Democrats!
It was a pretty civil affair at the democratic club’s “Measure A Discussion” last night. No big surprises, Barbara Kerr, representing the “don’t even think about touching Measure A” side of the discussion, willfully performed her duties by offering up feelings, and specially chosen facts and photos to illustrate her point of view that all things Non-Measure A are terrible and things that are Measure A compliant can be nice. Helen Sause presented some thoughts on Measure A that won’t surprise anyone familiar with HOMES and there positions.
Any hopes of a smackdown (I had expected a low-key affair) were diminished when Ms. Kerr started the meeting saying “I have left my gun at home, I hope you have too” which was pretty amusing.
That was it, really the meeting can quickly be summed up as:
Kerr: Measure A saved Alameda from “ugly stucco boxes”
Measure A saved the bay from being filled in.
Measure A allows for everything to be built except “housing for buses”
Subsidies are bad, people should spend their money on themselves
The city council has too many closed door meetings
A majority of Alamedans don’t trust the council {despite the recent electeds all being handily voted into office 9 months ago)
Only 30% of high-rise dwellers use transit
Sause: Housing Diversity Good
Condos are good for young people and seniors
Transportation Planning is important in the process
New Alameda neighborhoods should look like existing neighborhoods
Points of Agreement:
More BayPort-type projects are not the direction to head
Public input is good
Open Space is good
Numerous other issues of a similar vein
Actually, there were points where it seemed they might hug (ok, that’s hyperbole, but after the vitriol spewed at the last Alameda Point meeting and the general nastiness tossed towards Helen Sause, it was about as close as you were going to get.)
bayporter
July 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
What’s wrong with Bayport? Inquiring mind wants to know
Michael Krueger
July 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Well, one thing Barbara Kerr doesn’t like is its traditional grid layout of streets, something I discussed in a comment on Blogging Bayport Alameda. She was also bent out of shape about the central park: it has too many playing fields, it doesn’t have enough trees, there’s no good place to barbeque, and it’s not a “gathering place.” According to Kerr, “we have a shortage of gathering places.” I’ve never quite understood what’s up with the whole “gathering place” concept or why people perceive such a dire shortage of them in Our Fair City, but enough folks talk about it that I’ll just have to take their word for it.
I’m certainly not opposed to “gathering places,” as long as they are well used. I know that I’m not a big fan of large plazas that only get used a couple of times a year and become derelict no-man’s-lands the rest of the time. In a situation like that, I think it’s better to skip the plaza (or scale it down) and just close off the streets from time to time if need be.
dave
July 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The park at Bayport could be better, but the fact that it’s there is a positive over other similar developments.
John Piziali
July 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Bayporter There is nothing wrong with Bayport, it has very nice houses a good school and a fair sized park. It is located close to the ferry and the tube. There is a shopping center near by and at some point Webster St. will start to develop into a place where people can eat and do some shopping. The major draw back in my opinion is the sound wall, however with Ralph Appezzatto Parkway and a lot of fast traffic it had to be there. The other choice which was made before it came to the planning board was to have the houses set back several hundred feet from the street. As for the size of the back yards we all know the answer to that question, people who purchase these homes don’t seem to have a problem with that and the developers would not find it economically prudent to have a fifty by thirty or forty foot back yard. So Helen and Barbara agree that Bayport type projects are not the direction to head yet they will both fight each other to the death for thier own opinions. As for Ms. Kerr’s gathering place comment I would consider a baseball or soccer game in full swing a “gathering”. Again I would disagree with her as to having to many playing fields, what do you think parks are for,?. they are for playing. As someone who has lived in the West End All of my life I truly believe that the Bayport project is the best thing that has ever happened here. Of course the base closing is right up there with it. John P.
DonPeterson
July 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I’m so bored with B. Kerr and her elk.
They should pull there heads out of wherever they are and smell he changes that are in the air all over the Island. I would of thought that they would of got the hint after the last City elections when her people were soundley beaten. Thank you Alameda voters for your wise choices.
The Bayport enterprise is a great thing for the City and the West End in particular. I show it off to out of town friends when ever I get the chance.
I don’t know this but I would bet that she and her posse will come up with some kind of nonsence to rail against the Del Monte project when it is talked about at Council.
I like the progressive vibes that are flowing in our town and hope that the neysayers, like Ms Kerr will climb on the train of progress and become part of the process of positive change, because I belive they could be very helpfull and want the best for the entire City of Alameda.
Michael Krueger
July 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Here are links to the video of the forum.
Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4628134279996064655
Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4685761811780684590
Most of Ms. Kerr’s critique of Bayport can be heard at time point 58:08 of Part 1 (the take-away sound bite is at time point 59:27).
Don Peterson’s bet is sure to pay off, because Ms. Kerr already has the re-use of the Del Monte building in her sights. She railed against it at time point 10:52 of Part 2, claiming that the work/live ordinance could be subverted to sneak in a new Target store under the guise of a Zen meditation center, and then nobody could use Littlejohn Park because all of the street parking would be taken up, thereby rendering the park “unusable.” I kid you not!