As my daughter would loudly proclaim, “ohhh noes!”  That was my first reaction when I read the Alameda Sun article about the most recent Central Cinema problems.   Highlights for those of you that have not yet read it:

Alameda’s Central Cinema, the plucky small-time independent operation, is $2,900 in arrears on its rent and will be evicted June 5 unless payment is made, according to a Notice to Pay or Quit taped to the movie theater’s door Tuesday.

…

“The landlord and I have had back and forth negotiations,” Haskett said. He said the notices could be a negotiating tactic.

The property’s owner, Dennis Keefe, said that Haskett had earlier declined an offer to renew his lease and had switched to a month-to-month arrangement based on anticipation of overwhelming competition from the downtown multiplex set to open later this month. “I don’t believe he wants to be here anymore,” Keefe said.

…

Haskett said he has been scouting new locations for his operation, mostly outside of Alameda. “Everybody’s talking about how the megaplex is going bury us,” he said.

So, here’s the thing I don’t get, if Central Cinema is already having problems paying its rent prior to the Alameda Theatre opening (still three weekends away), I imagine with a rather defeatist attitude like switching to a month-to-month lease and actively looking for space outside of Alameda, Central Cinema will probably not make it once the Theatre opens.   Although the real question is, would they have made it even if the theatre didn’t open?

Also, admittedly I don’t talk about the Central Cinema v. Alameda Theatre battles nearly as much as Mark Haskett probably does, I’ve seen a lot of positive things that people have said, wishing for the best for the future of Central Cinema and proffering suggestions as to what Central Cinema could possibly do to stay afloat.   The most recent one was a very nice letter in the Journal about the issue.  Basically I haven’t heard anyone say that the Alameda Theatre is going to “bury” Central Cinema.  I think that Mark H. needs to do some surveying of his current customers to see what other movies they would be interested in seeing: second-run, art house, classics, etc…  And then basically keep trying until he finds something that works.    Maybe do a “season pass” of sorts during the day for kids during the summer and show classics like Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the Gene Wilder version), Lassie, etc…

Anyway, I hope that Central Cinema can make it without needing to leave Alameda.

However, in other awesomeness, did everyone see Jean Sweeney’s letter on Alameda Daily News about the recent Planning Board nomination?  Of course, sometimes one has to take Jean S. statements with a rather large grain of salt.  But, if true, that Art Arturino has made a public statement about Measure A in the past which involved not calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread, we might be possibly be in for a larger shitstorm than the one that was originally anticipated, but I’ll go into detail about this next week.

Also, this weekend is Park Street’s Spring Festival, this year if you are not walking to get there, there’s a pretty convenient parking garage now open for those that have to drive to get to the festival.  I hope there are funnel cakes this year.

Well this one snuck by really quietly but I think it’s rather important to mention.   The City Council on Tuesday night sitting as the Community Improvement Commission approved a letter of intent for a property exchange.   What does that all mean?  Basically, that the Willie Stargell Avenue Extension project will be moving forward.   One of the major hurdles for the extension was convincing the College of Alameda to give up a huge parcel of land in order to run the extension to Webster Street.   The Peralta Trustees determined that they would “gift” a right-of-way to the City and the parcel that the right of way would run through would also be gifted to the City in exchange for a different parcel.   Most notably, 860 Atlantic in Marina Village, for what is now an unused parcel of land running adjacent to Webster.  

There is a complicated bit of narrative in the staff report explaining how the trustees were able to make this exchange to the City, which composes of the Education Code allowing for the trustees to deed a right-of-way for roadway use to an entity without needing to go through a surplus property bid and then because of the ROW deed they are able to then transfer the property the ROW runs through to the same entity they have given the ROW to.  

If these landscape plans are still up to date you can see how Stargell will be rerouted and extended, the renderings on page 2 of the reader are the most clear, I found that if I rotated it clockwise it was easier for me to figure out what goes where.  In the background you can make out what the existing roadway looks like underneath the reconfigured roads.   If you also notice, the extension does not use all of the land that is exchanged.   Of course, it would be too much to hope that it would just be left open and landscaped because according to the staff report, while there are no current plans for the remaining land, certainly they are “considering a range of uses for the site.”

So this is a step forward for the Alameda Landing project, but I’m not holding my breath that it will get constructed any time soon even after all the paperwork is shuffled around and settled.  Although according to the renderings, looks like the will be giving Neptune Park a bit of a face lift as well.   Neptune Park, for those that don’t know is a rather nondescript piece of land that is so inaccessible that its usefulness as an actual park is rather questionable.   Hopefully with the reorientation of Stargell and the inclusion of sidewalks and a way to access it it will actually get more use than simply as a blur of green that folks whiz by on their way in and out of the tubes.

Oh and for those that might be wondering what the College will be doing with the property at 860 Atlantic, it is slated to become a lab for students according to the staff report.   Mapping the property, one can see that it is the building that is the first building in the business park that is closest to the College which should make it easier for students to walk there. 

Last night at the CIty Council meeting, the Mayor nominated Arthur Autorino to the Planning Board.   Remember Gina Mariani vacated her seat a long long long time ago and it’s taken months for the Mayor to finally make a decision about this, probably much to the relief of the rest of the Planning Board as they have been down a member for many months now.  Considering the kicking and screaming from Diane Coler-Dark when the initial list came out, I would definitely call Arthur A. the “safe pick” for the Mayor.  

I’m a tiny bit disappointed because I would have liked to see the drama unfold if someone less “acceptable” had been nominated for the sheer entertainment value alone.   But alas, we shall not be privvy to that sort of community theater.  

From what I understand, Arthur A. comes from the business community so I suppose it would be good to get a different perspective on the Planning Board from a business-y sort of view.

Speaking of safe issues, one of the other item of interest last night was the call for review of the Transporation Commission’s decision regarding parking removal in front of the new Alameda Theatre, but I haven’t finished watching that video yet, so I’ll probably talk about that some other time.

Tonight, at the City Council there will be some pretty big issues up for the Council to discuss.   The first was covered in brief by the Alameda Journal about the Green Building Ordinance.   Alameda is feeling left behind in its commitment to being more Kermit-like, plus they want to get in on a little of the funding — to the tune of $44K — from the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.   It’s unclear if the waste reduction portion is for the entire city of Alameda or just for the City of Alameda, the entity.  We are supposed to be at 75% of our waste not going to landfills by 2010 but currently we are only at 50%.   Our family recently purchased a deeply discounted composter from Alameda County’s Stop Waste program, I would normally link to the site, but it’s going all weird this morning, but I digress.

The next issue is the discussion about the Charter language cleanup item which will be on the November ballot.   The items for consideration are pretty benign, but it’s the upcoming items that will be more interesting and will require a lot more discussion by the City Council, and I would imagine, the public as well.   The few things that jump out are the two being proposed by Doug deHaan.   First is the issue of wanting to prevent any elected and currently sitting Federal, State, County, or local office to being either elected to any office or appointed to any board or commission created by the City Council or City Charter. 

Off the top of my head, there are a few issues I have with this proposal.   The first being the denial of someone to be elected to office if they already hold an elected office, I suppose this is to prevent someone from hypothetically sitting on both the City Council and the School Board like Vernice Boone tried to do a few years ago.   However, if the voting populace decided that it wants someone like Vernice Boone to sit on the City Council and the School Board, who is to say that the will of the people shouldn’t be granted?

Also, this muddies the water a little regarding the make-up of boards like the Public Utilities Board, which I believe is created by the City Charter and the Mayor is one of the sitting members.   I seem to remember one meeting when Doug deHaan announced that he thought the PUB should be dissolved and the issues normally handled by the PUB should come to the Council instead, but don’t quote me on that because I’m not schlogging through all the meeting videos to try to find that.   But if my memory is correct and he did say that, it would certainly not jive with the spirit in which the PUB was created in order to provide a bit of arms length between the PUB and City Council because of past issues with corruption.  That was a long long time ago, from what I understand, maybe someone with a better memory could further illuminate.   

Additionally this brings confusion with the other Commissions that the Council sits on like the Housing Advisory Board, ARRA, and CIC.   I suppose the bigger question is asking Doug deHaan why it is that he thinks this is an important issue and then moving on from there, because I’m not sure if there will be a clamoring for too many elected officials to sit on boards and commissions in Alameda.   Nothwithstanding Sandre Swanson who sits on the Golf Commission, but I’m sure that is not why Doug deHaan suggested that this item be added to the charter clean up.

The next item that will require lots of discussion is the proposal to make nominations to boards and commissions a Council role and not simply that of the Mayor.   Again, this probably needs more clarification and discussion, but I could see the merit in structuring the nominations so that a portion is nominated by only the Mayor and the other portion by the remainder of the Council.  Of course, they all have to vote on the people nominated anyway, so it may just be something that simply makes more work for everyone rather than creating a “balance” which I bet is why deHaan brought this one up.  And possibly he brought this up because of the need for the next interesting item which is the appointment of a Planning Board member.

If he has bought into the hype that the current sitting Planning Board is anti-Measure A then this move would allow him to appoint one member for “balance” against the forces that would attempt to destroy all that is Alameda.   Even though it’s not really in the power of the Planning Board to do anything like that, but nuances, nuances.   The new list of applicants to fill Gina Mariani’s seat has only a few additions, but I think one of the additions is probably one of the front-runners on the Mayor’s short list to fill the position.   While I would like to see someone like David Burton or John Knox White appointed, people who have shown to understand land use and planning issues, I have a feeling it’s going to be someone like Arthur Autorino, currently appointed to the Economic Development Commission, or Michael Henneberry.   Actually once I found out who Michael Henneberry was when the first list came out, he was already on my mental short list of possible appointees along with Horst Breuer who would seem to be an easy pick since he has already sat on the Planning Board.  Anyway, we’ll see what the Mayor does tonight with the PB nomination.  

At last week’s Planning Board meeting, the members were asked to approve the latest in extreme makeovers at Alameda Towne Centre.   This time the stone aggregate building that houses Mervyns would be the next in line, but it’s not Mervyns that will reap the benefit of the renovations, instead ATC will be filling that space in with a Kohl’s.   Now, I’ve never been to a Kohl’s before, so I had to rely on the Wikipedia article and what I’ve seen on TV to understand what type of store it is.  Appears to be not so dissimilar to a Mervyns or a TJMaxx even, although the Wikipedia article labels it a “department store.”   Evidently the leasing folks at Harsch seem to think Alamedans can’t get enough of these sort of stores. 

So here’s what they’ve done, which I find completely puzzling.  In the redesign, hey have opted to entirely close off the Western entrance to the building.   That, for those of you not directionally-inclined, is the side that faces the old Safeway building/now defunct proposed site for Target.   So there is a parking lot for people to park, but no entrance as is currently available in the exisiting building.   When asked about this, the answer given was something about display space inside the building and needing the extra walls to properly display items.   Also I think there was some mention about having to hire extra personnel to cover additional entrances in the case of shoplifting.   Understandable, I suppose, but if anything is ever proposed and finally approved for the old Safeway building then it really will stand alone rather isolated from the rest of the mall area.

Plus the greige (gray and beige) coloring on the Kohl’s building is really sort of blah.   Yes, Harsch has promised to put lots and lots of landscaping around the building to make it look less like a huge mass of concrete with a little bit of beige brick thrown in for color.  It seems to me that the developer sort of lost inspiration by the time they finished up with everything else and ended up with this building, because personally I find that the rest of ATC is a vast improvement over what was there, which used to be really depressing.   But with the nice landscaping that Harsch has put in and the new facades, it really is shaping up to be a much more pleasant shopping experience, it really does need better stores though and more dining options for those who might choose to stay for more than a few hours.  However when I was there this past weekend, apparent the new Massage Envy is offering introductory rates for one hour massages.   I believe it’s $39 for a one hour massage, sounds like a pretty good deal for those of you feeling rather tense.

So, I’m not pleased with “new and improved” Kohl’s building, but I suppose it was better than what was there, but that’s not saying a whole lot.   And since I none of the stores on that side of the mall necessarily  appeal to me anyway, I won’t be seeking a whole heck of a lot of it.   It’s just disappointing that Harsch didn’t try a little harder.   After this, can they please do something about that office supply store?

In a completely unrelated topic, apparently Alameda Daily News is preciently seeing glimpses of the future.   I have attached is here in case it disappears as magically as it appeared:

If only Don R. could channel his future telling abilities into revealing to us all what future lottery numbers would be.

Tom Pavletic can blame Alameda’s school funding problem on a “management crisis”(1) and “mythical budget cuts”(2) but the in the end regardless of where cuts are made to make up for the potential funding shortfall, it’s going to affect Alameda students and to me that is unacceptable.   Whether cuts are made by eliminating all administrative positions or telling teachers to take a pay cut or by closing and consolidating schools — everything will end up affecting the kids.   So is the solution stonewall and say, “not my problem, take it to the state and find the funding equity there” or do we take a boot strap approach and say “what can I do to help?”  

Community members are stepping up all over the city to do their small part to help out during these difficult times.  It’s time for us all to step up and support our schools.   Let’s not give lip service to phrases like doing things “for the children” when we talk about issues like bus stop placement, development efforts in the city, traffic, etc… if we really aren’t going to think of the children when we have a chance to do something “for the children” and ensure that they have the best educational opportunity that we as a community can afford to provide to them.

When we talk about telling other folks, like teachers and other school employees, to take a hit financially for the good of the students, the ironic thing is that these are the same people who are complaining about paying a $120 parcel tax, as opposed to taking how much more from the pockets of professionals who rely on their salaries to support themselves and their families.   A teacher/blogger from the San Jose Unified School District — really great blog by the way — put it like this when interviewed for a tv newscast regarding the school district holding back their cost of living adjustment:

…I need new stuff, more books, more supplies, better facilities, and so on, but my kids don’t need that stuff. They need me. If you want to close the achievement gap, you want me in that classroom, me and all my talented friends and colleagues. We are the single most powerful factor in determining the success or failure of the individual student, and you need to keep us around.

…

You can’t keep us when you invest in programs over people. So yes, the Governor should understand that you get what you pay for, but budget cuts or no budget cuts, you protect your investment in the teachers whose energy and talent make the difference between advancement and stagnation.

I don’t think anyone could have phrased it any better.

And when we hear stories about this year’s valedictorian at Encinal High School, the school’s first Black valdedictorian in its history, how can we deny the power of what a good education can do for one person, one student, one kid.   One kid whose life could have turned out so differently if it wasn’t for the power of his personal convictions as well as the power of good schools with teachers and staff that truly care for the success of all students.  

Digging our heels and repeating a tired mantra about waiting to see or the school district should do better or persons x, y, and z should take a pay cut isn’t what made students like Anthony Chibueze Anekwe Jr. a success: heading off to college with a full scholarship and seeking to become a neurosurgeon.   It is the efforts of the school district that should do better and persons x, y, and z that supposedly should sacrifice their means of living.

As Anthony A. said:

“I have always believed in education,” … “And I knew that getting an education would give me a better life.” 

_____________________________________________

(1) Tom Pavletic Will Vote No on School Parcel Tax Measure H
Editor,
When does a person say about their own personal finances that they have a “budget shortfall?” Most people would say that only in jest … instead they simply acknowledge the fact that they spend more than they earn. If a person’s income goes down, they cut expenditures and draw down their savings account. I view the School District’s problem the same way (disclosure: I analyze City government enterprise funds for a living). The School District does not have a budget crisis. They have a management crisis. Why is it so hard to cut expenditures by 2.5% per year for two years without cutting to the bone?
If a person thinks that the salaries and benefits of top administrators can be adjusted to yield $4 million in savings they should ask the School Board to sketch out the proposal – list the positions and cost out each one. Administrator salaries and benefits are probably only 10-15% of total salaries and benefits. The Superintendent’s salary on July 1, 2008 will increase from about $167,000 to $173,000 (a $6,000 or 3% increase). I maintain that a temporary decrease in the salaries and benefits of top administrators and the Superintendent are only part of the composite approach needed to reduce expenditures.
School District management (the elected members of the School Board and the Superintendent) have many options for decreasing expenditures. They put forth a proposed set of cuts that does not include their biggest expenditure categories – salaries and benefits. Salaries and benefits are over 80% of the District’s General Fund expenditures. School District management needs to justify why employee salaries and benefits should continue to increase over the next few years while the taxpayers, in effect, transfer their salaries to School District employees.
If the School District had maintained a reasonable General Fund balance, like their financial auditors suggested they should, the School District would not need this tax increase.
If their 600+ employees, whose salaries and benefits total almost $70 million per year, temporarily give up their planned 1-3% salary and benefit increases, the School District would not need this tax.
In FY 2006-07, employee salaries and benefits averaged about $108,000 per employee. Why doesn’t one of the School District teachers who is near retirement write in and describe their salary and benefit package? Why doesn’t the School Board tell us what their teachers cost in terms of salaries and benefits in dollars per year. Then we can decide whether School District teachers should get increases to their salaries and benefits. Many employees work only 7 hours per day and most work only part of the year. What is your salary for your full time job? What are your benefits? Will you get a lifetime defined-benefit pension when you retire?
Patricia Sanders, President of the Alameda Education Association, AUSD’s teacher union, stated that the union met and voted “overwhelmingly to endorse the parcel tax.” The unions take 1.5% of employee salaries. I estimate that the unions may contribute over $50,000 to the pro-tax campaign. I estimate that the pro-tax campaign and the school foundation may spend over $150,000 to get this tax approved. When you begin receiving expensive pro-tax advertisements in the mail next week, ask yourself how much they cost.
The unions could have voted to reopen their contracts. They did not. The School District’s management could have requested that the unions reopen their contracts. They did not. The Superintendent could have rejected her $6,000 planned salary increase. She did not. The unions and School District management now want more of my salary. Businesses will pass on this parcel tax to me in the form of price increases. I will vote no on Measure H.
Tom Pavletic

Yeah, I said that I had something initially planned for yesterday and my intention was to post it today, but I find that there are some things have have cropped up in the comments section that I want to briefly touch upon because I feel that some of my mental detrirus that has accumulated needs to be cleared away before I can get back to a much more boring and thought intensive subject.  

Board Members should be seen and not heard

According to this comment, evidently not only does Eve Pearlman speak for the Alameda Journal, but she also speaks for the entire entity of the Alameda Education Foundation whenever she opens her mouth (or picks up her pen).  I find that contention to be extremely troublesome.   I imagine that a large majority of people who read and comment on this blog participate in many different ways in their community, including volunteering for Board and neighborhood activities.   An individual should not be forbidden from being able to share their opinions and commentaries on a topic simply because they have chosen to sit on the Board of Directors for any organization.   Nor should it be assumed that simply because they speak that they are speaking for each and every institution that they may be affiliated with, unless of course they announce that they are speaking for that particular organization.   It would be a shame if we were to tie the hands of folks who have shown themselves to be dedicated to their community by getting involved by saying, “whoa, hey, you better watch what you say because I’m going to assume you speak for each and every organization you participate in.”  

Picking an organization entirely at random, I don’t consider that Beverly Johnson speaks for the Girls and Boys Club of Alameda every time she opens her mouth simply because she sits on its advisory board.

The Potterybarn.com rule: you link it, you bought it

This commenter declares that if one links to a site, then they must immediately buy in to every thing that is posted on that website.   The website in question is the Alameda Daily Noose which a commenter with the same initials had asked Eve P.to take down off her blog to promote unitedness and not dividedness.   This thread that evidently all the the aggregated bloggers on Alamedans share proved that there is something fishy going on with a relatively benign blog aggregator.   Then the commenter cryptically closes that on Eve P. site the only person to come to the defense of retaining ADNoose was yours truly told readers to take note of that fact.  

I suppose the implication is that I must write ADNoose, else why would I rush to its defense?   Well, I think the majority of times it pretty gosh darn funny in, as Alameda NayTiff pointed out, an Onion-ish sort of way.   Some of the humor when it misses the mark, it misses big time, but when it’s funny it is hilarious.   And to definitely put the kibosh on, I do not write ADNoose, I don’t have the time for it.   Even though two years ago when the Alameda Sun reported that I was a stay-at-home mom, I have had a full time job for quite some time now.   With my own blog, my job, my family, and my myriad of hobbies, I don’t have time to put more time to writing another pretty detailed daily blog.   Sorry to burst anyone’s conspiracy theory bubble there.

And also as stated by Alameda NayTiff, I link to lots of sites that I don’t necessarily agree with, notwithstanding the Alameda Daily News, links are just that, links.  It doesn’t consitute an endorsement of the subject matter on the site just because you can click on it and a new windows pops up to take you there.

Methane Neutral

This comment which heralds the “enlightenment” of the comment I addressed above is an interesting one.   It would seem that in general we often let our biases dictate what we think is neutral or reasonable.   We also let our biases dictate who we believe has complete ownership of the “truth”.  

Simply because you agree with someone does not mean that someone is “aware” or “enlightened” or “neutral” it just means that you agree with the position that they take and are therefore more open to what they are saying.  No one is completely neutral on a topic and definitely the critiques of the bloggers aggregated on Alamedans and ADNoose did not come from a place of neutrality.   It came from a place of bias, already not agreeing with what the majority of the bloggers have said previously and publically and thereby attributing negative motivations for everything done moving forward despite the fact that putting aside a few major issues there might be more that folks have in common than they realize.

Regarding the ownership of the truth, no one can even claim to have that.   As with any issue there are many sides and nuances and yes, many “truths.”  Your truth may resonate with you and others who share your opinions, but just because there are people who don’t does not make them liars or, the much less hostile, “storytellers.”

Anyway, I was going to touch on the blurring of the line between bloggers and journalists, but find that this has already exceeded my allotted morning time for blogging.  Maybe some other time because it is an interesting subject.

So, I had already had something in mind that I was going to write about this morning.   I even had the requisite funny title and everything to discuss something that could be considered pretty boring.   Instead I decide to check out what’s going on at Alameda Daily News this morning.   Usually I wait to do that after I have decided upon what to write, but I just had this feeling, you know? 

Lo and behold, this gem pops up:

Editor of Alameda Journal Refuses to Intervene in Complaint About Alameda Journal Blog

Don,

The following is an example of how the Alameda Journal media demonstrated its journalistic integrity. Measure H is mentioned but only incidentally. This example demonstrates how some of the local media perpetuate and exaggerate disinformation. I am sending this example to you in order that your readers benefit from knowing about this incident.

On April 4, the Editor of a web site called “theislandofalameda.blogspot” published an opinion article by me and an opposing opinion by another person regarding Measure H. On April 21, a web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal published an opinion by Eva [sic] Pearlman that stated “Tom Pavletic can blame Alameda’s school funding troubles on a bloated administration…” The article to which Ms. Pearlman referred was the April 4 article published on the “theislandofalameda.blogspot.” My article on “theislandofalameda.blogspot” did not contain the words “bloated” or “administration” and did not suggest the School District had a bloated administration.

Ms. Pearlman reports to Connie Rux, Editor of the Alameda Journal. On April 29, I sent an email to Ms. Rux requesting that “…the offending text written by the [Ms. Pearlman] be immediately removed from [the web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal] and that a correction be published on the website.” On April 29, Ms. Rux responded that “…blog sites are places where opinions, discussions and views are exchanged. If you want to question the piece, respond to Eve’s blog site, as do others when they disagree (or agree) with her comments. It’s an open forum for discussion.”

I do not believe blog sites should be a place where lies are exchanged. I do not plan to respond to Ms. Pearlman on the web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal. I chose to publish an opinion article on “theislandofalameda.blogspot” because the Editor of that site invited me to publish an opinion, and after talking with the Editor, I had a strong sense that she would be fair. In other words, I trusted her journalistic integrity.

Moral of the Story I: To paraphrase Thomas Paine, it is the madness of folly, to expect honesty from those who have refused to be truthful.

Moral of the Story II: Never give up.

Tom Pavletic

[gratuitous pointing out of name misspelling added to point out that Don Roberts who usually points it out did not.]

I haven’t really touched on the many many many letters that have been produced by Tom Pavletic only because, well,  I figured that other people would probably be more offended by the stuff that he writes than I was.  

Boil this all down to “Waahhhh someone paraphrased my underlying opinion from my hundreds of letters about Measure H, FOUL!!”

The scary thing is not that Tom P. simply doesn’t understand what the purpose of a blog is, which was aptly described by Connie Rux, a place to share opinions, offer views, and have dicussions.   The beauty of blogs is that, unlike newspapers or “news-themed internet sites” there is not the reliance on an editor (I use that term loosely for the latter) to publish your opinion on a subject.   I believe that Eve Pearlmanhas taken a rather freeflowing approach to her comments section in which as long as you have proved that you are not a spam bot and you are real person by having one comment approved, all your comments from then on will immediately turn up on her site.   If Tom P. felt as though he was mischaracterized on Eve P.’s site then he has the option to log on, type his comment in the little comment area and hit “Submit Comment.”  

Instead Tom P. chooses the route of least resistence and goes over Eve P.’s head straight to her editor (although if there is an editor editing someone’s blog, it’s not really much of a blog, a hands off approach to blogging from a “higher power” is probably best). 

The scarier thing is that Tom P. appears to not understand what the purpose of quotation marksare.   See, in this case Tom P. is  is saying that Eve P.’s piece was “offending” because it had said that he had said that the AUSD administration was bloated.   Here is the sentence that Eve P. wrote:

Tom Pavletic can blame Alameda’s school funding troubles on a bloated administration…

Now if Tom P.’s allegations were true, Eve P. would have written the sentence like this:

Tom Paveltic can blame Alameda’s school funding troubles on a “bloated administration”…

Which would then imply that phrase was taken from something that Tom P. had written as opposed to being what it actually is: Eve P. paraphrasing what she believes was and is the nut meat of Tom P.’s theses.

But the scariest thing comes as “Moral of the Story II: Never give up.”   Which implies so many things.   The first might be a letter writing rampage which eventually winds its way up the MediaNews food chain all the way to Dean Singleton.   That would actually be relatively benign because when I read it my first thought was, oh no, are we going to be subject to yet another ridiculous defamation lawsuit?   Before Tom P. heads that route, he might want to do some reading prior to filing a claim.

But hey, Eve P. can take heart in the old adage: There’s no such thing as bad press because what Tom P. has ostensibly done is ensure that folks who had not previously read that blog entry of Eve P.’s will go and do just that.   And they will probably take a gander at the rest of her blog as well.  I guess in blogging terms it should be better described as “There is no such thing as bad traffic.”

I’m not on the mailing list for Central Cinema patrons, but I did catch the initial e-mail from Mark Haskett on Alameda Daily News and then the follow up article in the Alameda Journal last week, evidently we’ve come a long way from this to this.    Evidently, things were still pretty positive for Central Cinema only a month ago, but now we are hearing a completely different tune as the opening of the Alameda Theatre grows closer.    Here is the complete text of the email, since it’s no longer on ADN and the Journal article didn’t reproduce the entire text:

“Sadly, the future of Central Cinema is uncertain. We are now unable to book movies for the summer because the City of Alameda is opening its new movie theater in May and is monopolizing all of the movies (meaning the movie studios won’t let us have any movie that the City’s theater says it wants). I am deeply troubled that the Alameda City Council spent our tax dollars ($35 million?) to build a movie theater. Aren’t there better uses for our tax money?

Central Cinema has had a positive impact on the community and has been a special experience to many families. I’ve seen it first hand in the faces of our customers. I am proud of what we have accomplished and no bureaucrat can ever take that away. We might be able to solve this problem if we could move to a location that is further away from the downtown theater, so if you are familiar with a new space that would embrace our little theater, let me know.”

Perhaps it would be in both the Alameda Theatre and Central Cinema’s best interests to work together and discuss which movies they would like to bring to their respective theaters.   Sort of the way that the two Emeryville theaters manage, you never see overlap in the movies that they are showing and the older one has been able to stay in business even though the newer Bay Street theater is a whole heck of a lot nicer.    Of course that would require the setting aside of egos and doing what is best for the community as whole.   After all, there are quite a few people who have vowed never to set foot in the Alameda Theater, what better way to bring in those reluctant customers if it can be shown that they are not actively trying to put Central Cinema out of businesses.   And on the other hand Central Cinema should probably relinquish expectations of getting a big blockbuster like Indiana Jones or the new Batman movie and stick to the movies without all the whiz bang boom of CGI and monster sound and be satisified with being able to show films that are much less sensory intensive.

The tone of the email was a little sad, but it appears that Mark H. wouldn’t have been happy with any level of spending on the Alameda Theatre as long as it was competition to his own operation.   He knows that the money was spent not to only to build a theater, but to restore a historic landmark in Alameda.   Historic restoration does not appear to be a cheap endeavor whether it is simply a house or a huge building like the Alameda Theatre, particularly if the restoration is to be done properly.    So while I’m a little sad for Central Cinema and hope they will be able to continue operating side by side with the Alameda Theatre, much like those that have vowed to never go to the Alameda Theatre, I know that I will probably never go to Central Cinema myself

And speaking of things that I will never go to, I know that it is de reiguer to have an opening gala for most significant openings, but $100 a pop to get a sneak peek at the new Alameda Theatre?   Too rich for my blood.   I’ll just wait for the free public opening that following Saturday, although from what I understand there is supposed to be a midnight showing the night of the Gala of Indiana (”don’t call me Junior”) Jones, so that is another non-$100 option to see the Theatre as well.   Although if you can afford the $100 a pop and really want to get that first look, the money from the Gala will go to help fund the restoration of the mural in the mezzanine lobby and the hand painted curtain.

As to a possible future location for Central Cinema if it finds it needs to move farther away from the Alameda Theatre to stay in business, might I suggest the recently approved Esplanade development on Bay Farm or the old Alameda Art Association building on Webster, it can get all the traffic from the dim sum goers on Saturdays and Sundays, maybe while they are all waiting for a table at East Ocean.

As you have probably read on Stop, Drop and Roll, WRT Soloman, the consultant tasked to study transit-oriented development options for Alameda, has produced their report on their current findings.   Of course the report loudly proclaims that it is a “DRAFT” just in case you didn’t catch the little stamp in red on practically every single page in that font that looks like it belongs on a cargo container. 

Basically the report boils down to three distinct plans, which you can read SDR’s summary here, but I will also repost because summarizing it for you helps me crystallize it in my own head.   For those of you who don’t care to read the report itself, feel free to skip all the narrative in the report and head straight to the pictures and graphs that start on page 32 of the reader.

Alternative 1: the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) plan.   This is the Measure A compliant plan aims for 1,800 units of housing (estimated population of 4,800) and 9,000 new jobs from 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial.

Alternative 2: the Transit Enhanced PDC plan.   This plan is not Measure A compliant and aims for 1,800 units of housing (estimated population of 4,140) and 9,000 new jobs from 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial.   Now you may be asking why there is the same number of housing units but a much smaller generation of the estimated population.   Because of the option to build a diversity of housing, including townhomes and stacked flats above retail, the assumption is that the average household will be smaller than the average household size that would result from a Measure A compliant only development.

Alternative 3: Transit-Plus Scenario.   This plan is not Measure A compliant and aims for 4,050 units of housing for an estimated population of 9,315 and 9,000 new jobs from 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial.  To keep this number in perspective, the current number of households on Bay Farm Island more than 5,300 and the current number of residences is around 14,070.

Interestingly enough, the only two plans that involve building a school out at Alameda Point are Alternatives 2 & 3, probably because of the additional space that would be available from being able to build more compactly. 

Those that like the idea of preserving as much of the historic character out at Alameda Point should find pages 51 - 55 worthwhile to take a look at.    The concerns of some of the preservation community regarding the elimination of many of the historic buildings like the Big Whites, Shop Buildings, and Bachelor Officer’s Quarters have been addressed on these pages and the rationale for not being able to preserve these buildings under the PDC and Measure A are:

Due to its restrictions on multi-family housing, Measure A effectively prohibits the adaptive reuse of historic structures at Alameda Point for residential uses. This, in turn, significantly reduces the financial feasibility of preserving key contributing structures such as the BEQ and BOQ.  

In addition, Measure A’s prohibition on multi-family housing requires that larger amounts of land are needed to accommodate a residential land use program that consists primarily of single family detached homes. This demand for residential land results in market pressures to remove buildings like the BEQ, BOQ and Big Whites.

This situation is further exacerbated by the relatively limited market demand for non-residential uses that are able to afford the cost of rehabilitation. Low intensity employment uses such as warehousing and light manufacturing are generally unable to invest the necessary capital to reuse many of the base’s structures.

Allowing multi-family mixed use development at Alameda Point would increase the potential viability of reusing more of the buildings within the district. It would also allow for a larger portion of the new housing and new construction to be located outside the boundaries of the NAS Historic District, where it would have less impact on the historic character of the district.

It’s also worthwhile to mention that while the two alternative plans to the PDC assumes that folks  will be using transit to help reduce the number of cars, before anyone starts shouting up and down that you can’t force people to take public transportation, it is the intention that any future residents of this area will pay for future transportation related funding.  (p. 17 of the reader)  As has already been approved for Alameda Landing, this Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan will levy an annual fee on businesses and residences to fund transportation improvements and operational costs.  I would imagine that much like the annual Community Facilities District fee that Bayport residents were informed that they would pay in addition to all other taxes, this would provide for a certain level of self-selection for future residents.  

This report is chock full of information and I’ve only scratched the surface.   But one thing that is notable is that for those that insist on commercial/industrial only and musing publically about why housing/residential is the only thing that our city leaders are concentrating on.   In all three plans there is the exact same number of proposed square footage for commercial/industrial development (3.5 million and 9,000 jobs).   The only thing different about the three alternatives are the housing/residential portion, which is probably why that is the reason why people concentrate on that apsect of the proposed future development.