It appears that the Federal government is looking to offload some prime waterfront property in Alameda. The yellow shaded area approximates the land that the Department of General Services will be putting out for auction in the nearish future. According to this PDF, five buildings will be demolished on the site and a new parking lot will be constructed for the current tenants.
The timeline is as follows:
Demo/Construction Begins – August 2008 (looks like there is a notation that it might begin in September as opposed to August)
Marketing to Begin – January 2009
Demo/Construction Complete – March 2009
Estimated Conveyance Date – July 2009
I am assuming that the “Marketing to Begin” is when the auctioning will occur, if you are interested, you can keep checking the Office of Property Disposal to see when it will come on-line. According to Tay Tay (who should be credited with sending the information), unlike the Coast Guard housing parcel which the City and County can get first dibs on if there is a public benefit conveyance or housing for formerly homeless individuals is provided, this will be a straight auction to the highest bidder.
Word on the street is that several developers have surveyed the site (et tu Warmington Homes?) and will be in the running for this 3.95 acres of land. And, can you blame them, that look at location!
So you might be wondering what is actually housed at the Alameda Federal Center, well if Google is to believed then it is home to an entemological (insects) laboratory (p.4 on the reader) and Savings Bonds marketing offices.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
EB parks seems like a natural buyer.
Big question, though, will be zoning. Anyone know?
Comment by dave — August 5, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Good question, it’s zoned AP-G which is “Administrative Professional” and “Special Government.”
You can’t see the “G” designation on the low res version, only the high res version. Open at your own bandwidth.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 5, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Can/will zoning change upon transfer? That’s a rather restrictive set of uses.
Comment by dave — August 5, 2008 @ 8:02 am
Here’s the current zoning map
Click to access z_map_hirez.pdf
The land is currently zoned for what it is: Administrative-Professional-Governmental. Adjacent areas are R-5 (General Residential).
McKay is a narrow dead-end street. The Fire Department is sure to have concerns.
It is a great location near schools, shopping, transit and parks — perfect for low income housing. (Just making a point.)
The townhomes next door are pricey. (I think that they are called something like, “Crown Harbor.”) If they try to put something in that is higher density or taller than those, I think that there would be a fight.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 5, 2008 @ 8:19 am
I’m not too sure that this part of town is lacking on the low income housing front. Perhaps something a bit more creative. This will be interesting to follow.
Comment by MarkD — August 5, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Park expansion would be the best use.
Comment by E T — August 5, 2008 @ 9:00 am
I think that the property needs ultra low income housing for transgender illegal immigrants, a multi-story parking garage, a Walmart and should be paid for by a new parcel tax that doesn’t apply to anyone making less than $36k or more than $180k per year 🙂
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 5, 2008 @ 10:12 am
And, they should have to cut down all of those annoying trees over there while they are at it …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 5, 2008 @ 10:13 am
*high school flashbacks* oh god . . .
Comment by MarkD — August 5, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
I don’t get it, West End let’s do low income. East End let’s go to the council meeting and protest that there might be any trace of low income in our area.
Just my attitude showing. John P.
West End
Comment by john piziali — August 5, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
John, I don’t see that anyone suggested low income housing for the West End waterfront site mentioned in this thread.
As former PB pres.; what do YOU think of moving the inclusionary housing from one development into another part of the city that seems to have no high income housing, to remove ownership housing from being built for the excluded inclusionary units and to cluster such a high density of low income rentals to exclude the low income inclusionary requirements from future projects as well? Is there a way you can explain that this is not just in favor of the developer? Can you explain how the IH neighborhood benefits? How does the rest of Alameda benefit? How does the future development projects w/o the variety of housing types benefit? What is your opinion?
Comment by David Kirwin — August 5, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Let’s bring back Neptune Beach: what his town needs is a roller coaster! Oh yeah, and let’s not forget a Megaplex. (That one near Park Street is only a measley little Multiplex. We can do better!)
Comment by Denise Shelton — August 5, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
#12 Neptune Beach
Looks like this town was once a lot of fun.
http://www.alamedainfo.com/Alameda_CA_Postcards_2.htm
I’m still hoping for a 21st Century amusement center at the old NAS.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 5, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
David… I agree with you that the inclusionary housing should be biult on site and not moved anywhere else.
At Bayport it was combined into the development.
My only complaint is that no one seems to want to put anything like inclusionary housing anywhere East of Grand St.
You seem to have a problem with it in the East end, but not the West End.
Just to be clear, place all inclusionary housing on the project site or don’t do the project.
Comment by john piziali — August 6, 2008 @ 8:49 am
“ALAMEDA — A 19 year old man who was found shot on the grounds of a local public housing complex early Monday morning was likely visiting friends in the neighborhood when someone targeted him, police say.”
We definitely need more low income housing on the Island …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 10:04 am
I doubt that “Tay Tay Shaniqua” has inside information about the victim or knows the specific circumstances surrounding his death.
Trying to use this homicide to argue against low incoming housing is shameful. Especially before we even know what happened, how dare you?
Comment by Not Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 10:29 am
John #14 – we are in agreement, and to be clear, I have never argued aainst any inclusionary housing in the East End. That misunderstanding is only in your mind – please don’t assign that belief to me. …just being clear…
Comment by David Kirwin — August 6, 2008 @ 10:36 am
I wonder if Tay Tay and Dave Kirwin are related, since he launched a similar screed after the last murder in Alameda
Comment by notadave — August 6, 2008 @ 10:40 am
NAD – Don’t act stupid. But higher density will bring more crime to our island, and economic hardship will have an affect too.
Comment by David Kirwin — August 6, 2008 @ 10:45 am
On the issue of stupidity, Kirwin does speak with experience. He sure makes Tay Tay sound reasonable. Folks remember the last time he spoke out about a tragic death? Here it is in all its glorified intolerance:
“Another murder in Alameda lends more credible evidence that violence and criminal behavior do accompany increasing density. All ye who sucked the kool-aid from the asshole of high density can try to tell the parents of our local student that the increasing crime & violence accompanying our increasing density did not kill their little girl; that instead it was a bullet that killed her at Washington Park’s play structure.
I’ll say she was killed by the “big johnson of growth”.
What a bunch of f’ing suck-ass uber-growth addicts!
Too blind, too stupid or too greedy to read the writing on the wall.
You called us “Mayberrians” but we lived here, stayed here or moved here because we wanted the quiet residential community that Alameda offered. Why did you move here? When will you be satisfied that enough damage has been done to our community? What if that was your little girl?”
Comment by notadave — August 6, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Actually, David, both higher density and/or more low income housing will bring more crime to our Island. It just seems like Alamedans either don’t care about that side effect or like to pretend that it won’t happen.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Nad – You failed to include the apology I posted for that.
-I was hit hard emotionally by that tragic event, and that was a rash post, which I regretted.
I guess now however, in Alameda we are becoming accustomed to murders and homicides?
Comment by David Kirwin — August 6, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Whether or not 21 is true, is it appropriate to claim that the tragic murder of THIS 19 year old has anything to do with any of that when you have no idea whether it did have anything to do with it?
I don’t think so. I think making that claim is shameful and, to use David Kirwin’s word, stupid.
Comment by Not Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 11:38 am
“I think making that claim is shameful and, to use David Kirwin’s word, stupid.”
Well, you are the expert on stupid, so I’ll have to defer to your judgment on that one. Nonetheless, a 19 year old kid was found shot in the head in the wee hours of the morning in a public housing project and no one saw anything. It doesn’t take a GED to figure out what happened. But feel free to continue to live in DA NILE. This is exactly the sort of tragedy that frequently accompanies low income housing … period.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 11:58 am
There are a lot of decent people who cannot earn enough to purchase a home, much less rent in a nice town like this.
A lot of decent people.
No one deserves to die by violence.
Comment by E T — August 6, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
“No one deserves to die by violence.”
ET is absolutely correct … which is exactly why I have worked so hard in my life so that I can afford to live in a place where my family and I are less likely to die by violence. And, that is exactly why I will continue the fight to keep Alameda a city in which its residents are less likely to die by violence. I am against anything that attracts violence to or creates more violence in Alameda.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
“This is exactly the sort of tragedy that frequently accompanies low income housing … period.”
Frequently doesn’t necessarily mean in this case…period.
“I am against anything that attracts violence to or creates more violence in Alameda.”
Good. Thank you. So are most people.
Some of us are also against making incredibly broad stereotypical generalizations about groups of people, against discrimination, and against the idea that one’s first instinct after a tragedy would be to blame “the usual suspects” and so to reinforce existing prejudices before the facts are even in.
Comment by Not Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Tay Tay,
It is very easy to tell who is most likely to kill you in the USA. All you need to do is to use one of these:
The next most likely culprit besides yourself is a family member or someone you know. For women, the most likely murderer is her husband or boyfriend.
I don’t have a GED, so I don’t know who killed the young man or why. If you have inside information, you should share it with the police.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 6, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Kirwin I never posted your apology, because you never made one. Not to the folks on the blog, not to the family, not to Mayor Johnson, who you kept insulting through your use of “the big Johnson”
Comment by notadave — August 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
There is a reason that one’s first instinct after a tragedy is to blame the “usual suspects” … it is because they are usually guilty.
However, your anti-discrimination tangent is defocusing my original point that was relevant to this thread … more low income housing on the Island means more crime on the Island. It is easier for the police to contain if it is more centralized. These facts are indisputable …
Now if your point is: yes, there will be more crime, but the benefits of integrating low income people in to middle class neighborhoods outweighs the increased crime and financial burden to the community. Well, then, we have refined the issue to a point that can be debated. However, the old “well that may not be the case this time” and “women are more likely to be murdered by their husband” arguments are naive, based upon irrelevant assumptions, and prevent the real issue from being debated: the burden vs. the benefit.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I don’t accept your premises or how you attempt to frame the issues.
Most affordable housing isn’t low-income housing. Low-income housing doesn’t necessarily mean more crime than any other housing. The benefits of affordable housing are greater and broader than only the integration you mention.
Discussing your reflexive discriminatory reaction to a tragedy may not have been *your* point, but it sure is “relevant” to the future of housing and community generally in Alameda and is a “real issue.”
Assuming that the facts of a situation such as this murder fit your preconceived stereotypes is “naive.”
Comment by Not Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
One of the best decisions the council ever made was to require new developments to provide housing for a range of incomes, including low income families. The worst decision they could make is to then to segregate the low income housing.
One of the worst public policy decisions ever made in this country was to provide mass concentrated housing for low income people. These government created ghettos bred crime with the tenants the main victims. Many of the perpetrators didn’t even live at the complexes, but instead found the low income housing as a great staging area for crime.
I found city staff’s opinion that low income people should not own homes appalling. First of all, not everyone who is low income will be low income forever. Owning a home and taking responsibility for it can be a life changing experience. There is no more landlord to blame. If maintenance is a problem, then condo ownership is an alternative as the homeowners’ association provides the maintenance from assessed fees. Parents need something to pass on to their children and home equity is one of the few ways that family equity can be built for the next generation. It isn’t just about the low income parents, it is about the children and the type of lives they will lead. We shouldn’t be perpetuating generation after generation of landless people.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 6, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
“Low-income housing doesn’t necessarily mean more crime than any other housing”
Actually, it does …
“Assuming that the facts of a situation such as this murder fit your preconceived stereotypes is “naive.”
Actually, to assume otherwise, given the facts and the location, would be naive …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 6, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
#33
Do you know the facts in the case? Do you know the young man who was killed? Do you know his family? Perhaps it is better to have the verdict after the trial rather than before it? My guess is that there is going to be a lot more coming out about the matter in the coming weeks.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 6, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
AlamedaNayTiff, those are commendable goals (in #32). Unfortunately, there is very little chance for the owners of such low income housing to build a substantial equity in their homes, given the restrictions on resale and other caveats that significantly restrict appreciation.
Comment by alameda — August 6, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Resale restrictions:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823191451/http://www.adcbayport.com/resale_restrictions.html#
Comment by alameda — August 6, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Taking a trip in the way-back machine, I’ll quote from a comment posted by Michael Krueger:
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — August 6, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
# 32
If the City is providing a portion of the means for a citizen to own a home, the City most definitely has the same right to put income restriction on that citizen as long as the restrictions are the same for any ownership applicant. Whether the City should be distributing tax money in the form of real property for the private use of a citizen is an entirely different question.
Comment by Citizen X — August 6, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
What’s a high crime rate? Where the perpetrator lives or where he commits the crime? Obviously crimes against property occur where the loot is. This Loyola research dude sure never lived in the hood.
Comment by laquan white — August 6, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
From the Association of Bay Area Governments website:
http://www.abag.ca.gov/services/finance/fan/housingmyths2.htm
“For many years social scientists have asked whether high-density housing causes crime. Not one study has shown any relationship between population or housing density and violent crime rates”
The site does go on to say in essence what #37 says – poorly designed housing, including exclusively low-income neighborhoods, do lead to higher crime rates, but well designed, diverse housing has actually reduced crime.
Comment by notadave — August 6, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
The myth of the fact about affordable and high-density:
“Management and design are key. Local governments can also help protect the entire community – including new affordable housing residents themselves-by attending to details at the project level. Most important is effective professional management on site, with strong tenant-screening and good security systems. Design, too can play an important role in protecting residents and neighbors of high-density or affordable housing, especially by ensuring visibility. New developments should also contain a mix of unit types to accommodate different kinds of households. When residents have different occupations and family types, there will probably also be someone home in the development almost all the time.”
In other words, absent management and design factors (which are absent in 99.9% of every affordable and high-density compound) affordable and high-density housing does have higher crime rates.
Comment by Citizen X — August 7, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Another bile of steaming BS just like the gay PhD that says its a great idea to teach your 5 year old that transgender freaks are normal 🙂
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 7, 2008 @ 9:50 am
41 and 42. Are you guys a little biased? Just a little? Ask yourselves how the inclusionary housing at Bayport is different from the BVs. You can cop an attitude about how “things never change” or you can take a giant step and make them change.
Comment by Mark Irons — August 7, 2008 @ 10:15 am
“Assuming that the facts of a situation such as this murder fit your preconceived stereotypes is “naive.”
Apparently, once again, it was the usual suspects that fit my “preconceived stereotypes” that murdered that boy … who would have figured?
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 7, 2008 @ 2:32 pm