Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 20, 2017

Papers, please

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

It took me a while to get to last week’s Planning Board meeting, but these series of tweet sort of encapsulates the inherent problems with one of Trish Spencer’s appointees to the Planning Board.

There was a super uncomfortable line of questioning by one of the TS appointees to the Planning Board regarding the Housing Authority project on Buena Vista near Webster.  Because of her laser like focus on the “others” parking in Bayport which prevents her from parking wherever she wants when she comes to visit whoever she is visiting, she is very “sensitive to being conscious of the neighborhood and the existing homeowners.”

Just to tangent a wee, I’ll point out the others being complained about by this Planning Board member (at least from the Bayport perspective) probably predated anyone actually living in Bayport since the housing being occupied was built long before Bayport was constructed, but anyway.

Note that the concern was for “homeowners” and not a more neutral “resident.”

She then proceeds to ask the Housing Authority staff, “Do you identify these cars with stickers?”

The answer is, of course, yes so that they are allowed to park on the project site.   The Housing Authority staff says that naturally they don’t control the public streets because the public streets are the public streets.

The Planning Board members then says, “Yes, but you control whether they use the public streets.”

Let me let that sink in.

A Planning Board member is suggesting that members of the public should not be able to use the public streets if they reside in Housing Authority units.

Here’s the video:

While not worse, but another layer of WTFery from the same meeting and from the same Board Members was during the discussion of the revisions to the Call for Review process when she seemed very confused about the difference between a Call for Review and an appeal.  It’s pretty basic stuff that at the very least someone sitting on the Planning Board should know the distinction between, but, there it is.

This, I might add is the person that was selected to serve rather than reappointing Dania Alvarez.



  1. These planning board members need to be taken to task. We cannot accept their clear bias towards homeowners and their fearful approach to low income folks. I am disgusted. They should be removed from the position, if there exists a method to make that happen.

    Comment by Angela — September 20, 2017 @ 6:35 am

  2. Isn’t this about a half mile to mile from Bayport? I don’t get it. BrianMac, cute video.

    Comment by MP — September 20, 2017 @ 1:32 pm

    • Yes, but this PB member has a fixation with the residents from across RAMP parking in Bayport. It was tangential to the Buena Vista/Webster project.

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 20, 2017 @ 2:12 pm

      • Is that a thing?

        Comment by notadave — September 20, 2017 @ 3:11 pm

        • Bayport is a high density community that isn’t car dependent, so why would anyone care if people park there?

          Comment by dave — September 20, 2017 @ 4:14 pm

        • You ever walked through Bayport, it’s like walking though Piedmont or the Gold Coast or a cemetery.

          Comment by jack — September 20, 2017 @ 5:52 pm

        • If Bayport isn’t “car dependent” how do they travel?

          Comment by jack — September 20, 2017 @ 6:12 pm

        • Check your sarcasm meter, Ace, it seems to be out of tune.

          Comment by dave — September 20, 2017 @ 7:16 pm

        • If you haven’t walked the walk your brilliance turns to bullshit.

          Comment by jack — September 20, 2017 @ 8:13 pm

        • some have sprouted wings

          Comment by MP — September 20, 2017 @ 8:25 pm

  3. Actually 90% of the streets in Bayport are private and we pay for the maintenance and upkeep for them. I am sure if the city would like to take over for the maintenance and upkeep for them we would be happy to make them public streets and anyone could park there. There is only 4 public streets in Bayport and not a lot of parking on them. The city wanted to save money so they shouldn’t expect them to be treated as public streets with parking for whoever wants to park or drive on them. I would be happy to let the city have them and lower my HOA dues.

    Comment by Jake — September 20, 2017 @ 9:35 pm

  4. Pro tip: if anything that happens (movie theater, monthly antique fair, street festivals, new ball park location, start of school season, new jobs coming to the area or other economic upswings, subsidized or market housing, etc.) makes your brain immediately focus on parking and traffic above all else, you probably don’t belong living in a metropolitan area. Property values and rents here are sky-high versus areas that will never in our lifetimes have parking and traffic issues*, so it should be very economically feasible to move to those areas.

    Constantly bitching about parking and traffic in a metropolitan area is like constantly bitching that you hate the local weather.

    I lived in several non-metro areas before moving to the Bay Area, and I new from the start that parking and traffic would be much worse here than where I was before. It was an acceptable trade off to me.

    *I’m posting from Crescent City right now for example! It’s beautiful here and no traffic or parking problems.

    Comment by brock — September 20, 2017 @ 10:03 pm

    • I like you Brock.

      Comment by Angela — September 21, 2017 @ 7:30 am

    • Brock, do have have similar derision for people who move to an expensive area and then bitch constantly about how expensive it is?

      Comment by dave — September 21, 2017 @ 7:44 am

      • typo: “do you have similar derision”

        Comment by dave — September 21, 2017 @ 7:45 am

        • Yes. People should recognize that metro areas are expensive. You’ll see I even acknowledge that in my comment.

          Potential landlords should also recognize that metro areas also have organize for elevated renter protections.

          A bonus for the traffic and parking averse landlord: locales without traffic and parking issues are almost always extremely limited in the way they regulate residential landlords! At least that is true of the places I’ve lived.

          Comment by brock — September 21, 2017 @ 1:14 pm

        • Typo: “…have large tenant populations that…”

          Comment by brock — September 21, 2017 @ 1:15 pm

    • But it’s such a long commute.

      Comment by jack — September 21, 2017 @ 8:32 am

      • Yeah. That was the “acceptable trade off” for me. I’m putting up with bad traffic and parking, because of the high density of career opportunities (and other cultural and leisure things) here.

        Comment by brock — September 21, 2017 @ 1:22 pm

        • Oh I thought, based on your comments, that you were commuting from CC to Alameda. Turns out that opportunity trumps convience and you’re right back where you started from.

          Comment by jack — September 21, 2017 @ 5:29 pm

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