Stop, Drop and Roll

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

So yesterday, I talked a little about the Greening Alameda Point proposal from Action Alameda; I kept things more on the style and messaging. Today I wanted to look at the specifics that are proposed within the document. For the sake of length, I am presenting summarized versions of the proposal on this page, but in the spirit of the anonymous author’s request to remaining faithful to the original text, I have cut and pasted all the proposal statements into a document here . (Each summarized bullet should match up with a bullet in this document any perceived inaccuracies or omissions are unintended, let me know and I’ll correct them).

The document summarizes itself by pointing out that the “we should” statements are they key off for proposals. I’ve added a little latitude and included statements that were clearly meant to be proposing things for the Point so as not to leave things out. Strangely, there are some statements that have nothing to do with Alameda Point (like teaching bicyclists to stay off sidewalks), but I’ll write about that another time.

What I’ve written may look long, but there are lots of bullet points!

What’s most amazing about this 24 page document with “Green” in the title and “Green that Fits!” written at the bottom of every page, is that there’s almost no environmental/green policies proposed. The only ones that pop up are encouraging biking and walking (a great thing), building new parks using appropriate native/dry plantings (another great thing), looking at environmentally sensitive water, power generation and sewage treatment, and I’ll be generous, a number of proposals about attracting businesses involved in “CleanTech” a term that differs from “green technologies” mostly in that it is profit-driven by venture capitalists. What these companies produce may be beneficial for the environment, but it’s not a given that the companies themselves are.

But that’s it. No other green proposals.

I’ve taken the proposal statements and grouped them in categories so that they are easier to get one’s mind around. The document itself bounces around a lot. For example, half the education section is spent on encouraging CleanTech companies to locate to Alameda Point. For the disclosure inclined, these categories are my own.

Housing

• Minimize the # of houses
• Try and include Houseboats
• Build houses that can withstand Earthquakes
• Don’t trust ABAG (Assoc. of Bay Area Governments) housing numbers
• Don’t let short-term market trends affect housing design

None of the housing notes are surprising. Despite all the talk throughout the document about “how much” housing can be built under Measure A and how to support transit, the proposal is to do less.

The last bullet about market trends is more of a dig at Bayport, with selective comparisons to drive home the point, than it does a meaningful statement about the design. Queen Anne’s were designs driven by the short-term market trends of their time, as were craftsmen, and other valued housing styles. The document is full of digs at specific people and organizations. Most don’t add anything to the proposal. But I’m sure they were satisfying to the authors.

Transportation

• Retail centers and public spaces should have proper sidewalks.
• Space for bicycles on all roads
• Encourage biking and walking to commercial and retail centers
• Buy cars for low-income people / don’t expect them to use transit
• We need to weigh this issue of density versus public transit very carefully.
• Implement water taxi service to downtown San Francisco and Jack London Square
• Water taxis would need to support both pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
• Teach young people to safely cycle and respect pedestrians.
• Preserve and promote Alameda as a pedestrian-friendly city
• Examine ways to maximize use of the Alameda Ferry by attracting reverse commuters and day trippers

Lot’s of pro-bike and pro-walking statements which is awesome, though strange from a group who so often derides people for actually using these transportation choices. It’s my understanding that co-chair David Howard made a big show at the recent measure a debate of how few people actually bike to events, and forgot that some people might have walked. Quite honestly, given his constant harping about me riding my bike, I have a hard time believing that any of these proposals are all that serious. But I can certainly support their inclusion. Welcome to the pro-biking side!

Retail

• Include neighborhood retail
• Preference to locally-owned and operated businesses
• No retail area at the point, support Webster Street as the west end center
• Minimize or exclude big-box retail

The retail proposals were the hardest for me to distill in my head. For years, many of us have been pushing the ideas of replicating the “stations” at Alameda Point, so it was great to see them called out in this new proposal.
What confused me was that seems to be all that is proposed for an area that is the size of the Harbor Bay development and will have a lot of commercial built along with whatever housing is created. So essentially, the proposal is for the entire point to be low-density housing or commercial with no real retail support within an easy distance necessitating driving to Webster Street, since the proposal won’t be able to support more than minimal transit, which is not usable for daily errands, etc.

Commercial

• Commercial should focus on “CleanTech” (green technologies)
• Focus commercial on companies involved in business-to-business sales
• Attract and retain existing light industrial and commercial tenants
• Build a cruise ship terminal if it’s environmentally sound
• Draw more commercial customers by offering AP&T’s high speed internet service
• Recruit community-involved businesses

This proposal is all about CleanTech, that’s what gives it its green sheen. The Cruise Ship Terminal strikes me as a non-starter, the city of San Francisco is struggling to keep theirs operational, I have a hard time believing that Alameda would be more successful, despite what happens in Bayonne, NJ and the caveat about environmentally sound makes the prospects even more unlikely, given how environmentally unsound these ships are.

Low-income residents

• Seek new and secure existing social services to support low-income and homeless housing facilities
• Use redevelopment funds to pay for social services for residents, including police and fire services, and infrastructure maintenance.
• Don’t displace low-income residents from Alameda Point.
• Be most permissive of automobile use for our lowest income class residents

The irony in this section is so thick, it’s not even funny. There’s no real proposal, beyond have services for homeless people. Think I’m being mean? In the neighborhoods and communities section, during the discussing seeking and securing new and existing social services, the proposal says “It’s not enough to simply house the homeless.” Given the number of agencies that currently do great work at the Point, this comment either shows ignorance of what’s going on out there, or disdain. Personally, I think it sounds like a dig at the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC).

There’s something missing in these recommendations. There’s a proposal to use redevelopment funds for things (like services) that they can’t legally be used for. There are suggestions to maintain things as they currently are (services that is). The only really new proposal is buying low-income people cars and being permissive about their driving. (How green is that?!). I would have expected more on this, given the involvement of Art and Gretchen Lipow (core supporters of Action Alameda, Gretchen’s on the steering committee), who are well known for their deep commitment to people of lesser means. I have a hard time believing that this is the best they can come up with, which makes me question whether they were involved. But perhaps this really is only an environmental proposal for the Point.

Community Impacts

• Preserve the small city feel and character of Alameda.
• Do not disrupt or negatively impact existing neighborhoods
• Keep our crime rate low
• Keep city services, particularly fire-life-safety services, high

Who can argue with it? Though the do not negatively impact existing neighborhoods would lead one to say “let it go fallow” because no matter what happens, there are going to be some impacts, and someone is going to think they are negative.

Open Space / Recreation

• Create community spaces and public commons
• Minimize the inclusion of high-priced recreational development
• Treat Alameda Point like it’s a part of the Bay
• Maximize access to the Bay
• Implement the Bay Trail
• Create a comprehensive public youth recreation facility, including an aquatic center, weight training facility, gymnasiums and athletic fields

Again, who can argue? Some of these things, like implementing the Bay Trail, are mandated by state law, so it’s likely they’ll get done.

Environment

• Develop new city parks as centerpieces of native, drought-tolerant plant species
• Planning should include consideration of wildlife and wildlife habitats and should aim to maintain existing habitats while also working to restore portions of the land to natural states
• Make Alameda Point a showcase of sustainable development and technology
• Implement grey water recycling for major facilities
• Include onsite sewage treatment, co-generation facilities. These should also serve the rest of Alameda
• Environmental/toxic mitigations must be done to a level that protects the health of future residents
• Strive to eliminate non-native plant species

So this is all well and good, but we need to keep in mind that 2-3% of ALL the electricity used in California is used to move water in the state (including the long haul across the state). Sprawl (which is the opposite of compact development) continues this. Building compactly in inner-suburbs (which isn’t to say that we need 8-story apartments or 10,000’s of households), we can have a much more positive environmental impact than planting drought tolerant plant species in our parks. It’s a great step, but it’s not making much of a dent.

Education

• Include a world-class University with a green technology focus
• Build a sustainable elementary school by partnering with a CleanTech firm
• Identify a CleanTech innovator to provide funding to build new schools
• Create a comprehensive education and young-people development program using funds from private foundations

I’m really not clear on the needed connection with CleanTech and schools, but the proposals are fine, if vague. They all seem to be based on private funding, something that hasn’t been entirely successful in public education (but there are success stories). There were two issues that jumped out at me, first was the suggestion of partnering with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation on programs for youth. AUSD already has done that (and ironically, I understand that the funding arrangement makes things tight for AUSD, because it’s not a 100% free ride.)

It was the university proposal that really jumped out. This is a major proposal. We’re not talking College of Alameda, We’re talking nationally known. But I’ll let the proposal explain who we’re competing with. “Lacking such an institute, when our children of today grow up, they are likely to move away to go to college at Berkeley, Stanford or in San Francisco.” Quite honestly, I don’t consider attending school in any of these locations “moving away.”

I may just be cynical, but I don’t see Alameda Point bringing in a University that competes with Berkeley and Stanford, and honestly, if my kids want to go to either of them, I’ll be quite happy. But hey, we need to dream a little, push the envelope a little, or we’ll just end up with strip malls, so I’m not knocking it (only the idea that leaving Alameda for college is something most people don’t want their kids to do).

Services

• We should plan for a sea water pumping fire station

I’m not sure what this has to do with Alameda Point specifically, but it’s a great idea for the whole island, and I believe the Fire Department has started looking into it. (If they haven’t they certainly should).

It’s great to see the many proposals and thoughts that are being presented; it’s good to have them out in the public sphere so we can discuss them. Don’t take my word for it, check out the full report, add your thoughts, there’s some interesting things to chew on and think about in there.

At the end of the day, despite its length, Greening Alameda Point offers very little in terms of real direction for the point. It read more like a campaign piece, while wearing the veneer of being a proactive proposal. The short summary is: Very few houses, everyone drives, open space and parks, CleanTech!, Native plants, on-site cogeneration of power, eco-friendly sewage and water, a university of Stanford Caliber, an elementary school, and cars for low-income people.

Let me know if I missed anything, I’ll add it in.