Part of the Bay Area News Group

Post-SunCal Alameda Point: What’s Next?

By Janet Levaux
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 pm in Uncategorized.

These community members and plenty of others went head-to-head with SunCal supporters at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. But in the end, with a 4-0 vote, SunCal’s right to continue to negotiating with the city over plans for Alameda Point came to an end.

The rowdy crowd of speakers for and against was mixed, yet requests by city leaders for paid speakers to identify themselves apparently fell on deaf ears.

It’s a sad comment on the state of the issues at hand if speakers need to be paid to speak on the future of Alameda Point. And it’s even sadder that they wouldn’t identify themselves as such.

Online commentators on the issues – who generally aren’t paid (although there certainly may be exceptions) — are full of ideas and topics that will have to be ironed out as we move forward with plans for the former Navy Air Station.

They note that many environmental issues regarding toxins in the area, endangered species and other concerns are at stake. There’s also a host of transporation matters that need further thought.

Granted, these are not simple issues. However, as the recent debate and vote over SunCal’s role and plans illustrate, the community has to come to some resolution over how many new residences it wants, if any, in order to move forward.

Furthermore, there should be some concensus on what activities and character a development at Alameda Point should have.

The latest divisiveness on the Island comes from residents’ desire to see the right plans from the right developer. We want a developer that shares a community-focused vision with us and that will work on plans that lead to beneficial results via  an open, straight-forward political process.

This is quite a task. Hopefully, we can started on it after some political (and legal) healing has taken place.

(Much appreciation to James Fryer for the donated photos.)

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Jon Spangler

    “The rowdy crowd of speakers for and against was mixed, yet requests by city leaders for paid speakers to identify themselves apparently fell on deaf ears…It’s a sad comment on the state of the issues at hand if speakers need to be paid to speak on the future of Alameda Point. And it’s even sadder that they wouldn’t identify themselves as such.”

    The question of pay was an insulting one, and not a request that came from respectful opposition.

    Over the past year I have often been falsely accused of being on Suncal’s payroll, and the accusation never had the slightest association with an honest inquiry. The question of whether one is being paid or not is only asked of Suncal supporters and always originates with people like David Howard who are not well known for respecting their opponents or their views.

    On July 20 the question was used only as an attempt to belittle and demean Suncal supporters. That is why some of us ignored the question: it was a) very old, and b) insulting and mean-spirited.

    And, by the way, I have never been paid by any developer or their agents, including Suncal, in 58 years of life. Nor have i ever been paid to spend any of the countless hours i have spent at City Hall, attending Council and Planning Board meetings, Transportation Commission meetings, and more. That is one reason I find the false and self-serving accusations so unprincipled and sleazy.