Stop, Drop and Roll

29 May 2007 | Alameda Community Development Forum | John Knox White

On Friday (5/25) morning Patricia Howard Bail posted a letter to the Alameda Daily News. (Actually it was posted on Thursday morning and then removed and re-posted on Friday in a move that I can only imagine was made to maximize readership. But for ease we’ll stick with the Friday date).

On Monday evening (5/28), I sent the following letter to the Alameda Daily News, a blog that prides itself on publishing “EVERY” letter it receives, unless it’s slanderous. Somehow, this one appears to have slipped through the cracks.

Before getting to the meat of her arguments, she makes what I imagine are very well-founded comments about city staff, and specifically Andrew Thomas of the planning department, a man who she feels should be fired because she disagrees with what she perceives to be his opinions. I can only imagine this because she provide no back up to the accusation, but Pat Bail wouldn’t just throw a guess out there without some proof, that would be smearing someone, a stance I know she is against.

But enough, here’s the letter I sent, unedited:

Ms. Bail,

On Friday morning you wrote an impassioned letter on the need for Measure A and how it has kept Alameda “low density” bringing benefits such as low crime, safe routes to school for kids, lots of open space (I had thought I remembered you saying that we don’t have enough open-space and parks, once? I guess my memory must be failing), and lastly, the ability to walk dogs at night. These are all very important community benefits, things that nobody (except maybe cat-lovers) can think are bad, and probably some of the reasons that many of us love living in Alameda.

My confusion lies in the correction you posted less than an hour later, in it you write-in to clear up any misleading statements from your previous letter

In your correction, you write,

“I would like to correct one of my statements in my last letter. I refer to Alameda as a low density community. Well, the fact really is that Alameda, along with Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland are the four most dense communities in the greater Bay Area.”

Wouldn’t this then mean that as one of the densest cities in the East Bay, Alameda dog walkers and others enjoy the above mentioned benefits because we’re a higher density city? At least relative to other cities? You laid out a great case for how the use of land in Alameda brings incredibly walkable, livable communities.

So why are we now disagreeing on whether or not future development in Alameda should maintain the same land use patterns as the great city we both agree we live in? I am confused at your wanting to build neighborhoods more reminiscent of Fremont and Richmond, both of which are lower-density that Alameda, than our existing city.

In 1973, Council Candidate Beckham, cited in your letter as one of three successful low-density candidates said that he would “vote against [Measure A].” He called the amendment unrealistic. Another candidate you mention, Council Candidate Hurwitz, went further saying “I don’t feel we should have to resort to such a measure, but it may become necessary should we lose. I don’t think it’s the way to do things. It’s not the best written proposal. I’m not even sure it’s legal.”

Even back in 1973 the popularly-elected city leaders had questions about Measure A…that’s a slightly different history than the one I’ve been hearing of late. It would seem to me that now, before embarking on some of the largest home-building projects in Alameda in the past 35 years, we should be looking at Measure A with fresh eyes and see if there are amendments or changes that will help to keep Alameda the kind of place in which people can walk dogs at night. Don’t you agree?

Alameda lovingly yours,

John Knox White

——————————-
Following are the two letters she sent, because if your memory’s like mine, you might have forgotten bits and pieces of them.

Original Letter

Editor:

Let’s be clear on a couple of things. The City staff, primarily Andrew Thomas, is the engine that is pulling this anti Measure A train. The Planning Board and City Council have an entirely different agenda.

This all started when we bought into the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) assessment of population growth. Our mayor at the time had aspirations of running for County Supervisor and needed to woo support outside Alameda. This was the beginning of our fight to keep Alameda a low density community. Our current city leaders are going down the same path. What is particularly interesting is the guru of high density development is none other than Senator Don Perata, who was one of the leaders that worked to pass Measure A in 1973. Then teacher Perata, was the campaign manager for the slate of Beckham/Corica/Hurwitz, the low density candidates that won in a landslide, even after the local newspaper endorsed the incumbents who were developer friendly. I guess things change, not always for the better.

Currently there are even more outside forces working to eliminate Measure A. The lobbying efforts of HOMES are very real and have been effective. Their motivation is anyone’s guess. The low cost housing group from Berkeley may have more altruistic motivations, but are still misguided. And then we have the developers, and we know their motivation is the bottom line. I, for one, have no problem with the capitalistic system, its been good to me personally, but are we willing to sacrifice our way of life to that bottom line? I’m not willing to do that.

City Staff is interested in their resumes or a job with the developers as ex-city Planning Staffer Bruce Knopf did when he went to work for Catellus. Unfortunately, for several years staff has been calling the shots. I believe that may change with the independent thinking of Council members Lena Tam, Doug deHaan and more recently Marie Gilmore. Let us hope this is a continuing trend.

So the question becomes, what do people who live here want. Is it more high density housing? Is it more buses? Is it more traffic? Is it big box stores? Who and what do those items benefit? Is it development that fits our small island community? The ability to walk your dog after dark? Ride your bike safely? Your children able to walk to school? Less crime than our neighboring community? More open space for recreation? I think I know the answers to those questions after living here for over 50 years and talking to many, many people over the past few years. So, let’s keep our heads on straight. Let’s not make those who oppose Measure A the victims in this discussion, which is how they wish themselves to be viewed. Logic and reason have a place in the world and I believe that, in the long run, they will win.

Keep the faith.

Pat Bail

————————————
The correction:

Editor,

I would like to correct one of my statements in my last letter. I refer to Alameda as a low density community. Well, the fact really is that Alameda, along with Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland are the four most dense communities in the greater Bay Area. (See the 2001-2006 Housing Element) Alameda has more apartment dwellers than single family homeowners. I just want to make sure I am not misleading your readers. Thanks for the opportunity to correct myself.

Pat Bail