Save our City released a new video this week
Thank you for starting to articulate an actual vision, but I'm still not quite clear on the plan:
SunCal = Traffic. OK, I'm a bit concerned about their traffic and transit assumptions as well and I'm willing to probe on this one, but I don't buy that their entire objective here is profit and to create an absolute mess for the City.
Your "Plan" =
Green Collar Jobs - how many? who is going to provide them? how much traffic will those jobs generate on and off the island every day? who is the developer who will re-hab, update and build new facilities for the companies (for profit, by the way) who will be providing green collar jobs?
Sustainable Energy Research - from whom? what types? how many people will work there? how much traffic will they generate? who is the developer who will re-hab, update and build new facilities for the research institutions (some for-profit and some non-profit) who will be moving in?
Expanded Solar Energy Generation - from whom? has AMP signed off on this? who is the developer who is going to build it?
Education and Internships for our Youth - I have no idea what real estate development has to do with this, unless the implication is that there are a number of corporate and public sector entities standing up to manage and run these programs on our behalf in the companies that host the green collar jobs and sustainable energy research institutions? how many students? how much traffic?
Parks and Open Space - we have that already, has East Bay Regional Parks endorsed your vision?
This vision and the derivative benefits can be obtained by everything that SunCal is currently proposing, except that THEIR plan calls for housing and THIS one doesn't. Seriously, is housing and the completely obfuscated issue of the infrastructure funding the main issue? If so, probe and question on the issues, push for a compromise, but don't fog the message - that's our process.
Both this vision and the SunCal plan have "if you build it they will come" assumptions right from the start.
For Example - This plan assumes that if a research and light industrial park is built, it will magically fill up with green-tech and environmentally friendly companies. I bet Rockin Ron Cowan had the same visions dancing in his head when he built the Harbor Bay Business Park. Not exactly a bustling hub of commerce.
The SunCal plan assumes much of the same, but there are mitigating aspects to the plan in the form of a MIX of retail, housing, recreation and commercial development. Classic diversification strategy.
The SunCal plan assumes that people who live on the Point will work on the point and therefore there will be minimal traffic impact. I honestly think that is a huge IF and not a likely outcome. But don't think for a minute if you get 50 or so commercial operators out there their activities won't have an impact on traffic either - they'll have employees, visitors, deliveries, etc. all creating a traffic impact.
And lastly - WHO is going to build the SOCA dream? A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPER is going to have to come in, create a plan and take the financial risk. They will be required to negotiate with the city to take on some of the costs of common infrastructure and they will negotiate hard to get the city to take on as much as they possibly can get away with - JUST LIKE SUNCAL.
Let's take another quick step back from the brink. The SunCal plan is a PROPOSED MASTER PLAN that will take 15 years to implement. It is what I like to call the unconstrained budget plan; it has everything I wish to be in it with no regard to actual costs (direct, indirect, real or social). That plan is going to change 10 times before the first shovel goes into the ground. It will change annually over its 20-year development life cycle (yep, the schedule will slip too).
Rather than beat it into the ground, why not use it as a starting point and let's reasonably critique elements where there is real concern? Are we really ready to throw them out? Can SOCA tell us the cost to the City if we dismiss SunCal before their exclusivity runs out? That'll cost us - believe me - it will cost us a WHOLE LOT.
We've got a model to push around. It's A MODEL! It's not real, it's on paper.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If David Howard and the rest of his ilk can refute this calm and reasoned response please ask them to take the time to answer every question presented and not the ones they cherry pick. David Howard refuses to answer anything that requires a serious amount of thought. The City of Alameda is headed toward a fiscal crisis and David Howard supports an initiative that would cost the City of Alameda over 2 million dollars a year in overtime costs for firefighters salaries and retirements despite the fact that they cannot and will not negotiate in good faith with the City. Most Cities and Counties around the Country are going broke because some offer there public safety personnel lifetime retirement after 5 years. That is unacceptable. Well our firefighters that respond to an average of 16 to 19 calls a day get a lifetime medical coverage for them and there spouse after 5 years and think they not only are entitled to this but are not willing to negotiate a more reasonable compromise.
I look forward to David Howard or one of his minions to refute the original message
regardless of whether we can pay for it or not. Hey David, if Alameda Point turns into a giant soccer field
Reasoning
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
Flying Monkey
PS: I am very much against the SunCal initative, but it does not follow that I support SOCA's position. It does not follow either that if the alternatives to SunCal's plan are not ideal, then we're obliged to go w/ the initiative, and I would ask everyone who keeps pushing this specious argument to give it a rest.
The SOCA plan is a strawman, easy enough to attack, but it proves nothing -- obviously. This plan is not that likely to be realized in any event, whereas the SunCal plan might be, and for that reason alone, anyone who has any sense should be critiquing the initiative, not ragging on SOCA.
Howard's Minion
Am I ragging? Really? I'm just trying to suss out what it is they want.
Post a Comment