Who are these people?
The discussion of Measure A, as with discussions of any type of economic or land development, invariably tends to focus on the speculative, nefarious, financial connections of people who don’t want everything to stay exactly the same way.
Speak up in favor of the theater and you’re in the developer’s pocket. Want to talk about the positive aspects of developing Alameda Point, you must be tied into the developers as well, or at least work somewhere that gives you professional reasons to think that certain types of development can be good. Want to talk about Measure A? You must be making money on it.
No evidence of financial gain is ever offered in these discussions. Just accusations laid out as facts, or even more often smearing statements like:
“In my view, the proponents of striking down or revising this Charter Amendment are misguided and, in many cases, influenced by the corporate culture and real estate factions involved in that attempt.” (see Laurendo.com)
No evidence is offered, just a plain old unsubstantiated accusation (aka “smear”).
I think this is abhorrent and irrelevant and speaks more to the lack of factual arguments supporting the speaker’s point of view than anything.
If it were a fair argument, I’m surprised that supporters of never, ever changing/amending/talking about Measure A don’t also question their comrades in arms.
Recent Planning Board Appellants include Barbara Kerr who own multiple rental units in Alameda and is a past leader of the Apartment Owner’s Association. Her fellow appellant, Diane Coler-Dark, is a former Realtor. Denise Brady is a current real estate agent, Linda Larkin is a recently retired real estate agent….the list goes on.
Given the direct financial ties to real-estate by all of these key-players in the Measure A debate, I would think that those throwing around accusations would be careful, as they appear to be casting aspersions on those they consider allies.
As I have said in the past, I’m not a big believer in this line of thought. While skepticism is good in a democracy, one needs to be fair in their skepticism. I felt that the hypocrisy was worth noting.
dave
June 4th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Having been called a racist for supporting Measure A, I can say that “smears” happen on both sides of this tiff. Hard as it is to believe, the anti crowd isn’t pure either.
mark
June 4th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Dave,
Would you deny that more than a few folks who have expressed strong opinions in favor of preserving Measure as is, have also made statements which smack of racism? I have heard and read repeated statements over the years which belie pretty blatant racial prejudice and fear, which are not substantiated by any useful fact.
I don’t think any of the main players in trying to revise Measure A have said that to support Measure A is racist or that Measure A is racist. It has the capacity to make it tougher on the low end of the economic spectrum. Racial discrimination is linked statically to socioeconomic.
Whether it’s somehow dirty poker to bring it up in a campaign or not, Pat Bail did make her remark about people double parking in Chinatown while they shop for live turtles or whatever it is they eat. That isn’t like calling them chinks, but to me shows insensativity and distain.
Just because somebody may have unjustly called you racist in the context of this debate doesn’t give your complaint in the post above any great levity in my opinion. It hardly undermines John’s point in his post.
dave
June 4th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Levity?
None intended or implied, Mark. What do you mean?
As far as racist statments, I can’t recall hearing any wrt preserving MA. Ms. Bail’s comments could possibly be construed as such by an oversensitive listener searching for shreds of racism, but I say it was just an off hand hyperbolic and mordantly witty comment by a person making a point. Too bad it was blown up as “racism” because she had a very valid point about the double parking in Chinatown.
Can you cite an example of raism used to defend MA?
Lauren Do
June 4th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I found nothing “witty” in Mrs. Bail’s comment about “buying live turtles or whatever it is that they eat.” Playing on awful stereotypes about an entire ethnic group is insenstive and unbecoming of a person attempting to represent an entire city of people. Would it have been okay if Mrs. Bail had instead said, “buying dogs or whatever it is they eat” playing on the stereotype that some East Asians eat dog?
Or what if she instead were talking about Black residents of Oakland, saying that they were double parking “buying fried chicken and watermelons or whatever it is they eat?” Would that have been appropriate?
Chalk it up to being “overly sensitive,” but personally I expect someone who wanted to sit on our City Council twice to be a little more sensitive than to make “witty” comments such as those. There are other ways to make a point about double parking other than making it on the shoulders of Asian people. And as an Asian person, I was deeply offended by her comment and as an Asian person, I am also offended by the suggestion that my and other people’s reaction to the comment was “searching” for racism.
Mark
June 4th, 2007 at 9:52 am
levity, right. I think I’m getting sick today, and aging is giving me Swiss cheese brain where all the words drift through the holes. Gravity? Veracity? I just misspoke like Ms. Bail, except she said just wahat she meant to say and it was a nasty jab at a minority. that being people who double park of course.
Boy, it sure pissed me off when some anonymous person called me an apologist for the teachers. I’d stay away from trying to justify Pat Bail’s loose comments if I were you.
I have not catalogued all the comments I have come across over the years but I will not back down on my point because there are some really racist people in this town, as there probably are in Berkeley too. But Alameda has had a history of things like home owner association covenants barring black people. I don’t think there is much if any of that in this day and age, but people who think like that still live here.
I started my career in letters to the paper because of one individual I won’t name who wrote regularly to rant about being represented by Barbara Lee. He didn’t use the N word either, but his letters seethed with racial hostility.
dave
June 4th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Lauren:
The adjective “witty” was preceded by the adverb “mordant.”
American Heritage Dictionary defines it as follows: Bitingly sarcastic. Incisive or trenchant. Bitingly painful.
Using that word means I wasn’t stating or implying that she was was being warm & fuzzy. Rather, my point was simply that an offhand comment should not get a person branded a racist. In these times, that’s a serious lable to slap on a person.
dave
June 4th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Mark:
Such covanents barring blacks used to be quite common all across America, not just in Alameda. The first home I bought - thousands of miles away from Alameda - had one in its deed, followed by an attachment that such covanents were voided by a Supreme Court ruling many years ago (can’t recall the year but it was by no means recent). Is that historcial footnote the best piece of evidence you can cite that some MA supporters are racist?
Michael Krueger
June 4th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Although I very much beg to differ with Dave’s characterization (even as subsequently clarified) of Ms. Bail’s remarks about Chinatown, I think we should refrain from diving into the “who called whom a racist” rat hole. Racism in Alameda is certainly worth discussing, but the topic of this post (remember that?) is claims of selfish motives for changing or preserving Measure A, not necessarily racist motives. Besides, I don’t recall anyone ever trying to tie Ms. Bail’s insensitive comments to her stand on Measure A; instead, they were offered as evidence that she would not be a good representative of the whole of Alameda.
As Dave correctly pointed out, at least some people on all sides of the Measure A issue have, at some time, made unsubstantiated allegations (”smears”) and employed hyperbolic language not justified by the facts. However, to say there have been incidents on all sides and just leave it at that seems to be a bit of a cop-out.
For going on ten years now, I have heard the same story from a number of prominent Measure A defenders: Measure A skeptics don’t live in Alameda, they’re in the pockets of developers, they hope to gain an advantage by having cheap or subsidized housing built specifically for them, they are megalomaniacal elites who want to foist their social engineering schemes on the populace, or they “do-gooders” whose personal livelihoods depend on maintaining a low-income underclass for them to serve with their non-profit work and pork-barrel government programs. Very rarely have I heard an acknowledgement that maybe — just maybe — Measure A skeptics might be people who live in and love Alameda but happen to have different ideas about what’s best for our town.
Dave, you are definitely one of the more reasonable voices in favor of preserving Measure A as is. I’m sorry you were unfairly accused of racism, but I just don’t think that unfortunate incident is at all representative of the tone of the larger debate. Do you truly believe that the Measure A skeptics have impugned the motives of Measure A defenders to exactly the same extent that the defenders have impugned the skeptics? I’m just looking for a reality check here.
dave
June 4th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Michael,
I’m not keeping score. Serioulsy, I couldn’t begin to guess which side has landed the most punches.
I suppose it’s human nature to see the other camp’s errors while glossing over one’s own. Maybe you’re right that MA defenders have slung the most arrows. But if you are, I caution you not to forget your own side’s archery. I recall more than a few video pieces about Pat Bail that would meet the definition of smear as framed above by John.
A favorite quote of mine from Rilke: “If you deny the devil, you must deny the angels too.” Seems worthy advice in a controversy like this.
Jack
June 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
May the pro-A’ers would be less paranoid about the driving force to Discussions if they could understand what the Discussers *do* want (as opposed to what they don’t like about Measure A).
I’d like to understand what you’d like to see at Alameda Point… what’s the end-game vision here, and how will it benefit Alameda?
(I’m totally on the fence here, and I’m tired of hearing what Pat Bail has said… it’s beside the point. )
Jack
June 4th, 2007 at 11:20 am
what I’m trying to ask is: what is the WHAT… as opposed to the WHY. We’ve heard a lot from both sides of the WHY. We know what to expect if Measure A holds… more developments like Bayport.
I think it would benefit everyone in the grey zone if it was clear WHAT we’d get if Measure A is amended. Pardon me if it’s already in front of my nose, but it’s this unknown that alarms folks (such as my old-timer neighbors who fear the city steamroller).
Dave S.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
A big “Word, dude” to #11’s suggestion.
We should figure out WHAT it’d do for us if we were to amend it, and then determine/argue/debate if that amendment is worth the cost (in dollars and quality of life alteration)…
Michael Krueger
June 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Actually, if you live on the main island of Alameda (excluding the South Shore fill area), the answer is already in front of your nose. I can’t speak for everyone else, but if you want to see my vision of what we could accomplish at Alameda Point under a sensible modification to Measure A, take a long walk along Santa Clara Ave. from the Mastick Senior Center at St. Charles St. to Lincoln Park at High St.
Along the way you’ll see single-family homes mixed in with duplexes, triplexes, quadriplexes, and some larger apartment buildings and condominiums. You’ll see Stonehenge and Stoneleigh, the charming twin developments of cottage courtyard housing built in the whimsical “storybook style.” You’ll also see professional offices rubbing elbows with homes, churches, and child care facilities. You’ll encounter City Hall and other civic buildings, a senior center, a school, and a park.
Until you reach Broadway you’ll be walking along a transit corridor that supports the highest-patronage trunk line in the AC Transit system (Line 51), as well as one of the highest-ridership transbay lines (Line O). You’ll pass through the heart of a traditional commercial district with housing units above retail, one that supports another major local and transbay transit corridor running along busy Park St.
As you move past Broadway, farther away from the transit corridors and commercial hub, you find lower density residential neighborhoods with a greater number of single-family homes, some of which sit on larger lots. A few of these homes have “in-law” units in the back yard, subtly increasing the density in places without detracting from the neighborhood feel.
This walk is meant to illustrate the most important concepts of traditional pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly mixed-use development in a concrete way. Of course it’s not a literal example for Alameda Point; for one thing, it covers a much greater distance, which I chose in order to illustrate as many concepts as possible along a simple route. There are also certain undesirable features I would absolutely not want to see replicated at Alameda Point or anywhere else: hideously ugly 1950’s- and 1960’s-style “shoebox” apartment buildings and condominiums that probably replaced historic homes. This, however, is a building design and historic preservation issue, not an inherent problem with multiple-unit housing. For example, many of the apartment buildings that were built before 1950, even the very large ones, are quite attractive and fit into Alameda’s neighborhoods well.
My point is that none of the traditional neighborhoods along Santa Clara Ave. could have been built if Measure A had been passed in 1853 instead of 1973. Alameda would be more dependent on the automobile and would not be able to support the transit service it does today. Of course, the earliest residents would have been dependent on their horses and buggies; I doubt that the railroads and streetcar lines ever would have been built if Measure A had been in effect. Growth would probably have been dramatically stunted until the automobile came along. The environment for pedestrians and bicyclists would have been more hostile, with destinations spread over a greater area. Eventually, wider, higher-speed roads would have been built to allow easy automobile access, and any remaining open land would have been filled with a low-density sprawl of single-family homes and duplexes.
In short, if Measure A had been passed in 1853, the main island would not be the Alameda that I love, but just another generic automobile-oriented suburb that I never would have given a second look.
Lauren Do
June 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Re: Pat Bail videos…since they are, in the words of the Violent Femmes, “gone daddy gone” we really only have our memories to rely on, but I never found these to be “smears.” I guess it’s just one of those cases of owning what you say. I know that there was a lot of talk about her being taken out of context, but as I mentioned previously, she and her supporters had access to the entire archives of the Don Roberts Show to prove that she was taken out of context by simply showing how her words were not as they were shown to mean. Scrutiny given to someone’s words does not amount to a smear and for me those videos brought light to statement that were made and were not statements attributed to someone because of their stance on an issue.
What is different, in my mind, about the “smears” as referenced above by John is that when blanket accusations are made about some folks perceived as being “Anti-Measure A” there are no videos proferred, no quotes to show that could even be misconstrued as one way or the other. It’s simply declared, as fact, that Mr. A is in the pockets of this developer or Ms. B is a shill for that developer.
Re: Why vs. What…the problem with trying to define the “What” is often stymied by the “Why.” The problem with the discussion to this point that getting to the “what” required running the gaunlet of the “why” and few exit that gaunlet unscathed (smears vs scrutiny). Until we can get past the “everyone who wants to discuss the issue of Measure A is trying to get rid of it” attitude, we’ll never get to the “what.”
Jack
June 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Michael, thanks for your reply. A coupla things:
1) Can we really expect “whimsical” and “charming” from Central Planning (ie master developer)? Seems unllikely we’d get the mix that grew more organically in Alameda days past.
2) In your vision, would all of Alameda Pt. (eventually) look like this? Or what it be density surrounded by green space? Seems to me that kind of density would produce a lot of traffic even if these folks had walkable shopping, good available transit, etc. I mean, they’d still be driving to the movies, ya know?
Lauren, thanks for you post. Doesn’t look like much progress is being made getting past the Whys. I think it’s the other way around: if we know What we are talking about, then we know Why we are for or against or somewhere betwixt.
If you were voted Chief Visionary, how would you like to see Alameda Pt. developed?
notadave
June 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Jack - I would add to Michaels vision by saying that the height limits that are already within alameda zoning regulations should be maintained out at Alameda Point, so no high rises (not that any has ever called for them, but that is one other myth promulgated by the kma side). I would also want to see an overall cap on the number of units built so that there would be more open space. Lastly, I would want to see housing available for purchase to all income levels. As currently planned, the “affordable” housing for the lowest income range would be rental only.
Oh and kudos for Lauren for her post #14.
Mark
June 4th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Dave,
I’m sorry I bothered to comment on your comment. This is becoming a stupid semantic dance. I DID NOT say “Measure A supporters are racist”, I did mean to say that “some Measure A supporters are racist”, thinly veiled at that.
I might do better to say there is a lot of xenophobia in this town and I believe racial prejudice is at the root of much of it.
But I don’t want to pursue this any more, at least in this venue. I can share some very specific and appalling anecdotes about race in Alameda, but not here.
That’s my favorite Rilke quote, but I heard it more like :”I dare not vanquish my demons, for fear my angels may take flight as well”.
Michael Krueger
June 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
In the interest of furthering the discussion, I’d like to answer Jack’s questions; however, I’ll start by saying that my vision for Alameda Point doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, we need to have a community vision for Alameda Point, one that is the result of a public process. Although I plan to provide my input to that process, I accept the fact that my personal vision may not carry the day.
However, because some aspects of my vision would require changes to Measure A in order to implement, I have been told multiple times that if I don’t like the way things are here in Alameda, maybe I should just get out. My anger at this unsolicited advice quickly gives way to disbelief: Is this really what civic discourse has come to in this town? Unless we’re able to put all of the options on the table — including the ones that would require a change to Measure A — and discuss the pros and cons calmly like grown-ups, we won’t truly be having an open community process to develop a shared vision for Alameda Point.
At any rate, here is an elaboration on my personal vision for Alameda Point, which I hope to bring to the table as the community discussion advances. First, to answer Jack’s two questions from comment #15:
1) Of course nothing is guaranteed, but we can try. If you hire the right architect, it’s still possible to build whimsical and charming homes, although I will grant that they are a rarity these days. As part of the developer selection and approval process, the City should apply as much leverage as it can to ensure that high-quality architects ultimately wind up working on the project. The City could also try to steer the developer into the kind of arrangement that the representative of Catellus described during the selection hearings: The lots are randomly scrambled and assigned to two or three competing builders who are each using different architects. Throwing in the dual elements of chance and of competition among builders can produce results that more closely resemble the organic growth of older cities, while still retaining the financial economies of scale required to make these large projects work. I certainly don’t think that Catellus is the only developer that could pull this off; for example, I bet SunCal could make a similar arrangement work if the City really pressed for it as part of the approval process.
2) If it were up to me, I would cap the total number of housing units in order to guarantee that the overall residential density of the project (as opposed to the density calculated on a lot-by-lot basis) is some small fraction of the maximum density allowed by Measure A. Then I would arrange those units in a configuration that is more dense that Measure A allows, but with the remaining land left for open space and other non-residential uses. I don’t know exactly what number makes sense as a cap (the community would have to agree on it), but any modification to Measure A for Alameda Point should contain the cap — along with a height limit of four or five stories — explicitly in the language of the charter amendment, so it could not be changed without another vote of the people.
As I meant to illustrate with my walk down Santa Clara, diversity should be the goal, not just density. There needs to be a wide variety of housing types, both for sale and for rent, at a wide variety of price points. We should take advantage of the fact that multi-family housing is cheaper to construct (due both to divided land costs and to lower construction costs) in order to provide more market-rate units at lower prices, and to reduce the subsidies required for the below-market-rate units. We should save historic structures by re-using some of them as multiple-unit housing, not just for work-live tenants but also for those seeking to buy condominiums or rent apartments in the area. All of this would free up land not only for open space, but also to provide some low-density areas of single-family homes on larger lots, at the high end of the price range. (The financial need to pack hundreds of high-end homes into a small area produces the “McMansion effect” of ridiculously large homes on ridiculously small lots.) Denser areas should also feature things like bungalow courts that offer the advantages of detached homes, but in a higher-density configuration.
Throughout the project, an effort must be made to achieve a broad mix of incomes throughout neighborhoods. In particular, below-market-rate units should be spread throughout the project, side by side with the market-rate units. Even the areas that are predominantly single-family homes on large lots should have a few smaller homes and multiple-unit buildings thrown in, whether in duplexes, triplexes, small apartment buildings, or as “in-law” cottages. Multiple-unit dwellings should not be provided exclusively as subsidized low-income rentals; they must be available at all price points, market rate and below market rate, for sale and for rent, luxury and economy.
None of this vision should surprise anyone familiar with Alameda’s traditional neighborhoods.
Mark
June 4th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Measure A is a one size fits all approach, a blunt instrument. These analogies have been used before because they are so true, the reality of the short comings are that simple.
People in full support of the current amendment often point out the beauty of the Measure’s simplicity, but it’s overly simplistic . Michael’s vision for the point may seem intricate compared to the text of the current amendment, but considering what we are trying to address here, I think his suggestions for content are fairly simple and straight forward, which if nothing else is a good selling point for a revised version on a ballot.
Of course the choice of the term “selling point” is a poor one because it feeds into the paranoia about selling ourselves to the devil. I’m not ashamed of the fact that any revision will have to be sold to the voters as part of a successful above board reform.
Joel
June 4th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Barbara Kerr, before I move here I started reading her website and about the then Harbor Bay Apartments…I after awhile I realized how was she ever on the City Counsel. She doesn’t really know what she is talking about….I couldn’t figure out where she stood. Diane Coller-it seem she say a lot but doesn’t understand the Federal Laws….It is Federal Land and currently they can do what ever they want to do without consent of the City. I don’t know anything about the other women…But if you are a realtor why you you put your self in a place which may alienate a lot of people.
As far as the point, I realize the VA is trying to get the end of it. I don’t have anything against VA Hospitals except they closed down a lot of them a few years ago…go ahead and build your Hospital which by the way probably be a high rise. But, what I don’t understand is the above ground cemetery in the wilderness area. Put the cemetery some where a few feet above sea level where they can bury them below ground. I am a vet and could be buried there if I wanted to, but I want to be cremated. And even if I didn’t I would want to be someplace more secure such as in the ground.