SunCal and solar power

Unfortunately, given that Tuesday’s meeting was seven hours long.

Yes, seven. hours. long.

Something was wonky with the system of uploading it to the internet so the video feed was not online when I wrote this and by the time it went up I didn’t have a spare seven hours to listen to it.

Fortunately, Michele Ellson loaded up on just enough caffeine to stay up long enough to hear the update from SunCal about their plans for Alameda Point and what they intend to do moving forward.   The big takeaways from Michele’s report was that :

Frankly speaking

Press releases sent out in a flurry post Measure B fallout!   But I was most puzzled by the statement sent out by Frank Matarrese from his “Frank for Mayor” campaign:

“I know that all Alamedans are frustrated with the slow pace of the redevelopment of the former Alameda Naval Air Station. I share that frustration. But now that the voters have rejected SunCal’s Measure B, we must move forward with the project — building on those elements that have been widely accepted and rejecting those aspects of the plan that will adversely impact our city’s quality of life.

A mandate, it’s neither a man nor a date, discuss.

Massive blaze of glory?  Check!

Changing the narrative on what people voted against?  Check!

Talk about people losing political cred?  Check!

I was really hoping that I would have to make good on my promise to buy Jack Richard that drink.   But I’ll buy you one anyway one of these days Jack R.

4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

While tonight opponents to Measure B will be gleefully watching the results roll in while feasting on Smoking Loon wine and the Measure B pizza from  Croll’s.   The unappetizing description of said pizza reminded me once again why I have never visited  Croll’s a second time and prefer to drive all the way to Zachary’s on College to get a decent pie.   I’ll instead be watching the season premiere of Lost.

It’s not that I don’t care anymore, I’ve sort of burned out on this whole election thing.   I just want it to be over at this point.   I am hopeful at this point that Measure B will pass, but have resigned myself to the fact that it was probably doomed the moment that the election was set for February (low turnout = only voters with really strong opinions coming out to vote and people generally feel more passionate about being against something than for it).

Fear starts with B!

Too funny not to post, director extraordinaire Roger Grumble of Alameda Daily Noose has posted a “documentary” about what will happen if Measure B passes.   I’ve already watched it twice.

You spin me right round

Before the votes have even begun to be tallied, opponents to anything ever happening in Alameda have begun spinning what will be the cause of voter’s rejection of Measure B.   While you know and I know that it has been nothing but Development Agreement, Development Agreement, Development Agreement that has been the cause of people’s apprehension about Measure B, not so today 24 hours before people are going to start voting.  No, today it is because people don’t like the PLAN for Alameda Point.

Let us revisit the arguments against Measure B that are contained in the voters guide, shall we?  Here are the bullet points that the signers asked us to consider when rejecting Measure B:

Yes we can

I always find that endorsement pieces tend to be the most difficult posts to write.   Not because I don’t know how I intend to vote, because often times I am reluctant to tell other people how to vote.

Personally, I have already voted yes on Measure B, and while I am hopeful that the result will be in Measure B’s favor, I’ve already resigned myself to the inevitability that it will go down in a massive blaze of glory.

But it’s not because the development isn’t good or that the land plan isn’t solid, it’s because SunCal allowed the debate to be about the Development Agreement instead of what is really important: the vision for Alameda Point.

Value add

Another one of the numbers touted by opponents to Measure B is the $51 million in fees that SunCal has asked they be exempted from paying.    The bulk of those fees is for the Community Development Fund which was a fee created by the City in 2001 to pay for projects in the City that have been deemed to be a priority to the City.

When I say “bulk” of those fees, according to the Interim City Manager’s rebuttal letter to SunCal, she estimated that those fees would be about $34 million.   Also in that rebuttal letter, the ICM declared that the way that the CDF is set up, since only a portion of the cost to construct the individual projects is assigned to new development, technically SunCal would only get a small portion of the fees they are supposed to pay credited toward the larger fee amount.

Don’t turn around, look look

Tonight the City Council will be getting reviews of all these financial documents tonight which will be deadly boring, but I’m sure someone will find them newsworthy.

One of the documents is a ten year history of lease revenues for the ARRA (Alameda Point).   An interesting number is the spike in FY 07-08 in the Fund Balance of almost $1.8 million.  Because it appears that expenditures had gone up, the collected lease revenues looked pretty flat, so in looking for where the extra money came from, it looked like a category called “Charges for current services” gave a substantial bump to that year.  To compare, the “Charges for current services” has only been collected three out of the ten years tracked here, in FY 06-07 only $44K was collected and in FY 08-08 only $107K was collected.

The bulk of that money which made up the largest portion of the fund balance was from, wait for it…wait for it…

The sum of all fears

Before I got too sidetracked by the new submission by SunCal for Alameda Point I wanted to talk about the $500 million number that has been put into print by opponents to Measure B as proof that Measure B is a “bad deal” for Alameda.   As you might have guessed, I just got my Protect the Point mailer with this little nugget prominently placed.   I liked the clip art of the little guy with his pockets overturned and a big frown-y face.

For those who have watched the joint meeting of the City Council and School Board you may remember Councilmember Frank Matarrese vehemently defending this number as being valid since it comes from “three sourced documents”: