Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 2, 2021

Solution disoriented

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

Here’s what is amazing about the arguments which are currently being used by our resident NIMBYs in Alameda, it’s as though these folks think that no one has any memory of Alameda past last year. It’s absolutely breathtaking in its audacious hypocrisy wrapped in a bow of disingenuousness. The first example comes from Councilmember Trish “I’m Mexican American so I know there’s no racism in Alameda” Spencer.

That’s right, Trish Spencer is proposing to site housing at Harbor Bay Business Park because some business owners dared to donate to the yes on Measure Z campaign. Never mind the fact that the existing neighbors at Bay Farm have been fighting/working with the Port of Oakland for decades over airplane noise. Never mind the fact that it was too noisy, because it was directly below the flight path, to place the alternate site for Harbor Bay Club in the business park. And never mind the fact that Trish Spencer tanked a project to have supported senior housing in Harbor Bay the last time she sat in the Mayor’s chair. Now, housing should go in Harbor Bay Business Park because Trish Spencer is petty and not really looking to come up with any real solutions.

Not to be outshined in the uselessness department Councilmember Tony Daysog had this to add to the discussion:

Yes, that’s right folks. Tony Daysog would rather find a way to turn a linear park, Neptune Park, and the Ferry Terminal, which is currently actively being used, into housing sites rather than upzone anything in the East End and/or Bay Farm. Never mind the fact that in order to change open space zoning (Main Street Linear Park and Neptune Park) there would need to be a public referendum. And given that HCD would never approve a Housing Element which was contingent on the public voting to change the zoning to residential, Tony Daysog essentially offered the equivalent of identifying a public median as a suitable housing site.

And finally the chefs kiss, the cherry on top of the disingenuous sundae, the newfound desire to insist that the Navy lift the housing cap in order to shunt all the 5400 RHNA units to Alameda Point. This has now become the primary talking point and the primary objective of folks like AAPS and ACT. Specifically this is now the request from AAPS:

Of course, as folks pointed out on Tuesday night, this was a plan that was rejected — summarily — by 85% of voting Alamedans 10 years ago. AAPS and others rode high on their 85% mandate that no one wanted housing at Alameda Point and that they had prevented a wide-scale housing development at Alameda Point with the wind at their backs:

Because this would have been the entitled plan 10 years ago which would have easily covered the vast bulk of the RHNA numbers:

I mean, at this point what is the City Council to do with these pieces of conflicting voter mandates? Is the 85% of Alamedans voting against housing at Alameda Point the mandate which would mean we would need to find an alternative other than Alameda Point to meet the RHNA numbers. Or is the lesser majority of people voting to retain A/26 last year the mandate? I mean, you can’t have it both ways. I mean, we could, but then we could not certify a Housing Element and then get sued by the state or another entity, have to pay for their legal fees in addition to our own, and then be forced to adopt a Housing Element which would probably look like the one crafted by City staff currently.

See when you end up anti-everything at some point all your “no” positions will then end up contradicting one another and then you’re left having to compromise one of your principled stances and coming off stinking of hypocrisy.

9 Comments »

  1. The primary reason for the 85-15 defeat of the Suncal plan was that it overturned A/26 for the entire city. A plan that preserved the rest of the city East of Main but allowed mixed use development at the base would likely have been approved.

    East of Main is mixed use and has been forever. It’s about 40% multifamily, approx 50% of households rent, and there are several commercial zones. It’s what a city looks like, and voters would have easily accepted something similar West of Main, had it included protection for existing neighborhoods aka bulldozer insurance.

    But that would have required compromise, a skill which Zealots lack.

    Comment by dave — December 2, 2021 @ 7:18 am

    • That was another time. Its quiet understandable why we might revisit more at the Point.

      Comment by anonymous — December 2, 2021 @ 9:25 am

    • The primary reason for the 85-15 defeat of the Suncal plan was that it overturned A/26 for the entire city.

      Citation needed.

      Comment by Lauren Do — December 2, 2021 @ 10:39 am

    • Lmao, Dave Hart. “A plan that preserved the rest of the city East of Main but allowed mixed use development at the base would likely have been approved.”

      That was EXACTLY the Suncal plan you imbecile.

      Comment by DavesNotAllThereMan — December 2, 2021 @ 9:27 pm

      • The Suncal measure included a repeal of A/26 for the entire city, both sides of Main.

        Comment by dave — December 3, 2021 @ 5:57 am

        • The Suncal measure included a repeal of A/26 for the entire city, both sides of Main.

          Please cite your sources.

          Comment by Lauren Do — December 3, 2021 @ 6:23 am

        • Like, here’s my source, can you provide a source that shows that the City Attorney’s analysis is incorrect:

          Comment by Lauren Do — December 3, 2021 @ 6:28 am

        • Spent two whole cups of coffee Googling, and it turns I am wrong. B only waived A at the base.

          Oddly, in that search for rightness I found old blog posts which clearly showed I knew that to be the case at the time of the initiative, so why I thought differently now is…..middle age, I guess.

          But there it is. I was wrong. Cast all aspersions you deem necessary.

          Comment by dave — December 3, 2021 @ 8:07 am

  2. Dave, Dave, Dave, you have never been wrong, what are you saying? I’m gonna go drink my whole bottle of Eagle Rare right now. I’ll give you this it could be “middle age”. I should know.

    Comment by John P. — December 3, 2021 @ 9:59 am


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 )

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.

%d bloggers like this: