All hail the heros of Alameda
Alameda, like most of the world, is a place where oral history often triumphs over recorded history. The on-going Measure A discussion is a prime example. The names of the successful council candidates from 1973, who ran on a throw-the-bums-out, low-density-development platform nearly 35 years ago, are trotted out as heroic-defenders-of-all-that-is-Measure-A, when in fact, all three of these candidates had serious concerns about it before it was passed.
As mentioned previously, on February 2, 1973, two of these three candidates for city council, Beckham and Hurwitz, openly questioned whether Measure A was a good thing. Beckham went so far as to say that he would out-and-out vote against Measure A.
Two weeks later, all three were raising concerns. Candidate Hurwitz told the Alameda Times-Star, “I was quoted originally as saying that I would vote for [Measure A]. Since then I have gotten more information and now I feel that I cannot vote for it.” Hardly a vote of confidence from somebody who was concerned about high-density development issues.
Chuck Corica, Alameda’s own version of the Dalai Lama (by which I mean a man revered by almost everyone), is supposed to have single-handedly written the Measure A ballot language while cutting hair in his barbershop on Webster Street, was even clearer on the subject. So strong is this lore, that Corica’s barbershop is enshrined at the Alameda Museum in a recreation of an actual barbershop. (Personally, I like to go the Razor’s Edge, Kids Choice or Dolores’ where my kids and I can also get a haircut while seeing a genuine barbershop, but to each their own.)
A month before the vote, February 13th, 1973, according to the Times-Star, “Corica says he’ll vote for the measure personally, and he advises other Alamedans to support the multiple ban. But, he admits, if the drafters of the initiative had it to do over again, “It wouldn’t have been as stringent.”
Even more interesting, in light of all the talk around Alameda in 2007 about whether or not we might look at whether the measure should be amended, is that Corica went on to say that if the measure passes, “It could be softened up afterwards.”
It is interesting that the most pro-measure A person in the whole wide world thought that there were probably instances when the Charter Amendment might need to be changed in order to keep it from unintentionally doing harm in places it hadn’t foreseen. This is a man so revered that his widow’s name is intoned at council meetings to this day when discussing the issue!
Which brings up the religious aspect of Measure A, over the years, it seems that the voter approved law has become more of a faith-based initiative than a well-thought out curb on development. Many of its followers attack those who deign to talk about amending it (unless they themselves come up with the amendments, then the changes are acceptable).
Measure A does not protect against development, it protects against a certain type of housing being built (multiple units, and attached housing with more than two units).
At the time of its passing, three candidates were swept into office on a low-density development desire of the voters. Two of those candidates felt the measure was a bad idea, the other expected to loosen it up once it was passed. Clearly we can sit down and have a discussion of the pros and cons of the measure and make sure that the development of much of the West End becomes the type of community the majority of us hope it will become.
Leave a Reply