An independent review on behalf of the citizens of Alameda commissioned by the city council found that the initiative relied on several best-case assumptions. For the record, here’s a few of the election report’s findings: http://alamedapointinfo.com/uncertainties

An independent review commissioned by SunCal found that the city was probably right about the money shortfall. That’s why they said in their letter to the city http://alamedapointinfo.com/sites/default/files/lettertocityofalameda10-20-09.pdf they would “commit funds in excess of the $200 million cap on public benefits” and “To consent to additional property taxes on the Alameda Point property in excess of the 2% overall tax rate cap on property taxes.”

An independent review on behalf of the citizens of Alameda prepared by the officer hired to look out for our interests covered no less than 25 topics in the city manager’s reply to SunCal http://alamedapointinfo.com/sites/default/files/2009-11-18LetterfromCMtoSunCal_0.pdf

Many more independent reviews are here http://alamedapointinfo.com/election-reports

I am stating facts about Ann Marie Gallant’s actions and not making any “personal attacks” of the kind you have just resorted to.

Yes, I know that “Measure B lost by EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT” — yes, that has “sunk in” — but according to “The Island” polling results reported earlier this month, just 40 percent of the 85 percent who voted against B did not like the land plan.

With regard to the “objective and fair” election report: An independent review commissioned by the Greenbelt Alliance “found that the election report relied on several worst-case assumptions. A more standard analysis would have likely revealed that [Alameda Point]‘s fiscal impacts would be either neutral or slightly favorable for the City.”

Measure B lost by EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT — let me emphasize that since I guess it hasn’t quite sunk in. This kind of loss did not come about because of the undue influence of a few individuals — such as Anne Marie Gallant or Doug deHaan — so you can drop the personal attacks on both of them that you and John Knox White have been carrying on.

It’s interesting that Measure B required so much spin to promote it — apparently there weren’t that made good things to say about it, at least where the community was concerned. And when the spin fails, that leaves nothing but personal attacks to fall back on, which is what’s happening here.

The Election Report that Ms. Gallant oversaw was objective and fair, and it pointed out, in objective and fair terms, the problems inherent in SunCal’s initiative. Please note that the Chamber of Commerce and Renewed Hope — obviously pro-development groups — produced their own analyses, which were just as critical. To put it in plain english, Measure B was an attempt to scam us, and we can thank all the people who saw thru that.

Please drop the small minded efforts to belittle people because they happen to disagree with you. In the end, you do nothing but belittle your own cause.

It is deeply disappointing to hear someone say in all seriousness that Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant offers “real leadership in this town,” when Gallant has tried to keep the inner workings of local government shrouded in secrecy, allowed the release of a purportedly neutral but clearly biased fiscal-impact report, and seems to think that a large part of her job involves land management.

I suspect that you offer up Gallant as a “real” leader mainly because she is in lockstep agreement with your vision for Alameda Point, i.e., keeping the Point the way it is, even if it means governance by fiat, conducting business in bad faith, and diverting limited resources away from more pressing concerns. This kind of partisanship is tiresome and counterproductive. Gallant is not a leader, and she is not the answer to ineffective local government: She is part of the problem.

Measure A came from the ground up. It is law. It is a Charter Amendment. It has been tested and outspent at the polls by 10:1, three times, and is a decisive winner each time. Anyone who thinks he or she is the “Leader” to turn that around and change the law the citizens put in place to protect ourselves from mismanagement from the top down, better have more than a devisive destructive campaign such as SUNCAL’s up his or her sleeve.

The real leadership in this town has come from Ann Marie Gallant, and her staff who told the elected officials (except DEHAAN) that blindly jumped on SUNCAL’s bandwagon, that they would be creating a financial disaster and that the elected officials blessing means nothing to the voters.

SUNCAL was not forced to do anything. It accepted the offer of an ENA that demanded compliance with the LAW, and choose instead to say SUNCAL NEEDS TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN THE LAW ALLOWS, SO SUNCAL WANTS THE CITIZENS TO CHANGE THE LAW FOR SUNCAL.

Leadership will not make the world flat. The laws of physics always win, and the law of political reality is that if one supports a losing position as one’s platform, one loses.

Not so fast, Doug. The City Council, by refusing to take responsibility and lead our community by offering an amendment to Measure A on its own, forced SunCal to write and seek passage of its own initiative, without any assistance or guidance. Since SunCal has not done a lot of governing before (they are developers, not elected officials), it is not surprising that they presented the community with a business-oriented proposition.

If, on the other hand, our City Council had proposed a charter amendment, the normal public hearings and deliberations would have produced a ballot measure that would have passed, IMHO. That would have been real leadership and a real partnership. But the City Council, in its fear of “the third rail of Alameda politics”–or perhaps its failure of vision and leadership–declined to work with the developer it had selected and with which it had an exclusive negotiating agreement.

If the City’s partnership with SunCal fails to produce a redeveloped Alameda Point, the blame will lie as much with the City Council as with the developer.

As to density bonus/affordable housing issues, somebody better take a serious look at Article 34 of the California Constitution, because under that provision not a dime of money can be spent by the City, or development fees waived, unless the project is approved by the voters at a special or general election. Of course, SunCal doesn’t want to mention that fact. The community activists in Ronert Park are experts on this issue.