Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 9, 2013

Move along, nothing to see here

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

Speaking of new development (don’t forget tonight is the Planning Board meeting where they will have a public comment period for the Alameda Point draft EIR in case you have had a chance to read any of it) but last week someone asked me if I knew anything about Whole Foods coming into Alameda Landing because someone had found plans and drawings of a Whole Foods at Alameda Landing.   I essentially said, um, no, Safeway is coming in, Whole Foods said “no.”

Turns out someone had uncovered a series of renderings that had indeed been commissioned by Catellus to woo Whole Foods to Alameda Landing.   I know that some people still complain to this day about Safeway being the grocery store at Alameda Landing and wonder why we can’t get a Whole Foods, but from these renderings it’s clear that Catellus tried every single thing that they had in their arsenal to get Whole Foods at Alameda Landing.

But no, people, despite the existence of these renderings Whole Foods is NOT coming in to Alameda Landing. Safeway is.

In other news, I totally like the remnant parcel design in that fly through. It’s all modern and clean looking which I greatly prefer.


  1. Whole Foods won’t come because the income in the surrounding community is too low. The Harbor Bay shopping center would be a much better location, given its proximity to Bay Farm and the East End. Leave the west end for food banks, Goodwill stores, and homeless shelters.

    Comment by not_a_developer — September 9, 2013 @ 8:06 am

  2. Whole Foods co-CEO John Mackey compared the President’s healthcare plan to facism. Fun facts from Wikiland: “He identifies as a vegan.” “He married his current wife, Deborah Morin, in 1991.[35] They have no children. Both practice yoga. They spend the week in Austin and weekends at their 720-acre (291.4 ha) ranch 40 miles (64 km) west of Austin.[3]” Gag me with a spoon.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — September 9, 2013 @ 8:58 am

  3. Denise, but it’s a spoon full of organic honey. Oh wait. what’s “organic” anyhow, just a label? and maybe the next question will bee, what honey? ( see 3rd link below)

    The defense of GMO crops seems to be centered around the crops not being unhealthy for consumption, i.e. your kids won’t grow a second head, therefore anti-GMO elements are hysterical and anti-science NIMBYs. But that is sort of misdirection because the introduction of GMOs into the food chain is much more complicated.

    Comment by MI — September 9, 2013 @ 11:29 am

  4. Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for millennia. Why is GMO such a worry? Serious question.

    Comment by dave — September 9, 2013 @ 11:36 am

  5. Here’s one that’s not a worry…except maybe for Bill Gates. “…there being over 125,000 suicides since the introduction of GM crops…” (somewhere on the web)

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 9, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

  6. #1. I hope you are being tongue in cheek, because the vision of the Central part of town and the West End is very off-base. Those of us who live west of Grand St., and particularly those who live west of Webster are not a bunch of low lifes. Reminds me of a former council woman who said that “I never go to Webster St. because my children need a mother.” and the school activists who said “Encinal should be a trade school and Alameda High the academic school, because all the kids in the Encinal attendance area are not college material.” While there may be more families who are struggling to stay in the middle class in our end of town, most have the same aspirations for work, housing and educational quality as people anywhere else in Alameda. No one should be marginalized or dismissed. So I hope it is tongue in cheek, because otherwise, it is an inappropriate comment, at best.

    Comment by Kate Quick,. — September 9, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

  7. Why do you, Kate, conflate low income (#1’s term) with ‘low life’ (Kate Quick’s term)?

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 9, 2013 @ 6:28 pm

  8. 4. in many ways the new GMO methods are no different than the past methods, but if you read the third link about bee populations, that’s one reason to stop and pause about how it goes beyond basic Gregor Mendel stuff. A lot of the problem has to do with monoculture too. Another problematic facet of GMOs is political. You’ve heard about farmers being sued by Monsanto because patented Monsanto corn cross pollinated adjacent field “naturally” and farmer used seed stock from his own inadvertently GMO pollinated field. Also, farmers in India can’t get old style seeds because seed brokers are controlled by companies like Monsanto. But these farmers can’t afford the fertilizers required for these new fangled seeds to thrive so the crops fail and farmers commit suicide. etc., etc.

    Comment by M.I. — September 9, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

  9. Monsanto is in the Right Camp

    Comment by interesting times — September 9, 2013 @ 9:00 pm

  10. 9. don’t get your “Right Camp” reference, but politics ( and greed) does make for strange bed fellows. Heavy Monsanto affiliations tend to spoil any excitement about Hillary in the White House.

    Comment by M.I. — September 9, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

  11. 4. “Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for millennia. Why is GMO such a worry? Serious question.”
    Lawyers making food production decisions rather than farmers. Smaller agro gene pool, greater use of chemicals which end up in the water supply. Unintended negative impacts on beneficial insects. Non-plant genes inserted into foodstock. Discourages self-reliance, as in making it illegal to save seeds from your own field to use again on your own field.

    What has it gotten us except cheaper production of soybeans and corn? Better health, cheaper food prices? Serious question.

    Comment by Richard Bangert — September 9, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

  12. Richard is right. Mendel was working with what nature had already provided based on his observations of what sometimes occurs in nature accidentally but GMOs are tinkering around with the building blocks of nature in such a way that they can upset the whole ecological balance. I get that GMOs can produce larger yields and have other benefits that make farming a surer thing than it has been traditionally, but the unintended consequences are proving to be dire.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — September 10, 2013 @ 8:14 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at