At the City Council meeting the other night, this was the Council opportunity to give feedback on the plan as presented by SunCal and to get some questions answered, so here is a summary of some of the highlights.
Transportation – Matthew Ridgeway from Fehr and Peers:
- Moving forward with transportation strategy that can be funded exclusively by the development, but have been in discussions with AC Transit who is interested in the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) concept and would be willing to help work to find federal grant money to get it built.
- Assumptions for tranportation strategy: (1) all real world solutions, (2) improvments will all be constructed in Alameda (e.g. they are not assuming they can do anything on the Oakland side even though that would be better for some transportation strategies.
- Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is not completely out of the picture, but presently they have not been planning for it because it doesn’t meet (1) above. However, in the project they are designated right of ways for BRT which could later be used for light rail, PRT or anything that would need a dedicated right of way.
There are some general comments made by the Council at this point about parking, etc… after Matthew R.’s statement about using parking maximums as opposed to parking minimums for Alameda Point. Most puzzling was Doug deHaan’s “real life situation” example in Alameda of parking problems which John Knox White at Stop, Drop, And Roll summarized:
…deHaan’s key point appears to be based on statements around parking restrictions, which he claimed Alameda’s existing parking disproves the transporation planners assumptions.
Unfortunately, Alameda’s current parking situation–plentiful in low-transit usage bay farm) and much less plentiful along the heavily used Santa Clara corridor—sucked a lot of the wind from his argument, apologies his “real world example,” that apparently disproves all transportation planning research to the contrary.
Beverly Johnson did a nice job of also taking a bit of wind out of Councilmember deHaan big “gotcha” moment with this parking thing/transit thing. Saying that many of the neighborhoods with limited parking spaces were built before folks had cars, or those with parking restrictions didn’t have the transit solutions in place to go hand in hand with the limited parking. And she said it best when she said (paraphrasing here) that we shouldn’t be planning for the City to accomodate as many cars as people want to have.
The Peter Calthrope speaks and then Phil Tagami about all the excruciating details about the historic building resuse, nothing that I am going to summarize here, you can watch the meeting if you are so inclined. Basically it boils down to this. Phil Tagami would have only saved x number of buildings, but then the preservation community in Alameda felt as though y number of buildings were worthy of saving. X number of buildings would have probably been sucessful and had a high rate of return. X + Y = not as high of a rate of return but the problem buildings are offset by the successful ones and Phil Tagami wants to make people happy.
Phil Tagami also mentioned that he was approached by a naysayer (his word, not mine) in the hallway who asked him why he was so optimistic about the project and then the proceeded to quote George Bernard Shaw.
Toward the end of the Alameda Point conversation (and also mentioned on SDR) Frank Matarrese in listing off things that he does and doesn’t want to see at Alameda Point inexplicably lists “sidewalk dining” as something he doesn’t want to have incoporated at Alameda Point because as he put it, “anyone who’s out here 90% of the time is freezing cold. He also doesn’t like the water features proposed as part of the sports complex. The water features are the interactive type that kids can play in, he dismisses this as something that folks won’t use.
I don’t like to be cold either but I think that dismissing the idea of sidewalk dining anywhere is silly. Later he amends it by saying that it could be “sheltered.” At the Michael Pollan event hosted by the Library Foundation all of the food tables were placed outside and it was rather chilly, but folks were standing around and chatting and certainly not letting the “freezing cold” keep them from mingling. Sidewalk dining brings activity and life to a streetscape.
Oh by the way, for those interested, 510 folks were phone interviewed in the SunCal survey and apparently some people were confused as to who was behind the survey and thought that the City was paying for it because it asked about what people thought about the elected officials.
“And she said it best when she said (paraphrasing here) that we shouldn’t be planning for the City to accomodate as many cars as people want to have.
God help that the city might plan for what the people want.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 20, 2008 @ 8:39 am
Re parking: I found the following exchange between Beverly Johnson and Marie Gilmore thought provoking, and I think it adds some context balancing to the her remark quoted above. I particularly liked what Marie had to say in response to Beverly.
(Starts at 2:30:25 on the video.)
Beverly: “We have some examples of passive incentives. I think that was the intent when Harbor Bay and other areas were developed where there’s limited amounts of parking, but at the same time, other means of transportation weren’t provided, and so you’ll see the areas of limited parking and it’s lined with cars parked around it in other neighborhoods. So it didn’t have the effect that was intended, but I think one of the principle reasons for that was because other transportation, public transportation hasn’t been provided. “
Marie: “The follow-up comment I was going to make on that, based on our prior discussion tonight is that sometimes when you implement a solution like this traffic solution it could have unintended consequences and the potential unintended consequences of this is that you may have trouble luring business owners to the site because there’s not enough parking for their employees or whatever. So I think it’s great to have a traffic solution, but you’ve also got to make sure that it works from a business stand point too. I know I don’t have to tell you guys that, but sometimes I think we get too much tunnel vision about our particular area of expertise, whatever it may happen to be, and so somebody’s got to have the 3, 000 foot view to make sure that all of these pieces work well together.”
Comment by Susan — November 20, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Jack R – are you suggesting that it’s government’s role to require parking? I would think that you would be against such social engineering.
The proposal is not prohibit parking but to allow the market to set the parking amounts by unbundling the cost of the parking from the cost of the office space and setting maximums for the amount of parking that can be built (if you look at the city’s current parking plan proposal, or the Alameda Landing proposal, you’ll see that the maximums currently in place or proposed are sometimes higher than the minimums, but not below them.
Though the proposal for A.P. would likely reduce the maximums.
I’d suggest that one of the things the community wants is “less traffic.” Free parking is one of the biggest drivers of that.
I’m not sure that I see how it’s the city’s job to provide parking for any and all cars an individual wants to own.
Comment by John Knox White — November 20, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Here’s a couple of alternative transport proposals that I’ve been mulling over for some time — something involving those giant cranes at AP and a slingshot arrangement. All we need is a good landing spot in Oakland, which admittedly needs more strategic implementation and outreach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QokpXX9L8qM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=rIjjWXstjZc
Comment by DL Morrison — November 20, 2008 @ 10:56 am
#3: “The city” is supposed to be the government of the people, not a separate agent that dictates how we live. The city can make reasonable decisions to plan for the future, but I don’t think it should arrogantly ignore or minimize the public’s concerns, whether “for our own good” or not.
As for Doug DeHaan’s comments: He said that the lack of parking currently evident in Alameda DOES NOT PREVENT PEOPLE FROM OWNING CARS. He said that based on what we can see — in other words, looking at objective reality rather than academic studies — people tend to want cars even when it becomes quite inconvenient.
And for Frank Matarrese: He said that the site is chilly and not especially appropriate for outdoor dining and fountains and — inferring here — that plans to this effect indicate a poor understanding of the site conditions, IN GENERAL, which would be a very legitimate concern.
As for commercial parking: I think that both Matarrese and Gilmore were concerned that commercial space would not be viable without adequate parking, as indicated in Susan’s posted quote above.
Comment by DL Morrison — November 20, 2008 @ 11:47 am
# 3
John – I’m not sure what your rhetorical question is asking. It’s quite a leap to suggest that city planning should gauge the parking wants (or possibly, needs) of the citizens then ensure that those wants and needs are provided for in their planning than to mandate that no more than one parking space per two citizens is allowed. The latter example would be social engineering, in my view.
Your unbundling and setting maximums example is a textbook exercise in planning, the after the fact reality is in Susan’s # 2 above concerning HBay parking.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 20, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
And here it is in a nutshell, “I know I don’t have to tell you guys that, but sometimes I think we get too much tunnel vision about our particular area of expertise, whatever it may happen to be, and so somebody’s got to have the 3, 000 foot view to make sure that all of these pieces work well together.” Quoting Marie Gilmore in #2.
The Council’s view needs to be 30,000-feet. Nobody on the council has expertise in ANY of these matters and their input is all so down in the weeds it’s irrelevant. They’re all just GUESSING and THINKING OUT LOUD about the parking consequences.
All Frank Mattarese can come up with is a complaint about sidewalk, cafe dining? This is ludicrous.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — November 20, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
The transit ideas of the Point plan are strange to think about. They seem ill conceived. The idea that to build a ‘green development’ is to simply make it difficult to park cars is troubling. There are many aspects related to Green Tech unrelated to autos. Carbon foot prints of homes are usually many times more important than vehicle use. How is SunCal’s plan addressing those more important issues? I expect that very soon non-fossil fuel powered autos will become the norm. So it is the crowding of the Point Plan, not the exhaust that is the real concern.
To reduce parking is the antithesis of the needs of retail.
Parking is desired for offices as well, unless employers want late employees leaving every few hours to “meter up” or look for a new place to park. We saw the issue of the needs of parking cited for the reason to make the old Chevy’s zoned for office space.
CC members brought out the idea that where we currently have inadequate parking, (because homes were built before the auto age exceeded 1 car per house), we have the residential parking spreading into other neighborhoods, not reduced use of cars. Councilmember deHaan pointed out that limitations on parking do not limit car ownership. SF is an example of how inconvenient the imbalance of residences to parking places can become, it is not socially or ecologically friendly to have to search for a parking place for an hour with groceries in the car.
The quotes from another blog about where parking is available, (Bay Farm), there is less transit use than areas of the Santa Clara transit corridor that has inadequate parking are poorly thought out. While it may (?) be true that Santa Clara corridor has more transit use per capita than Bay Farm, if you look at the number of non-transit users per acre, it’s also much higher in the “Santa Clara transit corridor” than in low density developments.
It was also stated that the transit use studies only looked at the primary work commute, not all the other driving of households including spouse commutes, shopping, social and child related activities like school, sports, etc. Not knowing how the study’s questions were framed it is also impossible to ‘weed out’ BART users who drive to BART stations because they would have the same Alameda transportation impact as non-transit users.
The goal of the transit plan is to not increase the use of the tube beyond the PDC Point plan of 1700-1800 residential units. It is silly to expect 4 -6,000 units to achieve this because of an additional bus line to Fruitvale BART.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 20, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
If there isn’t enough parking, people will just park on their lawns, block driveways, block sidewalks, etc. The question comes down to, “What is enough?” I’m all for more transit, but it has to be convenient, attractive, clean and have guaranteed funding regardless of economic swings. That is a very tall order.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 20, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
#8
DK – “The goal of the transit plan is to not increase the use of the tube beyond the PDC Point plan of 1700-1800 residential units. It is silly to expect 4 -6,000 units to achieve this because of an additional bus line to Fruitvale BART.”
You, I and many others know that, but in the virtual reality of the textbook experts an increase from PDC figures to Suncal’s 4-6000 units makes sense. Since the transit system they envision has to be paid for by the new green Point residents, the more the units means more people paying for the system. More money buys a more capable system. The more capable the system is the more the non-Point residents will use the system. Especially when the Pointless people watch the Point transit busses jump queues and leave them sitting in their clean exhaust.
Eventually, when all goes well, the Pointless people will see light at the end of the tube and voluntarily include themselves into dues paying ecoites, the tubes will be clean and empty and we can get back to talking about the demerits of eating on sidewalks.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 20, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
As someone who commuted to downtown Oakland by bus for five years but now drives, I have two other qualities the most basic form of public transit (busses) need to provide in order to make people use them: they must be reliable and there must be enough busses to provide seats for everyone who wants one.
The 51 is notorious for having busses travel in packs in the Berkeley-to-Alameda direction. If it was just a matter of waiting 10 minutes in downtown Oakland in the dark for a seat on the bus home, that would be one thing. But it’s often a 30 minute wait. If there’s even a 15 minute gap between busses, then when a bus does come it’s packed and you don’t get a seat. But I have had to wait 30 minutes for ANY 51 to show up, (the busses are supposed to run at about 10-minute intervals), and then there are three in a row.
My daughter takes the 51 home from Alameda College and apparently this problem happens in the afternoon as well as during the evening commute.
It’s ironic that AC Transit now has the technology to track spacing between busses, but it hasn’t used that to address the problem.
During the morning commute the busses are more reliable, but they are packed before they even turn on Webster. This would be solved by adding bus runs.
AC Transit also has too many stops. Each stop makes the route slower. Rapid busses would solve that, of course.
I realize this is all just anecdotal, but my point is that we need to get AC Transit to address the existing service problems before we can count on it to help with future traffic.
Comment by Jill — November 20, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I drive to work, but I do get the bus when I go into SF. I only take the 51 when my car is in the shop and the experience is pretty bad. It is crowded, dirty and unreliable. It is filled with kids cursing into their cell phones and eating convenience food in spite of the no eating signs. It is an unpleasant experience and few people would subject themselves to it voluntarily.
How would the bus to Alameda Point be any different? Why would someone want to take the bus rather than drive? All I hear about is that the city plans on making driving so unpleasant and punitive that people will give up and take the bus. If we beat motorists enough and create enough desperation and charge them for the bus even if they don’t take it, then maybe, just maybe, we can get them aboard. This does not sound like a winning strategy to me.
Why should I take the bus? How will that make my life better than driving?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 20, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
This just in: A heart-felt message from Doug to Lauren.
Comment by Susan — November 20, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
@ #12 – at least it isn’t PRT, eh?
Comment by Sidewinder — November 20, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
The presentation on traffic issues by reminded me of the SNL bit with Palin and Couric:
POEHLER AS COURIC: “What lessons have you learned from Iraq and how specifically, would you spread democracy abroad?”
FEY AS PALIN: “Specifically, we would make every effort possible to spread democracy abroad to those who want it.”
POEHLER AS COURIC: “Yes, but specifically what would you do?”
FEY AS PALIN: “We’re gonna promote freedom. Usher in democratic values and ideals. And fight terror-loving terrorists.”
SunCal has many specifics on traffic mitigation, but no objective measure: what would traffic look like in the best case and worst case scenarios?
The FP speaker said there is “no threshold capacity” at the tube and that varying conditions make capacity difficult to measure. I did not hear any specific numbers, only the same promises with no real-world means of enforcement. Tony Daysog said here in 2006 that the tube is at 85% of capacity and as a matter of real-world responsibility, SunCal and the city have an obligation to carry out an objective analysis, which they’re perfectly capable of doing. They keep ducking the issue because they know what the result will be.
The speaker also said that SunCal would provide BRT service to the 12th St and Fruitvale BART stations, which would mean a dedicated lane thru the tube (and over the bridge). However, JKW disputes this, which then raises another question: Without a dedicated lane, the BRT buses and most other forms of “mitigation” will get stuck in the traffic at the tube, right? So regardless of all the promises, what real difference will it make?
I take the bus and whenever I hear about the so-called mitigations, or the proposed “queue-jump” lane for the Point’s BRT, I picture myself sitting on the bus on Webster St, inching along in bumper to bumper traffic. So far I don’t see any concrete proof that this won’t happen.
And as for re-routing all the buses now using the tube: politically, that should be interesting.
The pro-development side keeps framing this discussion as “save the planet or murder the polar bears” and pushing blind adherence to SunCal’s demands. The city deserves a more honest and grown-up analysis than this, because with major traffic jams and idling cars, it’s very possible that nothing will be gained whatsoever.
The “virtual reality of the textbook experts” about covers it.
Comment by DL Morrison — November 20, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
#10 “Since the transit system they envision has to be paid for by the new green Point residents, the more the units means more people paying for the system. More money buys a more capable system. The more capable the system is the more the non-Point residents will use the system. Especially when the Pointless people watch the Point transit busses jump queues and leave them sitting in their clean exhaust. – Eventually, when all goes well, the Pointless people will see light at the end of the tube and voluntarily include themselves into dues paying ecoites, the tubes will be clean and empty and we can get back to talking about the demerits of eating on sidewalks.”
Jack -
It almost makes sense through these rosy glasses until you realize that no matter how many people you add to the Point to help pay for the transit improvements most of those people will still NOT be using transit, even for just their primary commute. For just the primary commute of even a “Non-MA Transit Hub plan” with Bus Rapid Transit they were hoping for 19-20% transit ridership from the Point, and hoping the BRT to Fruitvale would lift the rest of Alameda to 17% transit use. This is from 12-14% (or 15% depending on what study you want to credit) This would be expecting a 13% to 42% increase in city-wide transit use island wide with the addition of a BRT route from the Point to Fruitvale. Does ANYONE think this can pass the smell test?
The APCP PDC plan was also counting on people using transit, it now just seems their claims were not so grandiose, improvable, and would not have such dramatic negative effects when reality hits.
No matter how you slice it, adding greater numbers at the Point is adding greater numbers at the tube, and those greater numbers are just too much. To request the rest of the citizens absorb the inconvenience that would be created by the development just does not make sense. For Alameda citizens to vote out measure A so three members of CC can issue $700 million more in city backed, tax increment bonds to fund the infrastructure for Sun Cal’s plan really does not makes sense to me. With ongoing energy concerns, with water shortages, with rising costs of maintaining basic community safety services, how does this make sense to anyone? Why does Alameda, not require solar energy reuse for every new structure, or wind turbines in some areas, or water cisterns, or grey water reuse, or any of the old technology environmental benefits, or any of the new environmental technologies?
Comment by David Kirwin — November 20, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Phil Tagami talked about the 32 funding streams for the Fox Theater in Oakland. He talked about the new housing in the 3 block radius of the theater, but he did not mention he first completed the additional new parking garages one block from the Fox Theater.
He said he would like to save only 6 – 8 of the over 80 historic buildings, but said he will save around 20 of them because it was still profitable, just did mot have as high a rate of return as he would like. Does he speak for Sun Cal when he says they will be saved and re-used? Didn’t SunCal also say they were going to finish something in the Oakland hills?
I certainly don’t mean that these are not good people trying damned hard to do something they think is good, but Tagami, Calthorpe, even Fehr & Peers personnel are mere mortals and cannot change the realities of our place in time or our economic realities any more than they can change the restrictions on future Alameda development caused by our island’s geography.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 20, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
Loss of dealership means more Marketplace parking
“This extra parking will be good for our customers,” he said.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/alameda/ci_11035052
Even the owners of an organic grocery see the benefits of more parking. What could be more “green” in Alameda than the Marketplace and they see how more parking means more prosperity.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 21, 2008 @ 6:43 am
To Susan:
Comment by Lauren Do — November 21, 2008 @ 7:03 am
The incomparable Freddie Mercury; may he rest in peace.
Comment by Susan — November 21, 2008 @ 7:46 am
And now, an ode to public transit…
Comment by Susan — November 21, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Great music posts susan and lauren. You guys keep it up and you’ll be right up there in ant’s league
Comment by Jack Richard — November 21, 2008 @ 8:44 am
We could move on to dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlI4mo-yniA
http://tinylink.com/?PexRbkGreR
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 21, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Here’s one I just got from a friend, titled “Bailout Math”, it’s just clever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcRbkB93m2Q&feature=related
And I’m wondering, with the depression and everything, will we getting movie extravaganzas with dolled up ladies descending a staircase or something?
Comment by DL Morrison — November 21, 2008 @ 11:38 am
24
Ma and Pa Kettle ought to get a job with that traffic guy at the CC meeting.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 21, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
#18 – “What could be more green … than more parking?”
Yeah, I know that’s not what you said, but that’s what you meant. And you know it’s wrong. Paving & parking make places hotter, fill the air with noxious fumes, pollute the soil and promote the use of auotmobiles.
All bad results.
Comment by Sidewinder — November 21, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
People just can’t say enough good things about having more parking:
“The Journal’s got a short article today outlining perhaps the only positive note in this whole Good Chevrolet closure deal: More parking for Alameda Marketplace! Okay, so they’ve got lot space next to the building, across the street and to the side. But hey, you try backing out of that tiny little lot or wheeling a stroller across Park to get over there.
I actually parked over there the other day and found it ohsomucheasier to pull out onto Foley and go around. And the lot, with its additional 40 spaces, gave some dude with a Hummer the space to chew the two parking spots those things take up.”
http://theislandofalameda.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-parking-less-taxing.html
Business owners and shoppers want as much parking as they can possibly get and they want it to be easy and convenient. They don’t want the danger or the hassle of wheeling a stroller across a street to buy organic milk, free range chickens, earth-friendly laundry detergent or diapers made from recycled materials.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 21, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
#25: Is that actually the famous Ma and Pa Kettle?? And you know, they’ve got way more credibility than the traffic guy.
Comment by DL Morrison — November 21, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
The funniest thing about #24 is that Pa sorta looks like Hank Paulson.
Comment by Jack B. — November 21, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
#24
“And I’m wondering, with the depression and everything, will we getting movie extravaganzas with dolled up ladies descending a staircase or something?”
Actually, pre Hays-Code Hollywood (1929-1934) was wide open with films about drugs, sex and politics. Nudity was common. The Hays Code imposed strict censorship and many of the pre-code films were censored and never restored. The depression also cut into film budgets and the early experiments in color film ceased for almost a decade.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 21, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
That’s a great clip.
Comment by DL Morrison — November 21, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
SunCal chief financial officer resigns
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/615644.html
Perhaps it is time for the city to stop throwing good money after bad.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 22, 2008 @ 8:20 am
The base closed in the aftermath of the death of the Soviet Union. We now face new threats. At least a portion of the old NAS should be reserved for a new military base to protect Bay Area cities from urban assaults and to help when earthquakes or similar disasters take place. Local police are not equipped to defend against guerrilla attacks like the one that took place in Mumbai, The old NAS is centrally located to defend against attacks in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, etc. The base closure was premature and based upon events that took place in the world 20 years ago. Contemporary events call for the establishment of a military base to protect Bay Area cities.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 28, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
33
Get real ANT, the base closed because the bay area is anti-military. Perhaps a portion of the base could be reserved for Obama’s new civilian internal military. I’m sure the bay area would welcome a corp of brown shirts.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 29, 2008 @ 11:01 am
We already have the Coast Guard, plus proximity to the Port, maybe this could all factor into a new use for the base, such as the headquarters for an emergency response team as ANT suggests.
And we have a new administration which views the Bay Area in much more favorable terms, and which is striving to put together a new “21st century” mandate.
What if we could also have green oriented businesses, as many people have suggested — to conduct reseach on or generate energy from alternative sources, or to build solar panels or wind turbines. All the uses would be forward looking.
Comment by DL Morrison — November 29, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
#34
“Get real ANT, the base closed because the bay area is anti-military.”
Jack, I respect your opinion, but I think that you are living in the past. This isn’t a matter of liberal or conservative; it is a matter of sane or insane. Ten nut jobs with automatic weapons could kill hundreds in the Castro or Mission. If that happened, people would welcome the protection of the National Guard. This isn’t 1969 anymore than it is 1929. Regardless of political stripe, people can learn from the past. People are more concerned about safety in the present than they are about the political ideologies of the past.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 30, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
U.S. troops to bolster domestic security
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/01/US_troops_to_bolster_domestic_security/UPI-28451228167062/
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 2, 2008 @ 5:44 am
A few points.
1. Basing Rapid Action Forces at the Point would more likely bolster the likelihood of a Bay Area WMD scenario by the Others (better to hit them where they are than where they ain’t).
2. Basing Rapid Action Forces at the Point would increase the likelihood of new avenues of Island egress (they can’t all have helicopters and sitting in a plugged tube wouldn’t do the victims any good).
3. Ten nut jobs could kill hundreds in the Castro or Mission regardless of the Force at the Point.
4. Maybe I am living in the past but I know I don’t want a civilian military arm like the any of the below:
“I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States … this will be a central cause of my presidency.”
–Obama
“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve…. I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year….”
–Obama
“The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization…. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.”
– Saul Alinsky (Obama’s Marxist mentor): Rules for Radicals
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned… to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”
–Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World
Comment by Jack Richard — December 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Huxley wasn’t the only one to foretell the awful future that awaits us. This obscure film from the 1960’s had a similiar message:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WBp2vodDTk
A longer clip:
Comment by DL Morrison — December 2, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
I think “Idiocracy” is more likely…
Comment by AD — December 2, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
#39
It wasn’t obscure.
The decommissioning of so many military bases was a mistake that was based upon the “end of history.” Small, well-armed paramilitary units are causing problems all over the world.
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html
Enemies of All Mankind: Who Can Stop the Pirates?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460667,00.html
The lack of land access at Alameda Point can be made up for by sea and air access. While Alameda will likely not be a target, surrounding cities are.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 2, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
#41: I’m kidding.
And of course terrorism is a major threat, especially at ports. I don’t know how the Port of Oakland can protect itself against “WMDs” hidden in containers, tho if we had less money spent in Iraq then perhaps there would be more available to spend here.
Comment by dl morrison — December 3, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
The VA wants the old NAS on a “Federal-to-Federal agency (Fed-to-Fed) transfer of property from the Navy to the VA at former NAS Alameda”
http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/base_docs/nas_alameda/documents/public_notices/081202-Public%20Meeting%20Notice_Final%20Draft.pdf
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 10, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
ANT,
I thought the 500+ acres for VA was from the bird sanctuary, whereby they would be taking back from the one federal agency (Fish and Game) to re-delegate use to another.
Otherwise they’d have to start from scratch with a new proposal because they can’t ask us for $108 million and then take 500 cares for the VA.
Last time I mentioned getting a new deal from the new Obama administration I think somebody said it was a naive notion, but in this collapsing economy giving us the land could potentially help boost the local economy at a small cost to the feds compared to $700 billion.
I plan to attend this meeting. If the VA does come, they have to pay attention to integrating their plan with what is happening here, whether it’s SunCal or the Lipow Land Trust.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 10, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
The VA can pretty much do whatever it wishes to do with its land. We have as much say about it as we did with what went on at NAS. The community has spent the last 12 years discussing an imaginary land called “Alameda Point.” We might as well have been discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Instead of talking about Scottish Links or gondolas flying over the estuary or PRT, could have made better use of the time napping, watching television or engaging in productive drinking. For all intents and purposes, the community has spent the last decade playing a localized version of Second Life.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 10, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
ANT – I understand your feelings, however it is not the VA’s land – That’s the point.
Next Thursday the Navy will publicly discuss the plan of transferring part of the property to the VA, or as they put it:
“The purpose of this meeting is to provide the general public, interested stakeholders, affected governmental agencies and other interested parties timely information regarding the proposed action of VA and the Navy relative to the 549-acre transfer parcel, and to solicit relevant input regarding the environmental review process and any potential impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Navy and VA are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA). ”
They will be presenting 4 options.
The public has the option of being informed, and to participate, or not. Some may use their time taking care of their families, or as you put it; “napping, watching television or engaging in productive drinking”, but many other people have learned that the government is run by mere mortals, often seeking an easier, softer for themselves, so “public service” sometimes begs the question “Which individuals or corporations are to be served by the public?”, instead of vice versa. Those individuals who care about their world, their environment, or their community, have learned they must participate to protect what they hold dear.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 10, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Mark was correct that the land being asked for by the VA is the area out at the wildlife refuge and does not change the footprint of the area under planning by Suncal.
Comment by notadave — December 11, 2008 @ 8:13 am