So it looks like Alameda Point as an issue in Alameda is beginning to heat up. What is unfortunate, and completely predictable, is the way in which things are beginning.
The same old naysayers, using the same old distortions, incorrect facts, and fear mongering, that of marked conversations in Alameda for years, have started the new year in full form. Apparently aware that their group, Action Alameda, has absolutely no credibility, they have launched an entirely new “organization”. Kind of. I mean really who are they fooling?
“Save Our City! Alameda,”is nothing more than Action Alameda with a more ridiculous name. Seriously, what kind of acronym is SOC!A, but I digress. Given the wanton disregard for reality and facts both organizations have shown in the past weeks, it be interesting to see how many media outlets, both local and regional, continue to fall for their tactics.
What the discussion of Alameda Point needs this time is not small groups of disingenuous people, but instead proactive, thoughtful individuals and groups providing ideas for how to move ahead. The conceit of SOC!A is that they are providing a counter idea to the years of planning and public input that is currently moving forward in the development process. They are not.
As SOC!A founder Gretchen Lipow recently told The Island Blog, SOC!A does not have a proposal for even a consensus vision. They have come together around a concept vague that is completely meaningless. What is surprising is the founders willingness to admit that. The “platform” is simply a “do nothing, stop everythihg” platform. But talk to signers and that’s not what they think they’ve signed up for.
Lost, or more likely ignored or even hidden, in their discussion is the fact that the city has a binding legal agreement with SunCal to develop a plan for Alameda Point. In order for the city to reconsider some form of a land trust, a concept that people well versed in these issues say is extremely unlikely for Alameda Point, the city would need to break this contract resulting in tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits. An ironic point lost on a group using existing lawsuits against the city as their rallying cry.
Beyond their lack of a proposal, SOC!A ignores the fact that a land trust of any sort would require tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to start up as well as to maintain. And while SOC!A spokesperson, David Howard, has floated the possibility of the half-cent sales tax for the city and the county of Alameda is a way to pay for this project, this fact has remained glaringly absent from their media campaign.
The community of Alameda, by which I mean hundreds upon hundreds of individual voices, has already laid out visions, policies, goals for Alameda Point. At this point, groups with alternative visions need to start spelling them out and making their case. In fact, I strongly encourage that.
What is not useful is the presentation of empty vessel ideas, proposals that say nothing while purporting to do so. It should be becoming clearer to the signers of the SOC!A proposal that there’s no “there” there. This group is making up their own facts, pretending to present a vision, while admitting they do not have one, and attending public meetings with the sole intent to vilify people at the meetings. My question is, given that merely 50 people have signed onto this platform, at what point do former mayoral candidates, and actually respected members of our community start to remove their names from the list?
It can’t be long now.
Suppose that you had planned for some time to buy land in the hills and build a house, and then learned that the site was at high risk for landslides, would you go ahead with your plans anyway? It wouldn’t be such a good idea. I think it’s very possible that the land trust suggestion is not a good one (or so I’m hearing), but that doesn’t mean that we have no choice but to build a huge development on this high risk site. That’s not a good idea either.
The quote below sums up my feelings on this type of low lying site, referencing the development planned for Treasure Island:
“On the negative side, sea level rise is almost inevitable. In addition, I’m a bit more of a Cassandra on the issue of sea level rise, I think we would be lucky if they only go up one meter. New development should be restricted to higher ground, insurance rates for coastal buildings (those that can be washed out to sea due to rising sea levels) should be incredibly high or unavailable. Cities built in hurricane zones that are destroyed should not be rebuilt with government money. I know this is harsh, but it makes no sense.”
http://greenitopia.blogspot.com/2009/01/treasure-island-development-factors-in.html
Are you stupid or just dishonest?
You say:
“Lost, or more likely ignored or even hidden, in their discussion is the fact that the city has a binding legal agreement with SunCal to develop a plan for Alameda Point. In order for the city to reconsider some form of a land trust, a concept that people well versed in these issues say is extremely unlikely for Alameda Point, the city would need to break this contract resulting in tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits. An ironic point lost on a group using existing lawsuits against the city as their rallying cry.”
Quite the bullshit artist, aren’t you? Are you trying to show up your nemesis Howard in who can distort the truth to a greater degree? Alameda doesn’t have to develop a plan with SunCal – Thru the ENA they are given a period of time in which THEY have to develop a plan that works for us, and during that short period of time – their window of opportunity – Alameda agrees not to enter into negotiations for someone else’s plan
JKW – I would expect you to be aware of the VAST difference between the existing ENA (exclusive bargaining agreement) that our City has with SunCal, (which expires in July 2010) and the wise and proactive gathering of acceptable ideas and fact finding for ways to use the Point to make Alameda more sustainable, like creating industrial jobs that can support Alameda residents.
It has been said many times, and development staff has full knowledge that they should be looking for “Plan B” now, so they are not caught flat-footed again like when APCP plans ended. Looking into ‘Plan B’s', and gathering information on better ideas, does not have to violate the present ‘ENA’. The city should be fact-finding. We just can’t negotiate an alternative agreement until July 2010, unless SunCal drops out after they fail to win a Measure “A” exemption in November for their over-scaled, wasteful development plan.
Suncal has to by then, (7/2010) find a plan that works for the city staff, for Sun Cal, for DE Shaw (their ‘hedge-fund’ hope for financial backing); it has to be a plan that is either Measure “A” compliant, or has, by public initiative, been put on a public ballot and approved by voters, (Alamedans aren’t that crazy); and the plan would have also had an approved EIR, and must have negotiated a DDA with the City that spells out all financial considerations of the plan – all within 18 months. And who would vote in favor of a plan before we know the financial agreement?
As we watch the deepening city debt, (we will see service cuts and more tax proposals), and after watching City Development Dept Staff improperly represent the cost of the Catullus ‘Alameda Landing’ project as only costing the city “$26 M”, when in fact it is over twice that, AND requires the City to turn over title to all the “Alameda Landing” land to Catullus at no cost (Catullus estimates the value at over $60M after the infrastructure work (that the city bonds to finance) is completed.) Catullus then sells the land (estimated value $60M+) to another department of its parent company for further development.
After watching deals like that do you think any sane Alamedan would vote to approve a project way to dense for Measure “A” before we know anything about the financial side? Obviously we can’t believe the propaganda from the City Development Dept. Obviously we won’t know the real traffic and financial effects of all the already approved development (like the “Landing”) before we are asked if we want to live with more traffic at the Point. We wouldn’t know the affects of the Northern waterfront developments before we vote, we wouldn’t know the affects of reasonable occupancy of all the presently empty structures in Alameda, and there is an immense amount of empty space currently available in Alameda. We have no idea what traffic would be like even with no additional development, just filling the spaces we have, or that have been approved.
An ENA is only an ENA until it expires, than it is nothing, and the city will be free to enter into other better negotiations. We just should be working on that better plan – you can call it a back-up plan, but if we don’t learn from the past, we will have to repeat it.
I think he’s confused. First he says a land trust would mean tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits for breaking a contract, then he strongly urges groups with alternative visions to make their case. That’s quite a non sequitur.
The rest is just ugly, personal stuff.
DK: If the City went on the advice of the SOCA folks and terminated the agreement with SunCal right now to pursue other avenues (Land Trust, Trusted Land, whathaveyou) the City would be breaching their contract with SunCal. There was actually discussion about this at that ARRA meeting. Minus any default on the part of SunCal, the City would put itself in the position of breaking a legally binding contract with SunCal. That’s what you basically signed your name to when you endorsed SOCA. For the City to breach a legally binding contract and expose itself to litigation.
So, what would be the remedies. SunCal could force the City to comply with the terms in the contract, meaning they would force the City to come back to the table with them to continue the ENA process, plus thousands of dollars in legal fees.
While you may think an ENA is just an ENA, until the ENA term expires, SunCal will continue to perform under the ENA because they do not want to default either.
AD
The confusion is in your muddled perception. John didn’t say a land trust would mean law suits, he said to breach the NEA to pursue any alternative plan would lead to law suits. And yes if you or anybody has viable options prove it and “bring em’ on”, the world is waiting.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were completely aware of your manipulative misstatement as opposed to simply being too stupid to be able to correctly paraphrase what John said.
“Ugly personal stuff” is the pot calling the kettle black , except perhaps your perception of John as the kettle is distorted too. Howard has made himself the lightening rod for responses to his own misdirectives, and if those responses are stated with sarcasm it comes with the territory doesn’t it?
What kind of nice words do you recommend for identifying a liar anyway?
The city stalls many negotiations indefinitely… According to AFD negotiators we’ve been “in negotiation” on the Mutual Aid contact for providing ambulance service to Oakland for over 2.5 years, when the last contract expired – no action there – where it could/should improve our City’s financial situation and liabilities.
The same behavior should be exhibited with SunCal – we can respect the ENA and still not waste resources at the table until we see the financial plan and our community can examine the financial wherewithal of all the parties involved – that would be a good starting point, so we know we are not wasting more time. That could effectively stop the foolishness.
Mark: Calling someone “stupid” is at least as bad as calling someone a “dweeb”, if not worse. It should be possible to carry on this discussion without resorting to insults such as this.
DL: No disapproving words for David Kirwin as well?
It’s not contradictory to point out that terminating the ENA with SunCal could hurt the city, yet still encourage people to put forward—in good faith, not as a stalling tactic—alternative visions for Alameda Point. There is no harm in thinking about and discussing the viability of some kind of “Plan B” in case SunCal pulls out due to financial reasons or fails to win approval of its plan at the ballot box. However, this needs to be done on a parallel track, in a way that doesn’t stall or halt progress on “Plan A.”
What makes no sense is the idea that the City should terminate (or, as a new suggestion apparently goes, stall indefinitely) its relationship with SunCal because of doubts about the company’s finances. The City will not lose money if SunCal goes bankrupt and fails to perform its obligations under the ENA; all it loses is time. On the other hand, if the City terminates the ENA now, it will not only lose time, but money as well.
The time for assessing the financial condition of the developer was before signing the ENA, not now. That would have been the time to choose some other developer with a better chance of completing the project.
Now that we have thrown our lot in with SunCal, we have nothing to gain from pulling out early or stalling based on a hunch that the developer’s finances are shaky. If we guess wrong, we send a financially sound developer packing and lose valuable time for no reason. Even if we guess correctly, we haven’t gained anything; we free ourselves from an ENA that SunCal would have breached anyway, and we still have to find another developer in a difficult market. Regardless of how we guess, we lose money if we terminate the ENA.
Now, that would be “stupid.”
Lauren: Let’s all do our part to discourage name-calling, however imperfectly — okay? What’s wrong with that?
Micheal, I’ll tell you what I think is disingenuous—to call on people to put forward a concrete plan, when such plan, you very well know, depends on political decision power and influence which ordinary citizens simply do not have, but which elected officials do. Are you in favor of designing a Plan B? Then lets all work together to put an alternative idea forward, and the more influential of us can use their political standing to advocate for it so it would actually gain traction. Lets not pretend everybody is equally positioned to get things done. If an idea looks good, work with the people who support it so it can get done–it’s the Obama way. The divide and conquer techniques trotted out here again by JKW will not advance anything. They are hurting him, too.
I admire David Howard for his tenacity and stick-with-it-ness. He does work nobody else does, questions things nobody else questions. Whatever personal flaws he has, there are more people cheering for him than you think–it’s because they support his overall vision. If you think his vision (land trust specifically) is worthy of exploration, hop on it and help. If not, why don’t you suggest a plan B? Who knows, the powers may buy it. After all, plan A only has a 50/50 chance.
I fail to see what is disingenuous about calling on people to flesh out their vision for “Plan B” and how exactly it differs from “Plan A.” It does not take any “political decision power and influence” to put together a proposal that at least attempts to answer basic questions like, “What do we do about the decaying infrastructure at the point, and how do we pay for it?”
Certainly, in any representative democracy not everyone is equally positioned to make decisions, but the current process was designed to be influenced and shaped by ordinary citizens, and over the course of the years the plans have changed dramatically in response to public input. We have come a long way from the first Preliminary Development Concept put forward by Alameda Point Community Partners, which wasn’t much more than a cookie-cutter suburban development proposal and didn’t include any of the innovative features, such as solar power, water recycling, and island-wide transit improvements, that are currently being discussed.
Although I do not begrudge anyone making a good-faith effort to come up with a “Plan B,” I intend to focus my energies on refining “Plan A.” Although I am prepared to be convinced, so far I haven’t seen any clear advantages of “Plan B” over “Plan A,” nor have I seen a convincing argument that “Plan B” is even viable.
Almost everything in the vision being espoused by “Save Our City! Alameda” is already in the vision statements already guiding the current process. The big difference is that SunCal has actually proposed a way to make the vision financially viable, which partially explains the inclusion of the housing component for which SOC!A has so much disdain. Of course, financial viability is not the only reason for including housing, but its importance must not be overlooked.
I have yet to see any sort of plan for financial viability from SOC!A. The only thing that even comes close is Mr. Howard’s proposal for a county-wide sales tax, which, in itself, is not a ridiculous suggestion. What’s ridiculous is that SOC!A is using tax scare tactics to drum up support for a public land trust that will have to be paid for with . . . you guessed it . . . taxes.
SunCal has a plan to fund the necessary infrastructure repairs and upgrades at Alameda Point: Increase the intensity of uses (not only housing but also commercial and retail jobs and activity) and raise money by selling and leasing the improved properties, possibly supplemented with special taxes paid only by property owners at the Point (Mello-Roos financing). Tax-increment financing, that dreaded SOC!A bogeyman, is only a secondary source of funds. It constitutes at most 21% of the total infrastructure cost, with a legal requirement that at least 20% of the money go for the construction of below-market-rate housing that Alameda has already agreed to build.
Implementation of SOC!A’s vision requires funds to establish the land trust and pay for the infrastructure improvements. The infrastructure is already failing and can’t simply be left “as is.” The lease revenue from current businesses won’t come anywhere close to covering these costs. Has anyone in SOC!A done the math on how large a sales tax would be required to raise the money? Does anyone have other ideas for financing?
Maybe if I start seeing real answers to some of these questions I will consider jumping on the “Plan B” bandwagon. As far as I am concerned, right now “Plan A” is our only real hope for actually achieving any of the lofty goals we have seen bandied about for Alameda Point, and if everyone interested in achieving those goals works constructively within the process instead trying to throw a wrench in it, I think its chances are a lot better than 50/50.