As predicted, Measure B did not pass on February 2 and as always, the City’s post election reaction was irrational and implausible.
With all due respect to my fellow East Bay citizens, land issues are not typically placed on the ballot because they’re far too complex for the average joe voter. For these issues, we should rely on our city officials to assess and determine the best option for our community. Isn’t that, after all, what government is intended for? However, with upcoming elections to plan for and let’s call it plain cowardice, the Mayor, the City Council and the City Manager have all shrunk away from their responsibilities, putting the issues on the ballot “so the voters have a choice.”
The Council and, in particular, the City Manager have botched this chance at an amazing plan for Alameda, all because they were too afraid to stand up and take a little criticism. At the end of the day, the Council can move this plan forward if they decide to, whether or not Alameda voters vote Yes or No. Adding a little affordable housing trumps the Measure A density measure (the real reason why Measure B had to go on the ballot) and allows development to continue.
One thing to say about SunCal. They did not follow due process. It should have begun with an Environmental Impact Report, approved terms from the Navy and a Draft Development Agreement. This did cause warranted concern from the city, and should have been enforced by city officials from the get go. The onus was instead passed on to uninformed voters susceptible to rumors and heresy.
The fact of the matter is the community supports the development plan, so did the Mayor and the majority of the Council when it was introduced. Heck, even environmental groups support the plan:
http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/press/releases/release_2010jan20.html
Alameda can hardly develop a golf course, let alone a project such as Alameda Point. We need the equity of SunCal to get this under way.
The City Manger’s solution? Long-term leases. This is the current situation on Alameda Point, and they don’t even cover the cost of maintenance. In addition, her bogus press release and public service announcement against SunCal leads me to believe that she is trying to pass the heat from her poor management onto the developer. Don’t be fooled, Alameda.
This clumsy attempt to handle this development process has ended in unnecessary controversy and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted. We need to get out of our own way, and get some real leadership in city hall.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The true purpose of government is to do for those that which they cannot do, or that they cannot do well for thmselves.
ReplyDeleteAlamedans proved in this election, that they could read, understand, and chose to reject SUNCAL, with more than 85% voting no. This after SUNCAL caused Alameda to spend $375,000 in its limited tax dollars. SUNCAL could not even "generate" at least the 8000 signatures of persons it talked into signing its Petition in the first place after making the Measure public. Has SUNCAL cleaned up the mess it made at Oak Knoll, or paid the other cities back for the amenities that SUNCAL promised cities to gain approvals? The sooner SUNCAL leaves, the sooner Alamedans can move on with development at the point.
Extrapolating anything from the vote other than more than 85% said no is meaningless. You are right, we are quite lucky that the ICM arrived on the scene in time to save our lackluster Council from totally botching it. Thank goodness the Mayor was able to reverse her first impressions after reading the details. And we all know the devil is in the details.
As for the Mif Albright, it was developed decades ago, and again under our current leaderless Council almost went down the drain. The economy is bad, and having to compete with updated golf courses in surrounding cities, it is harder for it to make a profit. Just think what kind of a financial toilet Alameda would be in if it has to build SUNCAL's schools, library, roads, sewers, and transit terminal? Thank goodness that was avoided! SUNCAL proved that it can fool some of the people some of the time, but not most of the people every time.
I’m not sure if we agree upon the true purpose of government. I always thought it was honest, open representation of the people’s best interests, bringing public safety, services and facilities to the community.
ReplyDeleteI’d say there are a few key learnings that can be taken from the February 2 election. One, the voters do not agree with the way in which the plan is being executed by the developer. Two, the vast majority of the community wants SOMETHING to happen on Alameda Point. Three, the community supports the design and function of the plan.
If your definition of government does “for those that which they cannot do”– shouldn’t they develop Alameda Point? I don’t know about you, but I certainly do not believe it is being done in an open, honest way…