Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 29, 2017

A tale of two letters

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

How timely, in the letters to the Editor of the East Bay Times there are two letters about housing development.

Tomorrow’s post will have a response to the whole “we need a moratorium on housing” thing that has been going around.  It is amazing to see that any one would actually suggest not building any housing when we hear daily stories about rent increases, people unable to afford housing, and the site of spreading homelessness in our city and in neighboring cities.

The letter:

Wow! Just what we need are another 1,500 cars in Alameda. What are our “councils/boards” thinking? At least we had one person on the planning board who understood the problem.

What we really need is a 10-year moratorium on all new construction for houses, apartment buildings, etc. This should give our politicians time to study and improve our cities’ infrastructure, i.e. roads, pot holes, traffic light synchronization, safe schools, parks, beaches, pathways, sidewalks, street lighting, bicycle lanes, graffiti abatement (before we look like Oakland) and beautification of the city in general.

It’s a pretty standard Alameda anti-development letter complete with a reference to Oakland as a boogeyman that we don’t want to emulate.

Contrast that with the letter right below that is all about positivity and doing our part to look forward:

But for all its beauty and history, Alameda can do better to prepare for the future. We need more housing to continue to make Alameda the livable and welcoming community it has always been. This means using the land that is available and making investments in civic services and housing to meet current needs, as well as to plan for future growth. This also means finishing the job at Alameda Point and following through on what we began two years ago, with redevelopment of the former naval air station site.

Alameda Point presents a unique and exciting opportunity to use some of the most beautiful and central real estate in the Bay Area for housing, retail and commercial development. The journey of revitalizing and redeveloping Alameda Point must be completed. We need to repave that road, repair the sewer, water and power connections underneath it and provide the transit access the West End needs. Let’s seize this opportunity before it’s too late.

You’ll find that the video posted tomorrow is a study in the same contrast.



  1. There is a common Alameda opinion that goes like this: “we wouldn’t need new housing if new people could be discouraged from moving here”. And another one like this: “traffic wouldn’t be so bad if people who lived here were required to work on the Island”.

    It turns out China has a great system for this called “Hukou”. What needs to happen to get this on the next ballot?

    “Hukou, a Chinese household registration system, tightly controls free migration in China. It decides where people are allowed to be educated, register for marriage, work, get health care and retire.”

    As a newcomer to Alameda myself (7 years), this part sounds really familiar for some reason:

    “In the current rural-urban hukou system, even if someone has been living in the city for 20 years, the system still refers to their rural hometown as their home.”

    Comment by brock — June 29, 2017 @ 9:41 am

  2. “Let’s seize this opportunity before it’s too late.”

    And just about the time when the Point build-out is complete along comes this heavily learned erudite Earth scientist who proclaims that the earth under the Point will liquefy and flood when we are hit with a long overdo 7.something quake.

    Comment by jack — June 29, 2017 @ 9:53 am

  3. well if we’re gonna have a moratorium on all new houses for ten years, then a moratorium on all new jobs should go right along with it. After all you don’t want to have more people coming in and out of Alameda tearing up our roads and making more pot holes. “there otta be a law”, NO NEW HOUSING NO NEW JOBS, AND NO NEW PEOPLE. let’s stop this crazy progress thing in its tracks.

    Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — June 29, 2017 @ 1:02 pm

  4. I just read this and it seems the whole development plan may fall apart. Again.

    Comment by Spanky McDoogle (@SpankyMcDoogle) — June 29, 2017 @ 2:45 pm

    • While the idea of building workforce housing for AUSD teachers and/or employees appears noble, I would rather the developer contribute whatever designated monies on badly needed school facilities given the Lum closure.

      Comment by Mike McMahon — June 29, 2017 @ 8:45 pm

      • Given the rise of property values here, I find there excuse questionable. It costs more, but they can charge more.

        Comment by Retiredteacher — June 30, 2017 @ 7:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

Blog at