Can Alameda Afford a Great Park?

Alameda city officials seem to be exploring their own version of the Orange County "Great Park" for Alameda Point. What a great idea - if it was economically feasible.

I've seen developers come and go out on Alameda Point, and the city should not ignore this track record. Let's look at why the previous plans didn't work. One of the key issues is financing. How will Alameda afford a Great Park without the economic engine to support it?

The Orange County Register reports that Great Park leaders (a board comprised of city leadership and community members at-large) signed off on an $82.7 million budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

So where is this money coming from? The short explanation is taxes and the small amount of revenue the Great Park generates  ($4.8 million is budgeted).

But the real Great Park cash cow is Lennar Development Corp. In 2005, Lennar deposited $200 million in the Great Park fund.

This money will run out, and Orange County will be left with an annual bill of $82.7 million.

Is this something that Alameda's General Fund can support?

PG&E “Smart” Meters

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is quickly losing precious credibility with the East Bay community. Their widespread installations of the new “SmartMeters” brought complaints that the meters overstate electricity usage and lead to higher bills.


However, PG&E doesn’t seem to have a solid stance on the issue.

On the one hand, PG&E swears their new SmartMeters are 100% reliable, and they aim to test the meters side by side with the older analog meters. PG&E will randomly pick 150 Northern and Central California homes and test the new meters against the old meters for three months.

On the other hand, PG&E attempted to clear up the confusion/controversy at a state Senate hearing Monday, but their statement poked holes in their own story. San Jose Mercury News reports the quote from Helen Burt, a PG&E senior vice president:

"Last fall, when we said 'the meters work,' we meant it," she said. "They do. But that doesn't mean that every single one of them works 100 percent of the time."

So what percent of the time do they work? Seems like it’s not enough to keep customers happy. The same company that made the $2.2 billion investment in the SmartMeters is the one evaluating them. What is that called again? Conflict of interest?

Luckily, the California Public Utilities Commission also has announced that it will require an independent evaluation of whether the SmartMeters are allowing PG&E to gouge consumers. Hopefully the California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t have a conflict of interest as well.

Kudos To Alameda Sunshine Task Force

Watch out for the Alameda Sunshine Task Force - meeting again tonight at the Alameda Library.

Looks like the Task Force zeroed in on the Brown Act, which was originally enacted to cease informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials, particularly city councils and county boards. To avoid public backlash, local governing bodies would hide secret meetings behind closed doors.

See below for tonight's agenda, but first I'd like to address item 3D and add a next step for the task force:

Clarify how and when the City staff is paid. Also, require staff to disclose any E-mail correspondence and meeting notes with Alameda Point redevelopment partners and interested parties. This should be limited to City Council and Staff, any city advisory council, the Navy and SunCal, seeing as how SunCal is still under their Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). Hopefully the staff isn't violating Brown Act and negotiating future terms, without public input, behind closed doors.

Sunshine Task Force Agenda Items - April 27, 2010
3-A. Speaker: Thomas Peele, Investigative Reporter, Bay Area News Group
3-B. Discussion of April 20, 2010 Presentation to the City Council
3-C. Determine Next Steps for Task Force

The Alameda Attorneys Go Marching In

According to the SunCal Alameda Point blog, there were eight city representatives for last week’s development meeting between SunCal and the City of Alameda. So, what is SunCal’s escrow account paying for? It seems to be paying for:


Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz, EPS Consultants Jim Musbach and Michael Nimon, Environmental Consultant Peter Russell, Consultant Land-use Attorney Cecily Barclay, Attorney William White and Attorney Ellen Garber

I’d like to see how much this 6-hour meeting cost the taxpayers of Alameda…

SunCal Opens Up Alameda Point Negotiations

I’ve never seen a land developer so fiercely determined to create transparency in City negotiations. After the Alameda City Council meeting last night it is easy to see why.


SunCal is paying the City of Alameda through an escrow account, and it seems they are not being told where it is going. There was particular concern over the City Managers salary. The City Manager claimed her salary is not paid for by SunCal, and seemed to want to end it at that. Only after many tense questions from the City Council members did she divulge that 80% of her billings are charged to the General Fund, and she does not bill directly to SunCal. So, whose time is this escrow account paying for?

Mayor Johnson aptly stated, “Well the most important thing is for SunCal to understand what they’re paying for.” Apparently they are paying for the City staff members that attend the meetings, as we’ve seen that the City Manager does not play a significant role in day-to-day negotiations. Is the City making a profit with this escrow account, while City senior management continues to bill to the General Fund?

The very same meeting began with a Sunshine Task Force List of Priorities. Can you add one more please?

I’d like to see the City Staff’s timesheets.

Ranked Choice Voting Helps, Hurts Some Bay Area Races

The instant runoff system, also known as ranked-choice voting (RCV), is used by Berkeley voters to elect the Mayor, members of the City Council, and the City Auditor. Oakland elects its Mayor, City Council members, City Attorney, and City Auditor using RCV. San Leandro uses RCV to elect its Mayor and City Council members.


The Bay City News recently covered a federal hearing challenging the system. Six citizens, led by former Sunset District supervisorial candidate Ron Dudum, sued the San Francisco in February. They claim the system is unconstitutional because some voters are denied the ability to have their vote counted in later rounds of ballot counting. A federal judge said at a court hearing today he is inclined to reject a citizens' challenge to San Francisco's instant runoff voting system, but made no final decision.

San Leandro Councilwoman Diana Souza, who had voted for RCV in January, switched her vote, explaining that she needed to further understand the matter. She explained that she was swayed by the audience, which overwhelmingly spoke in support of switching to the new system. But afterward, she felt that the audience had been stacked with "special interests."
Oakland mayoral candidate, Rebecca Kaplan can certainly benefit from this year’s new voting format. In her time on the Oakland City Council, she created alliances with numerous differing groups, which sets her up nicely for a lot of second-place votes in the election. In crowded races, a second-place vote goes a long way.

But according to Dudum, “I don’t think it’s a fair system.” Is it sour grapes or does he have a point?

Hide and Seek with the Alameda Interim City Manager

It looks like the Alameda ICM Anne Marie Gallant has finally found her way, albeit via phone, to a City/SunCal meeting for the redevelopment of Alameda Point.


The Alameda definition of “open government “seems to be various shades of gray. It is interesting that a private developer is the one pushing for more government transparency by opening up meeting notes via blog and documents via Web site to the public.

It looks like she made her first phone appearance only after these meeting notes became public information. For a project of this size and importance to the City, it is extremely unusual that the City Manager is not heavily involved. Instead, she delegates these meetings to Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott. What's more, she (and not the Deputy Manager) is newly responsible for reporting on these meetings in her City Manager Communications agenda item in Alameda City Council meetings. Another reason it is extremely unusual she just attended her first meeting.

With the public keeping close tabs on these meetings, maybe this will inspire Anne Marie to attend (in person) next week.

Alameda City Council and Staff Taking Cues from El Toro Redevelopment?

Marine Base redevelopment is a hot trend in the East Bay these days. The old marine base at El Toro in Irvine had a successful end - it is now the celebrated Great Park - but the redevelopment process led by the City of Irvine was a complete mess.


The Navy auctioned off the land to a conglomerate of developers, namely land developer Lennar. The City of Irvine then annexed the land into the city, and managed the development process. It was led by Councilman Larry Agran and his “board of directors” (4 City Councilmembers plus 4 community members at-large). From start to finish the City botched the job, from zoning changes negotiated behind closed doors to shady no-bid contracts to 14 companies.

Ten, count ‘em ten, developers were linked to the Irvine Business Complex. And of course, all these no-bid contractors and developers funneled money right into Larry Agran’s pockets, which resulted in 15 mailers touting the Irvine Councilmembers legislative success. Full story here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-238941--.html?data=1

There are a lot of parallels between Alameda Point and El Toro, so let’s just hope Alameda officials don’t look to the marine base at El Toro as an exemplary model of the City functioning as the developer. My concern is that they are, and that their teacher doesn’t seem to know what they’re doing. The Irvine Board of Directors fell prey to corruption and misinformation, just like we’re seeing in the Alameda City Hall Chambers.

Marine Base at El Toro, Now Irvine’s Great (Controversial) Park

It seems Alameda Point isn’t alone in its redevelopment controversy. In Irvine, the former Marine Base redevelopment at El Toro has been just as rocky. Irvine has commissioned a board of directors for redevelopment, consisting of all five City Council members along with four public at-large members appointed by the board majority. For open government’s sake, a board of directors comprised of public members and municipal legislators sounds like a great idea.


Think again. The project is littered with accusations of pay to play, and corruption in every sense of the word. One Irvine ex-councilman even called it “legalized corruption.”

In true East Bay fashion, Irvine government officials engaged behind closed door policies and accepted money from Great Park contractors. This most likely led to a zoning change that allows for new Great Park “amenities”, i.e. restaurants and retail space.

However, I do have to end on this final note.

The Great Park will be one of the largest metropolitan parks created in the United States in the past 100 years. Estimated to cost $1.4 billion at completion, the park is also one of the largest public/private sustainable projects underway in the U. S. At 1,347 acres (5.45 km2), the Great Park will be larger than New York’s Central Park, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and San Diego’s Balboa Park.

Hmmmm… does the end justify the means?

Here is the end: http://www.ocgp.org/

San Leandro Hospital Needs Resuscitation

The Supervisor District 3 race is heating up, and it’s the San Leandro Hospital issue that’s making everyone’s blood boil. The hospital that serves 27K a year is in danger of closing, and the community is passionate about its recovery. Therefore, our fearless candidates are passionate about its recovery.


We’ve got three main contenders in the Supervisor race: Wilma Chan, Harold Lowe and Beverly Johnson. I’ve been following their campaign progress, and trying to uncover the candidate that will do what they say and bring real leadership to the table. And yes, the San Leandro Hospital issue is a pretty good thermometer for this. Wilma Chan is my pick, and I’ll tell you why:

• She’s in touch with her constituents – she actually meets with them

• She’s looking for solutions to move forward NOW, not stop the momentum and “think about it”

• She knows what she’s talking about – and backs it up with hard data in her speeches

However, some of her answers, in regards to San Leandro in particular are a bit wishy-washy. Specifically, the Hybrid option for the hospital – half rehab/half hospital. Hybrid doesn’t work. Has she been taking healthcare cues from Obama?