Alameda Point: The affirmative campaign begins
Over the weekend, I opened the front door and stepped onto the porch to find that the flyer-fairy had left a “gift” on my doorstep. The first in what one might imagine will be three or four flyers from Revitalize Alameda Point. In chatting with a couple of people it came to my attention that not all neighborhoods got them, and so I’m posting it for anyone to see. Enjoy!
Popularity: 9% [?]
dave
June 4th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Thank you, John. Such neutral & unbiased information is integral to honest & accurate debate.
laughing
June 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Somebody really wants there picture on New Urbanism magazine.
J.E.A.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Thanks for posting this because it seems I (Central Alameda) was not lucky enough to have the flyer-fairy stop by. I would be interested in finding out what areas were targeted and which ones were not.
Reading thru it I have a few questions (actually I have a lot but will start with just two)
(1) When they say “Potential Swimming Complex” what do they mean? Is there going to be a swimming complex or is this left up to the developer to decide?
(2) According to the flyer, construction of the sports Complex will “begin” in the first phase. When will it be completed? Can they start it and then put it off until the end of the project?
RM
June 4th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Our house in central Alameda did not receive this flyer.
I have, however, read the flyer and, because I am a swimmer, I find the following sentence from the flyer most interesting.
“The swim center could include an office for staff and changing rooms with lockers, showers and restrooms.”
This flyer was put out by Revitalize Alameda Point–a committee with major funding by Cal Land Venture LLC & Affiliated Entites, through SCC Alameda Point LLC”.
Again, it says the
“swim center “COULD” have restrooms. (emphasis is mine)
Frankly, a swimming pool without a restroom is useless!
That does it for me. I will not be swimming in any pool they build!
aquatics fan
June 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
The glossy JKW has posted here indicates a swimming pool. See it on the map next to the tennis courts?
Now look a http://www.alamedapointcommunity.com/tour/
Football lacrosse field instead, no swimming pool. But hey, the basketball courts are blue. Cute.
david burton
June 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
acquatics fan
Look again. Look on the flyer that JKW posted and look at where it points to a swimming pool location.
Now follow the link you provided. When you get there look at the blue box overlaying the main page that says “Sports Fields”. In that box is another box labeled “site plan”. When you click on that an image of the site plan comes up. Look at the area on the site plan that corresponds to the area covered in the flyer. In EXACTLY the same spot pointed to on the flyer the site plan shows EXACTLY the same two swimming pools. Cute.
I hope that your post reflects the fact that you had trouble reading the site plan (very understandable) and not that you were trying to misdirect or mislead folks.
david burton
June 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Oh, and we didn’t get the flyer in my central alameda neighborhood, either. What’s up with that?
david burton
June 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Okay, I just refollowed the link aquatics fan provided and clicked where he/she did – on the “sports field plan” box. I’ll agree that the swimming pool has mysteriously disappearred and has been replaced by a lacrosse field.
I know from having gone through development deals that it can be hard to keep graphics straight when things are being revised and updated on a tight timeline, but this is a pretty important one to get straight when you’re in persuasion mode. It just adds to the confusion and suspicion.
aquatics fan – sorry for the snarky comment.
Lauren Do
June 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I believe there are two plans for the Sports Complex, one with the lacross/football field and one with the swimming pool.
I think that the lacross/football one was created in case the swimming pool one was not feasible — I have vague recollections about whether putting a pool there would be possible, but my memory is hazy.
Would be a good question to ask SunCal, I imagine that it must have come up during their community meeting about it a while ago at Otaez.
Also, the West End — at least my ‘hood — did not get a visit from the flyer fairy either.
aquatics fan
June 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Mister Burton, you might consider changing the default settings on your bullshit detector from “conspiracy-minded old-fashioned bigots” to “lefty fascist kool-aid drinkers”.
Yes Lauren, 2 plans. 1 for reality and 1 for the glossies.
aquatics fan
June 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Not to mention that the lacrosse/football version has a picture of kids swimming anyway.
david burton
June 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
aquatics fan, it’s not the bullshit meter that i was using, it was just the plain old conspiracy meter. I tried to do you the courtesy of giving you the benefit of the doubt, going so far as to apologize for perhaps assuming to much, but your comments make me realize that the old meter is pretty well calibrated.
conspiracies come from the right and the left, especially in this town it seems so i wasn’t assuming anything about your politics, but if you want to label yourself go ahead.
i’m just not someone who reads the worst into any situation, maybe it’s my midwest upbringing, and i just don’t understand how people can go through life seeing dark, scary things hiding around every corner.
asking which of the park plans is the real one is a valid and important question, and i think you should be asking that question. assuming it’s some sort of bait and switch and turning off your ability to listen and think is, to me, a sign of weakness and fear.
my point before was that these types of plans that go through multiple iterations (in response to community input i might add) sometimes have visual “typos” that get missed when things go to print. i’ve seen it happen on lots of projects by good, professional, well meaning people. maybe that’s what happened on the website, considering i easily found both versions on the link you provided. then again, maybe there’s a dark scary thing standing behind……aaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhh……..
dave
June 5th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Good point, Sun Cal’s record of honest & forthright action should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Alameda Point's life aquatic | Stop, Drop and Roll | Alameda | mindfulness in the face of a challenge
June 5th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
[...] a discussion erupted about the SunCal mailer that arrived out Chez SD&R last weekend. The mailer mentioned a “potential” aquatic [...]
DL Morrison
June 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Okay, so we’re going to assume that a glossy flyer put out by a self-interested project developer is a wholly reliable source of information, yet the comments made by the project’s critics are somehow suspect?
Why are you seeing conspiracies here? A wide variety of people have found fault w/ this project, and I don’t know how they’d all be conspiring together to put out false information.
For the future: If you think someone’s statements are incorrect, please skip the suspicious motives part and go straight to the facts part, as in:
Why is that statement incorrect?
William Smith
June 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Rin Kelly’s recent investigative report in the East Bay Express, liberally sprinkled with insightful quotes from Alameda City staff, has documented several concerns that I have with the initiative. Would be interested in the comments of regular readers of this blog, especially whether or not the Initiative will make it more difficult for the City to enforce mobility standards for residents.
Comments are timely now, as at least one councilmember, Lena Tam, hopes to change or replace the Initiative before it goes on the ballot. She made those comments at the Alameda League of Women Voters annual meeting on Saturday, June 27th. She stated that the Council planned to have agreed upon all required changes by Sept. 1st. I’m doubtful that the Initiative could remain a Citizen’s Initiative if the changes really do address the concerns raised.
I’m doubtful that the changes could come in time to submit a new Initiative, so likely the changes would need to be implemented as side agreements between the City and SunCal/D.H. Shaw. Such agreements could keep a few lawyers busy for a while – may actually turn out to be better to have the Council sponsor a new Initiative, have City staff supervise the preparation of the required EIR, and then put the new Initiative on the ballot in November of 2010 at the earliest. An EIR will take many months to prepare and certify but will provide a much better basis for a public discussion of the Alameda Point Development issues than we have now.
===================================
The article from the East Bay Express speaks for itself. This quote provides a fair summary.
From June 24th, 2009, East Bay Express
Changing the Rules at Alameda Point
The developer SunCal delays its planned initiative, but still plans to go through with its end run around city officials.
By Rin Kelly
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/changing_the_rules_at_alameda_point/Content?oid=1026861
================================
Interim City Manager Anne-Marie Gallant welcomes the extended timeline because she and other city administrators would rather not see this particular initiative go to the ballot. She notes that if the measure passes, SunCal will have set in stone a variety of issues that city officials would prefer to negotiate with the company. Gallant, a new hire to a non-political office in a city whose mayor, Beverly Johnson, has so supported the SunCal initiative that she recorded robo-calls urging its support, is insistent that vital parts of the measure take away Alameda’s ability to “negotiate what we think is in the best interest of the city.”
WS (BS if you prefer!) Comment: If the Initiative passes, SunCal will be able to dictate what public benefits will be included in the development. I expect amenities that result in immediate sales to get priority for the limited financing that will be available. A large sports complex, neighborhood parks, school and fire station will get priority. Public transit will be publicized but funding for other than showcase projects neglected, environmental cleanup will be minimized, and affordable housing may be fought.
More misdirection tactics, similar to those employed for the current Initiative can be expected. Note that SunCal continually emphasizes the public participation that occurred prior to the Initative. While the public participation for the vision for Alameda Point was outstanding, there was no mention of SunCal’s plans to change the development approval process at the meetings, and judging from Rin Kelly’s article, little discussion with City staff either.
The changes in the approval process make up the bulk of the initiative and nothing in the intiative guarantees that key parts of the vision will be implemented should the going get rough. The changes to the development approval process are the important features of the initiative. See the discussion of the development agreeement included in the initiative in the article and Ms. Gallant’s comments that such agreements are generally negotiated.
The vision is not the subject of the initiative. Even the one necessary change to the charter to allow the vision, that is to allow new condos, apartments and townhomes, is a minor part of the intiative. That change, which is essential to the future of Alameda, could be better accomlished if we got behind our City leaders to change the charter ourselves rather than to turn over that responsibility to a Developer with no long term interest in the health of our community.