Trader Woes Comes to Alameda Point

Posted on December 2, 2010 by Irene

Many decisions are based on trade-offs, and choosing the path for developing Alameda Point is no different.

The “Community Benefits” page in the city’s “Going Forward” workbook caught my attention.  It asks us whether we would be willing to build more housing at Alameda Point in order to pay for amenities such as a library, a new ferry terminal, trails and parks, historic preservation, a sports complex, or affordable housing.  The city says the purpose of this exercise is to “gauge the sensitivity” on the number of homes to be built.

This seems to be the sticking point in going forward.  The sentiment expressed at the workshops I attended is that a variety of housing types (single family and multi-family up to three stories high) is welcome, but the number matters.  This is pivotal because the environmental impact analysis slated to begin next June will have some number of housing units attached to it.  Based on past plans, the number could be anywhere from 1,650 to 4,845.

It’s a frustrating quandary.  It appears that the amenities we want will dictate the amount of housing built, which will affect the amount of auto traffic we end up with.  While the benefits of increasing housing are often played up, the drawbacks are not.

By relying mainly on revenue from new housing to pay for amenities and infrastructure costs, we could be limiting our possibilities.  Settling for housing as a revenue source does not capitalize on Alameda Point as a unique landmark destination, nor does it give us discretion when deciding in what order and manner to redevelop the Point.  Alameda Point has features that make it special:  a deep-water port, unusual natural habitat, panoramic views, and adaptive reuse potential.  Building housing first, before more employers are in place, will ensure that traffic on the island will drastically increase.

While common wisdom tells us that having housing developers pay for amenities is the only practical approach, I can’t help but think it’s also closing the door on a more creative, beneficial long-term plan.  Using the number of housing units to prioritize funding for community benefits leaves residents with a hamstrung choice.

The “New Ideas” column in the city’s workbook is begging for alternative suggestions for covering infrastructure costs and delivering community benefits, while protecting us from unmanageable traffic.  The last community workshop is December 8 and online comments must be made by the end of January.

Originally published in the Alameda Sun

Posted in Alameda Point, City Hall, Economic Development, Parks and Open Space, Quality of Life | Tagged | Comments Off on Trader Woes Comes to Alameda Point

Going Forward at Alameda Point

Posted on November 25, 2010 by Irene

Going Forward Workbook with previous land use plans.

It’s not a blank slate, but there’s room for you to write.

Have you seen the Alameda Point planning workbook the city produced to solicit community input? It’s a remarkably comprehensive review of the myriad issues—and choices—that confront us.

With the rejection of Measure B and the departure of master developer SunCal, the city is working to determine how best to proceed. They’ve produced a “workbook” called “Alameda Point 2010 Going Forward,” and they’re using it and a series of community workshops to gather information about what we would like to see out at the Point. We’ve been asked to do our homework.

Everything is on the table, but the city is not starting from scratch. The workbook reminds us what was proposed in the 1996 Community Reuse Plan, the 2003 General Plan Amendment, the 2006 Preliminary Development Concept, and the 2010 Measure B Plan. We are then asked which components of these plans should be included and which should not be included going forward. We are asked to consider that the Point has public trust lands, a wildlife refuge, hazardous materials, and an Historic District. Future development will call for balance and trade-offs.

I attended the November 9 workshop at the Grand Pavilion and sat at the “Parks and Open Space” table. We were asked to rank our specific preferences for various features at the Point. The huge 60-acre sports complex parcel, for example, could include anything from a new gymnasium and swimming pool to an open meadow with park benches. The Seaplane Lagoon waterfront could be active space for people and events, or restaurants and entertainment? Across the room at the “Building Types and Neighborhood Character” table, people were looking at examples of various types of mixed-use neighborhoods and at different types of buildings. They were asked what they liked, where they thought a particular type of building belonged, and whether it was “Right” or “Wrong” for the Point.

If you’d like to influence the direction for Alameda Point, or just learn about what’s out there, it’s well worth your time to attend the city’s last workshop on December 8 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at The O’Club, 641 West Red Line Drive, Alameda Point. You can also participate online. Beginning Thanksgiving Day, through January, an interactive version of the workbook will be available at http://www.alamedapoint-goingforward.com. The workbook will also be accessible via the city’s homepage or available at city hall.

Do your homework. Both you and the city will learn something.

Originally published in the Alameda Sun

Posted in Alameda Point, City Hall, Economic Development, Parks and Open Space, Quality of Life | Tagged , | Comments Off on Going Forward at Alameda Point

In A Democracy, The Majority Should Rule

Posted on November 18, 2010 by Irene

As campaign signs were taken down around town and the victims of SunCal’s wrath were trying to recover from a bitter election aftertaste, voters couldn’t help but notice the results of the race for mayor in Oakland.

Oakland for the first time was using ranked-choice voting.  Because of late absentee and provisional ballots, election results took a week to tally, but Jean Quan’s eventual victory reflected the true sentiment of a majority of Oakland’s voters.

In Alameda, by contrast, we use a plurality voting system, which does not require that the victor receive a majority of the votes cast.  It’s possible to have a candidate elected by a minority of voters.  Marie Gilmore won our mayor’s race with only 36.77% of the vote.

With plurality voting, voters and organizations often support a candidate they’ve been told is likely to win, even when their true preference is for another candidate.  Partisan funded polls, even phony ones, take advantage of this system.  There’s an insidious common wisdom that voters shouldn’t “waste” their vote on a candidate who “can’t win.”  Lopsided expenditures by a machine candidate and phony slate mailers add to the perception of invincibility.  Sometimes voters vote for a candidate they don’t want, just to stop the “front-runner” from winning.

Ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, guarantees the winner a mandate from a majority of voters in a single election.  Instead of voting for one candidate, voters get to rank their top choices in order of preference.  On Election Day, if no candidate receives a clear 50% majority of first-choice votes, voters’ other choices are tallied.  The lowest vote getter’s votes are transferred up the line until one candidate reaches a majority mandate.

Our mayor-elect may still have prevailed under the ranked-choice system, but without that system, we are left knowing that she was not the first choice of over 63% of the voters.

In a single-seat race, with a large field of candidates, ranked-choice voting ensures democracy.  It’s easy to use, encourages voter participation, and has been tested and shown to change the status quo in cities like Oakland, San Leandro, and San Francisco.  Why not here in Alameda?

Some say our election is over and it’s time to move on.  I say it’s time to enact.  Our newly elected officials should take the lead in changing our city charter so Alamedans can vote using a truly democratic system.

Originally published in the Alameda Sun 

And see:  SF Weekly:  Why Instant Runoffs Suck and FairVote.org 




Posted in City Hall, Elections | Tagged , | Comments Off on In A Democracy, The Majority Should Rule