Comments on: Alameda Point: Yes on B http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2010/01/29/alameda-point-yes-on-b/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=alameda-point-yes-on-b Mindfulness in the face of challenge. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:24:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: William Smith http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2010/01/29/alameda-point-yes-on-b/#comment-1327 William Smith Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:18:17 +0000 http://johnknoxwhite.com/?p=1203#comment-1327 While I agree with Michele Ellson over at The Island and David Hart in a preceding comment here that the business deal in Measure B was poison, there were other poisons as well. The Measure was poison to both good governmental process (e.g. removing much of the discretion of the planning board and city council normally have in approving development plans and businesses) and to environmental policy (e.g. entitling a large development prior to an EIR so that reducing the number of homes or square footage of commercial space would not be a possible mitigation for traffic impacts). From the point of view of this transit commuter, the worst thing is that passage of Measure B would have eliminated much of the incentive for the developer to pressure MTC (the Metropolitan Transportation Commission) to improve regional transportation systems. Developers, nearly all heavy contributors to local campaigns, are in the best position to pressure MTC to support mass transit systems rather than automobiles. If Measure B passes and entitlesvSunCal or other Alameda Point developer, the most the City and its residents could require of the developer is a few band aid solutions with a transportation management system at Alameda Point. Transit will not work unless it runs to where people work - and that requires regional solutions as well as local band aid Transportation Management Systems. While I agree with Michele Ellson over at The Island and David Hart in a preceding comment here that the business deal in Measure B was poison, there were other poisons as well. The Measure was poison to both good governmental process (e.g. removing much of the discretion of the planning board and city council normally have in approving development plans and businesses) and to environmental policy (e.g. entitling a large development prior to an EIR so that reducing the number of homes or square footage of commercial space would not be a possible mitigation for traffic impacts).

From the point of view of this transit commuter, the worst thing is that passage of Measure B would have eliminated much of the incentive for the developer to pressure MTC (the Metropolitan Transportation Commission) to improve regional transportation systems. Developers, nearly all heavy contributors to local campaigns, are in the best position to pressure MTC to support mass transit systems rather than automobiles. If Measure B passes and entitlesvSunCal or other Alameda Point developer, the most the City and its residents could require of the developer is a few band aid solutions with a transportation management system at Alameda Point. Transit will not work unless it runs to where people work – and that requires regional solutions as well as local band aid Transportation Management Systems.

]]> By: David Hart http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2010/01/29/alameda-point-yes-on-b/#comment-1326 David Hart Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:37:57 +0000 http://johnknoxwhite.com/?p=1203#comment-1326 Economically sustainable? No project that requires hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies can be called "economically sustainable." Ipso facto. And while you don't mention fiscal sustainability, as B i written it isn't that either. The city has full responsibility to govern the new area but forgoes the lion's share of the tax revenue from said area. Ipso facto again, and that's even using best-case scenario. But your point on the city's negotiaing power is interesting. The above 2 points, esp. the second, can be mitigated through effective negotiation. Suncal has already sent feelers to that end. But if one has faith in the city's ability to effectively negotiate, as you do and advise others to, then one should oppose Measure B. B substantially crimps the city's power to deal. Shoud B prevail, the city would be bluntly opposing public will by negotiating better terms, and such terms might well require a new ballot initiative. Contrary to what you say, B's defeat is not a setback, it' progress: it puts the city in a tenable position to negotiate. B's victory would tie at least one hand behind city hall's back. If you are for a well and fairly negotiated project, you must oppose B. It makes negotiation nigh impossible. Economically sustainable? No project that requires hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies can be called “economically sustainable.” Ipso facto.

And while you don’t mention fiscal sustainability, as B i written it isn’t that either. The city has full responsibility to govern the new area but forgoes the lion’s share of the tax revenue from said area. Ipso facto again, and that’s even using best-case scenario.

But your point on the city’s negotiaing power is interesting. The above 2 points, esp. the second, can be mitigated through effective negotiation. Suncal has already sent feelers to that end.

But if one has faith in the city’s ability to effectively negotiate, as you do and advise others to, then one should oppose Measure B. B substantially crimps the city’s power to deal. Shoud B prevail, the city would be bluntly opposing public will by negotiating better terms, and such terms might well require a new ballot initiative. Contrary to what you say, B’s defeat is not a setback, it’ progress: it puts the city in a tenable position to negotiate. B’s victory would tie at least one hand behind city hall’s back.

If you are for a well and fairly negotiated project, you must oppose B. It makes negotiation nigh impossible.

]]>