The Rime of the Old No Brainer

The Alameda Sun received a copy of this poem:

'Tis Sunny Cal that comes along

And stoppeth all of thee

We'll take the air base off your hands

And do it all for free

Traffic, traffic, everywhere

The tube's filled to the brink

Traffic, traffic, everywhere

The Island's gonna sink

One bankruptcy

Two Bankruptcies

They total nine times three

Sunny Cal will add one more

If you pass measure B

Toxics, toxics, everywhere

Your teeth will start to glow

Toxics, toxics, everywhere

Let's hope the place don't blow

Sunny Cal is so off base

When you total all the cost

It's you and me and him and her

Shall wear the albatross

So now you know that Sunny Cal

Is just a crafty feigner

So voting No on measure B

Should be a real no-brainer

— Jan Sutter

Chief thanks animal lovers

Editor:

2009 was an extremely challenging year for many people. Economic strain, job losses and health concerns have plagued many families.

Despite their own personal challenges, many people within Alameda have maintained a commitment of betterment to a social need that is of the utmost importance to them: the care of homeless animals.

On behalf of the entire Alameda Animal Shelter staff, I wish to convey my sincere gratitude to those who dedicate themselves to the care of homeless animals. Our animal shelter volunteers, and many community members, have made serving in those trying times rewarding.

The support of the Humane Society of Alameda, and the newly created Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter, have been invaluable in helping us achieve our mission of providing a safe and comfortable environment for shelter residents.

Due to the collaborated efforts of many selfless people in 2009, the shelter was able to adopt 285 animals to new homes. Another 66 animals were adopted by independent rescue organizations and 224 lost pets were returned to their owners. In our business, these numbers mean success.

— Walter B. Tibbet, Chief of Police

Toxic dust at AlPo

Editor:

Alameda Point is a Nuclear HAZMAT site. We are talking about nuclear waste and a host of other deadly substances. Finding a Geiger counter reading today is not improbable.

Minimal disturbance of the land should be the goal. It is one thing to cap over concrete and put up a commercial tilt-up building — it's an entirely different thing to dig deep into the land and put families on the stuff.

Heavy reconstruction will release hundreds of tons of toxic dust into the air. Most of the year Alameda is a very windy place — we will all be breathing in this toxic cloud during the years of proposed construction.

Alameda seems to have an overwhelming need to "fix" Alameda Point in one single wave of the wand — creating the master cookie-cutter plan. I prefer an organic approach, one in which in the end we do not have some design stuck in time. Thirty years from now will a "total" design approach look like a '70s development looks to us today? We should help the Point evolve in an organic, safe and responsible fashion, one project at a time. Diversity and local creativity need to win out over the black-and-white vision that salesman are presenting to us.

Alameda Point is not a place for developing homes and schools — toxic cleanup on this scale is never even close to 100 percent. Let's cap the site and adopt a low-impact growth approach. Vote "No"on Measure B.

— David Doyle

Is that all there is?

Editor:

This morning I opened my Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet to see what else, in addition to Measure B, is on the ballot for Feb. 2. I was puzzled as to why we are having a special election in February, but when I realized that Measure B is the only item on the ballot, I became furious.

While I was already planning to vote "No" on Measure B, on the merits, the notion that SunCal has forced a special election for their special interests is enough of a reason to defeat the proposition. It shows utter disregard for Alameda to require us to pay for a special election. Surely, it will cost many thousands of dollars. This is outrageous and harmful to our community at a time of cuts to vital city services.

— Shayna M. Gelender

Alameda: priceless

Editor:

Alamedans can't be bought. But we will pay for the special election Feb. 2 on Measure B, which will determine whether the developer SunCal will succeed in its one-sided deal to build over 4,800 housing units at Alameda Point, under the guise of "cleaning up the Point." (None of SunCal's mailers mention that any houses will be built, much less that it proposes to exempt the project from existing restrictions on high-density housing.)

SunCal is not the first to abuse the citizens' ballot initiative process for their own corporate interests (money). But it is troubling that in a tightly knit, politically savvy community like Alameda, we allowed ourselves to be duped by SunCal's paid pro-Measure B minions, who gathered signatures in front of our Trader Joes, claiming that they were "only getting it on the ballot so we can vote on it."

Now that Alamedans have learned what a bad deal Measure B is, the city's Mayor and nearly all key city officers have come out against Measure B, and citizens groups have formed to fight it, I am hopeful that SunCal will not get away with its attempted end-run around the city planning process. Ironically, this hope depends on more people showing up at the polls to vote against Measure B than who voted to put it on the ballot in the first place. And, when Measure B loses, Alameda taxpayers will still get stuck footing the bill for the special election.

— Charlyn Hook

Three reasons to vote 'No'

Editor:

Measure B has three crucial clauses that the developer, SunCal, and its financier, hedge fund DE Shaw, wrote into their initiative.

The 283-page initiative has been boiled down to 30 words on the ballot. Those 30 words will determine Alameda's future. These clauses are called escape clauses and are taken directly from the Development Agreement in the Initiative.

1) 2.8 Development Timing

"Developer shall have the right to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its business judgment." This means that the developer and the hedge fund can decide to do whatever they want out there, whenever. Or, they can choose to do nothing out there for as long as they want, and say they are "exercising their business judgment." That means they will do what will increase their profits.

2) 2.9 No Other Requirements

"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 under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur. Other agreements among the ARRA and/or the CIC and the Developer will establish obligations regarding development the Alameda Point Project, and any default under thee separate agreements (including failure to develop in accordance with the timing provisions of such agreements) does not constitute a default under this Development Agreement." This means that the developer and the hedge fund cannot be faulted even if they do nothing.

3) 4.2 Fiscal Neutrality

"In consideration of, and in reliance on, City agreeing to the provisions of the Development Agreement, Developer agrees to cooperate in good faith to achieve the City's established policy of "Fiscal Neutrality" (Resolution No. 13643, Nov. 5, 2003), balancing the City's cost of providing municipal services against revenues generated by the Alameda Point Project to assure there is no adverse fiscal impact upon the City.

This means the developer and the hedge fund will try (emphasize try) not to make the City (that means the taxpayers) responsible for paying to have things built and maintained. They'll make a "good faith" effort to pay their own bills.

Voters will decide the future of Alameda on Feb. 2. There is absolutely no reason why we, the voters, should agree to these escape clauses. Send SunCal and DE Shaw on their way out of town. Vote "No" on Measure B.

— Rosemary McNally

Let the city do its job

Editor:

A view held by our city leaders is that the plan for Alameda Point is good, but Measure B is bad. It locks in a bad deal for the city, it is said, and the voters are supposed to protect the city from this bad deal.

That doesn't make sense. One critical provision not in Measure B is the price SunCal pays for the land. It isn't tied to the $108.5 million the Navy is charging the city — the city can negotiate a higher or lower price. Such a negotiating point gives the city full leeway to compensate for financial deficiencies in Measure B, or to quash the plan altogether.

So why are the city leaders putting such effort into opposing Measure B, when the city is fully empowered to negotiate if it passes? Is it that they don't understand their own negotiation position? Is it that they are uncertain of their negotiating skills? Is it they have second thoughts and no longer want to negotiate in good faith? Or are they merely jockeying to line up behind what they perceive will be popular public opinion?

The people of Alameda should do their part and enable the plan by passing Measure B, and then the city should do is

job and negotiate a plan that's good for us all.

— Christopher Seiwald

Measure B won't effect me

Editor:

I have been a resident of Alameda than 33 years and commuted through the tubes for some of the earlier years.

With the Navy Base in operation, much of the traffic was incoming, but about twice a week, during the early commute, the outgoing tube would backup to a stop. It was difficult to get on 880 toward San Francisco.

I mention this because many of our current residents, living in the southeast portion of our populated island, have not experienced bumper-to-bumper traffic on a daily basis.

Not being a traffic consultant or engineer, I have now researched numerous documents dealing with traffic statistics and predictions for our island. There are many financial inequalities in Sun Cal's Measure B that have been adequately outlined.

But I hope all of our residents realize that 5,000 more homes and 3.2 million square feet of commercial space could generate well over 6,000 commute vehicles per day on our island.

Obviously, the tubes would be filled beyond capacity. So how would the commuters choose to get off and on our island? And where would our city get enough tax money to support all of the needed stoplights, stop signs, police etc. to control all of the new increased traffic.

A great number of our streets would be affected. But the most affected would be: Buena Vista Avenue, Central Avenue, Otis Drive, Shore Line Drive, Park Street, Fruitvale Avenue, High Street, Fernside Boulevard, Doolittle Drive, Bay Farm and Willie Stargell Avenue.

These are only a few of my concerns regarding a third of our beautiful island being heavily built out.

So do vote 'No' on Measure B and convey to your neighbors and island friends that we want to keep our small town atmosphere with a smaller build out controlled by the city council that our citizens choose.

— Floyd Hunter