Measure-B-Archive

Yes, it matters whether you vote.

A YES vote will seal in the bad deal we have been examining here and place the city in an unfavorable negotiating position. A NO vote will make sure the playing field is leveled and the city has the same negotiating power as SunCal. It is crucial that the initiative is defeated before the city can begin negotiations.

Proponents:
Councilmember Lena Tam
East Bay Regional Park District Board President Doug Siden
Alameda Unified School District Board Vice President Mike McMahon
HOMES (Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense)
Greenbelt Alliance

Opponents:
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Vice Mayor Doug deHaan
Councilmember Frank Matarrese
Councilmember Marie Gilmore
City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy
City Auditor Kevin Kearney
Alameda Unified School District Board Member Tracy Jensen
Alameda Unified School District Board Member Trish Spencer

It is not credible to argue that only one developer in the entire country can revitalize Alameda Point in a good business partnership with the City of Alameda. Alameda Point has valuable land and will be put to productive use that is not a drain on the city.

Moreover, allowing multi-family housing was not previously an option factored into the business plans of potential developers.

Section 2.8 of the DADevelopment Agreement states that any "ordinance, resolution, or other measure is enacted [...] by action of the City, by charter amendment, initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development, or a voter-approval requirement that would otherwise affect the timely development of the Alameda Point project [...] shall not apply to the Alameda Point Project.” In other words, there is no way to slow down the development if transportation, for example, fails to materialize.

If we vote yes, we will assign 1/4 of the island and important rights to a developer with a record of failure and a habit of asking government for more concessions. There will be no going back once we sign our rights away—we'll be locked into a contract for at least 25 years, unless we hold another election. By giving up control without guarantees in return, we could lose an opportunity to develop Alameda Point in a manner consistent with the needs of the community and see it instead become yet another troubled SunCal project.

The Navy’s cleanup program following base closure has been going on since the entire base was analyzed and mapped into cleanup zones, called sites. Around $300 million in federal money has been spent so far. A vigorous cleanup program is currently underway and headquartered at the Seaplane Lagoon. (See Image Gallery on this website.)

Section 2.9 of the DADevelopment Agreement reads: “Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Alameda Point Project at all or in any particular order or manner, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur.”

The vision of new neighborhoods with people riding bikes, hopping on buses, and playing at a new sports complex sounds better than what we have now. The problem is that none of these promises are guaranteed. Voters are being told they are voting for a “vision,” when in reality they are voting on a contract full of escape clauses.

The initiative and its 280 pages of documents cannot be amended prior to the election.

SunCal would have virtually unlimited rights to develop the Naval Air Station according to its own timetable and its priorities. The developer would have the exclusive power to request the city council to change the plans, and only three votes of the council would be required to approve it. On the other hand, for the public or the city council to change course, they would have to bring it back to the ballot box.