Read the Specific Plan yet? Development Agreement? No? Don’t worry, you’re in good company because I don’t think the folks protesting yesterday have either. They were too busy putting together signs and putting out press releases to bother with those dirty details. Because why bother countering with a solid campaign about why the SunCal plan sucks when you can do media grabbing things like talk about a mayoral recall in the Mayor’s last term in office? Quick note, if you are going to use someone’s name in the press release, the least you can do is to spell her name right.
Anyway, folks we need to help the opponents out with some nifty slogans for their signs, I heard that there were the usual yawn ones like:
- SunCal= High Rise
- The Mayor Lies
- Mayor Sells Out
- Recall Mayor
- SunCal “Fairy Tales”
- Bev Pinocchio-Jo paid for by devolopers [sic] <– sign must have been written by the same person who spelled Diane Coler-Dark as “Diane Color-Dark”, just too enamored with those “o”s I suppose, I’m an “a” person myself, apparently so was this guy.
C’mon, we deserve better. We deserve funnier signs, more thought provoking slogans. But instead we get yet another group pulled together of the “Coalition for a Better Alameda” of the usual “usual suspects.” According to Alameda Daily Newsthere were “over 100” people at the protest, another “news blogger” was estimating the number to be 60+. But I received two different reports from folks watching and not participating that pinpointed the number somewhere at 30ish and two dogs. And apparently a flier was passed out during this event too, which said, no, strike that, DEMANDED:
- We demand that the Alameda Mayor withdraw her Support of SunCal Housing Development Proposal along with the implied support of the City of Alameda.
- Alameda’s Mayor, Beverly Johnson, campaigned on her support of Measure A. Her campaign signs, which are featured here today, show that her current support of SunCal’s plan are a repudiation of her support and enforcement of Measure A and its rules of development currently in place. Measure A, as it stands, expresses the intention of the community—the same intention our Mayor supported.
Mayor Johnson must withdraw her support of SunCal’s Current Plan for Alameda Point
Mayor Johnson campaigned strongly on Protecting Measure A and its application to the development of Alameda Point. Now she’s apparently changed her mind and motivation and appears to be inexplicably supporting SunCal’s sketchy plan for Alameda Point which requires a significant ‘watering down’ of Measure A. Nothing in the slick Alameda Point brochure or the Mayor’s automated phone campaign explains or discusses the addition of 4,500 homes.
- We ask Mayor Johnson to tell us how much these campaigns cost and who paid for them. This is important to know as the Mayor is apparently supporting this project on behalf of the City.
- In SunCal’s “TODAY…” mailer, the “A New Vision Map’s” drawing/plan doesn’t say anything about the homes in terms of density, architecture, and layout, where they will be built, or the cost—they simply say: “Quality housing that is consistent with the character of Alameda will be provided.” CLEARLY THIS IS INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING BY THE ABSENCE OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION!
- 4,500 homes on Alameda Point represents a 20 % increase in our population.
- What do we really know about SunCal’s plans for transportation, safety and business/economic enhancements that these promotions say will be provided and paid for?
- ALAMEDA CITIZENS DEMAND MAYOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT FOR SUNCAL’S CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN FOR ALAMEDA POINT
Contact: Coalition for a Better Alameda: 510-814-9592, 510-865-6645, 510-523-5907.
First of all, I don’t remember Mayor Johnson running too strongly on the “We must preserve Measure A at all costs” platform. Sure it was on her signs, but seriously though, all the people now holding her to “Protect Measure A” on her signs, how many of them voted for her instead of opposition candidate Doug deHaan. Really now. She never really talked about it unless asked directly and if memory serves she basically just said that she, as a Mayor, wouldn’t vote to put it on the ballot but rather it needed to get there by a ballot initiative. So all this handwringing three years later about, “oh we trusted her to protect Measure A” is puzzling. Plus, I don’t recall her ever saying she would protect Measure A at all costs from ever being applied at the Point. Anyone recall this? Date, time, forum?
Besides, amending Measure A for Alameda Point doesn’t threaten Measure A for the rest of the island. You know what does? The Density Bonus Ordinance that the Action Alameda wunderkind has been pushing for.
And then the silliness that SunCal would be expected to put into a tiny little mailer information about “homes in terms of density, architecture, and layout, where they will be built, or the cost.” Did they expect the mailer to come in four point font? You know where you can get that information? The Specific Plan. It’s all there. In fact, it was all there in the draft Master Plan as well.
And then there is the contention that, “What do we really know about SunCal’s plans for transportation, safety and business/economic enhancements that these promotions say will be provided and paid for?” Well, they would know if they had read the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement as well.
Then there is the boldness of this, “We ask Mayor Johnson to tell us how much these campaigns cost and who paid for them. This is important to know as the Mayor is apparently supporting this project on behalf of the City.” Which, of course, says right on the back of the mailer that the major funding come from Cal Land Venture LLC & Affiliated Entities. And, they can wait, like the rest of us, for the quarterly campaign statements that Political Action Committees are required to file. Of course, this is highly ironic since it comes from a group who refuses to disclose where the money came from for their tv ads earlier this year. But it’s Alameda, irony is big around here.
Honestly though, all this demanding that Mayor Johnson remove her support is all more posturing and defeats the goal of the group which is to defeat the SunCal initiative. Because personally, if Mayor Johnson caved under the pressure of at most 30ish people plus two dogs she would lose the respect of a lot more people. I guess if this route isn’t successful, the same group of folks will simply create yet another new name for their “new group.” How about this one? Group Eagerly Trying to Oust Unwanted Trespassers (GET OUT) of Alameda.
I remember Jack Richard had a good slogan he shared a while ago which I think the opponents should co-opt, it was something like:
Alameda Point for live birds and dead vets
It’s catchy, it’s chantable (just the last part, the live birds and dead vets), it’s highly visual!
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Well Lauren I’ve been reading it. Instead of whipping on the usual suspects, perhaps you can help answer some questions from prior thread?
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2009 @ 7:19 am
Jack B.: one topic at a time my friend. Eventually I will be devoting whole posts — possibly multiples — to dissecting the various components. Amazingly enough the post above started off as an entirely different one and morphed into the one you see there. I had to save the first part for another day.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 31, 2009 @ 7:26 am
Slogans? How about:
Trust us, we’re real estate developers and our partner is a hedge fund!
The whole Johnson protest is completely off base. As someone who is opposed to the SunCal project, I see it as a wasteful diversion. Make the campaign about Beverly Johnson and SunCal wins. I’m no fan of Beverly Johnson, but I think that Lauren is right. How many of those in yesterday’s protest voted for Johnson in 2006?
I’m not looking forward to the next seven months. The whole focus of the community is going to be on the election while other important matters will fade into the background. My advice to those opposed to the project is to keep the campaign focused on Measure A, why it was needed 35 years ago and why it is still needed today.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 31, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Just what I thought … the folks protesting were the usual suspects along with a couple of also-rans (aka losers) from past elections.
Comment by alameda — March 31, 2009 @ 7:41 am
Lauren, what about those of us who HAVE read the plan and think that it really is a fairy tale?
SunCal has not been delivering.
They want to build on a contaminated floodplain.
They want to add too many more people to the island.
The jobs they promise is the most egregious part. How can they promise that? They can’t. What will make office and retail space at the Point be any more attractive to anyone than any of the other lovely and largely empty business parks here?
From beginning to end the whole thing is completely nutsy.
And, notice, I didn’t mention Measure A or the mayor.
I agree with ANT, we need to focus our attention on the REAL issues.
Comment by E T — March 31, 2009 @ 8:04 am
“First of all, I don’t remember Mayor Johnson running too strongly on the “We must preserve Measure A at all costs” platform. Sure it was on her signs, but seriously though, all the people now holding her to “Protect Measure A” on her signs, how many of them voted for her instead of opposition candidate Doug deHaan. Really now. She never really talked about it unless asked directly and if memory serves she basically just said that she, as a Mayor, wouldn’t vote to put it on the ballot but rather it needed to get there by a ballot initiative. So all this handwringing three years later about, “oh we trusted her to protect Measure A” is puzzling. Plus, I don’t recall her ever saying she would protect Measure A at all costs from ever being applied at the Point. Anyone recall this? Date, time, forum?”
Do me a favor, hon: Send a copy of this to your political science professor. Let me know what s/he thinks.
I also wanted to comment on the astuteness of this statement: “Besides, amending Measure A for Alameda Point doesn’t threaten Measure A for the rest of the island.” It is so irrefutable, it needs no support whatsoever. Right?
“Con men and fools show the most confidence.”
Comment by AD — March 31, 2009 @ 8:23 am
“Do me a favor, hon:”
Ani, can you possibly be more condescending?
“Con men and fools show the most confidence.”
Or insulting?
Come on, I know you can.
Comment by Linda Hudson — March 31, 2009 @ 11:34 am
I really think the anti-development cause would be stronger were it not for its supporters. With a few exceptions, they’re very offputting: angry, condescending, scarily obsessive, close to nuts or some combination of these. To win an election, it’s generally not wise to hector and insult. (Though some people enjoy the feeling of persecution resulting from being on the losing side of every issue, so maybe there is something to the strategy.) There are no true counter-factuals in social science, but I have a hunch that the ballot proposition might actually do worse running against nothing than against the opposition lined up against it. When I see some of the rants posted (especially the lengthy, capital-letter laden ones), I dread the next few months. But then, viewed with a little detachment, it may be great spectator sport.
Comment by BC — March 31, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
If you ignore the accounts of Mark Irons and Lauren Do about what they think people opposed to Suncal’s plan are, and go by people’s actual comments instead, you will see that they are thoughtful, analytical, nuanced and thorough. As it happens, this blog is a bog. Anything of real weight sinks in the mire, and the garbage floats.
My personal condescension towards Lauren Do arises from the shallowness of her comments above. She who lashes out at other writers for “scratching the surface” displays a most unapologetic levity towards broken campaign promises and tries to dismiss with a single sentence what could be a very gray legal situation. Condescension was the least offending sentiment I had at my disposal when I read her post.
Comment by AD — March 31, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
I haven’t been on here in a loooonnng time. But since I did get a pamphlet in the mail and knew proponents and opponents of the measure would be fighting it out here, I thought I’d share my opinion.
To me it seems like a good idea to A: bring more business to Alameda, and B: build more housing.
My only thing is that the language in the pamphlet is vague and lacking details. In regards to housing is mentions that housing that goes with the general nature of Alameda housing will be built. I’m not sure what that means. I assume it means one of a few things. Either it means that they felt it wise not to mention the exact kind of housing they had in mind since anything with the word: ” Affordable” or “Market rate” makes alarm bells go off in the heads of overly-protective homeowners who want their already crumbling values to stay high. By making it sound like whatever they build will go along with the status quo makes it sound more like that sufficiently high priced homes will be built to keep the median prices at current levels.
Either that or they will probably build more cookie-cutter generic Mcmansions on postage stamp lots akin to those in Bayport, meaning the developers can make a handy profit with 200% markups over actual build costs as typical with most Mcmansions in general.
In regards to business, It would be a wise move for Alameda to create jobs that aren’t service industry heavy. Make office space with the intent of luring higher paying jobs. Since the general populace of Alameda is semi-upscale, having jobs they might actually want to work at on the Island would be a wise decision for more reasons than one. It would encourage self-sufficiency, less driving, more tax dollars for the city, more day customers from outside commuters, and so on. Simply building more yoga and candle shops aint’ gonna’ cut it, at least not in this economy.
Bottom line: more details.
Just my 2 cents.
Comment by edvard — March 31, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Edvard!! welcome back.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Yup. I know how much you all missed me.
Comment by edvard — March 31, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
So where does the rest of the Council stand on the measure? deHaan? Matarrese? Gilmore? Tam? Should I expect phone calls from them as well?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 31, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Mmm, kind of a hasty generalization here. Not everyone at that protest made or agreed with every statement made by every other protestor.
I participated in the protest because I do not want to see Measure A watered down, and because I voted for Beverly Johnson for mayor partially based on her “support” for protecting Measure A and am disappointed in her actual performance.
I disliked the simplistic, strident tone of some of my fellow protesters, but I’m glad somebody is saying something.
By the tone of Lauren’s post, it seems to at least have gotten under *her* skin.
Comment by Erik Miller — April 1, 2009 @ 1:24 am
10. One of the comments that has been made consistently by me and others on this blog over the course of months is that ALAMEDA HAS A TON O’ EMPTY OFFICE SPACE.
The upscale jobs could be here, there is plenty of room. The businesses don’t want to come here. You figure it out. Is the cost too much per SF? Is it that no one wants to drive here from off I880? What is it that has thus far managed to keep our beautiful business parks so woefully empty?
That said, what would be the magic that would make EVEN MORE office/light industry/retail space in this town MORE attractive than the lovely parks we have now?
There is a certain amount of group insanity happening here.
And you will have a pile of McMansions and empty brand new office/retail/light industry on top of toxic plume stew. Great!
Comment by E T — April 1, 2009 @ 8:08 am
#15
The Alameda Point master plan is a 30 year project (maybe longer). The plan dictates the land uses, and the market drives what gets developed and when.
Also if the VA takes up some of the commercial space, they could in fact jump start the commercial phase of the development with a hospital, medical clinics, office buildings, and other medical related facilities.
Comment by Karen Bey — April 1, 2009 @ 9:39 am
E.T.
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, Manhattan density and McMansions, neither of which by the way is to be found in the SunCal plan.
I’m NOT defending the plan, just objecting to constant over statement.
Also not defending plan, but trying to respond to your question about commercial leasing, this development plan has more potential for synergy between various components of mixed use as contrasted to Harbor Bay industrial Park.
Comment by M.I. — April 1, 2009 @ 10:00 am
16. What market?
There ain’t no market driving anything, and the Fed owns the banks and the auto industry.
The only active GNP is weapons for the DOE to use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The VA may be disinclined to make a Fed to Fed parcel trade if the contamination situation is not properly handled. After hearing what George Humphreys had to say at a town hall meeting in Jan, I heard the VA rep say, “the folks in the columbarium probably won’t mind, but I think the folks in the hospital WILL…”
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 1, 2009 @ 10:02 am
16
The plan dictates the land uses, and the market drives what gets developed and when.
————
Would that were true, but this is not a market based development. It can only happen with massive public subsidy. It would be far less objectionable if it was market driven instead of subsidy driven.
Comment by dave — April 1, 2009 @ 10:05 am
17. I never asked for “anything both ways”. And I made no overstatement.
Synergy is a buzzword that has no meaning in the set of promises laid out in the SunCal plan.
I have said it before: they can promise you the moon, but they cannot park it in your backyard.
They are promising a lot in a lot of places and they just are not delivering the goods.
Comment by E T — April 1, 2009 @ 10:07 am
For gosh sakes#16 you’re just making stuff up now? -“Also if the VA takes up some of the commercial space, they could in fact jump start the commercial phase of the development with a hospital, medical clinics, office buildings, and other medical related facilities.”
Perhaps it is equally far along in the planning stage that the Catholic church will build an ark there and until it floats away it can serve as a zooological attraction and bring visitors and income to the city.
If you can’t discuss the facts and debate the issues here – What use is this blog?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 1, 2009 @ 10:10 am
The VA presentation to the ARRA lists as one of the alternatives (p. 28 on the reader) to take the fed-to-fed of the Wildlife Refuge Land and locate the columbarium there and then find an alternate site on Alameda Point to build the clinic portion.
At the Democratic Club meeting, someone in the audience asked about the status of the VA and the Wildlife Refuge and SunCal responded that they would be open to locating the VA Clinic on the Alameda Point site, but that the Navy has put the kibosh on any discussions between the VA and SunCal. More than likely because the Navy wants to offload that land to someone other than themselves.
Making up stuff? Or actively paying attention and participating in conversations about Alameda Point?
Comment by Lauren Do — April 1, 2009 @ 10:19 am
21. could you be more demeaning and dismissive? Wasn’t it you who complained that anybody who disagrees with Lauren gets bullied off this blog?
Whether you feel it is realistic or not, Karen Bey’s suggestion about incorporating VA ( within project bounds) correlate with statements by Mr. Keliher.
“If you can’t discuss the facts and debate the issues here – What use is this blog?” For gosh sakes, are you talking to yourself again?
Comment by M.I. — April 1, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Lauren,
Thanks for posting all the development documents. There is alot of real good information here.
I’m looking forward to having a meaningful discussion on the details of the master plan.
Comment by Karen Bey — April 1, 2009 @ 10:47 am
ENJOY YOUR FICTION
bye
Comment by David Kirwin — April 1, 2009 @ 11:12 am
#19
Mr. Keliher spoke of SunCal’s willingness to donate land to the VA to locate their campus within the project.
This strategy is similar to Mission Bay when the developer donated 30 acres of land for the UCSF Mission Bay campus. This helped to jump start the development and create demand for other commercial development as well as housing.
The latest development is the new Pfizer Bio Center moving to the Mission Bay Campus.
Comment by Karen Bey — April 1, 2009 @ 11:15 am
It is sad to see those who make a habit of opposing things (most recently the Theatre ) are rallying on City Hall steps to protest the SunCal Plan. Bet if one checked that none of them have read the Plan through….if they had they might have been struck by the inaccuracies they were shouting.
Just a quick note to say thank you for Mayor Johnson and Lena Tam’s leadership. The SunCal Plan may not be perfect – things seldom are but it reflects darn closely the goals in the Alameda General Plan and the confirmation of those goals stated in the surveys and meetings held since SunCal was publicly selected. And a large number of us are delighted at the support and leadership you ,Lena and Beverly have shown. I know that it is sometimes tough to alter earlier stated goals but it shows statesperson like demeanor to say that having seen the actual plan it is worthy of the voters consideration. And those who try to deny that right to determine Alameda’s course through intimidation are simply noisy bullies.
These folks protest what is proposed they do not advocate for a way to make Alameda Point a productive part of the City.
I hope that the rest of the Council will join in showing leadership.
Comment by helen Sause — April 1, 2009 @ 11:25 am
SunCal cannot deliver.
If Johnson and Tam want to stick out their necks, whatever.
It’s pinning your hopes to any “Acme” product in the Roadrunner cartoons…
Plenty of people can and have read the plan. Then there is that initiative; a load of claptrap. Plenty of people have been seeing the belly flops SunCal is making in other places, too.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 1, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
#27
Is this the same SunCal that believes so strongly in democracy?
Suncal Campaigns Against the Right to Vote
http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2007/05/suncal-campaigns-against-the-r/
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 1, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Check this out. They even mention us in this blog entry from New Mexico:
http://clawback.org/2009/02/23/suncal-shines-no-light-on-new-mexico-lobbying-expenditures/
I would not do business with this company.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 1, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
The Suncal shills will never acknowledge that, Jayne.
Comment by Grumpus — April 1, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
And here is another blog post:
http://cocoposts.typepad.com/cocoposts/2009/03/tidd-debate-.html
So, what’s up with this?
And what’s up with all of you that have “it can’t happen here” tatooed on your arms?
Coffee’s on; RISE AND SHINE, Y’ALL.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 1, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
#27
“It is sad to see those who make a habit of opposing things (most recently the Theatre ) are rallying on City Hall steps to protest the SunCal Plan. Bet if one checked that none of them have read the Plan through….if they had they might have been struck by the inaccuracies they were shouting.”
Why, I bet those people don’t even know *how* to read. Har, Har, Har.
I’m beginning to see this as a trend in the campaign. The poor uneducated and unenlightened masses just cannot grasp that we are trying to help them!
Meantime, the SunCal folks are educated, smooth talking, wear the right clothes and know how to pair the right wine with dinner. I definitely sniff some class distinctions being played up.
Have you ever heard of affinity fraud? SunCal knows how to play to the correct class element in town.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/affinity.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 1, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
#27 Your kidding right Helen?
You have been battleing Measure A since before the Navy ever considered closing the base. That’s a fact!
Many of us have read the silly initiative, and we have been asking you questions about it.
Still never a reply to real important questions.
Just more empty BS.
Good Lord.
Lauren and her ‘funny friends’ trying to pull another fast one –
What a joke this site is.
Hope you can think of something to say, we’re really not blinded by the glossy mailers.
Comment by Good grief — April 1, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
34. “Lauren and her ‘funny friends’ trying to pull another fast one –
What a joke this site is.”
What’s so funny about wanting to scrutinize detail rather than simply make knee jerk responses to everything?
Even if (you) folks on City Hall steps have it right, it is not based on superior ability for critical thought. Many people at the rally are people with whom I have had, and in some cases still have, some level of reasonable discourse, but this issue is where the gap in our views is greatest.
Here is one of the clearest statements I have heard on the subject:
“I think the idea of building a mixed-use development on an infill site in an inner-ring suburb like ours is good. But I think people’s concerns about whether it makes sense to do it on a site that probably still holds some unknowns in terms of contamination that also happens to be in a major flood zone are legitimate too.”
I would appreciate being able to discuss the former at length without being pigeon holed as a fool, idiot, moron. But the fear mongering opposition insult any such attempt, which just increases my resolve to have a fair debate, whether the plan is ultimately flawed or not, because it is not enough that one group is right and other wrong. It’s the process of coming to an understanding or a decision which now looms as large as that which we debate.
Dylan’s lyrics are abstract enough to defy speaking perfect truth, but they certainly capture the mood of the situation for me.
All Along the Watchtower:
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief,
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.”
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke,
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”
Comment by M.I. — April 1, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Using Bob Dylan to sell Big Development. Sweet.
Comment by Grumpus — April 1, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Selling Big Development? I thought M.I was acknowledging valid points on both sides and making an appeal for rational discussion, as opposed to hyperventilated rhetoric and name-calling.
But what would I know? I’m just a “shill,” right?
Comment by Michael Krueger — April 1, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
..And the “Revitalize Alameda (SunCal’s PAC) have started the ‘Push Polls again in Alameda.
MI “What’s so funny about wanting to scrutinize detail rather than simply make knee jerk responses to everything?
Even if (you) folks on City Hall steps have it right, it is not based on superior ability for critical thought.”
Please Mark – I thought the new exercise plan would help you keep a clear head…
Intelligent questions have been asked by those of us who have read the plans and the initiative…
But there is no intelligent response to what I consider the main hurdles – Sun Cal’s supporters just try to avoid the hurdles because they can’t respond to questions about ;
1) GW & bay rise
2) The toxicity of the location for residential use
3) The financing
4) A real plan for ‘sustainable development – no matter where it is built. (Calthorpe was doing better plans in the 70’s than this one)
5) The most popular fear – the traffic
6) The fact that we have too much retail and ‘business park’s now, and Alameda can’t come close to filling and holding tenants. (This could be considered part of ‘sustainability, but let’s stipulate ‘environmental sustainability’ for this conversation.)
Comment by Anybody listening? — April 1, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
The election is not going to be about civil discourse. SunCal began the A-pocalypse and many people are furious about it. SunCal does not conduct civil campaigns or informative campaigns; it conducts campaigns by any means necessary in order to get what it wants.
SunCal did not have to seek a Measure A exemption for itself. No one else gets the privilege of an exemption. Many of us may like to have the city charter changed so that we get a unique benefit, but we do not have the power, money and influence that SunCal has to get it.
http://newmexicoindependent.com/23781/sun-cal-spent-232540-for-tidd-advertising
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 1, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
36. I didn’t make Bob do those ads for Victoria’s secret.
38. You are quite right about my lack of clarity. I should qualify my remark and say that I know for a fact that many, not all, on City Hall steps yesterday cannot claim to have reached their conclusion on SunCal based on critical thought, because before there ever was a plan their minds were permanently decided based on the eternal logic of Measure A as a be all end all solution to all development ills. Who needs critical thought when you have infallible truth?
Let’s be honest. If you reject this plan and every element in it, what are you proposing? ANT is at least honest enough to say, take the risk and let the Navy keep it.
The outcome of that option is every bit as vague as you all say this plan is, more in some ways, but none of the opponents of SunCal have tried to tackle that conundrum. I am uneasy with either option, but keep weighing them.
Public-Land-Trust are three nice words which sound even nicer together, but they are just some fig leaf to cover a dearth of alternatives to development which it is erroneously claimed a land trust would magically circumvent.
If SunCal’s plan is bunk, then reject it, but anybody who thinks we can go decade after decade simply clinging to Measure A as our canon and leaving that land fallow is really out of touch with the demands of human habitation in the 21st century. Toxic or not the value will continue to rise and the pressure to build will become insurmountable.
So all I am really advocating is to take advantage of being forced through this debate and have the most exhaustive discussion possible about all the elements in the plan, especially traffic mitigations because that situation can only worsen no matter how slowly development proceeds.
I would very much like you to corroborate your claim in 4 that Calthorpe had better plans in the 1970s by giving us an example. Who knows, you might persuade me. Mr.Calthorpe’s designs are not my canon for New Urban utopia, just some of the better stuff I’m aware of.
Comment by M.I. — April 1, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
MI – Look up the designs on some of the solar villages Calthorpe worked on in the 70’s. I think he was partnered with Sim Van Der Ryn. He was respected for is passive solar use, as well as solar panels and rainwater catch basins. Their designs, their books were far more “sustainable” than this horribly flawed, (location, location, location) “transit oriented design”.
There were a lot of sustainable community designers in the northern CA group at that time which also included Mike and Judy Cornett. (Village Homes, Davis Ca) I’ve posted about this previously. I asked Corbett why the superior designs are less in vogue today; he said part of the reason these environmentally and socially superior designs dropped off was because the funding for ‘mindful living’ left with Jerry Brown’s governorship. As you can see we went in a whole new direction as the political power of developers began to greatly abuse CA’s redevelopment laws.
Now Calthorpe is selling his transit-based design, because that’s where the free money is. While maybe you can say that in some case it is a better option, -We just can’t call it ‘TOD’ when all it offers is a ferry and bus service on an island with limited access. Both the ferries and busses are controlled by entities outside the local scope of authority. That’s not real good for ‘transit-oriented’ – just the best Alameda can do without trains, subways, Bart, light rail trolleys, etc. Locally, even built on top of BART stations, these TOD mixed-use urban developments are certainly not attractive to Alamedans, and don’t seem to be doing too well with anyone else either. Would you want to live there?
Gone is Calthorpe’s use of free solar energy – he even plans to orient Point roof lines to prevent the ability to use solar gain and photovoltaic harvest. WHY? Gone are the rainwater catch basins and instead the suggestion of importing ‘gray water’ from Oakland rather than sustainable structures. Again why?
Maybe Sim was the brains and Calthorpe was the mouthpiece who now is just a hired name SunCal rents.
…And of course all the very good questions I have seen posted here about the concerns of both the SunCal Plan and the ballot initiative still go unanswered.
And yes, Mr Krueger, you may consider yourself a “developers’ shill” as you are a board member of HOMES who has been trying to abort MA for many decades. I’d like to hear your transit song if you had kids to shuttle. Of course you are still as free as your friend Helen to debate the issues in this forum instead of making empty comments.
Comment by D Kirwin — April 1, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
re 40:
If SunCal’s plan is bunk, then reject it, but anybody who thinks we can go decade after decade simply clinging to Measure A as our canon and leaving that land fallow is really out of touch with the demands of human habitation in the 21st century. Toxic or not the value will continue to rise and the pressure to build will become insurmountable.
========================
If the demands for living on toxic land are so great, then a developer could get private financing.
But I find the anxious, impulsive, near-religious belief that many display in the “inevitability” of the base’s development puzzling. Just because they want it, doesn’t make it necessary or inevitable, as they seem to have convinced themselves it is. Sorta like when my wife says “we need” when it really means “I want.”
While I generally agree w/ ANT on what to do, I’m also quite willing to wait for a better plan and/or a better market environment. So what if it takes a few more years? We’ll be living with the results permanently.
And if it never gets built, or if it’s bulldozed, fenced off & left to percolate in its toxic stew, what of it? That’s a far better outcome than a taxpayer fleecing & a Love Canal cancer epidemic. Biggest downside is that Lauren has to look out at her deferred dream every morning. I can live with that.
Comment by dave — April 2, 2009 @ 7:24 am
#42: Yes.
And ditto on “anxious, impulsive, near-religious belief”. I think the word for that is a “cause”. If I think of this — the insistence on high-density at all costs — as a cause, it makes more sense.
The problem is, all the crusading by the pro-development folks creates a perfect opening for “greenwashing” on the part of developers, which the “pro-folks” then rush to justify. In fact, the pro-folks have to do that, because the developer sets the terms for its participation, so the pro-folks are permanently cast in the role of hucksters — or advocates or whatever.
That’s what I’ve seen happening here.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 2, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
Comment by Grumpus — April 2, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Hey, I’ve got it! Let’s have a commitment within the text of the charter amendment itself to delay construction of each phase until the existing traffic impacts can be fully mitigated, to be defined in specific, numeric terms. If it’s in the charter amendment, then the voters will retain control over the terms (like Bill Smith’s plan, but enforceable).
And best of all, SunCal will have a chance to demonstrate its integrity and the New Urbanists will have a showpiece for their much-touted research on transit oriented development! Let them put their money where their mouth is.
Would they do that? Oh, heck no, who would take on a risk like that?
Comment by DL Morrison — April 2, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
From 44: “Shill” can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit “shill” for the industry at large, as their income is tied to its prosperity.
Comment by DL Morrison — April 2, 2009 @ 1:43 pm