Measure A - Have You Read It?

Muchas gracias to Lauren Do for getting the collective Alameda juices flowing on the topics of blight and Measure A.

I've blogged on this superficially in the past and I find myself here again. When you read the text of Measure A, there is NOTHING about Victorians, preservation and all of the side arguments (urban legend?) you read about our simple density law:

Article XXVI
Multiple Dwelling Units

Sec. 26-1. There shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda.

Sec. 26-2. Exception being the Alameda Housing Authority replacement of existing low cost housing units and the proposed Senior Citizens low cost housing complex, pursuant to Article XXV of the Charter of the City of Alameda.

Sec. 26-3. The maximum density for any residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land. This limitation shall not apply to the repair or replacement of existing residential units, whether single-family or multiple-unit, which are damaged or destroyed by fire or other disaster; provided that the total number of residential units on any lot may not be increased. This limitation also shall not apply to replacement units under Section 26-2.

Source - Charter of the City of Alameda, CA Article 26

There is a neat historical summary of Measure A on a site called NationMaster you can read.

"Over a six-year period, houses were being torn down at a rate of one every five days. The construction of large apartment blocks in the place of these demolished buildings added over 10,000 residents to a community which essentially had no vacant land for development. As a result of the increased population and increased traffic problems, a campaign was formed to enact restrictions on building density in Alameda, not just for protection of Victorian houses, but also to prevent unmoderated growth and overcrowding on the island."

I will admit that saving old buildings may have been a motivating factor and is a fine and noble cause. But at its heart, M.A. is all about DENSITY and controlling the rate of growth.

I repeat my assertion of several months ago. There is nothing - NOTHING - in Measure A that prevents me from buying a Victorian, tearing it down to the ground and rebuilding a McMansion on the property as long as it fits within the setbacks and easements of my 2000-sq foot parcel of single housing land.

There is NOTHING in Measure A that says if I own a Victorian I am obliged to maintain it to any certain standards, etc. (no mention of blight or historical value of an existing building).

This is not to say there isn't some other law somewhere else that might slow down my evil plan, but it certainly is not enforceable by Measure A.

Yes - In the late 60's and 70's, old houses were being torn down and replaced by cookie cutter apartment buildings. That's what the banks would lend for then. The concept of remodeling a house like we do today did not exist. "Why would you want to do that when you could buy a BRAND NEW TRACT HOUSE?" is what I suppose the prevailing logic was. "Knock that sucker over and turn that big lot into a cash-generating machine! We'll lend you money for that!" Lending in support of a revenue stream is much more logical than lending in support of a perceived increase in property value -- if you think about it.

The Measure A question posed by John Oldham/Real Estate 94501 was a question about Measure A and the preservation of housing stock.

Going strictly by the text, Measure A says nothing about preservation of anything.

Discussions of blight are excellent, it's just that Measure A is not relevant to the topic.