Comments on: Alameda Point: Municipal Intent

By: M.I.

M.I. — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:36:56 +0000

Actually Dave, you miss my point which transcends the initiative. It may seem unfair that Alameda’s thanks for giving the Navy the land for $1 is to be handed back such a conundrum, but in today’s reality it is unrealistic to think that we can receive and develop this land without great stress.

If SunCal has over reached with this initiative, the opponents also go over board with their “robber baron” comments and insistence that this spells all gain for SunCal and all pain for Alameda.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:48:13 +0000

Let Suncal have all the gain, as long as they take all the pain. Right the city gets the pain, Suncal gets the gain.

By: M.I.

M.I. — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:10:40 +0000

p.s.- I DO recognize that the initiative may lock in certain things best left to an incremental negotiation.

By: M.I.

M.I. — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:08:27 +0000

DLM, the bay bridge is a pretty scary example of a crazy public works project budget. The fact is that even in a single home there are often justifiable cost over runs but I think it is unrealistic to use the comparison of a home building contract. This is a hugely complex project, many elements of which have to be defined and negotiated incrementally. It seems to me many opponents think we should only proceed when there is guarantee of absolutely no risk to the City. Sorry, but no pain no gain.

John, Frank’s $500 mill seemed to include the $108 Million purchase. I thought SunCal was to pay that and be reimbursed by vertical developers. Are we supposed to float redevelopment bonds, or how does that $108 mill end up in that $500 M figure? Apologies for my skills with these figures being so rudimentary, but if one never asks one may never understand anything.

By: dlm

dlm — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:22:38 +0000

I think what the city staff is saying here is a pretty simple, familar concept: there’s no written guarantee — we don’t “have it in writing”.

If you hired someone to build a home for you, at great expense, then it seems very likely that you’d want detailed — legally binding — agreements with the builder. Suppose you asked for more assurances and the builder said he’d be happy to discuss it — later, whenever — would you accept that?

I don’t think you’d do that, or advise someone else to do that either, and if tht level of risk isn’t acceptable for a single home, then it’s not acceptable for a billion dollar development either.

The city staff isn’t taking the most negative view at all — they’re just looking at Measure B realistically and asking what’s really guaranteed by it, and the answer is, not much.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:05:08 +0000

How bout negotiate first, vote second? Wouldn’t that make a whole lot more sense?