a similar era in Orinda, are all a kind of cheap I like to avoid. Some of that Orinda studd is worth $2 mill because of lot and location, but the houses are still garbage.
Bayport has other cost effective techniques, but at least they are seismically up to snuff compared to these others.
Cheap is as cheap does, but in terms of looking cheap, I’m sure at Bayport they use what looks like a real molding even if it’s particle board, instead of that sixties thing of using 1 1/2″ molding to trim out doors, windows and baseboards. Lumber wasn’t even that expensive then, but they shaved cost at every level in that era of “modernism”.
Comment by Mark — July 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Re #9
*Among the litany of problems I can identify with Measure A are the fundamentally flawed assumptions and unintended consequences that permanently enshrine 34 year old thinking. I concur with Alameda NayTiff’s comments in #7.*
Please identify the litany. So far you’ve only identified the two in #7 (and those two points are not about MA they’re about stodgy beliefs). I’ve read and reread your one handed five points but there’s nothing them that mentions MA. I’m on pins and needles waiting for the other hand.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 13, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Jack, you’d have to read my other postings.
But I’ll give you 2.
1) I can’t create senior residential housing without subterfuge. Cardinal Pointe had to create faux removable kitchens to be approved. Shame on MA.
2) I want to take Victorian fourplexes and make them owner-occupied fourplex condominiums. Oops, sez MA, can’t do that. You can live in a decaying fourplex as a renter, but you can’t own your own unit as a condominium enabling easy financing, easy title, easy control, easy oversight for city, and more tax revenue for city. More Shame on MA.
Gotta run.
Comment by Kirk Knight — July 14, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Re your #13
I wasn’t able to locate your other postings, Kirk, but I will comment on the two you mentioned above.
Cardinal Pointe, described on their website as the “Pinnacle” of Aegis’ senior communities and you quibble about faux kitchens. What you call subterfuge, sounds to me like a creative way to uphold the intent of MA while designing senior living spaces which meet the needs of senior citizens. I understand that those who work in the real estate field want few restrictions on sale/conversions/density and other issues concerning their livelihood, however, the rest of the community may desire otherwise.
Victorians (or any structure, for that matter) may or may not “decay” due to the owner being an occupant. Conversion of a unit from rental to condominium, will not, in itself, change the rate of structural upkeep. Pride of ownership is not a universal human trait. There are plenty of owner occupied single family dwellings in this city that appear to be ill kept. I don’t think one can lay that at the feet of MA. The other shameful traits which you mention MA has caused for the city (lack of easy financing/control/oversight/tax) almost made me not want to write the next paragraph.
My own feeling about MA is that it has outlived its usefulness. I believe it did what it was designed to do during the turbulent times when it was passed. In essence it saved Alameda from being Oaklandized (remember our arteries are directly connected to Oakland) and made Alameda citizens feel secure in their City. Later on, in 1978, Prop 13 finally made citizens feel they were secure in their homes (from a confiscatory tax agency). I do not, however, believe Prop 13 has outlived its usefulness. Tax agencies by their nature are much more voracious than Oakland ever could be.
So, I guess we agree but for different reasons. I would welcome MA to be voted, up or down, on the Ballot.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 15, 2007 @ 10:31 am
#14 all for tax regulation to keep granny from foreclosure as real estate appreciates and taxes increase, but prop 13 in as Draconian as Measure A (MA was more just overly simplistic), and the loss of revenue from Prop 13 has slaughtered our education system from top to bottom.
Many folks are oblivious to the loss of revenue from the commercial sector which could be adjusted without threatening grandma on the fixed income.
Meanwhile, the tax burden put on first time home buyers is an insult added to the injury of their mortgage. I don’t know how new home owners are able to enter the market, but they have plenty of incentive to keep good care of their investment, if they have any cash left to buy paint.
Comment by Mark — July 15, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Ok, I checked my database for “litany” and found 796. But this was a first pass.
There are approximately 675 properties in Alameda that could not be rebuilt to conform to Measure A. These were built before 1942 and currently have 3 or more residential units.
An additional 124 properties were built between 1943 and 1959 that wouldn’t qualify.
This is out of a total of 15,181 properties of all kinds, including vacant lots, in Alameda 94501. Obviously, not a huge percentage today…
But 8,700 existing properties were built before 1943. Obviously some of the older properties were torn down, increasing the total built prior to 1943.
But entire blocks of Clinton, San Antonio and San Jose from Chestnut to Park, just to name one area of which I’m fond, would have be devastated to comply with Measure A.
I’m trying to calculate how many mixed use properties we have, but the database I have isn’t sufficiently granular.
I suggest a fun project: Let’s go around town and put up signs on the lawns or in the front windows of buildings built before 1943 which would not comply with Measure A. Then we’d really see the unintended consequences of trying to “maintain the character of Alameda.”
Or perhaps we should build a photographic database and website to accomplish the same task.
Is that enough pins?
Comment by Kirk Knight — July 15, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Jack, #14,
Before I was in real estate I was an inventor and entrepreneur developing systems complying with US and international banking regulations, especially consumer protection for minors. I don’t mind logical rules and laws, but illogical rules and laws drive me nuts.
I’m trying to find a balance for the fundamental forces of the universe known as Alameda: Desirable old buildings with multiple rental units, High maintenance costs, Lots of demand for ownership, High home prices, Low availability of middle-income housing (btw $100K per year is middle income in Alameda), Restrictive zoning and building, Proximity to work centers, A nice environment, Good schools, Desire for little or no change.
POINT 1) Current rental properties in Alameda are not economically viable. The rents do not support the cost of ownership and maintenance. Therefore, if the owner is not independently wealthy, the property is decaying. Some are decaying more than others. (I’ll gloss over entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, advising that decay is inevitable regardless of effort and capital expenditure.)
I don’t know of any knowledgable people who buy residential income property in Alameda and expect to make money each month. So, they are literally subsidizing their tenants in the short term, in the hopes of property appreciation in the long term.
Inevitably irrational exuberance has its limits. The owners can’t afford upkeep. Drive around Alameda and you’ll see what I mean.
So the BEST course of action is to enable as many people as possible to contribute to the maintenance of a building with their combined pride of ownership. The familiar form of ownership is called a condominium - where each owner has an undivided and equal share of the overall common property, and ownership of their own unit. We can also convert to a Tenancy in Common or TIC, which has similar benefits but is more nebulous.
If changing ownership from 1 person to many people makes money for owners, sellers, realtors, title companies, city transfer tax coffers, Pagano’s, SO BE IT. I do the math and just call the balls and strikes, I didn’t make the rules of economics.
POINT 2)
I have great appreciation for period properties and live in one. I don’t want unfettered construction. I don’t want to tear down older buildings - although there are a few that are begging.
But a bit of rational comparison and consideration would be greatly appreciated. Yet we seem to have Measure A phobia in town spread to everything related to any building. We seem unable to ask logical questions and get simple logical answers.
DO WE WANT TO KEEP DOCTORS AND DENTISTS IN ALAMEDA?
Why can’t my client continue to use a 70+ year old medical building as..a..medical building? It was built as a medical building before there was zoning. It was a medical building before there was a Use Permit required. And yet, because there is no Use Permit on file, the new owners may not be able to use it as a medical building. After 70+ years! Can you think of anything more absurd?
The new owner doesn’t want to tear it down, or destroy the lovely architectural character of the property. In fact, the neighbors won’t even notice it’s been sold because aside from new paint and some outside repairs, nothing will change on the outside.
Yet our Planning Board is literally afraid to state the obvious, “Sure, we’d like to keep those doctors and dentists in town, especially since that’s been used by doctors and dentists for 70+ years.”
POINTE 3) (sic)
Cardinal Pointe’s removable cooktops are a brilliant sham. Can you honestly say, “WE DON’T WANT MORE SENIOR HOUSING IN ALAMEDA!”
Last time I looked the greatest generation is in good health and is planning on sticking around a lot longer. They’re impressive! Plus, there are going to be a lot of boomers retiring soon. So demand for senior housing is certainly to increase in the future. Yep, someone will make a buck putting active seniors into an affordable group housing setting. Maybe that someone will be you. Maybe that senior will be you or a family member.
Regardless of your role, we have to be pretty obtuse a city to ignore the need and refuse to consider something other than the type of bland warehousing which was common a generation ago. Few people can afford a Cardinal Pointe and the extensive politicking that went into its creation.
Every ordinance and piece of red tape condemns another senior to higher living costs and lower quality of life with no benefit to the community.
I say we need to act now to establish some rational policies even if they conflict with Measure A.
Comment by Kirk Knight — July 15, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
“Meanwhile, the tax burden put on first time home buyers is an insult added to the injury of their mortgage. I don’t know how new home owners are able to enter the market, but they have plenty of incentive to keep good care of their investment, if they have any cash left to buy paint.”
Good points. As far as first time home buyers, I rarely see anyone under 45 buying anything in my neighborhood. Even though home sales in my area have slowed to a crawl, 2 homes have sold. One for around 800k and another for close to 900k. One couple is at retirement age and are seldom if ever home. The 2nd couple owns a 75,000 Mercedes and again- are rarely home. Probably out slaving away on the mortgage.
The answer is that Alameda is not a first time homebuyer’s market. Me and my wife are one of the very few people under 30 on our street. Simply put, Alameda is getting older and older and richer and richer. Not sure if this was the intention, but MA blended with the overall housing situation in the BA is turning Alameda into a primarily one-sided affluent town.
Comment by edvard — July 16, 2007 @ 8:59 am
Re: 17
Kirk, you must have missed my #14 final paragraph. If your litany is valid and you (and I) amongst many others feel that MA has outlived its usefulness (though, I question whether current Alamedans would feel the same way had they lived in Alameda in the 60’s and 70’s ), would you support an up or down vote on MA? In my view, a simple up or down vote makes more sense than digesting 80,000 different modifications of the Measure then trying to regurgitate those modifications on a ballot.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 16, 2007 @ 9:10 am
Apoogies, Jack I missed all of your #14.
I’ve only lived in Alameda for 9 years, and I’m not an elections specialist.
In my opinion, MA would not win an up or down vote in a general election with a high turnout - that is, the majority of voters turn out. The core MA voters can be easily counted by recent elections for city council.
Regardless of an end to MA at the ballot box, there will be those who take it to court ’til the end of their days or money, whichever comes first. Witness the work/live project. It’s these rear guard actions that will adversely affect the future of Alameda. There aren’t many people like Janet Koike (sp?) who combine vision, capital and perseverance who can litigate and wait.
Comment by Kirk Knight — July 16, 2007 @ 9:48 am
There is a landlord who owns several apartment buildings (6 to 10 units) from Vallejo to the peninsula. I think four or five in Alameda. They are all older buildings, two of the three I’ve seen in town were built as apartments in the late 1800s early 1900s. The other is a hacked up Victorian.
They guy is selling them off. In prep for sale he’s doing things like replacing brick foundations, after twenty years of renting them as is and making minimum investments. I asked him how the buyers could possibly afford them since they can’t jack the rents to meet the mortgages. He said they are doing what Kirk suggests and subsidizing with the future in mind.
I didn’t ask about amounts but it seems to me like some serious financial bleeding. I asked the guy if he would buy one of his buildings today, if he was just starting out as opposed to the era he did start. Not surprisingly, his answer was no.
In the mid nineties there was a single family property at Fifth Street Station which could have been acquired for under $300,000. It could taken some repair and then been rented at cost, and now would be turning a little profit, or could have been sold for a few hundred thousand profit. That was the last time I saw an opportunity for my investing in residential property in Alameda and I didn’t act.
Comment by Mark — July 16, 2007 @ 10:18 am
There was a multi-unit house for sale not too far from where I live. It has 3-4 units and was commanding a price of over 1.2 million dollars. I thought the same as you in that even if the units were totally filled getting the maximum rent, there could be no way the units would be profitable.
As it stands now, I counted 17 rental units and houses for rent on my drive home the other day.Some of these ( including the house I mentioned above that finally sold)have been for rent for 6 months or more. It would seem that the rental market in Alameda is dismal these days. So I can only imagine that the people who bought these already own so much real estate that they can afford to lose money on them. Either that or they still willfully believe the lie that real estate only ever goes up and they can refi.
What irritates me most about the Bay Area is that the idea of homeownership is rarely seen as what a home is intended to be: a home where you live and not simply something you buy with the full intention off selling in 5-10 years. Every summer it seems like half of the island goes up for sale and more people move out.
This kind of activity didn’t happen at all where I grew up: People simply stayed put, got to know the neighbors, invested in things like gardens, porches, and a new kitchen maybe every 2-3 decades. You had a real sense of community. That feeling of community in Alameda seems to dilute with each passing year as more and more people ” cash out”.
My advice for people here is to invest in your careers, invest in ideas, and save your money.Get too tied up in buying a house and you’re just limiting your financial potential. That way you won’t be pressured to do like everyone else does when they retire here and sell for another state or region of the country simply because they poured most of their income into their mortgages and now cannot afford to retire as a result.
Comment by edvard — July 16, 2007 @ 11:18 am
JKW’s line about traffic projection for Cowan’s Village VI;
“The amount of traffic being projected by this project is really small”
JKW - This is only your subjective analysis. I would say it is as flawed as the faux scientific analysis that says more traffic at an intersection will improve “level of service’ for that intersection.
We know that this project is for 104 new homes, and for that new neighborhood everyone must use a single street to go there or to leave. It is only one way or the other on Harbor Bay Rd. Look at Cowan’s other developments - especially the most recent expansions out on Bay Farm, notice only well-to-do homes with an average of at least one car for every driver. Using common sense as required – how many vehicles per commute, per school drop-off, are to be added to the intersections examined? What will happen at all the other traffic areas not examined? What will all the new cars do at the elementary schools every morning? (I think some of the traffic studies were done when school traffic was not “in session”) What you call “small” is relative, and shows your bias. If the same # of car trips were to be added to your street I doubt you would still call it a “small” number, and it is likely that most will be using that portion of Island Drive that is already the 2nd most congested stretch of roadway in the entire city. That statistic is by the traffic study used by the traffic Commission you chair, it would be wrong of you to deny the facts.
You point out the flawed methodology; I still wonder what exactly they are talking about. I have not had time to read the final EIR, but I noticed my letters were not included. Perhaps if all the given traffic leaving the projected new development heading toward the south bay used the cross-airport ‘Cowan expressway’ and were not required to stop and wait for the traffic light to change at Harbor Bay and Cowan, this would lower the overall avg delay at the traffic light. The other example I can think of is when the rest of the traffic goes the other way on Harbor Bay to use McCartney as their ‘rabbit trail’ off the island.. If you only examine what happens if the new neighborhood uses Ratto Rd to Aughinbaugh and makes a right on red to McCartney, then by their system of abusing data to create a false perception, the average delay MAY seem decreased at the traffic light at McCartney / Aughinbaugh. Does this about sum up your understanding as well?
I’ll hopefully hear some sense by PB Monday, but w/ mayor putting in another anti-MA member on the PB, -we will have to wait and see. Despite the recent headlines yesterday’s Journal article stated that after going to PB on Monday, Cowan’s Village VI will go to CC for final OK.
Jeez, I though after Monday’s PB meeting it would go to CC for appeal - but that thought was just from reading the recent headlines… Let’s see the integrity with which our representatives represent us….
Comment by David Kirwin — May 10, 2008 @ 10:36 am