Alternately titled: Alameda’s Silver Hammer
Figuratively speaking, Eve Pearlman has a big big pair of you-know-what and for that I salute her. In her column last week Eve P. takes on what she aptly terms the “sacred cow”of Alameda politics. Some call it the third rail (aka “touch it and you die”) but I think it has moved from being a political career killer to something that people talk about it hushed tones. Like when someone is getting plastic surgery or botox.
…And trust me on this, too: Most people, minding their business, working their jobs, raising their children, caring for elderly parents, enjoying their retirement, shopping, eating, watching TV, talking, reading, making their way through their days, are simply looking for a pleasant place to live. A safe, friendly and peaceful place to make their home, which includes, for many, stores to shop, nice places to drive or to walk, pleasant surroundings. And if that pleasant place includes, say, condos over storefronts at a San Francisco-facing promenade down at a redeveloped Alameda Point or live-work spaces in abandoned industrial buildings on the estuary, I think most people don’t care about Measure A, an unsophisticated sledgehammer of a law, created in reaction to a crisis that has long since passed.
It is well within human ingenuity to craft laws that allow for the construction of apartments where it is appropriate and still protect handsome old houses. And it is folly to cling so tightly to a law passed out of fear and anger. It’s time for Alameda to show that it can protect what is valuable about its past at the same time as it embraces the future.
Yeah, what she said. No additional commentary needed.
Another person daring to touch the cow is the blogger at the very excellent 94501 Real Estatewho writes that the initial charter amendment that was passed would have forbidden any multi-family units to be built, including duplexes, that it was a change by the then sitting City Council that made the interpretation of what is is — or in this case — what “multiple” should be defined as:
After the referendum was added to the City Charter there was an exception made. Yes a a change to the sacred cow, but not from the electorate.
In Section 30-50.1 Declaration of Policy a City Council declared at the time determines:a. The proliferation throughout the City of residential dwellings in attached groups of more than two (2) units has created and, if continued, will further create, land use densities and other undesirable effects to a degree which affects adversely the environment and the quality of living conditions necessary to and desirable by the people. For this and other reasons the Charter amendment should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers thereof, which intent is hereby found to be a prohibition against the construction of dwelling units of more than two (2) attached in the same structure as hereinbelow set forth.
So a sitting elected group made a change to the interpretation of the language. I wonder if the hardcore “Measure A” people would only want single family houses. I also wonder how the City deals with conflicting language in the Charter.
I understand, and I need to make a public request, that there is a memo written after the implementation of Article 26 that states that Measure A may not stand up to true legal challenge. As I understand, every time the Charter Amendment has come under siege, concessions have been made to keep it in place.
In addition, the Charter Amendment seems to conflict with State policy, and if a developer really wants to take the City to task under the State of California Density Bonus Ordinance there is not much the Council can do about it, even if the project does not conform under Article 26.
Measure A, was a good tool when it was implemented, but as the old saying goes when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Since the Measure has been modified in the past by a “Declaration” and may be antiquated given the requirements from State it seems like with the development of Alameda Point this is a great time to review what the goal is and how we move forward…
Two really great pieces on how we move forward after all the Alameda Point business is said and done. While we, as a City, have begun to talk about talking about Measure A and doing it in sort of a watered down way in the form of forums, etc, it’s time for our City leaders to take the next step to shepherd us through a process of discussing what the goals of Measure A were at the time, what Measure A has accomplished throughout the years and whether the goals of Measure A can be accomplished without the need for such a blunt tool.
The city “shepherded” us into the Telecom business, making Alameda Power a cable company. They said the city would make money from that arrangement.
Then they spent several years approving creative financing between the electrical and the cable side of AP&T, going right through the “firewall” that was supposed to be there to prevent creative financing.
We wound up losing–what was it? $70,000,000? $80,000,000?
Frankly, I do not want city hall “shepherding” me into any deal of any sort. That includes the NAS and the fancy financial dealings they’re proposing there, with a developer that can’t see that we are an island.
We do not need 5,000 more housing units–regardless of their prices.
Comment by Joe — April 29, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Well, this is what the city leaders have claim to have done, Lauren.
Many people on this blog have expressed the desire to have a real dialog and debate about Measure A, but no one has set such a thing up! Especially the people who have been against measure A.
They and you keep yammering “read the plan, read the plan!” as if that will convince everyone that the plan is a great idea and our municipality needs to go down like the Titanic to achieve it!
I think a lot of people have been reading the papers, seeing the data, reading the initiative and the plan.
People are watching and also speaking out against the irrationality of going forward with this plan on the basis of many different factors, not just Measure A.
And yet, the “against Measure A” crowd continues to eliminate any anti-SunCal discussions as being brought forward by a “small minority” of “uninformed people” who are spreading “misinformation.”
That is not dialog nor is it in anyway productive.
Meanwhile, if our city officials and staff don’t have to be answerable for the deep financial hole the city is in, how can we expect the snow job of SunCal to be trustworthy? Even if build out to the extent the plan requests were a good idea, whose fiduciary future is at risk? SunCal’s?
The best argument against the initiative is that it proposes Alameda citizenry become further slaves to bonded debt–that could drive its economy so far under that it will never recover, never mind all the litigation and the workers comp and the deferred maintenance…etc, etc. Fiscal neutrality is a myth–this deal is only fiscally neutral for the DEVELOPER.
The lenders cannot be trusted. Alameda officials are only trying to watch out for their careers. The developer won’t lift a finger to add those carrots it is trying to sell the public on… that is what “contingent” means, folks.
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 10:09 am
I think what I am trying to say is that this initiative is NOT about Measure A.
This initiative is about SunCal bleeding Alameda dry, like it has done at Oak Knoll, San Clemente, etc.
Is there a single business person out there who could look at this and say it is a good deal?
SunCal cannot deliver, it can only cajole the Alamedan mice to take the cheesy bait that will trap it for 25 to 40 years of financial nightmare.
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 10:24 am
“They and you keep yammering “read the plan, read the plan!” as if that will convince everyone that the plan is a great idea and our municipality needs to go down like the Titanic to achieve it!”
True. The two commentaries posted above are written by intelligent, thoughtful people, I don’t doubt, but they are nevertheless profoundly, depressingly clueless.
For starters, this issue is not about “historic preservation” (or “environmental cleanup”), it’s about SunCal’s plan to build 5,000+ homes at Alameda Point. SunCal has estimated around 12,000 new residents and even at a very conservative estimate, we’d get 5,000 more cars — and in all likelihood, many more.
How hard is it to grasp that this might in fact cause major problems for this community, especially in terms of overwhelming traffic and a godawful (if not impossible) commute? The need for density control hasn’t gone away — it’s not some relic of the past, for heavens sakes — if anything, it’s gotten worse. It’s like, jeez, if you can’t figure that much out, then spare us the comments.
Here’s the question I’d like to have answered: Why does Alameda need the SunCal project?
What good does it do for the city that would offset all the negatives?
Who can answer that question?
Comment by DL Morrison — April 29, 2009 @ 11:41 am
In the same vein I ask does: adding a six figure cleanup bill per unit of Housing Opportunity Make Economic Sense?
Comment by dave — April 29, 2009 @ 11:48 am
And it’s interesting that both anti-A sermons indciate a desire to eliminate the ordnance city wide, rather than simply West of Main.
Comment by dave — April 29, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Plus, they keep talking about bringing jobs, but that is BS, when you look at all that empty business park space all over the island. What the heck? What will bring jobs to Shawville that the other parts of town cannot attract?
The only jobs will be building jobs, and then once all that is done, it’ll all sit there vacant, just like those big complexes in downtown Oakland and everywhere else.
I agree with y’all… it’s just plain crazy, all the funny math and the self-serving arrogance of the city officials, who can’t seem to sweep their economic failures under the carpet fast enough. Shit keeps leaking out from under there…
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 29, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
Back to Lauren’s idea above that it is time for the “city leaders to shephard us through a process”
What are we, anyway, a bunch of sheep?????!
Shephards/shepherds get sheep in alignment.
Now that’s a great bumper sticker–a bunch of sheep going through the tunnel.
Some sheep can be on busses, others can be in cars.
Great visual. City Hall could be in the background.
Comment by RM — April 29, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
What people don’t get is that hyper-development as a business model for cities has proven to be a finanical boondoggle. The benefits have NOT outweighed the financial downside. The promise of “sales tax INCOME” has not played out as a viable buisiness model for municipal success.
Is anyone reading the continuing saga of the municipal bond collapse? If you were following the articles, you would see a pattern where government officials receive campaign contributions from development companies. Municipal goverments are then steered toward financing through some company “known” by someone at the state or local level (read: pay to play–check it out! SunCal helped finance Richardson’s campaign in NM!!!).
This ponzi pyramid keeps rolling along during times that seem good, but now, as we see it all unravel before us, we are told that the numbers the financial institutions reported were inflated to show great and glowing profits, when in reality, there were no profits, except for management.
Companies like SunCal say oh but we are building green now and sustainable now and you need this NOW!
But it is all a dog and pony show to dupe people into the idea that they have a choice or that they should want to have a choice.
The reality is that we will not have a choice; it is all being shoved at us and we are being told that it is because we “asked for it.” Those community meetings where 20 or so folks showed up to get free food were a mandate of the people.
But if we are too stupid as a community to realize we are being sold a pile of ashes, God help us!!
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Back to Lauren’s point that “it’s time for our city leaders to take the next step to shepard us through the process of discussing…”
What are we, anyway???!!
Shepherds/shepards (sp) align sheep!
What a great bumper sticker: sheep sitting on busses going through the tunnel.
City Hall could be in the background.
What a visual!
Comment by RM — April 29, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
The idea that development can be good for the environment should beg a lot more questions than it has.
The idea that the developers will pay for anything is just a silly myth.
The idea that stretching public services (already over stretched and soon to be reduced!!!) to cover the potentially 5,000-10,000 MORE people that one could anticipate, given the amount of housing contemplated, is ludicrous.
The idea that more 5,000-10,000 people doesn’t equal more traffic for the island is just plain stupid.
The idea that continued deficit spending is good business is lunacy. Anyone who believes such claptrap needs to be institutionalized.
Municipal government was intended to look out for the public interest of the populace, not the private interest of politicians and developers and financial institutions.
If we “vote for choice” will we be choosing responsibly?
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
In other words, we need to get it out of our heads that this is about Measure A.
We need to think about the larger picture.
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
All classic comments.
Yes, the “larger picture” is like a giant billboard, at least to some of us, and it’s not a pretty picture.
For the people who want to support this, fine, explain how it works, in REALISTIC terms, not in terms of some future world where things will be different or something.
What good does this do for Alameda?
“A safe, friendly and peaceful place to make their home…” Yes, it’s nice, so why don’t we keep that way?
Comment by DL Morrison — April 29, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
I am going to stay out of the pro or anti- Measure A debate, but I have recently become more anti-SunCal initiative because of the problem of historic district and building preservation on the former base. When SunCal was trying to gain the master developer designation, they told the city that most of the buildings in the historic district and all of the single family housing (the Big Whites) would be preserved. Their latest plan has less than one third of the historic buildings preserved, PLUS they want the ability to get demolition permits for historic buildings without going through the Historic Advisory Board. There are many other general plan amendments and MOA amendments they have requested that further diminish our ability to save our historic resources on the former base.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — April 29, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Also, re “green and sustainable” I have never bought SunCal’s sincerity on this. One of their other projects involves man-made lakes and lagoons in the desert. They have now deleted overt references to that one on their Web site (considering we have a drought now).
Comment by Kevis Brownson — April 29, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
@9 You said, “What people don’t get is that hyper-development as a business model for cities has proven to be a finanical boondoggle. The benefits have NOT outweighed the financial downside. The promise of “sales tax INCOME” has not played out as a viable buisiness model for municipal success.”
What about Emeryville? Granted, I don’t know their current finances, but I think they have done well. At least as a city. Low income residents may not agree..
” The City of Emeryville’s general fund grew by 63%, adjusted for inflation, over the period 1990 to 2001. The City ranks highest in the East Bay in general fund revenues per person and second highest in the Bay Area. While the City exported housing demand from redevelopment efforts, other cities housing Emeryville’s workforce lost out to Emeryville in revenue generation. ”
From- http://emeryvilleneighbors.org/EmeryvilleDevelopment.htm
Comment by Brandon — April 29, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
When did the number jump to 5,000?
It’s closer to 4,000 and it’s NOT HOMES. It’s 4,000 housing units which includes a MIX of houses, work-lofts, apartments over retail, etc.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — April 29, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Agreed, Brandon, you don’t know Emeryville’s finances.
Emeryville is a very special case, it’s an exception that proves the rule. E-ville is essentially a large tax exempt financing corporation that has a few citizens as an incidental sideline.
Take a look at their most recent CAFR, in particular the pie charts on pages 8 and 9.
http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/archives/39/CAFR.pdf
Those charts don’t tell the whole story, of course, but they are a useful snapshot to see that Emeryville is no ordinary city and most particularly, the sales & business taxes are much smaller than the property tax increments that finance the whole thing.
Even at the extreme scale of Emeryville, the economic benefits are surprisingly small, and only works in Emeryville because of its minute population. Indeed if these were the fianances of a private corporation they’d likely be a junk credit. It is not a model for Alameda, by any stretch, financially or otherwise.
Comment by dave — April 29, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
#14. Yes, the story on historic preservation is always a moving target. I am a 3rd generation historic preservation person, and I have seen the trend everywhere: the developer promises preservation lie to get the gig and then says after it starts knocking things down “it wasn’t possible to save the buildings… it would have cost too much” — which is really just a lie hidden in a lie, because it sometimes costs MORE for them to build what they end up building (read: cost overruns).
If you look very carefully at those portions of the initiative that speak to who has power over what happens at Shawville, if it happens, you will see that the City Council of Alameda will have NO POWER over the development director. Ergo, the developer will be running the show, at which point, they will build whatever, “contingent” on “CAUSE TO FUND” (read: tax payers shoulder unlimited bond debt.). And, of course, it will ALWAYS cost more than they SAY NOW that it will cost to do these things. But it will be too late, if we allow them to take over. Alameda will be on the hook.
But, worst of all for the Preservationists, these developments are always built as cheaply as possible and cookie-cutter, at worst, boutiquefied at best. What does that mean? That means that unique charms and neighborhood character are drummed out. Been up to Napa lately? It is so totally tarted up that it looks like a cheap trick instead of community that retains the aesthetic value and charm of its older dwellings. Do they need yet another gigantuan spa?
#16. Yes, but don’t you see that Emeryville has a TON of retail? And not so many residents?
Location, location, location. Emeryville is at the crossroads of the entire East Bay; easy in easy out, a transit hub with Amtrack and BART, AC transit,
Alameda is NOT anyone’s crossroad. We don’t have the same ease of access… Ergo, no DRAW! Probably a lot of the lamented sales tax bleed from the island being sucked up by Emeryville!
And the global depression is just as likely to have a negative impact on their economy.
Not only that, but Emeryville is close to buildout. The only way the redev scheme can keep looking positive is by keeping the building going. That’s the funny math about it. Once you get going, you can’t stop because some “new” thing needs to come in with another infusion of borrowed cash. The model is crashing because there is no actually money put up front for this… the investment is all public debt on the shoulders of the community. The promised jobs are development jobs that go away once the development is done. Then what do you have? People at Mare Island are now having to foot a huge bill for public safety and emergency services because the developer for that bailed.
What people are not looking at is that shopping malls have not been successful for the last 20 years or more. The retail sales model of municipal “success” has been a myth, the finances of it being dependent on the public stimulating a dead economy.
Additionally, has anyone noticed the abundance of empty brand new housing all over the Bay Area? Empty because (1) it costs too much to pay the price that the developers “need” to “recover” their costs (i.e., make their profit), (2) banks are not offering financing and (3) people are seeing that these new properties are valued less than the asking price in this economy.
The justification for this “build it and they will come” optimism keeps looking weaker all the time as the financial picture becomes clearer and clearer. The banking institutions have been ripping off a complacent public for so long that they don’t know how to make an honest buck anymore.
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Lauren, from your post:
“Most people, minding their business, working their jobs, raising their children, caring for elderly parents, enjoying their retirement, shopping, eating, watching TV, talking, reading, making their way through their days, are simply looking for a pleasant place to live.”
Perhaps you should realize that people living in Alameda have found that pleasant place to live.
..And Measure A is the powerful (and ONLY) tool in the hands of residents to keep it this way.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 29, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
But, here’s the thing, David. The initiative is NOT just about Measure A.
This measure includes rezoning and changing the city’s general plan.
As well as sets up a tax increment area and takes vested power for the new part of town away from City Hall Chambers.
There are too many things in this initiative to vote on it in a sensible manner. In other words, the whole thing is a snow-job designed to be opaque and confusing for an electorate that might be lulled into thinking it is all about Measure A (or cleaning up contamination)…
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Measure A, in this initiative, is to some extent a red herring for much, much more change that this city is prepared to take on either philosophically or financially…
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
#20
Alameda has apartment buildings that are about 100 years old. At what point in time did Measure A become the “only” tool that Alamedans have to keep our community a pleasant place to live? Measure A was a reaction to events that took place during a specific period of Alameda history. Is the assumption that those dynamics are still in place today and that no other means are available to preserve existing neighborhoods? Regardless of how one feels about Measure A, would thousands of units of single family homes be a welcome outcome at the old NAS?
Would you be for the current SunCal plans if they were made Measure A compliant? Would that modification in their plans make you a supporter as it would keep Alameda a pleasant place to live? Would a Measure A SunCal plan make the development a pleasant place to live and keep the rest of Alameda pleasant as well?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 29, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
#21 & 22
Can a ballot measure include such a hodge-podge legislation?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 29, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
#17. That 5,000 was PEOPLE not dwelling units. If you build 4,200 units of housing, are you really only planning for 4,200 PEOPLE?
Of course not.
You have to expect 5,000-10,000 people (some of whom might work but not live here–they might commute in to work and out to live in a surrounding area) and at least 5,000 cars, and dogs and cats and kids and babies in strollers and…
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Question:
At what point in time did Measure A become the “only” tool that Alamedans have to keep our community a pleasant place to live?
Answer: 1973
Can you name another tool in the hands of residents that can control historic preservation as MA has done since its early years? The city now has other tools to help protect some historic buildings, but MA still plays a significant role as we just saw with the historic home which CC decided could be demolished for redevelopment, so perhaps many Victorians would also disappear today without MA.
Can you name another tool in the hands of residents that can control island density and hence have an affect on also controlling traffic?
You might think the elections are such a tool, but clearly it is money from outside Alameda that is “controlling” elections within Alameda.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 29, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Don’t forget the “enemies within,” David.
Comment by BC — April 29, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
#26
So, you don’t trust our elected officials to pass needed legislation, but you trust the same morons who elected those officials to make changes to the city charter?
#27
Trust no one — not even yourself. Who knows what he is doing while you are sleeping.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 29, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
I don’t have time to flip thru files, but I recall the starting # of units is 4,385, plus a number = to APC’s present units, plus the reuse of one of the historic structures for over 100 or 100′s of senior living, plus something else, plus 600 marina slips, (it is not been ruled out that these will also be for boat dwellers), plus SunCal has not claimed they will not seek the state allowed housing density units, so add and additional 35%? Whatdaya get? -Way too much with or without the density bonus!
With or without MA compliance, or the loss of local legislative controls, or even the horrifying economics, and lack of authentic sustainability, or accountability this plan is an off-the-charts-bad idea.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Well, that is a good question. City Attorney Highstreet seems to think so.
But I wonder what another attorney might say?
At any rate, I think savvy voters should be naturally suspicious of the over-reaching effects of this initiative. The fact that it covers too much territory with too many unanswered questions should be cause for the electorate to worry. For those who wonder what questions:
1. How will the transportation element be dovetailed with the rest of the city’s transportation flow? dovetailed?
2. Will CEQA be adhered to?
3. Are external agencies in line with regard to utilities, water and transportation?
4. Will a handshake with the (failing elsewhere) Developer be enough to ensure that the project will be delivered?
5. Will Mello-Roos bonding be enough to pay for public services required over a densely populated area? And will that make the housing units affordable to people, or keep people from buying?
6. How will the school function, assuming one can actually be slapped together for a million dollars?
7. How many years can the city float the negative cash impact, prior to at least a portion of the properties being sold off?
8. How long will it be before ground can break in those areas that are contaminated?
9. How much will it cost to build up the soil the 18 inches claimed, not to mention the dikes that are proposed?
10. What protections are there with regard to the historical preservation element?
11. Is the Fish and Wildlife on board with the bird sanctuary, and does the City of San Francisco have a voice in that, since part of the property, albeit an underwater portion, “belongs” to the city of San Francisco?
12. Is the City of Oakland, specifically China Town, cool with any of this and are there negotiations in progress with them?
13. Who is answerable if the Developer defaults, as they have most everywhere else they have had a project?
14. Can the city afford litigation that might arise from any of the above?
And, gee, there might be many more questions. Maybe we should have an open question contest!
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
#17: To quote the ballot summary: “It allows development of up to 4,346 new housing units, 186 existing low-cost housing units, re-use of existing buildings for up to 309 housing units”, so no, it is not closer to 4000 by any means.
I’ll average it to 4700, tho, so that’ll make all the difference, I’m sure. Also, “home” means “housing unit” in any form. SunCal posits 2.3 people per unit, so I’ll average that to 10,000 people.
And no, that does not include the people who (we sincerely hope) will be employed by the businesses which will locate there.
#24: I read up some on the single subject rule for ballot measures, and it sounds like the topics on the measure only need to be logically related in some way. Anyway, a legal challenge would be very difficult.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 29, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Following on #25, I’ll reiterate. Averaging to reasonable round numbers, that’s:
Housing units (new + reuse): 4700 (w/out existing)
Residents: 5000 to 10,000+ (with existing)
Cars: 4500 (very conservative) to __? (any guesses?)
Comment by DL Morrison — April 29, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Number of residents: 5000 is very conservative, obviously.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 29, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Sounds to me like the only thing that needs tipping is the SunCal Trojan horse!
Vote to clean-up contamination at the point and get 10,000 new residents, parking fees, traffic, lack of fiscal accountability, lack of city government control and citizens oversight, lack of rational transportation, lots MORE empty commercial square footage, and bonded indebtedness into the next century! Whoopee!!!
I can see the brochure now! Come and live in our planned, sustainable, tax-payer funded community! Underwater parks! Inaccessible ferry! Constant strong headwinds (intensified by the building density)! Constant clanking of those cute Port of Oakland cranes! Increased traffic! More trucks delivering more products to your neighborhood–24 hour a day deliveries insure that you get to choose from all your favorite products at our BIG BOX STORES!
Goody gumdrops.
Comment by E T — April 29, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Alameda Point will be developed, and Measure A will be modified.
However it will not be done by SunCal. Measure A will be modified by the citizens of Alameda when we all agree that the time is right, and the project is right. Not by a petition driven by a developer. Alameda Point will be developed but again not until more people can feel good about a particular project. I don’t think the current SunCal project is gonna fly in this economy, I hope I am still able to walk on the old “Base” and see it at least get started.
Comment by John Piziali — April 29, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Calm down Pizzali … no need to get all psycho on us.
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — April 29, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Cow-Tipping: the act of sneaking up on sleeping or otherwise unsuspecting bovine and knocking them over in a way from which they cannot right themselves.
Yep – Just about sounds like a clear analogy of the SunCal Plan for dealing with Alameda.
Comment by Old Hayseed — April 29, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
A key point in Lauren’s comment mentioned but then overlooked is the word “Charter”.
In California, Charter Cities do not have to abide by general laws passed by the Legislature, unless the law specifically says it is applicable to Charter Cities. Los Angeles, for example, is a Charter City with a huge lobbying operation, which historically has protected that city from the passage of laws unpalatable to that city. So take a look at the density bonus law, and any other state law which the Alameda Charter allegedly violates.
Comment by Vania — April 29, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
#38: This is a reasonable issue to raise, but as it happens, the density bonus law specifically states that it applies to charter cities. Also, the charter doesn’t really violate the density bonus law — I don’t think density limitations in themselves are illegal, but whatever the local law may allow, the density bonus law adds a certain percentage of additional units, anywhere from 20% to 35%.
That’s why the “maximum number of residential units” allowed at Alameda Point could go substantially beyond what the Initiative says and what the City Attorney’s Ballot Summary says, which is why these folks are full of BS on this issue, to put it bluntly.
If it’s 4,700 units plus 20% (940), then that’s 5,640.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 29, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
…And DL #’s are still very conservative; and under the ballot initiative the decisions to change the present SunCal plan version would exclude the authority the city’s PB &CC might have and allow such decisions to be made solely by the developer team and director of development.
Comment by DK — April 30, 2009 @ 6:27 am
At full 35% density bonus times SunCal’s estimate of 2.3 people per household = 14,593 Point residents.
How many additional cars would line up outside the tubes each day?
Oh – I forgot: JKW says all this development will reduce traffic because more people will ride the bus.
Comment by DK — April 30, 2009 @ 6:34 am
Check out Eric Turowski’s comments on Stop, Drop & Roll (dated today):
http://johnknoxwhite.com/2009/04/20/congratulations-alameda-sun-youre-now-the-print-version-of-the-alameda-daily-news/#comment-1545
Comment by DL Morrison — April 30, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Tried to, but internet won’t let me hook up to your link, or Lauren’s link in the blog roll!
Comment by E T — April 30, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
It’s okay now.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 30, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Finally got it… Must have been a lot of traffic.
Whew!
Meanwhile, D.L. GO FOR IT! I doubt if you will get straight answers from anyone about any of your questions, but those are certainly the ones to ask!
Comment by E T — April 30, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Okay, I’ll try emailing and see how that works — probably won’t get a response, tho, I realize.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 30, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Meanwhile, I earlier posted at SD&R, suggesting, in a general way, that it was interesting that the people who engage in the ad hominem attacks of people who are attempting to dialog and provide information are rather like those to whom the school curriculum on taunting and bullying is addressed.
I also said that in a civil society, children learn to be civil from their parents and that children model what their elders do.
“Teach your children well.” said I.
My comments were moderated out.
So, yeah, I wouldn’t hold your breath about getting answers.
Comment by E T — April 30, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Um…not to put a damper on your righteous indignation ET, but your comment wasn’t moderated out on SDR, it’s been up since yesterday afternoon.
Comment by Lauren Do — May 1, 2009 @ 8:00 am
I am not a Measure A fundamentalist; however, those who favor the SunCal development have also created their own sacred cows that they don’t seem willing to touch. One of those cows is the belief that public transit relieves traffic congestion. There is no guarantee that any functioning transit system will serve the development or that it will be used for a significant number of trips.
Transit is being slashed all over the Bay Area and the cost of transit is going up way beyond inflation. Regardless of whatever local jitney system serves the development, it will connect with a regional system that is deeply wounded if not dysfunctional. It is at best self-deception to publicly state that increased density will reduce traffic jams. Increased density will increase the commute suffering of those who already live here. It will also create additional risks for bicyclists and pedestrians.
I am not against public transit and I am not against making reasonable changes to Measure A, but stating that we can add 10,000 more people to the west side of Alameda without causing a traffic nightmare is simply not honest or believable. That transit sacred cow also needs tipping.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 1, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Thank you, Lauren for your comment and for forwarding and thanks Mark for your comments.
The proposed development has been a sore Point (sure, why not go for the pun). Many people have provided a lot of good information about it. It must be recognized, however, that many have also been actively engaged in persuading the larger community to a set of untruths, or even just questionable slants, that will benefit big business in a time of economic bad times.
The results that are anticipated are questionable at best. More jobs? We have too much empty space here already, we need more and to fill more? Housing choices? I think the worth of the properties in the mello roos model will seem to most people overpriced and may not attract the diverse community that is claimed. Contamination, well I won’t go there, because it is too big–but there have been a lot of promises made that have been broken in the area of government cleanup of contamination at every superfund site in the nation.
Everyone has been arguing for months about whether the city is broke or not. With the latest information we have, it is pretty clear that the city is not in good financial shape, and it comes as a surprise to our sitting CC! Who is responsible for it, if not the staff and the city council whose past decisions have led to current failure?
Everyone has been arguing for months that increasing density makes economic and environmental sense for this particular island community. This is an unknown, but most of the people who live here do not want more traffic, and when you have density you have traffic, even if everyone walks everywhere. Pack people in, and it is like an anthill. Just remember what it is like the week before Christmas and you will know that this is correct. No one has mentioned that when you pack a lot of people into a small space, it is more difficult for people to get along with each other, as they try to jockey their way through crowds, and as they stand waiting in lines that get longer all the time. Think road rage, and you will know what I mean.
SunCal has not show itself to be viable in its business dealings with other communities, but it has shown itself to be extremely aggressive in trying to sew up business for itself in all of them by using questionable political techniques. Think of a swarm of bees around a big pot of honey and think of Alameda Point as the pot of honey, and you will get my meaning.
Deficit spending based on future income is now known (though perhaps suspected for a long time by at least a few) to be BAD BUSINESS. Because our federal government deregulated most everything that should be regulated and because antitrust laws have either been gutted or ignored, and the world marketplace, which takes its cue from our model, has done BAD BUSINESS now for A LONG TIME, eventuating in the current global economic mess.
Fiscal neutrality is a myth that people want to believe. But the facts do not support the myth. But history is doomed to repeat itself because no one knows how to try doing something differently.
The playground bullies that the AUSD program being advanced is intended to neutralize unfortunately grow into adults who use the same playground techniques on the internet to batter away at people who attempt to engage in critical thinking and dialog that is useful.
All of it is a darned shame. This is a nice town and there are a lot of thoughtful, well-meaning people who live here.
But our municipal government is clearly not looking out for our best interests, or even its own! This will only be addressed by the populace once it is too late for wise choices to be made.
Comment by E T — May 2, 2009 @ 10:03 am
“Deficit spending based on future income is now known (though perhaps suspected for a long time by at least a few) to be BAD BUSINESS.” Known by whom? I’d argue that the need for wise deficit-spending is actually now better recignized than it’s been in 30 years. (This isn’t the same as saying any deficit spending is good, and is not a comment on SunCal.)
“Because our federal government deregulated most everything that should be regulated and because antitrust laws have either been gutted or ignored, and the world marketplace, which takes its cue from our model, has done BAD BUSINESS now for A LONG TIME, eventuating in the current global economic mess.” I pretty much agree but the people who’ve argued against deficit-spending are the same people who’ve argued against antitrust regulation. They think the market can police itself on the microeconomic level and can stabilize itself on the macroeconomic level. I’d argue both of these positions are at least challenged by the experience of last two years.
Re. your point about people’s behavior in online fora. I think meaningful dialogue on the City’s financial problems breaks down when people are unable to think rationally and instead let their anger and other emotions dominate.
The economic situation in which Alameda, along with the rest of the world, finds itself is dire. Budget holes are emerging in business and governement all over the place. There is a need for informed and reasoned discussion on how we got here and how to address our problems.
Alongside not bullying, another part of a good education is learning critical thinking: how to assemble information, then (and only then) to look for explantions, to assess these explanation, examining alternatives, and to draw conclusions.
Calling people shills and enemies within, seeing conspiracies all around, alleging without evidence that people are taking money and generally lashing out people’s motives reflects a double failure in a person’s education: learning to treat others with respect and learning to construct and present arguments logically.
Comment by BC — May 2, 2009 @ 10:47 am
#49/#50: I think that both ANT and ET have made extremely good, thoughtful comments here. ET has covered a whole range of issues very succinctly. ANT’s comment re the “sacred cows” on the pro-SunCal side is exactly what I’ve been thinking for a long time — when people say “knee-jerk reaction”, frankly, I have to wonder which side is worse.
I would be willing to have a discussion over Measure A as well, but it has to *start* by recognizing the severe traffic constraints we have here, a constraint that just cannot be fixed. It has to recognize that we’re on an island (!!) — that’s not asking much.
The minute people start talking the whole canned Smart Growth sales pitch, I feel that the honest discussion has stopped — like “more people, more transit” — okay, and if that doesn’t happen the way the textbooks say it will, then what?
#51: BC: As for having a meaningful dialog, here’s what you can do: Stop referring to the “opposition” in a “you people” tone — as in “you people are unable to think rationally”. Try addressing the concerns of one person, rather than lumping everyone together, and then make specific points — and cite facts — in support of your position.
In my experience, I think you tend to generalize a lot, but I’m not sure what you have to back it up.
If you think it’s somehow “emotional” to be concerned over SunCal’s behavior around the signature gathering, for example, then I think you’re missing the significance. This huge mult-billion dollar project is being (at present) completely misrepresented by a crew of people out to make a few bucks — so this is how SunCal runs things? — and right from the start? So we trust them to come thru on their multitude of promises to us?
I don’t. Why would you?
Comment by DL Morrison — May 2, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
I’m not sure I do favor the SunCal project and don’t think I’ve said I do. I simply don’t see how the traffic-congestion problems it’ll cause in the tube will be mitigated. Some other arguments against that I’ve heard are without merit: the extra people will contribute to global warming with their cars (GW is a global phenomenon); developers want to make profits (really?).
The quality of the opposition is dire. I stand by my examples of its bad behavior: calling people enemies within, shills, seeing conspiracies everywhere. You’ve seen these, I’m sure. This is emotional nonsense and it’s offputting. If some of these nutjobs are against the plan, how bad can it really be?
That this said, as long as a defeat of the proposition won’t encourage the editor and chair of Action Alameda to run for mayor, I’ll probably vote no.
Comment by BC — May 4, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
#53
“That this said, as long as a defeat of the proposition won’t encourage the editor and chair of Action Alameda to run for mayor, I’ll probably vote no.”
Put that fear to rest.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 4, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
I’m not sure I’ve seen a reference to conspiracies, really, but maybe I’m just not recognizing that.
Anyway, people tend to approach issues like this in terms of immediate self-interest, which is human nature, etc., but the ultimate outcome can be failure to see the bigger picture. So, politicians (some) can be looking at campaign contributions, business people can be looking at their financial interests — it’s fair to say that these factors control what people do, but it’s not the same as calling it a conspiracy.
Personally, I’ve always been hesitant to think that local officials will routinely sell their city down the river for the sake of developer money, but by all appearances, they do.
Then look at what Perata has done here, and how long that’s been going on. He’s pretty much run roughshod over the city, and anybody associated with him is liable to be pursuing the same agenda, development at all costs.
Comment by DL Morrison — May 4, 2009 @ 10:11 pm