Pot-y mouth

Alameda native son Don Perata is backing an initiative that should have folks in Oaksterdam pretty darn excited.   And considering that he is openly running for Mayor of said city, you want to make your constituents happy.

According to Matier and Ross, even though he thinks its a losing effort he’s still throwing his weight behind it.   The measure would:

…would allow anyone over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana sales.

I have to say that the prospect of Don Perata as mayor of Oakland is something that will certainly throw off Alameda governance or perhaps just the perception of it.   There have been long-standing conspiracy theories about how much sway Don Perata has on Alameda politics and if he does win as Mayor of Oakland I’m not sure how much a boon that will be for Alameda.

You’re my only HOPE

I’m not going to go into detail on the Renewed HOPE’s analysis of the Alameda Point initiative right now, maybe some other time, but I did want to acknowledge its existence.   First though, I just want to preface my statements by saying that I have nothing but respect for the folks at Renewed HOPE and the work that they do advocating for affordable housing issues.   Long time readers will know that affordable housing issues is a topic that I am passionate and interested in and anyone doing good work around  affordable housing advocacy will always have my respect.

With that said, I will say that I was highly disappointed in the analysis in the report itself.    The first sign was the usage of the “rebranded” name as opposed to what the actual initiative is called.    If there is anything that immediately says “biased report” it’s renaming something that you think will be cute.  So throughout the entire report rather than call it the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative, it’s the “SunCal/Shaw Hedge Fund Initiative.”   Except for the fact that the company is D.E. Shaw, not just Shaw.

Plaza or square

UPDATED BELOW, scroll!

Taking a break from Alameda Point for a bit, even though tonight at the Planning Board meeting, the PB will be considering a recommendation from the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (OCAC) to direct staff to commence work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).   As to who will be footing the cost of that EIR:  SunCal.

Remember the scuffle over the house on Buena Vista that the owners didn’t want, it wasn’t technically “historic.”   Well the project that depended on the Buena Vista house not being there is asking for a variance and undergoing a design review, which can only mean one thing: renderings!  The project appears to be named Park Vista Plaza or Park Vista Square.   Personally they should just call it Cavanaugh since most people will probably refer to it as the old Cavanaugh Motors site.

Chamber made

A few interesting items from the Alameda Journal, the first was an article by Peter Hegarty with a general overview of the signature turning-in process and the various other news that surrounds the all-encompassing issue of Alameda Point.   One thing that, of course, came up was the the Chamber of Commerce’s press release announcing their opposition to the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.

Peter Hegarty writes:

The Chamber of Commerce also has come out against the SunCal proposal, which calls for a new ferry terminal, 150 acres of public parks and about 4,500 homes at the Alameda Naval Air Station.

The chamber said the project will hurt the city because it calls for shifting some money earmarked for police and other services at the former base to the developer.

The chamber also opposes SunCal’s effort to place the plan before voters next year.

Count on it

Here is how the signature verification is going to shake down.    We can talk about how the signature gatherers misrepresented themselves or that they lied or about how terrible the whole initiative process is, but unless someone is going to file an official complaint in the form of a lawsuit, the certification process will go forward and the final say on how the majority of Alamedans feel on this issue will be up to those who make it out to the ballot box.

Yesterday, the signatures for the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative was dropped off at the City Clerk’s office and a receipt was issued from the City Clerk’s office verifying that they had received 9,618 signatures, this did not include 87 signatures on four unsigned sections.

Signatures in

According to SunCal’s spokesperson, the signatures have been submitted to the City Clerk’s office a few minutes ago for the Alameda Point Redevelopment Initiative.

No cost, no way

The chances of a no-cost transfer for Alameda Point has hit a significant road block.   According to an article on The Hill, a provision in the larger 2010 defense authorization bill would have allowed for a:

…transfer the land at no cost to local authorities for economic development. Cities and other local authorities can put off paying for that land until it is developed; the value will be determined at that point…

Get busy living or get busy dying

I’m big into parallels these days.   Perhaps because I’ve been listening to too much KQED (Pledge time!) or maybe because I’ve been thinking too much about Alameda issues, even more so than I usually do.    I have to say, to be perfectly honest, I was a little bugged by the announcement of the rebranding of the Alameda Point Initiative contest on my blog.   I’m not sure if the misspelling of my name bugged me more or if it was the whole idea of the contest.   Probably a little bit of both.   I mean seriously, my name is right there.  It’s not that difficult of a name.   But I digress.

As I was thinking more about the contest and the larger “discussion” surrounding the issue of Alameda Point so far and it struck me how little constructive criticism of the Alameda Point plan itself has been offered by a majority of the opponents.   The caveat is, of course, that there are notable exceptions of people actually doing good analysis of their objections of the problems with the initiative, but largely the critique has come from a purely emotional place.  

You gotta have faith

Rin Kelly’s article in the East Bay Express and Michele Ellson interview with one of the Lesson 9 litigantsseems to have been timed almost perfectly.    Rin K. was only able to scratch the surface of the organization representing the parents suing the school district over Lesson 9, the Pacific Justice Institute and Michele E. presenting a very thought-provoking article with a Muslim parent who has done much to advocate for Alameda Muslims in the schools.

When I say, scratch the surface on PJI, I really mean scratch the surface because these folks are seemingly everywhere.   And now that they have opened a satellite office in Oakland, it appears that they are not going anywhere anytime soon.  As an aside, why is an article about a unicycle basketball team longer than an article about a conservative legal group who makes its business suing school districts and has placed a big fat target on the San Francisco Bay Area?  Priorities EBX.  Priorities.

Follow the leader

Once again, when an issue gets to be a little too political in nature, rather than take a leadership position on the issue, the City Council punts.   And no, I’m not talking about the Density Bonus Ordinance, but they continued that issue to some other time too.  At this rate the topic will continue to get kick down the road until someone manafes to kick it off the road or it disappears from our collective memories so they don’t have to deal with it like last time.

No, I’m talking about the Boys & Girls Club request for the Measure WW money.   Rather than make a decisive decision about the issue the Council decided to wait until another City Council meeting to do it.   Because even though it was pretty clear how the majority of the  Council wanted to vote, they didn’t.