Alameda Point Info
Point.Counterpoint Measure B Archives
Subscribe to Feed
Subscribe to our RSS Feed of latest updates.
Point.Counterpoint
SunCal's Campaign Ads
Campaign claims made by SunCal are listed below as a Point.
Followed by a Counterpoint.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: “After decades of military use, the old navy base has . . . contaminated groundwater. Measure BSunCal's ballot measure to redevelop Alameda Point. It was defeated by a vote of 85 to 15 percent on February 2, 2010. will clean up the old navy base . . . .”
Counterpoint: The Navy is responsible for cleaning up contaminated groundwater.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: “By law, the plan must pay for itself."
Counterpoint: Under Measure B, the plan must only TRY to pay for itself.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: No on B is equivalent to “doing nothing.”
Counterpoint: No on B frees the city from a bad deal and allows it to negotiate in our best interest. The Navy is continuing its half-billion dollar cleanup program regardless of vote.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: “Measure B makes it a requirement that any developer provide [a host of public amenities]" and “jobs.”
Counterpoint: There is no requirement in Measure B that any specific public amenities be provided or that a single job be created.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: Taxpayers are “wasting” their money maintaining the old base.
Counterpoint: Lease revenue, not general tax revenue, funds annual maintenance costs.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: “Since the base closed, over $100 million Alameda taxpayer dollars have been spent on the former Naval Air Station.”
Counterpoint: Since the base closed, zero taxpayer dollars have been spent on the former Naval Air Station. Some taxpayer dollars have been loaned from the General Fund, but they are in the process of being paid back. (See previous counterpoint.)
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: “Measure B will: require ANY developer to pay to clean up toxic materials.”
Counterpoint: California law, not Measure B, requires any developer to clean up lead and asbestos. Federal law, not Measure B, requires the Navy to clean up other toxic materials.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: “If we do nothing, Alameda taxpayers will continue to pay for the cleanup and maintenance of the old navy base,” says Councilwoman Lena Tam.
Counterpoint: To date, Alameda taxpayers have not paid one dime for cleanup and maintenance at Alameda Point. The US Navy has spent over $350 million on environmental cleanup, and maintenance has been funded through lease revenues from Alameda Point businesses.
_____________________________________________________________________
Point: The people opposing measure B are the same people who opposed the construction of the library.
Counterpoint: Many people who worked on the library campaign—including Councilmember Frank Matarrese—are opposed to Measure B because they believe that, unlike the library, Measure B will hurt and not benefit our city.
Fixing Problems in Initiative
If the majority of voters adopt Measure BSunCal's ballot measure to redevelop Alameda Point. It was defeated by a vote of 85 to 15 percent on February 2, 2010. , which includes a development agreement, after the election another agreement (a DDADisposition and Development Agreement) can remedy the concerns raised by the opponents and city staff.
A voter-approved development agreement trumps any later agreement (DDADisposition and Development Agreement) in the event of a dispute. Also, the developer—not the city—controls the ability to amend the development agreement, and it is unlikely that the developer would choose to relinquish its financial and other benefits.
Blight
The blight at the former Alameda Naval Air Station needs to be cleaned up and this plan will accomplish that goal. (Source: SunCal campaign ad.)
Obviously, if the plan is fully implemented, then by definition there won't be blight there anymore. However, the initiative sets no dates for demolition or renovation, has dubious funding limits and schemes, and leaves development commencement to the discretion of the developer. In other communities, SunCal has walked away from projects when its funding dried up leaving the residents and neighbors with blight and dangerous conditions. Judging by its record, SunCal is more likely to increase blight than to clean up blight.
SunCal seems to have enough money for political campaigns, why not for cleaning up the messes they leave behind?
Cost to the City
"Alameda Point is costing our city dearly" and will continue to do so for years to come unless we pass the initiative. (Source: SunCal campaign literature.)
The SunCal measure could cost our city dearly and would do so for years to come. Reports done by the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, the City of Alameda, and Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates all conclude that the SunCal ballot measure creates a significant level of financial risk for the City of Alameda and its taxpayers. The City of Alameda's own study finds that the project would have a negative impact on the city's budget with a shortfall of $17.7 million if a 15-year buildout is assumed, and a $4.8 annual deficit thereafter, unless mitigated. (Source: Executive Summary, p. 16.)
The initiative could also cost the city dearly because of a provision in the initiative that allows the developer(s) to not develop the property until the timing is advantageous to them. This could result in neglected property, with the city responsible for any dangerous situations that develop in the meantime, but without the lease revenues it currently receives.
Fiscal neutrality
The plan will pay for itself and be fiscally neutral to the city. (Source: Initiative, sec. 3(j); Specific Plan, sec. 8.2; SunCal's campaign literature.)
Easy there cowboy! That's a hope, not a fact. The developer is supposed to "cooperate" with the city in trying to implement its fiscal neutrality policy, not obligated to meet it. The safety for the developer is built into the initiative through a dollar-for-dollar, lifetime credit requirement towards any services provided for new residents, including police and fire. This is regardless of how income from the project to the city turns out—income from the project is NOT guaranteed in the initiative.
In addition, the city's Executive Summary projects an $18 million shortfall of the General Fund for the next 15 years (during buildout, when the city will fund infrastructure for the developer), and nearly $5 million a year afterwards, for services. The hope is that Mello-RoosA special tax assessed on an area for a specific purpose—see also CFD (community facilities district) assesments on Point homeowners will cover any gaps between the city's expenditure and the developer's return, if any. There is, however, a cap on these assessments of 2%, which cannot increase even if the amount generated is not enough. And since development is not guaranteed at all (Section 2.9 of Development Agreement) the city could be on a hook for a long time, waiting for the Mello-Roos revenues to materialize.
Voter Choice
"It will be the voters -- not the city council members, developers or special interests -- who will have the final say on whether this plan makes sense for our community." (Source: SunCal campaign ad.)
Alameda voters will not be deciding on what is best for Alameda Point; Alameda voters will be deciding on whether or not to approve developer SunCal's 25-year business arrangement with the city giving SunCal everything that it wants. SunCal wrote the initiative, SunCal paid to put it on the ballot, and SunCal is providing major funding for the political campaign to get it passed. The SunCal initiative is special interest legislation that mainly benefits SunCal, not the voters.
Toxic cleanup
The initiative will facilitate toxic cleanup at Alameda Point. (Source: Initiative, secs. 2(c), 3(c).)
An initiative is not needed to facilitate toxic cleanup.
The Navy began cleanup in 1994, and the cleanup efforts were stepped up in 1999 when Alameda Point was declared a Superfund site. Roughly $300 million has been spent so far on cleanup by the Navy, and the work is ongoing (see our Image Gallery).
SunCal would be responsible for removing lead and asbestos, as would any builder under state law. No voter approval is required for either the Navy or SunCal to do what they have to do.
It is disingenuous of SunCal to pretend that toxic cleanup has not been happening, and that nothing will get done unless SunCal does it or we pass the initiative.
Parks and open space
The development will include 145 acres of parks and open space. (Source: Initiative sec. 2(q).)
What is not widely known is that SunCal has eliminated Alameda Point Park from the city’s General Plan in their initiative. Alameda Point Park was supposed to be a region-serving park on the western shore of Alameda Point in the Northwest Territories and is part of the official Community Reuse Plan approved in 1996.
Parks and open space in the mixed-used area do not make up for the elimination of a big park along the premier western shoreline.
By striking out Alameda Point Park from the General Plan, SunCal opens up the possibility of prime waterfront property being occupied by private recreational uses instead of public ones. Eliminating the park from the General Plan does not demonstrate a commitment to public parks and recreation.
Land Use Planning
The initiative provides a comprehensive land use plan for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Source: Initiative, sec. 2(q).)
SunCal’s land use plan is not comprehensive because there are no specific plans for the 225-acre area known as the Northwest Territories. The State of California has designated this parcel as Public Trust Land. SunCal has merely copied the list of land uses that are permissible on Public Trust Land, rather than creating a descriptive detailed plan for the entire development footprint as called for in the ENAExclusive Negotiating Agreement.
Our current General Plan contains a commitment to a public park in the Northwest Territories with the active and affirmative phrase "Develop a public park, called Alameda Point Park, in this area." During the past two years SunCal has not only failed to produce any of THEIR own plans for the Northwest Territories, but they have stricken the park from OUR plans, claiming ignorance that such a park plan even existed.
Taxes
The plan will generate revenue for the entire city and prevent the need for an increase in taxes. (Source: Initiative, sec. 3(j); SunCal's campaign literature.)
This claim is unsubstantiated.
API Images
All Content by Topic
- Affordable-Housing (44)
- Argent Management (4)
- Ballot-Arguments (4)
- Ballot-Measure-B (182)
- Bankruptcy-foreclosure-and-problem-projects (95)
- Base-Leases (99)
- City-Council (85)
- City-Manager (60)
- DE-Shaw (34)
- Density-Bonus (39)
- Development-Agreement (47)
- Election-Reports (12)
- Environmental-Issues (88)
- Exclusive-Negotiating-Agreement (102)
- Financial-Issues (130)
- Grand Tour (41)
- Historic-Buildings-and-Locations (35)
- Housing (68)
- Infrastructure (46)
- Lawrence-Berkeley-National-Laboratory (73)
- Lehman-Brothers (73)
- Maps (17)
- Mayor (29)
- Measure-A-1973 (51)
- Measure-B-Archive (31)
- New Questions (15)
- Nonprofit-Development-Corporation (6)
- Northwest Territories (13)
- Notice-of-Default (35)
- Optional-Entitlement-Application (61)
- Recreational-Facilities-and-Public-Benefits (57)
- Schools (10)
- Seaplane Lagoon (8)
- Seismic-Issues (12)
- Suncal (365)
- Toxic Cleanup Images #1 (49)
- Toxic Cleanup Images #2 (43)
- Toxic Cleanup Images #3 (19)
- Toxic-Cleanup (122)
- Traffic-and-Transit (80)
- US-Navy (156)
- Veterans-Hospital (17)
- Water (28)
- Wildlife and Open Space (16)