The Artful Dodger, Part 1
A little over two weeks ago, the Alameda democratic club held a discussion on Measure A. It was less cantankerous that some expected, but also a bit less informative than one would have hoped. (It’s a post for another day, but Barbara Kerr threw out some loopy accusations about actions by the current city council).
On Thursday, the Alameda Sun, printed the presentations made by Barbara Kerr and Helen Sause, I thought it would be interesting to look at them and discuss the presentations. Honestly, I’m more interested in looking at Ms. Kerr’s given that she presented it as a brief “history” of the issue, and then proceeded to leave a whole lot out. The video is in two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) and now, thanks to the Sun, we have the text as well.
Ms. Kerr begins with the reasons for the charter Amendment to begin with, a fair starting point for any “history.” Oddly enough, it starts off immediately saying that the ballot measure was in 1974, when the vote was in 1973. Of course many of the historical aspects of the time are not included, this being a “brief history” and all. But all in all, what is presented is factual: historic homes were being destroyed (somehow the ugliness is a major sticking point, though Measure A does nothing about that), Harbor Bay Isle was being proposed as a 10,000 home project, and third a strong “save the bay” sentiment.
What’s missing is that the Harbor Bay project had initially been planned for 5,000 households and people found out about the doubling to 10,000 when it was reported in the paper that the city was about to sign the agreement with the developer. Up to that point, there was not a lot of opposition to the 5,000 number, and when 10K was proposed, a lot of people suggested that it just stay at the original number.
During this time, some letters to the editor bemoaned the “white ghettos” that would be created, there was concern about “the environment” (this was before the environmental tragedy of suburbs was widely understood).
Even some of the exalted creators of the measure, like Chuck Corica, felt the measure went too far and would need adjusting.
Lost in this “brief history” are items like the election of three candidates (including Corica) as a slate of “low-density advocates.” Two of whom voted against Measure A. The election of these three ensured that the Harbor Bay development would not be built at 10,000 homes, Measure A became a back-up, in case they weren’t elected.
In the following years, the city adopted Historic Advisory laws that made the destruction of historic homes much more difficult, again Measure A filled the gap until the city ordinances could catch up. These ordinances have only been strengthened over the years, contradicting the argument that without Measure A in the Charter, developers would quickly be allowed to start their bulldozers.
Voters in California also passed the stringent Proposition 13, which changed the funding formulas for residential properties, killing the impetus for cities to provide “more” housing in areas that already had it. Combined with changes to zoning laws, residential development in existing cities ground to a halt. No inner-East Bay cities saw extended, large density growth during the time Alameda had Measure A in place.
Lastly, the exploding Environmental movement put a quick stop to the filling of the bay, Measure A provides absolutely zero protection from such activities.
Ms Kerr likes to provide the language of Measure A in her talks, and while it’s a great thing to inform, it’s also clear that to Ms. Kerr the language is powerful and almost spiritual. Anyone who reads it will clearly understand its blessed reason for existence.
She makes a good point about the 1991 vote to further restrict residential building. She says:
“It needs to be pointed out that the last vote was 16 years ago. The opponents of Measure A keep telling people that the last vote was 34 years ago.”
While I’ve never heard anyone say that the “last vote” was 34 years ago, it certainly was voted on in 1991. That was a different time, the NAS was functioning at full strength, and Don Roberts was running for council and saying we shouldn’t be planning for a Navy-less future because there’s no way they’ll leave Alameda. (Funny story, According to newspaper reports, Don Roberts was assumed to be a shoe-in based on how much money he raised. He ended up getting 8% of the vote. Less than 2,000 people, but more on that election another time).
Where Ms. Kerr’s speech goes off the rails is in the third act (have you ever noticed it’s always the third act when things go awry?) when she discusses “the effects of Measure A”
But we’ll leave that for tomorrow’s Part II in The Artful Dodger
Leave a Reply