Before word starts circulating around the Alameda grapevine in that awful form of telephone that ends up attributing statements to someone that they didn’t say, here’s the nutshellish version. For those that haven’t ended up on the tail end of e-mail forwards or Google alerts, essentially rumors have circulated that the City Council is going to be modifying the Alameda Point Initiative to get it on the November ballot.
So this part Saturday while the rest of us was out enjoying (or sweating in) the heat of summer, the Alameda League of Women Voters were cooped up inside Otaez for its annual meeting. One of the things that they were scheduled to discuss was the Alameda Point Initiative and what position, if any, the League should take on the issue. The recommendation that the subcommittee came up with and that was adopted by the League Board — because at the time they adopted it in May the assumption was the the Initiative would be submitted for the November 2009 election — was to not take a position on the issue because there would not be sufficient time to review the Initiative and put it to a vote for the larger membership. Rather the subcommittee made a recommendation to make a focused educational effort by providing analysis of the Initiative, host public meetings, etc… Basically to do what the League is known for doing which is to provide information in a non partisan manner.
Some of the issues that the committee recommended be included in the analysis are:
- What is Measure A and how would it impact development
- The Development Plan in relation to transportation and transit-oriented
development. - The Development Plan in relation to environmental clean up
- The Development Plan in relation to housing
- The Development Plan in relation to commercial development and job creation
- What are the options if there is a ‘no’ vote on the measure
From what I understand, it was during this presentation to the larger membership that people in the audience began adding items that they would like to be studied, such as fiscal impact. One audience member asked that the Disposition and Development Agreement — I’ve also seen this written as Development Disposition Agreement — (DDA) be included in the analysis. Councilmember Lena Tam noted that the DDA is not part of the Initiative itself and therefore not subject to review. In fact, when I emailed Lena Tam for clarification she noted that the DDA isn’t negotiated until after there is a project. And since the project is part of the larger initiative, it can’t be negotiated until after the initiative is voted on by the general public.
This was when Lena Tam mentioned that the City has looked into the possiblity of modifying some of the language in the SunCal initiative itself. Apparently there are a lot of balls being juggled up in the air right now which is probably one of the reasons that SunCal decided to wait to submit their signatures. Some of it was discussed on a larger scale in Rin Kelly’s piece in the EBX where the City Manager and Assistant City Manager talked around the issue of further negotiations with SunCal but never talked in detail about the contentious items, which would be more enlightening than vague political speak. Other issues Councilmember Tam mentioned in her email included the on-going negotiations with the Navy and possible changes in conditions with the Navy which potentially need to be reflected in the Initiative. And given the information that the Navy leadership is undergoing change due to the change in Presidential administrations, there could possibly be more negotiations which lead to more changes.
But, the Council always has, at its discretion, the ability to place an initiative on the ballot if they so choose, if the changes negotiated with SunCal are substantive enough that it is substantially different from the petition that was submitted and signed by all those people, then this is one of the options that is available to the Council to ensure that the negotiations are memorialized correctly in the voter initiative.
In fact, a while back I emailed the City Attorney to ask if there was anything in the election code that would preclude the City Council from placing a similar, yet slightly different initiative on the ballot, and according to the City Attorney — and the election code– there is not. If there are similar initiatives placed on the same ballot, which ever passes with the higher number of votes would be adopted. We will probably see this in action in November with the Firefighter Initiative, as mentioned by Jon Spangler. More on that some other time.
So the summary is, there are still negotiations on-going between all parties: Navy, City, SunCal. The City isn’t doing anything right now. The chances of going for a November ballot are slim to none because an Initiative that is placed on the ballot by the Council would have to have an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) done prior to the vote itself. To produce an EIR by November on a project of the scale of Alameda Point would be near impossible.
I think Lauren captured the essence of the discussion at our annual meeting well. A number of options were presented, and Lena spoke to clarify what some of them might be, but she neither endorsed or said that any of them were actually in line to happen, as certainties. For some, even discussing options or possible scenarios create all sorts of rumors and conspiracy theories; this was simply a discussion of ways things COULD go, not they way they WOULD go. In keeping with the way League does things, all the information about matters of public policy known are on the table for further understanding and discussion. We have no proscribed topics or details. We simply want to understand what the implications of all the options are so that we can assist the public to have the facts and vote intelligently, based on those facts, not speculation, rumor, or hyperbole. We appreciated Lena’s clarifications especially in light of developments that have occured since our subcommittee put together the recommendation to the membership in May.
At this point, our plan is to stay calm, sort through the information and seek understanding of the implications of varying ways of dealing with the situation in an unbiased manner.
Comment by Kate Quick — June 29, 2009 @ 8:19 am
#1
“For some, even discussing options or possible scenarios create all sorts of rumors and conspiracy theories”
It isn’t about a bunch of crazies imagining conspiracy theories; it is about an attentive public concerned about business as usual.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 29, 2009 @ 9:35 am
For professional, informative and relevant coverage of this issue, please see The Island, “City considering changes to Point measure”. This post should appear on Alamedans.com at some point, but I haven’t see it as yet, so fyi.
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/
Comment by DL Morrison — June 29, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Oneof the LWV rumors had already hit my email -so I sought actual facts from the person whose
statements were, as it turns out were being taken out of context. That person directed me to this blog. Thank you,Lauren, for accurately reporting the news! Again, let’s all be careful not to attribute your desired outcome to others. All of us must do our own fact checking, if it seems unlikely it usually is.
Comment by helen Sause — June 29, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Do chicks get a full vote or only 1/3?
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — June 29, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
#5. Gee, Jeff, both men and women are members of the League, so everyone gets a full vote, chicks and studs, too!
#2. Since what hit some of the blogs and web sites was a heavily editorialized and opinonated version of the discussion, it led some to jump to conclusions that were quite erroneous. I certainly don’t think that those who hold strong opinions are crazies, but some seem to latch on to “facts” before they ascertain that they are hearing the true story, because the “facts” suit their opinions. I really appreciated the folks who e-mailed me for verification of some “facts” that weren’t. One of the reasons the League is a trusted organization (over 95% said they trusted the League in recent national polls)is that we check out the facts and know how to separate fact from opinion, a skill sadly not taught in modern-day schooling.
As I have told many who hold strong opinions on a variety of civic topics, civil discourse is the best way to convince others of your side of an argument. Once you start spinning, personalizing, or introducing wild speculation, your hopes of convincing others quickly disappears – you get labeled as a “nut case” and no one listens to you.
Comment by Kate Quick — June 30, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
#6: “As I have told many who hold strong opinions on a variety of civic topics, civil discourse is the best way to convince others of your side of an argument.”
Would you mind mentioning that to Helen Sause? Referring to opponents of the Initiative as “hysterical fanatics” is not especially civil in my opinion. If that isn’t “personalizing”, then what is?
Comment by DL Morrison — June 30, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
#6
All sides have their crazies and their sanies. Everyone self-selects information to some degree. It is more about understanding that people can draw different conclusions when presented with the same set of facts. That is why all supreme court decisions are not unanimous. We probably all tend to be somewhat more understanding of the crazies in our own camp.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 30, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
#6: I’m very glad that the League has chosen to study this issue, as we very much need this kind of third-party analysis. However, I feel constrained to point out that the very people who keep calling for a “fact-based” discussion are the same people who are(endlessly?) willing to grant their blind support to the Initiative and to SunCal and its myriad PR efforts.
There’s no question that SunCal has made grossly misleading statements —
like the glossy flyer claiming that the initiative guarantees construction of a sports complex. It does no such thing. The initiative only guarantees that SunCal will commit a certain amount of money to a very wide range of amenities and services, and many observers, the city among them, are concerned that the money won’t go far enough.
This whole discussion has been hampered by the proponents’ unwillingness to address key facts, this being just one of many.
Comment by DL Morrison — June 30, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
#7
Helen Sause has been on the receiving end of vitriolic comments more times than she probably would like to count. She was even trashed in a short-lived Wikipedia entry a few years back–mainly for disagreeing with some people. So, if anyone has the right to be concerned about “hysterical fanatics,” I think she did.
Disclaimer: However, I agree that people on either side of ANY issue can get too emotional and say or write things they may have wished they hadn’t. I admit I have often zinged some people on this blog, because I find it impossible to have a discussion with them.
Comment by Linda Hudson — June 30, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
There are male members in the League of Women Voters? This whole move to make everyone androgynous and obliterate differentiation of the sexes is getting a little ridiculous …
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — June 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
#6 and #11.
I am the male league of Women Voters member who wrote the “heavily editorialized and opinonated version of the discussion,” that “led some to jump to conclusions that were quite erroneous.” For my rush of enthusiasm and failure to provide a full context for my remarks I apologize as that did the League and our community a disservice. One example of the disservice to the cause of informed debate was the blog headline based on my remarks. The headline proclaimed that the Council was planning to put a modified version of the SunCal Iniative on the ballot in November. In my remarks, I failed to clearly distinguish between my wishful thinking in the title of my original e-mail that left the impression that the Council was seriously considering changing the Initiative. Councilwoman Lena Tams was actually describing possible Council options, not chosen courses of action.
There is a place for editorials and opinions, but as in the Newspapers, they require sober reflection and clear separation from the news. For my broadly distributed e-mails I will be more careful, and reflective, in the future.
Regarding male members in the Women’s League, I am a member because I find that organization to be by far the best in Alameda for promoting transparency and inclusion in government, my core values. I have seen first hand through my work with Renwed Hope Housing Advocates and the Alameda community’s failure to stop the eviction from Harbor Bay Isle in the West End of hundreds of minority familes, headed mostly by women, the price our community pays when government is neither transparent or inclusive. Along with many volunteer civic organizations, lawsuits, electioneering, and press coverage the League is one of the most effective advocates for inclusion in our town.
Comment by William Smith — June 30, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Bill,
Don’t you mean “the eviction from the Harbor Island Apartments in the West End”? Harbor Bay Isle is a development on Bay Farm Island, which has no affordable housing, due to the passage of Measure A in 1973. The Harbor Island Apartments were a 600+ unit apartment complex built for subsidized housing in the 60’s with a federal loan. The complex was originally known as the Buena Vista Apartments, now known as Summerhouse.
Comment by Lois Pryor — June 30, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Lois,
Thank you for the correction. I did mean the Harbor Island Apartments on the West End.
Bill
Comment by William Smith — June 30, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Mesure A had nothing to do with the creation of the Harbor Bay Isle without low income units and Harbor Isle apartments as low income units.
The Harbor Isle apartments were built as market rate apartments in the 1960’s. One could not even get an apartment there until one had proof of holding a job for 6 months. In the 1980’s there was a lawsuit which charged the City of Alameda with discriminatory housing policies. Guyton vs. City of Alameda. Then City Attorney Carol Korade recommended settling the lawsuit because she was not familiar with how to litigate. Her solution was to allow the entire building to be deemed low income and thus subject to replacement without complying with Measure A. She did so without verifying that a single susidized unit existed at the time of the sale to the Gersten Co. which consisted of a federally guaranteed loan. The only person who actually lived at the apartments at the time of the conversion, stated that only 4 units were subsized or section 8 housing.
Our fine City of Alameda legal staff now consists of 10 persons who specialize in going to meetings and other administrative functions for which there is no measure of success in objective terms. Most if not all litigation is hired to outside firms who have litigation expertise. No one in the City seems to have real legal skills since Carter Stroud left.
And it is up to citizens like Jean Sweeney to get anything of legal substance done. [Congratulations to Jean on the Court upholding the Southern Pacific lawsuit over the Belt Line.] The City Attorney’s staff is too busy with more important things. Like trying to justify their existence. I say teach them to put out fires and transport emergency calls to real hospitals outside of Alameda.
Comment by barbara — June 30, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
15.
Thank you for the background on the City’s role in Harbor Island losing its low income units. Nearly 30 years later the City has only just begun to comply with the terms of the Guyton settlement and replace those lost low income units.
Measure A may have had little to do directly with the elimination of low income units from Harbor Island and the expulsion of that community from Alameda. That the Measure prohibits the construction of new multi-family units for working families with higher incomes puts a premium on conversions and so indirectly may have contributed to its conversion.
More significantly, the ban on lower carbon condos, apartments and townhomes is the primary reason the City has not replaced those low-income units. If we want to keep not just our low income neighbors in our community, but increasingly our middle income professional sons and daughters and retired parents, we need new market-rate condos, apartments and townhomes in Alameda as well as such units to repalce the low income housing lost.
Comment by William Smith — July 1, 2009 @ 5:54 am
Regarding #15: according to the 1980 Alameda Housing Element, “Buena Vista Apartments, 615 units built with Federal subsides in 1965, still maintains rent levels and income limits to ensure that low and moderate income people can afford to live there. Two bedroom units and three bedroom units rent for less than half the median for units available on the market.
“Maximum income limits are slightly higher than for section 8 and public housing and minimum income requirement are based on the rule of thumb that a family can afford up to one-third of its net income after installment abligations for housing. Thus net incomes of around $6300 and $7300 are needed for two and three bedroom units in Buena Vista Apartments.”
From the 1990 Housing Element: “Until 1988, there were also 615 units in the Buena Vista Apartments that were rented at rates afordable to lower income households and individuals, although they were not restricted to lower income households and individuals.
“In September 1987 the owner of the Buena Vista Apartments, which had been built with a HUD subsidy in the mid-1960’s. (note: I think it was a 221(d)(3) below market rate loan, but didn’t look it up to be sure. ) prepaid the mortgages, thus terminating HUD rental restrictions. The complex was renamed Bridgeport Apartments. Tenants were advised by management that over the ensuing year rents would increase from subsidized to market rates. It can be assumed that most, if not all of the moderate and above moderate income households (22% of the units) were able to afford the new rents.
“In an effort to maintain affordability of the units to the very low income households, the City entered into discussions with HUD and the apartment owner. The Alameda Housing Authority was able to obtain 260 section 8 vouchers to provide assistance to the very low income tenants of the project (those earning less than 50% of median) 42% of the ooupants. All 205 eligible households who applied received Section 8 vouchers.The City’s contract with HUD for participation in the program is valid for five years. Renewal is anticipated in 1992. Landlord participation is voluntary and renewable on a year-to-year basis.
“Information is available concerning the disposition of the low income households (those earning 50 to 80% of median income) who occupied 36% of the units in the Buena vista Apartments but were not eligible for Section 8 vouchers.”
The sale of the BV apartments precipitated the Guyton-Henderson lawsuit against the City, which was settled in April,1990. The settlement, with which, as Bill mentions above, the City is just beginning to comply, specifies how dedicated housing funds are spent and encourages the City to increase its affordable housing stock to meet ABAG fair share objectives. It also memorializes an exception to Measure A, allowing the City to replace 325 affordable units lost when the complex converted to market rents.( Barbara, this is not the whole building, but 325 out of 615 total units). Those residents of the BV apartments who were present in September1987 will be given first priority to ocupy the new units financed with redevelopment funds.
Barbara, there is a difference between affordable housing and low income housing. Because of Measure A’s restrictions on multiple units, Harbor Bay Isle has no apartments or condominiums, and no more than two townhouses can be joined together, thereby eliminating the possibility of housing affordable to many people with moderate incomes, disproportionately including many minorities. Compare the census data for Bay farm to almost any other census tract in Alameda and the point will be very clear.
Comment by Lois Pryor — July 2, 2009 @ 2:16 am
We need more low income housing so that we can further reduce our tax base while increasing our social welfare burden … I love Alameda
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — July 2, 2009 @ 9:13 am
re 17
94502 has a significant number of condos, many of which can be rented.
Comment by dave — July 2, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Re 18
All of those condos on Bayfarm Island are now over 30 years old. Where can I rent a new condo in Alameda with modern amenities, such as wiring for Internet and high ceilings?
Bill
Comment by William Smith — July 2, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Query for 18
A number of businesses benefit from low income housing. What market rate housing can one afford on minimum wage? Where should people who make minimum wage live? Should we raise the minimum wage so that it will be high enough to support renting market rate housing in Alameda?
Comment by William Smith — July 2, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
#20, not sure what you mean by “wiring for internet”. Most folks are going the wireless route these days! All you need is a standard telephone/cable outlet
Comment by alameda — July 3, 2009 @ 7:03 am
I have observed that the most prominent supporters of higher density housing in Alameda live in single family homes in the nicer parts of town.
Why is that?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 3, 2009 @ 9:14 am
#23. Been wondering that myself… They gonna move in to one of them new places? Dock their boat @ seaplane lagoon?
When you live on a fixed income, market rate housing don’t cut it. Affordable housing is hard to find; reason is that the drum bangers don’t want affordable housing in their town, period. Brings down their precious property values.
When you are working for minimum wage, you can’t have your own living space, you have to share with other wage earners in your income bracket and pray to GAWD everyone gets along. I know this first-hand.
And we ain’t talking about sharing single family homes in nice parts of town, places with amenities or near shopping. We talking about slum-lord dumps in parts of town that don’t have corner stores. And, yeah, we got that here in sunny Alameda, too. But nobody talks about it, ’cause they too busy posturing how good life is treating them.
But, when the town supports lots too many businesses that have marginal income (salons, restaurants, fast food, low-end retail, services), you gotta know that those folks working those joints have to live somewhere, and most cannot afford to live here.So you gotta have good transportation options.
There been articles in the papers about the exodus of certain ethnic groups from, for example, SF–all ’cause they cannot afford to live there; they been priced out.
Okay, so what happens when you build high density mixed use? You packing in more people! That sounds good, but who’s gonna be doing the WORK and the providing the SERVICES?
Chances are real good it will NOT be the folks living in the shiny new condo-maximums. It will be high school and college kids and young folks and immigrants who have to take the bus, or if it is close enough, ride their bicycles, and what have you. Or drive their BEATER CAR with added extra emissions and sound effects.
It all looks real cute in the travel brochures they send out, but the economic realities never even appear in the fine print on those.
And that is the reason why.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — July 3, 2009 @ 9:55 am
#23. Imagine the value of those single family homes with back yards in 10-20 years, when everything around is condos and apartments.
Comment by AD — July 3, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I think that these discussions on development issues tend too much towards generalizing abstractions, and in this case, a lack of context as well. The housing market is *regional*, so in fact there is affordable housing in the immediate area, in parts of Oakland for example.
Whether there should be cheap housing available in every city — that’s a question of whether it’s possible or not, I mean, in terms of the real estate market, unless the housing is built to remain affordable. Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to build owner-occupied low income housing — rental housing is more affordable for low income people.
Also, given the assumption that rental housing is usually cheaper — Alameda has a higher percentage of multi-family units than Oakland and Berkeley — check out the Bay Area census and you’ll see. So the assertioni that Alameda lacks affordable housing may not be accurate.
Comment by DL Morrison — July 3, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Here’s the link for the Bay Area census, and data which I hope posts so it’s readable. This is for 2007.
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/cities.htm
Median value owner occupied unit
Alameda: 669,300
Berkeley: 736,200
Oakland: 558,200
Median gross rent (dollars)
Alameda: 1,162
Berkeley: 1,057
Oakland: 947
1 unit, detached housing
Alameda: 13,513 42.50%
Berkeley: 21,006 45.10%
Oakland: 72,834 44.60%
Comment by DL Morrison — July 3, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
AlamedaNayTif re 23,
Even though I would not agree that all of the most prominent supporters of higher density housing live in the nicer parts of town, you do raise an issue that is important to examine: why aren’t lower income supporters of higher density housing more prominent?
The story of the former members of Renewed Hope who used to live in Harbor Island apartments on the West End is instructive here. After they were evicted, along with more than 200 other families, all that I am still in touch with were forced to move out of town.
Some still move from friend to friend and don’t have a permanent mailing address, a permanent phone number, and access the web from public libraries or friends houses. The focus on securing a place to sleep every night and food makes it hard to be a prominent advocate for just and equitable housing policies, zoning codes, and development agreements.
Yet years after they were evicted, this group maintains close ties with Alameda and are active participants in Renewed Hope. Two are very prominent in Alameda lore, Delores Wills-Guyton and Modessa Henderson who are still waiting for the City to fulfill its part of a thirty year old Guyton-Henderson settlement agreement to replace the affordable housing units that were lost when HUD and the City sold the 615 Harbor Island apartments, for which the new owner charged market rate rents. Lois Pryor, a Renewed Hope Colleague of mine, gave much of the background on this above in 17.
There are other reasons, too, why more affluent people generally take leadership positions in Civic affairs. These reasons include
1) motivated by an understanding of how important stable shelter and adequate and healthy food are to allowing children to learn and contribute to our economy rather than draining our economic resources as inmates once they grow up
2) more have had to struggle to meet payrolls and appreciate a safety net when they have to lay off good people who have contributed to the success of their businesses when times get tough
3) understand the processes and procedures that make government work, such as City charters, general plans, housing elements, specific plans and development and disposition agreements
4) have the resources, both financial, skill bases, and campaigning time to contribute to candidates who are sympathetic to their agenda,
5) will personally benefit from new modern housing when, like me, I no longer wish to maintain the yard of my couplet (I do not live in a single family home – I share a wall and a roof with my neighbor)
6) attractive housing developments and the improved services made possible by more people will improve all property values as AD pointed out in 25
7) …..
AlamedaNayTiff I could write an essay on any of the above points about why more prosperous people are more visible in promoting dense housing.
There is one thing that less prosperous people bring to the campaign for housing – a burning desire for change since they have personally experienced the failings of our economic system. Their passion is contagious, and energizes those of us who understand the situation intellectually and know how to make changes to the system transparently and inclusively.
Lauren, Michelle’s and John Knoxwhite’s blogs are excellent tools to facilitate transparency and inclusion as this exchange is doing.
Note that transparency and inclusion do not necessarily mean unanimous agreement – only that the basis for the differences is understood by all sides and each side has the opportunity to learn how to improve their own positions based on the views of others, and accomodates those views when appropriate.
Comment by William Smith — July 3, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Darcy, re 26 and 27,
I had a different reaction to the figures on percentage of multi-family housing in various Alameda City’s you cite.
We had best hurry to change the Alameda City Charter or we in Alameda will lose our leadership position in supporting the multi-family housing that facilitates low-carbon healthy lifestyles and communities of the 21st Century.
Our differing views reflect differences within the environmental community as to whether we need only reduce the rate of unsustainable resource consumption now, or if we also have to take strong action to limit population growth as well. I submitted an essay to Don Roberts on this topic Friday. Will post it on Lauren’s blog after I give Don a chance to publish the essay next week.
Comment by William Smith — July 4, 2009 @ 7:17 am
#28
In the past, those of modest means were perfectly capable of representing their own interests without the benefit of the affluent. I guess those days are gone.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/04/MNNL18HJ1S.DTL
If the wealthy stuck to representing the interests of the rich, the poor might be better off.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 4, 2009 @ 7:57 am
re: 30
As prolgazinternet commented on the above link: “Where is Harry Bridges when we (you) need him?”
Comment by Jack Richard — July 4, 2009 @ 10:19 am
#28
I do not question the intentions of smart growth proponents. What I do question is who is going to buy a home and live under the restraints required for such a community? For example, what if people either do not wish or simply cannot use public transit? Even if they are provided with only a single parking space, that will not stop them from owning three cars. They will simply park illegally. When she first began on the Council, Beverly Johnson pushed for a law prohibiting parking on lawns. The law is not enforced. How about the idea of having “compact” parking spaces? How often do you see an SUV in one of those spaces? Average people are always going to disappoint the elites. We’re not going to live up to their expectations. We’re going to act stupid in their smart growth communities.
How far are we willing to go to impose upon others our vision for a better world?
Developers can appeal to the elite to get a project approved, but may need to make significant changes to the project to sell it to homebuyers — or the homebuyers may simply make those changes themselves after they move in. How many police will it take to impose the original vision on those future occupants?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 4, 2009 @ 6:42 pm