While I know the City Staff has taken great strides to be more transparent and more open than our last City Administration, right now, the City has a serious transparency issue. Nothing is that so huge that it is a gross violation of the public trust and in fact, I think most people probably haven’t really noticed all that much. But it’s the combination of them all in such a short span that speaks to a problem that we all — regardless of whether you support the outcome or not — should be concerned about.
The pattern has sort of followed this general outline:
- A idea or plan is floated
- Staff discusses plan or idea with select “stakeholders”
- Staff presents idea or plan to the Council and says that they’re received “public” input
- City Council votes on the issue
While number 4 is always the point where staff either gets what they want or are thoroughly foiled.
The most egregious of all the examples has to be the whole Mif Albright land swap debacle. Where staff floated the whole idea of swapping the Mif for a plot at North Loop Road and met with key “stakeholders” and then surprised the community with this awesome plan that was a “win-win” for everyone. Turns out, not a win-win, and not a good idea. But it followed the general outline above, even though a large amount of the public input that moved staff into the direction of thinking that this was a good idea happened outside of the public eye. Fortunately kibosh happened at Step number 4.
The next example is that of the Beltline and the gentleman’s agreement that was made between the City and the youth sports coalition. While the Park and Rec department has done an adequate job of keeping up appearances that there are other options for the Beltline other than the passive park option, this agreement made by this group will probably be used as evidence that the “public” decided that they didn’t want athletics fields at the Beltline. Let’s see what happens with this makes its way to the City Council.
Another example is that of the VA clinic and columbarium. There was very little public input before the City Council voted on sending a letter of support on Tuesday night for the VA’s plan. While it may be that the plan that the VA now wants is superior to the old plan, the problem is how the City got to this point. This led to a bit of back and forth on twitter which was fascinating:
Interesting that #Alameda staff acknowledged that the city agreed to change a decades old Alameda Point plan last year with no public input—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@jknoxwhite: if there was "no public input" re. Last night's Council vote, who were those speakers that addressed Council? And the e-ma …—
John Russo (@John_A_Russo) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo staff acknowledged last night that the city had agreed "a year ago" to the changes in the NW territories. #alameda—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo staff acknowledged last night that the city had agreed "a year ago" to the changes in the NW territories. #alameda—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo Decision was made before public was aware that there was a decision to be made—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo I don't have a problem w/ VA's proposal. I have problem with City's growing decision-making with hand picked input. #alameda—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo NW Territories plan is 10-15 y.o. Changed without any public discussion until project was done and staff recommending support—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo The council wrote a letter of support for the project. The land use is set. 79 acres of land is going from "open space" to VA.—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo Is it credible to argue that after council supported, city is going to re-change what they support for that land?—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo Again, I am supportive of the plan, but we have to acknowledge that the plan was fairly well cemented last night.—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@John_A_Russo City adopted public participation policy after Park St trees, said input must be early, before decisions made, not at end—
John Knox White (@jknoxwhite) March 06, 2013
@jknoxwhite: you are incorrect: decision is not remotely "at end". NEPA scoping hasn't even begun yet. Process is at start.—
John Russo (@John_A_Russo) March 06, 2013
To which I say to John Russo, “please.” Now you’re just insulting our intelligence when you say that the decision is not at an end. Even though the vote ended up in a 3 -2 split, there really is not much left to derail the VA from their clinic and columbarium. Much like the Beltline, the only entity that could have put up much of a fight had conceded ground by sending off a letter of support.
And finally this was something that was initially brought to light by Alameda Patch and then closed out by the Alamedan: the rule banning kids at the City’s dog parks. Essentially what happened was that the Rec and Park Department received some complaints about kids in the dog parks and then took that as “public” input and then changed the rule without any actual public input. Which they had to change
See, while one incident taken alone isn’t a problem, particularly if you agree with the outcome, it’s all the examples taken as a whole that should be worrisome. The City should be careful that they don’t squeeze out too many people in order to speed the process along and instead lose whatever trust that some folks may have in their City government.
The light dawns. Yes, Lauren. This is the way the political process works. Whether it’s Bev and company or Marie and Company, eventually “sunshine” and good intentions end up in the compost heap. People do not aspire to positions of power and sit patiently hoping that other people will make a good case for them to change their minds about what they want. They know what they want and they are motivated to make it happen. That’s why they run for office in the first place. They make concessions only (as in the case of Mif) when the public outcry is so great that to ignore it would be career suicide. These other issues did not inspire the passion that the golf course did and so, it’s business as usual. As Gomer Pyle would say, “Sooprize, sooprize, sooprize!”
Comment by Denise Shelton — March 7, 2013 @ 8:04 am
Actually Denise, I’m not blaming the elected officials, whether Bev and Company or Marie and Company. I do place the onus on the heads of City Staff. As I mentioned above, the buck does stop with the City Council who will either go along with staff or stop staff in their tracks, the larger point is that City Staff has a habit right now of selectively choosing who is determined to be “the public” and that is problematic.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 7, 2013 @ 8:24 am
I agree but I don’t think it’s a new wrinkle. As long as I can remember, this is the way they’ve been doing it. There are a couple of go to guys in a couple of different camps. Sometimes one group rules the day, sometimes the other. The people who are always left out of the loop are the ones who are here today gone tomorrow on an issue by issue basis. They eventually go away so they’re ignorable. To be heard above the tumult, you have to devote a lot of time and effort over the long term. The powers that be have to get to know you and decide whether or not your opinion is worth their consideration. They don’t want to come down on the side of someone who turns out to be a wingnut and sometimes people who “care passionately” about an issue, come to change their minds over time (case in point: the Alameda Theatre). As always, not saying it’s how it should be, just saying how it is.
Comment by Denise Shelton — March 7, 2013 @ 8:43 am
Mr. Russo is not the villain here. When the VA reps came up with their lame excuses why they couldn’t move the hearing venue, it was Mr. Russo who pointed out that an act of Congress was Not Needed to change the venue of a local public hearing! The VA seems determined to sequester “public hearings” on the only Federal property left available to it in Alameda; namely, the USS Hornet. This is unacceptable.
While the public outreach & community involvement regarding development of the City’s half of former Alameda NAS has seemed at times to be overkill, the public outreach/community involvement regarding the VA’s parcel has been comparatively non-existent. Yet the land mass in question is no less significant. Alamedans need to realize that the VA is about to acquire title to approximately HALF of Alameda Point, & will have control over most of the Western part, with the best views. Alamedans should appropriately have an opportunity to be heard regarding it or the idea that this land mass has been somehow “reconveyed” to the City has little meaning. The VA claims to have reached out to various groups, but it seems to have only held meetings with special interest groups who already have retained legal counsel. The rest of us, John Q. Public, have been dismissed as not worth it.
The VA is the largest US government department after the Department of Defense. Standing up to them can be daunting. But they are both still accountable to the American public.
Notwithstanding DS’ cynical remarks above, All that is necessary for the VA/DOD to steamroll the [Alameda] public is for the public to stand by and do nothing.
Comment by vigi — March 7, 2013 @ 12:01 pm
And a big thank-you to Councilmembers Lena Tam & Stewart Chen for understanding the basic issues involved and voting accordingly [against signing the Letter of Support]!
Comment by vigi — March 7, 2013 @ 12:50 pm
vigi: I wasn’t attempting to frame Russo as the villain, however, it was Staff that urged the Council to send the premature letter of support. Regardless of the fact that Russo recognized that the Hornet was no place to hold a community meeting, the letter was unnecessary at this time and should have been held off until after the public comment period finished for the VA’s EA.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 7, 2013 @ 12:57 pm
The basic issue is whether or not this city will support a decent final resting place for multitudes of veterans on land that they served and fought for.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 7, 2013 @ 7:42 pm
With regard to “ick” factor of a cemetery I can’t relate. I’ve had many a peaceful walk through old cemeteries and was fascinated by reading head stones. But with regard to the price of real estate I can’t relate to a so called columbarium where the urns are buried with head stones. Is that what is being proposed? I thought columbariums were like Chapel of the Chimes near Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland (great reviews! http://www.yelp.com/biz/chapel-of-the-chimes-oakland-2 ). I’m into honoring the fallen who have served, but when it comes to final resting places I like be pragmatic as much as sentimental, and I can be very sentimental. Cremation is practical and the process of “dust to dust” is not just accelerated but the end result also highly portable. Even if a loved one was a veteran who did or did not die in combat, I like the idea of keeping the ashes near by on a mantel or altar in the home, until such time as they might be dispersed back into the environment in a place of special meaning. If the families of veterans find comfort in visiting the remains of their relative in the special context of a cemetery like Arlington or a military columbarium I can’t judge them for that, but I still go back to the cost of real estate.
When the very first Town Hall meetings on base closure were held ( 1993?) under auspices of consultant EDAW at O-Club there were break outs of small groups to discuss personal preferences. Almost every group was dominated by environmentalists, mostly Audubon people. The group I was part of had people who favored Bay Farm like homes with views of the S.F. . Somebody also suggested a golf course as an income producer and also the majority favored an up scale hotel at the far western point facing S.F. . When each group reported back they said they wanted open space and many specifically sited that they were not in favor of anything like a big hotel or resort. When it was our turn I got to report. I dutifully reported what our group had favored and finished with emphasis that we DID favor the hotel, which drew laughs from the way I presented it. Sarcastic? I was nervous. I didn’t mean to ridicule the idea, just wanted to punctuate the fact the contrast. As we left the venue, the woman whose husband had proffered the golf course idea accosted me at my truck and, assuming I had deliberately pejoratized the choice of our group, she said “What use would satisfy you, a cemetery?!” Ironically, the golf course idea has come and gone and we are back to a cemetery, but this time with a hospital.
Comment by M.I. — March 7, 2013 @ 9:11 pm
MI: I thought it was going to be columbarium style similar to the link you posted above, but honestly given the amount of acreage set aside, I’m not quite sure anymore, I’ll have to dig into the EA again.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 8, 2013 @ 6:32 am
5-star revues for Mountain View Cemetery: http://www.yelp.com/biz/mountain-view-cemetery-oakland. Some of the best real estate available. Whenever I go there {great place to bike/walk the dog], I think how developers must weep-& not for anyone who died.
The problem with the public input process so far hasn’t changed: the conversation is still dominated by environmentalists, mostly Audubon people. They’re the ones with the lawyers. But not everyone wants to kiss the tail feathers of that darn bird & it seems to me it shouldn’t be allowed to hog all that land. After all, it chose to roost there amid all the airplanes & apparently thrived. We have not heard enough from local veterans & those are the ones the VA should be reaching out to by, among other things moving the meetings off the Hornet.
Strangely, at the CC meeting, EzzyAshcraft mentioned WW2 & Korean vets but completely forgot the Vietnam Era.
Unfortunately, MI, the hospital was taken off the table after pressure from envionmentalists. That hospital was going to be a joint venture between Alameda Hospital & the VA & serve civilians as well as vets. It would have brought a large number of various jobs to Alameda & improved the overall quality of our health care & I for one am sorry to see that idea foreclosed.
Comment by vigi — March 8, 2013 @ 10:11 am
So here is the plan thanks to Richard Bangert regarding the columbarium:
Comment by Lauren Do — March 8, 2013 @ 10:30 am
Thanks Lauren and Richard. It’s a little confusing. seems like a bit of a hybrid. The maps of the two configurations you posted obviously skipped the details of these structures. don’t know what to think. I don’t know if Alamedans have a say, but it would be nice to see some depictions of the structures.
Vigi, I was referring to hotel proposal way back in first meetings in 1990s, but I agree that working with VA to build a hospital on the land proposed for transfer to the City would have been interesting. The cemetery is another issue for me. I’ve never been to Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. and hope to do so. Honoring fallen vets is important , but my priority is to provide services for those still living.
Comment by MI — March 8, 2013 @ 3:08 pm
10. What evidence is there that “environmentalists” prevented a collaborative hospital deal between the VA and Alameda Hospital? And why would they try? The VA said a long time ago that they might pursue the idea and that, if they did, they would seek Requests for Proposals. Maybe you should ask the VA what happened?
BTW, “thriving” is not what the least terns were enjoying when they showed up at NAS-Alameda. They were SURViving. It was a survival strategy. Their traditional nesting area is beaches, of which we have a nice one in Alameda, and they avoided it – because of people. The thriving, such as it is, began after the airplane and vehicular traffic ended on the runways.
Arguing that the terns were given too much space, and that more buildings, traffic, and commotion would not bother the terns because they weren’t bothered by airplanes is pseudo-science. It’s like observing a sunset and concluding that the sun revolves around the earth. What are the similarities between occasional airplane traffic and buildings with people traffic? Windows? There is no evidence that tolerance for jet aircraft noise translates into tolerance for people, buildings, or regular auto traffic.
Comment by Richard Bangert — March 9, 2013 @ 7:43 am
It is important that as many folks as possible keep watching, learning and asking about the future of Alameda Point.
Comment by Loyal Opposition — March 10, 2013 @ 10:25 am
I went to Mountain View Cemetery over the weekend and was reminded how important valuable design and open space are. Even though Olmsted was just contracted to do design, it still seemed like a great sneaky way to build a peaceful public open space. It really is a magnificent space and the columbarium is also a trip. I ducked into the smaller Chapel of the Chimes up off of Montgomery but didn’t have time stop at the larger columbarium venue near the entry to the cemetery. I hope the VA has the imagination ( and $ ?) to make the most of their venue. There is one structure up the hill straight behind the main gate of Mountain View Cemetery, a long bench/retaining wall, which is much newer than most of the rest of the retaining walls, fountains and other infrastructure and it lacks some of the gravitas of the original Olmsted features. When he was here designing the cemetery Olmsted proposed a series of linear parks along each creek in Oakland from bay to ridge with 100 foot easement on each side. The City fathers didn’t go for it, but imagine if they had. I think the uses for Beltline should be chosen carefully and democratically, and the cost of construction and maintenance have to be factored in. I’m not anti-housing but I think BELTline really warrants being a park in the tradition of Olmsted style green BELT open spaces which have linkage to things like waterfront trails.
Comment by M.I. — March 12, 2013 @ 3:01 pm
We have plenty of land at Alameda Point. We owe our veterans. The VA ideas seem to be just right.
Comment by Loyal Opposition — March 16, 2013 @ 7:13 am