Yesterday, John Knox White posted a very common sense blog about the Mif Albright land swap and why the City needed to apply the brakes on reviewing the new negotiated Memorandum of Agreement with Ron Cowan/Harbor Bay Realty and instead get a second appraisal on the two properties in question.
The original assessment appeared to be based on some assumptions about both properties that one could surmise would lead to one parcel being overvalued and the other undervalued. Of course with the appraisals completely out of whack, this leaves the city in a disadvantaged negotiating position with Harbor Bay Realty, since the only appraisal available would leave one to believe that the cost of the two are nearly identical.
I know that Golf Commission President, Jane Sullwold, has been all over this issue of the appraisals since they were first released.
The good news is that the City has announced that they will be continuing the Mif Albright agenda item until October 18 — it was originally scheduled for October 4 — in order to get new appraisals for the site. Hopefully it will include relevant information like the fact that any Harbor Bay development slated for the Mif Albright land would be exempt from affordable housing requirements and any approval of the MOA would hand development entitlements to Harbor Bay as well. That’s the biggie.
It’s a shame that it has taken this long to commission the new appraisals, which should have been done a while ago when the deficiencies with the original appraisals were brought to light.
Also, given the result of the new appraisals, it might be that October 18th date might end up being too soon to schedule a meeting around this issue. If the appraisals come in substantially different than the original, then the City will need to go back to the negotiation table to hammer out a more equitable deal for the City.
And honestly, I really wish that the City would decouple the discussion of the land swap from the overall issue of the Golf Course in general. The conversation which has not occurred for a long time should be about the community’s expectation and desires with regard to the Golf Complex as a whole. Without having this discussion first, the land swap issue seems like a bit of the cart before the horse.
It is my sincere hope that this is not just window dressing and that the results can make a difference. Too often, our City Council has hatched a plan that they want to proceed with, come what may, and they proceed, without due diligence, until enough noise is made in the community that they are forced to look more closely. Often, it is too late. Sometimes this approach works in our favor, and sometimes it doesn’t. Good ideas can get bogged down in committee as well as bad ones. The point is, and it may be too much to ask, our elected officials are supposed to act in the best interests of Alameda and its citizens rather than in the interest of expediency or political quid pro quos or because we can get funding from some other source (whether we ought to or not–hey, free money, let’s build something!). Originally, I didn’t have much interest in this issue because I don’t live near the site and no one close to me plays golf. But the issue is bigger than that and it’s one that all Alamedans should be concerned about. Mr. Cowan wants to build homes. Homeowners pay property taxes. Increased property taxes are good for the city. Why wouldn’t the council support any plan that insures that this happens? Maybe because increased tax revenue should not be at any cost.That’s not in the spirit of this community. Otherwise, why not build a petrochemical plant or a paper factory, or a casino, or anything we can that will generate tax dollars? Because that’s not our way and the Council needs to pay attention to that. Would this development be so bad? Maybe not, but the way the deal has gone down so far is cause for concern. It’s not really about golf, it’s about our Council and their ability to tune out the citizenry. It may be an issue close to YOUR heart next time. Pay attention.
Comment by Denise Shelton — September 27, 2011 @ 7:53 am
So where’s your ‘due diligence’ conceding the lab?
Comment by Jack Richard — September 27, 2011 @ 10:11 am
2. I knew that was coming! Like I said, sometimes the current process works in favor of what we want to see happen and sometimes it doesn’t. Case in point: the Alameda Theatre. We can debate ’til the cows come home on whether or not it is good for Alameda: in some ways it is and in some ways it isn’t. Just like everything else. We are all prone to wanting things whether they’re good for us or not, this is not just a failing of developers and City Council people. We are all subject to subjectivity.
Comment by Denise Shelton — September 27, 2011 @ 10:26 am
Who is in favor of this boondoggle? I don’t believe anyone spoke for this project at the Council meeting I watched a couple of months ago. The Sun has done a phone in poll, and the callers are overwhelmingly against it. Letters to the editors of the local papers have all been against it. Commenters on this blog have universally been against it as well. Is there anyone out there that is for this? Hello?
What is the Council doing? They are certainly not serving their constituents in this instance. They are just lining their campaign pockets with Mr. Cowan’s money.
And why are they even considering going ahead with this development with no affordable housing at all? I thought there was a 15% state mandate for all new development, and we (City of Alameda) passed a 20% mandate many years ago. No open space? Oh, because it’s land stolen from a golf course, so there’s your open space? Well, what if a future home owner doesn’t play golf? Where will their kids play? This is all stupid and it sucks.
NOTICE- there may still be a meeting planned for this Thursday 9/29 at the community center at Harbor Bay where the pro’s and con’s are scheduled to be discussed. I don’t know if the meeting is still on, and I also don’t know who they will have to argue the pro’s, except Mr. Cowan or Bev?
Comment by Not A. Alamedan — September 27, 2011 @ 11:44 am
My phone has been ringing off the hook all week long with Bonta, Tam, Gilmore and Beverly supporters asking how they can get involved to stop the project. It is very strange to me that the 4 council members in support of the measure would ignore the fact that Ron Cowan is not entitled to build any more homes on Bay Farm. There is leagal ruling that stands. Why then would the three elected lawyers push a project forward that has no standing? These three understand what it means to have a legal ruling without an appeal. Why would we not work an internal deal with the Soccer club to relocate the fields to the MIF, if fields are so desperately needed? Maybe the soccer clubs can help support the golf complex financially? Why would we ignore our general plan and have our City Manager out hounding the Bay Farm Vendors for money to support the fields. Peets and North Face do not want to be strong armed and pinned against the sports community. We already have a plan for a sports complex on the base.
Mr. Bonta, please listen to your people and champion this proposal with another NO vote. Moving forward will destroy your political aspirations. The people have spoken and if this moves forward all 4 council members listed above will end their political mission a few years early.
I am starting to smell recall, and it smells costly for the citizens.. This self serving approach to city govement is not going to benefit the tax paying citizens. It is always easier to spend someone elses money.
The citizens of Harbor Bay are absolutely enraged. They cast votes for the seated council and feel betrayed.
Comment by Gregg de Haan — September 27, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
If he votes FOR the Golf Swap, I dare say Mr. Bonta can kiss his Alameda support base for his Assembly seat bid Good-Bye!
Comment by vigi — September 27, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
Lauren,
I’m really happy John blogged about this issue and suggested a new appraisal. Also his call for (3) appraisals is a good idea as well. The new appraisal value should be based on the “highest and best” use of the property, not Cowan’s plan. It should be compared with other golf course projects with a residential component, a club house and a hotel if the site has the capacity. What we’re doing is appraising Cowan’s plan which will always fall short if we don’t include the other components that most golf course projects have like a club house and a hotel, etc. The value of land will be much greater with all of these mentioned amenities.
I posted this on the Alameda Patch yesterday:
Another reason I believe the community is not supporting this deal is because it’s being presented as a MIF land swap – one that appears to mainly benefit the developer, instead of a major new project that will enhance the golf complex, increase revenues to the city, and help make Alameda a travel destination.
Something like this would be more exciting:
“Major new improvements will completely transform the Alameda Golf Complex. The new plans call for a new world class 20,000 sq ft clubhouse and spa designed by architect Bob Altevers. The new club house will house a restaurant and spa, and be ideal for banquets, wedding receptions, corporate meetings and much more. Also planned as part of the project, is 112 new homes to be built by XXXXX.
The city plans to ground lease the club house site and partner with XXXXX to develop, construct and operate the club house. The city’s participation in the profits of the project is expected to increase revenues for the city which has been struggling to find ways to offset future projected budget deficits. The new club house is expected to break ground in the spring of 2012”.
The golf course is a major “Tourism Asset”. With America’s Cup looming around the corner, an exciting golf course project like this could put Alameda on the map and help make Alameda become a major Bay Area travel destination.
And Lauren, I like your idea of zoning the Cowan site for condos instead of single family homes. That leaves a lot more land for a club house and possibly a hotel, or perhaps a hotel /club house combination similar to the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley. There are so many possibilities for this project. I don’t understand why we’re settling for the Cowan plan.
Comment by Karen Bey — September 27, 2011 @ 1:11 pm
A bit off topic, but it would have been nice if more folks had come to the Council workshop on how labor relations work tonight. I hope all those people who had something to say about the recent contract negotiations had been there to hear the governing laws and our particular situation here in Alameda. I am hoping they were watching from home or will “tune in” tomorrow to see the video on the City web site.
The Council will start talking about the budget in October and decisions such as the one on this thread will have impact. Hope those who want to hear and participate in the “full picture” will show up to participate and do some serious civic engagement.
Comment by Kate Quick. — September 27, 2011 @ 9:56 pm