Stop, Drop and Roll

15 November 2007 | Alameda Community Development Forum, Measure A | John Knox White

So I’ve always wanted to like Al Franken’s books better than I actually do. They have funny bits, but tend to be a bit of a flat read. That said, Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right was a pretty interesting read and had a great section on Ann Coulter and her use of “endnotes” in her books. It was hilarious reading for anyone who’s read pop-culture political books, and through humor does a great job of debunking methods of making opinion pieces look well researched.

So what the heck does this have to do with Alameda? Well, I thought of this book (not the title, but the section on endnotes, I had to spend some time remembering the title) a lot while reading the recently released Position Paper from Action Alameda. The title is enticing, Greening Alameda Point, setting up the “it’s pro-environment” message.

First I’m going to say that I think it’s great that Action Alameda is taking the time to put together a proposal or policies for Alameda Point, and while I personally think this is a mish-mash of statements that often contradict each other throughout the document, more groups should be reaching out with explanations of their positions. (That said, I find it amusing that the author’s are anonymous, given all the hullabaloo raised by Action Alameda co-chair over at the no-fact-zone that is Don Robert’s site for nefarious insinuation and innuendo regarding the www.alamedapointvision.org process, but that’s the Action Alameda way)

I “read and re-read” the document, as it encourages me to do. And now I would like to “share and distribute” it while adding some of my own personal thoughts to what it contains. It’s going to be a multi-day project, there’s just too much to say.

Everything that I have to say about Greening Alameda Point is summed up in its first paragraph (and please note that I am using the whole paragraph as the cover of this paper allows readers to freely copy or print, so long as reproductions remain faithful to the original, I have included emphasis to highlight what I’m talking about):

The city of Alameda, California lies off of Oakland’s shores, just across the Bay from San Francisco. The city covers 12.4 square miles, comprised of roughly 11 square miles of ‘mainland’ Alameda, which is an island, and, near the Oakland International Airport, of the 1.4 square miles of Bay Farm Island, which is not an island. This contradiction of terms speaks to the unique character of the city of Alameda.

Greening Alameda Point refers to “Mainland” Alameda a term I’ve never once heard used. I thought perhaps it was an editing mistake, a combination of “Main” and “Island,” except that it’s repeated later in the paper, so it’s clearly purposeful. I Googled “Mainland Alameda” and found zero hits. But this “mainland” terminology is important to the set up of this paragraph and the paper. Only if the main island of Alameda is called the “mainland” is there a dichotomy set up between the fact that it’s “an island” despite being called the “mainland.” If you admit that it’s often referred to as the “main island” or “historic island” then news that it’s in fact an island is not incredibly profound.

This dichotomy is necessary to set up the concluding sentence, “This contradiction…” speaks to Alameda’s unique character. I would in fact posit that this manufactured contradiction (one that doesn’t actually exist) speaks to the manufactured “Green-ness” proposed in the document itself. As I will talk about another day (tomorrow), the document is all over the place making great sounding broad statements at one point, and a paragraph later, suggesting that the opposite is true.

So check out the bottom of each page where traditionally the title of the report would be, the phrase “Green that Fits!” is written. An environmental twist on Eugenie Thomson’s slogan, “Growth that Fits.” (Which is none when you boil it all down). “Green that Fits!” summarizes this document better than anything I could ever write. This type of sloganeering is very effective in setting up choices and indicating which way we should go. In this case it’s “Green” vs. “no/low growth.” It’s acknowledges that “green” development is compact, non-sprawling, lower-auto dependent, etc. It acknowledges the importance of this. But there’s the caveat, “that Fits!” which trumps the original desire “Green.” In the continuum that is our choices regarding development, we want sustainable, environmentally sound planning, but throw it all overboard if it infringes on any of our other personal lifestyle choices.

All this is ok, it’s an ideology I don’t subscribe to, but I understand it, and I’m glad that someone is running out there with such a platform. It’s good for the public discussion.

At 24 pages, Greening Alameda Point is a commitment to read. Again, I’ll try and write about content later, but essentially it is a compendium of posting made by David Howard over the past year, with many old-favorites re-tooled as visionary planning and a couple of surprising new ideas.

And to top it off (and to bring it back to Al Franken) each page contains footnotes at the bottom. I’d highly suggest you read them, as you read the document, because quite a few of them are meaningless. They contain anecdotes that have no factual back-up (the whole point of footnotes), newspaper articles that add no facts beyond generally accepted ideas like “there are houseboats in Sausalito,” and my favorite Peter Calthorpe, who Action Alameda has attacked for his views on compact development. Apparently, it’s ok to cite Calthorpe when he can back up ideas that you want to support, but then attack him for the same ideas when they don’t.

And best of all, the author/author’s of this paper footnote sources that are self-written pieces without acknowledging that they are the author!

At the end of the day, Greening Alameda Point is nothing more than the greenwashing of the same old proposals, but I’d encourage everyone to read it.