Lease on extended life
The Alameda Journal has a story about the Alameda Naval Museum and the five year lease that was given to the organization, highlights:
…Museum leaders say the lease will give them leverage to go after greater fund-raising opportunities.
“I’ve been told that if we have a five-year lease, different organizations we would apply to for grants would be willing to comply or give us money,” museum president Marilyn York said this week. “They won’t give you money if there’s no assurance the building will not be there or if you’re not going to occupy it.”
The museum is packed with genuine war artifacts, including aircraft engine parts, uniforms, newspaper clippings and a World War II flying simulator. It includes a film-screening room, a gift shop and a 150-seat banquet hall. One room has been set aside for archival interviews.
Museum leaders say their biggest priority is transforming the third floor of Building 77 — the air terminal of the former Naval Air Station Alameda — into a research library. That floor currently is being used for storage.
…
It had a five-year lease for Building 77, which expired in 2006. It has since been lobbying for a five-to-10-year contract, but the city wanted to see a business plan first.
“They wanted to see we were running the business of the museum well,” museum board member Kin Robles said. “And we had performance metrics in place and the museum leadership was going to be sustainable and succession planning was in place.”
What the city was asking for was not unreasonable, Robles added.
“In some ways it was a good thing, I think,” he said. “It helps us advance what we’re trying to do — to stay on target.”
…
But due to development plans for Alameda Point, it’s not clear whether the museum will exist 20 years from now in the same form as it does now.
…
Robles, however, is confident the museum will exist in one form or another, whether it remains in the former air terminal or not.
“The onus is entirely on us to go out, raise funds and deliver on the vision put forth,” he said. “If we’re a valued part of the community, we’ll fit into whatever development is ultimately approved.”
I find it fascinating that while the city insisted on the Alameda Naval Air Museum come up with a business plan and fundraise to keep itself solvent, the Alameda Museum is still largely given a free pass. While the state of the Alameda Civic Light Opera’s 2008 season is in jeopardy depsite their numerous fundraising efforts, the Alameda Museum gets a fundraising match from the city to help offset the escalating rent. All civic and arts organizations receiving money from the city should be treated equally, what is expected from one organizations, such as performance metrics and documentation that museum leadership was sustainable, should be expected from all organizations. Rather than find new ways of fundraising, instead the Alameda Museum is still campaigning to move into the Carnegie Library, as though that will magically solve all of their current funding issues.
It seems more logical that the Alameda Museum should, rather than insist on their Park Street home or the Carnegie Library, that they take a page from the other Museums in Alameda and move out to Alameda Point where there is room to spare and work with SunCal to develop a permanent home for the Museum as part of the new Alameda Point development. With rent at $12 annually with a service fee of $6,528, there would be plenty of other money for programming events. It also sounds as though the Alameda Naval Air Museum has room to rent out a banquet facility for additional revenue for the Museum. The possibilities could be endless for the Alameda Musuem with a larger space, the artifacts that are currently in storage because of lack of space could be all on display, a larger space would open up the possibility of renting out the Museum for weddings and events, more room for their gift shop, coordination with the Antiques by the Bay for their estate sales (which I believe is often their largest source of funding outside of the City grant), etc… I think Kin Robles said it best though, when talking about the solvency of the Alameda Naval Air Museum which should apply to all civic and arts organizations:
“The onus is entirely on us to go out, raise funds and deliver on the vision put forth,” he said. “If we’re a valued part of the community, we’ll fit into whatever development is ultimately approved.”
Sort of on the same subject, have any of you been to the USS Hornet lately? I took a friend from back home out there a few weeks ago. I haven’t been in 3-4 years and since then, they have done a marvelous job of fixing it up.
It was very touching to see because many of the men there had actually served on the ship. They were all volunteers. You can tell how much care and effort they’ve put into it because every room that was open was fully functional- lights, electric fans, etc etc. It makes me feel good to see so many people who care about preserving history for others to see.
There were actually a good amount of people there, so hopefully that will continue and the ship can stay permanently.
Some of you that have kids should take them out there on a Sunday. When the weather is nice, it is a great place to see the skyline and enjoy the ocean.
Comment by edvard — November 9, 2007 @ 9:00 am
I went to the USS Hornet about 7 years ago. I should check it out again. I bet the oil slicks look beautiful from the flight deck!
What’s at the Alameda Museum?
Comment by phastphill — November 9, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
# 1 ‘S’not the ocean, edvard. # 2 Oil slick looks good from Hornet, Phastpill, though probably not as good as the slick around Yamato while sinking in 45.
What’s at the museum? Go look.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 10, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
I wanted to hijack this thread for a minute because it’s date is close to Veterans Day, in that respect it’s header is ironic, and the museum and reuse themes are congruous.
The war has come up locally in the context of the Council vote and that debate highlights that a national issue has local impacts. Many are broader social issues like emergency preparedness and others are about the impacts on the lives of people from our community. I believe the eldest female fatality in Iraq was a woman from Alameda.
I saw some war coverage of Afghanistan on Night Line last night which was pretty discouraging. It was film coverage with Sebastian Junger who wrote “The Perfect Storm”, reporting for Vanity Fair and ABC. Up close and personal. They are taking 25% casualties. The Afghans are as tough and resourceful as the Vietnamese and their tribal culture is much more complex than many Americans can fathom.
The best understanding of this very complicated and under covered conflict I’m aware of is the book “The Place Between” by a British guy who had walked across all of West Asia before 9/11 and then almost immediately after the smoke cleared from U.S. invasion he walked across Afghanistan and lived to write about it.
But that is a tangent. I wanted to say that even though I do not come from a long line of illustrious military service, I take the sacrifices being made by my country men and women very, very seriously.
From the Ken Burns series I learned of a book about the Marines in the South Pacific called “With the Old Breed”, which I had on hold and quite by coincidence was able to get from the library on Sunday. The quotations from the author, E.B. Sledge, were some of the most compelling content of the entire series, even more than some live interviews. Sledge passed away before Burns could film him.
On Friday I took my son to see S.F. Mime Troupe actor Ed Holmes do a one man piece at Rythmix Cultural Works, called “Subhuman”, about his training to be a nuclear submariner and SUBsequent time on an old diesel like the Pompino.
Do to the effects of various childhood diseases my dad spent the war welding Liberty ships, but my son’s other grandfather spent two years on the same class ship in the Pacific during WWII and has told us some stories himself.
Ed’s performance was well acted and poignant. It is something he has worked on over a few years and has done in VFW halls and other venues. He also docents on the Pompino.
I hope you all were able to give some serious thought to the plight of our troops this weekend.
There is so much brutality and injustice in the world, that it is easy to want to inure oneself in any way possible rather than letting the deeper reality of it all seep in. If one attempts to embrace the greater emotional breadth of these issues, it requires great care not to let it overwhelm or to be consumed.
My image for the week, besides the Nightline piece, is one of a soldier with his face burned off in a smiling pose with Dubya last week at a VA facility. I guess I’m glad the guy can smile at all, but it’s a very bewildering image for me which I can’t quite reconcile.
Comment by Mark I — November 13, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Mark, good post.
We should all wake up every day and just be happy to be alive in a free country… and that nobody tried to kill us!
Comment by Jack B. — November 13, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Re # 4
“My image for the week, besides the Nightline piece, is one of a soldier with his face burned off in a smiling pose with Dubya last week at a VA facility.”
In my opinion your hate, in this post and others, towards the President is obvious and desecrates that soldier with his smiling face and the sacrifice he gave. That soldier and his commander in chief deserve more than you are willing to give and your slur on them both is not in accordance with standards of honor and decency. May your grandfather forgive you.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 13, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Jack Richard … that’s a load of baloney (in comment #6). But then, we’ve come to expect this from you!
Comment by Roberto — November 14, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Popular Tech Blogger, Robert Scoble, last month posted a photowalk of the Alameda Hornet, the video is a little long, but it’s nice to see the Hornet getting some notice.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 14, 2007 @ 7:32 am
# 7
“But then, we’ve come to expect this from you!”
I don’t who the “we’ve” you speak of represents. Nor do I care what “you’ve” come to expect.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 14, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Mark and Jack:
I come from a long line of proud Marines. My father & grandfather were decorated combat vets. I am one of the few men in my large family that did not serve, due to physical disqualifications.
In spite of, or perhaps because of, this lineage, I have opposed — stridently — the Iraq war. To borrow from Mr. Obama, I am not against all wars, I’m against stupid wars (as well as unjust, extra-legal, immoral and poorly thought ones).
Like Mark, I struggle to square the image of the soldier he describes. That brave soldier did not sacrfice his face for freedom or for any right or just cause. Rather he lost it at the whim of an incompetent villain.
My many relatives and close friends in the service signed up to SERVE the NATION. They signed up to defend our homeland in war, and guard us in peactime. They are proud and intelligent Americans. They are not my-country-right-or-wrong knuckleheads; they respect such mundane rights as the freedom to disagree with them or the president. They did not sign up to be playthings on a halfwit president’s toy map. They did not sign up to help him drag this great nation into fascism. They have all been ready to sacrifice for what is right, yet have seen their comrades sacrficed for an evil and (perhaps even worse) damaging & counterproductive war.
If I were in uniform I could feel nothing but rage at the cynical disregard for our troops’ decent & selfless service being perverted to such an Orwellian end. I would spit in the eye of a man who treated my brothers in uniform as such expendable chattel.
To you in particular, Jack:
I saw no “hate” in Mark’s post at all. The post #4 that I read was an honest, slightly melancholy support of brave soldiers while decrying waste of life. Nothing offensive or hateful there, Jack.
Now you might construe what I say about the POTUS as hateful. Construe away to your heart’s content. I plead guilty to seething contempt for the SOB. Call me a hater if that’s how you see it. Though truncated under GWB, the Freedom of Speech survives and you are free to exercise it.
But before you accuse me of slurring the troops, as you did Mark, let me tell you a few things first:
“Supporting the Troops” is not a mere bumper sticker for me. I walk that talk. Every year I go to Veteran’s Day services. Each year since ‘03 I have given money to 3 different charities that directly support soldiers’ families while they are called up. I donate both money AND time to the Marines’
Toys for Tots program. When my friends were in Iraq and Afghanistan (thankfully they are all home now) I sent them monthly packages with extras to share with their comrades.
Now go ahead and flame me for slurring the troops.
Comment by dave — November 14, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Dave, in my opinion, the soldier with his face burned off, Mark I wrote of, is smiling because he is proud of what he gave and is proud that his commander in chief recognized the sacrifice. Mark framed that image then slurred the President to assuage his own political bent and thereby desecrated the image.
Couldn’t he have left the slur of the President rest, just for one day? A day set aside for this country to honor veterans.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Jack:
I’m reasonably fluent in English, but I just can’t see the phrase “bewildering image” as a slur on the president at all.
Nor do I see any slur on the troops at all in Mark’s post. In fact he even says, in English no less, that he takes their contributions very seriously. Either I need some remedial reading work, or you are irrationally defensive. Which is it?
Comment by dave — November 14, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Yes Dave, you’re so fluent in English you spell the President’s name “SOB” instead of “Dubya”. But of course, that’s an accepted spelling in your world (and in many comments in this blog) which trivializes a person you quite possibly dislike.
I consider both names a slur on the President and therefore a slur on the image of the soldier being honored by his commander in chief. Mark admits in his final sentence a sense of bewilderment towards the image, bewilderment he can’t reconcile. Implying, to me at least, that the person honoring the soldier is to be hated and the soldier he’s honoring should be spitting in the President’s eye instead of smiling at him.
As I said above, couldn’t he have left the slur of the President rest, just for one day? A day set aside for this country to honor veterans.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 14, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
OK, so I slurred the president. He deserves it; his administration is a disaster. What you a “slur,” though, others call an “evaluation.”
But again, Mark slurred no one. Your insistence that he did says much more about you than him.
Comment by dave — November 14, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
It is a free country and there is no requirement to like the current president or respect what he does. A soldier’s duty is to complete the mission. We have an all volunteer force and soldiers should know for what they are signing up. Soldiers do not get to choose their wars. Their service is to be respected.
I do not see any inconsistency in honoring a soldier’s service, having that soldier be honored by his president and disliking the person who holds that office.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 14, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
I absolutely agree with Jack Richard. Veterans day should have been devoted to honoring those who have served and are serving. It is a shame that the president chose instead to utilize the day as a platform to continue pushing his unjust and unfounded war. The best way to honor the vets would have been to bring them all home.
Comment by notadave — November 14, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Folks like Jack Richard think dissent is unpatriotic … another example of Republicans wrapping themselves with the flag and crying foul.
btw, the SOB “p”resident does not have any Constitutionally granted immunity against criticism on Veterans Day (or any other day).
Comment by Roberto — November 14, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Re. 14
Dave, what do you call the intentional misspelling of someone’s name if not to denigrate his person or status?
I haven’t heard from Mark (unless you’re him) so I do not know what his “Dubya” word’s intent was. However, I have a hard time believing the misspelling of the President’s name, in the context where he used it, was an “evaluation” so in my book it was a slur. On the other hand, your thoughtful words describing the President’s person and administration would qualify as an “evaluation” because you didn’t juxtapose the slurred President and the honored soldier on veterans day in a poignant image. Though, I guess, Mark’s slur could have been a term of bewildering endearment.
I don’t understand your last sentence. Who else but me would my words, “say much more about”?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 14, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Re. 17
Roberto, please, do not confuse me with a Republican. I certainly wouldn’t confuse you with a Democrat.
Re. 16
notadave, I absolutely don’t agree with your “best way to honor vets”.
Re. 15
Alameda NayTiff has it right, in my opinion. A soldier’s duty is to complete the mission.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 14, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Vets-against-the-war were not allowed to march in the parade in Long Beach… What does this say about the freedom of democracy in today’s good ‘ol USA?
Comment by David Kirwin — November 14, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Jack,
It is accurate to infer distain from my use of “Dubya”. I am unmoved.
It is one thing to ask a soldier to sacrifice his body, mind and/or soul for a cause. It is another thing to compound the injury with the insult of turning it into some petty political theater. If the soldier in question is a true believer, perhaps the moment may understandably have been an apex and great morale boost for him, but to the critical observer it is very difficult not to be cynical about the political opportunism on behalf of the other party in almost any act in which he partakes.
Emotionally, I can understand making the association you make, but intellectually it is a leap. In fact, the point of my statement was to high light the dilemma of taking seriously the idea of supporting the troops, no matter what their personal political views, in the context of this administration’s policies, which on top of dubious behavior in getting us involved in this conflict to begin with, hands out no bids contracts to cronies while short changing veterans in about every way imaginable. What better focus on Veteran’s Day or even Memorial Day for that matter?
Jack, inferring my hate, or even disdain, for this soldier is really grasping at straws to justify your own disdain or hate for me and my opinions. I would expect the soldier in the pose, and some other veterans as well, to have hurt feelings over the fact that people like myself are compelled to vocally disapprove of the image, but I don’t see that on Veterans Day or any other day, that alters the equation or should somehow make my dissent equivalent with hating the troops.
There seems to be no shortage of “my-country-right-or-wrong knuckleheads”, but one would have to be singularly uncharitable to confer that mind set on this soldier simply because he supports his president. Especially after his obvious sacrifices.
Jack, if you find the office of president itself sacred, no matter the sins or even crimes of the person holding that office, then I am sure you can not be satisfied by anything other than silence from this quarter.
A running joke about activism in the 21st Century is that where we protested in the streets forty years ago, now we simply “blog about it”. I don’t care what the venue, I mean to make it count.
p.s.- appreciation to dave for your support and will to speak up.
Comment by Mark I — November 14, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
No. 21
Thanks for confirming my interpretation of your original post Mark I.
What were you protesting 40 years ago? Ah, I remember those days well. I had just returned from two tours in SE Asia and was enrolled in Cal Berkeley. The GI bill was paying part of my tuition costs but with a wife and two kids I had to work nights instead of protest.
I tried to get most of my classes in the morning because it was a well known fact that the protesters didn’t get up until noon. Those were the days. Fellow students trying to get me to burn my draft card not knowing I’d volunteered and had already served my time in the Vietnam. Police on campus every day, the smell of tear gas in the afternoons. Harry Krishna singers, Country Joe and the Fish vying for audiences on upper Sproul hippies dancing in lower. That dorky guy Joan Baez married, what was his name, Harris? He used to have group talks by the fountain. Dwinelle being invaded by protesters every afternoon (we had to finally move our class off campus because some of us were actually there to learn). Remember the Blue Meanies (Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies)? They were actually mean! Highway Patrol officers were the easiest.
Great times. But they’ve past and now we have other things to protest.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 14, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
1. It is possible that the wounded soldier deeply appreciated the president recognizing his service.
2. It is possible that GWB used Veterans’ Day for political purposes.
3. It is possible the GWB chose to honor wounded soldiers on Veterans’ Day because he thought that it was the right thing to do.
All three of the above can be true or false, but one can still despise (or love) GWB regardless.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 14, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Jack,
I was 12 years old forty years ago, but at fifteen I was arrested in Washington D.C. by the very nasty D.C. Park Police for attempting to participate in the May Day demonstration where protesters from various cities were assigned traffic intersections to block in acts of civil disobedience. On arriving at our assigned intersection a transit bus pulled up and riot police jumped off and arrested everybody, including students from Georgetown trying to get to their finals. Imagine how pissed off they were at both the cops and the protesters. I even saw an innocent granny dressed as for church being rousted like some common pinko snot.
At ages six, seven and eight I often played army with my friend whose dad had served in Korea. The TV shows “Combat” and “McHale’s Navy” were very popular with us. I remember being about eight years old when I watched the ABC evening news with Harry K. Smith, or a very very young Peter Jennings, and saw coverage of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I remember being in awe as I realized the U.S. was actually involved in a real military action. I spent the next ten years waiting to face the draft. I affiliated with the Quakers in an effort to make a credible attempt to file to C.O. status, but the draft ended the year I became eligible.
I was very conflicted about living the principle of conscientious objection which I tried to embrace as I was regularly assaulted in school for being a long haired “faggot”. I should have duked it out but one day as the biggest loser among a crowd of greasers in P.E. had me in a head lock to impress his friends, I asked him if he understood the implications of committing assault and battery. It was weird how quickly he let go of me.
It never occurred to me to insult or spit on a returning veteran. I understand that Joan Baez stated that she did feel those who served had made a moral transgression in not taking the path her husband David Harris took in going to jail. I guess, singing songs about Joe Hill does not magically imbue a person with more than a superficial sense of class consciousness.
#23 I am totally certain that the soldier deeply appreciated the president recognizing his service which is in part what makes the image so bewildering.
Comment by Mark I — November 14, 2007 @ 11:02 pm