Blowin' Some Alameda Sun Up My..

Catchy headline wasn't it?

Another well written analysis from Dennis Evanosky in today's "Sun." Thank you for highlighting the FACTS and debunking the "red-hot rhetoric" that are clouding our ability to rationally think through the decision that is put before us.

To Summarize - Measure A says two things:

1. There shall be no dwelling units built in the City of Alameda
2. The maximum density for any residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land

• The proposed measure (it's not even a ballot initiative yet) will NOT repeal Measure A. It exempts the Alameda Point development only.
• The proposed measure adds a new chapter to the General Plan to establish policies at Alameda Point. These policies require any developer to provide certain amenities. It doesn't mention SunCal explicitly because there is no rock hard, closed deal with SunCal at this time. You don't want to lock a specific contractor into City law.
• Signing the initiative does not pass the proposed measure - it ONLY gets it on the November ballot.

The rhetoric that citizens who do not live on Alameda Point will be asked to finance the "amenities" with tax dollars is also debunked:

• The redevelopment agency directs all tax increment legally allowed to the property
• It will form a Mello-Roos district that allows the sale of bonds and collection of a special property tax paid solely by Alameda Point property owners and ONLY to finance the improvements

He then goes on to explain what Mello-Roos is - essentially a mechanism that allows special property taxes above and beyond what is allowable by Prop 13. This has been a successful program that has allowed communities to finance improvements and services required by new communities.

Mr. Evanosky's analysis is the kind of journalism that is sorely needed at this time. Straight, simple, no editorial. It helps us stay focused on what matters in the discussion, and it would seem that what matters to Alameda are the two items I've raised on several occasions in this blog:

1. Toxic clean up - more than we think, more expensive than all the estimates. What is the contingency plan?
2. 4,000-5,000 dwelling units (NOT individual houses) plus numerous business with limited access and a flawed assumption that the people who live on the Point will automagically work on the point will create a traffic nightmare (for Alameda, 880 AND Oakland China Town). Regardless of the density statistics, this still feels like way too much housing. What are the economics of the project if the housing inventory is cut in 1/2?
   

Thanks, Alameda Sun. I'm feeling you.

An Alameda Point Timeline - Just the Facts

An excellent reference from Mike McMahon.

http://www.mikemcmahon.info/construction/alamedapoint.htm#e

Thank you.

I Took a Breath and Now I Feel Better

Last week I slammed the Alameda Sun and editor Dennis Evanosky over their front page stori-torial concerning the Alameda Point - Measure A Exception signature gathering.

I want to thank Mr. Evanosky for his plain language analysis in this week's "Sun" regarding Point Clean Up. The analysis was well written, easy to follow and (I believe) lays a nice foundation to ask the right questions to our leaders about the risks involved in Point toxics removal. (If you recall I've stated on several occasions on this blog that I assume there are more toxics in the ground than the Navy thinks and it will cost a lot more to clean it up than they've stated.) The gist as I understand the analysis:

1. The Navy cleans up everything that's in or under the ground.
2. The Developer (Sun-Cal for now) cleans up everything that's in a structure or infrastructure

Seems simple enough.

The tricky parts are the timing as it feels like there's a bit of a Catch-22 scenario in when things actually start happening.

• The Navy doesn't start it's clean up until the land is conveyed to the City.
• The Developer doesn't start it's work until the Navy's work is completed AND the City has conveyed the land to the Developer.

So the questions are:

1. What are the criteria for the Navy to convey the land to the City? I believe these are published somewhere, if I recall correctly the Navy doesn't convey the land until the City has an approved re-development plan?
2. What are the City's options once the Navy announces it has completed it's clean up? If there is more work to be done is there risk and contingency built into the Navy's budget to cover it?
3. Likewise, what are the checks and balances on the Developer's clean up and what is the risk and contingency factor in their plan?
4. What if there are areas discovered to be so toxic that they become show stoppers for phases of the project or the entire project itself? What are the assurances that the City has in order to prevent it from losing it's entire wardrobe? (I'm thinking seaplane lagoon here - covered in another article by Dennis also on the front page of Wednesday's Sun.)

An analysis answering these questions in similar straightforward fashion would be a great next step. I might actually allow the Sun to keep throwing their paper on my front yard

SOCA - OK, I'm starting to get your vision

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.

I Still Don't Understand

I was never accused of being my mother's smartest kid, but I still don't see what SOCA's "plan" for the point is? How does leaving it the way it is create jobs or save buildings?



Look, I have two major issues with the current plan for development at the Point:
1. I believe that whatever the Navy says is in the ground you can triple it, and whatever the Navy says it will cost to get it out you can 5X it
2. I believe that 4,000 DWELLING UNITS is too many. It's not 4,000 separate houses (that's why Sun Cal seeks a Measure A exception); they want to build a mix of houses, apartments over retail, work-live space etc. We can argue that all you want, we'll probably agree that 4,000 is a lot for that space.

So - in a nutshell - that's my position. You can kick me for it if you want.

I don't blame the mayor for supporting the SunCal plan; what is she supposed to do? "Oh well, the City I run granted this company exclusive rights to develop a plan, now I'm going to come out against it in public?" "Gee, this is the single-most important item on the City of Alameda's agenda for the NEXT 30 YEARS, I vote for decay and nothingness!" ANY Mayor has to support the plan.

I don't buy the notion that just because SunCal is a "developer" they are evil and have no social conscience. Yes, I believe they have a right to make a profit - they're taking a huge financial risk.

I don't believe you can have a public land trust and NOT have a developer develop the property.

I don't believe Alameda can afford to let this prime property sit idle for decades while our tax base erodes to the point of nothingness.

I do believe everyone has the right to critique the plan, but seriously? Are we just down to mudslinging with vague yet pithy marketing pieces?

Nice to Meet you Donald R. White

As the April 10 deadline for our 2nd 2008/09 property tax installment looms, I decided to find out exactly who is Donald R. White. I always thought it interesting that we make out out checks directly to a person and not an entity (like Alameda County?).

The Tax Collector/Treasurer IS an elected official. Next time I'm voting for the guy who
1. Makes me feel comfortable that if I used online bill pay they would actually credit my account
2. Changes the payment deadlines so I don't have to experience the twice annual double agita of paying taxes during Christmas shopping season and tax season (OK I know the deadlines are actually 60 days earlier OR I could take the money out with my mortgage payment, but what's the fun of that?)

According to his bio on the Alameda County Website:

Donald R. White is currently serving his sixth four-year term as County Treasurer-Tax Collector of Alameda County, California. He was the first African American elected to this position. As Alameda County's chief financial officer, he is directly responsible for the investment and custody of $3.2 billion dollars of County funds, managing two departments on a budget of $10.5 million, and supervising a staff of 62 that collects all secured and unsecured County property taxes. As Treasurer he is an ex-officio member of the Alameda County Employee Retirement Association, which has assets of approximately $5 billion dollars. He also serves as the plan administrator for Alameda County's Deferred Compensation Plans, which have over 6,000 participating member-employees. The Plans have approximately $350 million in assets.

Prior to this appointment as Treasurer of Alameda County, Mr. White worked in Public Accounting for the multinational accountancy firm of Ernst & Young and subsequently, as a partner in the minority owned accountancy firm of Adams, Grant, White and Company.

Mr. White is associated with numerous national and local professional and community service organizations. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors of the East Oakland Youth Development Center Foundation, Board and the City of Oakland's Budget Advisory Committee, and the Board of Directors of the Episcopal Diocese of California. He is finance chair for the USA/NSA Athletics Foundation and treasurer of Black Elected Officials of the East Bay. He is an active member of the National Association of Black Accountants and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Mr. White graduated from California State East Bay with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. He is a Certified Public Accountant, a member of the American Institute of CPAs, and a member of the California Society of CPAs.

Nice to meet you, Donald R.