On Point: Pro-Point development group enters fray
A few months ago, I reported that a group of local folks had assembled into a committee to oppose developer SunCal’s proposed plan for Alameda Point. Well, this week, SunCal’s reps announced the creation of a new group of local folks who are in favor of their development plans.
The group is called Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization, and they’re endorsing SunCal’s proposed ballot initiative, which details the developer’s plans for the Point.
“Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization (AAPR) was formed to ensure that the voices of those who want a positive, realistic and financially healthy plan for Alameda Point are heard,” Doug Siden, a member of the East Bay Regional Parks board who is listed as the chair of the group, is quoted as saying in the press release.
The advisory committee includes Alameda Point Collaborative Executive Director Doug Biggs, Bladium owner Brad Shook, Encinal High School athletic director Kevin Gorham, Perforce Software owner Chris Seiwald and Kathy Moehring, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. (Another member is Jon Spangler, a local writer and bicycle enthusiast who was this week forced to deny false rumors published by a local activist and blogger claiming he was a paid hand for SunCal.)
The release says the developer plans to put their plan on the ballot soon. Signatures are due by September 28.
In the meantime, you can read what they have to say here (and opponents, here).
Update on Rebranding Contest
Good to see the entries for the rebranding contest starting to roll in! Happy to see Richard Bangert expand the contest to include campaign slogans as well.
A response to Art A’s query may generate new ideas for rebranding the initiative and for campaign slogans.
Here’s what I know about the connections of the Advisory Committee for those members listed on the side of the letter I and most other Alameda residents received last week. Unsurprisingly, most, but not all, represent organizations that stand to benefit from the Initiative. The ties of many of them are evident from their affiliations listed on the letterhead.
The benefits I am aware of that they seek for their organizations are appropriate, and would benefit the larger Alameda Community as well. I am unaware of any financial benefits that two members, Helen Sause and Jon Spangler, whom I know well and have been working with for decades to realize the community vision of a vibrant and active Alameda Point, stand to gain.
I personally know and have great respect for at least half of the people on the Advisory Committee. Although I may differ with the Advisory Committee on how to achieve the Community Vision described by the Initiative, I have every intention to work with them to implement that vision regardless of the fate of the Initiative. My difference is that I believe we are more likely to realize our shared vision with a more limited Initiative than the one proposed by SunCal that they support.
And I might add that Jon Spangler has actually specifically said he is not being paid by SunCal. While I think it’s good to talk about who gains and who loses in any situation like this, accusing someone of being an out-of-towner, being on the take etc because they don’t share your point of view is pretty thin. I expect better. And on that note, expect me to start riding herd a little harder on these comments from here on out, particularly comments that are unsigned and lack a proper, working e-mail address.
I received a letter from this group yesterday. I found it very misleading. Does someone have an electronic copy available? First of all, it claims to come from a group of people who have worked to improve the library, schools, healthcare and parks — as if those who oppose the SunCal plan haven’t done the same. Then it goes on to say that the voters will decide on the plan even though the plan and initiative were developed by SunCal and placed on the ballot by their paid staff. This is very misleading. It says that the voters will have the final say on whether the plan makes sense. That simply isn’t true. We get to vote yes or no on SunCal’s plan — with much prompting and much money spent by SunCal to say yes. We didn’t get to decide what went on the ballot and what is going on the ballot was written by developers and special interests, even though SunCal claims in its mailing that the measure has nothing to do with developers and special interests.
This is a very misleading letter that plays all sorts of mind games. We’ve entered the campaign spin cycle and we’re all about to be put through the wringer.
As pointed out above by RM, both the ad and the mailer of that “advisory group” are paid by SunCal. Thus, this group cannot be advising SunCal from the community’s standpoint, as Jon Spangler claims. So who are they advising on what?
Michele: I appreciate your efforts to maintain a civil discussion here, but I think it’s legitimate to consider — objectively — whether some proponents might benefit financially from this project. I also have to note that the proponents have an extreme advantage over the opponents, with SunCal backing the campaign to the tune of $500,000 and counting, and with various renowned PR firms on their payroll. We’ll never level the playing field here, but I think the opponents deserve a little slack. Nobody opposing this project has anything to gain financially.
(Also, note to all: be sure to copy your comment before you enter thecaptcha code — then if you get an error message, you can paste the comment back in and try again.)
Miriam, good points. There is a copy of the letter on http://www.alamedapointinfo.com
LM, ART A and others, It really is possible to like an idea because you think it is good. I’m not getting money from SunCal or any organization associated with them, My title was included (and clearly noted) for identification purposes only. I have owned a house in the west end of Alameda for 20 years.
It’s heartening when people feel so strongly about the future of the Point that they are compelled to participate in an ongoing dialogue about the issue. It’s disheartening when some make untrue statements in an effort to sway public opinion. It doesn’t matter if it’s those who support David or Goliath, *whoever* conveys such untruths completely undermines their credibility as a reliable source of information.
The City of Alameda is losing money hand over fist with the former naval base sitting relatively idle while its substandard infrastructure falls apart. No other plan, past or present, has the financial resources and the planning expertise behind it to meet this problem better than Suncal does. (Remember that Alameda Point Community partners withdrew as the master developer when they realized that they could not make any money developing Alameda Point under Measure A/Charter Section 26 limitations.
Alameda is not fine the way it is.
CT, please cite the untrue statements. Otherwise, it looks like you are leveling untrue accusations at people posting here, and I’m not sure that meets this blog’s standards.
Thanks.
AD,
D.E. Shaw’s partnership with SunCal to develop Alameda Point has, indeed, been fully vetted by City staff and City-paid financial consultants. The City Council ratified the change in financial partners–which SunCal initiated–on October 7. 2008. You can check the public record yourself if you wish.
Pat Keliher and others working with SunCal listen carefully to our advice and counsel, and their proposals would probably be better received on their merits in Alameda had an advisory group like ours existed from the start.
Like the members of the advisory committee, SunCal and its partners want very much for this revitalization effort to succeed and benefit the entire City of Alameda. (A failure to achieve SunCal’s goals, including generating revenue for the City of Alameda, would not exactly be great for the developer, would it? Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and imagine how you would want a major redevelopment project to turn out, and what outcomes would be in your own best long-term business interests.)
I hope that Bill Smith is serious about wanting to work with SunCal and the advisory group. (Many of us are, indeed, his friends.) It is cooperation and working towards the common good that propels most of us on the advisory committee to participate as we do with SunCal. We all want to make the proposed revitalization of Alameda Point into a vibrant reality for all of Alameda and the region.
Amen Jon
Jon, are you absolutely sure?
“The Developer is proposing to transfer ownership of SCC Alameda Point LLC to a new entity called Cal Land Venture, LLC (Cal Land). Cal Land is a joint venture of D.Shaw Real Estate Portfolios 20, LLC (D. E. Shaw) and WM Development Group, LLC, a wholly owned affiliate of SunCal (SunCal). Cal Land wil be the sole owner of SCC Alameda Point LLC. The new ownership structure is based on an Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (Operating Agreement) between D. Shaw and SunCal. The Operating Agreement was provided to Alameda under separate cover and will be discussed in a special closed session on October 7 , 2008. SunCal
has identified this document as confidential and not a public record. Pursuant to the ENA, the Developer is obligated to bear all costs associated with a dispute that the document is a public record.”
Full memo at http://alamedapointinfo.com/documents/memo-city-manager-city-council-regarding-de-shaw-october-7-2008-second-amendment-exclusive