Blogging Bayport Alameda

March 18, 2014

Clean swap

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, City Council, Public Resources, School — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

Tonight the City Council now gets to be in the unenviable position of being yelled at by people about the land swap-y deal.  The School District has put up a FAQ answering some of the questions that were asked at previous meetings.   The City has also put up their own quick and dirty summary of how the land swap works as well, which is here:


Lest someone bring up the whole, well all that money from the AUSD housing fund is money that is not being accounted for that the Housing Authority is essentially getting for free. Here’s a portion of the letter to the City of Alameda challenging that the obligations that the City of Alameda have earmarked for those funds are actually enforceable. Meaning that the State still feels as though those funds are not committed and therefore should be handed over to the state:


So as School Board Member Mike McMahon noted the other night, that money may not even pan out  for the Housing Authority since the City/Housing Authority will still be on the hook to fight the state for those funds.

Some other things on the agenda, Google and the free rent, closed door negotiations with Del Monte Pet Food which is now Big Heart Pet Brands, I assume those that are lamenting the closed door nature of the School Board/City Council/Housing Authority discussion will also be forcefully insisting that these negotiations with this private company also be conducted in front of a live studio audience as well.

About these ads


  1. So if the money does ‘not pan out for the Housing Authority’ as stated by Mike McMahon where will the 1.2 M come from for fixing the pools?

    Comment by frank — March 18, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

  2. from AUSD FAQ :

    Q: Does the school district get money from the marina on the Tidelands property?
    A: The marina lease has been managed by the City for years. School districts are not and should not be in the business of commercial marinas.

    It’s logical that the school district isn’t suited to be landlord of a Marina, but the question was not answered. What if anything was discussed about this when the Mastick Center deal was negotiated? Does the City give AUSD a prorated portion of the lease proceeds and if not why not?

    Back during Measure E parcel tax campaign the marinas objected to the parcel tax terms and at the one I spoke with ( Fortman, the one with slips on this Tideland parcel) had gotten a proposed increase on their lease costs which was a factor in their resistance. Don’t quote me but $100k a year comes to mind. I didn’t realize that the district actually owned any of the land in question and I don’t recall the marina raising that point. I went to Goggle to count boats and try to guess at a revenue stream but didn’t follow through. berths are about $6.50 to $10 a foot per month as an average. $10 is high.

    Comment by MI — March 18, 2014 @ 2:45 pm

  3. #2 A lot of those questions are answered in

    Comment by frank — March 18, 2014 @ 3:05 pm

  4. #3 Thanks for that. “Revenue collected from Tidelands property must be reinvested into the trust, according to the State Lands Commission. The city’s budget anticipates $820,000 in revenues from all of the Tidelands properties Alameda holds this year and $1.5 million in expenses. ” Gee, that’s s deficit isn’t it? Can’t imagine AUSD would be any different and it is for sure beyond basic purview of a school district to administrate those transactions. I’m still wondering why the Sun was so premature in positing the question on the front page last Thursday about whether AUSD got money from boat owners over the last 14 years. I found the whole “news article” prejudicial, asking the question as if to imply AUSD had probably screwed up. Maybe Dennis should just call Michelle next time instead of taking his leads from Gretchen Lipow.

    Comment by MI — March 18, 2014 @ 5:21 pm

  5. MI, the Sun doesn’t do news they do editorials.

    Comment by John P. — March 18, 2014 @ 9:32 pm

  6. 5. I don’t know Dennis other than brief email exchanges, but I’ve spent a little time hanging of with Eric and I think his heart is really in the right place. I think there is evidence that the other Eric was a real piece of work who actually did vindictive stuff to critics of the paper, but he is gone. Losing Julia was just that, a loss. If they would just tighten up they are in a great position to be legitimate and credible advocate for minority positions which is how they fancy themselves. Champion of the little guy! I think it is O.K. for a paper to have a strong editorial position. There is no true objectivity. There was a time in the mid 1990s as the Journal was being bought by various entities when we joked that it was an annex of City Hall, . Articles often echoed City talking points with little depth, but sin of omission is not as bad as blatant bias. The Wall Street Journal can have outrageous editorial positions, but generally, and relative to the Sun, the news section prints some useful stuff and when content is biased by the editorial leaning of the paper you just have to read with a grain of salt. I don’t think the New York Times is the outrageous liberal rag so many conservatives scream that it is, but it tends to be liberal as a lot of “main stream media” does. Apparently the greater media leans left over all, but that may have to do with the fact that the profession has higher than average education. I know conservatives hate that statistic, Hannity went to college. Anyway, the months long research of Bengazi by NYTimes Cairo bureau chief surly made Darrell Issa crazy, but I thought it was great journalism and should be the bottom line narrative for what happened. The guy is very credible and his in descriptions defy the over all Republican narrative. The Sun is small and doesn’t have a lot of money to pay journalists, but it wouldn’t take much to temper contents of news section, even for folks learning on the job.

    Comment by MI — March 19, 2014 @ 9:12 am

  7. As a daily reader of the WSJ, and news junkie in general, I agree with you that the Journal pages outside the op-ed are very high quality, but the quality has noticeably slipped since News Corp bought them. While they are still better than most papers about separating editorial & news, that line has blurred a bit with them as well.

    As for the quote-unquote liberal media, the very notion is bullshit. The largest newspaper in the country (WSJ) is well to the right of center, as is the largest TV news outlet (Fox). The AM radio dial, where millions get their news, is almost entirely right wing, as are editorial stances of most small town papers across the heartland. What passes for “liberal” in the minds of the conservatives who repeat that phrase are such institutions as NPR and the Times, which are decidedly bourgeois centrist (a positive characteristic IMO). Truly liberal shops like Salon just do not have much strength or scale.

    Comment by dave — March 19, 2014 @ 9:30 am

  8. If he were motivated, Rupert Murdock could chose more subtle language than Dennis Evanosky did in his synopsis of the swap today which is laden with prejudicial adjectives. Now that the Journal is more or less gone maybe the Sun should move it’s edition to Friday so they don’t have the deadline conflict with covering City council meetings. From today on account of deadline ” The Sun offers this synopsis of the package that, as of this writing, pundits were predicting that the council would have already passed.” We’ve heard the pundits, so who needs the Sun.

    It’s not about a journalist using careful language to disguise their true feeling or pretending. It’s about challenging oneself to reach deep enough to avoid hyperbolic and inflaming language to prove not just to the readers but oneself that you are capable of representing both sides in a reasonably well rounded fashion, regardless of personal beliefs. This includes reiterating the other side’s arguments and even going out of one’s way to contact people and get quotes. But these guys don’t even care about appearances. “Locally owned, Community Oriented, Unvarnished Bias”.

    Comment by MI — March 20, 2014 @ 9:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 808 other followers