Comments on: Touching sacred cows: Alameda’s Measure A

By: Steve M.

Steve M. — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:46:39 +0000

Interesting that Eve never responded to Item 14.

Cuz, see, when you act to control growth, you must be a racist.

I guess she was too chicken to write it.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:36:42 +0000

re: 14

Eve, I’m dying to hear your response.

By: DL Morrison

DL Morrison — Sat, 02 May 2009 18:58:46 +0000

Regarding the question re: “what’s in it for us?” and how can development benefit us: If we could have an “ideal” form of development, something on a reasonable scale that would be carried out in a very responsible, predictable fashion, then it might make sense to ask “how best” to do this. The problem, tho, is that we’re stuck w/ a very imperfect process in reality, that could wind up being controlled (badly) by a handful of city officials, and could overwhelm the Island w/ traffic and other impacts.

Some moderate form of development could work, if we could get that (and in fact, some moderate developments probably will happen). I think the “high density at all costs” mindset is very harmful to the discussion as well — speaking of kneejerk reactions — because it leaves no room for compromise. I mean, at what point would the SunCal supporters find fault w/ SunCal’s plans, seriously? Would 10,000 units be okay? How do we have a discussion w/ people who are so tied to this blind insistence on high density? I know where it’s coming from, the intention is good, but the execution is just too dogmatic.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:58:42 +0000

As I clicked on this page to check on progress, I noticed that it falls under the subhead “Race & Racism” among others. Splain, please.

By: DL Morrison

DL Morrison — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:15:01 +0000

#11: “My biggest concerns, though, I think are about how/who will safeguard the city’s interests and resources.”

If not the voters (in the absence of Measure A), then the City Council, who else makes these decisions?? If you can’t figure that much out, then you shouldn’t be writing a column in the local paper.

Read the Initiative itself, Section 14(a)(2) in particular. It states very clearly that only two provisions are not subject to amendment, and everything else may be “amended or repealed … upon written application to the City Council” by SunCal.

Again, if you can’t figure that out, then you’re in no position to be holding forth on the citizens’ various “fears” about amending Measure A.

By: Eve P

Eve P — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:04:05 +0000

Hi, Dave, again,

Just b/c I think we ought be able to come up with better measures than A for guiding growth, doesn’t mean I have formed a conclusion yet about the SunCal plan and what it means to Alameda as a city. There are so many variables uncertain: from earthquakes to climate change, to the economy and, yes, traffic and toxic clean up. My biggest concerns, though, I think are about how/who will safeguard the city’s interests and resources.

Eve P

By: Eve P

Eve P — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:00:32 +0000

Hi, DL,

I think your “What’s in it for us?” question re the point is particularly important. And I think it is one we should all be asking a lot: What can be in it for us? How can/might development benefit/support/improve things for the whole island/city?

Eve P

By: Charlyn Hook

Charlyn Hook — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:18:34 +0000

I agree with DL Morrison. Who says we NEED 4,500 more units in Alameda? How are all of those people going to get on and off the island in the morning commute? And why are SunCal representatives hanging out in front of Trader Joes telling people that “they just want to let the people decide” when in fact, they really have to get it on the ballot b/c the project is not consistent with Measure A’s limits on high density housing? I also noticed that SunCal’s last brochure NEVER mentions the 4,500 houses to be built.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:59:44 +0000

You write a sermon expressing your desire to overturn Measure A, and yet you are undecided on a vote that does just that West of Main? Forgive me if your conclusion seems already foregone…

By: DL Morrison

DL Morrison — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:00:44 +0000

Eve: Yes, I get discouraged w/ this discussion too, tho from a different perspective, of course. I think you could dispense w/ any reference to Measure A (at least temporarily) and just look at the traffic issues instead. What is the capacity of the tube? If traffic should be seriously delayed there, what’s likely to be the result? What about the buses using the tube — should they be delayed as well?

And of course, this is obviously the issue and of course, it’s been said a million times, so why haven’t you addressed it here? If you don’t think it’s a problem, then what’s your solution?

And since I’ve asked the question elsewhere with no answer, I’ll ask it here as well: Why does Alameda “need” development anyway, especially the massive development that SunCal is proposing? What’s in it for us?

Incidentally, it’s not an all or nothing at Alameda Point — a development w/ maybe half the homes that SunCal is proposing (~2400 units) would be possible under Measure A, with the state density bonus law applied. The density bonus would allow the developer to vary the form of housing as well. A development of this size would not require a ballot measure or anything else, since of course it’s permissible under existing local laws.