Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 20, 2021

A gathering storm

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

There’s an agenda item that, again, puts the burden on the West End to provide supportive services for the vulnerable members of our community. Under the item: Recommendation to Provide Direction on Constructing or Installing Temporary Shelters, Transitional Housing, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing in the City of Alameda; and Provide Direction on the Type of Homeless Housing Project to Pursue four out of the five site options are all west of Webster street. Only one is east of Webster and it’s on Bay Farm.

From the staff report:

Staff has combed the City for suitable places for transitional/supportive and or permanent supportive housing for the unhoused and has identified five possible locations, plus a multi-site option.  Four of the potential locations are owned by the City or the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC).  The privately-owned and the multi-site option (discussed below under Shared Housing Permanent Supportive) would need to be acquired.                     

•                     Site 1 – Alameda Point Tennis Courts – This City-owned site is located on Main Street almost halfway between the Alameda Point main gate and West Midway Avenue, and next to the O’Club. 

•                     Site 2 – Bottle Parcel – This SACIC-owned site is located at 2350 5th Street, adjacent to the field track at the College of Alameda. The site abuts the College of Alameda’s recreation areas. It is also across the street from the Bayport housing development.  The side yards, backyards, and garages of Bayport homes face the bottle parcel.

•                     Site 3 – Grand Pavilion – This City owned site is located at 300 Island Drive.  It is at the far end of the large parking lot of the old Grand Pavilion and abuts the Corica golf course.  There is a Park and Ride lease in place on this site until November 1, 2021.

•                     Site 4 – Alameda Point Camp Grounds Parking Lot – This City-owned site is located near West Hornet Avenue and Skyhawk Street.  The site abuts storage.  This parking lot is held by the City through the tidelands trust, and therefore, if transitional or supportive housing units are located here they must be removed in five years.

•                     Site 5 – Marina Village Inn – This privately-owned site is located at 1151 Pacific Marina and was the location of Project Home Key.  It previously housed women and children during the COVID crisis.  It is a self-contained area that can be closed off from the public during evening hours.

Based on the descriptions of the various options available the most affordable, non temporary, option would be supportive shared housing:

This permanent supportive housing type would require identifying and purchasing one or more large homes in the City and renovating rooms within the homes for individual use and outfitting the common areas for shared usage.  Renovations would include combining rooms to add bathrooms in every bedroom, upgrading the kitchen for communal usage, furnishings the bedrooms, offices and the common areas, and creating outdoor sitting areas in the backyard.  Each home would house approximately five people, more if a couple(s) occupied a room(s).  This project would cost $1,695,978 for one home to $6,783,913 for four homes (approximately $84,799 per unit) (see Exhibit 5).  Operating costs would run from $50,000 to $100,000 annually.  Operating costs would include, a housing navigator and maintenance.  The estimated operating costs assumes that the housing navigator contract would be part of a larger service provider contract with the City.

This one appeals because (1) it’s spread out in the community allowing unhoused folks to become a part of the larger Alameda community and (2) it brings Alameda back to the old “boarding house” days which was how people used to be able to afford to live in a community when they didn’t have enough money to rent a whole place to themselves let a lone buy a house.

Staff is recommending the temporary shelters which cost between $1.9 – $2.6 million depending on the temporary shelter type chosen. It will probably end up on the West End because if the City even glances at the Bay Farm site expect a maelstrom of shit to rain down on the City Council.

Heck, I know my own neighborhood will rain down a maelstrom of shit if the City glances at the bottle site but I imagine Bayport has much less juice than Bay Farm.


  1. Marina Village Inn is East of Webster

    Comment by Maps — July 20, 2021 @ 7:02 am

    • Barely. It’s firmly in the deep West End territory.

      Comment by Lauren Do — July 20, 2021 @ 8:16 am

  2. The bottle parcel is the only one that comes close to “allowing unhoused folks to become a part of the larger Alameda community” and is also the nearest one to services like shoplifting and bike theft which would add quality of life to both the unhoused and the Bayport housed.

    Comment by JM — July 20, 2021 @ 8:23 am

    • The Marina Village Inn site seems to be a no brainer. It’s already been used as a supportive housing site for the last year. Why not keep it going?

      I always thought the Alameda Point Campsites could be turned into a great mobile home park. Mobile home parks are disappearing all across the Bay Area. The tiny home/shelter craze never made sense to me. An 80 square foot home from Delphi costs as much as an 1,100 square foot 3 bed, 2 bath modular home built by Titan Factory Direct. ($80-110k)

      Looking at the proposal was eye-opening. This Pallet company reeks of big tech double speak. “Pallet shelters intentionally do not have restrooms. It is part of the company’s philosophy. They believe it helps to give residents a reason to leave their cabin and socialize.” Cabin = 64 square foot box that costs $57-97k. Who doesn’t love socializing when they go to the bathroom in the middle of the night? Lol get that money guys!

      Comment by Andrew Phillips — July 20, 2021 @ 9:35 am

      • Oops, that was not meant as a reply, just a general comment.

        Comment by Andrew Phillips — July 20, 2021 @ 9:36 am

    • JM – You may have thought your snarky remark was ‘funny.” It was only ugly.

      Your privilege – probably white – may have helped you avoid poverty or homelessness but, with just slightly different event outcomes during our lives, *any* of us could easily be homeless and destitute. People who are homeless are our neighbors and our fellow human beings (LEV 19:8, MARK 12:31 ff, LUKE 10: 29-37).

      Comment by Jon Spangler — July 20, 2021 @ 10:27 am

      • Not a compelling argument Spangler unless you are already living next to a homeless shelter.

        It’s your “white privilege” which allows you to look down from on high and dismiss practical concerns with well documented issues surrounding the homeless like theft, drug use, alcoholism, mental illness, shoplifting, property destruction and domestic violence. Utah leads the nation in “housing first” policies but their homeless population increased by over 20%.

        All we are doing is feeding the Homeless Industrial Complex.
        Stop the Chinese and Mexican cartels from flooding the market with fentanyl across our open Southern border and you will begin to address the real issues of the homeless and as well as the thousands of Americans dying of drug overdoses.

        Comment by Observer — July 20, 2021 @ 10:54 am

        • Ugh. Let’s all hope “Observer” is not Carmen Reid, which seems to be a running theory. This is a really unfortunate comment, that you think it’s the Chinese and Mexican cartels that are fueling the dramatic rise of homelessness in the Bay Area.

          Comment by Reality — July 20, 2021 @ 11:35 am

    • Here’s the thing about trying to be funny… punching down isn’t funny. It just makes you sound like a dick. You can venmo me my comic coaching fees now.

      Comment by Rod — July 20, 2021 @ 10:36 am

      • Not at all. The homeless are our neighbors, as John S says, and we all know that homeless camps are a positive good. Lauren especially knows that, that’s why she keeps advocating for more of them. She worked hard to help the people around McKay get some, so I’m just advocating for her to get some camp action in her neighborhood. Not fair that other places get it all. Just doing my Christian duty to help share the wealth.

        Comment by JM — July 20, 2021 @ 1:48 pm

        • Way to double down on being a piece of shit, JM.

          Comment by Rod — July 20, 2021 @ 3:48 pm

        • JM – you’re a terrible human being, and not at all a Christian. Just thought you should know this.

          Comment by Stop Being a NIMBY Trash — July 20, 2021 @ 4:17 pm

        • I’m not a Christian, not a piece of shit. I’m just trying to give everyone a chance to have pieces of shit on their sidewalks.

          Comment by JM — July 20, 2021 @ 4:32 pm

        • JM – At least you’re not defending yourself against the “terrible human being” charge, so we can all agree on that.

          Comment by Stop Being a NIMBY Trash — July 20, 2021 @ 5:34 pm

  3. living in the West End of Alameda for 78 years one thing I have noticed, generally nothing ever changes.

    Comment by John P. — July 20, 2021 @ 9:25 am

  4. At this point, I’ve not seen a policy or regulatory ordinance describing how the supportive housing units will be dispersed in our community.

    To create equity and prevent a disproportionate burden on one site (e.g. Alameda Point), or one area of the city (e.g. the West End), I think we should consider a Dispersion Requirement – like what was done in the cannabis ordinance. Recognizing the need to create equity in the cannabis ordinance, a Dispersion Requirement was added to the ordinance – permitting two dispensaries east of Grand Street and two dispensaries west of Grand Street. This requirement prevented the concentration of all cannabis dispensaries on the West End.

    For this project, I think Site 5 – the Marina Village Inn would be the best site for all the reasons stated in the description – including that it was previously used as supportive housing. In addition, because it’s an existing hotel, the per unit costs will be more favorable than new construction.

    However, going forward for future projects we need to create a policy and a regulatory ordinance that includes a dispersion requirement – so that all affordable and supportive housing is not concentrated on the West End.

    Comment by Karen Bey — July 20, 2021 @ 10:44 am

  5. Can an organization set up similar to Habit For Humanity build small shelters for less than $57k?

    Comment by Not.A.Alamedan — July 20, 2021 @ 10:45 am

  6. The bottle sight is not very large and I don’t think it is a good location it is surrounded by 3 low-income developments – Shinsei Gardens, The Breakers at Bayport, and Stargell Commons. Down the road less than a mile you have Alameda Point Collaborative. They are building more Low Income between Alameda Landing and Admiral Cove. There is also Summer House (although remodeled put a new face on them) they are crappy. You also all the apartment buildings on Buena Vista. On 3rd you have Esperanza Apartments which is low-income section 8. The supportive housing units should be dispersed throughout our community. The Marina Village Inn makes sense and also the Grand Pavilion. Future places: close Alameda Hospital and use that building or The Grade School on Otis, move the Post Office to the base and use the building at South Shore.

    Comment by Joel — July 20, 2021 @ 1:46 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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: