Group Specs
Yet another group has popped up around the Point, that makes 2. Honestly, do Action Alameda, SOC!A, Citizens for a Better Alameda, Keep Measure A Committee expect us not to realize that the contacts for these groups are all the same people? Heck, Gretchen Lipow is listed as a key person for three of them! Add in the fact that she’s being quoted as members of “the Sierra Club,” “the League of Woman Voters,” and “the Green Party” as well and really, you can see the desperation of trying to look broader, bigger than actually is true. This is not to say that there aren’t other Sierra Club members or Green Party members who are also raising concerns, but seriously, the organized opposition to SunCal’s plan is being oversold.
Which brings us to Protect the Point (PP?) which includes one new voice, Dave Needle of the Fernside Homeowners Association and CLASS (airport noise lawsuit org). Both are organizations with good track records. Which is why I was surprised to see his group’s announcement riddled with errors and misinformation.
The One of the biggest of all was this hummer:
“The City, the Navy and the community worked for years to put together a plan. Just because SunCal wants to change that plan so it can make more money, does not mean we, the citizens, should mortgage our City’s future.”
Neither the ARRA, nor the City Council has ever adopted a plan for the Point. The last developer (APCP) presented a plan and the ARRA accepted it, meaning they said “thanks.” Anyone attending the meeting will remember that not one ARRA member, or member of the public rose to talk about how great the plan was, and in fact much of the discussion on the dais and on the floor was about the need to continue studying other designs.
The plan was financially infeasible and APCP backed out of the deal. Had the PDC been viable, it would be underway. The PDC was not the plan that The City, the Navy and the community worked for years” on. It was a plan designed by a single family homebuilder to maximize single family homes above all else, it did not meet the goals of the community planning processes actually adopted by the ARRA and the City Council, it thumbed its nose at them.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Jayne Smythe
May 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Yo, for a dude that is so concerned about TRAFFIC issues and pollution and such, seems to me like you are going against your own philosophy to favor an initiative that will bring more cars and pollution into town.
But hey, its your right to have Hummers, too.
The Alameda Point Vision is pertinent to what?
sic of it
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
As I recall the APCP plan was adopted by the city John. Maybe you missed it. The PB also discussed it at great length and approved it. It was called the “PDC”.
While it is theoretically possible for you honestly present unbiased facts, I am never surprised to see your posts always riddled with errors and misinformation.
John Knox White
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Sic [sic],
in order for the ARRA to adopt the PDC, an EIR would have been needed to be completed and accepted. This was never done.
The PDC was accepted, not adopted.
Beyond that, there was support from the ARRA to continue exploring other design options, as called for in the appendix of the PDC.