Happy Holidays everyone!
Back to business, first up this “commentary” from the Alameda Sunprompted me to write a little bit. In general, I have a healthy amount of respect for folks like Dennis Green who have been around, done much, and seen a lot during their time in Alameda. But apparently Dennis Green has decided that rather than go out and do the research around the issues that he has decided to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard about) he would instead rely on someone else’s information to keep him in the loop.
While I won’t get into the whole name dropping thing (Bukowski! Barry! Cowan! Sherratt!) that he tends to do in every single one of his essays, I did want to address this part:
…Latest word is that the U.S. Navy, fed up with the city’s machinations, has decided to transfer as much of the property as possible to sibling federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, which might build a hospital out there…
Seriously? “Latest word?” How about, latest word is that the parcel of land that was initially overseen by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife was formally requested for transfer by the Veterans Administration last year? And then only recently the VA has produced a land plan for that area that has now brought the transfer back into the public eye. How about, the land was never intended to be part of the Alameda Point package to the developer (whoever it was) and that land was always intended as a fed-to-fed transfer?
See, when you get the little (or in this case big) details wrong, it’s really hard to take anything seriously after that.
And then:
…The essence of the Public Land Trust proposal, offered by Arthur and Gretchen Lipow, is for something similar to the Presidio Project in San Francisco: “We want an ecologically sound development that serves the public with open spaces, wetlands, schools, recreation areas, research parks that are partnered with educational institutions, and light industry that could be served by the existing deep water port. In other words, we want to build on what we already have at Alameda Point: a state of the art film studio, wine and spirits tasting rooms, warehouses and other businesses that currently produce $10 million to $12 million in annual lease income for Alameda.”…
First of all, Michele Ellson wrote about how the City of Alameda had already examined the possibility of a public land trust a la the Presidio Trust for Alameda Point and that the two parcels of land are not comparable:
…Debbie Potter, the city’s base reuse manager, said the idea of a public trust was briefly discussed by the City Council (sitting as the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority) after Alameda Point Community Partners pulled out as Point developer in 2006. But it wasn’t considered a viable option financially (the $10 to $12 million the Lipows referenced pays for limited maintenance on the base), and would have taken control over development of the base out of the city’s hands…
Additionally, Michele E. sites the staff report which talks about the structure of the Presidio Trust:
…when the Presidio was closed in 1994 pursuant to BRAC 1988, it became part of the GGNR [Golden Gate National Recreation Area]. In 1996, Congress determined that the Presidio should be financially self-supporting and passed The Presidio Trust Act. The Presidio Trust is a “wholly-owned government corporation” run by a seven-member board of directors. The Trust manages the property in accordance with the purposes of the GGNRA Act and in order to achieve self-sufficiency within 15 years…
The Board of the Presidio Trust is appointed — not by the City or citizens of San Francisco – but by the President of the United States. Any similarly structured land trust for Alameda Point would require the same mechanisms, the first major hurdle would be to convince a local Congressperson to buck the authority of the Department of Defense and rather than allow the Navy to receive either the previously negotiated amount of $108 million or sell the land at an open auction to essentially gift the land to a “wholly-owned government corporation.” Which would more than likely have a Board of Directors that similiarly resembled that of the Presidio Trust, who may or may not live in Alameda and may or may not have Alameda’s best interests at heart.
And as pointed out by Michele E. the $10 – 12 million that the Lipows keep referencing pays for the general upkeep of Alameda Point and does not, as implied, produce any additional revenues into the City’s general fund.
Dennis G. says:
…A Public Land Trust would also protect and preserve current housing consortiums, such as the Alameda Collaborative…
As would the SunCal plan, who probably have been in more discussions with Alameda Point Collaborative than the public land trust folks.
Then there is the whole redevelopment issues touched on by Dennis G. who simplifies it into such a nutshell, I wonder if he understand how the whole process of redevelopment actually works.
This was the kicker for me though from Dennis G.’s essay:
…It occurred to me about a year ago, after so many years of pondering it in my heart, that all that land could merely be left fallow as open space. Let the Wilderness Society look after it, and the ground squirrels, the egrets and the swans…
Easy for Dennis G. ,who I assume lives no where near the West End, to let Alameda Point lie fallow as open space. Forget that the majority of that “open space” has exisiting buildings on it. Or that the “open space” currently has tenants in those buildings. Or that the “open space” is paved over for cars and trucks, etc… Or that the “open space” currently houses a great number of people a lot of them largely disconnected from general services in Alameda. Yes, let’s allow those buildings to lie fallow, so that we can have more incidents of convicted sex offenders sleeping in their vehicles out in the deserted “open space” or more copper wire being stolen out of those buildings/”open space.”
Since Dennis G. brought up the notion of the state of the art film studio out on the Point that the Lipow seem to think will be the backbone behind a possible “flourishing film industry” despite the fact that even San Francisco and California in general cannot compete with other states and countries for major filming, from an old Examiner article:
…[Stefanie] Coyote said the film industry is “bottom-line driven” and that San Francisco cannot compete with other states and other locations, such as Vancouver, Canada, that have a lower cost of living and offer better cost-breaks for film productions. New Mexico, for example, offers a 25 percent refund on film crews’ salaries. She said the larger incentives offered in other states are “siphoning business off of California.”…
And finally, and perhaps the most important part, when Dennis G. says that Alameda should collectively rise up and demand that our:
…elected officials [ ] terminate further negotiations with SunCal/D.E. Shaw…
It should be remembered that the City is currently in Exclusive Negotiations with Sun Cal, which may not mean much to Dennis G. but means a whole heck of a lot to our city officials and probably our City Attorney. This Exclusive Negotiation period is not just fancy schmancy words meant to confuse everyone, but rather a legally binding contract. Which, if Alameda decided to do what Dennis G. is saying they should, to just “terminate further negotiations” that would be exposing the City to liability and lawsuits. Section 1.2 talks about the terms of the ENA period that the Alameda
…shall negotiate exclusively with Developer regarding the Project and the Project Site and shall not solicit, market to or negoitate with any other person or entity regarding the Project and the Project Site or solicit or entertain bids or proposals to do so…
And the type of remedies allowable under the ENA are outlined in Section 7.4. The big thing would be the refund of the $1 million deposit to the City given by SunCal under this ENA and if the City decided to terminate without any default on the part, who knows what the courts would determine is the appropriate remedy for the actions of the City.
There is not a consensus in the community to develop the old NAS using a 90s era development model that includes some new urbanism doodads. The discussion is very much open. If SunCal wants a development that does not conform to Measure A, the community will need to vote on that change. I would bet even money on that vote. The whole concept that SunCal is pushing seems like a long shot as the 90s model they are using may no longer be feasible or desirable in the 21st century.
Premature closure on options for the old NAS for the sake of expediency may not prove to be in the best long range interests of the community.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 29, 2008 @ 11:17 am
ANT,
Do you have a clear twenty first century model to offer? Generally speaking, the density of New Urbanism is supposed to be the most progressive model for addressing the drawbacks of late 20th century post urbanism.
I think the basic theory about N.U. preventing sprawl and enhancing transit solutions to be legitimate, if not vetted with dozens of completed developments which successfully realize the stated goals. I do not think it can be dismissed as mere academic pie in the sky, and I won’t let it be if the people who wish to dismiss it make the weak and flawed arguments parroted by Dennis Green.
(Green is too lazy to do the hard work of a true journalist and feels his resume of life experience, including once serving as president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, to be sufficient to justify his from the gut opinionating, a la George W.)
I am wary about locking in to ANY plan or model before the litany of problems at the Point are resolved to a reasonable degree, but I’m also wary of locking out the entire SunCal plan or anything else in favor of nothing.
I think in the longest view, we can’t afford to do nothing at the Point, so we should continue to try to plan for something. But I think having the process driven by an essentially superficially imposed deadline from the D.O.D., which at the same time drags it’s own feet on the clean up end of the deal, is completely unfair. I am still hoping to see the transfer renegotiated so that we may hopefully take whatever time we need to not make a mess of it. And that includes waiting for the economy not to be a mine field of uncertainty. It definitely includes eliminating a $108,000 price tag.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 29, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Mark,
Wake up and smell the salt water – Alameda is still an island – that is actually a very real consideration, really – this is an island, -this is not just an opinion, you can check the research yourself.
‘New Urbanism’ is clearly not a reasonable option for Alameda. Take a guess at what the most obvious reason for that may be. There have been completed and successfully sustainable “developments” of both tents and igloos for centuries, but that does make it appropriate for Alameda. Look at the local attempts at furthering the NU plans. Look at Oakland, look at Berkeley. Jack London Square again needs to increase everything – residential, retail, office, all to try to maintain the ponzi game of constantly feeding growth as a form of “sustainability”. We saw what that does to the economic market, the same will happen with over-developed megalopolis. Growth is not balance, growth is not sustainability. Have you seen the size of all the parking towers being built in JLS to support their current growth spurt? When Calthorpe’s partner was beginning the recent development around Telegraph and 18th – the new Fox theater neighborhood, he started with parking garages just on the other side of the Oakland Ice Arena. There is a reason for that, despite being within a 5 minute walk to BART and plenty of bus lines. Why can’t people grasp that? Maybe they do and it is just a very few that were making the noise in support of the high density Point plan, but even their voices have faded in the last year, and there seems to be barley a whimper of support left now.
Besides the fact that the SunCal plan would be much more of a detriment to Alameda than a benefit, we simply can not afford the plan’s infrastructure costs anyway. While in Mark’s “longest view, we can’t afford to do nothing at the Point”, it is clear we can’t afford the SunCal plan.
I share Mark’s hope that the $108 deal will be renegotiated (such a new deal would not surprise me), and I agree we should continue to plan for something – something better than what SunCal has offered. Perhaps their “offering” is devised as a face-saving plea for dismissal, because they can’t seriously expect the widespread support that would be needed since the plan would require voter approval.
I wonder if any of our elected officials would risk flaming out by hitching their wagon to this falling star. I really had to gasp as there plan claimed that such a high number of residential units is needed to support new retail, as if they had not thought of scaling back the size of the new retail, or that Point retail would not draw from other parts of the west Alameda including Bay Port, the Landing, (if that project ever gets built), APC and the whole region that likes to form their own shopping preferences for whatever reasons.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 29, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
I was talking to a friend today about why so many projects undertaken in this town result in mediocracy. I think it’s because the city fails to take advantage of the energy and ideas of its citizens. What Debbie Potter and the city council should do is call up the Lipows, explain what has been discussed in the past with regards to land trust, ask what ideas they have, and see if the plan could be made feasible now. Otherwise, when Suncal leaves, what’s plan B?
The Presidio is not the only model. When I first read about land trusts, I read about a model in Vermont that was very successful and was being held as the example for how to make this work, with low cost housing and open space, all under control of the local people.
And can someone explain how paying for Suncal’s infrastructure with redevelopment funds is less costly for the city that setting up a trust in whatever form? And what’s wrong with working with a Congressperson to get whatever help the city needs if we want to go that way?
Finally, Len Grzanka, who has proven to be a voice of wisdom on one major account already, talk at one point about REIT (Real estate investment trust) though I’m not sure I understand exactly how that might work. Anyone?
Comment by AD — December 29, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Foreclosure at the Mall
The Recession’s Latest Victim Might Just Be That Shopping Center Down the Road
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6544358&page=1
I believe that the best use of the old NAS is to return it to its original uses of industry and/or military. Even if the land were clean and pristine rather than polluted and subject to liquefaction, the combination of residential and retail may not work in the new economy.
I’m not against having public transit and some local shopping at the old NAS, but doubt if either would significantly reduce traffic. People may not want to shop at the local supermarket and prefer to drive across to town to Trader Joe’s. Parents may not want to send their children to the neighborhood school or prefer to drive the kids rather than have them walk or bike. The transit may not be convenient for one’s work. The old urbanism of the 20s-30s was based upon a different way of life than we live nowadays. People will exercise choice no matter how much we desire them to live in our utopia.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 30, 2008 @ 7:58 am
5. does the huge economic dislocation we are experiencing give you any pause about the “choice” to which we are entitled or which we can afford? The auto companies are going the way of the mall. I don’t know what the prospects might be for building our way back toward something like the urbanism of the 20s and 30s, but we desperately need to keep looking at those models. I was given a recently written history of Berkeley for Xmas, and even though I knew many of the details it was very enlightening to revisit the history of a town I know so well and read about how the everything from the street layout and the politics evolved day by day and year by year.
4. I have no trouble working with my congressmen, but don’t think that is a cake walk compared to the route we are on. I look to see you at Pete Stark’s next town hall meeting, missed you the last five times I’ve attended.
If the Vermont example is good, how about some details?
3. you might consider making a resolution to pipe down on constantly telling everyone you disagree with to “wake up” or “give me a break!”. I’ve put as much serious thought in to my remarks as you put into your proliferation of piffle and I’m not naive.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 30, 2008 @ 10:02 am
The example I read about was Burlington, and here’s what I found now by googling, http://burlingtonassociates.com/
There’s an Oakland example mentioned but I don’t have time right now to read through it.
Also if you type Trust for Public lands, you will pull up tons of info, most of it for preserving open spaces, but good to know anyway. BTW, there was a recent article on sfgate about the bill that was passed (SB 375?) that requires cities to built densely around transportation nodes, I was aghast at how ineffective and aggravating to communities (like Alameda) this solution is, since it doesn’t require cities with real sprawl problems (not like Alameda) to set limits, or green belts. It’s main effect would be to push those who don’t relish urban living out into more, bigger suburban developments, which is precisely the problem it supposedly wants to address. One way to set up a green belt is with a TPL (this does not apply to Alameda, I’m aware, as we have a natural “blue belt” and our constraints are mainly transportation, but to other cities like Danville)
Comment by AD — December 30, 2008 @ 11:36 am
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/MNON1491JM.DTL&tsp=1
Comment by AD — December 30, 2008 @ 11:40 am
David Kirwin – While it’s true that Oakland has built new parking structures in recent years as it pursues transit-oriented development, the parking structures did not replace the amount of car parking lost when new developments replaced surface lots (also, structured parking is better for circulation than curbside or surface parking). Jack London Square becoming a high-density job center makes it more likely that regional agencies will further explore a new transit link from 12th St BART to Alameda through Jack London Square.
Comment by dto510 — December 30, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I like Conservation Developments and believe this type of development would work well at the Point. Conservation based residential developments
protect the significant natural and cultural resources of a community by using conservation easements to protect the conservation values of the property. The easements protect the land from future development and are often managed by a Land Trust.
Cluster housing (some call it high density housing) is then planned on the remaining developable land along with retail, commercial, etc. Infrastructure costs are reduced because the infrastructure is concentrated on a smaller portion of the land.
This idea combines aspects of New Urbanism and Conservation and Preservation. Also I like some of the Lipows ideas and would like to see some of them incorporated into a Conservation Development at Alameda Point.
Comment by Karen Bey — December 30, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
#9 – Good Grief – Explain that!
A high rise parking structure downtown Oakland (1 of several new ones) greatly increases the # of parking places that previously existed. I am unsure about JLS, which has many bus lines, trains and BART, which makes it very dissimilar to Alameda. AND – just how would “regional agencies will further explore a new transit link from 12th St BART to Alameda through Jack London Square”?
Comment by David Kirwin — December 30, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
#9 – On my way home I drove thru JLS (since #880 was backed up to a standstill anyway – another reason to slow regional growth) and around JLS I noticed the new parking tower at 2nd and Alice which appears to be 7 stories tall, and all the new buildings down 2nd street seem to be built over ’soft stories’ so there are at min 1 or 2 parking levels where there were (or weren’t) surface parking lots. Also half the old JLS surface lot is still there, so there is a dramatic INCREASE in JLS area parking. As for becoming a “high density job center” – I don’t think so – I stopped and talked to some of the construction workers as they were leaving work, (until next year
), They told me that that whole building going up on the JLS site itself is a marketplace, – Retail is not a very good ‘HD job center’, and in this market – retail is not even a safe bet for success. It does however make me suspect that the newly purchased WETA Ferries will center on bringing commuters to JLS where there will be more parking for them to keep the cars off the new Bay Bridge. I agree with this idea, and commuters do support some retail, esp coffee and news in the morning, bakeries, butchers, fish and other food markets on the way home. The proximity to the Oakland produce markets is encouraging for the dinner market crowd, but I don’t expect many commuters to do too much more shopping on their way home do you? Maybe stop for the occasional flowers or dry cleaning, but not to buy clothing, furniture, appliances etc. In fact, maybe we should expect to keep the Alameda Ferry where it is, and try to alternate incoming SF ferries so that Alameda shoppers could get off at JLS and have time to shop then catch the next ferry which would stop at Alameda after JLS.
As for the possible new bus service from 12th street BART, (the only form of expanded regional transit I can think of to serve Alameda from any BART stop) – I am always in favor of improved bus service, especially to other modes of mass transit, and linking to mass rapid transit is a plus. I still see a city bus depot at the old Safeway as a viable alternative (better than an OSH) especially if it had the same kinds of markets (fresh organics, daily farmer’s markets, on-site baking, coffee brewing, as well as ‘structured child care activities’ similar to the style of offerings at Rythmix, which would be fun and educational for kids of all ages while moms and dads could shop at SouthShore with relative peace and ease. It would make bus use seem to have an added advantage, which is a worthy encouragement if made with rewards rather than the TC’s model for ‘punishing’ drivers by increasing lane constraints or lane elimination to intentionally build traffic snarls for autos.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 30, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Mr. Kirwin, you are incorrect, the vast majority of new construction as part of Jack London Square II is office space, though the first phase building also has a substantial retail component.
Downtown Oakland has lost over 3000 parking spaces in the last five years, and built only one public parking structure, of 200 spaces. Parking as part of residential development doesn’t serve the public, just the residents.
Comment by dto510 — December 30, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Paramount in any plans for Alameda Point MUST be the fact that there only exists one way on and off the island from the west end, and that is the already overburdened Webster/Posey tubes. Ask anyone who commutes off the island anytime after 7:30 in the morning and you’ll find that traffic is bad and getting worse. Add thousands more homes on Alameda Point and it doesn’t take a genius to predict that our quality of life and ability to go about our business will get harder and harder. It makes no sense to significantly increase the density of an area that has only two narrow lanes leading to and from it.
Comment by Steve Gorman — December 30, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
What no one mentions is the fact that city hall is nothing but a glorified land development firm, disguised as municipal government. The strategy of starve the beast (public safety and so forth) so that bonding for redevelopment can be engaged to increase density, whether it is called for or not, has been employed to such great use here that the town is nearly broke!
No one talks about the million and a half sq ft of empty commercial/retail, they only say we need more. So what about filling the existing business parks before building more? Why is there no discussion of this? So called sustainable density models not include a discussion of tons of empty buildings moldering in various parts of town, whose lawns suck up water during a drought. We have blight in the making, folks. Empty buildings inviting vandals and squatters, rather than paying lessees.
Well, logically, if we fill up the business parks and retail that currently exist, that certainly WOULD maximize our traffic, wouldn’t it? With the current vacancy rate, city hall thinks it can get away with reporting inaccurately that there is no huge traffic impact, even though we know there are more trucks rumbling through town to stock the mall.
I say don’t build more commercial retail until Alameda proves to be a desirable place for it (which apparently it is NOT).
Comment by E T — December 30, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Downtown Oakie –
I think we need a recount. Do you have a map of lost and gained parking? How about a link to JLS construction? I admit I am not familiar with the plan ,or what JLS2 even refers to, or if there is a significant relationship to the Oak to 9th fiasco, perhaps as a growth activist (and I assume anti-auto, from your DTO website) you can help with pointing to sources for this info, but what I physically saw were new parking garages with walkways over the Embarcadero and railroad tracks, going directly into the new market building, and that new parking garage alone has well over your stated number of new spaces. Perhaps you are including the lost surface lot where there will be a 7 story lot with a bigger footprint without adding the new spaces because it is not yet open (next to the train station), however, there was also a large parking tower that opened in the vicinity of Telegraph & 18 just a few years ago, not to mention all the relatively recent parking structures that went up with the Fed Buildings, the re-vamped City Hall, the new conference center, and several of the larger hotels, and the whole new ‘government center’. Perhaps all these new parking structures were completed prior to removing some of the surface lots so within a “window of time” there may appear to be a loss, but overall it is undeniable that Oakland has had a huge growth in parking. As I now recall when Sears went bye-bye – they had a multi-level lot behind them, as did the area around 20th-22nd, and San Pablo, but there also was a retail flight from that area, so no wonder those lots were sold for a song.
As for parking in residential developments serving the residents not the public – I absolutely agree. Residential developments are supposed to serve the residents. I thought the new JLS, like the “New Oakland” scenes were supposed to be the New Urban model, which is based on the ‘mixed use’. When was the last time anybody built a shopping center without parking availability?
That parking is a must is a no-brainer, that is why it is going in at JLS despite the cost in land and probably in excess of $100M price, even though right in that area, within a few minutes’ walk, are mass transit lines and mass rapid transit lines that far surpass all the transit opportunities in the entire city of Alameda!
Despite your current prerogatives, smart money says people’s auto use is a mandatory consideration and requirement of new development. BTW, congratulations for being able to arrange your life to not need a car, I was able to do that for almost 6 years when I came to CA. Now I and the vast, vast majority of people I know, rely on our autos. Most of us, that I know, try to use them less, but they are a needed part of our lives. Juggling multiple incomes, kid’s activities, shopping, etc, does not allow the time public transit requires. Several times in the last month I have had to respond to fire alarm emergencies out side of work hours – in Berkeley, twice after midnight, and once right in the middle of a PB meeting I was at. – Not everyone has the leisure for mass transit only transportation n.
You’ll have to excuse me for the next day as I entertain myself with the laughable concoction SunCal threw together as a “Master Plan” – If you know anything thing about environmentally sustainable design – you will be amazed at the ridiculous ‘offering’ they propose in the section “Sustainability Strategies”. If you don’t know anything about sustainable design, you should have come to the presentation I sponsored at the library Dec 12.
This Master Plan section promises no action other than not including HVAC in about half the homes, “to save energy”. The plan includes a lot of “may”s, and “should consider”s. but absent are the direct statements of intent, such as “the primary purpose of the designs will be…in order to…we will…”. It is plain that the flowery ‘green’ verbiage takes precedent to mask their view that providing the ability for residents to open windows for a bay breeze goes “beyond code requirements for environmental sustainability”.
They fail to provide any mention of the importance of combining ‘thermal mass’ within the insulated units for reducing utility dependence for heating / cooling. They fail to plan on maximizing the sun’s free energy to warm homes – they even state their plan for north-south home axis, when even every newbie knows about the importance of southern exposure. I couldn’t believe what I was reading, it was as if they didn’t know how to use eves to protect the high arc of the summer sun from over-heating interiors while allowing the winter sun (Closer to horizon) to reheat the interior and ‘bank’ the heat in thermal mass.
That orientation also has roofs orientated for PV and solar water heating but SunCal claims solar photo-voltaic (DC electric) panels are not cost effective without government subsidy. While APT’s rebate program has less to offer than PG&E’s programs, PV units are cost effective – but only in the long run. (SunCal is at least consistent with their primary purpose of short term financial gain)
Also remember that this is the plan that requires government sponsorship in the form or re-development bonds of over $700 million to be approved by our city council members.
I’ll credit them for “considering” solar hot water, and grey water reuse, but these should be systems self contained for each unit, while their plan calls for ‘examining’ the potential of bringing gray water from Oakland rather than each home reusing their own water, and they consider using a central solar water heater and then piping it around the developments to all, or some of the houses rather than having the solar heaters on the individual rooftops, which is probably not viable with their mistake of orienting homes with a N-S axis instead of E-W. A shed roof or a modified gable would also be better than the images they published which appear to be ‘design-by-whimsy’ instead of ‘design by intent.’
I really don’t have time for a full critique, and I’m not thru reading it, but they should have at least started by using a spell-checker and employing a proofreader to at least look more professional with their Master Plan Submission. This is a really badly assembled piece of work. It reveals that they really are just a bunch of guys ‘winging it’. That’s almost OK, but the really sad part is that from my research on the older past work that Peter Calthorpe has done, he really does know better, far better than this.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 30, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
SunCal gearing up to hold out its hand to the Legislature
http://newmexicoindependent.com/12497/suncal-gearing-up-to-hold-out-its-hand-to-the-legislature
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 31, 2008 @ 7:37 am
#17
This is not the 1st time this NM issue has been brought up.
At least the State Legislature of New Mexico must approve these future burdens on tax revenues for the ‘yes vote’ by every group of local yahoos to impact the State’s taxpayers. If CA had that level of protection from scandalous misuse of our State’s redevelopment laws, all of us in Alameda and throughout the state would still have many of the services we have lost, and our educational system could be better funded, and our State would not have the $100’s of Billions of redevelopment debt we are now burdened with.
CA really needs redevelopment reform before the ‘Golden State’ becomes the dirtiest, dumbest, poorest state, with the best paid public officials.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 31, 2008 @ 11:16 am
7. thanks for links on PTL and to sfgate.
I read the sfgate article through quickly and I spot some local control issues which are sort of red flag, but otherwise don’t see it bolsters your complaint.
I think you are stating an opinion about what the effect urban density has on sprawl based on your own hunch. I think in these economic times new sprawl is not likely to proliferate, but the need for affordable housing continues, even with the recent depreciation in real estate. Part of that is the extreme level of inflated depreciation which proceeded.
I did one Goggle journey on growth boundaries and snagged a pair of articles. The first by New Urbanists and the second from the Heritage Foundation, and guess what? They contradict each other. The first one runs down studies on affordability and tries to debunk those that claim growth boundaries in Portland Or. negatively impacted affordability. The one from Heritage foundation puts out a squat load of stats, but I would like to hear a critique from another knowledgeable source. Oddly the guy does credit Curitiba Brazil rapid buses as a success but only because they eschewed rail.
http://www.newurbannews.com/PortlandMar05.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/wm20.cfm
When regional Sierra Club lobbied for restrictions on open space in the surrounding region to hem in sprawl and to offset that with urban density, people in Alameda claimed they should not take the brunt of such an anti-sprawl scenario. People scream about ABAG too. I don’t have a bottom line on all this but I don’t think local concern should automatically trump the region.
The current economy would appear to be a reflection of our living on borrowed time, which may be catching up with us. Picture our lifestyles as a pyramid scheme like Madoff’s on Wall Street. It’s more than metaphor, their are direct links.
But hard times like these have an up side which is existing housing becoming more affordable and new development slowing down, which allows us time to catch up and plan more methodically.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 31, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Mark, -I don’t understand what you mean by “Inflated depreciation”, but as for local control of local needs, and desires, this will always be a balance just as state powers vs national or federal powers have always been a struggle to balance. Again, we are an island yet already we have very high density in our developed areas compared to Alameda county, the east bay, the region, or however you want to compare it. I am not saying we are the top of the density list, but despite the confines of the estuary and our “at or near capacity” island gateways, I think Alameda is more than pulling its share of the regional population load. At some point jobs should start moving to where the housing and areas for food growth exist. Today so many jobs are handled digitally and can be done remotely which should drop the office RE values as traffic and pollution are allowed to decline. Besides, if you saw today’s headlines on water shortages, you ought to be asking why our region should even consider expanding population.
Many Alamedan say we should get a new west Alameda bridge to Oakland (which won’t happen) before considering further island development. Likewise we could ask ABAG et al, to provide more water resources before considering or allowing further BA population expansion. I’ve grown tired of the circular argument that there will be so many more jobs, so we need more housing. Obviously without the expanded population there will not be expanded job creation beyond reducing current local unemployment.
I do agree with the environmental damage catching up to us, if that is what you meant near the end of you last post. Now more than ever we need clean-fuel cars as well as home and commercial building designs that do not draw utility loads. Our wasteful and destructive abuse of petroleum and coal has encumbered us with cleanup problems we are now ill equipped to pay for. I share your hope that the building and economic downturn will give us time to re-evaluate the way we do things, but I am doubtful that the forces that steer us will actually change the mindset of ‘man dominating environment’ to ‘mankind in harmony with our planet’.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 31, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
DK, thanks, that should be inflated appreciation, as in the prices increased to quickly and beyond any realistic or sustainable value.
Comment by Mark Irons — January 1, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Thank you Lauren Do for your correct assesment of the latest “lets block development ideas” – first these are always astonishing because one would think that the Base Closure was just about to happen – instead of being a 1993 BRAC closure. Second these bright “new” ideas have been around and discussed for the last 15 years. Lauren’s comments are “facts”. Looking at the “givens” which include such facts as the one that Alameda Point will be developed by someone and overseen by somebody ( I do like the ARRA as my choice); the fact that Alameda is one of the fortunate former military closures to have an experienced developer with
apparently solid financing
in a time of the worst financial melt down in history; the fact that the community has been invited to comment on the proposed development plan (try to lift your eyes beyond any typos)and the final fact is that all of the energy being used to delay,second guess, obstruct,etc. would have a more productive effect if it was directed by these fine minds to help solve traffic issues, suggest ways to build a sustainable new neighborhood with jobs and homes where our children, seniors and middle income can live. Bravo Lauren!!! please continue your fact based comments. Helen
Comment by helen Sause — January 2, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
#22
The powers-that-be have already decided how the old NAS is to be developed regardless if the rest of us Like it or not!
Isn’t it wonderful to have all of the “facts” while the rest of us suffer from delusions. Just by repeating the word “fact” over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn’t mean that you are the sole possessor of such.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 2, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory.” – Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Jack B. — January 2, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
FACT: Redevelopment costs money.
FACT: “Tax Increment Financing” removes future real tax dollars from both the City’s and State’s General Funds which is needed for educating our kids, supporting police and fire fighting, senior services, health services, etc ad nausium.
FACT: Alameda is now suffering from existing financial burdens and cutting both vital and ’socially beneficial’ community services.
FACT: Part of our city’s current financial problem is the current redevelopment bond debt.
FACT: Without Alameda’s current redevelopment bond debt our city would not currently be in ‘hard times’.
FACT: SunCal’s plan will require the City to more than triple the amount of existing redevelopment bond debt.
FACT: SunCal’s financiers (all hedgefund based) may be bankrupt before any ground would be broken even if they had a plan that would be supported by our community. Look at what has happened (or what has failed to happen) since Catullus won approval for the hundreds of new homes, and millions of sq ft of office and retail space called Alameda Landing.
FACT: New residential units, whether sold or not, cost the city money for services.
FACT: New residents will further strain the City budget because of the need to extend present services to more people.
FACT: SunCal’s plans to almost triple the number of new homes at the Point than was considered viable for our City after over 5 years of study with the previous master developer.
FACT: There will be significant traffic impacts with the new SunCal Plan.
FACT: There is no additional pathway on or off the island with SunCal’s plan, only the Transit Commission’s concept that “unmitigateable traffic congestion at bridges, tubes and major intersections and should be considered accepted as a “by-product” of development.”
FACT: SunCal’s plan destroys the serviceable structures currently housing workers, employers and current residents and does little to save others which could be reused.
FACT: The City been able to do little to market the existing structures because of the unknown future status the Point. If able to determine values with long-term leases the industrial buildings and warehouses would be of a much increased value to the city coffers, and Alameda needs the long-term jobs those types of uses should provide.
FACT: SunCal’s plan does not promise to do more than ‘consider’ environmentally focused building practices.
FACT: SunCal’s plan is unconscionably scant on the well documented, simple, affordable, and environmentally sound construction policies, and just aims to ‘examine’ less practical policies with higher degrees of complications and chances of failure, spending high public dollars, or with greater likelihood of dropping those ‘green’ aspects of their plan.
FACT: For real ‘sustainability’ Alameda needs a very different direction than what SunCal sees as most profitable for them.
FACT: I will bet heavily that the residents of Alameda will vote down SunCal’s newest plan if it gets as far as the ballot, and will also likely vote out those elected officials who continue to use their developer approval rubberstamp for this plan as submitted.
Comment by David Kirwin — January 2, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Helen,
For a more current perspective on the types of real solutions for the concerns our children’s generation faces take some time to review the ideas posited here: http://www.conservationeconomy.net/
I have not been able to wade thru it all yet, as I am still going back thru some sections of the Point Plan, and reading Michael Brune’s book “Coming Clean”. I look forward to hearing him speak next Saturday (7pm) at the main library.
Comment by David Kirwin — January 2, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
I have a couple of facts to add regarding SunCal’s plan, things which I intended to say in any event:
I have so often wondered what it would take to cause any proponent of development to acknowledge that perhaps AP is not a good site for development. At a bare minimum, we have to take elevation above sea level and the danger from natural hazards into consideration. As SunCal previously indicated in the PDC — and as everyone must know — most of this site is in a flood plain, barely FIVE FEET above sea level. BCDC has predicted a sea level rise of 1.5 feet by 2050 — that’s only TWENTY-FIVE YEARS after the expected completion date of 2025. It’s obvious that fill on a portion of the site cannot raise the elevation much higher.
The master plan adds a reference to a flood prevention “berm”, which sounds like a shallow dike. So essentially, SunCal is saying that they’ll build a dike around the site to keep the ocean out — how long is that going to last?
In addition, the USGS released a report very recently stating that sea level rise will probably accelerate, which is hardly news, and that it could reach FOUR FEET by the end of this century.
And the risk of a major quake on the Hayward Fault — that should qualify as a fact, shouldn’t it? Nobody disagrees with that. The last major quake occurred in 1864, and the next is expected in 140 years, which is now. Bear in mind also that after the 1864 quake, the Hayward Fault had a whole series of lesser quakes, in the 5.8 range, over the next ten years. Anyone who thinks that this high risk site resting on fill can somehow be shielded from damage is in willful denial.
My best guess, very honestly, is that the city will put 100’s of millions on the line, and SunCal will expend the resources to build this massive project, and thereafter the infrastructure will be severely damaged in a major quake in the near term and (if it should survive that) the site will be under water in the not-so-long term, and there’ll be nothing left to show for all that money and all those resources.
I would say to Helen Sause: How could this possibly be a responsible place to build housing? I mean it, sincerely — how could it be? If “sustainable” means “viable in the long run”, then this site is not remotely viable. Why must there always be this blind, dogmatic insistence?
Comment by DL Morrison — January 2, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
I should say, to clarify, that the site is expected to flood with a combined maximum high tide of 3.5 feet and the predicted 1.5 feet of sea rise, as of 2050. If the ocean keeps rising after 2050 as it will, then sooner or later we’re out of luck. Why build 4500 homes in a site that is clearly endangered by sea level rise from the outset?
Comment by DL Morrison — January 2, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
And here are some facts about the public health dangers caused by increased traffic:
S.F. traffic noise risks health of 1 in 6
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/08/MN4913D4MI.DTL
Researchers Find Everyday Traffic Noise Harms The Health And Well-Being Of Children
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010523072445.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 3, 2009 @ 7:08 am
ANT:
Did you see the older article on the side?
Airport Noise Can Seriously Affect The Health And Psychological Well-Being Of Children
Guess we’re all screwed.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 3, 2009 @ 9:21 am
#30
And then there are those cell phones…
The deep pockets of the investor are getting a bit more shallow.
“Managers who have suspended or restricted redemptions include Ken Griffin’s Citadel Investment Group LLC. The firm’s two main funds manage about $10 billion in assets and got $1.2 billion in redemption requests. D.E. Shaw & Co. LP, the investment firm run by David Shaw, limited withdrawals after it received redemption requests of more than 8 percent of assets.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaiL4CVMbE7s&refer=home
Parent Co. Goes Bankrupt on Low Sales, to Sell Assets (Update3)
“Parent Co. is owned by D.E. Shaw & Co., which holds about 63 percent of the company’s common stock, according to court papers and Bloomberg data. A spokeswoman for D.E. Shaw declined to comment on the filing.
The company is seeking permission to borrow $10.9 million from an affiliate of D.E. Shaw to help fund operations while it finds a buyer. It wants to borrow $3.5 million on an interim basis.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atRM9AjerilI&refer=us
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 3, 2009 @ 9:30 am
On the subject of noise, all I can say is that I get grumpy on Tuesdays, when the garbage trucks come crashing down at 6 am, when I really meant to wake up at 7. And that not having early morning BART screeching and charter planes flyovers on weekends causes me to sleep longer too. Longer sleeping hours is one way to reduce one’s carbon footprint…
***
I often wonder who lives in all that housing that is part of the Fruitvale Village. Must be deaf people. I believe they also have a day care, almost at track level. Maybe for children who want to grow up deaf?
Comment by AD — January 3, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Regarding the below:
…Debbie Potter, the city’s base reuse manager, said the idea of a public trust was briefly discussed by the City Council (sitting as the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority) after Alameda Point Community Partners pulled out as Point developer in 2006. But it wasn’t considered a viable option financially (the $10 to $12 million the Lipows referenced pays for limited maintenance on the base), and would have taken control over development of the base out of the city’s hands…”
The only discussion I could find occurred at the Alameda Reuse meeting held on October 4, 2006. According to the minutes, under 3-B. Alameda Point Project Update:
“Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation to ask if that’s feasible.”
http://alameda.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=a6e3492cf418ba34d039f862af8a39c8.pdf
P.S. DLM: Your excellent post made me think of the Talking Heads album, “Stop Making Sense”. There’s even a relevant song.
Swamp
“Now lemme tell you a story
The devil he has a plan
A bag a bones in his pocket
Got anything you want
No dust and no rocks
The whole thing is over
All these beauties in solid motion
All those beauties, gonna swallow you up…”
Comment by Susan — January 3, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
# 26 “For a more current perspective on the types of real solutions for the concerns our children’s generation faces take some time to review the ideas posited here: http://www.conservationeconomy.net/” For one, I will agree wholeheartedly with Dave “tin hat” Kirwin. Of particular interest is the section of the website on Natural Capital, which cites, and draws most of the ideas, from Peter Calthorpe. Wouldn’t it be great to design a development using his ideas? Oh wait, we have!!! (I can here Kirwin cheering from here).
Comment by notadave — January 4, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Call me a cynic, but I think Calthorpe is being used by Suncal as a bait, to get the environmentally conscious population to buy into the plan. As pointed out in the sfgate article (#8 above), the so-called “global warming” bill puts cities under enormous pressure to lift local restrictions, or lose transportation funds plus other penalties. (Personally, I think the bill is terribly flawed because it does not stop the main problem which is sprawl but that’s another story.) Measure A is one such restriction that some people believe needs to be lifted at any cost, with any means possible. If it means fooling people into believing that Suncal’s plan is sustainable, both economically and environmentally–when as pointed out by Dave Kirwin, ET and others it’s not–then so be it. Once the density restriction is gone or weakened (opened to legal challenge because of exceptions given), then it’s fair play for everyone, whether they are Peter Calthorpe or not. There’s no guarantee we’ll ever get anything remotely sustainable or have the means to enforce it, unless the land is under local control, through a land trust or something similar.
I first got the impression that Calthorpe is not invested in this personally when I heard him give a presentaion to the council. He did not look particularly convinced or enthusiastic about the PRT, and was simply reciting the points of Suncal’s plan as if by obligation. Since I am pretty sure Suncal will not be viable long enough to complete the plan, the presence of Peter Calthorpe on their team simply baffles me. Will he leave when they leave? Will he stick around to make sure an environmentally and transportationally sound project is built? I wish he would come out personally and answer, in no vague terms, all the questions raised by David Kirwin–about solar energy, grey water use, local employment, long term guaranteed funded transportation, etc. Until then, I remain unconvinced, and very worried about what we are about to do to ourselves if we simply give up restrictions.
Comment by AD — January 4, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Susan: Thanks. I’m trying to think of another meaningful Talkings Heads lyric, but all that comes to mind is: “Take me to the river, drop me in the water”.
I’ve had a question in mind for some time: What is the ultimate determining factor here? I don’t honestly think that the facts matter all that much, and I don’t mean that in a peevish way either.
Well, maybe I should say that in the short run they don’t matter that much. The Councilmembers aren’t likely to have a sudden change of heart, and some new, unheard of consideration isn’t likely to come to light (unless SunCal’s finances worsen). I would not expect the Council to vote in favor of SunCal solely because of the $1M deposit tho; there’s a financial risk in proceeding as well(!).
In the long run, the facts might make a difference once the project is up for a vote on Measure A. Even then, it’s a question of which facts and images are meaningful to an otherwise occupied public.
The vote on Measure A might be the real turning point, that plus the economy and what it does to SunCal. I’m surprised that they’d proceed w/ this vote given the level of uncertainty that it creates for them.
So what does matter ultimately? Politics, ideology, ad campaigns, the economy? I hope the facts are in there somewhere.
Comment by DL Morrison — January 4, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
I’ve wondered about Peter Calthorpe’s role as well, but then again, I’ve wondered why he would fail to take elevation or natural/seismic hazards into consideration. He lives here, he should have some clue, shouldn’t he? At best, I’ll assume that he’s an ideologue and that he believes in what he’s doing, regardless of the damage that unwise development could do in Alameda and elsewhere. A visionary such as himself cannot afford to leave the future at the mercy of the ignorant NIMBY masses. So SunCal may well be a means to end for him as well as vice versa.
I started reading about SB 375 shortly after it passed, but I knew I couldn’t possible interpret it myself, and I’m still not sure what the real impacts will be, and I get the impression that nobody’s all that sure. Darrel Steinberg who’s now the Senate President Pro Temp is the sponsor of SB 375, and I bet he’ll be coming back w/ more legislation. Good luck to Alameda.
Comment by DL Morrison — January 4, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
#35
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 4, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Pro temp = pro tem.
Comment by DL Morrison — January 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
At one point, someone thought that this was also a good idea.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2727086246_a8844a0f26_o.jpg
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 5, 2009 @ 5:40 am
Early recycling efforts at Alameda Point.
http://www.videosurf.com/video/campaign-in-burma-1944-04-24-1944-1552139?t=208
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 9, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
#35 / #37 Maybe Calthorpe has determined or convinced himself that there is no way this is ever going to be built so there is no “real harm” for him to keep collecting a check for designing an inappropriate project in a toxic floodplain. On the other hand there is a very long track record of developers actually harming people by building in unhealthy locations, and putting them in harms way of known or expected acts of nature.
#40 Nice picture of SF
- I wonder (and don’t doubt) that Helen Souse helped to get approval for the developers on that City ‘enhancement project’ project. Since she worked such a long career w/ SF redevelopment Dept., I guess helping developers is just her default reflex.
All the info being posted today on the “Three Minutes” thread is very sobering – What the hell is CC and the Development dept thinking? How can they buy their way through the EIR process?
Maybe there are 2 answers to that:
1. SunCal will do as little paid work on the EIR as they can before the November ballot, because if they fail at the ballot the plan is dead, or
If their polls show their slick campaign and pressure on public service groups, (like PSBA, WABA, CASA, APC, Boys and Girls Clubs, and so many others that rely on city funds and assistance) could make the vote close, they will have to crank up the EIR speed to reach a final DDA agreement by July 2010, the end of ENA term. (EIR will have to be completed and approved by close of DDA negotiation, or I guess the negotiation could stipulate that the EIR be approved for the DDA contract to go into effect).
2. The EIR is just a report. Am I correct that it is a document of advisement, not itself a document of enforcement – a ‘bad’ EIR will not itself stop development. I think the only “sure” way to stop any such plan is the ballot
Although the city has said that that deadline will not be extended again, I am not certain things will work that way. There could be lawsuits challenging the EIR, and we all learned a little more about how to better participate in the EIR process with the recent TE plan. Such a delay could also help SunCal too, if they just want to tie up the land for an extended time. Also the city seems extremely wimpy at negotiating which is another reason we are in financial trouble.
Comment by David Kirwin — January 9, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
An EIR is just a report.
Am I correct that an EIR is a document or ‘report’ of advisement, not itself having any level of enforcement? – Can a ‘bad’ EIR itself stop development?
I think the only “sure” way to stop any bad plan is the ballot, and we only have that opportunity when the plan requires a ballot, as the non-MA compliant SunCal plan does.
If the plan was MA complaint we-the-people would not have a say in the matter.
Perhaps we should have another initiative to further strengthen the voice of the people on any major Alameda development, or anytime a project is considered using vast amounts local public funds. Anybody care to define “vast”? How about “blight”?
Comment by David Kirwin — January 10, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Very interesting conversation with Phil Tagami on Forum this morning. Talked (among other things) about the Oakland Army base as an industrial center, film facilities, and the apparently huge need for deep water access in Northern California. Surely he would be laughed out of this blog were he to make such ridiculous assertion here!
The more I sit and watch, the more frustrated I am by the impotency of our hapless council to notice or conceive of anything that will profit US here. They’ve resigned to being the flea at the end of the dog’s tail. How humiliating.
Comment by AD — January 12, 2009 @ 10:23 am
44. I think any assertion that the Point is a practical deep water port is not well reasoned. It’s not possible at the estuary side because of the Army Corps shipping channel, also not that feasible at the lagoon, which would preclude expansion of marina and recreational uses and ferry access wouldn’t it? Any goods unloaded would have the same ingress and egress restrictions you are concerned about.
Oakland Army Base is isolated in a very industrial site and one which is not contiguous to current residential and other mixed uses as is the Point. The island aspect, as is often Pointed out, regulates the scale.
In 1993 or whenever, at the first town meetings about NAS at Encinal High gym and later the O’Club, the brainstorm brought out all the ideas which exist today in some manner.
There were many people concerned about the terns. Extending and blending the grid was called for. People talked about housing, and at those early days they were not affordable housing advocates so much, just folks throwing out a preference, perhaps without any well rounded consideration to impacts. A golf course and a hotel were mentioned by the second meeting, as well as continued industrial uses. When I shared displeasure at the golf course idea I was rhetorically asked what use I would reserve for the base, “a cemetery?!”
Most of us in attendance knew damn little about the real issues of city planning and city wide, the majority of citizens probably still understand many of the details if they even have a grasp the larger concerns. But there will never be shortage of opinion, informed or otherwise.
Coming from having lived in a commercial building in a live/work space in the 1980s that was the most appealing option in my mind, as well as light industry like film which moved in almost immediately. I thought interim leases should be used to evolve the reuses. Perhaps if more of us were as up to speed as today and had the 20/20 hindsight we now have, we might have discussed broader options, but I also fully understand why a city without previous experience would not be inclined toward great experimentation and would proceed along status quo.
Some folks have opined that we should cease and desist with this SunCal foolishness asap. But SunCal has put up the money for this process ( except some of Alameda’s staff time?). This back and forth with ARRA is part of a legal contract from which the City cannot just walk away. However, the continued dialogue serves an opportunity for lay people as well as both citizens and principals with specific expertise, to debate and educate ourselves.
Whether you find it flawed or not, I think the SunCal plan has been the first time we have had all the major issues sytemmatically addressed in a relatively through manner. I consider that manner pretty forthright too, especially within the context of negotiating with a private for profit developer. As example, knowing the general parameters of low lying flood planes, toxics and seismic issues, I can only raise my concerns with any real confidence because of the information provided in the RCP.
Comment by Mark Irons — January 12, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
45 omission paragraph 5. Should read “the majority of citizens probably still (DO NOT) understand many of the details…”
Comment by Mark Irons — January 12, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
“What’s possible” is just another way of saying “what I’m capable of.” If Tagami, a commercial developer, took interest in Alameda Point, we’ll see all kind if things become possible that now “aren’t.” However, he’s an Oakland boy, so Oakland is going to grab opportunities Alameda can’t see. We simply don’t have people of similar qualities here; or if we do and they try to suggest we get out of the box for a change, we go after them with a vengeance. That’s the provincialist attitude no amount of new urbanist planning will erase. That, exactly.
Comment by AD — January 12, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
AD: You do know that Phil Tagami is overseeing the historic reuse portion of Alameda Point.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Oh, and here is what Tagami’s team is proposing for the Oakland Army Base (just scroll past all the resumes):
1. Office towers
2. Auto Mall
3. R&D (Commercial) or Warehouses
4. Logistics/Business Center (Commercial)
In one of the design alternatives they talk about a “regional retail center.”
And this all gets connected with…PRT (p. 116 on the reader).
Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
48. yes I do. And if he does, I trust he’ll do a good job–he has the record.
49. And your point is?
Comment by AD — January 12, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
My point is: Phil Tagami, a commercial developer, is taking interest in Alameda Point and is a part of the development team to transform portions of Alameda Point.
Second point is some of the “out of the box” thinking that Mr. Tagami would implement at the Oakland Army Base would be shot down in a heart beat in Alameda (see officer towers, auto mall, and “regional retail center”) or have been dismissed as “Jetson-like” (see PRT).
Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
“Jetson-like” is a very gentle description for PRT. Unalloyed stupidity” is another soft one; after that they get considerably tougher.
Comment by Member of the UMC — January 12, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
AD,
I think you are impossible to satisfy sometimes. So what if Phil is an Oakland boy looking out for Oakland? He was not in a position to bid to be our master developer. What he is doing at Alameda Point is at the invitation of SunCal.
If you are saying Phil is maneuvering to get all the gravy on his side of the estuary and using his role with SunCal to pull that off, I don’t see it. He is in Alameda to deal with preservation.
I heard him this a.m. on the radio too. I was doing desk work and I don’t multi-task that well, so what I caught was piecemeal. I tipped somebody else to his being on air and their email back to me said “pretty slippery” though I don’t know what caused them to make that comment. I heard stuff about the BART shooting and safety in Oakland.
As somebody who also dropped out of high school, I could have done better by comparison and maybe Tagami’s self made man styling has me a little starry eyed, but being impressed by somebody’s obvious talent and success doesn’t make me a rube or a push over. The guy is a great talker. The smartest guys in the room over at SOCA should be so lucky to have that kind of skill.
Comment by Mark Irons — January 12, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
For those interested in the Forum interview with Phil Tagami.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
#52. But of course they would be shot down in the heart if they are clearly inappropriate, such as a retail center in a place without good access, or if they are presented without a good explanation of how potential problems will be solved, such as how the PRT would cross the estuary or who would pay for it. You can’t take something and apply it blindly everywhere; this would be stupid. I think this is what we do more often than not and that’s the reason we end up with crap. I don’t think Tagami is stupid. I think he has good judgment, and he knows how to improve on what exists and where to add. He has a sense of the big picture. He finds the weak spots and strengthens them, and on top of this has good taste. I don’t believe for a minute that he would propose something that clashes with or obliterates something of existing value or character. Unfortunately, he is involved in just a small portion of Suncal’s plan, and I believe the plan as a whole is misconceived.
All this said, what is the proposed route of Tagami’s PRT?
Comment by AD — January 12, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I thought Lauren’s point (#49) is that she agrees the things that would help
Alameda are things that Tagami is doing in Oakland therefore he’s capable of doing in Alameda. Unfortunately Alameda has different constraints than Oakland due to location and degree of ‘brown fields’ – (heavily polluted land), young bay mud, flood zones, Tidelands Trusts, etc.
Lauren is correct that residents do not want to build vertical – a point made abundantly clear as a main issue in the Alameda General Plan. Sun Cal ignores this and in fact wants the City to rewrite the General Plan, including the Transit Element.
Alameda Point would never again be chosen for an auto mall because it is “at the end of the rail”, (Alamedans would want high-ticket sales tax revenue) and Alameda Point offers no real sight lines as advertising from a freeway which is the reason auto dealerships just fled Alameda. On the other hand Alameda Point as currently set up would be ideal for a site people could come to to have their cars retrofitted to electric. (I’ve not yet followed up on http://www.Electricity4Gas.com
The Point can however be a choice location for new hospital, as the VA is aiming for with the Fed to Fed transfer. (State Law requires Earthquake retrofit of current Alameda Hospital facility by 2013 or it must close, that’s how I understand the law- if so, when will this become an issue understood by residents?)
Also while the Point seems like a good location for office and business space, the island is swimming in available office and retail space. Retail is a poor choice for the end of the trail location as well – that is why SunCal is attempting to overload the island’s vehicle access and egress to plant more people at the Point to support the retail they want to build there. Unfortunately the island cannot support our existing retail building more is foolish, and doing it with taxpayer $ is immoral.
It seems in all aspects, Alameda has outgrown its bridges.
The best ideas for improving sustainability are industrial and innovative uses that reuse our existing structures and create jobs that can support Alameda house holds (impossible w/ the kind of retail jobs being discussed, or the 240 ‘jobs’ created by the new theater project (according to City stats). There are many needs the city has to aim toward if sustainability is a goal, more housing and retail don’t help.
Of course none of this addresses the real issues related to the rise in ocean water.
Comment by David Kirwin — January 12, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
I’m surprised that there’s been so little commentary on Robert Gammon’s recent EBX article on AP&T. I think it’s extremely relevant to any discussion over the city’s management ability, especially with enormous sums at risk (such as $184,000,000).
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/the_other_shoe_in_alameda/Content?oid=890101
The article says in essence that the city mismanaged the cable system (in particular that a cable system needs a monopoly to succeed which Alameda by law could not create), and that the lawsuits by Vectren and Nuveen are justified. If that’s true, then the city is out at least another $20 million and probably more, so that’s at least $70 million down the tube and counting. This should pretty much horrify anybody’s who paying attention.
While I don’t feel that SOCA’s false claim re bankruptcy is at all ethical, I do agree that the $184M quoted so far for redevelopment bonds may well be “revised” if SunCal wins the vote on Measure A. If so, what recourse will be public have, once a binding agreement is in place?
I’m also struck again at how limited the city’s resources are, to be dealing w/ all these complex projects at once. Here’s one staff person, Debbie Potter, who’s the official authority on Alameda Point. If she’s wrong, then I guess the rest of us are out of luck.
Comment by DL Morrison — January 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Sorry if comment above is not really on topic, but this thread is active. Here’s a quote from the EBX article:
“The legal cases, however, make it clear that this initial misjudgment wasn’t the only mistake city officials made. In 2002, they should have found a bidder for their partially built system and not bought it from Vectren. Even if they had failed, the city would still have been better off abandoning the project. At that point, it hadn’t yet lost $50 million. At the very least, city officials should have sold the completed system in 2004, cut their losses, and not taken on more debt. Instead, they chose to believe the rosy predictions — just like Nuveen did — when they already knew by then that they had built a boondoggle.”
Comment by DL Morrison — January 12, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
One additional note re seismic risk at AP: SunCal claims (under Geotechnical Plan, at p. 165 of the reader) that it’s basing “remedial measures” on a “design earthquake” that would cause shaking “about two times the level of shaking experienced…during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake” with a “10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years”.
The Loma Prieta quake was 50 miles away, whereas the Hayward Fault could produce a quake (of comparable 6.7 magnitude) that might be only 5 miles away. In addition, the USGS predicts a 27% likelihood of a major quake on the Hayward Fault within the next 30 years.
This doesn’t really add up. I think it calls the assessment of risk into question.
Comment by DL Morrison — January 12, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
DL,that is exactly the type of specific criticism/suggestions that are needed. All of the hoohah around bankruptcy, etc. has actually deflected attention away from review of the proposed plan.
I would hazard a guess that less than 10% of the people on this blog calling the plan flawed have actually read the whole thing with any attention to detail.
Comment by notadave — January 13, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Re: #23
“The powers-that-be have already decided how the old NAS is to be developed regardless if the rest of us Like it or not!” ANT, you assume too much. A well-organized opposition does not the “rest of us” make. The results of a vote on Measure A for the Point will decide the issue of who “us” are.
And as for Ani D’s suggestion that council members or staff beg an audience of the Lipows to discuss a public land trust, that’s nuts. First of all, we’re all aware of the idea. Second, one would need to take anything they say with a large grain of salt. Fortunately, I have low blood pressure, but I have no patience with their style of “communication.”
Comment by Linda Hudson — January 13, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Both the Park and Webster street shopping areas are in fairly high density areas. (Does anyone have specific data on this?) Both have apartment buildings nearby and have multiple local and transbay bus lines. Do you consider these areas successful? How many empty storefronts do you see? Webster is mainly liquor stores, gas stations and fast food. There isn’t even a grocery. Park is in somewhat better shape, but still is struggling. Why would the proposed new urbanism concept, which is modeled on the old urbanism present near Park and Webster, be more successful? Some would say that times are tough right now and neighborhood shopping areas will bounce back when times get better. Personally, I’m not so sure. It is possible that neighborhood retail is a dinosaur in the age of the Internet.
Why would the new urbanism of Alameda Point be more successful than the old urbanism of Webster Street which is only a mile away and already served by long established bus lines?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 13, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
#60: Thanks NAD. I’m sticking w/ the “less subjective” subjects. You’re right about the “hoohah” too. It’s taken the focus off SunCal (and for that matter off the City Council as well) and directed it at SOCA, which is counterproductive at best.
#62: Everytime I hear all the promises about AP’s future residents walking to the store, I think “Jeez, I hope so, because the parking’s bad enough at Town Center already”. We need to keep these people away from our malls, so the rest of us can shop in peace.
Comment by DL Morrison — January 13, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
How many of us shop at the closest grocery? How many currently walk to that grocery? I don’t. Again, some are trying to re-create the neighborhoods of pre-WWII when the war has been over for 64 years. (We won.) I am nostalgic for that world as well. We shopped at the local butcher and grocer. I bought comic books at the corner store along with a penny-whistle. Everyone, except the parochial school kids, went to the same neighborhood school. We owned one car and didn’t have a garage. I rode my bike around the neighborhood unsupervised and played with kids unscreened by my parents. Still, I recognize that the world has changed and one cannot re-create what is gone except in motion pictures and novels. The old world was based on limited choices and limited incomes. If people prefer the grocery across town, they’ll get in the car and shop there. We cannot put ankle bracelets on new residents and insist that they only shop in the supermarket provided to them.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 13, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
ANT, sounds like the last time you walked webster street was when the Navy was here. There are at least two neighborhood groceries (Bonfare, and a middle eastern market at the corner of Webster and Lincoln). Aquacotta, Otaez, New Zealand Pub, Katsu, East Ocean, etc. etc. don’t exactly fit your perception of “liquor stores, gas stations and fast food”. You should get out more often.
Comment by notadave — January 14, 2009 @ 8:04 am
The Walgreens/Starbucks area is pretty busy, and anchors the north end of Webster. The quality of the restaurants all along the street has come up quite a bit, with those mentioned in #65. The Webster St. pharmacy is a well established business; Hawthone Suites is establishing itself. CURVES has moved to the corner of Webster and Pacific. As a resident of the middle, near the west end, I think both Webster and Park commercial streets are coming along. With the departure of the auto dealerships, restaurants are now our #1 tax generator, and the old auto dealership spaces give us an opportunity for some creative re-use. Look at the Marketplace for a good example of a quality location achieved through re-use.
Despite all the dire predictions for the theater – Traffic! Out of Towners Will Commit Crimes! No one goes to the Movies anymore! last Saturday night, I had to park on the sixth floor of the new garage; the traffic flow entering and exiting the parking structure did so with no backup on Oak or Central or Santa Clara, and Park Street was full of people going to our restaurants and open shops to lay down their tax dollars. The character of the town hadn’t changed; it just looked more alive.
I don’t think there has been any increase in crime (one of the direst predictions)but would like to hear a report from the APD about crime statistics in the theater area since there are so many more people there, and some of them are not “from Alameda!”
Comment by Kate Quick — January 14, 2009 @ 10:16 am
#65
I’ll let people visit those “groceries” and decide for themselves if they are a viable shopping option for them. BTW, Bonfare is no longer Bonfare. The sign is down and the shelves fairly bare except for liquor. The middle eastern place is now owned by Bosnians. They focus on foods favored by the Bosnia community. (Surprisingly, there is quite a large Bosnia community in the area.)
I could start reading off a list of shops that closed in the past six months, but just visit the area for yourself and count the for sale/lease/rent/closed signs.
The best thing to happen to Alameda is that we did not buy the land from the Feds. There is a new administration in Washington and a major stimulus plan coming. Keep that land in federal hands and let the feds invest in the property and take the risks while we get the good government jobs and contracts.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50E8QS20090115?sp=true
We have the opportunity of a lifetime. Let the Feds keep the land and send those stimulus dollars our way.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 15, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
#67.
I have heard speculation that because Gates is being left at D.O.D., their policy won’t change on things like the price for the Point. But I think measured against the over all cost of the stimulus plan that it would be easy for the feds to include giving communities like ours a price break as part of such a plan. I read somewhere that the SOCA folks have lobbied our elected reps to help facilitate a land trust transfer. Having made those contact, perhaps they could start by lobbying for a no cost transfer as an option.
Comment by Mark Irons — January 15, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
#68
You would have to pay me to take that pit of toxic jello.
I’ve been mindlessly repeating the phrase, “New Urbanism” because others are using it. Isn’t really a more accurate description, “New Suburbanism?”
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 15, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
We can parse semantics about urbanisms and argue whether Bonfare is really a just a liquor store or we can take a step back and get real about whether the problems and solutions are bigger than Alameda.
There are 6+ billion people on the planet and 1 billion vehicles, and counting. This YouTube clip is long, but it is interesting. Skip the couple of minutes of intro and go to the speaker Dan Sperling. Give him 15 minutes and see if you want to listen to the other 40 minutes.
Anybody who can’t get to minute 15 shouldn’t even pretend to be interested in comprehensive solutions which go beyond their back yard fence, or their back door if they lack a yard. They should proceed directly to their arm chair and continue contemplating their navel
Comment by Mark Irons — January 15, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
The sea level, seismic and clean up issues may be serious reasons not to proceed with the SunCal plan. They make the financial risk of bonds moot if they deter lending at all, but the distortions by SOCA and confusion over bonds are so great I hesitate to speculate further about what is realistic.
But the transportation and land discussions are important. If the Point is not redeveloped we still need to discuss these issues for the rest of the island and the region.
If 52 minutes is too much skip directly to minute 36 where transportation methods and land uses are discussed. It’s extremely relevant information for the speculative conversations we have here.
Comment by Mark Irons — January 16, 2009 @ 8:01 am