Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 2, 2020

Delay tactics

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

It’s interesting that the pro-A/26 folks mentioned that they would be okay with a A/26 only repeal as long as the 2500 sq ft provision wasn’t touched.  So that’s essentially what the subcommittee of Mayor Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft and Councilmember Jim Oddie proposed for tonight’s City Council meeting.  From the staff report:

Article 26-1 (The Citywide Prohibition on Multifamily Housing).

The Subcommittee discussed and debated the merits of a 2-year suspension of Article 26-1 instead of repeal and concluded that it is time to call the question once and for all on the 1973 citywide prohibition of multifamily housing. Today’s Alameda residents deserve the opportunity to express their values and position on this 47 year old charter amendment.

Article 26-3. (The Citywide Density Limit of One unit per 2,000 square feet of land area).

The question of Article 26-3 is more complex.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Council discuss delaying asking voters to consider Article 26-3 until 2022. This approach allows a comprehensive public planning process to be conducted first. When the planning process is completed, the Council in 2022 can decide whether to ask voters to modify or repeal Article 26-3. At that time, the Council and the community will have the benefit of having completed a community wide planning and environmental review process to inform their decisions before crafting a ballot measure to amend or repeal Article 26-3.

Honestly, I say throw it all up for consideration and let people vote in what should be (if everyone is as upset at Donald Trump as we think they are) an election with massive turnout this November.  But now it appears that ACT and friends are still asking for a delay until 2022 even for the multifamily housing prohibition part:

act

It’s telling that ACT wishes for A/26 to accompany a mid-term election which, historically, sees a much lower level of participation than in a presidential election.  Shouldn’t we want the higher percentage of voters on a piece of legislation which has shaped this city for the last 40 years?

One of the reasons why ACT doesn’t want A/26 to go on the ballot is because they believe it requires a general plan review first, but A/26 did not get a review prior to being put on the ballot in 1973 in the first place.  Goose, gander, etc etc…

At this point if the voters of Alameda do not understand the impacts of A/26 and are not prepared to make an informed decision on it after 47 years, they certainly won’t be ready in 2022 either.  It appears that ACT doesn’t believe that the voters of today are as capable as the voters in 1973.   I wonder what’s changed in the complexion of Alameda since the 1970s that ACT believes that today’s voters can’t manage to critically consider what’s on the ballot even in times of great turmoil.

demographics

16 Comments »

  1. I agree with the principle espoused by the League of Women Voters of Alameda: legislating via City Charter amendment is a bad idea.

    For this reason, I would support removing the 1973 “Measure A amendment (Charter section XXVI) from the City Charter entirely. And such a vote should involve the largest possible voter turnout to make sure every voice is heard.

    The 1973 charter amendment may have been useful at the time but there are many, many planning tools available now that can be applied with far greater skill and care to address issues such as housing, zoning, and historic preservation. It is time to use the best tools available for the job, not outdated and ham-fisted ones. Besides, section XXVI is in violation of state law: the charter needs to be aligned with state law for the city to receive state funding for infrastructure and other needs such as completing the Jean Sweeney Open Space Preserve.

    Since it is *always* a good idea to include as many people as possible in deliberative city planning processes, Alameda should hold a year-long and in-depth citywide conversation about what our city should look like over the next century (assuming that we are still around as a city, of course). For one thing, the conversation will need to be lengthy just to be able to include voices from all sectors of our community under the long-term social distancing requirements of our “new normal.” More importantly, we should assure that not just those with privilege (wealth, whiteness, historic homes, umpteen decades of family history in Alameda, higher incomes, etc.) have a voice in analyzing and making land use and other policies.

    This is especially true following the recent events demonstrating that people of color and those who are poor (and/or renters) are typically excluded *as a matter of course* from access to public deliberations on city planning, just as they are denied access to other forms of power, justice, and equal protection under the law. This exclusion occurs even when it is not practiced “consciously” or “deliberately.” (As a privileged white person, I am quite clear that I and my class have the upper hand. Those who claim that white privilege does not operate in Alameda are simply incorrect.)

    Since land use affects so many other issues, from household energy use per person, carbon emissions, and transportation patterns (including our ability to increase transit use, bicycling, and walkability) to climate change, sea level rise, economic development, social cohesion, solar access, and light pollution, we should definitely take a new look at what it will take to sustain our island physically as well as maintain its historic housing stock, friendliness, and other valuable characteristics.

    We should do so carefully, and inclusively. Everyone needs to be at the table and every voice needs to be heard in planning our future, which, in part, needs to include
    breaking free from our past.

    Comment by Jon Spangler Spangler (not a pseudonym) — June 2, 2020 @ 9:54 am

  2. let’s vote.

    Comment by trumpisnotmypresident — June 2, 2020 @ 9:56 am

  3. Be careful what you wish for: What will be the effect of mail in voting? Until the most recent California Congressional election most democrats thought it would help them. But mail in voting helped a Republican win.

    Here were the results according to the Orange County register:

    , 29% of all mail in ballots were returned, including 27% of ballots sent to Democrats and 40% mailed to Republicans, according to tracking conducted by Polling Data Inc. Democrats were so concerned with the low turnout that they opened up in person voting in a low income neighborhood but with little effect. This may be yet another example of Trump trolling his opponents.

    In Alameda, the recent school bond squeaked past even though there was no opposition. With all polls showing almost no enthusiasm for Biden and even less for more taxes during a recession, and with so much disgust with the lockdown and riots, voters may not mail in ballots in record numbers nor will they vote for more taxes or for measures which lower property values.

    Comment by Nowyouknow — June 2, 2020 @ 10:37 am

    • So what do you think of the fact that your dear leader had the police come in and tear gas peaceful protestors to clear the way so he could go to a church to awkwardly hold a bible for a photo opp? Aren’t you so proud? Just like how the dear leader also hid in the WH basement with the lights off. Yes- all hail your dear, infallible glorious leader.

      Do us a favor. Stop posting your worthless drivel here. Its clear this is not a Pro-Trump web site.

      Comment by john doe — June 2, 2020 @ 11:57 am

      • john doe, I’m with you all the way. and to you “knownothing” trump now has 19,127 verified lies while in office, no one was able to come up with a lifetime count, we don’t have computers at this time that could handle such a project.

        Comment by trumpisaracist — June 2, 2020 @ 1:07 pm

  4. Here you go…

    Brooke Singman
    @BrookeSingman
    NEW: statement from
    @usparkpolicepio
    – “No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. “

    Comment by Nowyouknow — June 2, 2020 @ 2:40 pm

    • nonothing, why do you think anyone on this blog would believe anything you post on here

      Comment by trumpisaracist — June 2, 2020 @ 4:02 pm

    • shit, I should have known, Brooke is a fox news contributor, nonothing can’t you just save your bullshit fox news coverage for your freinds. and don’t tell me you don’t listen to fox and freinds all day long.

      Comment by trumpisaracist — June 2, 2020 @ 4:19 pm

      • Here you go…

        speech.
        Quote Tweet

        Josh Holmes
        @HolmesJosh
        · 1h
        Four cops shot in St Louis. 3 cops nearly killed in Buffalo. Cop shot in the head in Las Vegas. NYC cops shot at, run over, and otherwise attacked.
        But let’s spend the day talking about Trump’s walk across the park, you idiot

        Comment by Nowyouknow — June 2, 2020 @ 4:26 pm

        • sounds like I’m getting to you. trump had peaceful protesters gassed and driven out of the park because he is a sick piece of garbage, but at least they were able to drag him out of his bunker. and “nowyouknownothing” back to fox news.

          Comment by trumpisaracist — June 2, 2020 @ 10:17 pm

    • First of all, numerous eyewitnesses who were actually there saw this happen. Secondly, the ONLY source that proclaims no tear gas was used is ( of course) Trump’s propaganda machine- Fox News. So if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and make believe it didn’t happen then be my guest.

      But even if I were to pretend that he didn’t use tear gas that doesn’t mean suddenly Trump is as sweet and innocent as the fresh morning dew. He has still repeatedly called for violent, militant action to be taken against the protestors. He still acted like a coward and hid in the WH bunker, turning all the lights off- something which BTW has not happened since WW2. And of course that would only be from recent events of the last few weeks, ignoring all of the other truly awful things this man and his administration have done, ranging from the separation of families at the borders, selecting white nationalists to lead key parts of his administration, having violated international and federal laws with his bribing of the Ukraine, and his selection of William Barr whom has gone out of his way to protect Trump at all costs, further eroding and dismantling the safeguards the founding fathers installed in our laws to prevent people such as Trump from abusing their power. Simply put- Trump is the most pitiful excuse of a human and an imposter who should have never darkened the halls of our nation’s capital.

      At this point I am utterly and totally at a loss for words as to WHY there are people like you who support what amounts to a snivveling crybaby of a man who does things that I KNOW you would have 1000% rejected if ANYONE else did these things. People like you who continue supporting this man are in my eyes a disgrace. A disgrace not only to the country but to yourselves. Every single thing that has happened under his watch in turn are things that all of you who continue supporting him are in turn all responsible for. I can only hope the man loses the election, the damage can be undone, and whatever haze you people are in goes away and you can start acting like Americans again.

      I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. STOP posting your usless bullshit on this site. I would suggest you go to some other site that is pro-trump where you can masturbate to the name of your dear leader.

      Comment by john doe — June 3, 2020 @ 10:13 am

  5. When I purchased my home on the east end several years ago, I was surprised to see deed restrictions in my title policy that restricted the sale of my home to people of color.

    Imagine that, I was living in a home that many years previously prevented my ownership. The deed restrictions were no longer constitutional – and therefore invalid, but seeing them in black and white gave me pause.

    I view Article 26-1 similarly, a blunt instrument used to prevent the construction of multi-family housing, and therefore certain types of home ownership. Accordingly, I think Article 26-1 should be removed from the Charter.

    Regarding Article 26-2, I too would like to see this Article removed from the Charter, but one compromise would be to keep it for the Fernside, Gold Coast, and Bronze Coast Districts, and remove it for all other areas of the city, including land that has been identified and designated in the RHNA and Housing Element.

    Whatever is decided, I’m glad to see movement on this longstanding issue. It’s time!

    Comment by Karen Bey — June 2, 2020 @ 3:28 pm

    • Karen, I agree with you on, 26-1, but not on 26-2. why should those districts you mentioned be treated differently from the rest of Alameda. this can be done through zoning laws.

      Comment by trumpisaracist — June 2, 2020 @ 4:07 pm

  6. I think we should get rid of the whole thing. People need housing and you go by the Webster tube and it is now becoming a tent city. I think Saint Joseph will end up closing and it will become made into housing of some sort. Either that or tear it down. I went to Saint Joseph once and they didn’t take my insurance to I ended up going to SF General. I have changed my insurance and go to Kaiser and I love it. I live on the West End and Kaiser or Sutter Health are easier to get to than driving across Alameda. If they ever build the VA clinic on the base, I can go there. I think Alameda should build more multi-family housing and increase the buses and fairies. Hopefully, they build wholefoods or something on the base at one point.

    Comment by Joaquin — June 6, 2020 @ 3:44 pm

    • BTW the first housing on the base I believe is now open. The other ones are coming along. It is sort of nice seeing the improvements there including a couple of hangers.

      Comment by Joaquin — June 6, 2020 @ 3:48 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 WordPress.com.