Back to that Alameda Point Info site, so the next item that caught my attention is this line that appeared on the “Dear Alameda Voter” page (screen capped below), which said:
…We are concerned because voters will be asked to approve exclusive development rights over a quarter of the island for a long period of time without knowing whether SunCal will keep its part of the deal. The Development Agreement explicitly states that SunCal will have complete control over what, when, in what order, and even whether anything at all will be built…
The troubling questions the initiative raises for us are matched only by the escape clauses we’ve discovered in the accompanying Development Agreement…
The overall critique is fair, that the Development Agreement could be considered overreaching and that there is no guarantee that anything will be built. Although, if nothing is built, isn’t that what some Alamedans critical of the project want anyway, so wouldn’t they be happier if the land were encumbered by a developer without actively being developed? But I digress.
However, the section about the escape clauses I found intriguing and wanted to learn more, so further surfing around the site, I came across the FAQ section and this question:
Aren’t there some very good benefits for us in the initiative?
The answer by Alameda Point Info:
The vision of new neighborhoods with people riding bikes, hopping on buses, and playing at a new sports complex sounds better than what we have now. The problem is that none of these promises are guaranteed. Voters are being told they are voting for a “vision,” when in reality they are voting on a contract full of escape clauses.
There’s that darn “escape clauses” thing again. Fortunately, the next question was written to provide the answer:
The answer:
Section 2.9 of the Development Agreement reads: “Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Alameda Point Project at all or in any particular order or manner, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur.”
So, I guess the contention is that if the City, or rather City staff, had a hand in negotiating the Development Agreement, “escape clauses” such as the one above would never have been allowed and SunCal would be forced to perform. That if the Development Agreement were not so one-sided as to be favorable on the part of SunCal, this “No Other Requirements ” clause would never have seen the light of day.
Only, here’s the thing, when I was looking for examples of other Development Agreements out there and how affirmative obligations were handled, I didn’t need to look any farther than the Development Agreements for Alameda Landing. These agreements had not only been negotiated with Catellus but vetted by the City Council at the December 5, 2006 meeting (minutes) when it was approved unanimously by the sitting City Council (Johnson, deHaan, Daysog, Johnson, Matarrese). In fact, the two Development Agreements approved that night have similar language to the one in the Alameda Point Development Agreement which Alameda Point Info considers to be a troubling escape clause.
In DA-06-003 section 3.3.2:
No Other Requirements. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Alameda Landing Commercial Project at all or in any particular order or manner, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur.
In DA-06-004 section 3.3.2:
No Other Requirements. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Alameda Landing Residential Project at all or in any particular order or manner, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur.
So is this something designed and worded by SunCal in order to screw us all over? Or simply a case of boilerplate language?
Can’t wait to see what some other examples of ”escape clauses” are unearthed by Alameda Point Info from the “contract full of escape clauses.”
You see the result at Alameda Landing.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 27, 2009 @ 7:35 am
You’re right ANT, but the point still stands that the terms in the Alameda Landing Development Agreement were negotiated and agreed to be the City Council.
Here is another example from the Insitute for Local Governments in its Sample Agreements under the Development Agreement section. From San Clemente’s agreement with Monarch Communities:
Comment by Lauren Do — August 27, 2009 @ 8:08 am
So is this something designed and worded by SunCal in order to screw us all over? Or simply a case of boilerplate language?
=================
Both?
Comment by David Hart — August 27, 2009 @ 8:16 am
At least this one didn’t “jump out” at you, Lauren.
Alameda Point Info is correct, there are escape clauses for SunCal in the agreement. Boilerplate escape clauses protect the developer. Can’t blame them for that and the clauses don’t mean the Agreement’s good or bad, all it means nobody can see into the future. Perhaps the City should have a little “boilerplate” language of our own in the Agreement to protect the citizens from future adversities.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 27, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Scenario: Initiative passes. City of Alameda buys back Alameda Point from NAS [$1.00 or $108,000,000.000]. City of Alameda hands deed over to SunCal/D.E. Shaw. SunCal declares bankruptcy after nominally breaking ground. Deed ends up with D.E. Shaw, who sells off parcels of the land to other developers, without obligation to the City of Alameda. As the land is no longer encumbered by any prior zoning ordinances [because the city's general plan has been changed], anything goes, and no one has to follow any plan.
It is called land banking and it happens all the time.
So, what is happening with all those SunCal bankruptcies elsewhere? Are you thinking that the land automatically reverts back to the municipalities where they are located?
Guess again.
Comment by E T — August 27, 2009 @ 10:41 am
5. Wow, I’m liking selling off parcels but why wait for D. E. Shaw lets just do nothing and the Navy will sell them off.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 27, 2009 @ 11:20 am
I don’t see why SunCal needs an escape clause. There is nothing in its ballot measure that is binding except for $200 million in unprioritized public amenities spread out over a 25 year period. SunCal can simply declare bankruptcy and walk away like they have in many other communities in California.
Of course the ballot measure would favor SunCal. They didn’t pay attorneys to write a measure that would not provide them with significant advantages. They didn’t pay petitioners to circulate a measure that would not provide them with significant advantages. And they would not be paying political consultants and public relations specialists good money to get a measure passed that did not provide them with significant advantages.
Maybe our City Councilmembers are not the best negotiators, but one would hope that they would put a measure on the ballot that is a bit more even-handed. At least it would be subject to CEQA.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 27, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
A bunch of issues here…
1) The big picture: why are we voting on a legal contract? The other contracts mentioned went thru the standard legislative process w/ the City Council — this one we’re voting on, take it or leave it, and we have no clue of what it really means, not surprisingly.
2) There’s other language in that paragraph referenced above (Sec. 2.9 of the DA):
Other agreements among the ARRA and/or the CIC and the developer will establish obligations regarding development of the Alameda Point Project, and >> any default under those separate agreements (including failure to develop in accordance with the timing provisions of such agreements) does not constitute a default under this Development Agreement <<."
So in sum: The city says that SunCal will enter into a DDA and then all the plans will be finalized and we'll have our terms in place. Well, no. SunCal can default on a DDA and they still retain their rights under the Development Agreement. So we're voting on this too — what does it mean?
Comment by DL Morrison — August 27, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
In response to some of the good comments above:
#5: Yes, the whole intent really is to remove all the land use controls and watch the property value skyrocket, without turning a shovel. Very simple, really, and not a bad idea I suppose from an investor’s standpoint. (Good work if you can find it.)
#6: The Navy can sell off the property but it still has to comply with the existing (city’s standard) land use controls on the site, such as Measure A. Still, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 27, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
It’s a good idea only if the city dissolves the redevelopment district or removes the base from same BEFORE the sale. If sold w/o that step, the city will still lose the general fund’s portion of the property taxes to the TID.
Comment by dave — August 27, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
What has the city been negotiating with SunCal for the past two years? SunCal has unilaterally ended the negotiations by putting forward its own ballot measure instead of having the city place a negotiated one on the ballot. Another contributor mentioned that the Council was just too cowardly to put a measure on the ballot that changed Measure A, so it let SunCal do the dirty work. I don’t know if I buy that argument, but Measure A aside, the Council should have negotiated a measure that was more favorable to Alamedans and told SunCal to walk if they didn’t like it. I don’t know if the Council lacks good negotiators or simply the desire to get us the best deal possible. It wouldn’t be the first time that a council has bargained away the store, but I would have hoped for better. If the Council were stronger, SunCal wouldn’t have dared to take the route of its own initiative. I’m still looking for some leadership and courage on the part of the Council.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 27, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
It appears the city stopped negotiating with SunCal/DE Shaw long before the head of WABA, West Alameda Business Association, sent the proposed Initiative and Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition to the City Clerk on March 23, 2009.
Certainly “city hall” knew what was in the initiative at that time. (Or they should have known.)
After all, some of “city staff” salaries were being paid by SunCal/DE Shaw throughout the time the initative was being written by their attorney(s) based in Lafayette.
The paid signature collectors were out very soon after March 23.
Current city council members may want to leave a “legacy” for future generations, but the SunCal/DE Shaw plan is not the way to do it!
Comment by RM — August 27, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
You need escape clauses because over a 25 year period, stuff happens. You can’t bind the developer to a time table and you can’t force them to sell off parcels for development if there are no buyers, etc. It’s business and an option to “do nothing” is certainly an option.
I agree with the comment above – why are we voting on a contract? I was always under the impression that we were going to vote on a Measure A exception for the particular outline of land that SunCal wants to develop. Both the City and SunCal have mucked this up beyond belief.
And quit bringing DE Shaw into the picture. They’re not an operating firm, they’re a private equity firm. They raise money to finance the deals. They aren’t in the land development business. They’ve been around for a long time and have a good reputation.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — August 27, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
#12 RM, could you please name names as to the “city staffers” who were being paid their salaries by Sun Cal, and for what period of time, what did they do for the City, and how was it arranged that a private entity would pay them? I did not know that and would like to know more about it.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 27, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
#13: DE Shaw does belong in the picture, tho, as they’re in a partnership w/ SunCal, and they’re clearly the source of any and all money. They also have the power to dismiss SunCal from their partnership (tho the terms generally haven’t been disclosed), which means that under certain conditions SunCal could disappear from the picture, leaving DE Shaw as the owner of the property. I attended one of the SunCal presentations, during which Pat Keliher (the SunCal VP), confirmed that this could happen.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 27, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
E.D. Please try to pay attention to what has been going on! You absolutely astound me sometimes.
This is really not new info. – When SunCal realized they could not meet the financial commitments they were making to Alameda on their own dime, they had to look for new money to join the show. That’s when DE Shaw became the new star on the Alameda “futures” stage. Unfortunately for SunCal, they themselves were in such a tight bind financially, DE Shaw offered them a hard bargain and SunCal had to accept it, bent over as they were.
When SunCal announced to Alameda they had a new financial partner in the deal w/ our city, some of the details of the Shaw/SunCal agreement became public; such as the fact that DE Shaw can remove SunCal as the master developer without cause, virtually at any time. That why DE Shaw cannot be left out of the picture – They are not just the financial star of the SunCal Show, they could choose to be the owners of the whole show, the land, the MA exclusions, and be virtually immune to the wants, wishes, and needs of Alameda, the citizens, PB and CC. Ya just can’t ignore them when they hold that power. Unfortunately for all of us; we don’t know who DE Shaw is, what their goals and financial abilities and intentions are for our little island… We do know that with aid from our city staff, SunCal put together an initiative which is completely self serving, not just because of its ‘green washing’ and abuse of such terms as “smart growth”, but because they are to be held completely harmless no matter what happens, or if nothing happens. Waiting 20 years or more makes that property much more valuable
Although the dismantling of Measure A is obviously a part of the SunCal initiative, if you thought that all this is about, I am appalled by complete refusal to learn anything about which you blog…
Et tu Kate?
Jeez, it seems almost half of Alameda’s ‘Developer Dept.’ has at least a portion of their Salary paid by SunCal, including most of the salary of all the main players of Point Development and redevelopment staff, from Ms Little on down.
Again this is not news, it been stated ad nausium. First the City seemed to try to imply negotiated a hard deal where SunCal would have to reimburse the City for all the staff time they used for forming their plans…
Of course those who predicted a terrible plan just pointed out that the truth of the situation could be clearly seen that these city employee’s jobs had just become dependant on the developer, so who were they really working for? From the initiative, it appears they were working for SunCal, the fictitious entity that was funding their paychecks! This is the king of negotiating skills we are represented by – our city management sold our staff to work for SunCal with the belief it was in our interests. Gimme a break! Of course our Mayor and Matarrese were both already publicly supporting the plan even before the CC mtg where they admitted they did not understand it and requested legal dept to help explain it…
Comment by David Kirwin — August 27, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Kate, Suncal makes a quarterly payment to the City to reimburse them for staff time spent on reviewing the project, and to also compensate the City for any outside consultants they bring in for peer review, etc. Is that really such a bad thing? (By the way, this is not a new arrangement. Previously the Navy and APCP reimbursed the city for their expenses. Whenever Dave Kirwin takes out a permit (assuming he doesn’t do any work on his house illegally) he pays a fee that compensates the city for time staff spent on reviewing his project. I suppose one could argue that city staff are being bought off by Dave Kirwin. If that “one” was Dave Kirwin. On the other hand, the pointy aluminum hat he is wearing now is much better than the point white hat he has been wearing in his other recent posts.
Comment by notadave — August 28, 2009 @ 7:51 am
In your above example, notadave, neither the Navy nor Kirwin is/was seeking to execute a 9 or 10 figure contract with the city. The city should not accept any emolument from parties seeking significant other commercial ties with the city. It does not pass any rational test of arms length dealing or good government. (They shouldn’t have from APCP for same reason). Taking SunCal’s money while a ballot initiative is on the table seriously aggravates an already questionable ethical situation.
As an aside, elected officials should not act as employees of outside commercial entities, regardless of whether they are paid or unpaid, for those same reasons.
Comment by David Hart — August 28, 2009 @ 8:21 am
#14. As stated by others, not news that city staff is being paid.
[Cute, btw, to call it "reimbursing staff time", #17 when actually, the city staff is salaried to do a job. Right?]
Last page of this doc:
http://www.alameda-point.com/pdf/ENA.pdf
Comment by E T — August 28, 2009 @ 11:12 am
#13. D.E. Shaw has a good reputation with whom? In the business world, they are looked upon as unregulated sharks.
As critical thinkers, we need to distinguish between “successful” and “well regarded”.
Comment by E T — August 28, 2009 @ 11:16 am
#12 Gosh, I thought everyone following the SunCal/DE Shaw initiative knew how the money flows from the developer to the city staff.
#19 Thanks for the direct link to the dollar amounts SunCal paid for city staffers helping to get SunCal into Alameda.
Comment by RM — August 28, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
#17
“Whenever Dave Kirwin takes out a permit (assuming he doesn’t do any work on his house illegally) he pays a fee that compensates the city for time staff spent on reviewing his project. I suppose one could argue that city staff are being bought off by Dave Kirwin. If that “one” was Dave Kirwin. On the other hand, the pointy aluminum hat he is wearing now is much better than the point white hat he has been wearing in his other recent posts.”
David Kirwin’s permit fee isn’t paying for 75 percent of an employee’s salary. What happens to these staffers if SunCal does not get the contract? Is it in the interests of these staffers that SunCal does get the contract?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 28, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
How about some evaluation of SunCal’s website? I’ll point out something very interesting.
On SunCal’s blog, there are a number of entries that begin with:
“Letters from the Community
Alameda is a city known for its vigorous political debate and its well-informed citizenry. We would like to encourage that debate by periodically acknowledging the people who have offered thoughtful insights about the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.
Posted below is a letter sent to a local newspaper we think is worthy of your attention.”
http://www.alamedapointcommunity.com/blog/
Every single letter favors the SunCal development. Isn’t that amazing for a community with vigorous political debate? If it is like this now, what happens when SunCal owns a quarter of the city?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 28, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
#23: “If it is like this now, what happens when SunCal owns a quarter of the city?”
Bravo, ANT, that’s a very good question! SunCal will walk all over the city — up, down and sideways.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 28, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
# 23
Rough guess but I’d bet 66.6% of SuCal think alikes already own 100% of the city.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 29, 2009 @ 8:52 am
I see, it is not that SunCal is employing the city staffers, but is reimbursing the City for the cost of doing what all those who submit plans (and in this case a very BIG plan, indeed) have to have done by the city staff. It was made to sound as if the staff were reporting to SunCal, not hired by the city. It is an entirely different matter for a homeowner or developer to reimburse the city for its staff time – as a taxpayer, I would be pretty upset if such a big project were not forking over the cost of the plan development, meetings, coordination of infrastructure and clean-up activities, etc. I pay the city thousands of dollars for my permits and know that the money they charge me offsets the salaries of the staff required to review my architect’s and contractor’s plans and work, insure code compliance, and compliance with historical and other requirements. Hardly nefarious.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 29, 2009 @ 11:04 am
If you were paying the city thousands AND actively pursuing a major commercial deal with the city, would that not be a conflict of interest? If you were directly paying city staffers with the power to work toward your direct economic benefit — staffers who might well be unemployed absent your largesse — would that be considered good government?
Maybe if there was a local organization that worked to increase understanding of major public policy issues, dedicated to promoting education and advocacy, such egregious lapses of ethics would be more apparent to you.
Comment by David Hart — August 29, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Dave Hart,
Senior Planner Andrew Thomas has half his salary reimbursed by SunCal and could easily have been one of the 17 laid off at Planning were he not working on the project. This is not news to Andrew who like everybody else who was not laid off is busting the asses if they weren’t before. The work on the project clearly falls within his regular job description, though without this unusual circumstance one would never question his daily routine going about his job. Or maybe in Alameda we would, because nobody is ever beyond suspicion nefarious intent, especially if they are a public employee. But I digress. Imagine the squawk if he was doing his job every day as he has been, but the City paid his entire salary! There would be even more protest about the City working at the behest of SunCal, but on the tax payer’s dime, God forbid! Rightly so.
Those City staffers who have the daily opportunity to work directly toward SunCal’s economic benefit wrote the summary of the initiative, but SunCal didn’t pay for those hours of work as they should have and that was simply for appearances, an attempt to neutralize the kind of lame finger pointing you are doing in #27. That summary was not only useful, staff also didn’t appear to be doing a sales job for SunCal, but instead did a reasonable job at a very difficult task. Surly some will, still say it falls short because David Howard didn’t get to consult on it’s drafting.
personal anecdote:
Before Council directed staff to draft the summary I went to Planning to get a copy of the initiative. Since he was acquiring additional copies for a number of board members who had requested them and only had one copy in hand Andrew gave me his. I asked him a couple basic questions on the process while standing in the public permit waiting area in front of plan check staff and permit seekers. After getting clarification on why an EIR is not required of a “citizen’s” initiative versus one sponsored by Council, Andrew commented to me that the initiative was unambiguously favorable for SunCal. It’s seemed obvious to me, but I was interested that staff would be so plain spoken and in a public setting.
Over repeated exposure to the man in executing his job, which undeniably like all City Hall jobs has it’s political element, I am satisfied that Andrew Thomas is a competent professional who I trust to protect my interest as a citizen stakeholder. I am quite conscious of when staff are being solicitous and take that into full account when making an assessment of their performance. It’s not like I am impervious to flattery but I didn’t just fall off the turnip cart either.
You can snarf righteously all you want about conflicts and ethics but your insults (#27) to both Kate and Andrew are unwarranted.
Number one rule, know thine enemy. How many one on one conversations have you had with either of them by the way?
Comment by I.M. — August 29, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
#28
“Senior Planner Andrew Thomas has half his salary reimbursed by SunCal and could easily have been one of the 17 laid off at Planning were he not working on the [SunCal] project.”
I do not pretend to know the method of reimbursement of costs associated with the “normal routine” of planners doing their job, but you are suggesting that Senior Planner Andrew Thomas owes his not being laid off to SunCal. I hope you are wrong.
You seem to know the inner workings of City government. What is the rank above “Senior Planner” and why would a “Senior Planner” be laid off before a “junior planner” regardless of the project he was working on? Did someone in City Government make it clear to Andrew Thomas (and you) that Mr.Thomas’ job was tied to SunCal and exclusively SunCal?
I believe that it would be normal for the city to require a method of recovering costs that are incurred in the normal processing of major projects, but you are suggesting that there is a built in mechanism for a public employee to open his reputation to nefarious misunderstanding while working within his job description.
Though it’s on you, I believe your personal anecdote concerning Andrew Thomas should not have been revealed in this venue. I hope he will not be so candid with you again. Your personal recommendation on his professionalism is negated by your boastful “one on one” access to a Senior Planner.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 29, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Oh geez, here they go again. Come on, Jack, I’m also acquainted with Andrew Thomas. Is that also boastful? It’s a small town, for cryin’ out loud.
Comment by Linda Hudson — August 29, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
I.M.:
I’ve read over the post several times & still see no insult of Mr. Thomas. Pointing out a serious flaw in the process is not an insult to Mr. Thomas. Read it again.
And the fact that you think Mr. Thomas’ character trumps any appearance of a conflict is meaningless. The mere appearance of such conflicts is enough to call into question the fairness of the entire process, your acquaintance of him notwithstanding.
For example, anyone would agree that a judge should recuse himself from a case involving a company he has a financial interest in, EVEN IF THE JUDGE’S CHARACTER IS SOLID. The potential for questionable dealing is enough to make a verdict suspect. If I were to type that the judge is a great guy becuae I’ve looked into his eyes and insist he be allowed to proceed, you think me daft.
Pete Rose can’t be associated with baseball after betting on games because the honesty of a game he’s involved with will always be tainted. If I protested that no, he’d never throw a game because he’s Charlie Hustle, he’s a gamer & I cheered him as a kid, again you’d find that naive at best. The process can’t be trusted.
Halliburton got no-bid contracts while Cheney was on their payroll. But no, Cheney is an honest man, he says the Pledge of Allegiance every day, of course he’s clean. The list could go on, but you see the point (or do you?) The appearance of ethical lapses are enough to taint the entire process. Is that good government?
Is this Thomas’ fault? No, he didn’t create that process. But to say we should trust a group of people to be impartial when their bread is buttered by Suncal is just plain foolish. Money is a powerful influence on perspective. It is normal & completely human to see things the same way as your paymaster does.
Comment by David Hart — August 30, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Linda, I certainly did not say, nor did I imply, that acknowledging the holding of an acquaintanceship with a city employee by a citizen is “boasting”. I think you’ll agree that I.M. in # 28 goes far beyond that.
Nearest town where I grew up was Van Tassel, Wyoming. Back then it had a population of 25 but now I see it’s dropped to 18. Too small for a high school so we had to travel to the big city of Harrison, Nebraska. Back then it had a population of 500 but now I see it’s dropped to 279. So maybe Alameda, Kern County, California is a small town but, in my eyes, this one ain’t.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 30, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Mr. Hart, you missed my point. SunCal is, by virtue of its having a very large development proposal for the city, requiring many hours of city staff work and paying for the time required by fees to the city. This is not the same as city staffers being in the direct pay (governed/controlled by)an outside source. Andrew and others may be working on many projects (and likely are since the layoffs, since they are now doubling up on work)and those of us who are submitting work and paying fees are all contributing to his, and other’s salaries. From my dealings with Andrew, he is a good civil servant; honest and straightforward. I think the demonizing of city staff is also missing the point of what should be discussed here: is this a project that will “fit” in Alameda, what are its positive and/or negative aspects, can any of the potential problems be mitigated, and will doing nothing be worse overall than doing something?
We can, and should have civil discourse on these and other aspects of the development without all the conspiracy theories, character assasinations, and hyperbole.
My memory of what similar things were said when the theater and parking structure were in the development phase makes me all the more insistent that we conduct ourselves with dignity and reason on this very important issue.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 30, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Do city staff whose salaries are being subsidized by SunCal have direct contact with SunCal officials or is their contact through intermediaries? Are city staff informed that their employment with the city of alameda will continue regardless of the outcome of SunCal’s ballot measure?
In any event, SunCal officials should under no circumstances be allowed direct contact with city staff whose positions are being subsidized by them. This isn’t a matter of accusing a particular staff person of being dishonest, it is about protecting the public from a potential conflict of interest. No one should be offended by this. It is simply good government.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 30, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
I disagree. I fear this thread has become yet another red herring, when there are more useful things to discuss, e.g., How ’bout them Giants?
Comment by Linda Hudson — August 30, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
#33
“…I think the demonizing of city staff is also missing the point…”
Ms Quick, I think your argument is with I.M. in # 28. The only disparagement of city employees was in that comment. As I read them # 27 # 31 and # 34 were only asking legitimate questions or making points which should be of interest to all citizens of Alameda
Comment by Jack Richard — August 30, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Through 8 1/2 years of dealing with the planning staff in Alameda I never once had any reason to think that they were swayed or trying to sway me in any direction. I remember Andrew Thomas coming on staff to work on Alameda Point issues, and we toured the base with him as our guide. That was his job, he never tried to sell anything.
As to Kate Quicks post #33 last paragraph, some people probably still think that myself or other members of the board go to the show for free the rest of our lives. No dammit I have to pay every time.
Comment by John Piziali — August 30, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
33
I got your point, Ms. Quick, it is YOU who misses the larger point:
The appearance of self-dealing is enough to call into question the entire process. It is not a “demonization” of Thomas or anyone else, please give that dead horse a break. It is about tranparency & honesty of the process, about making sure the fox doesn’t have the keys to the henhouse, things one would assume the LVW to care about.
Comment by David Hart — August 31, 2009 @ 6:12 am
Again, Mr. Hart, the use of terminology such as “self-dealing”, “fox in the henhouse”, and so on is questioning the integrity of city staff and suggesting that they are manipulating something to insure an outcome. Of course the LWV is interested in the proper conduct of city business, but we would like to hear the arguments about the project itself, not the hinting about whether city staff is doing nefarious things in the absence of any direct evidence or causal relationships. If there are proofs of malfeasance or corruption, they should be brought to the city attorney or the grand jury. We heard much of the same during the theater process, and it distracted from the debate on the actual matters at hand – I’d like to see us stay on the issues more.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 31, 2009 @ 7:13 am
#39–The average voter does not take the time (or even have the time) to dissect the 283+ pages in the initiative written by/for SunCal and DE Shaw,
If you have a bit of time, please go to
http://www.AlamedaPointInfo.com
and
also: http://www.alameda-point.com/pdf/ENA.pdf
for an analysis of the initiative.
Comment by RM — August 31, 2009 @ 8:26 am
And of course if staff wasn’t being reimbursed for their time spent on the project, we would hear who unfair that was to taxpayers.
Really. Is this the best you have?
Oh and why stop at complaining about a park that is not in the plan, given that the parcel wasn’t even included in the original discussions, I want to know why Suncal hasn’t addressed world peace in the initiative.
Comment by notadave — August 31, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Did you see the new posting on Don Robert’s site about turning a “similar” parcel of former government land in NYC into a national park? That parcel is 173 acres; the NAS parcel is 2,675 acres, including about 1,000 of water. Even at 1,675 acres, the comparison to 173 is interesting. Even a park requires maintenance and upkeep, and it would not be on the tax rolls, so who pays for it? If the NAS property is not conveyed to the city, what might the US government decide to do with it and how much say might the citizens of Alameda have in what is done? Points to ponder.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 31, 2009 @ 8:55 am
You know Kate. I’ve been following this thread with some interest, and your refusal to acknowledge even the possibility of conflict of interest in the arrangement between SunCal and city staff, as explained at length by David Hart and ANT and others is really something to marvel at. I remember you also had no problem with the way SunCal collected signatures (basically through lying about clean up). I donlt know about others, but my confidence in the LWV in Alameda to educate the public on any political process is draining by the minute.
Comment by AD — August 31, 2009 @ 9:12 am
“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory.” – Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Jack B. — August 31, 2009 @ 9:21 am
AD, David and ANT, I am interested in knowing what “non-conflicted” way you would propose to reimburse the city for the sizable amount of resources they are expending on studying the plan, negotiating with the Navy, bringing in 3rd party experts to vet the plan, etc. Shouldn’t the developer being paying for that? Why should taxpayers pay for that?
Comment by notadave — August 31, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
43. Speaking for myself, it’s not about “having no problem” with the signature gathering process, it’s about what is technically legal. The consultants and methods SunCal employed for the signature process were unfortunate to put it mildly, but if what they did was illegal why not go the legal route like with the theater? It’s typical that such delineations are too subtle for you. While you have your broad brush out why don’t you now illustrate for us the connection between the deep pocket of SunCal and the LWV.
Comment by M.I. — August 31, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
46. As far as I’m concerned, they ARE illegal (search election code for misrepresenting to collect signatures), I just don’t have the money to fight them. Wanna contribute to a legal fund?
45. Why is the city expending ANY resources to study, vet etc. the plan? It’s not like they have a say about it–it’s SunCal’s way or the highway.
Comment by AD — August 31, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
45:
The reason taxpayers should pay is the same reason they pay for any other city service — for value received. If the plan provides economic benefit to the city, planning expenses are worth it. (At the risk of digression, perhaps the real culprit is the lack of economic benefit to the city. Or conversely, perhaps Suncal’s willingness to pay is indicative of the fact that they receive the rewards, not the city.)
To answer your process question, the city should have done all its homework before engaging a developer. Whatever consultants, et al that required would be expensed during that process. After coming up with a plan, put the package out for competitive bid. If planning fees must be recouped, simply charge a flat engagement fee to be paid upon contract’s acceptance.
Obviously that ship has sailed — the city chose to involve Suncal intimately from a very early stage, allowing Suncal a significant degree of control from the outset. It would have been far better to have handled differently from the very beginning.
Comment by David Hart — August 31, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Please be clear, I am asking for clarifications, not supporting or opposing anything. Some of what is being said seems unsupported, and it is not in the way of denial of their truth that I am asking for what facts support. We are planning to educate the voters on both sides of the issues here, and I want to make sure that we have factual information, not theories, speculations, or false accusations to share – from BOTH sides. Most of what has been posted here is from the “con” side of development at the Point, so my questions have been about that information offered. If it were, in fact, true that SunCal was directly paying city staff and creating a direct conflict of interest, that would be a factual matter to share. However, as I am understanding what is being offered, it is that SunCal’s fees paid to the city are underwriting the work the staff is doing on the project, and they are not governing what that staff reports out. So don’t reason that the League is pro or con simply based on our need to get it right what both sides have to say – we will continue to question and clarify so we can share the whole spectrum of opinions fairly and equitably.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 31, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Kate: Question: Is SunCal paying fees following a fee schedule with each service performed by staff itemized, as they do normally, or are they “supplementing” someone’s salary who spends a lot of time working on their behalf? In the first case, it’s probably ok, in the second, probably not.
Even better question: What exactly is staff doing on SunCal’s behalf that they would need to charge them for? It’s not like SunCal has a green light to do anything yet, and need permits or whatever. The process is at a stage where there is an initiative on ballot, written by SunCal, in favor of SunCal, and not amendable by anyone but SunCal. Whatever staff might be working on has no bearing on this initiative, so what is staff doing for SunCal exactly that is not compensated by their normal salaries?
If it is managing negotiations with the Navy, the city’s relationship with the Navy would exist regardless of SunCal, and SunCal has no business influencing it. Imagine this hypothetical scenario: that the Navy shows good will towards the city and some signs that they want to lower the price of the base significantly if the city, not SunCal, would aquire it. Would staff people be enthusiastic enough about this possibility, pursue it fervently, paint it in a fair light to council, if their salaries are maintained by SunCal all the while?
These are some questions the LWV may want to ask, and present their fair findings to the public. Armed with these facts, the public can decide for themselves whether things are on the up and up or not quite so.
Barring that, it’s a potato-potahto argument that can go on forever.
Comment by AD — August 31, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
#46: SunCal could have provided its signature gatherers with scripts to follow but it chose not to, most likely because it allowed the signature gatherers to make false statements without creating any liability for SunCal. So no, it’s not technically illegal, it just skirts the law in a grossly unethical fashion and generates distrust in the community for extremely good reason.
(As for the “facts”: SunCal is still claiming that it will “clean up the base”, “clean up after the Navy” etc even after acknowledging elsewhere that this is a false statement.)
I think the sense of distrust in the community towards the city and city staff is understandable and anyone who’s genuinely willing to be fair and honest would be willing to recognize that. The Mayor and some of the council members have said repeatedly that the Initiative is “transparent”, for example. That can’t possibly be true, given that 280+ whatever pages written in mind-numbing legalese and “plannerese”.
I have seen Debbie Potter speak a few times, when she made presentations to the ARRA. She seems to be a very competent, knowledgeable person, but she always came across as being very definitely in favor of the project, and as backing up statements made by SunCal reps who spoke with her. I took this to be political as much as anything, that she felt she had to follow the Council, but to be fair, I think it sounds really one-sided. Like the long-term fiscal consequences for the city — she presented that in totally positive terms, as if it were absolutely guaranteed, and obviously, it can’t be.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 31, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Other question: how many people commenting here have read more than half of the initiative package? How many have read at least the Initiative itself and the Development Agreement? Raise your hand, etc.
I’ve read about 2/3 of the whole package — the remaining 1/3 is mostly in the Specific Plan which is an utterly tedious document to read. I have read the Initiative and the Development Agreement several times over.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 31, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
#42: “If the NAS property is not conveyed to the city, what might the US government decide to do with it and how much say might the citizens of Alameda have in what is done?”
Ani’s reference reminded me — the Navy has to comply with the city’s existing land use laws, Measure A, zoning, historic preservation, if it should (somehow) decide to “do something” with the property. In that respect, we are definitely better off w/ the Navy than we would be w/SunCal.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 31, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
# 53
DL, interesting, could you cite the regulation/law stating the Navy must comply with the city’s existing land use regulations if the Navy doesn’t convey to the city? They certainly didn’t have to when the base was open.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 31, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Jack: I’m not referring to the operation of a miliary base. I don’t think we have any local laws on air field construction or battleship docking, and no battleship docking commission that I’ve heard of.
(Incidentally, do they dredge under battleships? Do they move the battleship and dredge, like moving furniture to vacuum or something?)
I’m referring to what happens if the land passes into private use. I was told this originally by Frank Matarrese and I’ve heard it from other sources as well. I think it tends to be a kind of boogie man argument — anything is better than the Navy.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 31, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Seems to me the City req’ed SunCal to put up good faith money. Why wasn’t this sufficient to cover City’s costs of providing information SunCal requests?
Certainly SunCal should pay for the information the city pays for, all the studies, the time paid to gather and organize it, etc.
Comment by DK — August 31, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
50. if you have to pose all these questions how can you possibly assume you know enough to make accusations about conflicts of interest? Instead of posing questions for others to get answered, why don’t you do the work of calling Andrew Thomas yourself and have him answer these questions and then get back to us with the answers. I am dead serious. I dare you to do it.
Comment by M.I. — August 31, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
57
M.I., since Andrew Thomas seems to be overloaded with SunCal work, work I might add, that his job depends on, how about we have I.M. do the grunt work in finding out AD’s answers? I.M.’s # 28 comment in response to David Hart definitely shows an inside track to all pertinent info.
Comment by planner junior — September 1, 2009 @ 8:20 am
49 above: “We are planning to educate the voters on both sides of the issues here, and I want to make sure that we have factual information, not theories, speculations, or false accusations to share – from BOTH sides.”
I wait to hear the facts, Kate—from both sides. Hope the questions raised above help.
Comment by AD — September 1, 2009 @ 10:29 am
I’d like to know more about Land Trusts and housing co-ops.
HUD has been paying communities to re-hab building for housing. They then allow resident to co-house.
See http://www.ebcoho.org/ for a bit more info.
Anybody have time to research? Too bad our development staff works for SunCal because this makes it look like many of the existing buildings could be converted to residential use and provide ownership opportunities for all income levels at the Point. HUD’s co-op allow up to 80% median income levels to buy into programs they fund the initiation for.
Sounds like a good beginning that doesn’t require obscene amounts of development on an inadequate infrastructure.
Comment by A rezident — September 1, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Request for Information (RFI)and Comment:
RFI
Does anyone know when the current Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with SunCal Expires? I believe that it was originally for 24 months with an effective date of 18 July 2007. I believe the Council extended the date for 6 or 12 months, but don’t have any record of such an extension.
=================================
Comment
I had been wondering which language in the development agreement was “standard” – maybe not boiler plate standard – and which was unique. The language rewriting the development approval process and the zoning for the area may be unique. Although the City of Alameda’s development approval process is “traditional,”
Comment by William Smith — September 7, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
61 Comment Completed – Ignore 61.
RFI
Does anyone know when the current Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with SunCal Expires? I believe that it was originally for 24 months with an effective date of 18 July 2007. I believe the Council extended the date for 6 or 12 months into 2010, but don’t have any record of such an extension.
=================================
Comment
I had been wondering which language in the development agreement was “standard” – maybe not boiler plate standard – and which was unique. I appreciated the example of similar language in at least one other development agreements the City of Alameda has entered into. Do other Cities also agree to such language ceding control of the pace and sequencing of the development to the developer?
Other Revitalization Initiative language rewriting the development approval process and the zoning for the area may be unique. Although the City of Alameda’s development approval process may need updating, I’m nervous about the developer updating the our municipal procedures without input from citizens or even City staff.
If similar procedures as proposed by the initiative could be found in other City codes, that would provide some reassurance about what SunCal has unilaterally proposed.
Comment by William Smith — September 7, 2009 @ 1:08 pm