Buried within the comments section on this post is an interesting question by John Oldhamwho runs the blog 94501 Real Estate:
The question I have about Measure A, and it is a real question, about the method of protecting housing stock.
Can’t we as a community be more effective using zoning, setbacks, a historical renovation Ordinance and a blight ordinance as more effective tools.
It is my belief that blight is a bigger issue than density. An example is 1632 Park, that was painted Silver for years, after the renovation it was an excellent addition to Park Street. A current example is 2414 Lincoln, see Google street http://tinyurl.com/5c5xf2, that brings down a community.
The Navy and all it brought had people housed on ships, but also had high density called barracks and high density four-plex townhomes. Even the guys on the ships had cars, one of the busiest places on base was the self serve Auto Hobby Shop. Traffic in Alameda is an issue, and I wish the SFGate article would have focused more on transit options. Like the train service Alameda once had….
Rather than provoke a discussion, instead there was just a flat out “no, only Measure A can preserve us” answer to this thoughtful question. Other cities have begun to implement much more refined tools such as form based codes/zoning to regulate what the exterior of buildings look like rather than rely on zoning to control the use of the land. If what we are looking for is to make sure that the building do not resemble big boxes or brutalist style Soviet blocks, form based codes would give the flexibility of internal use but ensure that the exterior is harmonious with the surroundings.
I also think that John O. has hit on a very salient point, that blight is a big problem in the community, and this piggy backs on another interesting comment within that post by Mark Irons who, as a member of the Historic Advisory Board, denied the request by a property owner to remove a structure from the Historic Building List. I am rather torn on the issue of historic preservation when it comes to structures that have been allowed to deteriorate to the point that the building in question that the HAB decided on. As mentioned by ANT, there is a cost to the owner to preserve homes like this, and while one could argue that the owner purchased the home with full knowledge that the structure was on the Historic Building List, on the other hand, shouldn’t we consider the context of the structure (between a big brick building and a parking lot) before we absolutely say that the owners have to pump an ungodly amount of money into it in order to make it decent again?
Although, I really don’t think a parking lot would be the highest and best use of that lot either. But the question is, what do we do about parcels and structures like this one that have been largely ignored throughout the years. We’ve all seen some of those large grand houses that have been left to rot, there is one house I have in mind, I think it’s on Santa Clara, you probably all have seen it, it’s huge the paint is almost gone, I think the roof is pretty much gone too. Do we simply wait for it to get to the point where demolition is the only thing that will put it out of its misery? Or do we keep hoping that there will be someone somewhere out there will deep enough pockets and a serious love for renovating that will be able to make miracles?
Although we don’t always see eye to eye, Oldham’s blog, like yours Lauren, is a great asset to the community. Sometimes the guy just hits the nail on the head …
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — December 12, 2008 @ 8:10 am
Blight is a problem in Alameda. Address it directly.
Take the example of Shaker Heights OH, a Cleveland suburb that has a lot in common w/ Alameda. Peeling paint, unkempt lawns, cracked pavement, etc are all disallowed and these are aggressively enforced. Other ordinances exist to preserve visual quality of life. Garbage collectors go to the back yard for trash, so as not to litter the sidewalks with trash cans. There are other examples.
The city doesn’t act as HOA; you can paint your house any color you like as long as it’s neat & well maintained. Same for landscaping; do what you like but if the grass gets tall a city crew will mow it & send you a bill.
The result is a community that, though it borders severely blighted Cleveland, has remained beautiful, viable and extremely liveable. Built mostly in the 20’s, it resembles the Fernside with bigger yards and better maintenance.
Measure A has been an extremely important tool in maintaining our quality of life in Alameda. That more needs to be done is not a reason to scrap MA (as the writer implies and our blogmistress is well known to champion). Rather it is an incentive to tighten zoning to protect neighborhoods from blight. Alameda is already well known for its architecture, even though a fair bit of it is deteriorating. Requiring basic maintenance would address the blight issue & improve the city’s quality of life without risking its essential quality.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Agree. When friends come to visit they note that, sure there are lots of Victorians, but the rusty cars on the lawns, chainlink fences and peeling paint give the town a distinctly hillbilly flavor.
Comment by BC — December 12, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Blight has nothing to do with whether a structure is historic or not, it has to do with whether the owner has money for upkeep. When the economy is bad, less upkeep is normal. I do not find blight to be a big problem as a percentage of homes here, as in some new developments which people have abandoned in droves following the mortgage crisis.
Interesting and unusual structures are less likely to become blighted because people are attracted to them even in bad economy. (I would love to get my hands on a old house with lots of character at a normal price, even if I can’t make it perfect right away. So do many other people obviously because these get snapped up right away.) To frown on old structures that apear less than perfect in hard times is shortsighted and it misses the long-term potential. Well maintained historic districts and towns with distinct character can charge higher leases, have more stable population and are safer. The question Lauren is raising is, do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Of course the answer is no. Address the maintenance, not the type of structure. Historic structures are more expensive to maintain, but quality of the environment demands it.
Speaking of maintenance, when will PSBA address all the chipping paint and water stains that grace half the buildings on Park Street? They get subsidy from the city, too.
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 9:42 am
“Other cities have begun to implement much more refined tools such as form based codes/zoning to regulate what the exterior of buildings look like rather than rely on zoning to control the use of the land.”
Staff recently conducted a form based zoning workshop for the planning board. The staff report provided to the board said:
“At the meeting, Mr. Ross will give a short presentation on form-based zoning and will be available to answer questions. In preparation for the meeting, staff has attached some informational material on form-based zoning. Additional material is also available at http://www.formbasedcodes.org and a variety of other Internet sites by typing in “form based code” into your preferred browser search engine.”
All sorts of alarm bells went off when I read that. Form-based codes may be wonderful tools, but I don’t think asking the great oracle, Google, what to do is the best way to come up with them.
Additionally, the hand-outs provided at the meeting were:
Form Based Codes Institute (6 pages)
Form-Based Codes: Implementing Smart Growth (8 pages)
-14 pages of overview, and we’re armed and ready to do away with Measure A. Just saying…
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/pb_sub_1443.pdf
Comment by Susan — December 12, 2008 @ 9:45 am
4
Blight is very often not a matter of money at all, rather of willingness. Rentals in particular are often badly maintained, even when they are cash flowing for the landlord & enjoying Prop 13 welfare.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 9:55 am
AD: So we’re better than Antioch and Pittsburg, with their acres of subprime-whacked stucco, in terms of blight? Phew, we’re okay then.
Comment by BC — December 12, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Just to clear things up: Prop 13 is not welfare … WELFARE is welfare. Having your taxes reduced does not make you a burden on the community, not paying taxes makes you a burden on the community. Happy that I could help clear that up
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — December 12, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Interesting thoughts all.
Let’s remember MA does nothing other than define a residential lot size, how big you can build on it, and limits you to no more than a duplex (unless you’re a senior citizen). So there’s nothing in there about blight, Victorians, my Ford pickup on blocks or the dryer on my porch. It’s a very simple ordinance actually.
My big concern with zoning, Historical (hysterical?) boards and enforced lawn mowing a la Shaker Heights would be controls controls and more controls. I may like having a shaggy lawn, so why should I pay a bill when the City arbitrarily decides to come and mow it? And if the City is willing to come mow my lawn, shouldn’t they be willing to fix that monster bump in the sidewalk I’ve been complaining about for three years?
I think there is a high level of trust that needs to be in place for citizens to give the City this kind of say-so, and at this time I do not believe it exists.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — December 12, 2008 @ 10:25 am
P13 is a financial benefit to some tax payers who free ride on the backs of others. That’s welfare by any defintion.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 10:30 am
9
In the specific example of Shaker Hts, sidewalks are immaculately maintained, as are all other city facilities.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 10:31 am
I appreciate everyone’s comments, because I truly am trying to get a better understanding of the commitment to Measure A.
The buildings and blight issues that I have tried to outline were ones that have I have seen existed for more than ten years. I could name a top 10 list very easily of historic properties that are on the verge of crumbling.
My position is that I have heard people say that the reason for MA is to protect the historic housing stock, and I think that is a very good reason to have the Measure in place. We do not want to tear down home and change the feel of the community and lose homes that make this a great community. This is why I asked if: using zoning, setbacks, a historical renovation ordinance and a blight ordinance would be more effective tools
The connection to density is where I always get lost in the argument. To me the two are not connected. Because many of the historic structures sit in very dense developments. The homes on Buena Vista, right behind the Marketplace, sit right on top of each other with no set back with little or no parking. Look at the bungalows on Sterling and you see the same issue.
The most recent Planning Board Meeting, dealt with second units, infill on existing lots. Although very few properties will qualify the City will have very little to say about the issue.
So density has been an issue since we have begun building on the Island. The way I see it is that this is a transportation issue, getting on or off the Island.
I still have questions about Measure A (a useful tool when passed)_ because it feels like it does not protect housing or the feel of the city, but just protects these buildings from being torn down.
To the community, thanks for helping me better understand the issue.
Comment by John Oldham — December 12, 2008 @ 10:36 am
When older homes were being torn down in the 60s and early 70s to make room for apartment buildings, what was the condition of the homes that were torn down? Would we rather have dilapidated older homes than new ones in good condition?
Whenever I leave Alameda for a few weeks, I am always stunned on return by how rundown much of the housing is. Some blocks are in pretty good shape, but others are sad. I am also struck by how many cars are parked on lawns (against city code but not enforced) and have junk in the yard. Many people install tacky vinyl windows in older homes. (Again, against city code by not enforced.) Passing more codes and laws are useless without the will to enforce.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 12, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Beware of equating “old” with “blighted” and of casually using the term. Next thing, we’ll be using redevelopment to take care of “blighted” old homes. I can totally see someone declaring the housing around the marketplace “blighted” and sweeping it away along with the south of Lincoln plans.
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 11:32 am
dave, maybe you haven’t seen Shaker Heights recently. I was there a year ago and the place is sprawling with crumbling mansions and overgrown yards, etc. Not as bad as in near Cleveland where entire neighborhoods are boarded up and burned out, but it looked downright spooky to me. Not at all and example Alameda should follow in my opinion.
Comment by Brandon — December 12, 2008 @ 11:39 am
It’s been a few years but folks tell me things haven’t changed much. Were you by chance in Cleveland Heights or the fringes of Cleveland near Shaker? Shaker Square, for example, is in Cleveland.
And in any case, if what you say were accurate, it would be a case of lack of willingness to enforce rather than lack of merit of the idea.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 11:54 am
@dave, It obviously wasn’t the best area, but I think it was Shaker Heights. I recall a main boulevard with railroad down the middle and many large three story homes with multiple fireplaces..
Anyhow, I think the idea of enforcement is pointless, you can’t enforce things like that against people who can’t afford it and/or don’t even live in the homes or own them anymore. Besides, most of the blight would be from abandoned houses, so who would you suggest keep the homes and yards looking nice? The hedge fund owners who technically own the bad loan and the home?
Comment by Brandon — December 12, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
First, Alameda is not “blighted” by any reasonable standard, based on conditions that exist in other neighboring cities. Anyone who thinks it is must have a very, very gentrified view of the world. I also think that the gorgeous old homes here are of infinitely greater value than any cookie-cutter McMansion, and of necessity, if homes are old then some of them may be run down. That’s life.
Secondly, it’s clear that Measure A — because it requires a popular vote — is the only reliable means of protecting the city against development. Anything which the City Council alone can undo is not sufficient.
I believe that most cities control blight on individual properties thru nuisance abatement, and that would be the most rational approach.
Finally, I want to recognize all the expertise here, but I have to say, also, that I sometimes see a “forest for the trees” perception that I’m not sure how to understand. Alameda is an extremely desirable place to live — and to build — and without very stringent protections, the Island would be overrun w/ Southshore style condos, as it would have been long since without MA.
Just imagine the money involved, and how valuable land here would become, at least in the short run. In the long run, the property owners and developers would take their money, and leave behind an unlivable mess.
So in sum: The pressure to develop here is obviously greater than it is in other neighboring communities, and that’s why an ironclad restriction on development is needed.
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
It’s time for another up and coming local politician take up the issue of the “blight” of overhead phone and power wires in central Alameda. Last I heard about it came from Pat Bail, between off-color remarks of one sort or another. It’s a great quality of life community issue, and not just in the Gold Coast. The East-enders, BFIers, and Bayporters don’t know how good they have it.
Once we get those wires underground, we’ll notice how bad the cars parked on lawns and chain link fences are. Banning both, and enforcing these bans, will come swiftly.
We will all smile.
Comment by Matt Reid — December 12, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
17
Based on your description, good chance that you were in SH, though not automatic. Do you recall any specific street names? Do you recall if you were on the Blue or the Green Line?
Fair point on abandoned homes. It’s not been an issue in SH and in many other prosperous places until recently. I’m sure many towns are trying to figure out how to assess fees on empty houses.
But even if you are 100% right, it still doesn’t negate the strategy. If a mass of recent forclosures has overwhelmed the city, file that under force majeure. The zoning laws DID work for a very long time, including the 70’s when things were worse in Cleveland than now. Cleveland’s blight could have very easily spilled over the border, and in fact it did to other inner ring suburbs in NE OH, as well as all over the nation. SH held on with a combination of zoning, enforcement & relentless commitment to quality of life.
Look, I’m bright enough to realize that required maintenance would be a political impossibility in Alameda. It’s the Bay Area — SOMEBODY would stand up to howl for the rights of shiftless slobs to degrade their neighborhoods. And a city that barely keeps it between the ditches is unlikley to be able to enforce any laws with teeth. But the subject is blight and how to address it. I merely cite an example of how it’s been done with great success in another place not dis-similar to Alameda. A simple no-peeling-paint law would be a positive thing around here.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
I agree about the wires. In places, it looks like something the Unabomber dreamed up. The high voltage lines running along Marina Street are also incredibly loud. That alone makes this beautiful street less than desirable for me.
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Agree 18
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
The problem with overhead wires, they are determining the look of the city 50-60 years from now. The last time I attended a tree master plan meeting, they were recommending trees that do not exceed the height of the overhead wires (25′ or so). This would be a dramatic change in the look and feel of the city if followed. What’s worse, looks like we are planning on having that mess over our heads for the long term.
I wonder if redevelopment funds can be used for the undergrounding of wires? That should increase the value of property, shouldn’t it?
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I wish government would stop “blighting” private property rights with their “blight” laws.
Comment by the truth — December 12, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
dave,
We should have the right to be slobs and then be ostracized directly by our neighbors for it. You know, more Hatfield and McCoy stuff, as if Keep Measure A isn’t bad enough.
There is not a lot of green thumb in our household and it shows in our yard. I guess it would be easier if I installed a sprinkler and grass lawn, but I don’t like that and so bought a bunch of rock and have planted salvia and the like which I try to keep under control. I am sure there are people who prefer a tidy grass lawn who hate my yard. Should they be able to legislate how my yard looks? And what’s the bureaucratic cost of enforcement?
The City lent money to one old guy to help him from having his place be unsafe and blighted and neighbors volunteered labor and within months it slid back into disrepair. I forget what happened to the guy after that.
Underground power lines? Great! It might have been done already if there was money for it. I want my MTV!
Comment by Mark Irons — December 12, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
#24 – get thee thither to Pahrump, NV, to experience for yourself a blessed Eden of rugged individualism and negligible government usurpation of property rights. You will marvel at the fair burg’s affordability.
Slowly it will dawn on you, the curious paradox of how it is that a place so perfectly free is so severely undervalued by a Free Market which for all its Objectivist hubris seems to appreciate a little paternalistic common sense once in a while…
Comment by Matt Reid — December 12, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
When I look at Alameda — like any rational person — I am just amazed at how perfectly maintained, beautifully painted and carefully landscaped all the homes are. I mean, whole blocks of picture-perfect homes. How could this not be good enough?
An occasional run-down house does not amount to blight, and especially not in a city that is otherwise so lovely. Anyway, the neighborhoods that are relatively rundown are also relatively more affordable — what’s wrong w/ having the rich and the not-so-rich living here? Personally I don’t like the idea of an upper-class enclave — Alameda’s already veering off too much in that direction.
Getting back to the original premise — eliminating MA in order to “control blight” is not a good idea. The development that could follow would be a whole lot worse than a neighbor’s cluttered yard and peeling paint.
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Mark, if undergrounding of wires was a priority, if everybody talked about undergrounding of wires, if the business associations clamored for the undergrounding of wires, if the city commissioned studies that said undergrounding of wires will increase property values etc, underground wires we will have, money or no money. Also, I didn’t say I want my MTV, I asked if redevelopment funds can be used to underground wires. Just clarifyin’…
On the other subject, I agree with DL completely.
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
I don’t know where you all live, but outside of the Fernside and Gold Coast, most Alameda neighborhoods have at least a couple of eyesores on each block. I find this to be true as much on the east end as the west end and northside. Mark, I doubt if you have a chain link fence around the non-working car and car parts on your lawn. Some of the homes I see look like they are held together by mold. A few are vacant and boarded up. I was at Foster Freeze a couple of weeks ago and the house across the street was boarded up and had turned into a dump site. You can check it out on Google Maps, but is looks much worse now.
http://tinyurl.com/6clx7y
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 12, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
I love our neighborhood, but we have some nasty eyesores… especially across the street. Let’s have a photo contest!
There might be reasons for not taking the wires underground on the main isle. Anyone else notice how often workers are down the holes along Willow street w/ a pump truck? I saw it regularly for years at Willow and Central.
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
That’s nothing ANT, you obviously didn’t keep going down Central if you didn’t see this one.
Comment by Lauren Do — December 12, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
There’s really no excuse for this in our otherwise groovy neighborhood. It’s looked like this for 5 years.
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Sorry I meant this
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
I guess one question I wanted to ask of John Oldham but got distracted is: How will form-based zoning and setbacks protect against so-called blight? It seems to me you are offering these, along with a “blight ordinance” as a solution. Could you please clarify?
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
27: “Getting back to the original premise — eliminating MA in order to “control blight” is not a good idea.” Huh? You’re affirming the consequent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent. I think the point was that the sacred measure doesn’t eliminate blight. This doesn’t mean that scrapping said measure eliminates blight, simply that it’s irrelevant to this discussion. (Not everything in life relates to Measure A).
Comment by BC — December 12, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Back to the topic; #18 is dead on, and the kind of ‘blight’ being talked about here borders on silly.
It is obvious we need a real working definition of blight, how it differs from, ‘unkempt’, or ‘unsightly’. The city does have codes and code enforcement officers. It is not legal in Alameda to have cars on front lawns – all you have to do is call for code enforcement. If you think your neighbor is not taking care of the landscape, contact vector control to evaluate what risk that creates – you should not be put at risk of rodent invasion, on the other hand, they may prefer wildflowers to short grass, and they should have their rights considered as well.
I have heard people at CC meetings asking to have their fines reduced for their unsightly property – having stored equipment and containers within sight of the street. This has NOTHING to do with Measure “A” or the type of protection MA provides.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 12, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
632 Central has a lovely facade. What’s the story behind its abandonment?
2159 San Jose must have happened while the Planning Board was on vacation. Looks like one of those mix-and-match flip books (giraffe over crocodile). But who’s responsible for that? Back to code enforcement…
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Wow, I agree with DK. This has nothing to do with Measure A. Or NOTHING, if one prefers to shout into the computer.
Comment by BC — December 12, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
#35: Maybe I’m not following the topic as it has evolved, but the original quote above reads:
“The question I have about Measure A, and it is a real question, about the method of protecting housing stock.
Can’t we as a community be more effective using zoning, setbacks, a historical renovation Ordinance and a blight ordinance as more effective tools.”
In addition, in Dave’s comment #2, in the last paragraph, there’s a reference to similiar interpretation.
As for what the real topic is now, I’m not sure. What constitutes significant blight? Whether a city can control blight or not?
I’d like to know more about the latter. I saw a speaker at a recent city council meeting commplaining about city fines placed on her inherited property that was full of junk (at Lafayette and Lincoln). The mayor said in effect, tough luck, your family owns that place free and clear, and you can certainly get some money out of it.
So the city can take action against a property owner — as one would expect — yet somehow they’re perceived as not doing much? Maybe they go after junk because of vermin/vectors but don’t go after places that are just an eyesore. They may have more means of enforcement with real health and safety hazards.
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
31 and 33, I wouldn’t keep my house in that condition Jack, but there IS an excuse for that house and it’s the people who own it and I mean that without judging them. At least the yard is not full of junk.
Lauren, the idea that 623 Central would get you excited about blight is laughable to me. Seeing the picture makes me nostalgic for taking my kids to school at Paden. Yeah it would be nice if somebody fixed it up, but it has appeared just that way for years. That whole stretch oat Fifth Street Station has always been cool to me. There used to be an old time barber in one of those store fronts. That stretch of buildings has a very small section of original bay frontage too.
Your examples are light weight. guys should drive down Walnut from Clinton to the dead end. I know a fellow there who started to rehab his brown shingle house and has had the permits expire repeatedly. The exterior is raw plywood and tar paper. There is a condemned building across the street.
The row of homes on Pacific near Jim’s back parking lot has been cleaned up and two are for sale or maybe sold. A couple years ago one had old plywood for a fence and a dog leashed to the front stairs and dog feces all up the walk and stairs. Also junk in the yard. It was REALLY disgusting.
I’ve been coming to Alameda since 1969 and I always loved the back water ambiance, just like my old industrial neighborhood on the 5th Avenue waterfront in Oakland.
To me the Silver Building always stood for Alameda’s weird eccentricity. It’s now been rehabbed and it’s glorious. I much prefer Park today to the near dead zone of 1990 when we moved here, but I moved to Alameda the way it was then and embraced it without any ideas that something was wrong with the place. Time is simply running it’s course.
As a renter and even a home owner I’ve lived in West Berkeley and North Oakland and have seen a lot. Frankly some of the neighborhood around Edison school and off Fernside is so nicely appointed I would feel like a hillbilly living there and I’m grateful for my niche.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 12, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
Right, so the point is that other measures may help to preserve housing stock more effectively, which doesn’t mean that getting rid of Measure A will harm the housing stock.
My point was simply that discussing ways of preserving housing stock isn’t (necessarily) a covert attack on Measure A.
Comment by BC — December 12, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
The problem with many of these run down properties in Alameda is that it brings the property values down of surrounding properties. I live in an older part of Alameda (on purpose) and have adopted the attitude over the years that if other properties in my neighborhood are going to go into disrepair, then why should I spend money to maintain my property? If the City’s Code Enforcement won’t enforce the City’s Municipal Codes, then why should I apply for a permit? What is the use of having a nice house, if your house is the only nice house on the block or two eyesores bring the value of the block down? What many people are overlooking is the psychological effects that blight has on the current residents. Older houses that are in disrepair invite graffiti, litter, loitering, ands ultimately crime. The fact that the City does not enforce its own laws, makes the whole debate over Measure A and the historical list homes a joke.
Comment by NorthernWaterFront — December 12, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Mark
I’m living proof that one can have a a nicely appointed home and still be a hillbilly.
There not mutually exclusive.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Typo: ***they’re not****
Comment by dave — December 12, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
C’mon Mark, you have to see it from the side
Comment by Lauren Do — December 12, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Dave, aren’t we all flatlanders now?
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
DL #27, I hope that you were being sarcastic. Otherwise, I’d really like to know the neighborhood in which you reside. You need to take a drive by the 235,000-square-foot brick Del Monte warehouse along Buena Vista Avenue before you paint Alameda with the broad brush of “perfectly maintained, beautifully painted and carefully landscaped”.
If you were not being sarcastic, then there are definitely two Alamedas — one blighted and one that the City wants to showcase. It would be great if those of who that do not benefit from Proposition 13 got to live in the showcased areas of Alameda.
#29, Amen!
Comment by NorthernWaterFront — December 12, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I agree w/ Mark — I like a city with character, and anyway, the level of blight here is pretty minimal.
And I agree w/ DK — blight has a legal definition — and quite a lengthy one at that. I just did a quick skim-thru on “13-10 ABATEMENT OF SUBSTANDARD AND DANGEROUS BUILDINGS”, from definitions to enforcement, and believe me, the city seems to be comprehensive in its approach, at least on paper. It appears that enforcement takes place thru a lien on the property or thru a special assessment of taxes,, either of which would be filed with the County Recorder or
Assessor. So the really junky places most likely have liens/taxes on them to be paid when the place is sold.
Maybe nothing seems to happen in the meantime because the city is not in the business of demolishing houses, and nothing further can be done otherwise (?)
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
How much of the housing that was torn down to make way for the ugly 60s apartments were run down rental properties? There is a connection to Measure A. Well kept owner-occupied homes were not torn down for ticky-tacky apartments.
It is probably now going to get worse because many have lost the home equity that allowed for home improvement loans. The more modest older neighborhoods are at risk because property owners lack either the cash or credit to make improvements.
While some landlords are responsible and take pride in their properties, there have always been those that simply let their property decay. As long as they can collect rent, they just run the place into the ground. They do not care if the building is “historic.” All they care about is the income. Does anyone know of a historic property “rescue” program that is in existence?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 12, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Aren’t we spliiting hair trying to come to some consensus between the terms “blight” and “unkept”?
The truth is that there are older homes in this City with “soft” first levels, rotted wood, and serious decay that will fall like a house of cards at the next big one. Maybe the City is waiting for the next big one for FEMA to come in and rehab the eyesore properties.
Comment by NorthernWaterFront — December 12, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
34. The question was does MA really protect historical housing. I feel that blight and lack of code enforcement will destroy many of these buildings over time.
Trust me I am not Anti-MA. I just not sure that it is the correct tool. If MA is about over-population and traffic I am okay with that, but it does not address protecting heritage in the city.
A couple of examples have been given, there is a house on Central near Grand, that is falling down, I wish I could remember the address, but MA has not protect what once was a grand structure.
I just think we have lumped a lot into MA, and we start adding things into the conversation that may not be effective to in solving the issues of housing, traffic and population.
Comment by John Oldham — December 12, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Lauren,
I didn’t recognize that front as being connected to that side. The addresses are neither 632 or 506 Central which confused me. It’s 500 Central and was before HAB before I joined. The building has been discussed on this blog before. There was a new owner who has taken over since that construction was started and abandoned, but alas, no action. The City has leverage in terms of fines for permits expiring. HAB members ask after it periodically and we’ve been told to expect the project to proceed.
I don’t know if the owners are under financed, but they are pretty lame. I said in the previous discussion, they should have begun by leveling the building before ripping it apart.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 12, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
#51: I support Measure A but I’m not rabid about preventing any disagreement, really and truly. And with that, I think the anti-MA arguments can be sometimes an effort at spin, so I’m leery of that — and I’m not accusing you of that, but I’m not sure what you’re saying either. If a house can’t be protected from being torn down, then efforts at protecting it from disrepair become irrelevant. I think of MA as preventing demolition — I never thought that it mandated maintenance of property. I assumed that the city had the usual ordinances in that regard, which it does.
Are you saying that MA does not prevent demolition? It seems to me that if multi-family buildings could replace traditional homes, then there’d be a tremendous profit motive for property owners of all sorts, occupying or otherwise, to sell their homes to developers/builders, whatever.
In addition, I think AD asked a question above re form based zoning, #34, if you could respond to that. Thanks.
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
ANT-
I think you are incorrect and that perfectly sound buildings (single family homes) were in fact destroyed. Blight was not some kind of gateway to demolition.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 12, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
#47: Boy oh boy, do I know blight. I lived in West Berkeley and had plenty of rundown houses to keep my rundown house company.
I had a neighbor who hoarded, who kept all kinds of junk piled high in her front yard and the city wouldn’t do anything, because in Berkeley, nuisance ordinances are not enforced against owner-occupiers, for fear of putting them out of their homes (!!)
So I have a norm, a relative sense of what blight looks like — and I’m perfectly capable of recognizing rundown buildings — and I’m saying that by those standards, Alameda is just not that junky. I know that blocks and neighborhoods vary, of course, but even the worst block here isn’t that bad, and most of the city is very, very well-kept. I don’t see mattresses on the sidewalk, I don’t see cars getting repaired on the street, and the rundown buildings are only occasional, not a whole block.
And really, the property values are very good, even on the less attractive streets. I bet there’s a zillion people who’d love to own your house.
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Great rock fight!
One man’s blight is another man’s castle. This was my point – I am frightened to let someone define blight and shove it down my throat.
Go read Measure A – there’s NOTHING about Victorians in it. When MA was being considered, banks didn’t loan money to homeowners for remodeling the way they do today. They’d say – why fix up that 100 year old house when you could knock it down and put 20 rental units there. We’ll pay for that. Then Prop 13 came along and the housing market went on hockey stick. Remodels made economic sense then.
Like now it is an economic issue, not one of viscerals. “Saving” Victorians was a nice benefit, but it was all about controlling density and construction of rows and rows of apartment complexes like we see on the beach.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — December 12, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
#56: But if the housing stock consists largely of victorians, and a local measure prevents the destruction of housing stock (by removing the profit motive), then doesn’t that effectively act to prevent the destruction of historic homes?
Are people otherwise going to tear down victorians just to put up a modern single family home?
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Median home price in Alameda: $639,ooo.
Just so some out-of-towner doesn’t get the wrong impression here…
Comment by AD — December 12, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
#42 “The fact that the City does not enforce its own laws makes the whole debate over Measure A and the historical list homes a joke.”
Can you explain the relationship of selective enforcement to MA as posted? (For code enforcement, someone has to call in the complaint.)
I see no logic in ‘letting’ your house degrade because a neighbor (or some neighbors) is unable to maintain their house. Or as my mother often asked “If they jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?”
If you opine that he devaluation of an area mirrors the devalue of an ‘unkempt’ property or properties, surely you must consider that the greater the number of properties in an area that are unkempt the greater the devaluation of that area AND the more homes are improved in an area the greater the value of that area increases. While Prop 13 helped homeowners to be better able to afford to keep up or improve their homes, the crashing economy will continue to see more homes fall into an unkempt status.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 12, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Too much of Alameda’s historic homes are simply rotting into the ground due to neglect. Check out this row of Victorians. My guess is that they have all be converted into multiple unit rentals. Maybe it is time to start an “Alameda Hall of Shame” album.
http://tinyurl.com/5ruj5p
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 12, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
#55 I own a 1800s victorian by the Northern Waterfront in good condition. If I could sell it for a fraction of what I purchased it for, I would and let the zillions of people you refer to into my “lovely” Alameda neighborhood.
#59 My problem with Prop 13 is that many of those who benefit from my tax dollars do not reinvest in their homes or the neighborhoods (except for buying a 40 ounce at the corner market each night).
Comment by Northern WaterFront — December 12, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Actually Lauren, the HAB did not deny the request to remove the house as you have stated. All that ever ended up coming before us was a request to take the house off the study list.
Staff contended that would allow for demolition but we asked for the City attorney to clarify because it was our understanding that permission to demolish should come before the board. As it turns out we were correct. If we had moved to ratify staff’s motion to de-list the building they would have come before us next month to ask permission to demolish it.
The appeal to C.C. will now be a two step procedure unless staff can have both de-listing and demolition on the same agenda.
ANT #60- and what’s your point? Should we tear down the hall of shame buildings? The one on the far right looks to have seen better days and judging by the parking is probably a three unit rental. The other two may be owner occupied and have two units. In any case the people living there may be happy to have a relatively decent secure place to live. They may be funky, but from the photo they don’t look to be rotting into the ground.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 12, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
“OLD” buildings 101:
The reason there is a contractor position on the HAB is to bring hands on experience with actual methods and material of construction. But it didn’t take my in put for others on the board to know what we had on our hands.
For the Buena Vista building the HAB was given an engineer’s report which (erroneously) used modern standards to find the building lacking. Many a Victorian which has been continually inhabited since built has 2″x8″ floor joists and 2″x4″ roof rafters. Even when they are extensively remodeled we don’t replace these with larger members to meet modern code, as this report tried to say was needed. In my opinion the object of the report was to render renovation economically a non-option.
The report also specified lack of sheer, which is also very common in these buildings and we see it added when the concrete foundations are upgraded.
There are two large apartment buildings at San Jose and Oak, one of which sold and the other is now for sale. The one which sold looks to be pre-1900 and had it’s original foundation replaced and shear installed when it was sold a couple years ago. The other is for sale with original brick and I am sure it lacks shear, yet all units of both buildings have been continually inhabited.
There is a house on Laurel near Clinton which looks to have a very nearly original coat of (light green) paint, which continues to hang in and protect, even though it looks very funky. This sort of patina on an old wood home is common. The amazing thing a lot of folks don’t realize is that because the old redwood is such great material, a house in that state is a better candidate for a really excellent long lived paint job, than a home which has had a number of frequent but half assed coats of paint applied.
Getting back to Buena Vista. It has a brick foundation and no sheer, which could be remedied for $25,000. The exterior is in excellent shape, despite what many of you may think and it would paint up nicely. Call that $10,000. The front stairs are rotting, but the rail elements on the porch can be salvaged. Every 80 to 100 year old wood home in Alameda has had three or four sets of stairs, unless they were replaced with concrete at some point. Throw in $10,000 for stair and porch renovation.
The interior is currently dank, has cracked plaster, but the interior moldings and hearth are original. The place has a space heater and no central heat, but is small. Probably one of the biggest issues for renovating it to a comfortable livable home is lack of insulation.
So, if your sensibility for a nice home leans toward Bayfarm or Bayport, stay away. But if you like the Victorian aesthetic, have $60,000 over whatever the sale price should be and the energy for some TLC, this is a viable property. The structure isn’t leaning and the fact the windows are boarded and it needs stairs are insignificant. If the building were on Laurel at Clinton, nobody would ask to demolish it.
It’s location, location, location. Unfortunately this was the last building in a line of residential buildings adjacent to Park Street. In the 1980s the next to last building similar to this one was allowed to be taken down for parking. That is like punching a tooth out of a smile. In this case the isolated tooth has been weakened by it’s position and allowed to decay.
The City Council’s job is to look at the big picture and weigh competing interests. The HAB makes calls on whether old buildings are viable or have historic integrity, that’s it. If the C.C. authorizes this building to be torn down for parking, so be it. But materially, the building is more substantial than a lot of folks seem able to grasp.
I feel to be lobbied for the demolition of such a building with the engineering document HAB were given was an insult to our intelligence.
Neither in the presentation to HAB or in Dennis Evanosky’s article in the Sun yesterday, was there any detail provided on the exact logistics of the parking situation for this new project, or any other detail on the reuse of the Cavanaugh Motors building.
If HAB was to make a decision on anything other than the building itself, it would have been nice to have some substantive information to go on. Robb Ratto simply said that this is a very important first step in the planned Renaissance for North of Lincoln and it’s crucial they get what they need ASAP.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 12, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
#61: I have sympathy for everyone who’s lost money in the RE market, and I’m sure it’s been a disaster for many people. However, when someone complains that a neighborhood hasn’t improved, it usually means they’ve been there for some time and have been waiting for years. If you’ve just bought recently, then I wouldn’t have any expectations for sudden change.
Comment by dl morrison — December 12, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
#63 Who wrote, and who submitted that report to HAB?
I ‘get’ that HAB felt it was a “motivated” report.
“Expert Opinions” are NOT supposed to be biased – that is a violation of ethics.
It is reassuring to hear that HAB has enough expertise itself to not be buffaloed. But good grief, this is exactly what I think constantly happens at PB & CC where most often such reports get approved because often 1,000’s of pages of documents are entered into a single agenda item.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 12, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
65. The HAB purview is finite enough that it’s relatively easy for us, but I think our PB members to be generally well informed as a body, and they aren’t easily buffaloed. The p.b. purview requires a wider range of expertise but is somewhat finite and listening to them deliberate I find their anecdotal references reflect that they are qualified to do their job. The c.c. has a monster range of stuff thrown at them, from design, to use, to budgets, to law, to you name it. Remember all boards are volunteer, so the adage “you get what you pay for” applies.
As for “expert” witnesses, most of us have been around the block and wouldn’t be caught short. I was offended by the report, not surprised or fooled. And in a certain context the report was valid. “Valid” is relative just like “expert”.
Generally, I think it is best to admit that a subject is over ones head and to ask lots of questions, rather than go along out of fear of being exposed as ignorant. Perhaps a mistake some might have is not being able to admit to themselves that they don’t get it, but that is a general observation about human nature and not a comment pointed at persons or government bodies in Alameda.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 13, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
In my comment #51, I mentioned a home on Central. It should have been homes: 1617 and 2029 Central. I went out to take photos, because Google Street View does not give a clear view.
Here is the YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RW3OFZtQvY
Flickr Link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-alameda/sets/72157611148374303/
Comment by John Oldham — December 13, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
What action has the city taken in regards to these two properties? Are they both vacant or are they still being rented?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 13, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
John Oldham: As Delmundo pointed out, M-A is about density, primarily. It has nothing to do with the conditions of these homes on Central. So, how do you propose to protect these homes with form-based codes/zoning?
Thanks in advance for addressing this, or else clarifying what you mean.
Comment by AD — December 13, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
#67: A question, if you could respond. I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand what this implies: “Can’t we as a community be more effective using zoning, setbacks, a historical renovation Ordinance and a blight ordinance as more effective tools [than measure A to protect housing stock].”
What is the premise — that some people believe that Measure A could take the place of setbacks or historic preservation?
Or that we don’t already have all these ordinances in place and we ought to create them? But we do in fact have ordinances re preservation, blight and so on. Are you saying that they’re not sufficient?
Perhaps someone else can explain this. Thanks.
Comment by dl morrison — December 13, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
#69 — To clarify, the primary argument I hear in the community is that MA is to protect Victorians, density is always the secondary argument, if that is the primary premise of the Measure then, in my view, it does a poor job .
My question from the start: Don’t we confuse the issue when we add protecting homes to MA argument?
I agree that density, transportation, and city planning are all good reasons for MA, but when you lump in “save houses” it is apparent that it does not act in this manner, because of neglect and those who circumvent the rules.
I do believe that many in the community think that MA is what will save (or has saved) the community. They may be right, but the way I see it is that if we let these homes crumble then MA becomes irrelevant.
I do not think we need more rules, but more enforcement is obvious, in the case of blight. I wish I had the right answer, this is why I posed the original question.
Comment by John Oldham — December 13, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
“the primary argument I hear in the community is that MA is to protect Victorians..”
Clearly the people you hear this from do not understand Measure A, so be sure to explain it to them whenever it comes up: It limits density by allowing only 2 dwelling units per 2,000 sq. ft lot. That’s all. Says nothing about design, Victorians, blight, etc. Bad design and blight is equally possible both with and without Measure A.
The confusion on this thread reulted from mixing Measure A in the blight discussion. Now that John Oldham has made himself clear, I wonder if Lauren could explain what she means by the following, in the context of blight discussion, or not:
“Rather than provoke a discussion, instead there was just a flat out “no, only Measure A can preserve us” answer to this thoughtful question. Other cities have begun to implement much more refined tools such as form based codes/zoning to regulate what the exterior of buildings look like rather than rely on zoning to control the use of the land.”
Comment by AD — December 13, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
#71 – Thank you for responding. I recall reading/hearing a statement somewhat similiar to yours, which did in fact propose replacing Measure A with various ordinances, so I took it to be the same thing initially.
And as AD says, I also think there’s a confusion of purpose here — and a curious one at that. There’s no good reason why form-based codes would control density or that Measure A would control blight.
Comment by dl morrison — December 13, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Blight has many costs not often recognized by a community…see http://wefightblight.blogspot.com/
Comment by We Fight Blight — December 15, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Lauren,
This topic, and the mistaken connection it makes between blight and Measure A, has now managed to spread onto at least two other blogs. While Delmundo has done a great favor to everybody by posting the actual text of M-A on his blog (it’s purpose is to control density, not blight), Michele Ellman asks a question that’s a bit muddled. She writes: “If you haven’t done so already (and judging by the number of comments, maybe you have), check out Lauren Do’s thought-provoking post from Friday about blight and Measure A. The post brings up an interesting question: What’s a bigger problem in our community, housing density or blight? And how does Measure A address those problems?”
I think it is incumbent on you, as the initiator of the confusion, to explain how you see Measure A as a means of controlling, or not controlling blight, and why you felt compelled to throw the two together. I would appreciate your clearing the air on that, and seriously expect you to do so. Thanks.
ps. I posted a comment on Michele’s blog which has not appeared yet. The question here is for you strictly.
Comment by AD — December 16, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Measure A is about DENSITY.
Measure A has nothing to do with blight.
It is irresponsible to make that connection. Period.
Comment by E T — December 16, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Measure A needs to be amended to allow for a one-for-one unit replacement of apartment buildings. Property owners should be allowed to replace their aging apartment buildings with new, well designed and energy efficient ones.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 16, 2008 @ 11:12 am
ANT, are you saying a multi-unit building owner CAN NOT replace an old building with another one with the same number of units? Under what circumstances? Take it down completely? Partially? What if the building burned down? Do you know of any specific example?
Comment by AD — December 16, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Sec. 26-1. There shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda.
Sec. 26-2. Exception being the Alameda Housing Authority replacement of existing low cost housing units and the proposed Senior Citizens low cost housing complex, pursuant to Article XXV of the Charter of the City of Alameda.
Sec. 26-3. The maximum density for any residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land. This limitation shall not apply to the repair or replacement of existing residential units, whether single-family or multiple-unit, which are damaged or destroyed by fire or other disaster; provided that the total number of residential units on any lot may not be increased. This limitation also shall not apply to replacement units under Section 26-2.
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/gov/city_charter.html?article=26
So, I cannot replace by six-unit fifty-year-old apartment building with a new one unless it somehow burns down or is destroyed in an earthquake.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 16, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
ANT: So what is the amendment text you would propose?
Comment by AD — December 16, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Sec. 26-3. The maximum density for any residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land. This limitation shall not apply to the repair or replacement of existing residential units, whether single-family or multiple-unit provided that the total number of residential units on any lot may not be increased. This limitation also shall not apply to replacement units under Section 26-2.
In other words, the amendment would be to strike the following:
“which are damaged or destroyed by fire or other disaster; ”
There would be no change in density. Newer units would replace older ones on a one-for-one basis.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 16, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Do you have any guess as to why the fire and disaster provision was added in the first place? On the other hand, who would find it feasible to tear down a building just to replace it with the same number units? The expense would be enormous, and the benefit minimal. The only reason anyone would ever do this is if a disaster strikes…Or do you see some benefit to doing this that I don’t?
Comment by AD — December 16, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
So, under revision ANT, I can tear my 1896 junk heap victorian four-plex down and replace it with a modern four-plex. Sounds good to me. Now run it through Mark.
Comment by Queen Vicky — December 16, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
#83
Is Measure A a Victorian preservation law? Isn’t historic preservation incorporated into other city laws?
Why amend Measure A? What is this building going to look like in another 50 years?
http://tinyurl.com/6qorjp
Is it something that we want to preserve as historic?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 16, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
“Is Measure A a Victorian preservation law?”
Nah, it was passed to keep oaklanders in their place.
Comment by Queen Vicky — December 16, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
#83 Better yet, put one of Kirwin’s “earthships” there.
Comment by Victoria — December 16, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Enjoy Victorian living!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/1900house/house/index.html
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 16, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
86…earthship hell, we could put the whole solar system + kirwin there
Comment by dingdong — December 17, 2008 @ 8:36 am
I went to mail some packages at the Webster Street P.O. today. I haven’t been to Webster in a couple of weeks. Two more businesses are gone. The aquarium store…and Tillie’s! The sign in the window says something like, “Closed indefinitely for cleaning.” It looks like it closed fast as the tables are still set with utensils.
Webster is starting to look like a ghost town. Scary.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 19, 2008 @ 5:04 pm