Say you, say me

Here’s what I am enjoying about the whole Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.   Folks who generally wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about Development Agreements are suddenly so concerned about how the Development Agreement as presented in the Initiative itself is tantamount to a “giveaway” of epic proportions to SunCal.

The main points are, of course, captured in the ballot argument against the Initiative which were neatly bullet pointed for sound-byte-y ease and which I have addressed here.   The objections over the Development Agreement being included in the Initiative is that the City, had they had the ability to negotiate the Development Agreement, would never have put such terms in the Development Agreement that put the City in such a tough position.

Fee fi fo fum

So my latest project has been reading through the 2001 Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study.   Essentially this document was created so that the City could charge developers for the impact of their project on the City.   According to the state level legislation that controls, this type of Nexus Study has to be performed in order for a City to actually implement these fees.

I’ll go into some more detail some other time, but thought this would be interesting fodder for thought during this holiday weekend.   Remember how one of the big concerns was the fact that in the Development Agreement in the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative there is the waiver of certain impact fees?   The contention made by opponents is that if the City was allowed to negotiate the Development Agreement, they would never, ever, ever allow such a thing to happen.

Except for the fact that they did.

Happy (early) Thanksgiving folks!

Things to be thankful about tomorrow…

• Your family probably won’t want to talk about Alameda politics so you get a one-day mental break from it
• Four-day weekend
• Pie

Let it B

And now we return you to “As Alameda turns”…  The latest ohmigod moment comes from first a letter sent by Mayor Beverly Johnson to the registrar of voters essentially saying that voters are too stupid to be able to sort out the difference between Measure A (the Charter law colloquially known as such which limits building housing units to a duplex or smaller) and Measure A the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.

I contacted the Registrar of Voters office yesterday at around 2:00 p.m. and as of that time they had not made a decision on whether or not to change it from Measure A to Measure B or something else (perhaps they’ll decide to go backwards starting from Measure Z?) but here’s a fun fact, apparently as I was on the phone with someone from the Registrar’s office after dialing through the main line and pressing a succession of numbers and listening to the really bad muzak while on hold, apparently Mayor Johnson was on the phone with the Registrar at that very moment.

Southern California comfort

Remember the Alameda Point  ”contingency plan” that has been kicked around by both the Interim City Manager and Councilmember Frank Matarrese, well this small news item in the Alameda Journal is a possible hint toward the direction in which some folks in the City and on the Council may want to head.    The Alameda Journal reports that both Frank Matarrese, Mayor Beverly Johnson, and someone from the City Manager’s office would be meeting with representatives from the City of Irvine to talk about Irvine’s plans to redevelop El Toro which was a Marine Air Station.

So brief background on the El Toro base, initial plans were to convert that air station into an airport.   Made sense because it essentially was the same type of use.  But some folks didn’t want that and passed a measure that essentially forbid the construction of an airport.  Then a few years later another measure was passed that would earmark a substantial portion of the land as a municipal park of a scope that was supposed to rival Central Park in New York and Balboa Park in San Diego.

Sierra missed

Normally I wouldn’t get involved in the private business of the executive committee of an advocacy organization, but since one of the members invited comment on the decision making process for the Sierra Club around the issue of the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative, and invited members of the public to attend their meeting, it’s sort of fair game.

According to a comment made in early November, Bill Smith of the Sierra Club indicated that while the members ran the gamut from supportive, neutral, and opposed the Club has decided to only vote on two possible positions: “actively neutral” or “opposed.”   Declining to even consider a position of supportive for reasons unexplained.

Alameda: open-ish for business

At the City Council meeting the other night, the Park Street Smoke Shop/Convenience Store/tschotske shop was “called for review” by Councilmember Frank Matarrese.   To quickly recap, this is a shop that wanted to open up on Park Street, but the North of Lincoln side.   They received approval from the Planning Board for a use permit with a whole host of conditions attached to it, but as with any business trying to do business in Alameda, nothing is ever that simple.

So, full disclosure, I don’t watch the City Council meetings live.   I generally watch them the day after, playing in the background.  But on Tuesday night, I did turn on the television for a bit and tuned in and this was the agenda item that I started watching.   But then, I decided to watch a Tivoed recording of the Mentalist instead.   But after I finished the Mentalist, it’s about 45 minutes long once you fast forward through the commercials, I turned back on the City Council meeting and was dumbfounded to see that the Council was STILL talking about the store.

Substantial Point

“Louise” reposts from the Island the ballot argument against the Alameda Point Revtalization Initiative and then asks that folks “substantiate” their opinions and that “blanket assertions” are not adequate. Except for the fact that the arguments against the Initiative aren’t substantiated either, but rather blanket assertions themselves.

Before I get into the whole pissing match that will probably be the standard between now and February when the votes are finally tallied, I just want to first say that there are a lot of people that I respect who disagree with my position on the Initiative.   And hopefully folks on either side or on neither side can agree to disagree without assuming nefarious motivations of one another.

And with that here are the points that were specifically addressed in the arguments against the Initiative:

Measure for measure

In a highly ironic but yet appropriate twist to the on-going dramedy that is the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative, the Initiative going on the ballot in early — very early — February of next year will be called…

Measure A.

Can you see the campaign slogans on the anti-side now?   “Defeat Measure A to Protect Measure A.” Or, how about “Kick Measure A to Keep Measure A.”   Anyone who uses these slogans owe me.   Ahh, the confused populace won’t know what hit ‘em.

In other measures, in tonight’s City Council meeting in addition to the Sunshine Community Task Force bit the Council will also be considering yet another Council Referral on the subject of Measure WW and the Boys and Girls Club.   Council member Marie Gilmore is suggesting that the City move forward to do something with the B&G Club request since the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) has sent correspondence to the City that they will not be able to provide a legal opinion before the early 2010 which puts a squeeze on the Council from making a decision since applications are due for in early 2010 as well.

Ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone

This may sound a bit fan-girly and slightly geeky, but I am super excited with the idea of having some sort of appointed body in the City to act as a Sunshine Taskforce or an Ethics Commission of some type.   This item is coming up for review under City Manager Communications on Tuesday night.

To nutshell it, Councilmember Lena Tam brought up, under Council Referral process — you know, the process that was adopted but at least two fifths of the Council failed to understand how it works — an idea to institute a “Sunshine Community Task Force” which would be in charge of ensuring an open Alameda government and making the overall City Hall process a lot more transparent.   Under Council Referral, the Council can decide whether to take action on an item that night or refer it back to staff so that staff can determine how many staff hours it would take to bring the Referred item to fruition.   The staff report essentially outlines a few topics that, from discussions with Council member Tam, that staff feels as though were central to the initial request.  Specifically these are: