Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 24, 2016

How could you be so heartless?

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

So recall on the City Council’s agenda in late September there was an agenda item about possible phasing for the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.  As a refresher this is the parcel under discussion.

screen-shot-2016-09-19-at-4-59-35-pm

I’m sure this has been mentioned before but the residential units currently occupied by Alameda Point Collaborative families are in a sorry state.  Add to that the current infrastructure is in complete disrepair and in need of serious repair, if not replacement, like yesterday.   The point of this agenda item was to talk about a way to support the existing residents out in that neighborhood, including the Big White lessees, knowing that the only way to fund new/replacement infrastructure is to get a developer to do it by allowing the developer to build residential housing units.

City staff has already indicated that between 200 – 235 housing units must be built to pay for the infrastructure for the units and for the site (that light yellow above) that APC is fundraising to build to relocate its residents.  We all know — well some of us know — how difficult it is to finance affordable housing development, to expect the non-profit housing developer providing much needed low income housing to also pay for back-end infrastructure that the City has neglected over decades is absurd.

But not absurd if you’re Tony Daysog who actually implied during that September meeting that the expectation is that the non profit housing developer pay for the back-end infrastructure.  That because the APC will need a certain number of market rate units to be built by a housing developer to either pay outright for the infrastructure or contribute enough fees to the kitty that the City can pay for the infrastructure that the APC plan “doesn’t pencil out.”

Guess what, Tony Daysog, non profit housing developers aren’t about a bottom line.  It’s about providing housing for people who can’t afford $1 million homes.  The callousness in Tony Daysog’s comments to be so dismissive of this low income housing project was shocking.  He then said that he would rather see “co-housing and co-ops” be discussed.  Unlike the other members on the City Council who wanted to see the APC project prioritized, Tony Daysog would rather put everything on hold.

So, the list of people that Tony Daysog doesn’t support:

  1. Renters
  2. Seniors
  3. Poor people

I wonder who will be next in Tony Daysog quest to appease these old Alamedans who he so wants approval and recognition from, but they probably only see him as a useful tool.

Advertisements

27 Comments »

  1. I actually consider Tony Daysog to be an “old Alamedan”, since he actually did grow up here and stuck around. David Burton is neither an old Alamedan nor a senior. It appears the only people who “think” Daysog doesn’t support seniors, are not seniors themselves.

    I guess you missed that letter to the Alameda Journal written by a list of seniors who SUPPORT Tony Daysog.

    How does that annoying canard go? “you are entitled to your opinion but not entitled to your own facts”.

    Comment by vigi — October 24, 2016 @ 9:26 am

    • Carol – First, senior services, housing and care aren’t the exclusive concern of seniors themselves. They are matters of concern to families and family members too. We bought our home in Alameda in 2001 in order to have enough room for my terminally ill mother to come live with us. His interest in the challenges of housing and care for seniors came into laser-like focus during that period of our lives; particularly when my mother needed assisted living/hospice care that could accomodate her dependence on oxygen AND THERE WAS NO FACILITY IN ALAMEDA that could/would accept her as a resident. Finding a residence for her, and commuting to it on a daily basis added exponentially to the stress and heartache of the last months that she was with us.
      Second, no one in our family makes claim to being “old Alameda”. My mother might have made a legitimate claim. She was born (at Alameda Hospital) and raised in Alameda. The weekend we moved into our home was the weekend of her 50th Class Reunion at Alameda High. She maintained lifelong friendships with the Porter School “girls” she grew up with, all of whom attended her memorial service and many of whom still live in town (2 of them at Cardinal Point). Despite those apparent qualifications, she’d have been horrified and furious to be considered a member of the current “old Alameda” crowd. Not because she was particularly concerned about being “old”, but because she had a deep and abiding disdain for small minds, NIMBYism and bigotry and would have been quick to call out those underlying themes in the public positions of so many who identify as “old Alameda”.

      Comment by Jordan — October 25, 2016 @ 1:29 pm

  2. I predict this will be Tony Daysog week on BBA.

    Comment by MP — October 24, 2016 @ 10:42 am

    • I thought that was every week, well that and Mayor Spencer 😉

      Comment by Brian K — October 24, 2016 @ 6:44 pm

  3. I’m a senior. I’ve known Tony since he was a kid. I am disappointed in him, and his recent votes. I have many good friends, my age and older who are similarly disappointed in him and his apparent turn toward the Alameda party of no. I think it is time for Tony to leave the council and for someone who is more compassionate and forward looking to take his place. Tony is not a bad person, but he has taken up with people who are negative and not forward looking.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 24, 2016 @ 12:01 pm

    • Kate, I agree, Tony has for quite awhile been that “NO” vote on the council that I happen to disagree with. Fourteen years is way to long to serve in this city with so many good people who can replace him. plus we can shorten the council meetings by about half an hour if he is replaced.

      Comment by John P. — October 24, 2016 @ 4:12 pm

  4. Keep up the good work, Tony.

    Comment by jack — October 24, 2016 @ 12:12 pm

  5. At a not too-long-;ast City Council meetingI recall the Mayor of Webster call out Mr. Daysog and his disappointing performance on City Council. It’s not possible to serve the evolved complex needs of this City based only on friends made while growing up here. I like Tony. Nice guy. Good heart. However, it’s necessary to have considerably more depth and substance back of you at this point to run (again) for City Council…takes more than “muscle” pictures in local papers to pull off the complex layering of support necessary to garner the votes to continue on. And then, you have to really DO something.

    Comment by Gabrielle "Gaby" Dolphin — October 24, 2016 @ 12:17 pm

  6. Tony’s opposition to our plan came as a shock and a disappointment to me. I’ve always considered Tony to be a supportive of APC, and more importantly supportive of our residents. I reached out to Tony twice before the meeting and once after and got. I response. Not even a no thanks I’m not interested in meeting with you. One of Tony’s biggest concerns. had to do with us needing to increase the number
    of units we wanted to build. We currently have some 3 bedroom units that are being used as shared housing, primarily for our Vet population. Shared housing can be extremely traumatic for someone suffering from PTSD or other mental issues. Our plan would replace these shared units with individual studio units, offering Vets the safety
    And dignity of housing they deserve.

    Comment by Doug Biggs — October 24, 2016 @ 4:05 pm

    • Doug: can I share this comment on Peeps or can you post a comment there because there was some interest on this topic and I think you were tagged on the discussion.

      Comment by Lauren Do — October 24, 2016 @ 4:59 pm

  7. It is extremely hard to have anything pencil out on the base. It’s $1.3mm per acre in infrastructure . The city is having anyone besides the Site A developers step up to the plate. As far as the Great Whites they are historic and have to remain. The infrastructure on those home is well over $20mm. For Lauren to over simplify the issue so it becomes a hit job on anyone that is not Vella or Ashcraft is dishonest and speaks volumes about Lauren’s character as a person.
    It’s such a shame . Your behavior speaks of the stock you come from.

    Comment by Big Tex — October 24, 2016 @ 4:05 pm

    • Lauren is just calling out Tony on his “no housing stance”, I’ll refer to Doug Biggs post #6 above. Tony seems to not be in touch with those of us who live in the West End, nor with many seniors.

      Comment by John P. — October 24, 2016 @ 4:17 pm

      • When you constantly belittle anyone but Ashacraft and Vella 99.9999% of the time . It’s safe to round up when wondering if she is being impartial .

        Comment by Tex — October 24, 2016 @ 5:29 pm

      • Hey Tex: what the Hell does “your behavior speaks of the stock you come from” supposed to mean?!

        Comment by Mike Henneberry — October 24, 2016 @ 8:52 pm

        • Tex, there’s a whole internet full of people that write about their concerns about politicians they disagree with. I can think of two other local sites that engage in much less factual critiques. Then there’s the letters to the editor of three local papers, where the same people write the same things over and over. You’ve made your stand here, maybe practice what you preach and head off to chastise writers of all perspectives, not just the ones you disagree with.

          Comment by jkw — October 25, 2016 @ 8:21 am

    • What on earth can you mean by the phrase “Your behavior speaks of the stock you come from.” ?

      Comment by Jordan — October 25, 2016 @ 12:59 pm

  8. I love Lauren and the spotlight she shines on issues that we Alamedans should be in the know about. I love the resources and links that she provides. She noticeably did not provide a link to the discussion where she alleges or implies Tony Daysog put the kabosh on low income housing. I did take the time to view the discussion, http://alameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=1840, click on agenda item 6E for the Sep 20 2016 Council meeting, and found myself nodding in agreement with Mr. Daysogs comments, and in no way took his comments to be against low income housing. It appeared the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) along with the city staff had worked out a phased concept for the Main Street neighborhood project, where prospective builders would build the back end infrastructure for the APC’s 200 units of homeless housing. Instead of accepting this “done deal”, several Council members asked the staff to come back with another proposal, on the different options available to get prospective builders to build the back end for the ENTIRE development and not just the APC piece. Of all the Council members, Mr. Daysog’s Planning and Development expertise showed through. It is clear that he is in his element when it comes to building projects, be it an $8K a month dementia hotel on Bay Farm Island’s Shoreline Park, or homeless facilities in the Main Street Neighborhood. I’ve included the link so you can come to your own conclusions, as I did. I had no idea that we had 200 units of homeless housing (notice that I do not use the euphemism low income housing). It is not about providing housing for people that can not afford $1 million homes. It is about providing housing for the homeless. (http://apcollaborative.org/apply-for-housing-at-apc/). Now that is a horse of a different color. What I find interesting is the pairing of million dollar homes with the homeless, which is as incongruous as it gets. Now the only way developers can afford to build the back end sewage, electricity, plumbing, drainage etc for the development project is by letting them make the money back by building million dollar homes. Just as rent control socialists don’t understand supply and demand, actually paying for infrastructure, be it for the homeless or a millionaire, is also a foreign concept to them. So given that the developer is not going to build the infrastructure of the neighborhood out of the kindness of their hearts, or the homeless units either, the pertinent question for the Council is, who is going to pay. It always comes down to the money, as a staff member briefed the council on this project. Many cities face these problems, as squatters move into abandoned military bases, or abandoned neighborhoods only to face eviction as the city grows and developers arrive to knock down the old buildings and build new neighborhoods. I like that the abandoned military housing in Alameda was used to house the homeless. I was always incensed about the city’s claim that the naval base housing area soil was contaminated, when it was apparently good enough for Naval officers and their children to live in. That land was always some of the most valuable in Alameda, based on its location. So first we turn the Naval Base Runways with their spectacular views of San Francisco and the Bay over to the Least Tern by creating the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge (housing for birds over people, don’t you love it), and now we are building homeless units on some of the most valuable real estate on the Island. You gotta love us. We got rent control, because we don’t have enough housing for those that feel entitled to live in Alameda, but we have plenty of space to build houses for birds. That’s a done deal. Now the same people that were anti development and pro rent control (I’m not laughing, really), are about to have a developer build brand new infrastructure and at least 200 units for the homeless in the hottest spot on the Island. Who Loves You, Baby. or as Kanye sings, How could you be so heartless. I know of some things that you aint told me. I did some things but that the old me . . .

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — October 25, 2016 @ 12:14 am

    • Forgive us if we don’t take seriously comments on plans for APC from someone who just found out: 1) what APC is, and 2) can’t find their “return” key.

      Comment by BMac — October 25, 2016 @ 3:45 pm

    • this post is very incoherent.

      Comment by John P. — October 25, 2016 @ 4:23 pm

  9. “Alameda Landlord,” paragraphs are your friend. Use them if you want to be read.

    Comment by Jack Mingo — October 25, 2016 @ 7:06 am

  10. Lauren, your inconsistency never ceases to amaze me If it weren’t for Tony Daysog, you would not even be living in Alameda. This very blog would not exist. Daysog takes credit for pushing the Bayport development, does he not? He is also an actual working, credentialed Urban Planner [Masters, UC Berkeley], something no other member of either the City Council or Planning Board can claim. To me, that gives more weight to his analysis in many cases. Alameda needs an elected official who can go toe to toe with our planning staff, and not be snowed by their arguments, as sometimes happens.

    Most of this LWV bio is still relevant: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/alm/vote/daysog_t/bio.html

    Of course you are free to disagree with him, but have you ever considered that maybe his understanding of planning problems is superior to yours and his arguments are not “stupid”–they’re just over your head?

    Comment by vigi — October 25, 2016 @ 10:05 am

    • Tony is not unusual in his credentials, the planning board has always had architects, city planners from other cities, landscape architects, contractors and many other professions that go into making a very knowledgeable planning board. If Tony is so knowledgeable on these subjects then why does he abstain on so many important issues.? My guess is that he likes to have it both ways, which does not work for me. Maybe he can get appointed to the planning board.

      Comment by John P. — October 25, 2016 @ 3:03 pm

      • Maybe it’s a good fit there for him John P if he doesn’t return to Council. And the planning board should make room anyway and boot jkw and db before their terms are up. Ideally the city council does as desired and makes a special session to term both.

        Comment by JimD — October 25, 2016 @ 5:21 pm

        • Thanks for the support, Jim. Always good to know one has friends.

          Comment by David Burton — October 26, 2016 @ 5:07 pm

  11. David, having served 8 1/2 years on the planning board, you are one of the very best that has ever served. I have been watching since 1997.

    Comment by John P. — October 26, 2016 @ 5:28 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.