They don’t really care about us

According to a twitter report, signature gatherers at the San Francisco Transbay Terminal are telling voters (who ask) that if the ballot measure is successful to rezone Crab Cove/Neptune Pointe/that GSA property thingie to open space a possible lawsuit against the City of Alameda is “no big deal” and that money to pay for a lawsuit is already budgeted in the Parks and Rec budget:

Signature gatherers for crab cove ballot measure telling voters that the three million dollars the city will likely pay is no big deal

— John Knox White (@JKWAlameda) March 28, 2014

Former school board member Janet Gibson says voters can increase taxes to pay for crab cove ballot if it passes #Alameda

— John Knox White (@JKWAlameda) March 28, 2014

Fellow signature gatherer says funds are already budgeted in parks department budget #alameda

— John Knox White (@JKWAlameda) March 28, 2014

I support more open space at Crab Cove but not ballot initiatives that put the city on the hook for money it doesn't have #alameda

— John Knox White (@JKWAlameda) March 28, 2014

Force of nature

Tonight there is a meeting hosted by the Alameda Citizens Task Force regarding two park related issues, one, unsurprisingly involves the Beltline, the other involves the Neptune Pointe property.   In advance of this meeting, an email was sent out regarding — what appears to be — the Sierra Club’s opinion on the matter of the Neptune Pointe property, which read:

The Sierra Club supports the East Bay Regional Park District’s plans to protect and improve Crown Beach State Park, which lies just beyond the southern end of Webster Street. The City of Alameda, however, does not and has forced the Park District to file a lawsuit against the City. The Park District’s suit asks that the County of Alameda Superior Court rescind a recent change in zoning on a 3.5 acre site across McKay Avenue from the Crab Cove Visitor’s Center, sometimes referred to as Neptune Point.

Plenty of nothing

I just heard a tidbit of information the other day about the Sierra Club meeting to decide whether the club would vote whether to oppose the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative or vote to be “actively neutral.”

At the meeting, the anti the Initiative side had two speakers taking questions to support their position.   One question that was asked had to do with the alternative scenario these two envisioned for Alameda Point should the Initiative fail.   Their answer?   Do nothing.   The base is too toxic and the infrastructure too far gone to have anything done with it.

While some opponents will insist on saying that they like the plan, just not the initiative as written, the fact is, the Development Agreement and all the other points of opposition — for some — is just a smokescreen to their real objection.  Development in general.

Sierra missed

Normally I wouldn’t get involved in the private business of the executive committee of an advocacy organization, but since one of the members invited comment on the decision making process for the Sierra Club around the issue of the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative, and invited members of the public to attend their meeting, it’s sort of fair game.

According to a comment made in early November, Bill Smith of the Sierra Club indicated that while the members ran the gamut from supportive, neutral, and opposed the Club has decided to only vote on two possible positions: “actively neutral” or “opposed.”   Declining to even consider a position of supportive for reasons unexplained.