Stop, Drop and Roll

25 February 2008 | Alameda Community, Alameda Community Development Forum, Measure A | John Knox White

So the big write up about the big forum.

Anything I write is going to be assumed to have some sort of bias, so instead, I’ll start by including a quote from someone I don’t know, have never heard of, and who didn’t look familiar. (and sadly, I don’t know his name.  When the video posts, I’ll try and remember to link to him).

This gentleman stepped to the mic after some really nutty comments (and some non-nutty ones) and I found myself wondering what was coming. He said (slight paraphrase ahead):

“I’m a longtime measure A supporter and I came here today expecting “repeal measure a” to be rammed down my throat. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I learned a lot of things here that I had never thought about before and want to thank you for having this forum.

We have a lot of development that’s going to happen and I want to encourage you to hold more of these forums, because it’s apparent to me that there are a lot of issues we need to discuss as a community.”

As the drumbeat goes out as to what a biased event, or worthless event this was. It’s these words that I will probably remember most. They jibe with the comments a friend of mine made (she had also attended, though probably leans towards the amend measure A side of the spectrum, her comments were the same, great info, learned a lot, really glad I gave up my Saturday).

So broad thoughts on the day.

During the ad hoc committee days, the appellants and city staff insisted that having a one-day, super long event was much better than multiple short sessions. During that tie, Ms Bail mentioned that having a big long meeting on a Saturday would have a low turnout, it was another reason she was against it. I agreed then, and we saw the fruits of her insistence (and more importantly, City Staff’s insistence) on Saturday. When all of about 100 people attended the forum over the course of the day. And honestly, out of the people there, a majority were the “usual suspects” (yours truly included). It was an expected disappointment. Luckily, through the magic of on-line video and cable TV, many more people will have a chance to watch it in their own time.

The History

Woody Minor’s history covered all the really broad strokes well. As an ardent Measure A supporter, his bias, as anyone’s would, showed. But one can’t argue with the overall presentation, and panelist after panelist mentioned that they thought Measure A was certainly the right tool for the time.

If there was anything missing, for me it was the lack of relationship to the rest of the region. There was talk about  population growth and stagnation, but not in relationship to what happened across the area, so the information was less meaningful in being able to speak to the effectiveness of the measure. The three problematic or telling issues that jumped out at me were (again, I reiterate, I think the presentation was a good one, these are smaller points):

1)      Alameda has been changing since the first farmers settled here, almost continuously. Minor made the throw away comment “If you had been here during the Gold Rush, you would have loved it.” When speaking of the tree lined streets, the Victorian and other houses (now considered historical). I think it belies much of the nostalgia for a time that many want to return to, despite the fact that none of them were around to experience it first hand. But, it’s a personal opinion, and one can’t fault it. He also didn’t address what I believe (and what one emailer mentioned to me after the fact) the idea that these fabulous houses were built for wealthy homeowners, and in the end, not indicative of the Alameda that has existed for over 100 years.

2)      There was absolutely no indication that the existing city had grown up around a transit system, though that was a primary driving force in how the town grew.

3)      If there was a disconnect, it was during the discussion of South Shore, which often cited (and correctly) as a big factor in the creation of measure A. During this point, he mentioned that South Shore would never have happened if there had been CEQA. (the state development, environmental review process). He later says that Measure A has kept Alameda as it is, and yet, neglects to examine how other cities have changed over the same period of time. (the answer is: about the same). By acknowledging that the regulatory framework has changed significantly, but then ignoring this fact a large disconnect occurs. It is in this area that discussion gets down to brass tacks, and just declaring that measure A is responsible for all that is good, does not add much to the discussion.

The key “aha” moment for me during Mr. Minor’s speech was a map from the end of the 19^th Century. It showed the plots that had been laid out on Alameda, the entire east end, up through the center of town. There’s a mythology that somehow Alameda magically grew to what it is by pure organic growth, and yet this map showed how exactly wrong this is. Alameda was master planned from the beginning.

Hanson Hom added some history from 1973 – 2007, but again, although it was a part of the original proposal, none of the regulatory changes that have occurred that cause much of measure A (and the important parts really) to be unnecessary, like historic preservation, neighborhood continuity, checks and balances on design, etc. Instead it was literally an overview of what’s been built since Measure A with a quick side-tour into the “red brick building,” a building that was not built.

The original proposal had some serious merit to it, it would have added something to the public discussion that is often left out. Unfortunately, though Mr  Hom did a fine job presenting what he was asked to present, an opportunity to put it in context was missed.

The Panels

The panels were solid and wide ranging, straying from their topics often. The first, on the benefits and limitation of Measure A on the development of housing was exactly as expected. Three people who wanted to talk about “the development of housing” and one who wanted to talk only about how Alameda is perfect and would not discuss (with one minor exception) the idea of future growth.

Denise Brady laid it all out there when she proclaimed “let’s remember, Measure A is really about population control and keeping the population down” (it’s only a minor paraphrase.) Ms. Brady brashly corrected the presenter who mentioned that Alameda was the 4^th densest city in Alameda County ( she said it was the 2^nd). That’s been covered by Lauren Do before, including cities in the unincorporated area of Alameda County, Alameda is actually #6. And Ms. Brady also decided to float out a favorite of mine, the old “Bayport doesn’t have retail because the planning board didn’t make them have it” argument.

Luckily, Jim Musbach, who was the financial analyst that worked on that project pointed out that the project could never have had retail, because it wasn’t built to support it. Peter Calthorpe spoke at the last Alameda Point Meeting on this issue, talking briefly about the lessons he’s learned over the years about trying to just put retail in where you want it and expecting it to work (lesson learned? It doesn’t work).

Two of the panelists did discuss the changes in the regulatory environment a little and how much of what was built in Alameda in the ‘50s and ‘60s would never have been built today. As key a point as was ever made.

Jim Adams discussed the issue of Measure A being a rather blunt tool that limits sustainable growth. “Measure A made sense then, but is it the right tool now?”

Much of the discussion between the panels began with Ms. Brady making comments about how great Alameda is right now (everyone agreed) and then the panelists discussing how none of the parts she highlighted could be built today. Even when asked directly about future growth, Ms. Brady dodged. She was asked about her population limiting Measure A comment and how that fit in with good design at Alameda Point.

“We’re not here to talk about Alameda Point, we’re here to talk about housing in Alameda.” She shot back. To which the speaker reminded her that Alameda Point is a part of Alameda. Backed into a corner, she announced she’s for “slow growth” not “no growth” a position that didn’t answer the question of why we shouldn’t be trying to emulate that parts of Alameda that she had extolled for the past 75 minutes.

Panel #2 - Transportation

This was the wonkier panel. Readers of SD&R would have recognized a lot of what was said by the panelists (all of them). Brian Caneda of Nelson Nygaard was great, knowledgeable, willing to talk outside the box on parking, land-use, etc. Trying to keep the discussion from focusing solely on density (the big problem with the measure A debate is how it limits the overall discussion to one small piece of the bigger picture). Stuart Cohen (my co-worker) did a great job of talking about communities envisioning what they want, and then looking at how to get there. (I say this based on the comments from people I spoke with after the forum, not just my own biased lens). John Ellis was very knowledgeable, but perhaps a little on the academic side. And Mr. Howard was, well, Mr. Howard. His attempts at “gotcha” statistics failed, his excitement about the Density Bonus was dismissed as “just another blunt instrument.”

Howard also trotted out his “ac transit says that Measure A is dense enough for transit” slide. This was quickly dealt with ably by Mr. Caneda, who pointed out that what he was talking about is “minimum transit” which in reality is well below the threshold for truly functional transit choices. Anyone who wants to understand this, should start riding the Line 63 regularly.

In terms of hilarity, I highly enjoyed the Action Alameda plants! Art Lipow took the microphone to ask about a certain Brookings Institute report that Action Alameda is flogging. (Quick aside: Anyone notice that Action Alameda is now a one-man operation, with Mr. Howard no longer co-chair, but sole chairperson?) The report discusses how poor land use has made it more important for low-income people to own cars for increased employment opportunities. Mr. Lipow asked about it. And Mr. Howard jumped at the chance to answer. But the Moderator, Judge Bartalini decided to answer first. ‘Well I hope your not suggesting we buy them all cars…that’s exactly the opposite of what were trying to achieve in Alameda.” (anyone who has seen the schpiel on this report, knows that that’s exactly what was about to be proposed….hilarious). From there, the other panelists had a good discussion about alternative transportation choices such as car-sharing and federal funding that deal with these issues.

In the end, all the panelist appeared to agree that density, in and of itself was not a panacea, but that if a community wants to reduce the traffic impact of it’s development, most of the effective tools necessitate some level of density above that which Measure A provides in order to have functional transit and car-sharing that will give residents the choices to lower their auto use.

In Conclusion

It was an entertaining and well produced event. I missed all the “crazy” public comment, but am told that there was no shortage of accusations of conspiracy and calls to “throw the bums out.”

If anything sums up the public comment succinctly, it’s the vision of a certain Alamedan, who spent the last four weeks decrying the fact that the Planning Board had removed all public comment from the event, going to the microphone on three separate occasions to utilize the always-planned public comment periods that were sprinkled throughout the event. If anything summarizes all the durm und strang leading up the event, it was that glorious vision.

As the history of this event is written, it’s important to note that some of the soon-to-be key complainers (Roberts, Bail, Kerr, Coler-Dark, etc.)  did not attend. They showed up and left before it got going.