Context

In the summer of 2006, as negotiations between the City of Alameda and the Navy came to a close regarding the land formerly occupied by Naval Air Station Alameda, heated debate broke out among Alameda residents and community activists regarding development plans for Alameda Point, as the former air station is now known. The debate centered around Measure A.

City of Alameda, Measure A

Measure A in Alameda was en-acted in 1973 in response to a development trend that destroyed historical buildings and beautiful Victorian homes in favor of un-attractive multi-dwelling structures.

The history of Measure A is rooted to just after WWII when the need for housing grew. Between WWII and 1973, approximately 1,500 buildings were torn down, primarily Victorians. The peak years of these teardowns were in the late 1960’s. Over a six-year period, houses were being torn down at a rate of one every five days. The construction of large apartment blocks in the place of these demolished Victorians added over 10,000 residents to a community already completely developed. As a result of the increased population, increased traffic problems, a grass roots campaign was formed to enact Measure A. The purpose of the Measure A movement came to envelop not just protection of Victorian houses, but also to prevent overcrowding on the island.

A great many Alamedans were disgusted by the destruction of the city’s historic buildings, the new construction of large apartment blocks, the massive bay-fill projects – all of which peaked in a feverish spree of development in the late 1960s. This resulted in a significant increase in population and traffic congestion. A critical mass of discontent was forming. Citizen activist groups like Alamedans for a Better Community (ABC) and Alamedans for Today and Tomorrow (ATT) sought ways to control the city’s rapid growth. Measure A was the ultimate result.

There was a strong desire on the part of the electorate to have their voices heard and to be able to effect a change in the direction of local government. Running against the three incumbent candidates, the reform slate of Chuck Corica, Lloyd Hurwitz and George Beckam was voted into office in March, 1973. That same election saw the passage of Measure A. The new council proceeded to take action that produced a climate favorable to responsible planning and preservation.

What is Alameda Point?

At the West End of the island city of Alameda is an extraordinary piece of land in the middle of San Francisco Bay. These 1700 acres, previously the Alameda Naval Air Station and now called Alameda Point, equal one-third of the land mass of Alameda and will be developed as the City’s newest neighborhood.

Who is Helen Sause?

Helen Sause is the president of HOMES (Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense) Alameda and is a vocal proponent of an exemption from Measure A for developers at Alameda Point. Contrary to Measure A provisions, Ms. Sause and her supporters advocate high-density, mixed use development for Alameda Point. She has been very active in writing letters to the editor in the Alameda Sun and the Alameda Journal and in pressuring Alameda City Council to put a vote on the November 2006 ballot - without collecting resident signatures in a petition - that would exempt Alameda Point from Measure A. Ms. Sause has not disclosed her connections to big-money developers that would like to build high-density multi-million dollar condos with San Francisco Bay views on Alameda Point, at the expense of cutting off access to the Bay for the rest of Alameda. Ms. Sause takes special pleasure in holding up the City of Livermore, California, as the epitome of evil when it comes to suburban development. It's unclear why Ms. Sause dislikes Livermore so much.

What are the Issues Regarding the Development of Alameda Point?

Ms. Sause and her supporters, though well-intentioned, are mis-guided.

The City of Alameda, although physically an island, is hardly disconnected from it’s neighboring cities. Many Alameda residents work in San Francisco, Oakland, or in Silicon Valley. However, Measure A exemption supporters seem to think that Alameda is an island both literally and figuratively. Measure A exemption supporters believe that mixed-use development of Alameda Point will reduce vehicle traffic on, and to and from the island.

While the studies quoted by HOMES may show high-density, mixed-use development promotes cycling and walking, and minimizes automobile use, does this hold true for a city like Alameda which is a suburb to major cities like San Francisco and Oakland? Or is it only true for major cities like San Francisco and Oakland?

Measure A exemption supporters seem to think that Alameda is a large city like San Francisco or New York with a concentrated downtown business district and an extensive mixed-mode (subway, bus, taxi, commuter rail) public transportation infrastructure – the city of Alameda does not have that, and it’s unlikely it ever will, even with high-density mixed-used development of the 1700 acres at Alameda Point. Alameda's three ferry terminals exist to get people in and out of San Francisco, not from one end of Alameda to the other.

It is naïve to think that high density mixed-using housing on Alameda Point will minimize car traffic – the people living there will still want to own and use automobiles to drive to their place of work in Silicon Valley, drive to Costco, drive to Yosemite, drive to the BART station or the ferry terminals to take the train to San Francisco and so on. Mixed-use development, although a grand vision is better suited to a metropolis like San Francisco or New York than to an island suburb like Alameda.

Measure A exemption supporters claim to want to build high-density, low income housing to enable the teachers, nurses, police officers and firemen that work in Alameda to buy a home in Alameda. While this is surely a noble cause, with ninety-nine authorized positions for sworn police officers, and one hospital in Alameda, how much high-density housing does HOMES think must be developed 1700 acres to allow all of Alameda's nurses and public safety officers to both live and work in Alameda? Alameda has already set aside 25 percent of new development for moderate to low-income housing - over and above the state mandated 20 percent in redevelopment areas.

Ms. Sause and her supporters like to evoke the City of Livermore as a model of surban sprawl that is to be avoided in re-development. Yet the City of Livermore, according to the most recent FBI crime statistics, has a murder rate on par with Alameda, and a Robbery, Aggravated Assault and Vehicle Theft Rate lower than Alameda, and is of a comparable size to Alameda.

Mixed-use development for Alameda Point is likely to weaken and diffuse the business tax base in the City of Alameda rather than concentrate and strengthen it. The city has long struggled with the re-juvenation of Webster Street, since the naval base closed, and only within the past couple of years has Park Street come to life with new restaurants and shops. Adding a second Webster or a second Park Street to Alameda to Alameda Point, as the Measure A exemption supporters imply, would weaken, and not strengthen, the business tax base of the city.

External Links

link The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society

link Keep Measure A Organization

link Keep Measure A Advocacy Blog