Stop, Drop and Roll

20 July 2007 | Alameda City Council, Alameda Community, Alameda Community Development Forum, Alameda Truthiness, Measure A | John Knox White

Cleaning out the old mental file cabinet, today’s post is a bouillabaisse of fishy thoughts.

First, Notadave asks about the Navy’s letter to the city about their desire to get moving on Alameda Point. For your reading enjoyment, here it is:

Mr. Brandt -

It is understood that the ARRA and SunCal have conducted negotiations concerning the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) for redevelopment of the former NAS and that a draft ENA will be provided to the ARRA Board for consideration.

After the withdrawal of the former Master Developer last September, the Navy concurred with ARRA’s request to resolicit for developer interest with the contingency that the process be expeditious, not unduly delay property transfer and based on the negotiated Term Sheet as requisite conditions.  The Navy is anxious to proceed with the transfer process of this property.

It is requested that you confirm the ARRA Board decision on this matter with our Alameda Base Closure Manager, Mr. Alan Lee, as soon as possible so that we may all proceed, either with this direction or an alternate.

Regards,

Laura Duchnak
Director
BRAC PMO West

Not really earth shattering, but it’s pretty clear they are saying get a move on.

Second, Action Alameda and the California Healthy Communities Network (CHCN) are co-sponsoring a presentation about supporting local businesses on Tuesday, July 24th.

How Our town can help independent businesses thrive, strengthen our community and maintain a vital, sustainable economy

7:00 – 9:00 p.m. The Home of Truth, 1300 Grand Street (between Encinal & Central)

This appears to be a part of a bay area speaking tour CHCN is putting together and if it represents the direction that Action Alameda is headed, more power to them. Adding information to the community by bringing in well-versed, knowledgable speakers can be very beneficial to supporting a lively and informed community debate. Bully for Action Alameda!

CHCN is a coalition of environmental and community groups and unions. They are working on issues surrounding affordable housing, transportation choices (transit, etc.) and susatainable business. This discussion should feed nicely into the discussion about development at Alameda Point and the need to create a community, not just “retail” and “houses.” (full disclosure: TALC, the organization I work for, is one of the member groups in CHCN).

Third, I continue to be floored by the bad information that is flowing from some corners about what happened at last Friday’s Ad hoc Committee on a Measure A forum. From Pat Bail saying repeatedly that the planning board wanted two 6-hour forums (they wanted one but indicated a desire to break it into two days to keep them shorter), to the idea that the planning board members were responsible for the impasse, there appears to be a concerted effort to redefine history.

There’s a simple test that can answer this once and for all. Ask the appellants what they compromised on in the meetings, because it sure looked like they came in demanding to hand pick 1/2 the speakers and hold a specific meeting format. They said “no” a lot, and I have yet to find a place where they actually said “that’s not what I’d want, but I can accept it,” something each planning board member said more than once.

At the end of the first meeting, the six members of the subcommittee signed a piece of paper with all of the agreements that they had made. They were:

1. Woody History would provide some history

2. They would pick the speakers by consensus from a list submitted by membes of the public, falling back to each “side” choosing half only if consensus could not be reached.

3. There would be public input.

Starting the second meeting, all three appellants refused to discuss speakers, instead going immediately (and I mean, some of the first words out of their mouths) to “we will never reach consensus, let’s just pick sides.” This despite having a signed agreement stating they would attempt consensus. So who went back on their word?

Also, note that the signed agreement did not include a meeting “format.” This idea that there was an agreement on a format seems really blown out of proportion.

Lastly, Barbara Kerr wrote to Don Roberts:

It is a shame that no pro-Measure A presentations will be allowed at the upcoming  forum(s) on Measure A.  Since the Planning Board members have also decided to muzzle public input by substituting a small-group format for an open microphone session, no adequate input from the people who live in Alameda will ever get into the Housing Element.  The forum(s) were morphed into input for the Housing Element  by the Planning Director after the City Council meeting which appointed the ad-hoc committee. 

The majority of the City Council appeared quite comfortable with this censorship at last night’s Council meeting. 

Of course, nobody has even suggested speakers, as the appellants were unwilling to talk about them at the last meeting, so Ms. Kerr must be time traveling in order to make this assertion. How does she know that there will be no pro-measure a speakers?

Essentially, this is an extension of the Keep Measure A ideology, “nothing will be right unless we control it.”  If the planning board puts Woody Minor in the forum, as they said they would before the Ad Hoc committee was even formed, it doesn’t count. Barbara, Pat and friends have to put him on the panel in order for him to be “pro-measure a.”

Honestly, this is starting to get a little ridiculous. Let the planning board plan a meeting and then Kerr can appeal it (or if she can’t, then Councilmember deHaan can call it for review). Until the planning board has planned a meeting, the appellants are talking out of their….(what’s the politically correct word that goes here?).