Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 3, 2022

Housing needs

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

The long list of consent items doesn’t give me hope that the City Council will get to the regular agenda items but maybe because they were continued from the last meeting there will be some urgency behind actually hearing the items. The first big one is the scattered sites housing in the Big Whites neighborhood to be used for housing homeless individuals and/or families. Recall the last time this came before the City Council it was kicked back to have “listening sessions” and eventually the non profit who was tapped to run the program pulled out because they were concerned about the safety of their client based on the strong sentiments expressed by existing Big Whites neighbors. There was a whole thing on Alameda Peeps about this with questionable framing from the original poster.

Now Village of Love which has run other Alameda Point based homeless services is stepping up to take over this program as well and has many glowing letters from non profits and faith leaders around Alameda. As we’ve seen in recent counts of our homeless population, Alameda’s homeless folks are older and Blacker than the general Alameda population. Add to that a large percentage of those folks being veterans and one would think that all those people falling over themselves to designate McKay Avenue as a historic to “honor” the service of former military they would want to help veterans who are currently alive and suffering. But alas.

The next HUGE item is the Housing Element and AAPS/ACT and friends are having absolute kittens about the R-2 though R-6 zoning. We’re on a tight timeline because the Housing Element should be turned into HCD pretty soon for their 90 day review. Personally, I think the main weakness of the Housing Element is our fair housing analysis and the programs to affirmatively further fair housing won’t go far enough if AAPS/ACT get their way and have the R-2 through R-6 zoning bounced. There is a new letter from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance in the packet which suggests that Alameda may not be going far enough and that, based on its historic permitting, it might not be able to justify the numbers it’s putting forward in the Housing Element.


  1. Lauren’s obsession with Carmen Reid sneaks its way into a SIXTH consecutive post. Do you need psychiatric care.

    Comment by Please seek it — May 3, 2022 @ 6:40 am

    • Uhhh… I don’t see “Carmen Reid” mentioned anywhere in this post about anti-homeless vigilantes and misusing our military for selfish NIMBY purposes. But you know what? Hit dogs holler, lol.

      Comment by NIMBYs Gonna NIMBY — May 3, 2022 @ 6:56 am

      • So sneaky! Lauren’s talents are massive!

        Comment by Ron Mooney — May 3, 2022 @ 8:02 am

    • Ooooh, did Carmen just tell on herself? Oof.

      Comment by Observer — May 3, 2022 @ 10:37 am

    • Hey Apple Strudel, I don’t know about how grammar works in the NIMBY ass corners of NextDoor, but around here, we end sentences with a question mark if we’re asking a question.

      Comment by Rod — May 3, 2022 @ 11:53 am

    • Hey Carmen. Did you really fake the support of the AAPS for your state application? Is that a misdemeanor, a fraud, or something else?

      Comment by Reality — May 3, 2022 @ 4:02 pm

      • At the very least, it’s some highly unethical tomfuckery, and totally on-brand for our former open government commissioner!

        Comment by Rod — May 3, 2022 @ 6:45 pm

  2. Lauren, thank you for highlighting the AFFH requirements and citing the letter from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance. That letter makes a strong case for the necessity of rezoning R2-R6 neighborhoods.

    Comment by 2wheelsmith — May 3, 2022 @ 7:43 am

  3. Turning over the 2-3 bedroom Big Whites to be cut up to house 12-15 homeless individuals apiece is a bad idea. The houses, which have not been well maintained, will be further decimated by their occupants, just as SF hotel rooms have been destroyed by the unhoused over there. In addition, the Alameda citizens who live in that neighborhood turned out in large numbers to a community event at the Officers Club to voice their opposition to putting meth heads, fentanyl addicts, and people with mental health issues near their children, wives, the elderly and loved ones. Who could blame them? Hard no.

    Comment by Really — May 3, 2022 @ 8:43 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: