Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 19, 2019

Show your work, part 2

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

As part of the endless Harbor Bay hotel saga on Tuesday night Tony “stanning for Bay Farm” Daysog was trying one last effort to help derail the project.  From #alamtg Twitter:

It took me a hot minute to remember what that could be referencing and then it hit me: Tony Daysog’s insistence that the owner of three contiguous parcels shouldn’t be able to combine those parcels because Tony Daysog says so.

As a reminder this is Tony Daysog’s argument:

If you’re so interested, here’s the “3rd” parcel that in my humble opinion should never have been combined with the other two — as you can see, 30% to 40% of it is in the water, and the remainder is green area that could never be built on. So, since there is no useful utility of this parcel toward the project — other than including its acreage toward the building square footage of the hotel — local officials from staff to all others should have ruled and told the project applicant, “Hey, we can’t go with this ‘third’ parcel — we can see grounds for combining the other two — just not the third.” Thanks!


Of course he furthered no legal rationale that the City could deny combining the parcels owned by the same person just some random pronouncement of an action the City should take.  That a person should be able to own property, pay taxes on said property, maintain said property but then not be able to do anything with it because Tony Daysog has decided it can never combined and never be built on.  In that case, how is that not a taking of that property owner’s property?

By now Tony Daysog has had ample time to ask both the previous City Attorney and the current City Attorney about whether this strategry would have passed the smell test.  That he hasn’t (or isn’t telling us what they said) is telling.


  1. Nice try in attempting to frame this issue as “Tony Daysog ‘says so.'” That’s not what’s at issue.

    Here’s the issue for those who care: 1. the project proponent has a project on one parcel, but that parcel is of a dimension such that, per rules, he can’t build the project at the size he wants.

    2. To cure this problem, he can combine the primary parcel with two other contiguous parcels.

    3. But…here’s the kicker…the part where we, the PB and CC, could’ve exercised leverage: the kicker is that he had not already combined the parcels. To this day, he still hasn’t combined the parcels.

    4. Which leads me to my thesis: the PB and CC, in exercising its leverage, could’ve said: “ok, project proponent, you’ve got a project that currently doesn’t meet code because you hadn’t combined tbe parcels yet. And, we have residents concerned about the project size, especially height and massing. So, since the project right now doesn’t meet code, we’re gonna have you either address community concerns now, or we, the PB, will reject the project.” That’s the path I would’ve suggested: allow the project to move forward in a way that substantively addresses local residents concerns. If you’ve got the leverage, use it. Do, instead of a 5 story building, have a 3 story building with the same number of rooms but more squat than the originally proposed lean and tall.

    The funny thing is this: my approach wouldn’t have worked had he bothered to combine the parcels ahead of time. But…he hadn’t…and he still hasn’t! He gave me an opening, and I took it in an effort to help out residents.


    /s/ Tony

    Comment by tony daysog — September 19, 2019 @ 8:08 am

    • So, you wanted to get rid of the view corridor by spreading the building out, thereby ruining more people’s views (a three story building blocks bay views same as a five story) and eliminating the extra hundred parking spaces that will now be available to ferry commuters – who have been begging for more parking for years? Got it.

      Comment by cw — September 19, 2019 @ 9:19 am

      • Ah, no, you don’t have to ‘squat’ the building along the length of the water, which, as you cotrectly note, would do what you say; you could ‘squat’ the building toward the street, no?

        Comment by tony daysog — September 19, 2019 @ 1:04 pm

  2. Thankfully, “elections have consequences”.

    Comment by trumpisnotmypresident — September 19, 2019 @ 8:42 am

  3. Unbelievable. Rent Control Nazis asking “In that case, how is that not a taking of that property owner’s property?” This is like reading a headline from the Onion.

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — September 23, 2019 @ 12:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at