Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 4, 2013

Bounce back with me

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Neighbors, Public Resources — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

So file this one under good idea, bad title.   Yesterday the City sent out a press release that it had scored a Rockefeller Foundation grant, one of 100 grants that were distributed to cities world wide to join the “the 100 Resilient Cities Network.”    According to the Rockefeller Foundation website “building resilience” is defined as:

making people, communities and systems better prepared to withstand catastrophic events – both natural and manmade – and able to bounce back more quickly and emerge stronger from these shocks and stresses.

And here Alameda is on the website, and at the time that I visited the first city in the list of 33.   I will point out that the Rockefeller Foundation has Alameda described as “densely populated” which should freak out all the people who view Alameda as a suburban oasis:

Screen Shot 2013-12-03 at 1.45.39 PM

 

Quite a few Bay Area cities were selected along with Alameda including Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco.

With the grant money Alameda will hire a “Chief Resilience Officer” and the name makes me want to roll my eyes.  Hard.   Apparently this person will coordinate with Alameda’s existing Emergency Preparedness Coordinator to, well, better prepare Alameda in the case of an emergency.   Do those two positions seem a bit redundant?  A bit.   I mean, I guess I’m not sure what the CRO (eye roll) will be doing that will be a whole lot different than what we should expect from the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, but I’m sure we’ll find out.   I think it will be interesting to see how this work around future “resilience” ties into planning at Alameda Point.   I’m guessing that much like a lot of stuff in the City even though it should be a natural tie it, it won’t be considered too important when it comes to brokering deals for Alameda Point development.

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. Highest tsunami exposure on the west coast? Really?

    Comment by notadave — December 4, 2013 @ 7:11 am

  2. Highest Tsunami? Says who? We beat out Crescent City??? I thought at least one of their devastating storms was one already. What happened to the theory that the likelihood of a tsunami lining up to hit the golden gate head on was slim? Also, don’t all those communities between there and here count?

    That said, congratulations to all who worked so hard for us to get help for disaster recovery. Sad Rockefeller hadn’t a better name, sort of leaves one with a mental picture of first responders bouncing over the waves.

    Comment by Li_ — December 4, 2013 @ 7:54 am

  3. That tsunami bit was what the City put on the grant application so they’d win. Tricksy!

    Comment by Denise Shelton — December 4, 2013 @ 10:14 am

  4. Great photo, esp the detail of the sweetgums on Gibbons in red.

    Comment by dave — December 4, 2013 @ 11:45 am

  5. Huh, who knew(the grant applicants apparantly)! From the USGS report “Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards”: “The City of Alameda has the highest composite amount value (4.95), indicating that this community consistently has one of the highest number of populations in the tsunami-inundation zone.” http://quake.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/Community%20Exposure%20to%20Tsunami%20Hazards%20in%20California_USGS.pdf

    My initial take on the study though, before folks start running for the hills is that exposure is very different that likelihood. In other words, if that once in a geologic age combination of 8 earthquakes happened all at once, then we might see a really big tsunami, otherwise, not so much.

    I guess it is time to wax my surfboard and get ready!

    Comment by notadave — December 4, 2013 @ 12:35 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.