Turning the tables

Can I just say how much I am loving the exchange that has been going on the past few days on Alameda Daily News?  Not the stuff about the Alameda Police Department and recent protest — what’s there to say other than to give the protesters the big eye roll?  But the letters going back and forth regarding Greening Alameda Point, “Measure A absolutists,” and the low income housing tooth fairy.   It’s like the old Alameda Daily News is back, before the press release fillers and the predictions by Les Grosscup and subsequent posts of failure to correctly predict.   For those that do not know what I am talking about, let me explain.   On the Saturday post Thanksgiving, Action Alameda wunderkind David Howard posted a triumphant letter setting Action Alameda up as the choice for a new generation, the middle ground that we all could select to support.  Between the continuum of HOMES on one end and Keep Measure A on the other, they stood squarely in the middle of it all.  Full post because you all know the drill about ADN not archiving:

Update on Alameda’s Housing Density Limiting Measure A

Don,

Thanksgiving was early this year, and between now and the new year, not much will happen with regards to Measure A until the Planning Board sponsored 8-hour marathon forum in January or February. I thought it might be timely to summarize the program going into the Holiday Hiatus:

KeepMeasureA Committee: The sponsors of the KeepMeasureA red and white signs on lawns throughout Alameda. Measure A absolutists, as exemplified by former councilmember Barbara Kerr. Ms. Kerr stands in opposition even to mildly higher density at select sites in accordance with the existing state density bonus law, to provide housing for low-income people, and smaller, presumably lower-cost, market rate homes.

H.O.M.E.S.: Advocates an exemption from Measure A for Alameda Point. Seems to favor NO limits whatsoever on development in growth in Alameda. At the recent Measure A debate, HOMES advocated San Francisco-style density of 50, 60 or 70 homes per acre of land. Yet somehow, despite the countless cumulative years of land use, development and planning experience, not to mention Naval Air Station Alameda base-closure experience, among the HOMES executive board and sympathizers on the City Planning and Transportation Boards, H.O.M.E.S. is STILL unable to provide a specific suggestion as to the number of homes they think Alameda can absorb at Alameda Point.
Action Alameda: Has published the whitepaper entitled “Greening Alameda Point,” in which we advocate a cap on the number of homes on Alameda Point in the amount of 1800 units, in accordance with the 2006 Preliminary Development Concept, and a maximum, at case-by-case determined selected sites - where genuine low-income housing is provided, of 30 homes per acre, in accordance with the pre-existing California state density bonus law. The rest of the land may be used for businesses and light industry to create jobs and sustainable infrastructure for all of Alameda.

It should be clear that Action Alameda provides a reasonable compromise - a third way - between the two extremes of the KeepMeasureA Committee and HOMES. We can have many of the wonderful mixed-use experiences that H.O.M.E.S. promises in their slide presentation - cafes, restaurants, shopping, transit, walk-to-work and so on - without turning our city into a vehicular nightmare, simply by allowing the Alameda Point master developer to exercise the density bonus law. We can have a wonderful community on Alameda Point without tearing up the town with the expense and trouble of a ballot measure on Measure A. Let’s get going on Alameda Point!

David Howard

And then, Dorothy Freeman steps in on Monday to denounce David Howard’s characterization of “Measure A  absolutist”:

Dorothy Freeman Responds to David Howard

Don,

I would like to take issue with David Howard and his attack on those of us he referred to as “absolutists”, those of us who support Measure A as the law is written. I also take offence at his caricature of Barbara Kerr. Ms. Kerr has worked hard for Alameda and continues to do so. She is tirelessly working to support a large constituency who believe Measure A has been good for Alameda and will continue to be. I would also like to remind readers that there are no villains in this issue, just different opinions and people working to support their viewpoint. This issue will be decided by the people of Alameda.

Measure A does not fail “to provide housing for low-income people, and smaller, presumably lower-cost, market rate homes”. That is an issue between developers, the Planning Board, and City Council. I would like to remind Mr. Howard that “genuine low-income housing” is a misnomer since low income housing is only possible in the urban areas of California when supported by subsidies provided by developers and/or city, state, and federal governments. It doesn’t matter if there are 1800 units or 5000 units built in Alameda Point. Low and moderate income families will not be able to afford to buy any of the units that will be built in Alameda Point without financial help. Unfortunately, this is a fact of life, and not a problem created by Measure A. As documented by Ms. Kerr, Measure A actually saved low cost housing as developers were buying up the smaller, cheaper housing to build apartment buildings in their place.

David Howard’s “Greening Alameda Point” document contains some ideas that are worthy of consideration, but they are in no way the only way. Measure A does not limit anything except the number of units per building and the minimum size of the land per unit. Measure A supports medium density housing, mixed use and public transit. Measure A also supports smaller unit sizes since the “size” of the unit is not restricted by Measure A.

Dorothy Freeman

And then David Howard goes back on the defensive with this response:

David Howard Responds to Dorothy Freeman:

Don,

“Greening Alameda Point” in no way promotes a change or exemption to Measure A, and I very clearly presented it as an alternative - a third way - to established positions, and by no means the “only way.” In fact, the paper articulates a way to have what people like about H.O.M.E.S.’s vision (transit-oriented-development, mixed-use, sustainability etc.) WITHOUT changing Measure A or exempting Alameda Point from Measure A, within the bounds of existing law, and while still keeping a limit on development in Alameda. H.O.M.E.S. would seem to favor NO limits on development in Alameda. I encourage people to read the document themselves, here: http://www.actionalameda.org/Media/Greening_Alameda_Point.pdf

Dorothy Freeman is absolutely right - low-income people need subsidies to buy a home. The way the California state density bonus law provides those subsidies is that it allows builders to provide more market-rate homes to subsidize the low-income homes they are required to build. The people that pay full price for market-rate homes subsidize the low-income people that pay less than full price. The homeowners at Bayport, paying $700K to $1M per house, subsidized the buyers of the low-income Bayport townhouses (The Landing) who paid somewhere between $200K and $300K per home. That’s how it works. I explained this at the Twin Towers Measure A Debate - you can see and hear the presentation here: http://www.actionalameda.org/photo_gallery/photo_gallery.htm

As for the so-called “attack” on Barbara Kerr, it really is a shame that in our town, the mere mention of an individual’s name in association with the ideas they promulgate is almost invariably characterized as a “personal attack.” Why is it automatically a personal attack to identify a person’s position in association with their name? Ideas don’t exist in a vacuum in isolation from their creators. At the next public forum, shall we all wear costumes that disguise our identity fo separate our selves from our ideas? Of course not, that’s absolutely ridiculous.

I appreciate and applaud Barbara Kerr’s tireless service to our community, past, present and future. But I don’t see how it’s an attack to identify her name and and her position in the same paragraph. If I mis-characterized her position, which I don’t believe I did, then let her step forward and clarify, as I have no doubt she will.

It’s clear - to date there are three competing visions for Alameda Point, that of the Keep Measure A Committee, that of H.O.M.E.S. and that of Action Alameda. Soon there will be one or two from SunCal. If there’s another that comes forth, I welcome it.

David Howard

But Barbara Kerr is allowed the last word on Wednesday:

There is No Tooth Fairy for Lower Priced Housing

Don,

I am not a member of the Keep Measure A group, so it is inaccurate for David Howard to attribute my remarks to other people.

David has fallen prey to the HOMES myth that high density equals affordable housing. I suggest that your readers tour the Oakland loft section near the AMTRAK station. These buildings illustrate that builders design their projects to get the highest possible rent or selling price for their units.

When it comes to lower priced housing, there is no tooth fairy.

Barbara Kerr

Here’s what I find fascinating.   Something as small as a nuance in how far you support Measure A can cause a rift between folks who generally are allies in everything else Alameda.    And my my my, when the shoe is on the other foot, how quickly we (and by “we” I’m not talking about the royal “we”) get so defensive.   When confronted by Dorothy F. as “attacking” hard core supporters of Measure A, David H. had this to say:

…As for the so-called “attack” on Barbara Kerr, it really is a shame that in our town, the mere mention of an individual’s name in association with the ideas they promulgate is almost invariably characterized as a “personal attack.” Why is it automatically a personal attack to identify a person’s position in association with their name? Ideas don’t exist in a vacuum in isolation from their creators. At the next public forum, shall we all wear costumes that disguise our identity fo separate our selves from our ideas? Of course not, that’s absolutely ridiculous…

Hmmm….now why does that sound so familiar?  Oh yes, because during the last election any critique of a candidates’ past acts, their own words and pronouncements were denounced as a “personal attack.”   One of the few times I’ll agree with David H. and hope that he shares that sentiment with some of his political colleagues. 

On the same subject though, Stop, Drop, and Roll has an extensive post on the issue that Action Alameda or just David H. is touting, since he is the only one that is identified with Action Alameda these days and it’s not as though the report has a list of authors or even a listing of the AA Board Members, but I digress.   State mandated density housing bonus is Greening Alameda Point’s current cure all for leaving Measure A alone, excerpt from SDR:

…Essentially, this law allows any developer to increase the density of any given project above limits set by any city (Charter City or not).

This is one of the most anti-planning laws around. It exists because a lot of cities (even one’s that aren’t islands) have been passing laws that make building affordable housing difficult, so the state stepped in to ease the burden…

Is giving up a substantial portion of local control worth it in order to preserve Measure A at all costs?   I don’t think so.