Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 21, 2014

Do nothing till you hear from me

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, City Council, Development — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

More on Alameda Point Partners and why we can’t just opt to do nothing and why is it that we can’t just start with jobs only.

So, I just wanted to circle back to the discussion on Tuesday night about Alameda Point Partners and Alameda Point in general.  Some of the supporters of some of the new City Council members have indicated that it would be better if Alameda Point didn’t have any housing at all and we just started with jobs.  Some of the supporters of some of the new City Council members have indicated that we should do nothing at Alameda Point.  On Tuesday night, City staff and their professional advisers — meaning people who do this stuff for a living — stated definitively why neither of those two options are viable.

Let’s take the “no housing, jobs only” scenario.  According to City Staff and their advisers — including the consultant hired by the City of Alameda to lure commercial tenants to Alameda and who only gets paid when he can bring someone here — said that commercial developers are not interested in putting any money up front to do any sort of infrastructure improvements.  Period.  At least, not the way that Alameda Point is right now.   The financing simply does not pencil out for commercial developers to plunk down any money up front to pay for infrastructure at Alameda Point in addition to their vertical developments.   This is why none of the Site B (which would be no housing, jobs only) developers panned out, because none of them, even the big name companies, would put up any up front cash for infrastructure because it would be too speculative.

That’s why “no housing, jobs only” simply will not work unless the City expends the capital upfront to deal with all the infrastructure costs which would require bonding since the City does not have the on hand cash to pay for millions and millions of dollars to put in basic infrastructure at Alameda Point.   And then that would require the City to levy an additional fee for existing and new tenants to pay down the cost of that infrastructure which would then make Alameda Point not competitive in terms of wooing the types of jobs and companies that Alamedans say that they want.

Then there is the “do nothing” alternative.  While this may be appealing to people who may never set foot on Alameda Point ever and just think it should be allowed to go back to the birds, the problem is that there are existing tenants and residents out at Alameda Point who have been patiently waiting for development for a long time.  And it’s not just development for development’s sake that they are waiting for, these are businesses that have put millions of dollars into their buildings and have been dealing with the failing infrastructure for years now.  If the City opts for the “do nothing” alternative, it essentially says to the businesses and residents out at Alameda Point that their contribution to Alameda as a whole is meaningless.   The current infrastructure at Alameda Point is failing and “doing nothing” won’t last forever.

If the City still wanted to “do nothing” but also provide for basic infrastructure for the businesses and residents out at Alameda Point, which, as a reminder is failing, this would require a huge capital expenditure on the part of the City of Alameda.  Same with the “jobs only, no housing” alternative above.  To recoup the money would requiring levying a fee on every single existing (and new) business and resident out there and that again would be quite a slap in the face to businesses and residents that have put up their own capital into improving their existing building at Alameda Point.  But more than a slap in the face, it will then make Alameda Point — as suggested above — less competitive and businesses would then opt to move out of Alameda Point rather than pay more for substandard accommodations.



  1. City Manager’s recommendation to postpone selection of developer for Site B.

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 21, 2014 @ 7:47 am

  2. Lauren, what you just stated and what I listened to until 12:am on Tuesday seems to some it up. Now the question will be what alternatives will members of the new council bring to the table.

    Comment by John P. — November 21, 2014 @ 7:51 am

  3. Just to start this off. Perhaps more attention should be paid, in our discussions, to the fact that The Point is not a blank slate. Under all that grass and concrete are miles and miles of pipes, conduits, drains, etc., and they are all well beyond their fail-safe date. The dereliction you see on top is double/triple underneath. To develop even a park will mean our having to pay to dig down and tear out, close off, redo, recover, just to put in grass. From a developer’s (even if it’s us) point of view, it’s a nightmare of a black hole. It’s beyond people there ponying up. You and I would have to pay a lot too if we tried to do our own developing. Simply for safety reasons, we can’t sit on this dime any longer. Somebody is going to get hurt and then you and I are going to be paying for their care because we have known for years the place is unsafe. Forget about the build up for a minute and think about how we get people to realize what is underneath besides a rising water table.

    Comment by Li_ — November 21, 2014 @ 7:55 am

  4. The “fund it from within” (meaning fund infrastructure) model was the basis for the original application to the Navy to receive the base as an economic development conveyance: It didn’t take long for it to become apparent that this was not going to lead to successful reuse of the military base. That’s why we spent so many years entertaining master developer options.

    I look at the current process as a hybrid that holds out the possibility of making productive use of this industrial landscape that adds value to the community. Instead of one master developer holding everything in a land bank (theirs) for decades, it’s in our land bank, and we are proceeding with mini-master developers a section at a time. It’s a more democratic method of planning the future of this large area, in that each stage is decided through elected leaders rather than unelected corporate owners. It’s the best we can do with a situation not of our making – we didn’t tell the Navy to pack up and leave. If the Navy had left us with clean bare land, it would be a different story. If someone doesn’t like what we are left with, talk to Congress.

    Comment by Richard Bangert — November 21, 2014 @ 8:09 am

  5. “…these are businesses that have put millions of dollars into their buildings and have been dealing with the failing infrastructure for years now.”

    Spirit Alley and a bunch of other businesses seem to be doing okay. In what venue are these specific businesses complaining about infrastructure? Were they promised something before they located at the Point?

    Comment by jack — November 21, 2014 @ 9:35 am

  6. 5. I think when any landlord signs a lease with a tenant they are promised access to water, sewer, electricity, gas, and safe road access maybe also. Not a lot, but if the sewer main breaks, the water main breaks, the building floods, the roads are inaccessible due to lack of maintenance, electric and/or gas service is not available who would do that sort of lease if they were in business?

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 21, 2014 @ 9:53 am

  7. 5. I’ve heard the water main thing a lot and was sort of jaded by it, but Jennifer Ott said they just had one which cost the City $150K. Water is basic to brewery and distilleries. I’m so glad to see this rain. I hope we get more in what are supposed to be the real rainy months.

    Comment by MI — November 21, 2014 @ 10:01 am

  8. If memory serves I believe some of the issues mentioned were problems with water (water main referenced above by MI) coming in through the existing system. Issues with the sewage going out. Street repairs are needed, lack of street lights. Service interruptions for phone and electricity.

    I think if Doug Biggs is around he can probably provide a detailed list of the current problems faced by existing tenants.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 21, 2014 @ 10:05 am

  9. ABAG has recommended cities be circumspect about development in flood planes due to the long term picture for global warming. A bunch of us met with SunCal guy who seemed undaunted about bringing in tons of soil and building levies. It has been discussed here. That was under redevelopment so the terms are different, but SunCal spent plenty on the design and planning they walked away from. I’m an expert on almost nothing other than how to drive a nail, so I have to have faith that developers who are putting millions at risk have a comprehensive master plan. I agree with Richard that in a perfect world we would want to do a lot of things differently, but after watching the parade of local businesses, including architects etc. who may be collaborating on with this group I I’m excited. If the negative impacts on deferring the time line weren’t serious I would have probably supported waiting for new mayor and council, but the fact is as Li said a couple blogs back, the new regime will have plenty of in put and has not had some entire development scenario shoved down it’s throat. It’s about not foreclosing an option which has been months in planning right at the precise moment it was poised to move ahead.

    In many respects this feels oddly parallel to Obama’s immigration thing.

    Comment by MI — November 21, 2014 @ 10:12 am

  10. 6 Pure speculation unless you’ve read the lease.
    7 What’s rain have to do with distillery water?
    8 If memory serves? Does Doug Biggs live where the existing tenants live?
    9 Nobody but those making money off him (and the bunch of us) believe in Al Gore anymore.

    Comment by jack — November 21, 2014 @ 11:01 am

  11. and 10 part B If it was like the immigration thing it would mean Russo would sign everything over to the developers and screw the Mayor and Council.

    Comment by jack — November 21, 2014 @ 11:04 am

  12. From the Master Infrastructure Plan for Alameda Point:

    There are numerous issues with the existing infrastructure. It cannot support the redevelopment of Alameda Point without rehabilitation or replacement. Some of the documented major issues with the existing systems include:
    • The existing stormwater system allows high tide waters to enter the system and flood low lying areas within the Project Site.
    • The existing flood protection measures and stormwater system do not provide protection of the Project Site from sea level rise.
    • The sanitary sewer system allows infiltration and inflow into the downstream transmission system during wet weather conditions.
    • The water system has been subject to breaks and repairs that are costly and sometimes require that tenants be without water service for up to several days.
    • The telecommunications systems are unreliable and existing tenants have experienced breaks in service for multiple days.
    • The natural gas system does not provide service to many areas within the site.
    • The sidewalks range from good to poor condition throughout the site and many locations do not meet accessibility standards and require replacement.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 21, 2014 @ 11:34 am

  13. More on the potable water specifically:

    The existing potable water system of pipelines ranges in size from 6-inch to 16-inch in diameter. The system is currently owned by the City of Alameda, as it does not meet the standards for EBMUD to accept it into their ownership and system. The existing system remains functional and is providing water service to the existing uses within the Project Site. However, this system is deteriorated, requires frequent maintenance and is not considered reliable. The existing water pipelines are commonly not located in existing or proposed street alignments and portions of the system are located underneath existing buildings. Additionally, the existing system is commonly shallow and does not have adequate cover resulting in pipeline breaks and leaks. EBMUD anticipates that there is a significant amount of potable water that is lost and wasted at the Project Site due to undocumented leakage.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 21, 2014 @ 11:39 am

  14. From my #5: “In what venue are these specific businesses complaining about infrastructure?”

    From your #12 Link “The active existing infrastructure is currently operable and services the existing tenants at Alameda Point.”

    Comment by jack — November 21, 2014 @ 11:45 am

    • Must be hard to make wine and beer when: “The water system has been subject to breaks and repairs that are costly and sometimes require that tenants be without water service for up to several days.”

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 21, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

  15. Jack, why are you insisting on acting so obtuse? hard to take you seriously. 14. “The active existing infrastructure is currently operable and services the existing tenants at Alameda Point.” yeah, until it’s not which is when the City has to fix it and the brewery has to cease production. Oh yeah, rain and snow is how we get all our water. There are some great kids books which explain the process.

    Comment by MI — November 21, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

  16. Count me as one of the people who DOES go out to the Point often and, in fact, intend to make it my permanent home in a few short years so I’m not one of the straw no-show persons you dreamed up to make your post dicey. I also frequent businesses at the Point and am not enamored with the idea of mass housing and new business parks. I say let the place grow at its own organic pace and work on the infrastructure one area at a time with whatever funding that can be scraped up.

    Comment by jack — November 21, 2014 @ 12:22 pm

  17. 17

    Who are you and what have you done with the real Jack, who supported the Suncal plan?

    Comment by dave — November 21, 2014 @ 12:37 pm

  18. 19. meet old man coyote (

    Comment by MI — November 21, 2014 @ 12:56 pm

  19. question: if we did do absolutely nothing and in the long run probably lost all interim leases to lack of infrastructure, the feds would still be building out their VA facility/ cemetery, yeah? what are their provisions for infrastructure and what plan for interface with City of Alameda?

    Comment by MI — November 21, 2014 @ 1:02 pm

  20. I say let the place grow at its own organic pace and work on the infrastructure one area at a time with whatever funding that can be scraped up.

    From where is the funding going to be “scraped up”?

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 21, 2014 @ 1:20 pm

  21. somehow I don’t think Jack is really trying to make any kind of real argument, he is just “playing you” and it looks like he is having fun doing it. If Rock Wall were to leave because of infrastructure and crumbling buildings he would be pissed.

    Comment by John P. — November 21, 2014 @ 1:47 pm

  22. Damit, Johney p I did try to make an argument above but little d dave saw right though it. Hell, I posted a comment here once that I’d love to see 50 story high rises ring the SF side of the Point like downtown Vancouver and many commentators agreed with me. Now we’re getting a cemetery, so what is the point of the Point but a long term joke.

    Comment by jack — November 21, 2014 @ 5:10 pm

  23. #21 = I trust you’ve been attending all the public meetings with the VA where that question has been asked & answered, so it is a rhetorical question. Didn’t see you at the Alameda Theater base transfer ceremony, though.

    It will be interesting to see how Ernst & Co. work-around the part of Area A that won’t be shovel-ready until 2020…or 2021.

    Jack is right: Growing at its own organic pace suits the base, since that is exactly what the clean-up is doing. Go Dehalococcoiides! Burn that lecithin!

    Comment by vigi — November 22, 2014 @ 11:13 am

  24. oh vigi, do I need to have attended all of the above or have my Alameda citizenship stripped and not be allowed to opine on the ENA? NO I was not at any of the meetings as is my right and my question was not rhetorical. Rather than attempt a simple answer you prefer to lord over people with your pretentious posturing of superiority like the “pedantic know it all” you are.

    Comment by MI — November 22, 2014 @ 12:40 pm

  25. “an organic pace…” Like Composting?

    Comment by frank m — November 22, 2014 @ 1:07 pm

  26. I think they mean, “as things come up” they will get reviewed and allowed or not. I wonder how expensive that might be considering each approved project has to have infrastructure, and doing the infrastructure piecemeal is a lot more expensive and disjointed than doing it for an area at a time. I think that basic economics and business investment plans might preclude almost any development, of any kind, under the “organic” concept. Most businesses want to know what they are getting and what is going to be expected of them in the near and long term to put up their money for investment. Food for thought.

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 22, 2014 @ 1:35 pm

  27. When I mentioned ‘organic’ in #17 I didn’t mean like composting, more like organisms like humans moving at a slow pace but I’ll be darned if vigi didn’t make that term even more correct in her last sentence in #25. Turns out that “Dehalococcoides ethenogenes”, now D. mccartyi[2] strain 195 (DET) was described in 1997, and is noted for its potential use in the bioremediation of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) contaminated ground water sites.”

    Comment by jack — November 22, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

  28. “…and doing the infrastructure piecemeal is a lot more expensive and disjointed than doing it for an area at a time.”
    Whats the difference between area and piecemeal things? Alameda was pretty much piecemeally developed one area at a time.

    Comment by jack — November 22, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

  29. Kate Q., you have not idea what you are talking about. That does not mean you are wrong; just means that you are lucky if you are right because you actually have no expertise, no experience, and no evidence.

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 22, 2014 @ 5:48 pm

  30. MI, you can opine, but what value does your opinion have if you do not have the basic understanding of the issue especially because I read your question (as did vigi and anyone with basic reading comprehension) as NOT just asking get information that you lack, but, instead, are hoping to make a point. I mean you called Jack obtuse, but then you seem upset when vigi tells you that the question you have asked (not really cause you care, but because you think asking the question supports your argument – a rhetorical question if I ever saw one) is stupid. I suppose you plan on insulting me again just cause I’m pointing that out. It’s your modus operandi after all (that means “the way you do things” since you obviously hate the idea that I might assume you know something even though I really shouldn’t worry about that).

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 22, 2014 @ 5:58 pm

  31. If you want to meet Jack go to the bar at Pasta Pelican, he is a smart but opinionated. The thing is the infrastructure will cost millions and we can build on the edge and gradually go in but has anyone talked to anyone who wants to build there without the infrastructure in place.

    Comment by Jake — November 22, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

  32. #31 and 32. I am wondering how you have achieved direct knowledge of what I know and do not know; how much I have studied the issue of infrastructure and what has been said by the many reviewers and responders to project proposals. It would appear that if one disagrees or challenges by posing questions something you hold dear, calling them unqualified to even ask a question is your best line of argument. You took the same path in responding to Mark. If you know that doing infrastructure piecemeal over a large tract of land where that infrastructure is connecting with other infrastructure on adjoining parcels, could you please share your information, rather than attacking the person raising questions. You could really contribute to a civil exposition of the pros and cons of “organic development”, as well as its accepted definition if you contributed what you know or good questions.

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 22, 2014 @ 9:45 pm

  33. Kate, “doing the infrastructure piecemeal is a lot more expensive and disjointed than doing it for an area at a time.” is a statement of fact. I believe civil discourse works best when we all agree on the facts. If you are going to state facts then we better agree and I don’t see any evidence either in your expertise (which is partly documented in your previous comments and partly available on the Internet), your experience (ditto), and you do not cite any evidence. How can we have a civil discourse when you attempt to assert facts and really they are just your opinion? With MI, he has already directly with me as well as his comments to vigi and Jack shown his inability to engage in civil discourse. He indicated his ignorance in a comment above, but what caused me to respond is his bristling at vigi telling him he was asking a rhetorical question and him bristling at being called out on that. If I really thought he was interested in a civil discussion, I might engage him otherwise, but given his history, the best way to promote civil discussion in this topic is to ask you to be careful about separating facts from opinion and ask Mark to change or withdraw from the discussion.

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 23, 2014 @ 12:26 am

  34. If I really thought he was interested in a civil discussion, I might engage him otherwise, but given his history, the best way to promote civil discussion in this topic is to ask you to be careful about separating facts from opinion and ask Mark to change or withdraw from the discussion.

    As the owner of this blog, I hereby decree that Kate does not need to ask Mark to change or withdraw from the discussion. And Mark, you don’t need to change or withdraw from the discussion either. Everyone can continue to pull opinions, questions, and/or facts from wherever they would like and the reader can judge for themselves if that person is believable. It’s really quite simpler than trying to control someone else.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 23, 2014 @ 6:31 am

  35. It’s refreshing to see the cadre reflect the leaders’ wishes.

    Vietnam’s communist leadership faced calls for greater political openness from a group of ruling party members dissatisfied with how the nation handled tensions in recent months with China, its dominant trading partner.

    Comment by jack — November 23, 2014 @ 8:53 am

  36. You do realize I was born in the US right, so Vietnam’s leaders are not mine.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 23, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

  37. Instead of veni, vidi, vici; we have ad nauseum, ad lapidem, ad hominem. Anyway, I was just about to post that I agree with Lauren completely.

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 23, 2014 @ 12:22 pm

  38. Leftist philosophy knows no borders.

    Comment by jack — November 23, 2014 @ 12:27 pm

  39. Given that the communist government is pretty big on censorship I think you might be getting your leftist philosophies a tiny bit crossed.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 23, 2014 @ 12:32 pm

  40. #35. Please ask Jennifer Ott at the City to share with you the many studies, engineering reports, reviews of status of existing infrastructure at the Point, costs of rebuilding same as calculated by various bidders, etc. We have over 15 years of material from many sources, submitted to the City. I think you might find a basic line in their assessments that infrastructure is most economically done on a large scale, and that which has to connect to existing systems must be planned and coordinated carefully to insure compatibility, continuity, and coordination of efforts among the various governing agencies (EBMUD, PG&E, AMP, etc.), not to mention need for sub-stations and so on. To “grow organically” which again, I think it is meant one project at a time as they come forward to want to locate there, means that the needed infrastructure improvements would be pertinent to the project in question and not a wider area. It also does not speak to what is to be done about the failing systems which might jeopardize our existing tenants. If your understanding of what “organic growth” is, is different, please give us your definition and let’s see if we can agree. If you feel that small infrastructure improvements will be economical and do not need the “three C’s”, let us know what you know about that, too, please.

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 23, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

  41. I thought I knew what he was talking about until he threw in that “leftist” bit. I assumed he was referring to the more universal philosophy, “might makes right”.

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 23, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

  42. 32. fine, keep trolling with anonymous immunity as is your right. It’s not like you haven’t been consistently insulting me even though you haven’t called me any names, just disparaging references like “Shakespeare”, and “you’re no Bertrand Russel” etc. I’ve had videos of feces and all other manner of insult hurled at me here so it’s no big deal, it’s just the principle of the thing. If you want to claim a higher road, take it but don’t be a hypocrite. Since you love to split hairs, I’ll point out that I didn’t call Jack obtuse, I asked him to quit playing the part for effect. As to who cast the first stone, I asked a simple question which was not at all rhetorical and rather than get any kind of straight forward answer I get the usual vile and gratuitous spew from vigi. You asking her to withdraw from the discussion? of course not because your double standard for discourse goes beyond anonymous snark.

    Comment by MI — November 23, 2014 @ 1:19 pm

  43. She self identifies as liberal progressive. If that ain’t leftist, what is?

    Comment by jack — November 23, 2014 @ 1:20 pm

  44. Mark, I reserve the right under the Do Declaration (#36) to act or be as ‘obtuse’ as I want just as you reserve your right to be whatever you want and just as PCPU reserves its right to think you are whatever PCPU thinks you are.

    Comment by jack — November 23, 2014 @ 1:45 pm

  45. I gotta tell you I wish I could have found all the ways you have insulted vigi (just in the last month) and nobody has jumped to her defense as quickly as Kate came to yours. So maybe it is that double standard – one that I object to at the risk of being called a hypocrite. I have to ask you again, why when you escalate to insults so easily, you think anonymity isn’t a good choice over subjecting myself to your unwarranted, blog owner endorsed abuse. If you knew who I was, you would be nicer – Hah! All I can say is that for someone who claims to wear asbestos underwear, you have an awfully thin skin. TTFN

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 23, 2014 @ 6:57 pm

  46. 42
    Kate, I understand your argument that infrastructure at the Point, it it will ever take place, would be more economical by doing it all in one fell swoop. However, that method presupposes okaying a developer to design some sort of all-encompassing Alameda Landing type plastic stores, plastic houses yukky no-character crap that dooms the Point into everlasting mediocrity. Frankly, what’s being done there now is organic, in that people see what’s there and see how they can convert what’s there into something unique and it’s happening despite all the calls for big thinking, big controlling, big bucks, big scheming pie in the sky bureaucrats.

    Comment by jack — November 23, 2014 @ 8:45 pm

  47. Thanks, Jack. Now I know what you consider to be organic. Development of what is there already based on reuse. Others have defined it as approval of proposals of any kind one by one as they arise. I am not advocating the “master developer” model, but to attack the issue of infrastructure one zone at a time at least so that both the sitting tenants and new projects may enjoy reliable utilities. I do not believe the one project at a time model will work for the reasons I stated. In the end, what gets built will be driven by economics as well as by citizen input and City approval. Any developer is conducting a business, and businesses are based on profit as you well know. I am often amused by the anti any development folks who state that they are angry that developers “are just in there for the money.” There may be great arguments for not developing, but that’s not one of them. Those developers are in business and are going to try to make a good return on their money. Some are very irresponsible in the way they go about that – build junk or don’t fulfill their promises; others are better. The City should be extracting whatever amenities or concessions they can at the time of contract, as well as creating solid contracts that minimize the opportunity for shoddy performance.

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 23, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

  48. Some years ago, I non-profit I worked with was given access to a building at the Point without having to pay rent. We were responsible for insurance and utilities. When the water system developed a leak, we paid for its repair, not the City. Although I’m sure our situation was not typical, I wonder what other atypical arrangements were struck with other non-profits and businesses that resulted in infrastructure repairs for which the City did not have to pay. I’m not saying there was anything amiss with these arrangements, I just think that it’s possible that some of the problems current tenants have had might have already been addressed. There is of course a lot that has to be done overall in any case. I do worry that even if all that work is done to prep the area for the kind of large scale development some envision, that the area may prove to not be as desirable to businesses as we might hope. I think of all those years when much of the Harbor Bay Business Park stood empty and that’s much more accessible to the world at large than the Point is.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 24, 2014 @ 9:01 am

  49. Was it the water system inside or outside of the building?

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 24, 2014 @ 9:04 am

  50. Speaking of, I found a 2009 post I wrote about lease revenues matching cost of maintenance at Alameda Point. Includes a letter from the City of Alameda to the Navy detailing cost expenditures for maintenance.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 24, 2014 @ 9:15 am

  51. You must excuse MI’s behavior. He’s really my disgruntled abusive ex-husband.

    Comment by vigi — November 24, 2014 @ 10:46 am

  52. Denise, I wouldn’t disagree with you on your statement, Harbor Bay business park has had a lot of trouble filling up. Cowan went bankrupt there. Marina Village has never come close to being full. However the housing at Harbor Bay had no problem selling, Marina Village the same, Bayport the same. So for me its easy to think that housing would be the best way to start this development. It would mean that the developer would front all of the infrastructure costs, and in this present market it looks like the housing would do just fine. Then maybe we could afford to go slow on the business development. I would agree with most people that the way we build housing today is not very desirable. So what about thinking “out of the box” like an exemption to measure A. As there are no Victorians or Craftsmen on the point try doing something different than the McMansions . Still holding to the current figure of 800 units.

    Comment by John P. — November 24, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

  53. 47. PCBU. Maybe I would behave differently if I knew who you were and but maybe not. I certainly wouldn’t criticize you for being anonymous and or choosing a holier than thou name like PCBU. I’ve proceeded with the assumption we may well know each other “in real life”, but I don’t understand why you insist that your anonymity is necessary to protect you from people like me, especially since you claim I would behave differently ( more civilly?) if I did know who you are. As for insulting vigi, how long have you been reading this blog? vigi has her own history here and can be absolutely scathing, mean and off the wall. My ugliness toward her is that context. She should be able to endure what she dishes out in ample portions. That’s pretty much my credo, to counter attack, but not throw the first punch. But when the gloves are off they’re off. The last time I stated that I tried to consider each of her comments in turn, giving credit for often making good points, she responded that based on my appearance I could not possibly have been bullied in my life and by extension not know anything about it. yeah, that got past my asbestos underwear, but actually I never claimed to be impervious to my own flames and that is more or less insured because I am who I am and not some cyber phantom who can play hit and run.

    Comment by MI — December 4, 2014 @ 5:46 pm

  54. Mark you are indeed a kick in the head. If you didn’t exist we’d have to invent you. Kinda like dave without the arrogance and less subtle. Keep it up.

    Comment by jack — December 4, 2014 @ 6:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at