First things first, WordPress just made threaded comments available, so if you haven’t noticed already, you will see a little hyperlinked “reply” under each individual comment, you can hit that reply to respond directly to someone’s comment. If you want to make a standalone comment you can scroll to the bottom and comment as usual. But now there shouldn’t been a need to number which comment you are responding to. The threads only go 10 deep so after all you’ll have to start a new standalone one. Hope folks find this useful.
On Tuesday, the Council reviewed and took comments on a staff report detailing the different options for the Mif Albright course, which was closed in order to save money (and water.) Brief background, Mif Albright is the only course at Chuck Corica that uses potable water as opposed to recycled making the cost to run it pretty high.
There are conflicting stories about how the city has “cooked the books” in some grand conspiracy theory to make it seem as though the facility is not as profitable as it truly is, but that’s tin foil hat territory and I’m not getting into it. However, we do have an independent operator running the joint so whatever we do with the site we really should wait until they give us an honest assessment how much it would truly cost to run the thing (with a detailed breakdown of the costs). Michele Ellson at the Island has stories about it here, here, and here. And here are the options for the site:
- Leave it alone and keep it as the Par 3 course, construction cost: ? (there is some cost here, but I can’t find it right now), annual maintenance: unknown.
- Construct athletic fields (turf) for soccer and football (and it appears softball too according to the proposed drawing), construction cost: $1.5 – 2 million, annual maintenance: $140K
- Construct athletic fields (all weather turf ), construction cost: $3 – 4 million, annual maintenance: $70K
- Construct dog park, construction cost: $250K, annual maintenance: $50K
- Construct BMX Bike Park, construction cost: $400 – 600K, annual maintenance: $40K
- Construct passive park (trails, picnic and play areas), construction cost: $750K, annual maintenance: $75K
- Open space, construction cost: “minimal”, annual maintenance: $30K
- Land swap with Ron Cowan, this land for Mif Albright.
While I know that some of the business owners and residents around the last Cowan parcel are supportive of the land swap idea and in theory, it might be a good idea, the residents and business owners win by getting some sort of open space rather than houses. Cowan gets his houses. Win – win. In theory, it might appear to be win – win, but on the other hand, should Cowan get the benefit of such a sweet land swap because the last parcel of developable land is literally, undevelopable? To that I say, no. If Cowan can’t figure out something to do with it, let that space lie. So clearly I wouldn’t be in favor of option 8.
But what should we, as a City, consider doing with Mif Albright in the future? The options are on the table, at this point if the space is developed for some other use it would appear that it’s going to cost the City just as much money as keep Mif Albright just the way it is. But is that the “best and highest” use of the land? Arguably the land would be better suited if it met the needs for more people rather than just a very limited segment of Alameda. Personally I’m leaning toward the pure “open space” option because of the minimal annual maintenance cost.
What do you all think?
I don’t agree that Cowan’s current land is “undevelopable.” Cowan’s Co. is entitled to develop light industrial/commercial there now, it’s got solid access to the airport and the freeways. Just because the market can’t bear it right now doesn’t mean we should immediately flip it to housing in such a terrible location as the golf course.
It strikes me that anyone buying into the concept that the HB-VI parcel is undevelopable is tacitly acknowledging that proposals that are primarily industrial and/or commercial at Alameda Point are even more “undevelopable.”
Comment by John Knox White — February 20, 2009 @ 7:24 am
It’s undevelopable for what he wants it to be: housing.
The current zoning is what it is appropriate for, not what he want to switch it to.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 20, 2009 @ 7:36 am
My ideal “alternative” use would be to have a place like Harbor Bay Club except with a name that sounds more inclusive of all citizens. Hmmm, maybe it even serves as a banquet/party center (a la Grand View Pavillion only larger). If HBC and GVP uses were consolidated at this site, those lands could be redeveloped to match surrounding uses. But this assumes that there is no need for a nine-hole course on this site.
Comment by JA Boyer — February 20, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Whatever happens Corica golf course still needs a short game practice area. I hope it can be incorporated into any of the above plans.
Comment by John Pizaili — February 20, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Swap the land with Cowan.
In exchange, have him contribute 50% of the capital costs of building athletic facilities on the shoreline parcel (with all-weather field turf for year round use)
Put his name on the athletic facility.
Serve immediately with robust cabernet or rioja.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — February 20, 2009 @ 10:03 am
I agree with everything you have said, Lauren. And the comments have interesting ideas. I agree that Cowan could find another use for the property he currently has, but the Mif Albright is already suitably developed for public use, and I think it should continue being a public use area. I cast my vote in your survey above as Open Space!
Comment by E T — February 20, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Isn’t there a short game practice green between 13 and 17 on the north course? Or did they shut it down?
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — February 20, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Instead of a poll, we should take a bet. I bet Cowan will get what he wants. I want to lose.
Comment by AD — February 20, 2009 @ 10:39 am
We need to get rid of the golf course and turn it in to a homeless tent park … God forbid we keep anything around here that caters to working taxpayers!!!
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — February 20, 2009 @ 11:42 am
I agree with #2. I would love to see a Harbor Bay Club expansion which would include meeting rooms, etc. like the Grand Pavillion and perhaps even a spa. The remaining land can be open space (which would be managed by the Club) and would compliment the new facility.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 20, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Its gone and so is the one that they had on the 9 hole.
Comment by John Pizaili — February 20, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Isn’t this strange I find myself in agreement with D.K., AD, and I think J.R.T.
We need to keep the golf course, just like we need to keep any other sports facility for our tax payers.
Go develop Harbor Bay Club some where “where the sun don’t shine.
Comment by John Pizaili — February 20, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Me too. This land swap idea smells really bad.
Comment by BC — February 20, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Lauren, as another wordpress poll user, just letting you know about these godaddy polls—you can vote multiple times. I confirmed that by voting twice for open space and twice “meh” on the threaded comments. (keeping honest)
Comment by AD — February 21, 2009 @ 10:33 am
[...] I received a phone call from someone regarding a comment I had made about the Harbor Bay VI project and the idea of swapping land at the golf course to build housing [...]
Pingback by Stop, Drop and Roll | Alameda Development Issues | Alameda | mindfulness in the face of a challenge — March 8, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I am glad to hear it’s reopening as a 9-hole. 9 hole courses are how people get started, allow seniors to walk the course, and offer a quick round for the time-stressed.
Comment by soij — May 14, 2009 @ 11:18 am
The Mif course is open – go play it !
A non-profit can pay the City $1 a year to lease it and continue to run it as a Par 3 golf course. This option costs the city nothing. There are many examples of this model working across the U.S. About 20,000 rounds are played each year on the Mif.
No additional employees were added for the Mif when the course was re-opened in May 2009.
The course generates $123,000 per year in green fees. Operating costs are $33,000 for water and about $90,000 in turf management and supplies. It breaks even.
However, the city allocates $54,000 of overhead costs to create the “loss.” 10% of the Golf General Mgr, 20% of the GM’s Executive Asst and 20% of the Golf Superintendent. The course is 1000 yards long and about half the width of a 6,000 yard regulation course. The allocated costs cannot be defended based on turf area managed, revenue share or percentage of rounds. The city has provided no evidence to support these costs despite repeated requests.
The city wants to close the Mif to “save” $50,000. If that’s true, they should take the non-profit’s offer of $1/year and be $50,000 ahead !
Comment by Joe VanWinkle — February 18, 2010 @ 6:55 pm