On Monday, KQED’s Quest did a brief profile on Lawrence Berkeley Lab’s search for a new campus (hat tip to Eve Pearlman at Alameda Patch for pointing this one out). Worth the less than six minutes to listen to.
There is the acknowledgement that Lawrence Berkeley Lab’s second campus is a highly desirable prize for the cities vying for the privileged of hosting the second campus because of the big J word: jobs. Of course there is also the acknowledgement that there is no perfect site, which is the reason why — some experts suggest — that it’s taking LBL so long to actually make a decision. The report throws in a little about the rising sea level and storms potentially being a problem for all the sites because of the low elevation and proximity to the water.
I think what this profile sort of solidified was the fact that the Albany site is a long shot, due to the removal of Golden Gate Fields from the tax rolls, the potential intrusion into sensitive birding areas, and of course the possibility that Albany votes might reject any proposal that comes up for a vote.
Similarly, as others have suggested before, if LBL really wants to get a bang for their buck the only real sites that should be contenders are the ones that they don’t have to pay a dime for — Alameda and Richmond — so that the construction costs are the only expenditure necessary. And of course, why build on land already owned by LBL, why not take the land being offered and save the Richmond site for other future potential uses when prime real estate is being offered, for free?
According to the report, LBL will have a decision within the month and will want to complete construction by 2016.
As an aside I have to say, this was a highly encouraging tweet from Mayor Marie Gilmore on Tuesday morning if one looks at it colored with a LBL perspective:
Just left the Pentagon after meeting Navy Deputy Sec. Roger Natsuhara. Alameda Point discussed.—
Marie Gilmore (@MarieLGilmore) January 17, 2012
With positive movement on Alameda Landing, let’s hope that Alameda can keep up the momentum.
Other issues discussed at Pentagon- rising seas, global warming, arctic icecap meltdown, el niño, tsunamis, sun spots, and of course cell phone towers and PG&E meter boxes as well as possible predator attack on bloggers opposing base development…
Comment by Really? — January 18, 2012 @ 6:33 am
Funny, I didn’t notice the tweet being a statement of color.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 8:34 am
Seriously though, why go talk to the Navy. It’s DOE that wants to build and, by the way, I doubt that paying or not paying for the land site even enters into the equation. The current administration is trying to spend not save money.
You did touch on the site conundrum though, since DOE and the Labs are all wrapped up in the anthropomorphic cause of global warming/rising sea level hoax and the Labs (especially the Berkeley bunch) are the vehicles for implementing the supposed cure, how can building on a rising seas floodplain be justified when the agency wanting to build is the agency doing the chicken-little dance?
Of course they want to get started as soon as possible, the money pot may dry up rapidly next year.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 8:59 am
Well the Navy should be interested because if something spurs a sufficient amount of development at Alameda Point over the housing cap in the no cost conveyance then every housing unit built over the housing cap would carry a $50K price tag which would go to the Navy. So the Navy should be really interested in a highly successful project at Alameda Point and there will be no bigger catalyst than the LBL second campus coming in the near future.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 18, 2012 @ 9:13 am
I’m glad the mayor set up a meeting at the Pentagon while in Washington, DC for the mayors conference. This could be a first – meeting with a high-level Navy official at the Pentagon. However, I’m more inclined to believe the discussion centered on the cleanup schedule and finding out if there are other funding opportunities like the planning grant Alameda received for the Point. The Navy did all they could do last year (re the Lab) when they agreed to hand over the Lab parcel for free if we were selected (which, of course, morphed into a complete no cost conveyance). It’s the Dept. of Energy that has the most clout regarding the Lab Second Campus selection since it’s their money. DOE has to agree to the site selected by the UC selection committee. The “no perfect site” debate probably goes well beyond the UC selection committee. There may not be a meeting of the minds on the site between UC and DOE.
There is one other factor besides free land that should give “points” to Alameda: The federal government said they would help communities recover from the economic impact of closing a military base. While Richmond needs jobs just like everywhere else, a promise was made to Alameda. Locating the Lab campus here would be a fitting groundbreaking for the reuse of Alameda Point.
Comment by Richard Bangert — January 18, 2012 @ 9:13 am
Is it possible that the no-cost conveyance finally happened because the Lab project was on the horizon? I know not everybody in Washington knows each other, but the timing is propitious. A little early for the happy dance, but I’m betting Jack a bottle of fine vino Alameda gets “labbed.” Good point about the Navy’s benefit, by the way Lauren. You are such a smarty pants
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 18, 2012 @ 9:33 am
Lauren, am I reading you correctly? We make a deal with the Navy for a no cost conveyance and you are already thinking ahead how we can get around it so we can build more tacky homes. Yes, we could pay them 50K per house but why would we? I think the Lab is a great idea but do we have to link it to more housing. We have a number why can’t we just work with that and think about other options for the point that will not be such a strain on the traffic situation. And, as long as I’m complaining I have a question about the big whites….why are we allowing them to fall apart. I realize the city rents them out but they are not taking care of them. Are they hoping that eventually they will deem them blight, knock them down to put in some “new” homes?
Comment by J.E.A. — January 18, 2012 @ 9:55 am
PS….Lauren when I said Tacky houses I was not including yours in that…
Comment by J.E.A. — January 18, 2012 @ 9:58 am
JEA: I was just pointing out why the Navy would be interested in 1. LBL’s second campus and 2. what monetary benefit they could possibly receive from LBL siting at Alameda Point. Additionally, if the Navy wanted to preclude any residential building over the cap set they wouldn’t have lowered the per unit cost or even made that an option. They could have — if they wanted no housing to be built — nullified the no cost conveyance if the City went over the housing cap, but that is not what they elected to do.
Also remember that any significant increases in jobs will lead to a direct increase in Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units when the next allocation is calculated for the Bay Area by ABAG. Those numbers are generally tied to the number of jobs a given city has. And with increased penalties for not meeting those goals, Alameda needs to be very careful that it doesn’t go job/industry crazy and not balance out its housing needs accordingly.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 18, 2012 @ 10:08 am
Alameda Home Prices and Home Values
Zillow Home Value Index
-9.4% year over Year last 5 Years
We need more housing Inventory . Nothing says increased property Value like More inventory.
We only have 226 Houses in Preforeclosure or Foreclosure
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-Alameda-home-value/r_16697/#metric=mt%3D34%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D7%26r%3D16697%252C97711%252C97712%26el%3D0
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 10:31 am
What are the percentages today of jobs to housing? And, it seems to me if we strive for high paying jobs (lab) instead of low paying jobs (Target) we should not have a problem with ABAG.
Comment by J.E.A. — January 18, 2012 @ 10:32 am
JEA: ABAG numbers are for housing units in general — then further subdivided into income — but includes both market rate and low income housing units, it’s not just affordable housing numbers. For example of the 2046 units allocated to Alameda, 392 units are “moderate” which is 120% of median income and 843 is “above moderate” both are probably considered market rate. Only 329 are “low” or 80% of median income. And only 482 is “very low” or 50% of median income. The report linked to above outlines how the numbers are calculated and job growth is a big factor.
John: according to the CA Dept of Housing and Community Development, (p.4) the inventory of foreclosed homes does not eliminate need for certain types of housing.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 18, 2012 @ 10:48 am
I think more housing at the Point is inevitable, but it just has to be within reason. I’m not anti-housing, just don’t want so much that it becomes a huge problem like the Calthorpe plan would have caused.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 18, 2012 @ 10:49 am
The KQED Quest piece implied Alameda is one of those places that, because of the rising sea levels and catastrophic storms predicted, should be left to be reclaimed by the Bay. Not a very hopeful scenario for the true believers.
9. Aren’t the ‘jobs’ which will come to Alameda if the campus is built here all commute jobs? Most of the construction will be done by commuting off-Island companies and once the campus is built the lab on-site jobs will be transfer jobs already filled at the scattering of sites throughout the area and consolidated at the new lab? In all reality how many oldies will sell their Danville homes and move here?
The net result is a few restaurants will see a few lunchtime meals.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 11:02 am
Where do you think those Target Employees are going to Live…How is adding 400 10.00 -11.00 per hour jobs at Target going to help our community. Won’t it lower the Bar on everything.
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 11:04 am
Jack they will leave Danville to be Neighbors with Low income housing and live right next to a Target. Pass me the Smelling Salt.
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 11:10 am
Jack R.: I’m sure a certain number will be commute jobs if LBL comes to Alameda, but ABAG has a fairly standard calculation for the RHNA allocations which includes existing jobs and job growth. Some other factors include proximity to transit and household growth. Starts on page 21 of this document.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 18, 2012 @ 11:13 am
There are about 5500 Houses in Preforelosure or Foreclosure within 5 Miles of Alameda Lauren. Probably enough to handle LBL relocations.
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 11:20 am
Long time ago Alameda told ABAG to take a hike and dropped out. Don’t know why we ever got back in but they’re nothing but number crunchers who could care less about Alameda’s unique location commute situation.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 11:20 am
I wonder if this also relates to the Leadership in Alameda
Learning leadership from Congress
It occurred to me that we learned a lot about what sort of behaviors make for great leaders and careers. The short version: do the opposite.
When did we lose Congress? Not just in terms of losing our respect for just about everyone there (one of the least respected careers in the USA) but in the sense that they no longer even pretend to represent our interests or act as we would act if given the chance?
I’m not so much angry as saddened that it has come to this.
When planning your career, avoid these pitfalls, behaviors evidenced by many elected officials:
•In all things, look for money first. Listen to people with money, respond to people with money, justify your actions around money. Worth noting that 47% of those in Congress (House and Senate) are millionaires–an even greater percentage than those that are lawyers.
•Embrace the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Aspire to run systems you don’t understand.
•Compromise over the important issues, but dig in and fight forever over trivia.
•Along those lines: focus obsessively on the short run. Even though you are virtually assured of re-election, define the long term as “before the next election.”
•Take months off from your day job (with pay) to actively campaign for a better job.
•Blame the system, the other side and your predecessors for the fact that you are not taking brave, independent action.
•Avoid developing independent thought and analysis. Focus on parroting the work of lobbyists and the party line.
•When given the choice between being on television or doing hard work, pick television.
•When a difficult problem shows up, duck.
•Try mightily to outlast passionate resistance by quietly ignoring it and waiting for it to go away.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 3:56 pm
14, Jack, I assume your Danville comment is predicated by your continued erroneous insistence that Lawrence Livermore is interchangale with Lawrence Berkeley. I know Lawrence Berkelely Lab people and most live in Kensington, Albany, Berkeley, and parts of Oakland like Rockridge. My friend from Rockridge who works there says there is one guy in his department who lives in Alameda for the schools. I think he said there are about 4400 employees, but don’t quote me. My point is that my buddy doesn’t know them all, but I think if employees have school aged kids they may have incentive to live here if they work here. And I doubt anybody that would move from Kensington to Alameda, would look for a foreclosure in Oakland, John.
Comment by M.I. — January 18, 2012 @ 5:15 pm
You’re assumption is wrong, Mark. I used Danville because that’s where smart people like to live not because of Livermore. But leaving that aside, could you please tell me what the difference between the two labs are? Near as I can tell it’s just that the toys the big-headed boys play with are different.
Hope you can answer me today since you can’t cheat by using google until probably after midnight when the blackout ends.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 5:48 pm
Google has been working all Day Jack…..They just blacked out Logo…..I think 2016 is the Earliest anyone will be moving to Second Campus…..
M.I
If all the 500 Target employees work here they will probably have school aged kids and they may have incentive to live here if they work here and bring their kids too school here also.
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 6:04 pm
6
You ‘re on with the bet Denise. Course you’ll have to visit my wine cellar to pick your bottle if I lose. Hee Hee…
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
My google isn’t working, John.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 6:09 pm
http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8
Jack Try this
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 6:10 pm
You’re a Dr. of google John, it works.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 6:25 pm
Jack my only strength is my stupidity so I ask alot of dumb questions.
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 6:36 pm
Truer words never posted.
Comment by Tapan Venäläiset — January 18, 2012 @ 7:16 pm
Tapan loves you too John.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 7:33 pm
The concerns about rising tides and storms are the same for a number of the sites and, as was stated in the piece, in some of the places they can design around it. (It seems to me it would be a bit of an embarrassment if they gave up a prime site because they couldn’t work out the engineering.) If Lauren is correct about her guess that Alameda and Richmond are on the super short list, where would you want to work? (@Jack : You’re not getting near my wine cellar. A selection of fine wines will be proffered.)
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 18, 2012 @ 8:11 pm
I’m not getting near your wine cellar?? That must mean you expect to lose.
As far as where I’d rather work, Alameda, obviously. However, where would I rather work if I were a current resident of one of the many towns which will affected by consolidation, I’d rather live in a new community nearest to my residence and… If most of the current lab workers reside where Mark say’s they reside… that would be Richmond.
But I don’t think employee desires will drive the choice site. I believe UC Berkeley will prefer Richmond and they have the choice.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 18, 2012 @ 8:33 pm
Jack
Tapan is Brown 25′s sockpuppet and Mouthpiece…How could you not love that. LOL
Comment by John — January 18, 2012 @ 9:08 pm
33. You continue to be a real class act. I don’t need or use sock puppets but I am decent enough to blog as myself instead of being a chicken shit who uses anonymity to take pot shots at others with no consequence.
Jack, I don’t need to cheat to make basic differentiation about labs. Lawrence is related to nuclear energy and Berkeley is energy conservation and alternative energy. But you can continue to ignore reality, as with your insistence theory of sea level rise is a hoax by LBL types to create work for themselves.
Comment by M.I. — January 19, 2012 @ 9:42 am
Not by LBL types M.I. (which is an anonimous handle in itself and small chicken shit), by politicians who seek continual power. The Labs (other than those who actually do what they were estasblished to do…develope and maintain atomic/nuclear weapons…) are part of the new “spoils” system. If you choose to believe what Gore tells you, be my guest.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 19, 2012 @ 10:37 am