Blogging Bayport Alameda

April 25, 2022

What about us?

Filed under: Alameda — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

I know I should be continuing my review of the Housing Element but I got waylaid by the public correspondence on said Housing Element. Like this letter which cautioned that more homes in residential neighborhoods would force this elderly couple to move. If this logic didn’t make sense to you, it doesn’t make sense to me either.

When questioned by City Staff why more homes would make her and other neighbors more likely to move, the writer pulled out all of the NIMBY talking points:

Or people are planning to move because the median home value in Alameda is $1.39 million and most of these people probably bought their homes for, like, less than $500K and are looking to cash out. But sure, it’s because there might potentially be “other housing regulations not presently allowed.”

Then there’s the folks who think that threatening people with voting against them in the next election is meaningful and scary. You know all these people are volunteers right?

The funny thing is this writer is probably only referring to the R-2 through R-6 upzoning portion not realizing that A/26 has been eroded by state law and all of the overlays (multifamily and shopping center) that AAPS and ACT are okay with if it means it takes pressure off the “historic” residential neighborhoods. Not to mention the AAPS/ACT SunCal Alameda Point SuperMega Charged Plan to release Alameda Point from the A/26 shackles AND ask the Navy to lift the housing cap penalty. I guess that’s not “sneak[ing] through the essential parts of … Proposition Z”?

This writer is the undercover NIMBY who speaks at city meetings occasionally, they come off as super reasonable until you realize that the reasonableness is lightly coating a creamy center of NIMBYism.

And by “excessive height limits” these are height limits that are literally already allowed under existing code. Of course this person should know that demolishing a historic building is not that simple in Alameda and also didn’t say one peep when Tony Daysog was proffering West End green space as a sacrifice to continue to lock the East End and Bay Farm in amber.

Another person who didn’t get the HCD memo that A/26 is pre-empted and unenforceable under state law:

And someone else whose primary source is AAPS and ACT instead of reading packets and watching City Council meetings:

  1. Alameda already contested the RHNA numbers and it did absolutely nothing
  2. Alameda is working on another way to get on and off the island, it’s called the ped/bike bridge. Oh you mean for cars? No.
  3. Bart Station, yeah, Bart has been talking about this already, it won’t be done anytime soon.
  4. There is dedicated parking at the ferry terminals.
  5. You’re right. There’s not enough “middle income, low-income, and no-income housing units available” why are you writing a letter to lower height limits that would add more housing units that could be occupied by families of middle, low, and no income?
  6. Your objection about density within 1/4 miles of a transit stop is an issue with a passel of state laws that were passed which, fortunately, Alameda — despite it’s island status — still has to abide by.

Here’s the thing, I think that a lot of people are assuming that the R-2 through R-6 upzoning thing is to meet the RHNA. I’m not 100% certain but feel like this strategy is actually a response to the affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) portion since most of the identified units are still concentrated in the west of Park.

And last one for this set, here is ACT’s petition which makes it sound like staff is increasing height limits, bringing up throwing everything at Alameda Point, and the reminder of the eroded A/26 which is hanging on through sheer orneriness and xenophobia alone :

The hilarious part is the numerous references to losing low income housing and it’s the most cynical talking point of all of them. None of these people or organizations have ever demonstrated that they’ve given any consideration to the needs of people not like themselves. I’ve yet to see ACT or AAPS ever come out to support any projects or developments explicitly designed to serve low income Alamedans.


  1. The olds need to understand that Alameda is not a retirement community. While Alameda has many quality assisted care facilities, perhaps olds such as these should look out in the valley or foothills for that retirement community vibe, or Florida. Alamedans work hard to live here. Olds wanting a peaceful NIMBY exit from the world can fuck off all the way. Us youngs have to deal with housing, healthcare, political crisis’, not to mention skyrocketing college expense, low quality job outlook, violence, police brutality,…olds left us with their problems. Youngs could care less if old Randy doesn’t feel peaceful for the last few days of his housed life, while less than a mile away, policies Randy probably boot strapped and voted for, have people living out of dilapidated RVs. Olds need to boot strap and realize if they think the world is shitty or going to shit, it is because of them, and the bed they made, that apparently they don’t want to sleep in. Fuck off olds,…love, the youngs.

    Comment by theYoungs — April 25, 2022 @ 11:03 am

    • theYoungs , I agree with Laura and she agrees with you. I’m really OLD and have lived in Alameda for 79 years. I couldn’t agree with you more, some people think that to keep a city in a time capsule is just wonderful, its not. we definitely need more younger families and their kids around here, also you got to get into the politics of this city and change it. I’m one old person that will support you all the way.

      Comment by John P. — April 25, 2022 @ 12:02 pm

    • Not even a little persuasive are you?

      When Measure Z was soundly defeated the losers should have soberly reflected on the reasons why, instead they doubled down on hate. Your post is an excellent example.

      The housing, healthcare, high taxes, poor schools, explosion of homelessness and drug addiction and rising crime and violence in our society was created by Progressives who have had solid control of this state since 1996 – that’s 26 years ago.

      Inflation was created by poor monetary policies, which in turn has caused rising interest rates and now difficulties in financing new housing exacerbated by the high costs of overregulation.

      The older Americans you spit on built a prosperous society and a California that for a while was a great place to live with great schools, available housing, innovative industries and low cost colleges. Show some respect.

      Comment by Common Sense — April 25, 2022 @ 2:16 pm

      • You said:

        “When Measure Z was soundly defeated the losers should have soberly reflected on the reasons why.”


        “Difficulties in financing new housing exacerbated by the high costs of overregulation.”

        You do know that Article 26 is an example of overregulation that’s exacerbating high housing costs, right? How do you think and breathe at the same time?

        Comment by Reality — April 25, 2022 @ 7:56 pm

      • Common Nonsense, you say “The older Americans you spit on built a prosperous society and a California that for a while was a great place to live with great schools, available housing, innovative industries and low cost colleges. Show some respect.” but the fact is it was the generation before that made you prosperous and the second you had the chance, you yanked the rug out from the next generations. So in all disrespect, go fuck yourself, boomer.

        Comment by Rod — April 26, 2022 @ 9:07 am

  2. I am an old, but I have to agree with Mr. or Ms. Young above. For 20 years, I and other affordable housing advocates have spoken about the catastrophe of planning for no housing except for single family in Alameda. I have often wondered what established residents thought would happen to their children whom they were so proud of and for whom the quality of the schools was so important. Where did they think their children were going to live when grown? Few of them live here and the idea of passing on to future generations any flavor of what Alameda is or was is not going to happen. That makes me sad. But it has always flown over the heads of so many in Alameda that prefer it to be their own personal Mayberry rather than a living, breathing town. it’s dying, not because of the problems cited by NIMBYs but because of selfishness. It’s so hard to understand.

    However, the Youngs have to get it together and organize politically for anything to change in Alameda. I know it’s hard on top of all the obstacles and burdens they face. But it is essential!

    Comment by Laura Thomas — April 25, 2022 @ 11:11 am

    • This argument is so short sighted about how children can’t live in Alameda. It’s not because we don’t have non single-family homes. It’s because said children can’t afford it because the demand is too high for this beautiful city with it’s nicely laid out single family home neighborhoods, commercial districts that are not overly built up, and green space. There’s also multifamily housing sprinkled or condos/townhomes on all sides of the city.

      Let me elaborate on why just building more cheaper housing is not the solution for those that cry “My Children can’t afford here”. Some numbers pulled out of my ass, but the main point is that its all relative.

      1) The cheaper housing you want your children to live in are not equivalent to single family homes. They won’t be sufficient for your child when they start a family.
      2) The cheaper housing is not “cheap”. That’s richmond/benicia/etc. All of these new units that are proposed, with exception to the section 8 units, are still going to be bought up by people/children that are bringing in the necessary income for this city. There’s no reason a 2 bd 1 ba condo in Alameda will be cheaper than a similar unit located in those other cities. It will still be catered towards the children that are working in industries similar to what residents currently buying into Alameda are working in.
      3) It won’t lower Single Family Home values significantly, at least Alameda itself won’t do it. Alameda SFHs will retain their relative “in-demand” status and “ranking order” amongst the Bay Area. If your child is working, let’s say a 25th percentile ranked job, and Alameda is currently something only a 75th percentile earner would afford, it’s going to stay that way. It’s all relative, not absolute numbers. If Bay Area median income goes down by half, Alameda is still going to require you to have 75% of the areas income. If Bay area income goes up by double, all the property values here will be going up proportionally. You’ll still need approx 75% median income.

      Moral of the story is that our children need to understand that living here isn’t a given. You have to work for it, and unfortunately, you have to choose the right line of work or be very successful at something outside those areas.

      Comment by Elle — April 26, 2022 @ 11:52 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 )

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: