Across the estuary
Oak to 9th (or Ninth), whichever, has passed a substantial hurdle recently which is a lawsuit filed over Oakland City Attorney John Russo’s decision to invalidate a petition collected by a coalition of Oaklanders to put the project to a public vote, has now been dropped. Phew. Hopefully that made sense, or you are all up to speed on the drama over this project. Details from A Better Oakland blog:
…This means that the development will never come before the voters. But the project isn’t in the clear just yet. Two lawsuits dealing with the Environmental Impact Report are still pending.
Ultimately, the group was simply unable to raise the funds needed to continue fighting. Stuart Flashman, attorney for the referendum committee, told Novometro’s Alex Gronke “If we were all billionaires, we’d still be in court.”…
The entire Press Release from the Oakland City Attorney’s Office is reprinted at A Better Oakland, but here are some excerpts:
…In an effort to block the development, the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee spent more than $40,000 to collect signatures for a referendum. However, the signature drive used an incomplete…version of the Council’s ordinance – one that gave incorrect information about important issues such as open space and public access to the waterfront. A committee leader admitted under oath that they knew they were using an incomplete draft of the ordinance.
…
State law also required signature gatherers to be Oakland residents. Discovery revealed that some out-of-town signature gatherers lied under oath by claiming that they lived in Oakland.
The Referendum Committee sued the City in September 2006. Since that time plaintiffs have lost nine separate motions in court (see attached history of motions in this case). Plaintiffs have now chosen to dismiss the case “with prejudice” rather than have another day in court….
The Berekely Daily Planet also covered this issue, highlights:
…“We dropped the lawsuit primarily because we ran out of money,” [Oakland League of Women Voters president Helen] Hutchinson said. “We could never get to the heart of the matter because we were sidetracked by legal side issues.”
…
And Oakland Green Party member Kate Tanaka, a referendum committee member, said by telephone that “in order to get through the next round of depositions, we would have had to spend more than we currently have in the bank, and we weren’t sure that there wouldn’t have been another round of motions to follow. We were up against a phalanx of attorneys representing the city and the developers, and we only had one attorney ourselves.”
…
Last year, the former public information officer for the city attorney’s office, Erica Harrold, said in a telephone interview called it a “draconian state law” that mandates that a petition for a referendum overturning a city ordinance—including the final version of the ordinance—must be turned in no later than 30 days after the final passage of the ordinance, even though state law does not give a timetable as to when the final version of the ordinance must be made available to the public…
I had thought that the Oak to Ninth/9th project was still in it’s early stages, so when someone mentioned that Don Perata was at a groundbreaking for Oak to Ninth, I thought I had missed something. Turns out, Perata was at a groundbreaking for Harvest Hall in Jack London Square:
…At the groundbreaking Monday, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata of Oakland praised the project, saying it will “(reorient) Oakland from the hills to the waterfront.” …
For more information on what Harvest Hall is planned to be, A Better Oakland has complied a list of news articles that have discussed the project over the years.
Once again, another story that just comes to show that putting aside all the flowery, purposeful language and thinly veiled reasons- like environmental impacts and so forth- that there seems to be a plentiful supply of selfish people living in this area that will expend enormous amounts of energy to ensure that their little scrap of earth is theirs and nobody else had better think of moving next door.
Hell or high water, they’ll have it no other way: either pay an exorbitant price for the ‘honor’ to live here or stay out. It’s like the whole area is a member’s only country club.
All in the name of liberal politics too. Ironic isn’t it?
Comment by edvard — November 14, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Edvard - you’re twisted (again)
Again corporate America takes precedence over the rights of citizens - there will be no vote on how much S*** will be piled on every one’s communities, or how badly degraded the communities will become all in the name of corporate profit.
Edvard is mindless if he thinks more development will lower the prices of homes.
Edvard - Look at what they are building!!! You should have been at the MA debate last week to learn how much non-MA low cost housing the city can allow. Don’t you f’ing ‘get it’? CC,PB, Homes, Cowan, Catullus…-they all want expen$$$ive homes. That is where the profit is.
Go to the meetings and debates, open you ears, close your mouth and pay attention.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 14, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
DK,
I kind of have to look at the big picture. In reality no matter what happens people will continue to build, buy, and live in this area. It is bound to happen sometime. It takes constant cycles to do so.
Bottom line: people will continue to get married, have kids, drink beer, eat hamburgers, and buy houses. The industry and economy will facilitate the means to do so.
As we have seen from the last two cycles, one thing is clear. People will gladly pack up and move if given enough money. Let’s say that in 2016 or there abouts a young suave couple walks up to you and offers you 4 million for your home. I bet you’d move in a heartbeat. Now just imagine that a developer comes in and does the same thing with a chunk of land. The same would happen. If there is a way, it will happen and the name of the game here is money and using it to extract the last generation with cash and generate profits. Anything can and will be bought, unused land included… if the price is right.
Unused land will get built, the population will continue it’s unrelenting acceleration, and all the while people will become like insects shaken up in a jar, which is to say they will get irrate and protective.
It just so happens that we’re Americans and like to live in the lap of luxury with our large homes, cocker Spaniels and back yard BBQ’s. So much so that large quantities of them are going bankrupt from their desire to obtain that.
Mindless or not, the cold reality is that no matter what you or anyone says or does, more people will build, more companies will find lucrative ways to extract more usable land, and the cycle will continue with dramatic booms and bust that serve to grow and then implode, sweeping up the dust and displacing another class in the process.
So if your comment is that corporate and personal greed will ruin an area, well I’d say the deed has already been done. Look around you. There’s a foreclosure a few streets down from me… in Alameda. There is a ton of people that are utterly screwed. Why? Because for one, there are laws that prevent building more housing that would in many ways alleviate the problems of severe booms and bust cycles.
If you choose to live in a densely populated area, then you should expect to face the consequences of such a decision. People in close quarters get ‘riled up’.
As far as the meeting, well if they weren’t at awkward times, sure- I’d come.
Anyhow, let’s not throw bad feelings around. I’d prefer objective conversation even if I disagree and learn from other people’s opinions.
Comment by edvard — November 14, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
“how badly degraded the communities will become all in the name of corporate profit.” uhmmm .. .have you seen the “community” that is currently at the oak to 9th site?
Comment by JayA — November 14, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Have you seen how much traffic now spills onto that frontage road whenever 880 is backed up? Go on over some afternoon to see. Those roads serve many communities in the region, not just that neighborhhod and the trucks from the Port of Oakland.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 14, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Edvard (#3) greed, over-population, traffic, the “riled up” of dense populations, over-valuation, developers supplying with “unrelenting acceleration” - all are reasons for action, not to lay down to swaddled yourself in silence. Because somebody else digs a hole you don’t have to jump in and bury yourself.
That’s why some of us are vocal. That’s why the majority support MA. They don’t have to do anything and are still somewhat protected from unrelenting development. You can bet I value what I have – I worked long and hard for it. Our home, our quality of life, our friends and neighbors all make up what I consider to be my family’s little piece of paradise. I’ll wager many Alamedans feel the same. Why would you expect us to want developers to profit by changing it? Will it happen, will greed prevail will the BA become choked with pollution and match the highest density cities in the world? – Maybe so, but don’t expect Alamedans not to fight it.
How is allowing more and more expensive home building going to mitigate our present pollution problem? Has all the recent development in Alameda brought available affordable homes for you or our kids to be able to buy? Do you think developers are going to build single family homes for the working class? Is the solution for our social problems to make the society bigger? Doesn’t it follow that more people in our region will lead to more if not bigger societal problems? Do you think we should de-grade the entire region until it becomes so undesirable the home prices fall? If you don’t mind undesirable, you can already buy affordable homes in the Bay Area in undesirable neighborhoods.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 14, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
David, so I take it that you were a strong supporter of the lawsuit going forward. I was too, not so much because I had questions about the development, but because it seems there were some important issues regarding citizen involvement in decision making. What were your thoughts on the LWV being one of the lead organizations in the lawsuit?
Comment by notadave — November 15, 2007 @ 7:47 am
DK,
I think you might be confusing falling prices on homes with a lower quality of life and lower living standards. The contrary is true because due to the latest boom, housing became unaffordable to the vast majority of the people who live here.
How is the quality of life for people like myself, who makes well above the local median income improved given the fact that if I were to buy even now, a huge chunk of my income would be going just for the mortgage alone? Do expensive homes make for better neighborhoods or better neighbors?
We’ve discussed this many times before, and one thing that is very clear is that by making attempts to restrict the construction of new housing, naturally it accelerates the appreciation of existing home values. This in turn creates highly volitile housing markets that very quickly burn themselves out because economic fundamentals are sidestepped and ignored. Fundamentals ALWAYS comes back into play.It just so happens that banks, lenders, and the Fed allowed us to play the game a bit longer which will only exacerbate the issue.Simply put, home prices are totally dependent on exotic loans which no longer exist.
Forbes just came out with a report concerning likely depreciation areas in Northern California. Of those areas, the East Bay is projected to lose anywhere from 20-31% of their property values over the next 5 years. Funny because this was precisely the percentage I came up with a year ago. Their source comes from a study simply comparing rent prices to mortgages. These two have always eventually leveled out during economic fallouts. My ‘guesstimate’ came simply from looking at property values from 2003-2005, which was at the height of the use of exotic loans, which were used by over 70% of all home buyers in the Bay Area during that time period. The city of Oakland is currently no. 4 in the country in foreclosures. This is the latest tail of the domino effect that started in Sacramento, then places like Manteca and Stockton, Hayward, and now Oakland… right across the bridge from Alameda.
Either way, MA, anti-growth measures, or city councils alone, the fact remains that even during the height of the bubble, more people than ever were buying- even if they didn’t have the means to do so.
It also beggs the question which I’ve been extremely blunt about which is that do laws like MA hurt or help an economy or city? Are we as a local economy and society in better or worse shape as a result of the boom? The answer is simple and one that I already answered, which is the atmosphere that MA and laws like it create, which is one of extreme volatility. Volatility creates panic and panic makes people choose perhaps unwisely.
Lastly, As I’ve said, the population of the US is growing at a rampant pace. Those people are just like you and want their own ” piece of paradise”. Something will eventually have to give, which is that either places like the BA will simply become places for the super-rich who can use their money to influence decisions on the political level in order to build to their desires or eventually people will come to see that laws that prevent others from moving in simply do not work to improve the local economy and will ultimately be revoked.
Anyhow, perhaps since I have not bought a home here nor plan to do so, perhaps I would feel differently if I did. Perhaps I would be right up there with you fighting every single new house, street, development, and sign. I’m only looking at this from a practical perspective.
I think after the dust settles and some level of affordability returns, a new generation of buyers will have their chance to have their say and determine what kind of place they would like to live in. Perhaps that will make things better for everyone.
Comment by edvard — November 15, 2007 @ 8:09 am
#7 -I thought Oakland’s LWV was right to participate in the legal action against the City of Oakland’s decision to invalidate the petition that gathered enough signitures to put the Oak to 9th project on the ballot. They were supporting the very core of Democracy. Unfortunatly for citizens the well oiled development political machine trumped the rights of the people (I feel they did so illegally, but these days money is more valued, or more important than laws.)
#8 - You perhaps are confusing quality of life and home ownership. They are not the same.
From your statments you should be getting very active trying to requlate the type of housing to be constructed, insistng that only affordible housing be built -
As far as how many home buyers there were at the height of the bubble; I have to wonder if they counter re-fi’s as purchases. This may not be an issue as far as foreclosure rates, but it changes the reasons. Not everybody has the extravagant means you dream about, many more I think were trying to cover bills and the only solution for them was to squeeze out more home equity than they owned. That seems to better answer the riddle of why so many took out hi risk ARM’s - it wasn’t by choice, there may have been more people earning less ‘n less, not everybody was just buying more ‘n more.
You are correct - a new level of affordibility always will return, but you will never go back to old levels of affordability. Every new level of affordability is higher than the previous level.
Comment by Dave kirwin — November 15, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
And yet when the LWV spoke out to encourage a public discussion of measure A, you and others denounced them. So I guess free speech is important if the speech is the right one.
Comment by notadave — November 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Edvard, don’t get so hung up on home ownership, especially here. It doesn’t have to be everybody’s American dream. Over the long run, dividends pay better.
Comment by Jack B. — November 15, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I like the Oak to Ninth project. It is much better than what is there now. I wouldn’t buy there to close to the trains. When we lived by Lake Merritt you could hear the trains all the and BART all the time (although you learn to live with them after awhile). From there you can walk to BART…makes since to me.
DK you said most people support measure A, I would say that I disagree. If you took a vote today…who knows how it would come out? It is just like the Theatre…I believe most people supported it and the garage. A few loud people didn’t.
Comment by Joel — November 15, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
#11 - Not Dave - ?! What!?
I have NEVER “denounced” anyone for promoting discussion. You have a warped sense of reality. I certainly denounced Alameda LWV for trying to do an end run around public discussion and public initiative by requesting City Council to place MA on the ballot so people like Don the Pirate and his developer friends/scoundrels could pump $$$ into confusing people like Edvard and others on how “bad” MA is…And without ‘Forcing” enough public discussion many seem foolish enough to “drink the kool aid.”
Just look at the blathering here, and how many actually went to the last MA debate, which was the 1st “impartially” organized debate on MA that I have seen.
You are so wrong – I am for discussion, but against a well oiled brainwashing.
#12 - Joel - Like dude,, after the kool-aid, I feel your vibe man - Harshes my mellow to deal with all that noise of the trains and BART when you’re like only a mile or 2 away, I’d never buy there either dude; but it is like totally perfect for all those others to live within walking distance, totally makes sense man….
Do YOU bother to read what you write? Do you ‘hear’ what you are saying? Your words speak so loudly on the value of your opinion.
Comment by David Kirwn — November 16, 2007 @ 12:12 am
#12 - A “few” loud people? How many is a “few”? Is that in the vicinity of several hundred people showing up for multiple council meetings…. requiring additional overflow rooms?
Just wondering what “a few” is. thanks.
Comment by Jack B — November 16, 2007 @ 7:14 am
Thanks for clearing that up David:
LWV advocating to get an item on the ballot in Oakland = good
LWV advocating to get an item on the ballot in Alameda = the arrival of the black helicopters.
Comment by notadave — November 16, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Jack,
I totally agree.Homeownership isn’t everything. At least for now, what I’m saving by renting and investing is around triple what I could do if I had bought. Everyone’s financial situation is different, so it boils down to basic economics. I just stick to the ole’ rule of never spending more than 29% of my income on housing, whether that be rent or a mortgage.
Anyhow, I’m not concerned about owning a home here. I’ve rented a 4 bedroom house with a nice yard for longer than some of the people who bought on my street have owned theirs. So the quality of life for me isn’t really any different from those that bought. I’d wager that actually I probably have it a bit better now given the current market.
Anyhow, I have learned a lot about living here. I’ve lived in both ultra-low population density areas as well as a few cities in the Northeast and out here where the density is high. The differences in which people behave in these environments is almost entirely predictable. Laid back versus harried and hectic, or in some cases defensive. When I lived in the East Coast, people were just as easily provoked into action at the thought of building new housing or buildings. The older I get, the more I think I prefer much less populated, perhaps even sparse areas over more developed ones.Sure- you don’t get all that political and ethnic diversity and good food, but then again, I grew up on 15 acres in the middle of nowhere so I think I could muster just fine. I guess we all have our preferences and it is good that in this country we still have options to choose from.
Anyhow, thanks for having an objective observation. Pretty cool to have good discussions such as these.
Comment by edvard — November 16, 2007 @ 8:04 am
#15 - Thanks for clearing that up David:
LWV advocating to get an item on the ballot in Oakland = good
LWV advocating to get an item on the ballot in Alameda = the arrival of the black helicopters.
Comment by notadave — November 16, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Not a Dave - Wow you really impress me! - You are comparing black vs white and trying to call everything gray.
Do you realize the Oak to 9th lawsuit that LWV backed was because residents DID get the needed signatures for the public initiative process but their city attn’y rejected it? The rejection of the public initiative petition was the cause of the lawsuit the Oakland LWV joined.
Do you realize in Alameda the HOMES crew and friends were using the Alameda LWV to try to avoid the public initiative process in Alameda by trying to get CC to put MA on the ballot? (IMHO - they obviously feel the developers and their friends would not achieve the needed signatures without huge public blowback that would defeat their attempt.).
And of course no CC member was going to go against the grain for MA in Alameda. Doesn’t that tell you something about how the majority of voters feel about MA?
And the “few loud people” against the parking garage and added theater bldg, way out-numbered those in favor of it at the biggest public meetings I have ever seen at city hall, I remember the biggest meeting went at a ratio of 10:1 against the plan adopted.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 16, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
speaking of side stepping the citizens….. and I am surprised that DK hasn’t reported on this, at the measure A debate (yes I was there watching the antics) David Howard acknowledged a need for density higher than that allowed by measure A, (you can read about it in his white green paper - or is that green white paper). Howard proposed reaching that density (30 units/acre) by using a state density bonus law to over ride measure A.
Talk about taking control out of local hands!
Comment by notadave — November 16, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
DK,
If someone wants to buy there I have no problem with them buying there. I am sure they will have absolutely no problem selling them. I lived only a few blocks away at Lake Merritt High Rise and it was that but, but I want a house now and wouldn’t want to be there. I have no problem with the traffic it may cause either…start taking public transit.
Jack,
A few loud people, I personally know of 3 people who didn’t want the Theatre and probably a hundred which did. (Who got re-elected) Thank you it sure wasn’t the slate…not even close.
Comment by Joel — November 16, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Ever since the old Alameda theater closed old Alamedan’s wanted it to reopen (as a theater, as in “picture show”). If it took a parking garage as an addition, so be it. We’ve finally gotten what we’ve wanted in spite of all the loud opposition. It’ll be the same with MA. A few ,in cacophonic concert, a majority don’t make.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 16, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Joel,
I think everybody wants/wanted the theater re-opened… it’s the garage that was opposed, just to be clear. And didn’t Bev win w/ the slogan “Preserve Measure A”? That’s the way I remember it. Regards,,,
Comment by Jack B. — November 16, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
I also recall Bevjo & Co. distancing themselves from the cineplex project as election time came near. They cancelled the photo-op ground breaking because it was so unpopular.
Oh, and since you decided to dredge up this old chestnut, please tell me again why a non-essential entertainment project deserves $1000 per household in public money.
Comment by dave — November 16, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Dave,
It depends what you call non-essential entertainment…it is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t see 20 soccer fields as essential for my life or a lot of other things but other people see it differently and I believe the majority of Alamedian’s saw the theatre that way. As well as the parking garage, just my view.
I know Beverly Johnson had that slogan, but that isn’t why we voted for her. It was more that she had a vision for the City of Alameda and the others didn’t. Without that slogan I believe the results would have been the same.
Comment by Joel — November 17, 2007 @ 7:29 am
# 22. “…please tell me again why a non-essential entertainment project deserves $1000 per household in public money.”
Please say again why a private enterprise hospital that can’t even be relied on to treat a life ending gunshot wound, let alone treat a majority of the property owners who pay and will pay for it in perpetuity yet cannot avail themselves of its services. Life just ain’t fair including paying taxes.
At least we will be able to park in the garage.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 17, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Agree on the hospital, JR, that whole thing is a travesty But surely you understand the essntial nature of a hospital vis-a-vis a movie house, don’t you?
Comment by dave — November 17, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Oh hell. I guess this post can be part of a weaning process. I so need a vacation and was shooting for cold turkey, but I can wait until Friday after Thanksgiving for that.
Joel, #12 what do you really really know of Oak to Ninth or how it will physically impact the adjacent environs for you to say you “like” it?
I’ve seen some sketchy newspaper descriptions with equally sketchy drawings. While I am loath to be jumping on the band wagon of Manhattanization rhetoric, these towers scare me.
In 1979 I moved into an industrial building on the waterfront block where nearby Fifth Avenue terminates at the estuary. It was a true backwater like Gate 5 Sausalito and a true bygone era I will always cherish. Things were so sleepy back then that aside from a couple restaurants, Jack London Square consisted of a flag pole at the foot of Broadway with a couple boat slips and Heinhold’s First and Last Chance bar (Jack London drank here). You had to drive to Cafe Med on Telegraph in Berkeley to get a latte. On MLK Way no less, because the 980 interchange was still under construction.
Two major dry docks and ship repair facilities have gone and been replaced with stuff like Executive Inn. I’m nostalgic for the past, but can adjust to all this change. The private gated condo at Oak near KTVU with it’s ground level parking cage sucks compared to a more imaginative mixed use enclave which could have been built in it’s stead, but it is benign compared to what the Ninth Avenue project purports to be.
The widening of 880 and the domino effect created by that operation, which includes the revived train spur across our bridge entrance, may be a long over due and needed improvement. But it seems obvious to me that the reason it is happening NOW is to literally pave the way for Oak to Ninth. Get ready for capital “C” ca-ching change! Plenty payback for the impact of the Point on Chinatown, not just on Alamedans but Oakland’s own.
The back up on Embarcadero from JLS to 16th Ave and Govt Island bridge when South 880 gets clogged is nothing new at all. It’s been that way for years. But if Oak to Ninth is built as proposed you will be better off staying on the freeway in bumper to bumper than to try that option.
Has anybody seen a drawing for the 16th Ave on and off ramp “improvements” to be shoe-horned in? I missed a critical TC meeting where some of this was discussed; the visuals on the web video are useless.
If the Oak street parking garage seems grossly out of proportion, just wait for the towers at Oak to Ninth.
Aside from infrastructure and environmental impacts, the isolation of that location makes it really poor for kids or anybody on foot, so the demographic of the instant “neighborhood” there is likely to be drastically different than the neighborhood which is literally just across the U.P. and BART tracks.
Comment by Mark I — November 17, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I wonder what’s in store for the artists’ community on 5th? -I have a friend who used to live there and got to know some of the people. They were all living there, happy as larks, in drafty old warehouses with the barest of amenities. It would be a shame if it gets the ‘loft’ treatment and ends up occupied by a bunch of people who have only ever lifted a paint brush to paint a wall or their nails.
Comment by Susan — November 17, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Mark I - Please explain the proposed 880 widening. It may be a needed improvement because it gets so backed up so often. But How oh HOW can it be done? LOOK AT IT! Much of 880 from JLS to High St is elevated. Every one of the many overpasses on that stretch has support columns on either side of the lanes of 880.
Honestly I have missed the actual details, but my from my view there is no way they will increase the capacity for that section of 880. The widening may lengthen on & off ramps but do the plans really create a single additional lane for that stretch of 880? I don’t think so. - Will CALTRANS move the support columns for the overpasses and add elevated lanes? – I bet not.
Obviously the “widening” is a hoax – it is merely to support ramp traffic for the yet-to-be approved OAK to 9th traffic. BTW -How much did Californians pay for the “Ron Cowan’ expressway to Bay Farm?
Comment by David Kirwin — November 17, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Susan,
I lived at 5th Ave from ‘79 to ‘88 and there are even more working artists now than when I left.
We suspected in 1979 that eventually the Port would come and probably declare eminent domain. Before the current 9th Ave project was proposed, the writing was on the wall and many folks in that neighborhood became very active and involved in Oakland waterfront politics when Jerry Brown became mayor and came up with his theory of 10,000 new bodies equals critical mass for downtown Oakland revitalization.
I partially subscribe to Jerry’s theory but worry about how it’s being executed. Saying so made me a public enemy among some of the more strident denizens of 5th Avenue activism. In the last five years Oakland drew up a redevelopment district adjacent to that neighborhood which captures a lot of inner East 12th and 14th, but they gerrymandered it to include the area of 5th to Ninth.
Initially Roma Design group, who I believe has consulted on our FISC (Alameda Landing), surveyed the entire stretch. Believe it or not, they were perhaps more inclined to recognize that enclave as having a cultural value than the Port may have liked. The Port appears to have decided that they would leave 5th Avenue alone rather than stir up a controversy in the short term. It seems fairly clear that their strategy is to develop all around that area and make it so much of a drag that people will leave and owners will finally sell. The lease for the concrete plant is one other issue for the Port to resolve before they can completely take over Clinton Basin area. (I have historic maps of the entire area from early 1800’s onward.)
DK- I have no idea of the specifics of the widening, whether it is to improve the existing lanes and shoulder or to actually add lanes, which would in fact seem impossible along the elevated section before 16th Avenue. That stretch is one of the rottenest road surfaces along all 880. The newly reinforced support columns for the 16th Ave over pass are probably set wide enough for widening, but I think the section immediately south, including the Alameda exits at 23rd, Fruitvale and High street would present a challenge for an entire added lane.
So much for reducing my posts, but I squandered much of my youth right there at 5th Avenue and it’s dear to my heart. A new moratorium starts 1, 2, 3, now!
Comment by Mark I — November 17, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Mark I,
Oakland has been a dyeing city for decades. I believe Jerry Brown helped bring it back. I have no problems with high-rises there, I actually would embrace it. I am probably as old as you, maybe not but I certainly don’t want everything to stay the same as when I grew up. I lived in high-rises, lofts, single family homes, small towns (less than 200) and large Cities…it is all good but Oakland is a big city and in the 20 years has changed a lot. In 20 years from now it will be a lot different.
We use to live by a creek, build tree houses, ice skate on the creek, go hiking or to the lake, ride bikes and not see a car for hours, no TV until after 8pm, my mom would call us in for dinner ever night at 5:30 with a meal consisting of all food groups (if we wanted a snack it was a peanut butter sandwich), we would take a bath and go to bed by 9pm…Although I have fond memories of my past, I don’t live in the past or expect others to also.
My boss who grew up in a similar situation as I chose to raise his children in SF. They have been exposed to feeding the homeless, exposed to diversity, private and public schools, shopping malls, Art, public transportation, drugs (exposed not using), sex, Music, and an array of other things I had no idea existed until I went to college. His children are some of the most well adjusted kids I have met. They way they grew up it is just different.
I chose the Bay Area not expecting it to stay the same as when I moved here, and I am glad it doesn’t. I like it here better now than I did 15 years ago. I go back to this town of 200 people, some things have changed but it is much the same…I could never go back to live there or the town of 10,000 we live afterwards.
If I did have children, I believe I would have raised them more like my boss rather than in a small excluded community, where you knew everyone by name and everyone was your friend but when you left you knew nothing of the real world.
In my opinion, family and memories are important, but more important is the world you leave behind. If we keep building out using up the farm lands we leave a lot less than what we came with. I am for more density in the cities. More Jobs in the Suburbs, more public transit, more education on diversity, more help for single parents, less commute time and more quality family time for families. More green technology, more research and development for medical, more access to health care, more drug and treatment and mental programs, more spiritual programs, more education about crime. Less taxes (which is an oxymoron)…with all my more’s. I was a Republican for half of my life, it is amazing how you can change.
One of my best friend who works for a women which several years ago chose to move her family from San Mateo to Modesto so they could be around where she grew up and her family was, more affordable, and in a smaller community. Well guess what, Modesto isn’t the same and she commutes 4-5 hours a day and is missing out on her children’s life.
They can’t afford to move back to the bay area now and she doesn’t want to give up her job…and her husband a stay at home dad doesn’t want to go back to work.
So after all that, my views are based on my experiences, the environment, quality life, and although I have fond memories of the past, I like the present and opportunities of the future as well. I don’t expect Alameda to stay the same or any of the surrounding communities. Hopefully Alameda will grow job opportunities. Hopefully Oakland will have more high rises around job and transit centers. I turned don’t a great job because my commute time would be to long. (The ferry ride is 20 minutes).
Do you really think the widening of the freeway is for Oak to 9th or maybe for the increase business at the Port of Oakland and the ton of jobs it creates. Every time I get on there there are a ton of big rigs and it seems to get worse every year.
Comment by Joel — November 18, 2007 @ 9:30 am
I attended the TC meeting about the overpass projects for 23rd and 29th Ave. As I recall, the basic driver for this projects is that container trucks need more clearance from the overpasses. So when they replace them they will also improve the on ramps and off ramps.
For example, the proposed off ramp for 29th Ave would north bound traffic to take a left turn to access the Park Street bridge. The off ramp would elevate to meet the new overpass. Members of the TC expressed concern about the additional load on the Park Street bridge.
Comment by Mike McMahon — November 18, 2007 @ 10:19 am