The Emeryvillization of Alameda

I have been thinking  a lot about the most recent “solution” being proposed for Alameda Point: no housing, commercial and industrial uses only.   Most recently that sentiment has been expressed by Richard Bangert in last week’s My Word in the Alameda Journal.   While I think it is good to talk and discuss all options for Alameda Point, I think that insisting that Alameda Point be only one type of development is highly shortsighted.   Richard B. believes that the opportunity for Alameda Point comes not as a “residential suburb,” but rather as something that would appear more like, I don’t know, Hacidena Business Park in Pleasanton perhaps?   But I don’t think anyone has advocated for Alameda Point to be strictly residential, not even the Alameda Point Community Partners (made up of several home builders) had planned for an exclusively house-only development.  

What gets lost in the conversations and discussions about Alameda Point is that I think everyone wants there to be some light industrial, commercial, retail, etc…   What I think most people want is something that is truly mixed use.  A vibrant community that is active for the most part, not abandoned during the day when people are off to their jobs, nor abandoned on the evenings and weekends when people are not at their jobs.   The reason that there is so much focus on the housing portion is not because that is the only thing being proposed, but it seems to be the biggest issue of contention.

Collins IV: A New Hope

Did everyone catch the article in the Alameda Journal about the much litigated Collins project aka Boatworks?  Highlights:

The city and the owner 9.4 acres of land near the Park Street Bridge may be coming closer to an agreement over what kind of housing development may work on the land, which could include a new city park.

Greg Harper, the attorney for Sonoma-based property owner Francis Collins, said he has met with city officials about what kind of development may work there. He said a new development application that he believes would be accepted by elected officials may be submitted within the next two weeks.

…

Second bite at the apple

ACLC/NCLC/Nea is moving forward on their quest to bring their model of education to Alameda, after being denied by the Alameda Unified School District they are going to take it to the next level, literally and figuratively, of course: the Alameda County Board of Education.   Even though the application had been so carefully picked apart, rather than go back to the proverbial drawing board, ACLC/NCLC/Nea has so much faith in their application that they are sure that if it doesn’t get approved by the County Board of Education, surely a sympathetic bureaucrat in Jack O’Connell’s office will give them the eventual green light.

According to AUSD, it is anticipated that the application will go before the County Board of Education on March 11th, which gives folks plenty of time to write to the seven board members telling them what you think about the application.   With the looming $4 million in cuts and a possible additional million or so if the ACLC application is approved, I’m not sure if AUSD can make up the difference.   According to the Alameda Journal article items up for possible cutting like cutting two elementary schools would only save the district $600,000, so in order to fund ACLC AUSD would have to close two elementary schools ($600K), and one middle school ($600K).  Seem like a fair trade off to anyone?   In order to provide “choice” we might be eliminating what makes Alameda schools so desirable, the coveted “neighborhood school.”

All or nothing

At the ARRA meeting last Wednesday, it was an unfortunate show of “how can I get City Staff to say that SunCal doesn’t want to build single family homes?”   Doug deHaan, rather than clarify his confusion before the meeting started to city staff, decided to try and use the brief question section before public comment to sniff out the purportedly anti-Measure A amongst us by asking staff member Debbie Potter (8:46 on the feed):

After what I heard from you, I guess I hear the adaptive reuse, commercial, office, retail, things of that nature they have thoroughly gone through that and feel comfortable with that, it’s just the single housing element?

Debbie Potter has to explain, once again, that it is just on a portion of the land that is currently designated in the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) slated for single family residences that SunCal has found may not be feasible to build single family residences on.

Allowing awful alliteration annoys anyone?

This letter from Diane Coler-Dark on Alameda Daily News was too good not to comment on, it’s already “fallen off” ADN, but I have reproduced it here for your reading pleasure:

What’s wrong with this picture? All of the Mayor’s appointed Planning Board Members are on record as wanting to dump Measure A. This Planning Board insists on grid streets, then complains about “cookie cutter” developments and blames Measure A for what they approved. Streets near the waterfront need a grid pattern for visual contact with the water. Bayport housing, in the middle of nowhere, all grid street linear open space, no demands on the developer for creative designs and “bingo”, their number one poster child example of why we should get rid of Measure A. Harbor Bay Isle and award winning Marina Village were developed in compliance with Measure A; look at them and see what a good Planning Board can accomplish.

There is a vacancy on the Planning Board and avowed anti-Measure A opponent John Knox White has applied. If the Mayor nominates him, Alameda will have its first ever 100% anti-Measure A Planning Board. Alameda has a developer drooling dream team on the Planning Board composed of high density advocates, with taste only in their mouths, who never question developers assertions of what they must build to make a profit.

Bottom line, Planning Board is appointed and cannot be recalled. Mayor and City Council appoint them; remove them and set a policy of “The Buck Stops There”.

Wig out

In keeping with my vow to try to remain positive during Tet (3 days…I’m on day 2, let’s see if the warm fuzzies hold up) I found an article in the Journal about a local Alamedan who has organized a free hair cutting event to benefit cancer patient really inspiring.   Highlights from the Journal:

Nicole Wintermyer wants to do good, and she’s not letting inexperience stop her. The stay-at-home mother of two has a new role helping causes close to her heart, including a hair-cutting event Saturday for the American Cancer Society’s free wig program.

…

Anyone who donates 8 inches of non-dyed hair on Saturday gets a free cut at Alameda’s O Spa Salon & Boutique. The hair goes to make free wigs for cancer patients who lose their hair because of treatment.

Andrea Daniel of the American Cancer Society’s Oakland office, who fits women with both real-hair and synthetic wigs, said getting a wig can lift a cancer patient’s spirits enormously…

That’s right ladies (and gentlemen) if you have the locks to spare (at least eight inches according to the article) head on down to O Spa Salon & Boutique on Saturday to donate your excess hair to a really good cause.   And since I am in need of a good trim and can probably afford to lose about a bit more than eight inches I’ll probably head on down there on Saturday.

Chuc Mung Nam Moi!

While there is lots to talk about, today I’m taking a little break since it’s the start of Tet for this family, and technically you’re not supposed to say bad things about people, so I’m going to attempt to try very hard today even though there is quite a lot to have a reaction to.

But for the start of this Year of the Rat, I’m wishing everyone a year of happiness, prosperity, and good health.

Schools again

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 9 out of 10 local funding measures for education are anticipated to pass with the necessary 2/3 vote as a result of Tuesday’s election.   The only measure headed for defeat is for Napa Valley Community Colleges.   From sfgate:

…Given the dire state budget projections and the governor’s proposed $4 billion cut to schools, the results of Tuesday’s election could spur other districts across the region to consider similar measures for the June and November elections this year. Unlike bonds, which can only be used to pay for capital improvements, parcel taxes can be applied to cover a wide range of costs, including salaries and benefits…

And given the rather grim outlook presented by AUSD in this Budget Fact Sheet, I imagine that other school districts in the Bay Area are probably distributing very similar materials in anticipation of the slashed budget.   From the fact sheet:

Faster than a speeding bullet, it’s Super Tuesday!

What does Nicole Scherzinger (formerly of the Pussycat Dolls)…

…Scarlett Johansson…

…and Don Roberts….

…all have in common?

TDRSIWISYDHT, Strange JuJu

As I mentioned last week, the January 30, 2008 Don Roberts Show had some moments that were worth mentioning.   And they all happened within the first five minutes of the show.   That day’s show featured the owner of Lucky JuJu Pinball, Michael Schiess.  Here is how the introduction to Michael Schiess went down:

Don Roberts: Now let’s talk to Michael Scheiss (shy-SUSS) the owner of Neptune Beach Amusement Museum and Lucky JuJu Pinball Gallery.  Welcome to the show, Michael.

Michael Schiess: Thanks.

DR: I love that name, Michael

MS: But I gotta…my last name is actually pronounced Schiess (SHE-suss).

DR: I’ll call you Scheiss (shy-SUSS)

MS: (laughing) No, you don’t want to do that because it’s a cuss word in German.