Good morning!
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend tonight’s meeting, which probably means a lot more to me than it does to you. It just so happens that tonight there is a school related meeting in my neighborhood which trumps my interest in development issues at Alameda Point, but I digress. According to your website, tonight you will be discussing “Development Scenarios” which I would have enjoyed participating in the discussion, but alas, conflicting meetings and I cannot be there. Hopefully, someone will tape the event and those of us unable to make it will still be able to learn what the results of the meeting were.
I imagine at the meeting tonight there will be the requisite hand raising exercise about one’s mode of transportation to the meeting that night, bear in mind that it is at the O’ Club and that weather.com is predicting a temperature of 38 degrees tonight. I hope that someone will share the survey results from Alameda Point Vision. And I know there will be a presentation of “Greening Alameda Point” with the oh so compelling tagline “Green that Fits!” which I interpret as “Green that doesn’t mean that I have to do anything different in my life to help the environment, but I like the term ‘Green’ because everyone else is using it and people will assume that I am for the environment because I use the term ‘Green’ a lot.” But that would be too long as a tagline wouldn’t it?
Anyway, because I won’t be able to make it tonight, which I must say I am very disappointed about because the whole fun about Alameda politics is to watch it in action at community meetings such as these. I just have to remember to bring my Tums to squelch the uncomfortable churnings that sometimes occurs during open comment, but I momentarily digress. Because I won’t be there tonight, I would like to share some of my personal opinions with you, SunCal, about what I would like to see at Alameda Point.
Library Branch
I understand that the current option for SunCal as to Library facilities at Alameda Point is to simply add a very small storefront space as a branch of sorts for the Library. Considering the number of households that are being considered for Alameda Point, it is important for SunCal to provide adequate resources for all these families/individuals. Rather than do the very least you can to say, “we provided a new library branch” how about making it something that you can be proud of. Something that will indeed be something of use for the community. Work with the Library Director to figure out what would be ideal for a neighborhood of the size that is proposed for Alameda Point and find a creative way to include it.
Civic Spaces
You know those big seaplane hangars, I don’t know if it is in the “cards” to keep them or junk them, but I know that they will be challenging to find a creative way to reuse the space. How about creating a “museum incubator” for lack of a better term. A place where all the museums can come together to share resources like, say, a development director or executive director, that might not be cost effective for one museum to have, but would be fine spread out over two or three. Plus, if you add the library into the mix, it could solve the issue of referrals to the library for research issues.
Retail
I would much rather see Main Street type retail developments a la Fourth Street in Berkeley or College Avenue in Rockridge/Oakland than a shopping center type area. While shopping centers serve their purpose, this is just a personal preference.
Those are only a few thoughts for now. I know I’m only one voice out of many, but I hope you remember that almost everyone has an opinion on Alameda Point and some may not be able to make it out to the scheduled community meetings. So perhaps you should have a mechanism to solicit input beyond the standard “Contact Us” form.
Re: Civic Spaces and Hangars
There are, without doubt, artifacts of great historical significance at the Point but, in my opinion, they’re mostly intangible. Keep a museum and bulldoze the rest of those obscene big boxes would suit me. But, I’m pretty young.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 10, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Comment by Jack Richard — December 13, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
My uncle Bob served at AP for years. Spent a lot of his time at the bar. He’d appreciate it if we could save his barstool, but other than that… it’s all good to go.
Comment by Jack B. — December 13, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
You’re right jack, a barstool qualifies as a tangible ass sit and should be at least as preserved as its occupant.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 13, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
At the breakout table where I sat tonight a woman shook her head in disgust when I mentioned global warming and I wasn’t being doomsday or anything and even said “if you believe global warming is a serious problem”. Her disgust was so vehement I thought she was putting me on.
Comment by Mark I — December 13, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
If you think global warming is a serious problem and man-made, you should be vegetarian. That has much more of an impact than taking the bus, driving a hybrid, etc.
As far as I know, Al Gore is not a vegetarian.
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Switching to a vegetarian diet certainly has a significant impact on one’s carbon footprint, it’s not accurate to suggest that it has “much more of an impact than taking the bus, driving a hybrid, etc.” According to a Wall Street Journal reprinted on globalalerts.com, going vegetarian saves 3,000 pounds of CO2 per year. Driving a hybrid saves 4,700 pounds. Ditching the car altogether and bicycling and walking for all trips saves a whopping 12,100 pounds.
As for taking the bus, the WSJ article did not provide specific figures, but these are available elsewhere. According to an article on postcarboncities.net, just taking public transit to work instead of driving saves 4,800 pounds of CO2 per year. Of course, walking, bicycling, and taking transit for additional trips would result in larger savings.
Interestingly enough, one can obtain most of the carbon-reduction benefits of a vegetarian diet by eating chicken instead of other meats. According to the same WSJ article cited earlier, switching to chicken can save approximately 2,205 pounds of CO2 per year. There’s a whole article on salon.com about the debate over meat production and global warming, including more detailed information about poultry versus other meats.
Comment by Michael Krueger — December 14, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
It’s not all about carbon footprint…
http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
”
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.
Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.
…
With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture.
“
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
The web is full info that will back me up, but here’s one that’s easy to digest:
Vegetarian is the New Prius
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm
Personally, I’m more concerned about fresh water than global water.
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
should be: I’m more concerned about fresh water than global warming.
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Of course methane is important. However, despite methane’s potency as a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide still accounts for most of the warming problem: 91% over the past five years, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
Of course fresh water is important, too. However, that does not mean we should not also address issues like carbon emissions, whether from transportation or from other sources. The world’s environmental problems are complex and multi-faceted. The solutions are also going to be complex and multi-faceted as well.
Comment by Michael Krueger — December 14, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Michael, I could post stuff all day or until the cows come home. Who is worse for the planet, the guzzlers or the meatheads? You can pick and choose which scientists you want to believe, your guy Braathen or somebody like Hansen.
But I’m pretty confident in repeating that if people really want to make a difference, they should go veggie. On top of the methane caused by millions of cows farting, there’s all the fuel and water used to grow the grain, and then there’s the fuel to ship the grain, and so on. I believe FOR EACH PERSON, you use 8 > 10 times resources if you eat the animals.
But I’ll have to understate my caveat, which is I think water is a far, far more pressing problem than global warming. Instead of taking parking spaces away, we should be paving peoples front yards in Alameda
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Why pave front yards where you could grow fruit and vegetables that don’t have to be shipped from half way around the world. It is amazing all the attention given to lawns when food can be more ornamental, and vastly more exciting forms of landscaping – especially here where we can grow so much year round.
Whether from busses, trucks, or autos, the spewing emission gasses are a huge part of global warming. Yet Alameda’s pro-development Transit Commission favors adding to our clogged roadways with more autos prior to finding solutions to traffic.
I applaud those who refuse meat for environmental reasons just as I applaud those who only eat regionally grown food. While I try to be mindful of these concerns and respectful of our planet, I still revel in the occasional roast and have many other food shopping habits and impulses to re-learn. There has been a movement in Berkeley schools to base more curriculum on food: the geography, economics and politics of food are perhaps as important as the way we view transportation and global development.
I also agree that globally, fresh water may be more of a concern than global warming. Even where fresh water is available, many public water systems have become privatized.
Global economics seems to be based on waste and surplus – so few people fix anything anymore; we tend to replace instead of repair. This has the trend of eliminating quality as everything from clothes to furnishings is made to be disposed and replaced as industry grinds away at humanity and the environment with 3rd world abuses.
Of course there are those that believe all of this is nothing to be concerned about in the face of the real calamity of the following – the dissolution of our entire Bill of Rights and even the United States as we know it. I heard recently that the Supremes will be re-examining our right to bear arms, but that is nothing compared to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
Has anyone read John Perkins? While his books focus on corporate domination outside of our borders, it is easy to see the parallels now occurring everywhere around us as the world grows smaller.
Comment by Dave kirwin — December 14, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Dave, you are right… my pave the lawns bit was dumb.
Here in Alameda we don’t pump our groundwater, but in the great plains/midwest states,,, a lot of potential refill for the High Plains Aquifer is drained into the ocean via pavement and drainage systems.
The other day I saw a bumper sticker that read… Alameda: Where Hipsters Go To Breed. Well,,, if we were really hip, we would indeed have vegetable gardens in our front yards. But instead, we get excited about another burger joint.
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Oh, oh and did you hear that that “one worlder” Ted Turner is buying up the Ogallala aquifer to corner the market on US water and stop beef production. And he’s in cahoots with Marvin Bush and Jacques Chirac to further global requirements for carbon offset regulations and population reductions. And, and there’s a lot more to it but I’m afraid to talk about it.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
#14 - I wonder if Ted is as shrewd as T. Boone Pickens?
Come on Jack, if you poopoo global warming you are automatically a lunatic, right?
Many people suspect that Al and the UN are pushing bogus global warming argument to install world taxes. Since I’m not a climate scientist, I have yet to be convinced either way but I fail to see why people would love and trust a lifetime politician like Al Gore so much.
All I’m saying is… if you do indeed subscribe to the theory of human-caused global warming, the best thing you can do is become a vegetarian. If you don’t subscribe, then be sure to vote for Ron Paul.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Jack- Turner’s own guys are saying he is buying up the land to make money, not to create “meat sanctuaries’.
Perhaps he does intend to sell water.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 15, 2007 @ 4:54 pm