Frequently Asked Questions - 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
State Assembly Member Sandré Swanson
Alameda County Supervisor Alice Lai Bitker
Alameda Chamber of Commerce
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
Alameda County Central Labor Council
Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council
Alameda County Democratic Party
Alameda Republican Women Federated
Oakland Chinatown Coalition
Alameda Education Association
San Francisco Chronicle
Alameda Journal
East Bay Express
Alameda Sun

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.)

Elections are not required for the Navy to continue toxic cleanup of underground contamination. An election is also not required for a developer to demolish and haul away outdated and contaminated structures, or comply with state lead and asbestos abatement rules.

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.

The city and the developer are currently negotiating the terms of the DDADisposition and Development Agreement, a document not part of the initiative. The DDA is required for development to proceed and contains more specifics than in the initiative. SunCal and its supporters are hoping that negotiations on the DDA will correct imbalances and reduce risks contained in the initiative. Opponents are skeptical about the legal power of a DDA to protect the city from the troubling language in the initiative if it is approved. Additionally, the Interim City Manager and the City Attorney have both issued letters saying that voters cannot rely on these negotiations to remedy the financial concerns and control issues that will become law if approved by voters. The two letters are posted under "Election Reports" on this website.

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.

The initiative calls for amendments to the city charter (Measure A(1973) The actual text of what is known as Measure A is article 26 of the Alameda City Charter. It reads as follows: "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." ), General Plan, and Municipal Code, and for the adoption of a DADevelopment Agreement and Specific Plan for Alameda Point. The initiative gives SunCal full rights to develop Alameda Point, hold on to it without developing, or sell those rights to others.

The measure also grants the developer an exemption to increase the maximum number of homes that can be built on an acre, by amending the city charter.

If passed by voters, SunCal, or whoever buys the rights from SunCal, would retain those rights for 25 years. The 25-year term can be extended if the developer decides that circumstances require it. During those 25 years, the rights of Alamedans to have a say over what happens on the land would be severely restricted.

SunCal will not release that information to the public.

State law prohibits including a specific developer's name in the initiative.

The SunCal Corporation wrote the measure that will appear on the ballot and it is providing campaign funding to get the measure passed.

SunCal needs us to vote on its ballot initiative, called Initiative to Revitalize Alameda Point, because Alameda’s city charter prohibits the building of any residential buildings larger than a duplex. This clause in the charter is commonly referred to as Measure A(1973) The actual text of what is known as Measure A is article 26 of the Alameda City Charter. It reads as follows: "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." , which is what it was called on the ballot when it was passed over three decades ago. SunCal wants to build apartments and condominiums, along with single-family homes, and they need voters to amend the charter to allow this to happen.

February 2, 2010