During the lead up to the Measure B election, some folks suggested that we scrap the SunCal plan in favor of a City led and plotted plan for Alameda Point and then find the right developer to match what it is we want out there. I guess the reasoning was that Alamedans would be able to come to better consensus on what should go out at Alameda Point if the City led the process as opposed to a Master Developer.
I don’t know if other people have been paying attention to how the handover for the Concord Naval Weapons Station has been playing out, but that is the tactic that the City of Concord has taken. Probably because while the Department of Defense has already closed the base, they haven’t decided how they want to get rid of the base yet. Concord is entering into the final of many many many meetings regarding the land use plan for their own base. Essentially the decision has been whittled away from like seven different plans to now two. (1) Clustered Villages and (2) Concentration and Conservation plan.
Now before anyone gets too excited about the “Concentration and Conservation” plan, let me lay out to you the details of the site.
Concord Naval Weapons Station is 5,028 acres big to compare Alameda Point is 1,521 acres of unsubmerged land. The Clustered Villages plan is going to add more than 12,000 housing units and the Concentration and Conservation plan was to add 10,000 housing units. The Clustered Villages plan is the one that is favored by the Concord City Council. But here’s the interesting part of the 5,028 acres, the plan is to zone 2,300 acres of the land open space, so the development would be limited to only half of the actual site itself.
Anyway, even though this process of deciding what should go at the Weapons Station, you’ll find that some folks are still unhappy with the results. In fact, if you check out the comments at Claycord.com you’ll find that the same critiques about the SunCal plan for Alameda Point are echoed for the Concord plan as well. Water, traffic, density, crime, toxins, financial uncertainties, school over crowding, lack of funding for schools and other city services, open space only…seriously just swap out “Concord” for “Alameda” and you wouldn’t even know the commenters weren’t talking about Alameda Point.
In fact, a columnist for the Contra Costa Times captured the nit picking that has come with this whole process:
Anyone who attended last week’s City Council meeting can attest to the varied complaints that continue to bubble up from disparate interest groups four years into project planning.
There’s too much high-density housing or there’s not enough. One plan is unfair to north Concord, the other is unfair to the south. Air pollution will be out of control. Increased traffic will suffocate the region. There’s not enough open space. Mt. Diablo Creek will require restoration…
Although, here is a tidbit that might prove to be prescient for Alameda Point’s future if the ENA period with SunCal expires, according to the Contra Costa Times regarding the Concord Naval Weapons Station’s future:
The Navy has been coy about when and how it will get rid of the base. Right now, it estimates it will be ready to transfer the property in three to five years, wrote John Hill, the Navy’s base closure manager for Concord, in an e-mail.
One option: an auction for all or part of the base. According to [Concord base reuse manager, Michael] Wright, the Navy told the city it prefers that option.
..
Such auctions typically mean big money for the Navy. In 2005, Lennar Corp. paid the Navy nearly $650 million for the 3,718-acre El Toro Marine Air Station in Irvine, Orange County, and some associated properties. It plans to build about 3,400 homes there.
And don’t forget the Irvine model is the one that fairly recently Councilmember Frank Matarrese has asked the Interim City Manager to begin researching.
“The 17 diverse lobbying groups that comprise the Community Coalition for a Sustainable Concord — each has its tunnel-vision demands — have found nits to pick in virtually every aspect of the project. Where else does the Carpenters Local Union 152 join forces with the Mt. Diablo Audubon Society and Lutheran Social Services?”
If they had their own B vote, it would replicate Alameda’s. Welcome to dysfunctional Bay Area CA, Navy.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 22, 2010 @ 8:58 am
On second thought and to keep in synch with the post title,… welcome to dysfunctional USA, rest of world.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 22, 2010 @ 9:05 am
I attended Frank’s town hall meeting last week and Frank mentioned the El Toro Marine Air Station and the Great Park Conservancy in his talk as well as other developments he toured. Frank had some good ideas and I’m interested in hearing more, but I expressed my concern that we not go backwards.
Its so very important to have a master plan, and now is the time to be planning while the market is slow so the project can attract capital when the market turns.
If the ENA expires and SunCal is no longer the master developer, I would like to see Lennar be selected as master developer. Lennar came in a strong second during the selection process and Lennar has strong experience in military base development — like El Toro in Irvine and Treasure Island in San Francisco.
Lennar is one of the largest mixed use developers in the bay area and unlike SunCal understands the long term committments of military base conversions.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 22, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Karen, did Frank say who selected Lennar? This is what I found, interesting but nothing recent.
El Toro
2002 March 6 The Navy announces that it will sell the property in auction instead of
giving it to a city or county.
2005 February 16 Real Estate Developer Lennar Corporation purchases the bases for
$649.5 million to create Orange County Great Park
.
2005 July 12 Lennar takes ownership of the base.P
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december082008/el_toro_nukes_12-7-08.php
Comment by Jack Richard — February 22, 2010 @ 11:58 am
Karen, there are many who are saying, here and in other venues, that the no on B vote was no not only to SunCal but no to any housing at the NAS property, and some who say it meant no to any development at all. I take it by your submission that your no vote was no to the SunCal proposal, but yes to development, which includes housing? I do wish we had a poll of those voting no so we could understand what the vote meant in terms of chosing options for going forward.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 22, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Kate,
Yes, my vote meant no to SunCal and yes to development which includes housing at the Point.
I would venture there are alot of people who want to see development/housing at the base based on the discussions before the election but did not like SunCal or the terms of the development agreement. And I agree a poll would be great.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 22, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
#5
How about leaving it to our local elected officials to figure out what it means?
If B would have passed with 85 percent of the vote, would it have meant that voters were really only for the plan but against SunCal? Or would have it meant that people really wanted SunCal but hated the plan? Or would it have meant that they liked both?
Perhaps we should stop holding elections and only conduct polls as polls have more meaning than elections?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 22, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
ANT, I am basing my question on statements made by others, and I do think that it is important to ascertain what the vote meant in this case, because it would clarify the optimum community desired directions from which the City could choose in going forward. I do not think it is clear at all what this vote meant in terms of what was rejected – no to SunCal, no to housing, no to all development, no to no plan to handle traffic issues?. Sometimes these things are clear; sometimes not. This one, based on what people are saying and writing, is apparently a mixed bag. Of course it would be ludicrous to conduct polls instead of elections – most of the time its pretty evident what the voters want or don’t want. I have spoken to many opponents since the election, and they are “all over the map” as to why they didn’t like the measure. Why waste more time and energy on figuring out what to do if we could have a clearer understanding of what the majority were thinking.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 22, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
5 and 8
Might I suggest the LWV sponsor the poll you desire, Kate? It would benefit we the people, plus help your organization determine whether or not to advocate yes/no or neutral on the next go around.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 22, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Kate,
I think you’re right. I’ve spoken with a number of people in the past week and got a similar response. Unfortunately for SunCal, one response I got that was across the board was that SunCal has worn out their welcome.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 22, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
@7 … that requires leadership and not the hand wringing we’ve seen from (most of) our elected officials. So I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for these bozos to act anytime soon.
Comment by alameda — February 22, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
Political polls have become little more than a marketing tool. Their main purpose is to figure out how to best pitch a political product to voters.
Voters turned down SunCal’s measure by 85-15 after SunCal spent $1,300,000 on the campaign. The event needs to be viewed in its entirety and not dissected. My advice is to learn from the election and move forward. Proponents lost. Accept the loss and move on.
And for how long is SunCal going to leave their supporters to rotate in the wind?
http://www.alamedapointcommunity.com/
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 22, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
The wind began to shift for the SunCal initiative after the Mayor & Council members, City Attorney, the Alameda Chamber, staff, the City Treasurer, Renewed Hope and several community members did an analysis of the development agreement and dropped their support for the initiative.
Many including myself expresed support for the plan, but not the initiative. So its too early to claim the vote needs to be viewed in its entirety.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 22, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
Some folks thought there should have been a vote on the theater project, but it’s not realistic to put every development project to a vote. Our leaders must lead and make informed and transparent decisions.
I would say that the opponents are lucky that SunCal chose to put this to a public vote, so they had the ability to say no directly, but I don’t think what should happen at the point should be an attempt at a direct and precise reflection of what a majority of Alamedan’s want. For one, that will continue to be allusive and two, if a large number of the public don’t really understand development what the majority wants there is likely to be impractical.
There have been recent letters urging that since Alameda was once developed lot by lot we should do that again. There was another pushing RBRPD to take it over and run it. The economics and logistics of both those proposals are more than a little flawed. The former is totally ignoring economies of scale in building infrastructure and the latter made bizarre calculations of the cost.
Comment by M.I. — February 22, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
Comment #7 is an excellent example of the kind of faulty reasoning that is being applied to the Measure B election results. The initiative was a package deal, and a lopsided result in either direction does not change that fact.
Yes, even if the result had been 85% “yes” to 15% “no,” the same argument would apply. Such a result could mean that voters aren’t crazy about SunCal but love the plan…it could even mean that voters are so hot to change the city charter that they don’t care what the plan is or who will build it. Now, the latter interpretation would be highly unlikely and easy enough to disprove; however, the election result by itself would not enough to disprove it!
To point out that a poll or some other supporting evidence is necessary to tease apart voters’ specific reasons for rejecting (or approving) a package deal is not to say that such elections are meaningless or should replaced by polls. Nobody is suggesting that. Let’s stick to the real arguments instead of setting up straw men.
Comment by Michael Krueger — February 22, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
SunCal’s a goner, so what’s the next step? Who’s the audience at this point?
I’m guessing that most of the community is totally sick of the issue and not interested in any further discussions (or polls) right now, and that elected officials who are still involved in the issue — and the ones to be making decisions on it — have probably arrived at their own (private) opinions some time back — and mayoral candidates certainly.
(And: “Yes, even if the result had been 85% “yes” to 15% “no,” the same argument would apply” — if this thing won by 85%, we’d be buried in rhetoric about the voters thundering their approval, and the doubtful future of Measure A, and blah, blah. Let’s be fair and honest.)
Comment by dlm — February 22, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
#15
What did the election of Barack Obama “mean?”
It isn’t faulty reasoning to say that the election needs to be viewed in its entirety. If we wanted to view it as discrete parts, then we would have needed to vote on it in discrete parts…and if we had voted on SunCal’s measures in discrete parts, voters may have likely viewed them as a whole.
This exercise is not helpful or informative. Why cling to a Measure that was so soundly defeated by rehashing it in a poll?
What I would agree with is that ballot measures should stick to a single well defined topic.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 22, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
#7:
ANT,
You suggest that the same elected leaders who helped create the Measure B mess in the first place should be responsible for figuring out “what it (the Measure B vote) means?”
Our elected officials have no more factual information with which to interpret election results than anyone else. Kate’s suggestion that we actually *find out* why voters made the choices they did is an excellent one.
Another reason to be justifiably skeptical of city officials “interpreting” the election results (with what, tea leaves?) is the clear bias of the Interim City Manager and some Council members in certain directions that would impede their ability to make an accurate assessment.
(And the same argument would apply equally well if Measure B had won by an 85-15 margin.)
If the City Council wants to demonstrate some leadership it could place a simple amendment to the charter for only Alameda Point on the ballot, using the Calthorpe plan or a similar-density plan as the zoning and design model to replace Charter sec. XXVI at AP. (SunCal asked them to do this two years ago and the Council failed to lead…)
Let’s find out if the people of Alameda are ready to end the long development drought at AP. I am.
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 22, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
15:
ANT,
No one wants to “cling to” Measure B.
But no one *knows* what Measure B “means,” either, precisely because the measure contained several discrete components, not all of which are equally distasteful to the Alameda voters I know.
Some of us *are* trying to figure out what Alameda should do next at AP, which, to the best of my knowledge, has not suddenly disappeared with either its attendant problems or its promising potential. Deciding where to go next requires a basic understanding of where we have been, including why voters acted as they did on February 2.
Do you suggest that we should do nothing at all? If that is not your plan, what do you recommend, and on what facts and political understandings do you base your plan?
Do you know why each voter made the choice s/he did, and whether each of us liked or disliked all or part of Measure B? (If you do, please enlighten us with your omniscience.)
If you do not know the minds and hearts of each voter, then perhaps you will admit that we ought to do some research and planning to help our community make the next set of choices we need to make?
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 22, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
If we have another “poll” it will lead to yet more BS, which we don’t need.
And you know why Lena Tam supported this? Because she knew she’d be running for the supervisor’s seat, and she was looking ahead at the party and campaign support she’d need for that. Not to impugn her, that’s just political reality.
Comment by dlm — February 22, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
#18
“You suggest that the same elected leaders who helped create the Measure B mess in the first place should be responsible for figuring out “what it (the Measure B vote) means?”
Our elected officials have no more factual information with which to interpret election results than anyone else. Kate’s suggestion that we actually *find out* why voters made the choices they did is an excellent one.”
Sounds like you don’t have much confidence in the commoners. They vote the wrong way in important elections and elect idiots to govern them.
Democracy is a messy business and people may vote for the wrong reasons. Sometimes people marry the wrong spouses, should that choice be taken out of their hands as well?
There is nothing to “find out” by conducting a poll. There are many truths as to what just happened in Alameda. You, yourself played an important part in the election results.
Not everything is reason and logic and equations. If you ask someone why he/she loves/hates their spouse or believes in God, that doesn’t mean that you will better understand love or God.
All that your statements do is illustrate why Measure B lost so badly.
The elections results mean what they mean. Our elected officials need to move forward in deciding the future of the former base. I would direct my concerns to those who hold office.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 22, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
20. your assertion about Lena is B for baloney. It is verifiable fact that Alice announced her intent not to run very late in the game and had not told people including Ms. Tam. I asked Lena about that and her intent to run right away and she was not quick to decide to run at the county from what I could tell. But if you recall the chronology, she was well committed to the initiative by then.
People opposed to B should just be glad to her her go, no? But Inaction Alameda has a headline about Tam abandons Alameda after on term. That is typically gratuitous spin from you know who. If you look at Tam’s record of service she is very well qualified and well positioned to serve at the county, but I admit if I were her I would welcome the chance to walk away from campaigning in Alameda in the after math of this initiative campaign as someone who supported it. As much as I was against B I very much support Lena as one of the most thoughtful and capable people who has served on c.c. in 20 years.
Here’s one we should figure out. Was the election result and overwhelming mandate for keeping Measure A unchanged? I agree with Jon Spangler that I don’t want to see c.c. members make up their minds on that one on there own, but I don’t want to leave it to the loudest contingent because Ash Jones and company will show up with bull horns like the freaking Tea Party.
Comment by M.I. — February 23, 2010 @ 8:02 am
Bottom line is B lost big because Mayor and her cohorts came out publicly against it. Voters were probably more against it than for it anyway because of the economy and the scare tactics used by the opponents to demonize SunCal but the city leaders coming out against it sealed the opposition.
Not too much should be implied from this except voters are unlikely to support anything perceived as financially risky, at least until (if ever) the economy improves.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 23, 2010 @ 9:02 am
#23
But you don’t wait until the economy to improve to start planning. Now is the time to do the planning and get a master development plan in place so when the economy turns, the project can attract capital.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 23, 2010 @ 9:17 am
From what I’ve found, in an admittedly cursory look, the Navy got tired of El Toro’s wishy washy approach to development and finally chose the developer themselves. Point is, this City has been in the planning stage for ten plus years and is no closer to determining anything then when the base closed. So maybe it’s best we just continue to sit on our hands and let the Navy choose.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 23, 2010 @ 9:55 am
I think there are real risks for the City at AP, but it’s hard to draw the line what risk if any is prudent. Letting the Navy chose is one risk. What if the auction the land and SunCal is willing to make the highest bid based on their previous investment?
Comment by M.I. — February 23, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Why should we care?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 23, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Are you asking why people would care if SunCal was highest bidder? If so that’s seems like rather contrarian comment, so I’ll counter by asking why would they not care? Are you concerned about the loss of control which is an inherent in an auction scenario? That’s a reason for anybody have a pause. It’s like an arranged marriage which may or may not take.
I like irony and it occurred to me how freaked out SunCal opponents would be about SunCal getting the base at auction. I wonder what any bidder would pay in this economy. Just like it being a bad time to sell your house, it might be a bad time for the Navy to expect $108 million. It’s interesting to contemplate the implications if they were able to exceed their asking price.
By the way, what happened to Lehman taking down SunCal in court and putting and end to all the speculating? “Little Chicken” explained the advantages in filing default relative to bankruptcy, but I never quite understood why if SunCal did file bankruptcy the City would need to protect itself? It seems like we could be in limbo until July which we probably are anyway. If SunCal filed would the default notice get us out of ENA immediately? It would seem to me that filing bankruptcy would automatically nullify ENA by default,so to speak. Sorry I didn’t ask this when Chicken made original post clucking about imminent bankruptcy.
Comment by M.I. — February 23, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Not contrarian at all. “We”, in this case are those of us who voted yes on B. It would, indeed, be poetic justice if it came to pass that SunCan is the highest bidder for the Navy.
When speculation ends, so does capitalism. But, of course, that would suit many in this city and on this blog.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 23, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
Yet more slyly provocative commentary, I see! Quel Su-preeze!
Just think, March 8th is only a week from this coming Monday, and with any luck, SunCal will be outta here and we’ll get to keep their million bucks.
Comment by LittleChicken — February 23, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
Jack: If SunCal wants to go ahead with a Measure A compliant plan, they can do that right now, avoid default, and keep the terms of the ENA in effect.
The city’s current land use controls will be in effect with any private property owner at AP, with or without an auction.
Comment by dlm — February 23, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
Possibly, but there are other options. For instance since the property currently belongs to the federal government, they could transfer the whole parcel to another federal agency if an agency requested it. Say, the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Prisons for instance. The Federal Correction Institution at Dublin needs expansion real estate. I doubt they’d care whether MA was followed.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 23, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
30. I get the gloating part, but otherwise your post does Little to clarify the details of the default issue.
About Alameda keeping SunCal money. SunCal has spent millions on the Plan which they will never recover anyway unless they develop. As for money they put up front as a condition of ENA why would we get that? What are our costs? They have been paying for staff time and everything else it seems. There are surly other entities looking at the short end of the stick in a bankruptcy which would the court would deem more worthy beneficiaries. If you understand the law, can you explain it?
Comment by M.I. — February 24, 2010 @ 11:50 am
MI: If the default goes thru, then the bankruptcy issues are probably beside the point.
The $1M refers to a deposit that SunCal made w/ the original ENA which they forfeit if they default on the agreement. If the city defaulted, it would have to return the $1M, that’s how it works.
This is a legal issue, it’s not a question of fairness. SunCal has plenty of legal advice and plenty of money to spend on it, and for whatever reason they chose to manage the process this way, and now they’re stuck w/ the legal consequences — just like anybody who signs a contract.
Comment by littlechicken — February 24, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
43. thanks. I guess I understood the default question already in terms of keeping the money. I still am not clear on how a bankruptcy filing would effect any of that.
It would seem that a bankruptcy by SunCal would constitute a default in that they would not be able to fulfill the ENA contract, but I’m not sure why we would be entitled to their deposit in terms of having invested ourselves in something we are entitled to be compensated for. Again, they paid for staff time, for studies, for the plan etc. It’s not like being the bride at the alter who is abandoned by the groom if we have already told him to get lost. It seemed to me the purpose of the deposit was to make sure they were invested enough not to screw around, but would instead make good faith effort to get something done. Take issue with the initiative or not, SunCal seems to have made a good faith effort to get something done. Whether we like what they were trying to get done or how they tried to do it, none of it was a breach of ENA, and the citizens certainly got to weigh in.
I’m not invested in SunCal one way or the other at this point, I have just been annoyed that some B opponents have predictably been trying to dictate what the result of the election meant and some of that is a rejection of things like density in general or change of Measure A, both of which I still favor, SunCal or not. If having SunCal linger makes those vociferous opponents squirm, it’s O.K. with me.
Comment by M.I. — February 25, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
>>> I have just been annoyed that some B opponents have predictably been trying to dictate what the result of the election meant
If memory serves, the proponents were the ones dictating the results… even before the election!
Comment by Jack B. — February 25, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
my memory doesn’t seem to serve me, just how were they doing that?
Comment by M.I. — February 26, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
#37, here’s a couple that come to mind:
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/02/suncal-throws-in-the-towel/
and
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_14334561
Both written before the results of election day.
Comment by Jack B. — February 26, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
to clarify theisland’s article in 38, I’m talking about the suncal spin… not picking on Michele. Hope that’s obvious.
Comment by Jack B. — February 26, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
Jack, can you quote the section of the My Word I wrote where I spun the results of the election?
Simply pointing out that the election was about a large complex issue and that the community dialog was almost entirely and exclusively about the business deal, something supported by SunCal’s polling and Michele Ellson’s more informal poll, which got the corrolating results to SunCal’s. SunCal’s poll which asked specifically about Calthorpe’s plan found 60% of people wanting to see it implemented. Michele’s poll of “why people voted no” found that a mere 40% voted against the plan.
I have a difficult time seeing where I suggested the vote meant anything in the affirmative.
But the point I did make, that pre-election statements made nearly unanimously by the main Measure B opponents (including specific insistence by Protect the Point that the Measure B election was about “the law” not “the plan”) combined now with a poll that teased out where people would like to see the planning move, as well as informal poll on why people voted the way they did on measure B, seems to have held up pretty solidly.
Comment by John Knox White — February 26, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
John, my view is that pushing the suncal polls was the spin of B supporters such as yourself to pre-emptively dictate the results of the election.
If you want to keep asserting that most people still want Calthorpe’s plan, go right on ahead.
Comment by Jack B. — February 26, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
John, Michele’s poll has 118 votes. More that 15,000 people voted. I don’t know how Suncal conducted their poll, but I could estimate that 85% of island residents don’t believe it.
Comment by Jack B. — February 26, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
#41: I didn’t mention the poll in the link you posted. So I’m still curious why you highlighted my writing as back up of this pre-spin.
#42: Right, thus “Informal.” What’s interesting though, is that if you read the comments on Michele’s site, you’d assume that most of the readers voted because of the land use. The poll, unscientific as it is, is an indication that the consensus in the comments is likely not a consensus among the readers.
Is any of it 100% conclusive? probably not, but it’s interesting that the only evidence of what people were thinking when they voted, based on campaign messaging, polling and a sample bigger than the combined comments on The Island and Blogging Bayport, is that the Land Use Plan was not the overriding factor in why people voted.
Could this evidence be wrong? sure, but given the dearth of evidence for the opposing hypothesis, its more likely true than not.
So far the only evidence that’s been presented is a smallish group of people (far fewer than 118) who have declared that 85% of the people who voted on Measure B, did so in a way that agrees with their own personal motivations. If there’s more out there, I’d be interested is hearing about it.
Comment by John Knox White — February 26, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
John: This approach has failed miserably thus far, so by all means, keep up the good work!
Comment by dlm — February 26, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
Thanks to Ben on The Island for his trenchant analysis:
ben says:
1, February 26, 2010 at 5:43 pm
regarding your statement: Or are people not all that jazzed about 4,800 (or more) homes being build on the former Naval base?
if this is what you want to know, then why isn’t this an option in your poll?
what does didn’t like the land plan mean to the average person who don’t know what a land plan is??
Comment by dlm — February 26, 2010 @ 7:23 pm
#43
John Knox White supported Measure B. Eighty-five percent of Alameda voters opposed Measure B.
Measure B supporters spent $1,300,000 on their campaign.
Please identify a political loss in the history of Alameda that surpasses this defeat.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 26, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
ANT:
I held an opinion on Measure B that was different than the election’s outcome.
Therefore, I’m responsible for that outcome as well as the money that was spent on the campaign by SunCal and on top of that, I’m unable to see that the election was historically lopsided.
I’m going to guess that the unspoken point is that I therefore am unable to see how clear it is that everybody who voted “No” on February 2nd agreed on every point with you and Darcy and Jack.
Comment by John Knox White — February 26, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
#47
No, that isn’t the point.
SunCal decided to meld all of these elements together into one ballot measure. It is not possible to know how voters would have decided on each element of the measure if they had the chance to vote on each one separately. It is likely that all of the separate measures would have gone down to defeat as they would have been associated together.
I see no benefit for the small group who supported Measure B to continue to raise the issue of, “What did it mean?” It is a political detriment. A better choice would be to let the matter pass and then work with the 85 percent of the voters who rejected the measure.
Continuing to dredge up Measure B is of no benefit to anyone who wants to be involved in the future of the former naval base — and that includes both proponents and opponents of the measure.
Learn from the past and move on.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 27, 2010 @ 7:53 am
#35 says that the B opponents are dictating what the results of the election meant. The opponents don’t have to dictate anything! The spin that M.I. detects, imho, is counter response to what the proponents are trying to dictate as the meaning of the election. It started with Suncal in the last few days before the election and echoed by JKW: get on with the plan, it’s what the people want.
John’s style is to break things down into little pieces. But how do you separate the wood from the screw(job)? You can’t, and I think most voters realize this. Sure everyone wants duckies and bunnies but you are basically saying: let’s get back to the vapor plan. It’s not really a plan, it’s a sales job. You were never going to get what you were dreaming of. Now it’s far less likely. Time to work on a different plan
Comment by Jack B. — February 27, 2010 @ 8:51 am
#49 It would be helpful to know what you mean by “a different plan”, because that is what I just dont’ know. Does a different plan mean to leave the property alone? do only industrial and no housing? do some housing, but not as much as the plan we voted on called for? exempt the Point from Measure A to allow for townhouses/apartments as well as single family? do only a little Measure A compliant single family houses a la Bayport?
This is not to mention the funding mechanisms for the building clean-up the Navy won’t do, or the infrastructure repair and replacement, which are additional unresolved issues the City will need to address.
So please tell us what exactly you would like to see and how you would like to see it financed and we can try again for some community consensus.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 27, 2010 @ 9:14 am
Kate, I do have an idea in mind but I’m still working on writing it up. I’ve gotten a lot of good feedback so far from non-politicos.
Comment by Jack B. — February 27, 2010 @ 9:21 am
If we’re going to move forward on a new plan, then here’s what proponents need to do:
Drop the sales pitch, drop the spin, give us a break from rigid smart growth orthodoxy.
Show some willingness to look — objectively — at the real and legitimate concerns that people have here. Alameda is an ISLAND, it’s a city of 55,000 (?) people on an island with only five routes leading off — so it can’t be held to the same development demands as Fremont or Fresno.
Stop playing games with this issue.
It would be wonderful to have an honest, open discussion about development, but I don’t see it happening, not really. Too bad.
Comment by dlm — February 27, 2010 @ 11:18 am
52. so now the election result means a flat out rejection to smart growth. At least orthodox smart growthers have a plan, contrasted with pie in the sky notions of land trusts. This reminds me so much of the health care debate where the Party f No has been saying all week, “we need to start over”.
SunCal may be history but that should not dictate or limit what individuals can embrace. If you want to continue to be hostile to New Urbansim or Smart Growth as abstract academia, you should do that, but don’t presume to tell me what to think or do.
The continued notion that proponents have a corner on “spin” or disingenuous behavior, is disingenuous spin. I’ll let that one go when you do. 1-2-3 go!
Comment by M.I. — February 27, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Hopeless.
Comment by dlm — February 27, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
53. Let it be known from estuary to shining lagoon, that Mark has officially declared himself a proud voting member of the party of no!
Comment by Jack Richard — February 27, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
@48: “Learn from the past and move on.”
ANT, some of us are trying to do just that: IF we can learn what reasons voters actually had for voting no, then we can start developing new options, whatever they are. No, I am not trying to “spin” anything or tell opponents of B that they voted incorrectly. I simply want to figure out what voters were actually saying (beyond the simple “no”) when they voted. As you said in a couple of posts, the ballot was not a simple, single-issue choice and it is impossible to accurately portray the no vote in terms of the several components of the initiative.)
Why the resistance to analyzing the results so we can use the information to do better for our community? I am trying to “work with the 85 percent of the voters who rejected the measure,” as you are supposedly asking. And understanding is usually considered a basic building block of community problem solving, dialogue, and decision making. Is that so much to ask?
@52: “…Stop playing games with this issue…”
DLM, “smart growth” development produces LESS traffic per household than Bayport-style lower-density residential development OR an all-commercial redevelopment plan (the first 1990s base redevelopment model that was subsequently dropped precisely because the traffic would have been too heavy).
It is not “spin” to remain committed to proven development principles that offer the lowest overall impacts with the highest possible benefits. And there is no need to toss out valid options just because a previous plan did not present or implement them well.
I do not believe that Alameda’s situation or Alameda Point is “hopeless” at all, if we can talk to and listen to each other respectfully.
But respect is a two-way street, no matter how big a majority opponents had on February 2. The majority has no right to silence or shut out the minority, since we all still need to live together on this “island.”
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 27, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
And if we had a poll showing a lack of support for a major development, then what?
Anyway, you can’t unring the bell.
Comment by dlm — February 27, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
ANT (#48), we both agree when you say:
In fact I believe that’s a point that I and others have made. Measure B was the full initiative and trying to tease out specifics about it is impossible.
Comment by John Knox White — February 28, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
57: If we had a comprehensive poll with enough questions to give us a chance to decide between the several options being discussed, then results “showing a lack of support for a major development” would be significant and useful information.
If we had a reliable poll and meaningful results, we could plan some next steps with at least *some* idea of what kind(s) of community support different options had, and which ones might succeed as a result.
Right now the election results (see #48, #58) do not provide us with any sense of what the community *does* want for AP and our future development.
And we need something other than the “spin” offered so far to help us take some steps in a new direction without doing so blindly and ignorantly.
Comment by Jon Spangler — March 1, 2010 @ 1:14 am
I’m one of those who voted No on B — but pretty much like the plan. I’d like to see a few changes to it — but overrall it’s a good plan.
The Chamber, Renewed Hope and various groups who came out against the measure — all say they supported the plan but didn’t like the terms of the development agreement. If I remember correctly, most of the discussion against Measure B was about the development agreement and the legal ramifications if it passed. So I think its wise to poll and sort out what it all means.
Comment by Karen Bey — March 1, 2010 @ 9:22 am
This is what you get when you legitimatize greenwashing. Note that Pete Calthorpe is fronting for this project too.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_14474531?nclick_check=1
Redwood City Saltworks developer poised to become major Bay Area water baron
Getting water from Kern County to Redwood City won’t be easyWater for one of the biggest proposed developments in the Bay Area’s history would be supplied by a developer who has amassed enough private water rights to become a major Bay Area water baron at a time of increasing supply uncertainty.
DMB Associates, an Arizona-based company that specializes in upscale mixed-use developments close to wilderness, plans to pipe 591 million gallons per year from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to as many as 12,000 homes on the Redwood City Saltworks site via a series of complicated and unprecedented water exchanges that originate 300 miles to the southeast in Kern County
Related SFGate article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/01/BAVB1C80A3.DTL
Comment by dlm — March 1, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
Here’s the quote from Calthorpe in the SFGate article:
The goal is to provide housing for Silicon Valley workers who now commute from as far away as Solano and San Joaquin counties, which has led to decades of suburban sprawl, congestion and pollution, said Saltworks planner Peter Calthorpe.
“This project will put a very large amount of housing on a major transit network in the middle of our job center, Silicon Valley,” Calthorpe said. “It’ll be the largest transit-oriented, green development in the Bay Area.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/01/BAVB1C80A3.DTL#ixzz0gz6cjQEC
Comment by dlm — March 1, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
The problem (well not really a problem rather a fact) with “Smart Growth” or New Urbanism, is that they depend on density and critical mass for sustainability. The problem (well not really a problem rather a fact) with Alameda is that it is an island with no current ability or plan to create more traffic lanes to the mainland.
Alameda is a Bay Area anachronism, some derisively call it “Mayberry”, but most of our residents love this quality, it is why new families move here. It has a reputation for peacefulness and safety, and an excellent public school system.
It seems that more than just Alameda’s “traffic concerns” was a big part of the vote, I think a lot of people like the retro-vibe of this community and want it preserved as much as possible because they believe Alameda to have the qualities they want in an environment to raise their families.
There are other “New Urbanites” who see the light in sharing spaces in tall buildings.
This is another form of community, but of the Alameda proponents of the SunCal plan – how many of them live in apartments or condos? There are many bay Area cities that have embraced new high density, and where the centers are on or near BART or intersections of busy freeways, – those new neighborhoods have a chance to flourish.
But Alameda can’t offer that, and Alameda already needs to improve local job choices to bring in new employers who can afford wages to support families in Alameda homes.
Comment by Dave K — March 3, 2010 @ 11:19 pm