Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 3, 2010

A mandate, it’s neither a man nor a date, discuss.

Massive blaze of glory?  Check!

Changing the narrative on what people voted against?  Check!

Talk about people losing political cred?  Check!

I was really hoping that I would have to make good on my promise to buy Jack Richard that drink.   But I’ll buy you one anyway one of these days Jack R.

While Nancy Rogers of Protect the Point (which put out the mailer that had a huge headline declaring that Measure B would cost Alameda $500 million) is now saying

…Rogers said voters not only disliked the process, they weren’t crazy about the development plan, either…

It’s interesting that wasn’t the tact that was taken to try to, um, educate voters about what was in the Initiative.  But all’s fair in love and glossy campaign mailers, right?

And while Alameda NayTiff is sure that anyone associated with Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization will have their political juice severely diminished because they took a stand and put their names out there for a cause they believed in, I’m sure those folks will be fine, politically, considering that their contributions to the community have extended beyond only one trick.

I don’t think people will stop respecting Doug Biggs for the work he does with the Alameda Point Collaborative.  Or stop respecting Reverend Roger Bauer as a spiritual leader in Alameda.   Or Kathy Moehring for being a tireless booster of Webster Street and the West End of Alameda.    Or Honora Murphy for being a driving force behind the construction of the new Main Library.   Or Doug Siden for being an advocate for Alameda and for the parks system.   Etc. and so forth.   Because what made this group of people who put their names out there to support the SunCal plan was that they transcend just one issue in Alameda.

So what is next, well, what is next is so aptly described in a statement from Lena Tam that was sent out last night:

The defeat of Measure B is a wakeup call to city leaders to step up to the plate and take responsibility for implementing a plan to revitalize Alameda Point.  The future of Alameda Point is too important to the quality of life and the economic prosperity of Alameda.  Doing nothing also has regional consequences by encouraging more suburban sprawl, which increases freeway congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

During the campaign on Measure B, it was clear that the vast majority of people, even outspoken opponents, supported the community developed plan.  The City, and not the developer, needs to take the lead and enable the revitalization of Alameda Point to become a reality.  We need to respect the voters’ and community’s overwhelming desire to redevelop Alameda Point.

Since the base was decommissioned in 1993, there have been hundreds of community meetings.  This input created development principles to guide the future use of the former base and include such goals as waterfront access for all Alamedans, mixed-use, job creation, and a walkable neighborhood that resembles existing Alameda in feel and character. These principles were the basis of the land use plan in Measure B.

Through the defeat of Measure B, the citizens have clearly stated that they want it to be their city leaders, not a developer, who takes the lead in implementing the community vision for the Point that will be in the best interest of the city.  This will be an enormous challenge. After all, to date all attempts over the last 16 years to implement a plan have failed.

However, our citizens are ready to see a plan implemented that will provide economic benefits and amenities for our community.  Furthermore, as a city councilmember, I can state unequivocally that the status quo at the former base is not sustainable.  The city spends millions of dollars each year on maintenance and security.  Just one major fire or systems failure could be a financial disaster for the city.

Moving forward will not be easy.  It will take strong leadership and firm negotiations with SunCal to leverage private funds to enable us to implement the community-developed plan.  As your councilmember, I am committed to working with the community to lead and realize the potential that Alameda Point has to offer all of us.

So the gauntlet has been thrown down to the other three Council people (not including Doug deHaan in this because he’s already mentioned that he hates the SunCal plan, even though, inexplicably he had nothing but praise for the Treasure Island plan which is fairly similar to the SunCal plan but the Treasure Island plan has much much less commercial development and barely any industrial uses).   Although, interestingly enough even Doug deHaan admits that people who liked the plan voted against it because of the packaged initiative.

The clock is now counting down on the negotiations process, will the City continue to stall because they think they have a better plan in the “long term leases scenario”?     Or will our City leaders who have said that they like the Plan actually do something to get the plan moving forward.

As a reminder, Beverly Johnson “said  she supports SunCal’s plan for the former Naval Air Station.”

And Frank Matarrese “said he still supports SunCal’s land plan for the Point.”

And Marie Gilmore stated that she is “someone who strongly supports the community-developed vision for the redevelopment of the former naval base that is the basis of the land-use plan in Measure B.”

So will we have leadership or more politics?   Because honestly, the message being sounded by the leadership of Protect the Point sounds eerily similar to the message from the Republicans that came out of the recent Massachusetts election.   That “they intend to use what they see is a mandate from voters to continue their fight against SunCal, which has submitted its land plan for the Point directly to the city for its consideration.”

So I’m guessing — and I hope to be proven wrong by our City Council — is that we are in for more politics and more political theater, Alameda style.

And just to make myself feel better, I will be posting this video of a bulldog puppy who can’t roll over because it’s cute and makes me smile:

If you were wondering, the puppy does make it to its feet eventually.


  1. I think the result was a rejection of SunCal as much as it was the about the measure itself. Much of the No on B campaign materials focused on their failures with other developments. I can’t imagine that Council members who did not support Measure B would put themselves out for the current developer, regardless of whether they like the current plan or not.

    Comment by Michael Rich — February 3, 2010 @ 8:47 am

  2. I forgot to mention that I think Lena is right about the liability of continuing with the status quo. The current situation isn’t sustainable in the long term, but whether the current development plan is still viable given the election results is, I think, an open question.

    Comment by Michael Rich — February 3, 2010 @ 8:57 am

  3. Lauren. I have no problem with you Jack or anyone else who voted in favor of measure B, and I don’t think that it really did anyone much political damage.

    I’m still in favor of the measure A amendment to the point. I’m still in favor of the type of development that was being pushed. Myself and many other Alameda voters just lost trust in Sun Cal because of the way they handled this right from the beginning.
    What I saw was a typical developer and their greed trying to give themselves complete control over everything and leave us with nothing,its just their nature to do that.
    We will get the base developed but it will only be done when the citizens feel that we are being treated fairly.

    Comment by John Piziali — February 3, 2010 @ 9:13 am

  4. Hi Mike R.: Regarding your statement:

    I can’t imagine that Council members who did not support Measure B would put themselves out for the current developer, regardless of whether they like the current plan or not.

    I would say that decision would separate the politicians from the actual leaders.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 3, 2010 @ 10:12 am

  5. Lauren,

    Perhaps, if you assume that the viability of the current developer should not be a legitimate concern for them.

    Comment by Michael Rich — February 3, 2010 @ 10:18 am

  6. Hi Mike:

    Considering that “developer” can often be substituted for “the devil” in Alameda, I don’t know if any developer would pass muster in this town.

    As to “viability” in this economy, Catellus would be no better off (as evidenced by the non progress at Alameda Landing) then would a Lennar or SunCal or Corky McMillian, etc… So if we are waiting for “viability” and I am reading this as financially viable, then arguably we will need to wait for the economy to take a drastic turn for the better which could be 3, 4, 5, 10 years for all we know. And by that time who knows the shape Alameda Point will be in and what sort of investments the City of Alameda will have to put in and whether we will even have the resources to do so.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 3, 2010 @ 10:28 am

  7. 6. Exactly. Which is why it is important for the city to have its options open and use the existing opportunities (leases, for example) to its benefit, rather than be locked in a deal with a developer whose fortunes will also be unknown 3,4,5,10 years from now.

    Comment by AD — February 3, 2010 @ 10:40 am

  8. We won’t need to wait very long. Suncal’s coming right back with the density bonus/raised caps plan.

    And while “devil” is not the word I’d use, Suncal earned its reputation.

    Comment by David Hart — February 3, 2010 @ 10:44 am

  9. Behind the pretty pictures SunCal presented, there were many, many details they glossed over.

    Yes, the “devil is in the details.”

    Comment by RM — February 3, 2010 @ 11:23 am

  10. “I was really hoping that I would have to make good on my promise to buy Kcaj Drahcir that drink.”

    Since M. I. said he was stalking me at a certain place the other evening “I tried stalking you at Pelican last week, but…”, I think it’s best I go undercover and use an AKA till things quiet down. So, I’ll be in either Texas or Alaska for awhile.

    Comment by Jack Richard — February 3, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

  11. Oops make that…

    Comment by Drahcir Kcaj — February 3, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

  12. Like Lena, I have a real concern about the potential cost of the Point to the City since the infrastructure is so poor and the leases are barely (and there is some contention on this point) able to cover the ongoing upkeep, much less any catastrophic failure of the water, gas, sewer, electric, roads, etc. It is my understanding that the current agreement with the Navy is that the City is responsible for upkeep, maintenance and replacement of these things in return for keeping the lease money. Since there was a lot of argument about whether the leases currently do or do not cover the costs/potential costs, is the City keeping clear track of the income and expenditures for the Point now so when/if it goes forward it will have a true picture of the sustainability of the “all we have to do is get more and longer leases” position.

    Comment by Kate Quick — February 3, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

  13. Lena Tam “During the campaign on Measure B, it was clear that the vast majority of people, even outspoken opponents, supported the community developed plan.”

    BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? All the meetings with the community which I went to were completely controlled and spun by the developer’s consultants for creation of comments by the developer and friends that were essentially just manufactured.

    Comment by Dave K — February 3, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

  14. Imagine if the rest of Alameda were expanded in like form to the Point – Would 30% more population have no ill affect on our quality of life getting on or off the island?

    This is kind of a core concern, doncha think?

    Comment by Dave K — February 3, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

  15. “…getting on or off the island?

    This is kind of a core concern, doncha think?…”

    Why would anyone want to get off in your self-sustaining, zero carbon imprint, self sufficient, socially relevant bong passing community?

    Comment by Drahcir Kcaj — February 3, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

  16. Brief announcement: I am announcing my candidacy for the Office of Mayor of Alameda, the election for which will take place
    this November.

    I will follow-up today’s announcement with a more formal announcement in 10 to 14 days.

    My web-site is up and running, and can be accessed at

    I look forward to meeting residents throughout Alameda in the coming weeks and months. Thank you.

    Comment by Tony Daysog — February 3, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

  17. As I see it in order to make the base a safer place they need to tear down the old commissary and all those old apartment buildings which are unsafe around it in the next few years, …and they need to start maintaining the existing buildings and bring them up to standard and start watering and mowing the grass again..I live next to this skank hole..either the Navy needs to do it or the City of Alameda is the City has to do it the people who voted no should pay the bill. 🙂 Tear down the old whites and houses surrounding or start maintaining them.

    Comment by Joaquin — February 3, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

  18. This may seem a little off topic, but since Tony announced his candidacy for mayor here, I wanted to say that we need to implement ranked choice voting because with a couple more candidates and our plurality system we could have a mayor elected by less than 20% of the voters.

    Comment by M.I. — February 3, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

  19. Kenny the Clown for mayor!

    Comment by E — February 3, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

  20. SunCal is not the devil incarnate, and they do have a remarkably “green” plan for AP–much more sustainable and economically viable than InAction Alameda’s unrealistic “alternative.”

    Unfortunately, SunCal depended on advisors who did not know or understand Alameda and made some unfortunate corporate decisions as a result–like proceeding with Mayor Johnson’s infamous robo-call.
    (I didn’t like that blooper either.)

    The revised plans that SunCal submitted January 17 deserve a fair hearing on their merits. Now that the major criticisms have been heeded, SunCal’s plans also deserve a much more accurate “analysis” directed and conducted by less-biased and better-informed City officials, too.

    By dropping the funding limit on the public benefit projects (which SunCal always said was negotiable anyway) as well as the 2% property tax (Mello-Roos) limit, they have removed the criticism that the project was “underfunded.” And by going through the “normal” development approval process, they have eliminated the process-related criticisms, too.

    SunCal (and Alameda) still need to lift the density limits in the City Charter (sec. XXVI), aka 1973’s “Measure A.” If the City Council wants to provide leadership–and not just get elected–it needs to facilitate the charter amendment for just Alameda point that will make the revitalization at AP work. No development plan I have seen will work financially or be a successful community without mixed densities and community options like the ones in SunCal’s plan by the visionary Peter Calthorpe.

    Some opponents are crowing about the unanimity of the “no” vote, but I recall lots of intelligent people saying that they liked Peter Calthorpe’s plan but disliked SunCal’s implementation plans for it. Now that SunCal has corrected its earlier missteps, they have an opportunity to look at SunCal’s plans in a new light.

    And it’s a new light that I like better, too.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — February 4, 2010 @ 1:05 am

  21. Obviously they can eliminate the spending cap, since they would not be paying anyway – see oak knoll as reference, or any of their other dozens of bankruptcies. Maybe they would be trusted if they made good on all their other broken promises.

    But of course you should ignore all that and believe JS because he hasn’t seen a better plan. Or maybe we should demand a better plan – one that provides better for Alameda, even if it means slow growth.

    Comment by Dave K — February 4, 2010 @ 10:13 am

  22. #20–Are there any success stories in SunCal’s history?

    Comment by RM — February 4, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

  23. 22. this comment belies the fact that detractors are fixated on SunCal’s sudden dilemma of Lehman generated bankruptcies as business as usual. I think if detractors really wanted an answer to your question they would have done some research besides Googling – SunCal/bankruptcy.

    When they were first in the running for the position of master developer I had a friend in Southern California development tell me they were a really excellent company who did great projects and he gave them good marks for using Calthorpe.

    Comment by M.I. — February 4, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

  24. Whether Suncal is any more or less viable than any other developer right now, I still think that their viability is a legitimate concern. The recent experience with Oak Knoll is close to home and timely, which makes it compelling evidence to consider when evaluating Suncal relative to Alameda Point. To me, that means they have a long way to go working out a development agreement that has some guarantees on deliverables, including a realistic plan to address traffic impacts. If they can’t or won’t do that, the alternative is what we just saw, which was overwhelming rejection of the development agreement (whether it’s rejection by the voters of another Measure or, one would think, by the Council). Given the uncertainly, and the real potential for liability if we keep the status quo, there should be some contingency planning going on.

    Comment by Michael Rich — February 4, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

  25. 24 – I think the contingencies should be based on increasing long-term leasing, and allowing slow growth. The concept of a cpomlete “do-over” is totally unrealistic. (See Alameda Landing as an example; and that is getting too much public dollar support.) Public funding is out of the question – the State should be focusing on fixing the education system before supporting developers build projects that are not economically of socially beneficial or viable.

    If any of our politicians want to build out the point expanding what we already have in Alameda, they should first assure the trans-estuary crossings lanes are increased by that same percentage. That’s the problem with Alameda being an island – the problem for developers; the residents enjoy the insulating factor of the estuary.

    Comment by Dave K — February 5, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

  26. Lauren Do’s Community Activist Board!

    Alameda Point Activists!

    It appears that the Council will be considering the Notice of Default issued to the Developer by the City Manager at a Closed Meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Go to to see the Feb. 16th recommendation from Jennifer Ott to the City Council regarding staffs recommended response to SunCal’s request for a retraction of the NOD. Many thanks to Alameda Point Info for posting this memo even before its date!

    Whatever your opinion on the matter, I suggest you contact your Council members by noon Tuesday. I especially urge those who agree with the draft position I outline below to do so! I plan to send my letter as an Alameda Activist later today. Your comments on draft postions are always welcome.

    I am bringing my draft position to the attention of Sierra Club and Renewed Hope leaders. I hope you do the same with the groups to which you belong.

    I fully intend to include those whose views may differ from mine in the process I use to develop this and other positions (to execute positions may be more secretive). I found it enlightening and rewarding to work closely with those whose views differed so much from mine on our common cause of defeating Measure B – and the entire Bay Area and Sacramento noted how effective we can be when we all work together. Also, if the City attempts to implement a sprawl inducing Measure A compliant plan that does little to address affordable housing needs at Alameda Point, I may be allying myself once again with the most strident and determined slow and no growth advocates in Alameda and the region.

    Feb. 15th Draft

    Council will probably consider staff recommendation at closed meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 16th at the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
    To Be Summarized in Oral Remarks, Non-Agenda Items, at Council Meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 16th
    To be Considered at Sierra Club Conservation Committee Meeting on Monday, Feb. 22nd
    Honorable Beverly Johnson
    Mayor, City of Alameda
    Alameda City Hall
    2263 Santa Clara Avenue
    Alameda, California 94501-4477

    Honorable Mayor Johnson:

    I am aware of no other ballot measure or candidate that so unified Alameda voters as Measure B, especially on an issue as controversial as the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The Measure was complicated, containing a mixture of good features, such as the first potentially sustainable land use plan ever for Alameda Point, and bad features, such as the granting of entitlements to development rights, including numbers of units, prior to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Although I was, and remain, one of the leading opponents of the approach taken in Measure B to entitle development at the Point, I also believe that we should extract the many admirable parts of the Measure and build on them.

    I am concerned that Ann Marie Gallant, the acting City Manager, in her February 4, 2010, Notice of Default to SunCal Companies, is rejecting the best feature of Measure B, a sustainable land use plan. I disagree with her recommendation to the Council in her memorandum of February 16, 2010, to deny SunCal’s request to retract the notice of default regarding SunCal’s performance under the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.

    Instead, I urge the City Council to retract the notice of default to give the City time to study options for implementing that sustainable plan at Alameda Point. Possible options include:

    1) Council using state housing law to justify rezoning Alameda Point to permit the construction of condominiums, apartments and townhomes at Alameda Point, and

    2) Council working with the developer SunCal to see if the state density bonus law and the City’s recently passed density bonus ordinance can be used to implement the sustainable land use plan, or a similar one in Measure B.

    Retracting the Notice of Default would both demonstrate the City’s good faith in negotiating with SunCal, the developer, and move us closer to a sustainable development at Alameda Point. The additional revenue from land developed with market rate condominiums, apartments and town homes will allow the City to finance more public benefits, including historic preservation, open space and a sports complex.

    While I can appreciate the Acting City Manager’s desire to clear the decks after this landmark election, let us proceed deliberately to explore all options for implementing the most promising land use plan ever for Alameda Point, the one contained in Measure B. I request that you retract the notice and commission joint studies with the community, inclucing the developer SunCal, of the feasibility of the two options above.
    Thank you for considering my request.


    William J. Smith
    Alameda Point Activist

    Cc: (Electronic)
    Doug deHaan, Vice Mayor
    Marie Gilmore, City Councilmember
    Frank Matarrese, City Councilmember
    Lena Tam, City Councilmember
    Ann Marie Gallant, Interim City Manager
    Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager
    Debbie Potter, Redevelopment Manager
    Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner
    Pat Keliher, Vice President, SunCal
    Nancy Hird, President Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
    Blake Brydon , President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce
    Helen Sause, President, HOMES
    David Needle, Protect the Point
    Doug Siden, President, Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization
    Doug Biggs, Executive Director, Alameda Point Collaborative

    Comment by William Smith — February 15, 2010 @ 10:33 am

  27. Retract the Notice of Default? Why not, since the city flip flopped on everything else. May as well be consistent. The upside, hopefully, will be that the Navy finally wakes up, is fed up and sells the whole damned thing to the highest bidder.

    Comment by Jack Richard — February 15, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

  28. Via Action Alameda:

    Here’s a comment from the Alameda Journal (following the article on the default notice), which says essentially that the city is trying to preserve its rights in the event of a SunCal bankruptcy.

    “The various Alameda blogs, websites and local papers have been filled with outrage, speculation, defensiveness and outright silly comments on this Notice of Default.

    So let’s cut to the chase. This Notice of Default letter was written by lawyers for the City of Alameda, to be ready by lawyers for the SunCal entity which is the party to the exclusive right to negotiate contract to buy Alameda Point. The Notice of Default is worded in a way that would make to a bankruptcy court judge, who sees these sorts of notices all the time.


    The reason the City of Alameda sent the letter is crystal clear to lawyers who have any familiarity with bankruptcy. When a contract very important to a company is about to be canceled, the company can file a Chapter 11 case to prevent that contract cancellation, as long as no formal Notice of Default has been served by the other party to the contract. However, if a Notice of Default has been served, and the alleged default is a non-monetary default, especially one which has a stated deadline for performance by the debtor, bankruptcy case law makes it very hard for the Bankruptcy Court judge to force the not-bankrupt party to the contract to accept a late cure of a non-monetary default.


    It looks to me like the City Attorney and Acting City Manager of Alameda are getting very good advice from bankruptcy specialist lawyers. What exactly the Alameda City Council members understand, from closed session discussions of what SunCal can do in court, is open to great interpretation. In my experience at least 3/5ths of all city council members across the state are too unsophisticated in legal matters, or too unfocused, or just too plain dumb, to understand complicated legal issues which are explained to them in closed session.

    So my conclusion, as to 2 out of the 5 city council members from Alameda is that they should shut up, because they are displaying their ignorance, let alone their self-promoting and self-serving motivations rather than any interest in discharging their fiduciary duty to the City of Alameda and its taxpayers.

    Never heard of a fiduciary duty to your city and the taxpayers ladies? Perhaps you should phone Patrick Fitzgerald, the Deputy U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting ex-Illinois Governor Blagojevich in Chicago. I am sure Mr. Fitzgerald could find the time to explain to you dimbulbs the perilous path you follow when you disclose what you think occurred in closed City Council sessions, or you leak closed session information to your friends at development companies.

    Remember that there were two very tasteful ladies, a Mormon mother of 5 named Erin Kenney, and a kindly grandmother of 3 named Mary Kincaid Chauncey, who as Clark County, Nevada Commissioners (aka Board of Supervisors members) spent approximately 3 years in Federal Prisons because they used their elected positions to help their “friends in the business community” and received very nominal favors in return for that help.”

    Comment by littlechicken — February 15, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

  29. Note that SunCal has a hearing in Bankruptcy Court tomorrow that could put it out of business. Lehman wants to seize all of SunCal’s land holdings worth $2 billion(?) in lieu of payment of debts owed to Lehman.

    It’s in Cal Bankruptcy Court, Central District, San Ana Division. With the link to the calendar below — click on 2/16/10 and then go to pg. 99 of the pdf — that’s it.

    So by the end of the day tomorrow, this whole thing could be over — let’s be thankful that SunCal didn’t win the election, or we’d be stuck in the middle of this.

    Comment by dlm — February 15, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

  30. Sorry, here’s the link to the court calendar:

    Comment by dlm — February 15, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

  31. Which judge?

    Comment by Jack Richard — February 15, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  32. The judge is Erithe Smith. The calender item is on page 168 of reader. Here’s a news item about the case:

    Comment by Susan — February 15, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

  33. Thanks to Little Chicken for explaining that the City may be trying to avoid being further entangled in a SunCal bankruptcy by filing the Notice of Default. Tomorrow’s hearing would also explain why the notice was given in such a hurry – even without Council review.

    If I make any remarks at all at tomorrow’s council meeting, they will be tempered by this news should it prove correct. Please post developments here as they happen.

    Also, am definitely open to advice as to how to press for sustainable and economical housing at Alameda Point without increasing the City’s exposure to SunCal Companies.

    Comment by William Smith — February 15, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

  34. Susan,

    Thanks for the name of the judge and the link to the article. Looks like the court case relates to the Lehman financed SunCal projects that are now bankrupt – so any relationship as to what’s happening at Alameda Point may be indirect through the still solvent Corporate parent.

    Comment by William Smith — February 15, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

  35. I don’t know how to get a good link to this site — the hearing is on “Palmdale” at 3:00 pm, on 2/16/10, and the tentative ruling reads: “Deny motion for reasons stated in the Opposition”, which I think means that SunCal dodged the bullet, because the Judge is denying the motion brought by a SunCal-related entity.

    Anyway, the rulings in the Lehman bankruptcy cases are not at all beside the point, at least not when they can wipe out SunCal completely.

    Comment by dlm — February 15, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

  36. For those interested, here is a general overview article about In Re Palmdale Hills (aka SunCal v. Lehman Bros)

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 15, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

  37. Re: 28.

    Just checked with a source who has maintained good relations with SunCal, yet who definitely retains their independnce. The source told me that SunCal here is in adequate shape financially and that bankruptcy of their independent Alameda Point affiliate is not imminent. Thus I plan to request the Council to retract the notification of default.

    Comment by William Smith — February 15, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

  38. #37

    My source, who is more reliable and much more anonymous than your anonymous source says that your less reliable and less anonymous source is wrong.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 15, 2010 @ 8:01 pm

  39. 38.

    Ant, yes I forgot to ask my source if I could identify them. I probably would have been given permission to as the source is an outspoken public figure, as you appear to have surmised. Further, your skepticism is warranted – there is almost no transparency regarding the funding of the Alameda Point Redevelopment. I’m simply trusting my source.


    Comment by William Smith — February 15, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: