Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 13, 2020

47 years later

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Tonight!  Planning Board!  Measure A/Charter Article 26 discussion.

The letters that have been sent in support of Measure A/Article 26 are so much lower in volume than I anticipated.  But does contain the necessary buzzwords about Alameda including “unique” as one of the key reasons to not eliminate Measure A.

It’s a little strange how Measure A/Article 26 has reached mythological status in the mind of some Alamedans that it protects every thing that they think is good and righteous about this City.  It’s seems a particularly backward looking position in light of State requirements and legislation that has slowly chipped away at the heart of Measure A/Article 26: a ban on multifamily housing.

It’s an artifact of a different time and age, some people may credit it with “saving” the character of Alameda, but the reality is that the trajectory of State action on the housing crisis is going to render Measure A/Article 26 entirely moot at some point.

So, Alameda has a decision to make.  Is it going to hold up this piece of history even as superseding State laws demand that the City of Alameda do the complete opposite?  Or is Alameda going to finally have a real and fruitful discussion about what its concerns are about development that they believe Measure A/Article 26 solves that perhaps our City leaders can take positive steps to alleviate without the specter of this false savior looming above all dialogue.

Anyway, should be fun nonetheless to see who still decides to cape for Measure A/Article 26.


  1. So ready for A to get repealed. The stare overrides like sb50 and the adu laws don’t go far enough. It’s funny to me how people hold up A like without it Alameda will implode and there will be some type of traffic apocalypse

    Comment by zbowling — January 13, 2020 @ 7:26 am

    • So ready for A to get repealed.


      It was set in law by a public vote and if it must go, it should be repealed by a public vote. Why won’t its detractors put it on the ballot?

      Comment by dave — January 13, 2020 @ 7:45 am

      • I’m all for repealing it, and I’m all for putting it on the ballot.

        Comment by trumpisnotmypresident — January 13, 2020 @ 8:18 am

  2. Besides the inevitable vote by the progressive Alameda city council to change Measure A, the new state law has been called the end of single family zoning. Property owners can now convert houses into triplexes, or sell their property to developers to build condos with no parking or towering apartment complexes overriding local laws. Result: Short term profits at the expense of the community which will be irretrievably changed, causing overall property values to go down. It will not change the status of the downtrodden one iota. The poor will still be poor. The homeless will still be homeless, and taxes will still be high-so high California lost 3.2 million people last year and probably 3 Congressional seats.

    Too bad.

    Comment by Nowyouknow — January 13, 2020 @ 5:20 pm

    • “Overall property values to go down. It will not change the status of the downtrodden one iota. The poor will still be poor.”

      Sounds like someone failed Econ 101. It’s really basic stuff. Making homes more affordable by increasing supply lifts more people out of financial hardship.

      Comment by JRB — January 14, 2020 @ 9:17 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at