Over the weekend there was a lot of back and forth about what the ballot initiative is and what it is not. Additionally there will always be someone out there that is going to be unhappy about the ballot initiative. Some will have wanted just the Measure A exemption to be on the ballot to allow for flexibility. If SunCal had opted for that there would have been criticism that they should have let the voters vote on the entire plan. And then some people are just miffed that we are going to do anything at all.
You can’t please all of the people, but hopefully, SunCal can manage to please a majority of voters in Alameda.
So here it is, some of the missing pieces of the ballot initiative, including — what I believe — to be the most important components in addition to the ballot initiative language itself, the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. The Specific Plan should be familiar to those who have actually sat down to read the Draft Master Plan and the Transportation Strategy document.
I scanned quickly through the Specific Plan and noticed one small error regarding schools. In it, the plan says that currently elementary school students are served by Woodstock and Miller Elementaries, so…yeah…maybe they should change that.
More about this later, I imagine the large majority of folks won’t be reading anything more than the voter guide blurb and possibly the arguments for and against in the voter guide. But I would urge anyone with an interest to read the documents carefully.
One thing for sure … whatever the language and deficiencies are, Ms. Lauren Pro-establishment Do will be supporting the measure.
Comment by historian — March 30, 2009 @ 11:21 am
1. We all know Lauren has cooties.
Pro-development makes sense as a label, but “Pro-establishment” is a less clear choice of words. In the sixties a lot of us were labeled “anti-establishment”. Maybe you are part of a revived Yippie! movement?(not to be confused with yuppie) As “Historian” you might recall those times.
As wagers go, I would bet money that Lauren will continue to support this plan, but I still give her credit for actually reading the plan, which many who object won’t do. I’m sure she will even make critical comments.
Is there anything REALLY constructive which comes our of anonymous snipes at Lauren for her position, or would it advance the discussion more to read what Lauren has given us easy access to here and then engage in rational criticism of what we read?
Comment by M.I. — March 30, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
It is apparent from the signs and chanting going on just a bit ago in front of City Hall that the proposal to amend Measure A to exempt the Point is considered the same as being against Measure A altogether. As I read what is being put forth so far, it seems that no one is pushing for Measure A to go away altogether, but for it to have an exemption. Does the vote of the people to grant an exemption mean that Measure A is dumped totally? What legal certainty is there for this?
Comment by Kate Quick — March 30, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
What legal certainty is there that when your elected official says “Keep Measure A” they will actually do it? Obviously, the answer to that question is NONE.
What legal certainty is there that SunCal will be able to deliver in Alameda, when they clearly have not been able to deliver elsewhere, not even at Oak Knoll? Obviously, the answer to that question is NONE.
There is nothing binding anywhere, except for a lot of people’s undershorts.
I thought the “Bev Pinnocchio-Jo” signs were kind of cute, in that sort of homespun 60′s grassroots way.
But definitely I think the “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!” chanting was a little over the top. Nice little crowd of us watching from the Longs parking lot…
Comment by Jayne Smythe — March 30, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
There are not legal certainties Kate, only court decisions. You of all people should know that.
The protest was as much about measure A as it was about lying mayors. I hate when people think they can say anything to get elected, and nobody would care if they lie. I’m old-fashioned that way.
Comment by AD — March 30, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Kate – do you want to discuss certainties?
How about Global Warming? How about the real science – not the SunCal decision on how far the sea will rise before the end of the century – even if the world stopped burning oil and coal yesterday?
How about explaining the certainties of traffic impact vs the mitigation plan (education and incentives to cajole bus ridership) Ha-ha ha, Please-give me a break!
By developer standards and high density, transit ridership, SF should be traffic-free – Is that a certainty for you?
How about discussing the money?
Where will the money come from?
The initiative (Section 2 paragraph (s) CAPS the total commitment (Not just SunCal’s commitment) to $200M for all of the following;
(“Pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, the developer of Alameda Point is required to fund, OR, to cause to fund (From other tax-financed sources), in an amount not to exceed $200 million, the construction of the following:…”
1) Regional Sports Complex
2) Parks, publicly-open space, public art within the Point…
3) Improvements to Seaplane Lagoon Frontage (incl Ferry stop?)
4) Bay Trail extension within Point
5) On-site and off-site traffic and transit improvements
6) A ferry terminal and transit hub
7) Improvements to existing fire station,
8) A branch library
We can go on and on, but it only takes one negative to be a deal breaker therefore let’s just start with these three little things….
Seriously, please reply. I need the entertainment.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 30, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
6. I’ve tried to make a stink about sea level issue myself, but factually the 19″ in the SunCal report is a figure decided on by the city as far as I know. SunCal said, we need the City to set conditions for us to make a plan which responds to those conditions.
And the City itself didn’t make up the 19″, it was taken from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection for 2050.
Comment by M.I. — March 30, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
This would be my response to SunCal’s campaign of jobs, children and butterflies:
-
Why do you enjoy living in Alameda?
Is it the quiet streets?
A small town environment?
A relaxing neighborhood to come home to after a hard day?
A safe place for your children?
A haven from the problems of the big city?
Then why would you be willing to vote it all away?
-
Global warming is real, but too abstract for most voters to really care about. What voters do care about is their paycheck, their home, their children, their commute, their safety and their neighborhood.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 30, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Article 4.2 from the development agreement – Fiscal Neutrality
In consideration of, and in reliance on City agreeing to the provisions of the Development Agreement, Developer agrees to cooperate in good faith to achieve the City’s established policy of “Fiscal Neutrality” (Resolution No. 13643, November 5, 2003), balancing the City’s cost of providing municipal services against revenues generated by the Alameda Point Project to assure there is no adverse fiscal impact upon the City.
– - – -
Hey, good faith is enough for me… especially from a giant Hedge Fund.
Comment by Jack B. — March 30, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Perhaps somebody can help me with this question, as I can’t seem to answer it with my light reading.
What is the timeline for when $$$$’s need to be raised by bonds? Where is it in the process? What if there is “no bid” for the bonds? Does the master plan/agreement fail, yet we’ve exempted Alameda Point from Measure A? What happens?
Comment by Jack B. — March 30, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
Oh Jack! You are not supposed to be asking such troubling questions! You are supposed to read lightly, letting the questions flutter down to the floor where they turn into little moths and fly away leaving only the vaguest hint of a doubt. If you need an aid, use the the little questionaire at the end of the brochure. You’ll be going “Yes! Yes!!” in no time.
Comment by AD — March 30, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
#10 I’m just about certain that at a City Council meeting it was said that the financing agreements get solidified after (after) the election.
This is a major question which is not being publicized, it seems….
Comment by RM — March 30, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
NayTiff, what has gotten into you? Are you writing for Suncal now? This is exactly what will be on their next brochure, wait and see.
Comment by AD — March 30, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
By “this” I mean your questions of course minus the last one, up in 8.
Comment by AD — March 30, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
There won’t be any “revenues generated by the Alameda Point Project” except the revenue SunCal gets by selling off the land.
When they say “revenue”, they want you to think that means property taxes going to the general fund. The property taxes will go to pay off the bond debt and will not go to the general fund and will not pay for public services.
Only people earning revenue if anything is built out there will be developers.
There is no “bidding” for the bonds. The city Treasurer is the bond agent. Get it? Do voters get to vote on it? NO!
Does anyone realize that it is more expensive now to get municipal bonds because of all the municipal bond scandals involving politicians who have friends in the bonding industry? New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico…
No one is doing their homework. This kind of crap has been going on all over the friggin’ country and everyone is wearing blinders.
Well, fine. You’ll get what you ask for, whether you know what you are asking for or not.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — March 30, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Is it possible that Alameda could keep Measure A and still allow for an exemption for the Point is the question I was asking. If it is amended, is it not still kept, just with an amendment, or does amending it guarantee it will be destroyed altogether? And what is the mechanism for the destruction?
I’m not taking sides here, I am simply asking how the two things are related so I can understand what the consequences are of an amendment, which is what appears to be what is being proposed.
Comment by Kate Quick — March 30, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
#13,14
Hmmmm. I thought that I was writing an argument against the SunCal proposal. In our twisted world of political realities, perhaps the same argument can work both for and against?
(I thought that it was pretty clear that the questions were meant for affirming Measure A. Perhaps we are all headed through the looking glass.)
Measure X, what have you got to lose?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 30, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
#17 – The X-Files motto: Trust No One
Comment by E T — March 30, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Please don’t act so naive Kate, I really thought you were above that.
You clearly know as well as anyone that H.O.M.E.S. has for decades been trying to get rid of Measure A. Their attempt started island wide but they were forced to reduce to just the Point, Park and Webster Street business areas and other redevelopment areas. This edition of exemption is another attempt “to get the camel’s nose under the tent”.
At this point any ‘weakening’ of MA could quickly lead to spreading that same verbiage to other areas, and once there is a whole in the levee, the flood is sure to follow.
Mark, – I don’t care who provided the information to SunCal about the level of ocean rise in the next 40 years. If it is wrong it’s wrong, no matter who the source. The point is that science has improved our knowledge and we can’t base such a decision on old out-moded information. The world’s not flat any more ya’know?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 30, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
I am not naive, I would just like to know how “any ‘weakening’ of MA could quickly lead to spreading that same verbiage to other areas”, since the proposal is not to take it out of the Charter, but to create an exemption to it. I don’t think it has been explained as to how that would happen without a further vote of the people, if it remains in the Charter. I’m looking for specifics and not getting any. Again, this is not to take sides, but to have a rational, fact-based exposition of why the amendment would definitely lead to Measure A’s demise. Just saying it will happen isn’t quite enough to make it so, or saying it isn’t going to happen, doesn’t make that so, either.
Comment by Kate Quick — March 31, 2009 @ 7:32 am
Regarding the exemption and the consequences, here’s my best guess: First, look at it in terms of zoning. I believe that cities have to apply zoning variances in an “even-handed manner”. (??-I’ll call it that.) So if one party gets a variance, then another party in a similar situation can apply for a similar variance, and might be able to bring suit if they don’t get it.
My concern is that any rationale which applies to Alameda Point might also apply to other sites in the city, and given the greatly inflated value w/ a Measure A exemption, the owners will have plenty of motivation to sue and claim a right to a similiar exemption. I don’t know how likely this is, so to be fair, I’d say that at the least, we need an assurance from a reliable source that the exemption can’t be used against the city.
Comment by DL Morrison — March 31, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Also: I realize that this is a charter exemption, not a zoning variance, but I’m saying that it might be used in a comparable fashion to put pressure on the city.
Comment by DL Morrison — March 31, 2009 @ 9:59 am
#7: I think it was BCDC who said that the sea level rise was projected at 18″ by 2050, which is only 25 years after the estimated completion date of the project. The problem is, what happens 50 years after, or longer? I don’t think it “holds water” to claim that the city didn’t mention it, so it doesn’t count.
#12: Yes, the final decision on the finances will happen after the vote. Virtually everything can be amended after the vote, that’s the problem.
Comment by DL Morrison — March 31, 2009 @ 10:34 am
The vote will give the mandate. The bonds will be issued, and then Atlantis on the bay will begin.
At that point, every agreement that has been made will be put aside.
This happens everywhere. If you have ever followed one project from discussion through completion, you know this to be true.
If anyone is paying attention, and calls the perps out, the response is always, “oh, the rising costs made it impossible.” [read: we need to make our bottom line as deep as possible.]
Comment by Jayne Smythe — March 31, 2009 @ 11:15 am
So…there has never been a successful development project in the history of the world? The only possible outcome—anywhere, at any time—is that the helpless community is tied to the tracks by a moustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash of a developer?
Healthy skepticism is one thing, but how is it helpful to suggest that a good outcome is simply impossible, no matter what? How is this any more useful or intellectually honest than picking up the pro-development pom-poms and pretending that nothing could possibly go wrong?
Comment by Michael Krueger — March 31, 2009 @ 11:48 am
#25
The old NAS is not the world. As for what development, if any, would be a “success” (and a success from whose perspective?) is open debate. The Navy was there for 60 years. Was that development a success? I’m in the camp of keeping the land in federal hands and let them deal with any blowback that occurs from toxics and liquefaction. That would also solve the Measure A problem as the Feds would be exempt. That, along with the problems caused by traffic are the main reasons I’m opposed to the SunCal plan. Alameda has simply bitten off more than it can chew with trying to develop a third of the island. It isn’t that I’m against local control, it is that a relatively small city does not have the resources to control a project of this size.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 31, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
What ANT says.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
You go, ANT!
Not only that, but if you read the language of the initiative carefully, it sort looks like it suggests that there won’t be any local control of the Point.
But it is hard to see what is intended because they throw in everything including the kitchen sink and the toilet plunger.
I, personally, would be opposed to voting on something with this much language. The average voter is not going to be clear on what this is all about.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — March 31, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
28
Concur and add that the financing plan is both fanciful & dishonestly presented.
Comment by dave — March 31, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
I see so many related comments going on here, I wish I knew how to pull them together — but regardless, I want to respond to this. I started reading the Specific Plan yesterday, and the phrase that came to mind was: “Failure to read the fine print”.
There are reasons to present some of this info to voters, of course, but this mountain of verbiage is not going to be read by most voters and probably not that well understood by many either. I think this is a setup, really. It’s like signing a document w/ pages of fine print and being stuck w/ the consequences, something along the lines of “Well, didn’t you read it?”
Furthermore and most importantly, the Specific Plan and Development Agreement are –NOT– remotely locked in place by this initiative. All it says (in Section 14) is that Council will not amend the $200M commitment or the number of housing units set forth in the Plan. The Council has the power to amend everything else. The voters have sole authority to amend the Charter, but by agreeing to a charter amendment that does not SPELL OUT the supposed purpose of the amendment, they’re signing away virtually all control.
At a bare minimum, this charter amendment should set forth the number of units in total or state that the Specific Plan cannot be amended.
IF THE LANGUAGE IS NOT -IN- THE TEXT OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ITSELF, THEN THE VOTERS DO NOT CONTROL THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT!
(This is like the “USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!” warning.)
Comment by DL Morrison — March 31, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
For perspective, look at the 1991 Amendment, which is very clear and unambiguous, and which is enforceable thru the language of the charter amendment itself:
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.”
Any charter amendment which references a planning document is virtually meaningless in terms of enforcement.
Comment by DL Morrison — March 31, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Kate – do you want to discuss certainties?
How about Global Warming? How about the real science – not the SunCal decision on how far the sea will rise before the end of the century – even if the world stopped burning oil and coal yesterday?
How about explaining the certainties of traffic impact vs the mitigation plan (education and incentives to cajole bus ridership) Ha-ha ha, Please-give me a break!
By developer standards and high density, transit ridership, SF should be traffic-free – Is that a certainty for you?
How about discussing the money?
Where will the money come from?
The initiative (Section 2 paragraph (s) CAPS the total commitment (Not just SunCal’s commitment) to $200M for all of the following;
(”Pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, the developer of Alameda Point is required to fund, OR, to cause to fund (From other tax-financed sources), in an amount not to exceed $200 million, the construction of the following:…”
1) Regional Sports Complex
2) Parks, publicly-open space, public art within the Point…
3) Improvements to Seaplane Lagoon Frontage (incl Ferry stop?)
4) Bay Trail extension within Point
5) On-site and off-site traffic and transit improvements
6) A ferry terminal and transit hub
7) Improvements to existing fire station,
8 ) A branch library
As we are still discovering new locations of toxic dumps – what happens with the ones discovered when the land is passed out of Fed control and liability?
To use the words of Kate Quick:
Just saying it will happen (traffic, flooding, new toxic discoveries, developer bankruptcy or financing collapse, etc..)isn’t quite enough to make it so, or saying it isn’t going to happen, doesn’t make that so, either.
So where / when are the public debates?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 31, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
I find it curious that opponents of the SunCal plan are quick to cite studies predicting ocean levels far into the future as incontrovertible facts, yet in practically the same breath they dismiss any research on urban planning or transportation as hopelessly irrelevant ivory-tower theories with no basis in fact. I guess “real science” is narrowly defined as the science that happens to support one’s cause.
Comment by Michael Krueger — March 31, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Put it all together and we have Underwater Urbanism.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Global warming also only applies to suncal projects, but not apparently to land trusts or recycled plans from the 90′s
To try to seriously respond to a few of Dave Kirwin’s comments:
“By developer standards and high density, transit ridership, SF should be traffic-free” I don’t believe SF has eco passes, que jump bike programs, a transit program manager, guaranteed rides home, and other transit amenities proposed by Suncal.
“As we are still discovering new locations of toxic dumps – The discoveries are happenstance, they are the result of a carefully mapped out remediation process that is working.
“what happens with the ones discovered when the land is passed out of Fed control and liability” The Navy will always be responsible. They may contract work through Suncal, but ultimately they retain responsibility.
“The initiative (Section 2 paragraph (s) CAPS the total commitment (Not just SunCal’s commitment) to $200M for all of the following” That’s a lot for those amenities (Most of which aren’t in the SOCAactionalamedacoalitionforabetteralamedagetofmylawn” counterplan)
The price tag doesn’t include the major costs of infrastructure, transit, mitigation, relocation, etc etc.
Comment by notadave — March 31, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
35. You’ve hit the nail on the head, the price tag doesn’t include infrastructure, transit, mitigation, relocation, etc.
How if not by bonding will all those things be paid for? Does the light reading have that information? No.
Comment by E T — March 31, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
ET: here
Comment by Lauren Do — March 31, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Notadave, Suncal is providing a Transit Program Manager? Is that a full-time gig?
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
There will be debates. There will be pros and cons presented. Just as the League is holding pros and cons on the May 19th Special Election on Tuesday April 14th at 7 pm at the Main Library, we will be holding sessions before the election this measure will be voted on to give everyone a chance to say his/her piece on this very important matter.
I agree with a prior entry where the writer suggests that those who have strong opinions limit themselves to a rational, fact-based discussion and avoid personalization, demonization, and general name-calling. Their opinions will be more listened to.
We could make this issue a model of the use of reason and fact-based arguement in public discourse. Imagine that!
Comment by Kate Quick — March 31, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
#30
“There are reasons to present some of this info to voters, of course, but this mountain of verbiage is not going to be read by most voters and probably not that well understood by many either. I think this is a setup, really. It’s like signing a document w/ pages of fine print and being stuck w/ the consequences, something along the lines of “Well, didn’t you read it?””
The measure is obfuscation and misdirection. The real value of the measure is the Measure A exemption. This is lost in the bombardment of text and images. This is deliberate. SunCal knows that it cannot and should not make the campaign about Measure A. They will never mention Measure A. They’ve buried the only real actionable part of the ballot measure in images of bicyclists, children and wildflowers. The folks at SunCal are quite smart. They know how to manipulate local yokels like us island folk. The real prize here is Measure A. Keep your eyes on that prize. The rest is all distraction.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 31, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Kruger: Who has said sea level rise would not affect other plans? I have encouraged the maximization of Point use with minimization of further investment because before long the point will once again be marshland, just as it used to be.
As for the “science” (please!) of Urban planning – I have yet to see relevant examples – you know, comparable to Alameda, island, lack of expandable ingress/egress, our transit limits, blah, blah, blah – the same stuff you’ve heard a hundred times but never been able to address.
We in Alameda don’t even have the “scientific” studies of how bad our traffic would be TODAY if our islands residential and commercial structures were close to full occupancy.
Driving thru Marina Village business parks is almost heartbreaking – seeing what looks like 50%+ vacancy – Millions of available sf, in all sizes of spaces. Why the hell would we build more under these ignorant conditions.
The city was wasteful beyond imagination to have poured thru about $25M that should have fixed up the leasable structures. Instead we have a over-indulgent City Hall West. (A Million dollar paint scheme.) They should never have been allowed to grow that big and costly, they should be sharing space in the Parks and Rec palace – The more I see of my city the more stunned I am of the opulent waste provided for the incompetent. We can’t even re-do a small neighborhood park properly, or within reason.
NotA-Dave – Sf no eco passes? I do not know, but aren’t there monthly transit passes available? I used to get monthly bus passes back in the 80′s in Santa Cruz County when I was single and had more time than money.
Bike queue jump lanes? This is 1st I heard of them – will there be a jump over the estuary, if so how high is the ramp and who will pay for the right of way on the Oakland side? Seriously – how would that help the west end where people don’t or can’t ride thru the tubes?
Queue Jumps for busses? – Another bad idea as it would just back up the back-up. There is no practical way to lift the busses over the cars, nor to remove an auto lane for the occasional bus.
The Navy will NOT always be liable for the toxins on the property they sell – What in heavens name gives you such an idea? As I recall they need only clean to a level of Federal OK for industrial land use. If you buy the land you get it all, toxins too. That was the story I was given by our Re-dev dept, as to why we gave all the waterfront acreage to Catullus for free – (Catullus estimates it to be worth $60M+, but that did not include the approx $56M of public financed assistance promised in the Alameda Landing “fiscally neutral” development plan.
Do you recall future parcel tax from the Landing/Bayport was supposed to help finance the early stages of Point development? Ask the city how well there expectations of city income were met with the unexpected windfall during the huge housing bubble.
Oh the best woven tales of developers just don’t seem to work out as promised, do they?
By the way, SF has a lot more bus lines and stops per sq mile, has trains, trolleys, underground rail, lots of taxis, more ferries, etc, but still seems more congested on the roads.
Even with daily hour-long voyages of only blocks to an on-ramp, those backups exist daily despite all the alternative modes of mass transit, mass rapid transit, high cost of parking, massive amounts of “education” and marketing of non-auto modes. Reality is that most people have REAL reasons for sticking to personal auto despite all the traffic back-ups. Pro MA’ers simply don’t want that kind of traffic in Alameda as we cross our estuary.
NAD: “The price tag doesn’t include the major costs of infrastructure, transit, mitigation, relocation, etc etc.”
NAD-take another look at what it DOES include: see items #3, 5, &, 6?
3) Improvements to Seaplane Lagoon Frontage
5) On-site and off-site traffic and transit improvements
6) A ferry terminal and transit hub
That sure does seem to include traffic and transit!
And notice the wording (“Pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, the developer of Alameda Point is required to fund, OR, to cause to fund …”)
– Sun Cal doesn’t even have to pay for it – they talk to the city county, region, friends in the state etc, and vahalla – somebody decides to include WETA changes, AC expenditures, state-road widening by CalTrans, all as included as $ spent with SunCal’s encouragement. Hell even the 100′s of thousands of dollars to think about a bike bridge could be included under those terms – How much can BART say it spends considering the BART tube to ALAMEDA they say is defiantly not in the cards – at least not as far as their 50 year projections go – can that $ count too? If SunCal get CC to okay bond’s -that would certainly count as money they “caused” to fund projects… You get the drift?
And finally – what is relocation costs? Does it include relocating everyone when the waters rise, or just relocating our tax dollars to their corporations?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 31, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
#34: That’s funny! Submersible Urbanism!
#33: Seriously? I’m not that big on science and all that, but even I know that the hard science involved in climate change is not the same as research on commuter choices.
Anyway, are you folks now saying there’s no serious global warming? Then what’s the point of all this high density stuff? (Oh ha ha.)
#40: Yes, it is deliberate. I also had the thought that they were playing the locals, which seems odd in this particular context (with a very educated populace), but I guess so.
I think I’ve got the phrase to sum this up: Heads I win, tails you lose.
If the initiative passes, then it will be very difficult (impossible?) to challenge the terms of the Specific Plan or the DDA. The city will say that these documents were available for “public inspection” and they’ve met with the voters’ approval, resounding vote of confidence, whatever. BUT if the City Council wants to amend any of these documents, they’re perfectly free to do so in virtually every respect.
Here is Section 14 in part, which I mentioned above:
SECTION 14. Amendment.
(a) This Initiative may only be amended or repealed in the following circumstances:
(1) By a majority vote of the voters at a subsequent City election;
~~(2) Upon written application to the City Council by the Developer ~~ or Significant Landowner, so long as such proposed amendment or other change:
A. Does not eliminate or reduce the Developer’s obligation to fund, or cause to be funded, the public benefits described in Exhibit 4 of the Development Agreement, pursuant to the terms thereof; and
B. Does not increase the maximum number of residential units or the maximum amount of non-residential building square footage permitted by the Alameda Point Specific Plan;
And here’s an additional link for the initiative alone, which is searchable:
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2009/03/alameda-point-initiative-language/
Also note that even here, no specific numbers are being spelled out — it’s a just a reference to a document.
Comment by DL Morrison — March 31, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
The little slide show that is supposed to convince the average person that the project is fiscally neutral is a lot of hooey that explains absolutely nothing.
I also saw the “cause to be funded” and figured that is where the rest of the bonding comes into play.
The fact that everyone has to jump through the hoop in May shows just how desperate the situation really is.
They are pushing because they are in trouble and need to get the bonding infusion for their money habit.
As yet, we don’t know what the offer is from the Navy under Obama for the land. Clinton $1.00; G.W. Bush $200mil; Obama $______.
Who will pony that up? D.E. Shaw? Yeah, right.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — March 31, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
23. said “I don’t think it “holds water” to claim that the city didn’t mention it, so it doesn’t count.”
My point is not about what tide levels are realistic. I am as a big a cynic as anybody about tide topping off at 19″.
DK claims to have mixed up Catellus and SunCal for lack of sleep. Here he made another careless mis-assignment of responsibility regarding SunCal arbitrarily picking 19″ which they didn’t.
I’ll keep nit picking posts for sloppy exaggeration and you can keep nit picking my nit picking.
Comment by M.I. — April 1, 2009 @ 10:09 am
So SunCal found a nice low water-rise guesstimate and used that # instead of choosing a # represented by the inconvenience of real modern science! – Who cares what ABAG or others say they expect? As ‘Master Developer’ SunCal has a responsibility to use realistic numbers, not convenient make-believe.
If you are saying our city development dept gave them the number (or sourced an outdated ‘low-ball’ number); what does that say about how our ‘developer dept’ is meeting their obligations and responsibilities?
The whole thing stinks and no one has intelligent answers to traffic, pollution, water rise or financing questions.
Does this blog provide useful, factual debate? Obviously not, and until it does, it is useless.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 1, 2009 @ 11:06 am