The first thing I thought when I read John Diaz’s editorial on SFGate was that I should probably mail him a flak jacket.
But then realized that he probably picked one up in advance after he wrote his piece on Alameda. But it can’t hurt to layer, right?
Considering how wishy washy most traditional journalist type people are on these highly volatile subjects it came as quite a shock to read the piece and how, um, strongly worded and opinionated it was. Especially after the rather boring Carolyn Jones piece earlier this week on Alameda Point.
He takes us all on a bit of a journey through the major development skirmishes of the past to ruminate on that will probably be the epic battle in Alameda. Highlights:
Change is a fighting word on the island, where there is a determined constituency against almost anything that would alter the landscape or – horror of horrors – entice people to cross a bridge to shop, play or live here.
…what never ceases to amaze me is the ferocity of the fights over any attempt to update and upgrade the city from the way it was in 1959. Alameda cedes nothing to San Francisco or Berkeley when it comes to NIMBY resistance to progress.
“I think about that all the time,” Mayor Beverly Johnson said. “Every time you want to do something, it’s like a holy war.”
Any city, even one as placid and picturesque as Alameda, must keep evolving to maintain its charm and vitality – and to stop the inevitable slide toward blight…
Still, the enduring near-religious devotion to Measure A is not only archaic and absurd, it’s a serious threat to the city’s No. 1 challenge: redevelopment of the Alameda Naval Air Station, which was shut down in 1997 and remains mostly a ghost town, save for soccer fields and a few businesses that have set up shop in old hangars.
We can argue about the details – and, in Alameda, you can be sure we will – but the overriding vision for “smart growth” on the abandoned Navy base is clear: a development that would cluster homes in sufficient density to assure open space, support nearby retail stores, and create commercial space that would provide jobs and services to residents. And the ferry to San Francisco would be just a short walk or bike ride away.
…
“We’re in the middle of the Bay Area, which is one of the most urbanized areas in the country,” she observed. “To pretend like we’re just this little Mayberry is not realistic … Alameda is a wonderful place, but it’s not Mayberry.”
A Mayberry mentality might not be realistic, but it is an entrenched and powerful element of the city’s politics. Alameda continues to evolve – for the better – in spite of it.
The piece is much longer, probably the longest piece that the Chronicle has ever run about the City of Alameda in a long time. And while some may critique Diaz’s piece for being overly black and white and not seeing all the nuanced gray shades that really defines most of the issues around development. The talking points on both sides of the issue — because eventually it will come to either a “yes” or a “no” vote — will be starkly painted in black and white.
Four Alameda related articles in one day … yeah!
Comment by alameda — August 28, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Diaz: “As a 20-year resident of Alameda, I share a certain protective streak toward a city of 75,000 that has retained a small-town ambience in the heart of a heavily urbanized region.”
Newb though he is, Diaz shows his true Alameda colors by complaining about Alamedans not doing things he wants them to do (most “Progressivistic” things) then joins Alamedans in things we do that he agrees with (South Shore not Towne Centre). Make sure the flak jacket covers his mouth.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 28, 2009 @ 9:05 am
Jack, a 20-year resident is a “newb”?
Comment by alameda — August 28, 2009 @ 9:12 am
In addition to insulting people who want to preserve their way of life and talking out of both sides of his mouth, as JR alludes, Mr. Diaz curiously fails to address these material issues:
-financing for the pipedr, er, developoment and its impact on city’s finances
-lack of entry & egress, particularly on the West End
-environmental issues, suitability for residential use
But we obtuse NIMBYs who have committed the unpardonable sin of liking things the way they are and heresy of asking the whereabouts of the Emporer’s (Empress’s?) new clothes must accept Diaz’s demands for wholesale change so he can have the mix of retailers that he prefers.
If Mr. Diaz truly interested in furthering this cause, he’d be wise to change his tactics. Respecting the large number of his neighbors, quite possibly a majority of voters, who care about & wish to preserve our town would be a good start. Next step would be to familiarize himself with the details of the plan, including the all-important money parts. Writing such bird cage liner as today’s piece isn’t going to get him very far.
Comment by David Hart — August 28, 2009 @ 9:28 am
“He takes us all on a bit of a journey through the major development skirmishes of the past”
More like, he takes us on a tour through his dusty mind where all semi-accurate clichés about Alameda are crowded like cheap knick knacks on grandma’s mantel.
He lives in Alameda, really? Doesn’t sound like he gets around much. Maybe he just keeps an address here, for the schools?
Comment by AD — August 28, 2009 @ 10:07 am
As someone commented on the SF Gate article, if he was a real journalist he’d do some investigating into the current issue with the SunCal initiative, something intelligent people, like those who live here, would actually benefit from. Instead of “Look at, bro, a fight. I dunno what it’s about but let’s watch.” I’m sick of the outsiders’ perspective—completely wrong—on Alameda as some freakish phenomenon, fed by idiotic pieces like this one.
Comment by AD — August 28, 2009 @ 10:23 am
While some of the comments on sfgate make no sense (“Webster tube being clogged at ALL times of the day”), I think this comment summarizes the NIMBY thought process of some of our fellow citizens!
”
A woman got up and in full roar declared that we were all unaware that her cat had four lungs, and that this development would kill her cats. Most of the anti-growth element in Alameda is similarly whacked out…
“
Comment by alameda — August 28, 2009 @ 10:43 am
“Considering how wishy washy most traditional journalist type people are on these highly volatile subjects … ”
Ouch!
Comment by Michele Ellson — August 28, 2009 @ 10:46 am
7
That story is either:
a) about a mentally ill person or b) a complete fabrication.
To take it seriously does not enhance one’s credibility.
Comment by David Hart — August 28, 2009 @ 10:55 am
It is always easier to use stereotypes rather than explore the real issues. Remember Reagan and the welfare queen driving to the social services office in her Cadillac? It makes for a good political ad, but is extremely manipulative.
I preferred the old days when newspapers would put commentary on the editorial pages. With online news sources, reporting and commentary get all mashed together. Perhaps a different color background should be used for commentary. I think that yellow would be nice.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 28, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
While I don’t think that she roared, there was a woman who spoke out against the Esplanade development who mentioned that her cats might be injured by the excess carbon from the additional cars, around 4:07 into the feed.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 28, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
# 7
If that was a “full roar”, we need to archive your # 7 in a “Flatus category filed under “Huh” .
Comment by Jack Richard — August 28, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
It’s not as if an editorial can’t warrant investigative journalism, especially on a really complex subject like health care, but in this case I don’t think what is being commented on are the details of the SunCal initiative or development in general. I understand the frustration of people who are invested in the details of these development issues when they are glossed over, because I am one of them, but I also recognize tis editorial for what it was, and that was to be deliberately very broad. I think this is in part because Mr. Diaz is reacting to a resistance against progress in Alameda which he sees as itself being very broad, not in it’s scope but it’s style. I would imagine he has gone so far as to browse this blog and is generally more informed than one might infer from the content of the editorial.
One might also use narrow to describe the views of those fighting change, but it’s the broad and simplistic dismissiveness toward development as being evil and without any redeeming aspects which gets irritating.
I think the complaints in comments 4 and 5 have justification, I just think Diaz was taking advantage of his position to say what he wants to say about the subject of public opinion in the process of change in Alameda. Some of us may think that touching on the subject of development at all should require more responsibility to parse details, but if you divorce the piece from SunCal and the Point and read the part about Park Street, one is better able to get the general drift of the piece. Or just chalk it up to his being a pawn of corporate media in a coordinated effort with the mayor to sell Mayberry down the river.
Comment by I.M. — August 29, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
#13: I saw a comment on one of the SFGate articles that made sense to me, something about the use of the word “NIMBY” being childish. It is childish, because it betrays such a simplistic, arrogant view of the world. Like the dumb notion that people here are “fighting change” — no, they’re just worried about getting on and off the island where they live, how hard is that to figure out? You didn’t notice when the county threatened to open the bridges all night? You didn’t notice what the county agencies are now planning to do, to rebuild the overpasses on 880?
Access issues here are an enormous consideration, are subject to severe constraints (= LIMITS), and are not even within our control. Oakland by itself could have a major impact on access to Alameda, let alone the county and the state — and nature as well, in the form of an earthquake.
When you go to the beach and look around, that’s water that you’re seeing. How do we get across it? That’s the problem. Development here has to be tied to traffic capacity, and until Alameda gets another crossing (most likely never), it will have to be limited.
It’s not a lack of enlightenment that’s the problem here, it’s a lack of common sense.
Comment by DL Morrison — August 29, 2009 @ 4:56 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 @ 7:08 pm
#8 – I totally agree, Michele. Lauren: you just don’t get it, do you? Oh, well …
Comment by Jeff Mitchell — August 31, 2009 @ 10:13 am
15,
Other than the issue of development at the Point and the second amendment I look to your posts to be relatively sensible and well grounded. I still don’t take issue with much of your suspicion or advising extreme caution here, but what you suggest in 15 is naive, I want to say inane. Especially with 17 people having been laid off at Planning, what person of what job description, paid for by whom, do you envision filling this imaginary buffer position between staff and SunCal? And if the slime of developer influence is so prevalent, how would even that position work to prevent the conflicts of interest? Why not just banish “big” corporations from doing any development work at Alameda Point?
We should just have a happy Public Land Trust with lots for owner built Earthships, as if the words Public Land Trust magically resolve all problems including economies of scale.
Comment by M.I. — August 31, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
If the city takes the money, ANT’s suggestion makes a lot of sense in theory, though obviously in practice it would be difficult. A far better solution is not to accept the money. That would help protect the public from conflicts of interest, it would protect the staff from appearing to be compromised and still allow staff & SunCal to work together as needed (though as an aside I wonder why they need to interact much at all before a deal is actually struck.)
Comment by David Hart — August 31, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
#17
I think that a reasonable system could be devised to buffer staff from developers. I’m not suggesting that developers should not pay appropriate fees. It is important that staff and developers do not develop close relationships. It is just human nature to develop rapport with those that we see all the time.
It is important that staff not know that a developer is backfilling their salary and that developers not know the names of the persons being funded by their fees. It needs to be a double-blind situation. That is not impossible to accomplish and it may not even require extra expense. It is vital that the public be assured that the game is not rigged and that government is a neutral party. The staff need to be kept at arm’s length from developers — and the more money involved, the more important this becomes.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 31, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
#18 – If the city does not charge SunCal for its very large use of staff time, how does it reason that I should pay fees for my project which are based on the staff time needed to do the work my project generates? Who pays the staff working on the SunCal project? The city, which has already laid off staff because it has no money?
How do staff working on such a large and complex project do the work without speaking to the originators of the project? They call me with questions on my small project. How does the city staff insure that the developer is doing its due dilligence in getting citizen input? Following the city’s desires and guidelines?
If work is generated by this massive endeavor, it seems to me prudent that the city would demand of the originator of the project enough funds to cover the cost of the work. Since city revenues and expenditures are public information, I do not know of any way that the city could clandestinely receive such funds, nor would I as a taxpayer, want it to be able to get revenues from an undisclosed source. The question remains, is the fact that the city receives funds to offset the staff cost of the work involved a corrupting influence on the staff? Is the staff so funded beholden to the city or the source of the fees that underwrite their salaries? I am looking for the direct link of the source of funds to the governance of staff.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 31, 2009 @ 4:12 pm