You know you’ve hit the Twitter big time when you get retweeted by State Senator Scott Weiner and it’s for something that is a net good:
The amazing thing about this is I had one of those ill-advised Facebook arguments on the City’s FB page with someone who was complaining that the project was taking too long and that it should exist because the not yet built units hadn’t proved that it had served any one yet. If you’re looking for logic within that argument, don’t even bother. When I pointed out that the approval to construction timeline was the quickest I’ve ever seen it happen in Alameda the person pivoted to “well it should be spent on all these other things” which I pointed out were already being funded as well and, you know, may not appropriate for all homeless folks.
Anyway we’re less than two months away from the site opening up and, honestly, given the hostile weather out there it can’t come soon enough but, hopefully, it will get some folks housed before we hit those overly warm summer days which can be downright dangerous for unhoused folks.
If this is to be a model for Alameda, I know another weirdly shaped vacant parcel with similar proximity to shopping and transit that would be a good candidate:
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
The Fernside/Tilden triangle had a plan for 10-12 duplexes approved several years ago that has stalled due to environmental issue. Back when the trains ran, that lot was where the diesel was stored.
IDK if same enviro laws/policies/precedents would apply for transitional vs market rate residential.
Comment by dave — March 22, 2023 @ 6:27 am
I’m going to guess that the percentage of people who think the $25 million cost and $1.2 million in maintenance costs to house 39 people in this metal eyesore is “amazing” are approximately the same number who think indicting Donald Trump will do anything other than get him re-elected.
Comment by Observer — March 22, 2023 @ 10:51 am
I can guess things too. I’ll bet you’re in the percentage of people that would be fine with building another bridge for a gazillion dollars or adding parking spots for $100k each, but any amount is too much to help the less fortunate. And BTW, I agree about Trump. I am assuming he will be our next president until I see/hear of any realistic alternative to challenge him. In fact, I think he could be the first president to serve while being incarcerated.
Comment by bjsvec — March 22, 2023 @ 11:22 am
I’m also going to guess that that person complains every day about homeless people and why aren’t they out of their line of vision at this very minute. Lots of “bootstraps” peppered into the rants as well.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 22, 2023 @ 11:45 am
Of course Observer is a Trump supporter. Of course.
Comment by Huh? — March 22, 2023 @ 12:51 pm
That Triangle is private property. The owner has had plans to build housing for at least a decade. Problem is he has no money. At the public tilden/blanding roundabout meeting he was present and quite upset. He was upset that street parking would be altered where his current properties are. He reserves street parking with orange cones in front of these homes. He stated he is against losing public parking for his residents…. chew on that. He as a giant empty lot and is complaining the street parking is disappearing a little. Build a damn parking lot for your residents. Better yet dude – sell the land so something positive can actually happen instead of letting 6 elite families use your land as a private dog park.
Comment by Orange Cone dude is Crying — March 22, 2023 @ 9:02 am
I think his problem must be more than having no money. If he owns that property he could get a construction loa. I am not a developer and the owner obviously is not either, but I am pretty sure he could call around and find someone willing to take on the project and pay him $$$ for the privilege. Maybe the city could offer/help facilitate that? Then if that fails, the city would have a defensible position to try other ways to get it developed.
Comment by bjsvec — March 22, 2023 @ 9:15 am
I don’t know, this is just a guess:
The environmental issue is what prevents the landowner from getting the funding, or increases the cost so much as to discourage funding, which is kind of the same thing. The land is already under control, saving several million right off the bat, and the city has approved a plan.
That project would & should proceed if it was doable.
Comment by dave — March 22, 2023 @ 9:49 am
Seems plausible. There must be some recourse/something the city can/could do (lawsuit? pay part of the cleanup?) though. What if it was a gas station and the tank leaked. Could the owner just leave it that way for decades and do nothing? Seems like a reasonable analogy and I honestly have no idea the answer, but tend to think it would not be allowed to happen.
Comment by bjsvec — March 22, 2023 @ 11:25 am
The gas station at Oak & Santa Clara across from city hall has sat for decades, decaying and unused because of the underground fuel tanks.
Same for Oak & Encinal.
I do not know the ins and outs of the environmental laws, but I do know that fuel storage is very common deal breaker.
Comment by dave — March 22, 2023 @ 11:55 am
The way they built this so fast is a nice giant FU to the Carmen Reids of the world. Fast track approvals, get the project off the ground before anyone could figure out how to deny much needed housing for homeless people.
Comment by Good Swimmer — March 22, 2023 @ 12:50 pm
Did she oppose this project?
Comment by RJS — March 22, 2023 @ 5:21 pm
Has there ever been a homeless project that Carmen Reid has supported? This ultra nimbyism what she is known for.
Comment by Bullwinkle — March 22, 2023 @ 9:10 pm
The location you suggest is excellent. Thank you.
Comment by Marilyn Alwan — March 23, 2023 @ 6:50 pm