Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 8, 2010

Ohhh snap!

So I had promised myself that I wasn’t going to write about Alameda Point until tomorrow, because even though news about the Interim City Manager sending out a Notice of Default to SunCal about their Optional Entitlement Application (OEA) was very interesting news, it could wait given that the Planning Board meeting is tonight and there is a fairly interesting, albeit small, item of interest.

So for those who have not read the Notice of Default (Michelle Ellson has a copy) it essentially says that SunCal’s OEA is not valid because it has to Measure A compliant according to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.   The ICM uses some fairly reaching arguments to come to that decision too.   Recall that this is the woman who insisted that the City’s Election Reports on Measure B only discuss what was included in the body of the language itself and not the “intent” of the Developer or even other documents that were confidential due to the ENA but that she had review previously.


February 3, 2010

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.


February 2, 2010

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).


February 1, 2010

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:


January 28, 2010

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.


January 27, 2010

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.


January 25, 2010

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”:


January 22, 2010

Attachments in order

Many thanks to Lara Weisiger, City Clerk, for being gracious enough to send over as many of the attachments for the SunCal submission as I was interested in.   So for those who haven’t had a chance to read the transmission letter that was sent as a part of the packet, here is a copy that you can download and copy and paste to your heart’s content, however I have excerpted highlights from the letter:

…The development plan we are submitting today is the same plan that is on the ballot on February 2, 2010. The scope of development is the same; the number of residential units and nonresidential building square footage and other provisions of the plan have not been modified. The public benefits and amenities are the same. The Alameda Point Sports Complex, the Seaplane Lagoon Park and other parks, a new fen’y terminal and transit hub, a new library and other public benefits contained in the ballot initiative are all provided.


January 21, 2010

Visual aids

If you didn’t catch this on Alameda Daily Noose, it’s too funny not to mention.  If anyone caught a movie at the Alameda Theatre over the holidays you probably were subjected to the really lame video of the Mayor beseeching folks to “Shop Alameda.”  The movie then took a strange turn and featured school kids and boy scouts and other folks telling us to support various Alameda groups and activities. Then it rolled back to the whole Shop Alameda shtick.

Well Alameda Daily Noose has uncovered the flip flop video where the Mayor now tells us that we should be shopping elsewhere, for the good of Alameda.


Older Posts »

Blog at