Whatever the Alameda Point Partners are paying their PR person, they should really double it. While Joe Ernst is a master at massaging the message when it comes to the development plans themselves, the PR people for APP is doing a great job of keeping the messaging strong when it comes to the community supporting the Site A project.
The most recent “get” for APP is the Bay Area Council which has endorsed the project. The Bay Area Council, for those that don’t know, from their website:
The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored, public policy advocacy organization for the nine-county Bay Area. The Council proactively advocates for a strong economy, a vital business environment, and a better quality of life for everyone who lives here.
Founded in 1945, as a way for the region’s business community and like-minded individuals to concentrate and coordinate their efforts, the Bay Area Council is widely respected by elected officials, policy makers and other civic leaders as the regional voice of business in the Bay Area.
Today, more than 275 of the largest employers in the region support the Bay Area Council and offer their CEO or top executive as a member.
Essentially if you want to position yourself as pro economic development and pro jobs and things, it will be hard to vote against something endorsed by the Bay Area Council. Add to that the majority of the major marquee businesses in Alameda are supporting Site A and it’s just become really difficult to say, “I support economic development” and yet then vote against the project. From the most recent press release here are some of the other organizations supporting Site A:
Alameda Chamber of Commerce, Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA), Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Point Studios, Bay Ship & Yacht, Bladium, Brix Beverage, Building 43 Winery, Hangar 1 Vodka, JC Cellars, McGuire and Hester, Michaan’s Auctions, The Last Inch, Navigator Systems, Perforce Software, Pineapple Sails, Rock Wall Wine Co., VF Outdoor
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
I remember the housing activists telling us that commercial development wouldn’t work at the base, that only housing “made economic sense.” Indeed that position delayed transfer from the navy for over a decade (Navy was ready to transfer right away for a commercial plan, insistence on housing held it up)
Now a jobs-based plan is the way to go.
That’s curious….
Comment by dave — June 12, 2015 @ 6:43 am
In addition to this, the last three living Mayors have joined together in support of the development of Site A:
http://thealamedan.org/news/letters-editor-more-support-site
Comment by Karen Bey — June 12, 2015 @ 7:10 am
I look forward to the vote with the same anticipation as the playoffs…it’s showdown time; a step-to-the-plate-and-swing-away moment — to mix-my-sports-analogies…says-Howard-Cosell! :0) Go Alameda!! It’s our time!
Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — June 12, 2015 @ 7:21 am
Dave, I don’t believe anyone made the case that you are saying that they did. And besides, you’ll note that housing is the part of the project that BAC and others are support because of their necessity in spring jobs as well as paying for the infrastructure to bring future jobs.
Past arguments have been about “jobs first, then housing” and many of the people making that claim are spring this project because they now understand that without the housing their is no commercial project.
Comment by jkw — June 12, 2015 @ 8:19 am
Actually forgot to excerpt the quote from the BAC representative:
Also, all those business-y type people are supporting Site A as is, with housing units, not a jobs first, housing never scenario.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 12, 2015 @ 8:36 am
There you all go again, ignoring the state of the base clean-up. “delayed transfer for over a decade”, Dave? I don’t think so. Without a FOST [finding of suitability for transfer] or FONSI [finding of no significant impact], the DON wasn’t able to transfer any land to anyone, regardless of the pipe dream plans being tossed around.
Comment by vigi — June 12, 2015 @ 9:32 am
No less a luminary than JKW confirmed to me that the city’s refusal to go along with “standard” base transfer plan delayed the conveyance. The city could have had the base in ’97 had they agreed to it.
Busy now, more later.
Comment by dave — June 12, 2015 @ 10:40 am
I was just thinking how well Ernst & co. have done at designing a supportable project, but mostly how well they have coordinated the PR effort on so many fronts.
I am wondering if we might end up with a unanimous vote next week. If Frank signs on, they mayor might not want to look like a dead-ender and jump on board.
Comment by BMac — June 12, 2015 @ 11:03 am
I was on the Planning Board in 1997. JKW was not. What “luminary”? JKW has never even been to a RAB meeting. As Andrew Thomas says: “you don’t know if you don’t go”.
Comment by vigi — June 12, 2015 @ 4:37 pm
1997. http://www.toxicspot.com/ejpp/ejpp97.html
Comment by Gerard L. — June 14, 2015 @ 10:58 pm