Delay tactics

It’s interesting that the pro-A/26 folks mentioned that they would be okay with a A/26 only repeal as long as the 2500 sq ft provision wasn’t touched.  So that’s essentially what the subcommittee of Mayor Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft and Councilmember Jim Oddie proposed for tonight’s City Council meeting.  From the staff report:

Article 26-1 (The Citywide Prohibition on Multifamily Housing).

The Subcommittee discussed and debated the merits of a 2-year suspension of Article 26-1 instead of repeal and concluded that it is time to call the question once and for all on the 1973 citywide prohibition of multifamily housing. Today’s Alameda residents deserve the opportunity to express their values and position on this 47 year old charter amendment.

Article 26-3. (The Citywide Density Limit of One unit per 2,000 square feet of land area).

The question of Article 26-3 is more complex.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Council discuss delaying asking voters to consider Article 26-3 until 2022. This approach allows a comprehensive public planning process to be conducted first. When the planning process is completed, the Council in 2022 can decide whether to ask voters to modify or repeal Article 26-3. At that time, the Council and the community will have the benefit of having completed a community wide planning and environmental review process to inform their decisions before crafting a ballot measure to amend or repeal Article 26-3.

National Horror Story: Nero bunkers while Rome burns

President of the United States cowering in fear of delivering a national address while instead issuing deranged tweets from his underground bunker somehow persuades himself that the world is laughing at someone else. https://t.co/EOg0XKqDut

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) June 1, 2020

A pandemic with no end in sight, 40 million Americans out of work, a breakdown in multilateral cooperation, low trust in institutions, and the largest wave of civil unrest since 1968.

The Trump White House’s response: pic.twitter.com/g4gYEPuuDo

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) June 1, 2020

National Horror Story: partisanship in action

Really staggering differences among essential workers on the efficacy of social distancing – me channeling @Gallup data https://t.co/ZoPpsX3qGR pic.twitter.com/hRlkG3yJVb

— Richard V. Reeves (@RichardvReeves) May 28, 2020

I mean, the difference is just so stark.  It’s like Democrats and Republicans live in completely different worlds.

Housing crisis manager

I know a bunch of folks are expecting that COVID-19 fallout and the recent news from large tech companies about permanent work from home options means that the housing crisis may not be much of a crisis for much longer, but I think our housing shortage is much more entrenched then even this pandemic can “solve.”  Besides, even though big players like Twitter and Facebook are okaying working from home, there’s a tweet I always revisit (can’t find it now) but it tempers any real hope that working from home is going to help solve Bay Area housing issues.  In a nutshell the tweeter said that as long as the CEO and other leadership are still coming in to the office or centralized around a central HQ, there will never truly be a global work from home policy for that company.

Anyway, the California legislature is still chugging along with housing reforms (and Alameda is still dithering about whether we want to keep on our books a piece of legislation that continually is undermined by state action).  From Cal Matters, this one should send folks into a tizzy:

 A new jointly-authored bill from Atkins and Wiener would force cities to allow homeowners and developers to convert single family homes into duplexes or even fourplexes, if the property is big enough. Those conversions would not have to be reviewed for environmental impacts by local governments, an often lengthy and expensive process.

I don’t know if this would be in addition to or in lieu of the ability to build an accessory dwelling unit, but would be massive if both are allowed.  As mentioned in the piece, this is really a way for the state to encourage more housing at no cost to the state (other than litigation if someone sues of course).   The cost would be on the property owner who wishes to turn their single family home into either an investment or the ability to subdivide a larger house into two smaller ones to accommodate multi-generations.

Clement connector

Just so that no one can say that there was no notice about it, the Transportation Commission will be meeting tonight to vote on the final design for Clement. There was not a ton of public correspondence but the majority of it was positive.

There will be a removal of 145 spaces out of 300 but if you’ve ever used the Clement bypass you’ll know that there is rarely any parking issues on Clement until you get closer to Park Street.  And even then it’s not that terrible.

From the staff report:

Worth it

Over the long weekend we took some walks around Alameda Point, particularly all of the new construction.  It was fenced in as it appears so we just walked around the perimeter.   However on Sunday I was given a helpful tip that there is one side of the project which is not fenced in so one could potentially take a closer look.

Readers, from what we could see it’s going to be pretty darn awesome.  The protected bike paths, the lighting, the bus stops, the view corridor, it’s really nice.

I didn’t take photos because I’m not good at it and someone else did alerting me to the fact that that particular part of the project was nearing completion:

The worst takes

True to form Tony Daysog has, yet again, opted to take the most cowardly way out of any controversial vote and decided to abstain on the safe parking for unsheltered families proposal.   Just so we’re clear, everyone else voted for the safe parking program, Tony Daysog abstained.   What’s even the point of being a policy maker if you’re going to not take a stand on issues that should be easy to vote for or against?  Don’t want homeless people to be able to have a secure place to park their car?  Vote no.  Want homeless people living out of their cars to not have to fear that they’ll be hassled while trying to get some sleep, have a functioning toilet, and some dignity as a human being? Vote yes.

Don’t want to be accused of voting against the most vulnerable in our community but actually want to vote against the most vulnerable in our community?  Pull a Tony Daysog and just abstain.

From an East Bay Times piece:

Cars will be allowed to park in the lot, which will have security, Monday through Friday from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Those taking part will be required to sign a document that they will adhere to a code of conduct, which will include no camping, no guests in vehicles and no barbecues or open fires.

…

The idea is for people living in vehicles to have a safe place to stay overnight. But no recreational vehicles will be allowed, city spokeswoman Sarah Henry said.

“If the program is successful, we could consider expanding to the weekends at a later date,” Henry said in an email.

Trust the voters of today

I’m a bit behind on my city meeting viewing.  Mainly because I’ve decided that the main way to distract me from all this COVID-19 business is to listen to true crime podcasts.  I’m deep into the back catalog of Dateline NBC episodes.  However, I did take a break from all that in order to listen to the meeting on May 7.  This is the “should we allow the voters of today to revisit a charter amendment which was voted in before some of us were even born.”

From the jump, City Councilmember Tony Daysog wanted a reason why we should change A/26 altogether.  If many many discussion about A/26 and lack of alignment with state law (and therefore being problematic and time consuming for the City to bring into conformance) is not enough to convince him, then I’m fairly sure that Tony Daysog will never hear any argument that will convince him to change A/26.  Tony Daysog has a base he plays to and he’s sticking to them and what they want.  It’s a tactic and it’s very Tony Daysog. But then again, the people who voted for Tony Daysog didn’t vote for him to be politically brave or to even do the right thing based on sound political instincts.  They voted for him because he will always vote for what his old Alameda politics base wants him to do and he always obliges.

Enlarging the gap

Well it’s final, AUSD will end on May 29 instead of June 8 (which was the dumbest date chosen for a last day of school ever since it fell on a Monday).  Between you and me, we were actually going to cut out early any way pre-COVID-19 and fly out on June 5 but those plans have been put on permanent hold until a vaccine is available.  Because, honestly, with the way that the US as a whole has been proceeding with COVID-19, I don’t know if any other countries will be necessarily open to Americans until said vaccine.  But I digress.

Here’s the video with scary Fall projections about cut budgets as well:

Sharing spaces

Tonight, in COVID-19 related agenda items, the City Council will be making a determination on the operator for a Day Center and Safe Parking site for unsheltered Alamedans at Alameda Point.   From the staff report:

The goal of the Safe Parking Program is to provide individuals experiencing homelessness, who are living in their cars and vans, a place to legally park their vehicles in a safe, secure, sanitary and welcoming environment. Overnight parking hours for the Safe Parking Program lot are Monday through Friday from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Individuals wishing to park their car or van in the Safe Parking Program lot will be required to adhere to a code of conduct. The On-Site Code of Conduct and Expectations – Safe Parking Program Agreement, to be signed by participating individuals, is attached as Exhibit 1.

The goal of the Day Center is to provide a safe, sanitary, secure and welcoming place for homeless individuals to relax, get information, connect to services, and be supported by staff and peers. The Day Center may offer meals, showers, laundry, computers, phones charging, Wi-Fi, and access to health care and social services. It is anticipated that the Day Center will be open Monday – Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

It’s not clear if the City is anticipating that the same population will be using the Day Center and Safe Parking site but if they are there’s a weird gap from 5:00 – 7:00 PM where overlapping users will be forced to leave the site and just hang out somewhere else for two hours.  I don’t know if that’s by design or a mistake.