Login

Please consider palm trees for Park

Editor:

I would like to bring to your attention some Alameda history. Neptune Beach had and still has palm trees lining the way to its entrance. Palm trees still bear witness to the greatness that was the Alameda Hotel on Broadway, and developers planted palms on today's South Shore, all to achieve an attention-getting effect.

Doesn't our city deserve such an effect when arriving on Park Street? The architecture would be highlighted, not hidden. The roots would not damage the sidewalks. With all the benefi ts that palm trees have to offer, surely any drawbacks, which so many neighborhoods have coped with, should not stop the city from achieving such a glorious welcoming vision to the entrance of Alameda: an avenue of palms.

— John Zanakis

Editor's note: Palm trees never lined the way to the entrance of Neptune Beach at Central Avenue and Webster Street. Perhaps Zanakis is thinking of the trees along Burbank and Eighth streets and Portola Avenue; developers planted these trees about 1911, some six years before Neptune Beach opened.

Dispensary located well off the beaten path

Editor:

City Editor Sam Felsing describes the proposed marijuana dispensary's location as "approximately one block away from the High Street Bridge in his story ("Dispensary Questioned," Jan. 12). Hardly.

The intersection of High Street and Tidewater is one block from the bridge, but 4709 Tidewater Ave. (the location of the proposed dispensary) is another really long block or several short blocks down Tidewater, a distance longer than the bridge itself.

I've noticed items in local newspapers objecting to this dispensary located deep in the heart of industrial Oakland. These items have exhorted Alamedans to write to one or another Oakland authority and express their objections. I have several thoughts.

This protest seems quite well organized; maybe a little too well organized. Is there perhaps some particular group behind this? (Inquiring minds want to know.)

Calling the proposed location "close proximity" to anything in Alameda is an exaggeration, to say the least. It's actually a diffi cult neighborhood to get into, quite out of the way, not an address that one would casually pass. You'd have to intend to go there to fi nd it. Look it up on Google Maps.

I'm not sure what the actual concerns of the objectors are. Do they envision some kind of nasty marijuana- fueled juju wafting over the Estuary? There's no evidence that cannabis dispensaries attract street crime, rather quite the contrary.

Zoning restrictions push them into industrial neighborhoods, which already tend to be higher-crime. In fact, the extraordinary security concerns of the dispensaries make their immediate areas actually safer than typical for that zone.

Lastly, let's try a thought experiment. Let's say someone wanted to build something in Alameda — whatever it might be — that — for whatever reasons, fair or otherwise —- some people in Oakland felt strongly about, and started writing the Alameda mayor and council, and encouraged other Oaklanders to write our Mayor Marie Gilmore and members of the city council in protest.

How do you think Alamedans would react? I thought so.

— Jeff Mark

Great choice of trees

Editor:

Just saw the new list of trees the board selected for installation on Park Street. The silver linden, Brisbane box and my personal favorite, the red maple, are all nice trees. Maybe the Alameda Sun could do a feature story on them?

With all the sadness surrounding the removal of their predecessors maybe we could celebrate the planting of the new trees? Let's start the year off on a positive note by welcoming our new trees. I'd come to the party.

— Freda Byrne

Re: "Community Needs Survey," Jan. 12

Editor:

Health care is not subject to normal market forces! Anything that you have to buy at any random moment in order not to die is not something to which a rational supply/demand calculus can apply. Check out "Penny Medical" articles on how to reduce the cost of insurance.

— Frank Nelson

Brightening up treeless Park Street

Editor:

One of the fi rst things the workers on Park Street did was to quickly and fully cement over many of the rectangular areas, which once housed trees. I'm not sure how our city offi cials are going to keep their promise of "doubling the trees we removed, if that's the case.

The only positive on Park Street this holiday season: the Little Ice Rink brightened up the thoroughfare.

Here's hoping that's an annual treat for us, including the appearance of gold medallist and Bay Area resident Brian Boitano. It almost made my wife and I forget how treeless Park Street looked this time of year.

— Michael Lano

United they stand

Editor:

For those readers left puzzled as to why Domenick Weaver, the president of the local fi refi ghters union, in any capacity, professional, personal, or otherwise, should care about who sells groceries in Alameda, here is the explanation.

Mayor Marie Gilmore appointed Mike Henneberry to the Alameda Planning Board. Henneberry is affi liated with the United Food and Commercial Worker's union, which represents workers in grocery stores. I have photographs, which I have published, of Henneberry standing next to Weaver, and alongside Gilmore and Councilwoman Lena Tam at their election night party on Nov. 2, 2010.

Presumably, Target is biased against union representation for their workers, hence Henneberry's objection to the plan to put a Target that sells groceries at Alameda Landing. And presumably, Weaver is a dutiful labor advocate, steadfastly standing beside his union brother Henneberry, hence Weaver's disapproval of Target.

— David Howard

Thank you, Todd

Editor:

A grateful thanks to Public Works Supervisor Todd Williams. Our new tree was planted on Dec. 30 with Todd's much appreciated assistance. Many delays had happened and it looked like it was going to many more months before we would have our new tree. He promised and came though.

He's been working diligently with the Park Street tree situation and it was looking like we weren't going to get our tree for many more months. Thank you, Todd.

— Carolyn Pounds

Dust off the lawn signs

Editor:

Let's recharge our batteries and support the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) second campus at Alameda Point. Dust off your lawn signs if they've migrated into the at-tic/garage/basement/heavens knows where and hoist them up high. Start a barrage of letters saying how appropriate the "Point" is for the Lab. Get all your positive thoughts channeled into the LBNL choosing Alameda's perfect site.

Since the choice hasn't been announced, let's renew our support for the Point hosting the new lab.

Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES) applauds the city for all its efforts in obtaining the "no-cost conveyance" (and moving quickly to nail it down), starting a well-thought-out process to obtain a state-approved "housing element," moving to conclude the "Going Forward" plan and all the other efforts that are being made to enhance the desirability of Alameda for the second lab and related development.

The community's support for all these efforts is reassuring to anyone watching the Point as a place to invest in development. The lab's interest is particularly important to convey the city's seriousness in achieving an extension of the aspects that make Alameda such a special place to live. The vibrant mixture of uses and variety of housing and architectural types, extension of our grid street system (allowing great views to the Bay and San Francisco) and inclusion of parks and open space supported "with walk to work" job generating commercial and economic development will be a great gift to present and future generations.

LBNL can be the anchor tenant for this plan, so let's crank up the positive thoughts, speak out in support and hoist those lawn signs. We want to be the chosen ones.

— Helen Sause President, HOMES