Chamber made

A few interesting items from the Alameda Journal, the first was an article by Peter Hegarty with a general overview of the signature turning-in process and the various other news that surrounds the all-encompassing issue of Alameda Point.   One thing that, of course, came up was the the Chamber of Commerce’s press release announcing their opposition to the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.

Peter Hegarty writes:

The Chamber of Commerce also has come out against the SunCal proposal, which calls for a new ferry terminal, 150 acres of public parks and about 4,500 homes at the Alameda Naval Air Station.

The chamber said the project will hurt the city because it calls for shifting some money earmarked for police and other services at the former base to the developer.

The chamber also opposes SunCal’s effort to place the plan before voters next year.

Not to be nitpicky, but I have a copy of the Chamber of Commerce press release as well, and they didn’t say that the Chamber was against the proposal/project/plan itself, but rather against the Initiative as written.   It is an important distinction.

In fact, the quote that is attributed to Blake Brydon omitted the first part of the quote, which said:

“We like SunCal’s ambitious plan to develop Alameda Point, but we don’t like this initiative process,” said Alameda Chamber Board President Blake Brydon. “There are already processes in place for these types of long-term developments, so trying to bypass the system by ballot box is not good for Alameda. It created a long term financial risk to businesses and residents.”

And, as confirmed by Michele Ellson:

Chamber Chief Executive Officer Melody Marr said the board would prefer that SunCal negotiate its development agreement with the city. She said the developer should work something out with the City Council instead of trying to make a deal with voters at the ballot box.

Marr said the Chamber will hold two community meetings to discuss the specifics of their decision and related issues, like whether the organization would support putting an amendment to development-limiting Measure A on the ballot to advance the plan.

And:

But this week, Alameda’s Chamber of Commerce said that while it supports the plan, it is against the initiative.

Another item worth nothing was a letter to the editor about the advisory group that was formed in support of the Initiative.   The letter writer says:

Some members of SunCal’s advisory team for its upcoming ballot initiative are leaders of prominent local nonprofit organizations. They use the name of the nonprofit that they lead in SunCal’s campaign literature.

I do not think that it is a good idea to politicize nonprofit organizations. It is an especially bad idea to do so on an issue that strongly divides the community. It does not serve the interests of the nonprofit, its members, donors or clients.

I have served on the boards of nonprofit groups and whenever a matter like this came up, the board always chose to stay out of the fray. I do not think that it is in the best long range interests of nonprofits to have their leadership take a major role in a divisive political campaign.

I think that this was a bit of an overreaching critique of members of the advisory team who have been willing to put their names out there in support of the Alameda Point Initiative.   The supposition that nonprofits should not be politicized, particularly on issues that divide a community ignores the history of political activism where, yes, even nonprofit groups get involved and sometimes get messy in the whole business of politics.

But let’s take the prominent example of Prop 8.   This was also “an issue that strongly divide[d] the community”.   Notable nonprofits that came out against Prop 8 included the NAACP, Anti-Defamation League,  and Amnesty International.   I would imagine that even the letter writer would not suggest that groups like these and their leaders should stay out of the fray because it may not be in the “best long range interests” of these nonprofits to “have their leadership take a major role in a divisive political campaign.”

But let’s say that the letter writer is wholly correct that nonprofits and their leaders should not get involved in politics.   I hope then that next week the Alameda Journal will run another letter from this author decrying the involvement of Renewed HOPE and the Chamber of Commerce (both nonprofits) as it  “does not serve the interests of the nonprofit, its members, donors or clients.”