I’ll show you mine if you show me yours
Ah, the clarion calls of civic debate: “show me your cards first!”
In the great Measure A debate, I have been surprised by the consistent requests that certain people, those who advocate talking about the possibility of changing Measure A at Alameda Point, need to outline a detailed plan for the Point before a discussion can take place. With all the mistrust surrounding this issue, it seems to put people on the defensive pretty quickly and clamps down on continuing discussion.
I think this response (that of the respondee) comes from two main places.
First, you have what I call the “10-story building” factor. You know the argument, suggesting a variety of densities at Alameda point is akin to “remaking Alameda into a Manhattan-by-the-Bay — a high-rise paradise for developers” (Egads! Hide the Kids! Oh wait, it’s just another of those scare tactics.)
It doesn’t even matter if the speaker has been clear that they oppose “high-rise” buildings.
It’s just like the ridiculous arguments that transit advocates are proposing density in order to support transit (as if transit were not the means, but the end), or that people who advocate for housing that is affordable to numerous income groups are somehow anti-poor. In this climate, why would anyone feel inclined to spell out a personal vision?
But I think it’s a second reason that has held back the floodwaters that are the ideas of the many proponents for discussing development and density issues at Alameda Point. The fact is, many people advocating for open discussion on the issue are hoping for a community design, one that comes from a multitude of voices, not just a single monolithic voice.
It’s not disingenuous to say that the discussion is the main endgame for many people who want to talk about Alameda Point and Measure A. I think a lot of us want to have the discussion and are confident enough in our own points of view that we feel some of our own vision will be included. I can come up with lots of reasons to discuss Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point: lower traffic, mixed-use neighborhoods, housing affordability, lower subsidies for the subsidized housing, lower carbon footprint per household, vibrant neighborhoods.
I can also come up with a list of how it could be amended that would not allow for one, single new house (over the original proposal) and yet allow for some of these benefits to come to fruition (I’m not necessarily endorsing any of these): Cap the total # of housing but allow for density, cap the square footage of housing, limit the number of car garages and parking spaces, mandate a specific amount of open space.
I’ll suggest that there are two main goals in the planning process for those who don’t want to just stick their head in the sand on the issue.
First, figure out what we want to build at Alameda Point, number of units, amount of commercial and retail, and total number of swim-with-the-dolphin hotels. This is the hardest part of the discussion and it has very little to do with Measure A.
Measure A is only a cap on the total possible households that could be built at the Point That number is well over 15,000 on the 700+ acre site and NOBODY is proposing that. Measure A is not keeping the housing number at 1700 as currently planned in the Preliminary Development Concept (the framework study for the point), that is based on other issues, like toxicity, tidelands, etc.
Second, figure out what the community wants the development to look like. I would suggest that the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) which included Councilmember Doug deHaan and HOMES member Diane Lichenstein has already done most of the heavy lifting. The vision of this group has been carried into the General Plan.
What’s left is nuts and bolts.
With the housing number set, density, as it applies to housing, becomes moot. We should discuss this and see what it looks like. Chat about the pros and cons of this community based plan. Once completed, the voters, the same group that passed Measure A in the first place, should be given a chance at voting on the plan, with the Preliminary Development Concept as a back up.
Leave a Reply