Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 9, 2018

Kicking the can down McKay

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

Do you ever read something and then you get this really sick feeling in your stomach?  It’s the feeling you get when you realize that “Everyone Belongs Here” has a huge asterisk attached to it and that some people will literally do everything in their power to not support the most vulnerable members in our community.

Yeah, that’s how I felt when I read this Council Referral by Trish Spencer.  It feels like this is an attempt to stall out the process for APC’s Medical Respite and Wellness Center in order to allow the newly filed ballot initiative to wind its way through first.  In fact, she essentially says it right there in the text:

I would like Council to give direction to staff to obtain copies of all documents pertaining to the Settlement Agreement, and to the possible splitting or dividing of the parcel.  Staff should fully research the history of the parcel(s) in question, including a timeline of the events pertaining to the parcel purchased by EBRPD as well as the parcel to be conveyed to APC and representations by EBRPD to the public regarding which parcel(s) would be improved with Measure WW bond funds and which parcel(s) EBRPD intended to acquire from the federal government, to the extent staff is able to obtain such information.  I would like staff to provide this information to Council before it considers APC’s application for removal of the Government Overlay and amendment of the General Plan.  It is critical that Council, staff, and the community have clarity of the facts before any further decisions are made.

I’ll point out that the Federal property (the Neptune Pointe part and the APC part) is already split.  That’s how the GSA was able to attempt to auction off Neptune Point separately from the part that is currently being offered to APC.

Right now, APC could opt, under Title V, to just secure a long term lease rather than a title transfer from the Federal government and just open the part of the plan that appears to be the most offensive to folks coming out of the woodwork to oppose this plan: the part that serves the homeless individuals and families.  As I posted a while back, Title V is there to buffer projects like this specifically against what we currently see happening in Alameda.  You know, the city that prides itself on its small time charm, friendliness, and Mayberry-esque vibe.  I’m sure lost in tv archives somewhere is a hidden episode of the Andy Griffith Show where the town folk pull together to compassionately tell the wayward now homeless veteran that while they are thankful for his service and want him to get assistance, he’s still going to need to move along to somewhere else.

Did I mention that EBRPD is not asking for this property and appear to be supportive of APC’s proposal?

A bit of the coming conflict played out at the School Board meeting last night, from #alamtg twitter.

It will be telling to see how this City Council with its strange alliances and fractured nature deals with the whole issue.  Will the progressive identifying members of the City Council support their apparent now-ally Trish Spencer in her attempt to tank the portion of the Medical Respite and Wellness Center than will provide long term permanent supportive housing to homeless senior citizens focusing on assisted living?  Will the City Council as a whole make a show of requiring “more information” as Trish Spencer is doing in order to kick the can down the road so that they don’t have to make the hard decision about housing homeless senior citizens and appease community members who tsk tsk about the encampments in Oakland, but refuse to see the obvious signs of people sleeping rough right here in Alameda.

Essentially are they going to be Jennifer Williams and Ardella Dailey making strong and unequivocal statements of support.  Or are they going to be Gary Lym, abstaining in order to not make waves.


  1. “the city that prides itself on its small time charm, friendliness, and Mayberry-esque vibe”, I thought this part was funny. I grew up in small towns and Alameda doesn’t feel like that at all, and the people are not all that friendly. In my opinion Oakland is more friendly than Alameda. Walk down the street and say hello to 20 strangers and maybe one will respond…it is not all that friendly but most people here are somewhat jaded. It politics here are only second to those of San Francisco. Barry Fife is sort of like Trish though as she has no backbone and lacks common sense. At least Barry was sort of loveable.

    Comment by joelsf — May 9, 2018 @ 7:20 am

  2. It will be interesting to see what our City Attorney says, but in reading the Settlement Agreement and related Quitclaim deed documents, a parcel of land was divided from the parcel that was quitclaimed to the EBRP, which was called the “Retained Parcel”.

    The recorded deed lays out all the rights and land uses allowed on the Retained Parcel – which appear to serve as deed covenants and restrictions that run with the land. I’m not an attorney, but I believe if they are in fact covenants, it means that any future owner of the Retained Parcel must abide by the terms of the deed covenant(s).

    Comment by Karen — May 9, 2018 @ 7:25 am

    • That’s how I read it as well. Also interesting was the part about how EBRPD can’t attempt to influence a zoning change over the retained parcel either. So if turns out that representatives from EBRPD are directing this initiative attempt then the GSA has legal remedies at their disposal.

      Comment by Lauren Do — May 9, 2018 @ 7:54 am

  3. I doubt if they are behind this, because they signed the Settlement Agreement with a full understanding of the deed covenants and restrictions.


    Comment by Karen — May 9, 2018 @ 8:22 am

  4. here we go again…

    Don’t worry, Title V of the Act protects homeless shelters from NIMBY opposition so you do-gooders with all the empty space between your ears need not worry about old Alamedans getting in the way of your making Alameda shitty again.

    Comment by Jack — April 9, 2018 @ 8:45 am

    Your attitude is the shittiest thing about Alameda by far.

    Comment by Angela — April 9, 2018 @ 9:03 am

    Comment by Jack — May 9, 2018 @ 8:37 am

  5. LD’s World:

    Comment by Jack — May 9, 2018 @ 8:47 am

  6. If the City has legal authority to affect the project, then how City Councilmembers vote on it will not – by definition – be essentially like one or the other side of last night’s AUSD Board vote. Each AUSD trustee may have voted last night exactly the same way that trustee would have voted were the trustee on a City Council with authority, but it is not necessarily a perfect predictor.

    Comment by MP — May 9, 2018 @ 9:38 am

  7. Spencer just accepts and amplifies her constituents’ worst instincts. This is consistent with her creepy (and prescient about the presidential election) “Alamedans First” campaign slogan. I hope her similarities to another populist politician whose name also starts with “Tr” will bite her come November, but I worry she is, possibly unwittingly, channeling the spirit of the times.

    Comment by BC — May 9, 2018 @ 10:34 am

    • You nailed it BC! Trish is taking a chance of pissing you social progressives off. So go ahead and worry. We’ll see come November whether Trumsh has any staying power.

      Comment by Jack — May 9, 2018 @ 5:14 pm

  8. Jennifer Williams and Ardella Dailey were so eloquent in their comments last night, and I appreciated the thoughtful discussion that all the Board Members contributed. i was disappointed that Gary Lym, who spoke so passionately about the need for services for students with mental health issues, was so uncomfortable endorsing services that would benefit that exact same groups (if you don’t think children who are homeless face depression and anxiety, you are in a whole other galaxy of denial). Ironically the short lived idea of removing any mention of the address as a “compromise” would have in essence, made the homeless center homeless. The opposition brought forth some truly fantastic(as in full of fantasy) allegations made last night. It was stated I will be cutting off water to EBRP (No, we will be working with EBRP to upgrade and install seperate lines to serve each facility) It was stated that I was establishing a drop in drug treatment center and methadone clinic. (No, No No) It was stated that a perceived increase in homeless in the park over the last two weeks (without evidence) is directly a result of me “publicizing” the project. In the face of the Mayor’s very misguided( and frankly confusing) referral, and the neighbor’s attempt to stop the project through a ballot initiative, EBRP will be releasing a statement, sometime next week, that will bring additional clarity to the issue. Suffice it to say that the legal documents in place, including previous minutes of the EBRP Board meetings, and the settlement agreement, make it clear that EBRP has no interest, strategy, or authority to convey, purchase or otherwise acquire the federal center. The initiative does not have as its goal creating more parkland. It is purely an attempt to block services for homeless from taking place at that location, and is discriminatory in every definition of the word.

    Comment by Doug Biggs — May 9, 2018 @ 1:41 pm

  9. This referral is one o more of dozens of reasons I will do my best to make our misguided, ill-informed, and obstructionist mayor — who is also apparently also against caring for the homeless — a one-term mayor. Spencer has sown enough distrust, confusion, and
    division in Alameda to last three terms: I do not want to think what our city might look like if she has the opportunity to monkeywrench our city affairs for another four years.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — May 9, 2018 @ 2:41 pm

    • Have you been successful in any of your other bests Jon? Trish has the votes of the “old school” Alamedians. Once the old school dies off Alameda will turn into whatever sanctuary that’s currently popular.

      Comment by Jack — May 9, 2018 @ 5:38 pm

      • Jack, you are so full of B.S. it overflows. there aren’t enough “Old school” Alamedians to re-elect Trish to dog catcher.

        Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — May 9, 2018 @ 6:39 pm

        • Jonnytrump, we’ll see.

          Comment by Jack — May 9, 2018 @ 6:59 pm

        • With Ashcraft & Mataresse splitting the opposition vote, Trish has a solid chance. If Vella runs as well, Trish almost surely wins.

          Comment by dave — May 10, 2018 @ 7:03 am

        • Agreed. If Ezzy-Ashcraft and Matarrese want to ensure that there’s a competent Mayor on the dais they need to have a long discussion about whose chances are best to win.

          Comment by Lauren Do — May 10, 2018 @ 7:34 am

        • Exhibit A: 2010 Mayor Race

          After eight years of Bev Johnson, Doug DeHaan and Frank Mataresse ran against Marie Gilmore. Doug and Frank ended up splitting up the opposition vote.

          Marie Gilmore 9298 votes
          Frank Mataresse 6074 votes
          Doug DeHaan 5870 votes

          Comment by Mike McMahon — May 11, 2018 @ 7:55 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