redevelopment

Going Forward at Alameda Point

One of the hallmark’s of the last eight years of planning at Alameda Point was a decisive unwillingness on the part of the City Council to get actively involved in any of the planning of decision-making. While this isn’t to say that specific council people didn’t have ideas, or try and influence what was happening at the Point, as a body, the Council (or more appropriately the ARRA) never actually did anything. Plans long-term decision making issues came to the board, where as a body, the members remained silent, never accepting or rejecting what was projected.

This was by design.

Alameda Point: All the protections in place

I really think that when the dust settles and the lawsuits begin (those filed by SunCal for breach of contract and not negotiating in good faith), last Tuesday’s meeting will be included in the list of places where City Staff stepped away from their legally required neutrality and fell head first into advocacy by presenting inaccurate (or more specifically, incomplete) information to the City Council, the School Board and the citizens of Alameda.

Promising Doubts

So back at the end of September, Renewed Hope released the much ballyhooed “Doubtful Promises” report. Upon reading it, I had some questions and reached out to Eve Bach and Bill Smith, the authors who graciously offered to answer them. Time availability being what it is (see:JKW:lack of blog posts), it took me a while to dash off a list of the things I was trying to understand.

The responses that I received were great, a lot of time and effort went into them and I wanted to post them in a way that respected that.