I love a totally misleading headline, like the one for the Treasure Island article which says: “Treasure Island utopia gets reality check.”   And then proceeds to back up that headline with sections like

Skeptics question whether a recently announced deal that will pay the Navy at least $55 million to transfer most of the island and part of neighboring Yerba Buena Island to the city is a good idea.

But then when you read on the only quoted “skeptic” is former San Francisco Board of Supervisor, former head of the Treasure Island Authority, and wedding singer extraordinaire Tony Hall, who may have a teensy eensy ax to grind given that he was sort of punked by Gavin Newsom.

Anyway, here are some highlights from the article:

Treasure Island was built using fill in 1936 and 1937 to host the Golden Gate International Exposition. That fill dirt has been settling for decades, prompting concerns that the island is sinking.

The development proposal calls for the island’s soil to be mechanically packed down and stabilized. The area proposed for housing and a town center would have the ground built up higher than the current sea wall in San Francisco and be set back about 300 feet from the water.

The island’s perimeter would include dikes to protect against sea level rise and form a waterfront trail. If water rises beyond projections, the dikes could be built up.

…

It will cost an estimated $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion to buy the island, address seismic safety and sea level rise, upgrade transportation infrastructure and utility lines, and put in affordable housing, along with a library, grocery store, child care center and parks.

…

The money will come from private developers and revenue the project generates through taxes and fees, Cohen said. The infrastructure costs will be spread out over the duration of the development, which is expected to take 15 to 20 years.

“It’s all supported by revenue the project generates,” Cohen said. “That’s why this project is so attractive.”

…

The broad terms of the transfer deal announced two weeks ago call for the Navy to get a guaranteed $55 million over 10 years, plus $50 million more if the private investors recoup their money and reach a rate of return still being negotiated, Cohen said. Any profits beyond that will be split among the city, Navy and developers…

So, did you catch how much it is estimated that the entire cost, including the purchase price is going to cost for Treasure Island?

$1.2 – 1.4 billion.

That’s right BILLION.

I imagine that the costs for Alameda Point will be somewhat comparable.   So the idea that opponents to Measure B are wringing their hands over $500 million that they say the developer is short on, which, according to Michele Ellson includes:

The $500 million figure, which the group did not budge on, is the sum of $175 in city staff-estimated cost overruns on public benefits, $184 in future tax revenues that are to be leveraged for roads, sewers and other infrastructure and the Navy’s $108 million asking price for the Point – give or take about $30 million.

Even though the $108 million (the asking price for land) is actually a cost that was identified in the RFQ stages as something that any developer agreeing to sign on to Alameda Point  would have to be willing to pay.   To now say that it is part of a combined “developer shortfall” is completely incorrect and completely misleading.    Not to mention that including the Tax Increment Financing as part of a “developer shortfall” is fudging the truth a bit too.

But let’s say that there is a nugget of truth buried somewhere in that talking point.  Or that one is so ideologically opposed to Redevelopment Financing and Tax Increment Financing that any amount given to the developer would be considered a subsidy or “shortfall.”   $184 million is nothing compared to a potential $1.2-1.4 billion that the developer would expend over the years to complete the project.   It’s a drop in a very very large bucket.

So while the old slogan of Measure B being a “Bad Deal for Alameda” and from what I understand, the newest slogan being worked out is something along the lines of “Make the Developer Pay.”   I would love to have the developer pay as well, but that would require a yes vote on Measure B.   Because if there is no developer, then it will be the taxpayers who continue to pay for the maintenance out at Alameda Point.

As mentioned by Doug Biggs, in early October the City sent the Navy a letter discussing recommendations made by the Historic Properties Inspection Report which suggested that the Navy and the ARRA (the City) consider apportioning lease revenues to the maintenance of the historic structures at Alameda Point.

Essentially the City says, ain’t gonna happen.  To quote the letter:

In the past year alone, and consistent with the requirements of the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (“LIFOC”), the ARRA has spent over $2.3 million on repairs, upgrades, security, guard service, graffiti eradication, board up, roof and utility inspections.   Total expenditures for property management at Alameda Point in the past two years has exceeded annual lease income, instead utilizing cash funds that have been saved specifically to prepare for unexpected infrastructure repairs or long term, large capital projects that require dollars to be programmed over several years to accumulate for emergencies… [emphasis added]

So while Louise insists that her

…only intent here is to demonstrate that the city is NOT losing money on the leases right now — that’s it.”

The whole hysterical, OMG, we’re-bleeding-money-at-the-base argument is inaccurate and misleading.

It would appear that even the City acknowledges that for the past two years, at least: (1) the expenditures have exceeded revenues and (2) there has been  a need to dip into what would be reserve funds in order to do basic property management at Alameda Point.   While they did not write “OMG, we’re bleeding money at the base” at some point, if nothing is done, then OMG, we will be in serious trouble.

The question is, does the City have the money to make a large capital investment in Alameda Point, in the case that some folks get their way and SunCal disappears and no other developer swoops in to take its place?

If folks have a few minutes take a read through the entire letter, the details of the investment that the City has had to put into Alameda Point just to keep it secure is staggering.   For example, the cost just replace the windows in one building alone was $1 million.   That included removing lead paint, sandblasting, sealing and that spanned 14 months.

But back to Louise’s comment, who then says:

I realize that a complete overhaul of the infrastructure at Alameda Point would be extremely expensive — the thing is, no one is proposing that a complete overhaul would be necessary in an alternative plan, and certainly not me.

I think the point that folks have been trying to make — or at least I have been trying to make — is that even if alternative plans aren’t suggesting a complete overhaul of the infrastructure at Alameda Point, the reality is the infrastructure at Alameda Point isn’t going to last much longer.   It’s not an “if the infrastructure will need a complete overhaul” it’s a “when the infrastructure will need a complete overhaul.”   And, according to the City’s letter referenced above, there is no money saved for  ”unexpected infrastructure repairs or long term, large capital projects” because that money is going into the day to day maintenance, because the current expenditures exceed revenues.

I know not everyone celebrates Xmas, but I wanted to share one of my favorite Xmas movie scenes:

Stay healthy everyone!

at To Herb With Love in Alameda

“Louise” and I have been having a back and forth over the comments section over whether or not Alameda Point’s lease revenues have been, in fact, covering all of the expenses for Alameda Point.   Louise suggests that the fact that the fund balance has shown itself in the black is indicative that indeed the lease revenues are positive generators of money as opposed to a huge sucking black hole.

I was recently reminded that it is not just supporters of Measure B that have discussed the inability of Alameda Point leases to support the expenses out there, but even stalwart Measure B AND SunCal plan in general opponent Councilmember Doug deHaan discussed the issues around Alameda Point leases as one of his campaign talking points, he says:

For the past eleven years, The City of Alameda has actively been engaged in the process of the conversion of Alameda Point for public use. In the last eight years the city has been involved with two different master developers. During this period the city has bonded over $15 million in support of public services and the conversion planning process. The present cooperative agreement with the Navy and our inability to generate enough lease revenue is costing the City General Fund $1 million to $2 million annually.

Screen cap below.

Additionally, while the projected budgets show the ARRA being able to pay off the General Fund loans by 2017, there is no money.   No reserve, no fund, nada for any capital improvements that will need to be made.   This is another one of Doug deHaan’s big talking points as well, that the City has continued to defer the maintenance on capital projects and that we have not projected out any way to pay for these repairs if they become large scale issues.

If the ARRA continues to have to borrow money from other pots of City money, including the General Fund or Sewer Fund (money was borrowed from this account to fund the Stargell extension) then to say that the lease revenue is more than paying its fair share for expenditures is erroneous.   A part of paying its own way would be able to cover ALL expenditures, including the repairs that need to be made.

Of course, at the time that Doug deHaan wrote this part of his campaign issue statement he was more concerned about SunCal sticking to the deadlines written into the ENA (of course, he wobbled back and forth between sticking to the deadlines in the ENA and then slowing down the process to take our time).   The argument being that the longer that we allowed the developer to stall on developing Alameda Point, the bigger of a hole that Alameda would dig itself into with revenues not meeting expenses out at Alameda Point.  I don’t imagine that he ever expected other opponents of the SunCal plan/and or initiative would try to suggest that we didn’t need SunCal because Alameda Point is a positive revenue generator.

Of course, no one really knows how bad the infrastructure is at Alameda Point or how badly it is failing.   But the point is, the City of Alameda has not set aside any substantial amount of  money for any major repair that might occur out there, but I think that anyone who has been out at Alameda Point lately realizes that its all just a matter of time.

Last week, Tony Daysog posted a comment which linked to a very old editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle about the closing of the Naval Base.   The editorial entitled “Think Big” is every bit as relevant today as it was in 1997.

Yes, 1997.

Almost 13 years later we are still talking about developing Alameda Point and are on the cusp of a real opportunity to do so, but even today portions of that editorials we should be considering in light of the election on February 2, highlights:

It is not hard to imagine a wondrous transformation from Navy to civilian activity. The abandoned seaplane lagoon could be filled with pleasure boats and ringed with businesses and townhouses catering to the mariner crowd.

…

The city must overcome its provincial instincts if it hopes to truly capture the dynamic opportunity here.

…

Neither Alameda nor the region can afford to squander this opportunity. Success will require cooperation and vision. Elected representatives in Washington and Sacramento are going to have to work doubly hard to cut through the regulatory thickets that loom in the way.

Above all, expectations should be high, standards unyielding. If Alameda succeeds, it can be justly sentimental about its Navy days, but even more grateful about the day when the chain-link fences came down.

It was inevitable that news of the Jenner Headlands being purchased by the Sonoma Land Trust for a cool $36 million would pick up discussion of an “Alameda Point Land Trust” once again.    Of course, not much has changed since the Trusters had proposed the idea earlier this year when they said we should have a land trust, then backed off saying that it wouldn’t be in the model of the Jenner Land Trust or the Presidio Trust.   Now, after news that the pristine and untouched Sonoma land would be part of a protected land trust, once again, the same folks are touting the Jenner Headlands model as an alternative for Alameda Point.

I guess I could write a long post again about how infeasible a Land Trust is at Alameda Point, but I’m just going to repost sections from previous posts about the same subject, actually this first passage is taken from Michele Ellson’s post about Land Trusts:

…I asked Tim Wirth, TPL’s San Francisco Bay Area program director, if he knew of other instances of publicly owned land, and particularly military bases, being converted to a public trust. The only other, similar situation he could point to was … the Presidio, which Wirth called a “singular situation” that was created under extraordinary circumstances.

…Even then, Wirth said, the Presidio is developed more than some people had hoped.

…I checked in with Lenny Siegel of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in Mountain View, which works to increase public scrutiny of environmental cleanup efforts. He said you’d need some serious cash and political buy-in to make a new community land trust [in the Burlington Vermont model] happen. His ideas on what could be created out at the Point sounded a lot like what SunCal has proposed.

“Unless you have a rich uncle, it’s pie-in-the-sky,” Siegel said.

As to the issue of funding, at no time have the Trusters talked about how to fund a Land Trust:

Okay, fine, so how will it be funded then?  Perhaps the SOCA folks would like to try their hand at a parcel tax in order to finance their Land Trust?   Or, as the spokesperson for SOCA once (or rather twice) suggested that we should try to pass a 1/4 cent sales tax hike for all of Alameda County (in the Jenner model) to help fund this land trust.   Which, as one commenter on Stop, Drop, and Roll suggested, most folks in Alameda County probably couldn’t point out the city of Alameda on a map, let alone know, or care, about Alameda Point.

Speaking of alternatives, I would have rather seen the City Council take the initiative and put the Measure A exemption for Alameda Point on the ballot themselves (not too late City Council…) as Kevis suggested, which would open the door to negotiating a Development Agreement that the City finds more favorable.  But I’m not holding my breath that there is sufficient support for that on the Council

If you haven’t seen the news about Treasure Island yet, highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Mayor Gavin Newsom struck a deal Wednesday with the U.S. Navy to transfer Treasure Island to San Francisco for a $55 million guaranteed payment over several years. Additional considerations could make the package worth more than $105 million to the federal government.

…

The mayor and local congressional leaders hailed the agreement as an economic boon that will create badly needed jobs after years of talks.

…

The planned development would transform an isolated patch of flat land with sweeping city views into a neighborhood with 6,000 homes, a gleaming 60-story high-rise and a new commercial town center – all with a goal of being the most environmentally friendly development in the country.

There would be at least six residential towers, a new ferry terminal, organic farm and 300 acres of open space. The plan is to build housing through private and public financing. Lennar Urban, the developer reshaping the city’s southeastern waterfront around Hunters Point, and multiple partners will stake $500 million, with the city providing an additional $700 million in bond money financed by property taxes collected once the development is completed. The initial $1.2 billion will pay for the project’s infrastructure and some of the housing.

The site has unique challenges, though. It’s largely on seismically unsafe landfill and could flood if sea levels rise.

…

San Francisco will pay $55 million over several years, plus $50 million that both sides described as an interim payment…

Even while San Francisco moves ahead with its base redevelopment plans, Alameda will be still deciding “will we or won’t we” come February 2nd when we vote up or down on Measure B.   Comparing the two projects, at least the residential portion of the two projects because Treasure Island is not focusing heavily on commercial/office development, the two essentially have the same sort of focus:

1. Transit oriented development
2. Higher density around transportation hubs and then the density reduces the farther away from the transportation hub, in both cases the ferry is the major transportation hub.
3. Assume population that will self-select and appreciate the benefits and tradeoffs to living on the site.

For more information about the two projects, I uploaded video in April of a presentation given to the City Council by a Treasure Island representative detailing the project and the question and answers from the Council.  Ironically, Doug deHaan lauded the Treasure Island project as “impressive” (around 5:10 into the video) when it doesn’t differ a whole lot from the SunCal plan for Alameda Point.   Minus, of course, the high rises (40-60 story) that is an integral part of the Treasure Island project, but I can’t imagine that is the reason why Doug deHaan likes the Treasure Island project but not the Alameda Point one.

Of course, it would probably help if folks who have decided to come out against the project and write letters in the newspaper against the project understood what actually is happening.   The most recent contribution in the Alameda Journal assumes that if the SunCal plan is passed that somehow the VA plan (hospital and columbarium) cannot exist.   Except for the tiny little detail that the VA plan was never supposed to exist on any portion of the land that is in question here.   The VA wants land that is located within the Wildlife Refuge (not part of the property to be transferred) to build their hospital and columbarium.  From my understanding, it would be cost prohibitive for the VA to attempt to site the hospital on the Wildlife Refuge land, including bringing infrastructure out there and  SunCal has actually acknowledged that they would be interested in siting the VA hospital as part of the Alameda Point parcel.  So the whole  device of pitting veterans against the big bad developer is either (1) not understanding how everything has shaken out between the Navy, City, and other federal agencies or (2) deliberately obfuscating.

And as to the concern that the EIR is being conducted after the vote, blame that on the City Council folks who voted to place the initiative on the ballot at a special election even though it was highly speculative that they were required to do so.   And even if the “EIR goes against SunCal” it’s not just a slam dunk that’s it.   Simply because issues are identified as an “environmental impact” doesn’t mean that a project is dead in the water if impacts exist, just an acknowledgement that there are impacts.  And dealing with those impacts is a matter of negotiation between the city and the developer.   Just because people throw around terms like EIR doesn’t mean that people understand what the hell it actually means.

Anyway, for more info about the Treasure Island project which has taken a giant leap forward that hopefully we will match come February, watch.  t’s actually quite interesting if you have the time.

On Tuesday night, the School Board in a special session voted to approve the charter petition for the Academy of Alameda.  Yay!

And here’s the answer to the question that you may (or may not) be asking.   Trish the Charter School proponent showed up on Tuesday night to not only cast a vote approving the charter petition, but to make the motion to approve the petition.   But not after some claws came out at one point during the meeting, which made for serious awkwardness for a large portion of the hearing after that.

So here’s what kicked off the uncomfortable exchange:

Trish Spencer: So if there are a sufficient number of families that are not interested in going to the charter from Chipman, is there a possibility they could stay at Chipman in a traditional school?

Kirsten Vital: I think, Boardmember Spencer, these are issues that you raised before at the last meeting as well and one commitment we made as staff to this board is that we need to keep the charter separate and the decision around the charter separate from the effects of what happens with the charter.  And so staff has prepared and gave a timeline around the effects that we would need to come back in February once we have a clearer sense of enrollment if in fact the board approves the charter.

And so I just want us to be careful around the judgement of the charter is based upon the criteria and the effects we’ll need to deal with separately, whether that’s closing Chipman or not closing Chipman based on enrollment, where our students would go, to Wood or Lincoln and that was something that we clarified at the December 8th board meeting.

TS:  This evening though there is a statement in the presentation that this is discussing how Chipman Middle School will be turning into a charter, so that does need to be clarified so that the families  understand  that there would be a choice, that they could choose to go to this charter.   But it’s not turning it into a charter…

KV: Right, there is a difference between a conversion and a start-up, and their Prop 39 request which is their facilities request would be a separate item as well.

TS:  This is a start-up though, correct?

KV: Yes

TS: So I think that it is appropriate for me to ask that question and and so I don’t appreciate your initial comments, I wanted clarification based on what was said this evening.

<insert audience murmurs here and some disapproving headshakes throughout >

I realize that the transcript is not nearly as exciting as watching it, but the audio on my recording is shoddy and I saw some other guy recording it so hopefully it will be up.   Live and in person though, the thought that ran through my head was “me-ow.”       I mean it wasn’t t as bad at this guy:

But in the world of Alameda politics, particularly School Board politics, it’s pretty close.

For more information about the Academy of Alameda, visit the website (includes enrollment forms for those so inclined!)

While I was watching for the whole pot club ordinance business  (continued until January by the way) at Monday night’s Planning Board meeting, I instead got sucked into the whole business of extending truck delivery hours for a few businesses at Alameda Towne Centre (Safeway, Walgreens, Panera, Big 5).   Essentially these businesses were arguing that it is hard to do business when they are so constrained in their delivery hours.

What was amazing was this came after a public comment from a neighbor who requested that Kohl’s get their extended operation hours revoked — or rather schedule a hearing to get their extended hours revoked — because she walked into Kohl’s before 7:00 a.m. and made a purchase and has receipts to show for it.   She promptly filed a complaint with the City because of the terms in the Planning Board resolution that said that if there are two documented violations a revocation hearing would be set.

So here’s what’s was confusing about the whole thing, when the City Council decided on the topic they were going to allow Kohl’s to open at 6:00 a.m. from after Thanksgiving until Christmas, but in the Planning Board resolution the 6:00 a.m. opening wasn’t addressed at all.   So this all will be clarified in January.

Back to the truck deliveries.   So, as usual, there were folks complaining that the additional truck delivery hours would impact their quality of life and be a horrible thing.   The final decision was a vote by the Planning Board to go ahead and extend the hours and Planning Board Andrew Cunningham talked about the conflict between trying to support businesses but also maintain the quality of life for the surrounding neighborhood.

It’s always a balance, we’ve got this great shopping center, we’re now very pleased to have…this is actually the lifeline, obviously, bringing products to the store.  Conceptually I’m a big supporter of making sure that whole operation flows effectively.   Now from a planning point of view, you have to figure out how do you harmonize a business in a neighborhood, this is not something new we’ve come against.  We’ve known Towne Centre’s been in a neighborhood since it started down there.

Now in terms of its success, obviously we’re enjoying the benefit of that success because of the amount of goods that need to be delivered.   We need to expand that a little bit and I think that’s the harmony when we talk about balancing the quality of life.  I think you’ve got to go back and define what is the “quality of life.”  And I don’t think the general plan has a real idea or a description of what is the quality of life we are trying to achieve here.   Are you trying to create tranquility throughout the Island at all times every day?  Or are we actually trying to create a vibrant society?

I think from my time on the Planning Board, there’s definitely a zest for inhabitants of Alameda to have a quiet neighborhood, but at the same time we’re trying to create a community and a city that can self-sustain itself, pay for schools, pay for taxes, pay for our fire and police departments as well.   So it becomes this balance between tranquility and trying to make sure that we have enough merchandise there for people to buy.

Interestingly enough, apparently the Safeway store is one of the most successful ones in the Bay Area as is the Walgreens store.   Shop on Alameda, shop on.    Speaking of shopping, has anyone seen that godawful advertisement that plays at the Alameda Theatre while you are waiting for the movie to start?    You know the one with the Mayor telling everyone to support Alameda businesses and shop Alameda and then segues into various kid groups — after all nothing tugs at the heartstrings more than little kids reading off cue cards — it was pretty obnoxious after the third or fourth viewing.

In other news, the model homes for the new Warmington Homes project are being constructed and you can see the floorplans and renderings at their website:  Grand Marina Village.   For those wondering where this is, it’s located around the Grand Street Boat Ramp.

Yesterday morning on KQED’s forum, Trish Herrera Spencer, Tracy Jensen, John Knox White, and Kerry Cook all went head to head (well John Knox White and Kerry Cook over the phone) to talk about AUSD’s anti-bullying curriculum.

All in all  it was an interesting listen, the funniest part was the email read by Michael Krasney by a “Dave” (soooo many Daves in Alameda) who sarcastically mentioned that if anti -Lesson 9ers (for lack of a better title) were successful in getting LGBT explicit curriculum out of the anti-bullying then he would sue to get kids to stop wearing Christmas sweaters (Christian indoctrination) and the lunchrooms from serving turkey sandwiches (meat eating indoctrination).   Funny stuff, problem was Michael Krasney’s non-funny reading of it.   But I redrafted it in my head with proper intonation and giggled.

The other funny part, not funny ha-ha however, were the softballs lobbed by Michael Krasney at Trish Herrera Spencer to “help” her out in a sense.   After an email pointed out that despite the rhetoric currently being used by Trish Spencer and others  and that their message has changed drastically from when Lesson 9 was first introduced to now,  all signs point to the messaging being changed in order to exclude LGBT references.   Michael Krasney immediately goes to Trish Spencer and asks:

“Trish Herrera Spencer, you’re not advocating — I just want the record clear on this — that LGBT discrimination be excluded from it, that you want just a more general approach to anti-bullying that would include and be inclusive with…correct?”

No, Michael Krasney, not correct, not precisely correct at all.

Well, it is correct if you are talking to the Trish Spencer that exists after the new curriculum was adopted that will be pulling together a book list that speaks about all protected classes individually and explicitly.   Then yes, this Trish Spencer would much rather have a  generic anti-bullying curriculum that speaks in general terms even though only less than 20 minutes ago she recounts the story about a Muslim girl who was bullied and the district not having any tools to directly address that type of bullying.

But, if you were speaking to the Trish Spencer that existed before Lesson 9 was adopted, then no, this Trish Spencer wanted to suspend all anti-bullying lessons  until such a time there was an explicit curriculum that addressed all the protected classes, in her words, a curriculum that “goes to reducing bullying against all of our students and enumerating the six protected classes: religion, gender, LGBT, disability, race, ethnicity, and…um…uh…I’m not sure if I left one out…disability, and also disability. ”   Of course that was before the community committee had taken the job for which they were tasked and recommended that an explicit curriculum be developed to cover all protected classes.

But of course, such a drastic swing from one side (explicit curriculum for all groups) to the other (generic curriculum) would be too hard to explain in an one hour show.   Or too hard to justify without facing the reality of the major flip flop from one side to the other.

And on the subject of Trish Herrera Spencer, I have to say that was very uncomfortable with her characterization of some of the books that are a part of Lesson 9, she goes on to lambaste these books saying that they don’t portray African America students in the “best light,” particularly the Kindergarten book and the third grade book.   She essentially says that the Kindergarten book is not the “best light” because when the two black kids in the book play with each other they have sad faces, but when they find white kids to play with they are happy.

The the other problematic book was the third grade book where the white father is wearing a suit, the Latino family is shown in casual clothes, and at the end there is a black family where the little boy says, “mother is dark skinned, but father is light skinned, and he’s in between” and because no other families talk about the shade of their skin, this is not portraying African American students in the best light.

Seriously?

Look, as a person of color who is pretty hyper sensitive to issues of race, I found the examples that Trish Spencer gave to be pretty lame.   I can see where’s she heading on those two examples, but it smacks of really reaching.   First of all, the notion that two black kids have to play with each other and be happy is pretty ridiculous.   As the only Asian kid in my class when I lived in Kansas, I was pretty fricken offended when the year after I moved away and was still pen paling with an old friend at that time mentioned that a new Asian boy had moved to the school and that it was too bad I wasn’t still at the school because we could have dated.   I guess the assumption was that because we were both Asian we would obviously want to hook up because our ancestors were from the same continent.    Kids that find that they can be accepted into the wider community and have friends of all different colors does not reflect African American in a negative light.   It just means that we are not all that different — personality wise —  and that we can all be friends despite our differences.

The the thing about the clothing is just absurd.   For all we know the white man wearing a suit could be a host at a mid-level restaurant making little more than minimum wage.   And the Latino father (or mother) could be an executive at Google.   Talk about reading way to much into appearance.

And then the thing about dark, light and in the middle.   This is a much more complicated and complex issue that goes beyond just the African American community.   I can’t think of one community of color that doesn’t have an ingrained and systemic issues about darker skin folks in their own communities being less attractive than lighter skin folks.   (skin bleaching anyone?) That the book only touches on the issue within the African American community is not casting blacks in a negative light, but showing that even within one individual race there is diversity and that all shades are indeed something to be celebrated and that recognition is not a negative portrayal.   Chris Rock touches on this issue, but around the subject of hair.

Anyway…in more AUSD new, staff is recommending approval of the Academy of Alameda charter application.

Free call pick up and delivery.

No contracts required. One-time service / weekly service / monthly service (your choice).

Up to 50 Items of Clothing. Any of the following items: shirts, jeans,pants, skirts, blouses, dresses, linens, etc.

Please call 561-290-0432

Currently servicing:

Boca Raton
Delray Beach
Hillsboro Beach
Pompano Beach
Deerfield Beach
Coral Springs
Coconut Creek
Parkland
West Boca
Lauderdale Lakes
Wilton Manors
East Fort Lauderdale

Does not include:  South and West Broward, North Palm Beach or Miami.

No checks, please.

Evidently, the City Council, sitting as the ARRA intends to take a field trip to Hamilton Air Force base in Novato later this morning to see what they have done over there.   I’m not even going to get into why the Council didn’t feel as though it was necessary to take these trips before deciding that they needed to find a developer to replace Alameda Point Community Partners when they pulled out, but it’s Alameda, we like to make things more complicated than they actually are.

So here’s a few things that I pulled up about the process of developing Hamilton, which I found rather interesting.  From a discussion in 1998 at the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development, the project manager for the New Hamilton Partnership — the team that developed a portion of the Air Force Base — said:

He began his presentation by describing what these military bases are and are not. They are lands that have been developed — lands with a collection of buildings (most of which are out of compliance) and infrastructure (which is virtually useless). In the case of Hamilton AFB all the infrastructure — sewer, electric, gas and telephone –has been or will be removed as well as 100 of the 114 buildings on the base. However the 100 buildings to be demolished or de-constructed total about 700,000 square feet while the 14 buildings to be saved total 500,000 square feet. Of the 400 acres that comprise Hamilton AFB, 150 acres are to be developed, 1,000 homes are to be built and 2,000 jobs will reside on the base. Hamilton AFB is ”clean” by military standards after more than $100 million has been spent on cleanup.

Wright also pointed out that any developer of converted military bases is dealing with the “land seller from hell,” i.e., the federal government/Department of Defense.

…

He summed up by identifying the biggest challenges to base redevelopment as “simply time and money.” He expects 10 years to lapse from when development started to completion with total construction costs of approximately $300 million (infrastructure itself was $40 million).

And from an article about the group that was formed (New Hamilton Alliance) to develop those parcels:

The New Hamilton Partnership, based in San Francisco, is actually an alliance. The alliance involves The Martin Group, a 15-year-old Bay Area real estate developer which, through the city of Novato, has raised $25 million for the project through a Mello-Roos infrastructure bond and the Whitehall Street Real Estate Partnership, an investment fund managed by Goldman Sachs, which has infused the project with $31 million.

…

Early on, the partnership realized it needed some kind of corporate anchor at Hamilton to help reduce the prices of the residential units, because many were to be designated affordable housing.

…

Autodesk, the San Rafael software giant, signed on in 1991. But new management at the company reconsidered the decision and pulled out in 1993, according to Palmisano.

To offset the Autodesk loss, the partnership reconfigured the plan to include more homes. That same year, the Army finally agreed on a price for the base $13 million. But the New Hamilton Partnership wasn’t out of the woods yet.

With $25 million in cleanup needed at the site and no funding it took the federal government two years to clear out landfills and other waste at Hamilton.

…

In the mid-1990s, the partnership focused on building infrastructure and negotiating with homebuilders. But because Hamilton at the time wasn’t very appealing to the eye, the partnership had a difficult time selling a cohesive vision to commercial tenants.

[Project manager Todd] Wright remembers standing on a hill trying to woo a busload of engineers from software maker Fair, Isaac & Co. Were out there, doing our arm-waving, trying to show them what it would look like, and it was all demolition, it was all rubble, Wright said.

…

Each element of the project has finally fallen into place. Would the team do it again?

The answer is no.

And it doesn’t help that the money the New Hamilton Partnership will make from the deal isn’t as much as we originally thought, [Thomas] Gram said….

And the type of development Hamilton is? From the Chronicle:

Close your eyes and imagine a town that’s not totally dependent on cars. Bike paths connect the neighborhoods. A community shuttle carries residents to the town center and public transit. Walking, an all but an extinct form of transportation, is the easiest way to get around.

…

The New Hamilton Partnership purchased 400 acres of the site and sold it to builders.

…

Hamilton exemplifies many ideas of “new urbanism” or “neotraditionalism.” This is a movement among architects, planners and developers to make towns more livable through the restoration of traditional architecture and design — to bring back Main Street, U.S.A., as it were…

Sometimes it just feels as though we are doing everything ass backwards, I’m not sure if what the Council is looking for is a different plan (can’t be because everyone LOVES the plan, just not the Initiative, right?) or a different way to do business.   If they want to do the auction model a la Irvine, then they need to make that clear to the Navy instead of continuing down this path of transferring the land to the City and then funneling it through a Master Developer.

In other ass backwards moves, according to Action Alameda, the Alameda Labor Council and Building Trades Council has decided come out against Measure B.   I know!   And this after this tidbit in the SF Chronicle about the crazy Oakland BART connector (which they do support):

Thursday construction trades workers, business groups and East Oakland community groups dominated the 3 1/2-hour meeting, arguing that the airport link would create needed jobs and put the Oakland airport in a better position to compete with San Francisco International Airport.

“This is going to have a very positive impact on a labor situation that is very dire,” said Andreas Culver of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. He said that 30 percent of construction workers in his council are out of work, and some have been for months.

30% of construction workers out of jobs, but for some strange reason they don’t support a large scale construction project that would probably be able to employ those 30% unemployed construction workers?   Seriously, WTF?

So, TF is — from what I understand — a dispute over the Project Labor Agreements (PLA) for the project.   According to the ENA signed between SunCal and the City, there is a requirement for SunCal to “negotiate in good faith to enter into a project labor agreement for the construction trades.”   SunCal has agreed to a PLA for their portion of the project (infrastructure, etc…) but recall that SunCal does not actually perform any of the vertical development, those parcels would be sold to other developers and they would be responsible for the vertical development.   The unions want SunCal to encumber all  future developers who purchase the parcels under the same PLA, essentially hand-tying someone else’s business.   Because SunCal has not agreed to those terms, the unions are not supportive of this project.

Dan Moore, a Lincoln Lion for life, contacted PlayBall! regarding this photo from his family archive. According to Dan’s sister Chris, it’s a photo of their father James A. Moore, Jr. taken in their grandmother’s backyard at 821 Haight Street. Dan and sis are wondering if any of our readers recognize the uniform that dad is wearing.

Mighty Casey? (Photo: Moore Collection)

We know that Mr. Moore played baseball for Alameda High School (Class of 1944). Noting the large “A” on his cap I’d venture to guess that the photo was taken during his high school playing days. After graduation, James Moore continued to play on the local sandlots, even after marrying the lovely and beguiling Mrs. Moore. It’s a wonder they had kids. “Gotta run, dear. Doubleheader today!” If you have any clues about the photo (what team? baseball or softball? league?), please let us know.

UPDATE: It didn’t take long to find an answer. Dan and Chris, it appears that this photo is of your dad in his Alameda High School varsity baseball uniform. A member of our dedicated PlayBall! research staff, none other than my dad, Herb, checked a 1943 AHS yearbook. Sure enough, those are the uniforms sported by the sandlot Hornets back in the day. I’m assuming that this was taken in 1944 because the yearbook does not name your dad as a member of the 1943 varsity team. He might be on the JV squad pictured below.

1943 Alameda High School Varsity Baseball Team

1943 JV team

The Hawk dives back (Photo: Bordanaro and Zarcone)

Ian Riggall, Rittler Wildcat first baseman, attempts to pick-off Franklin baserunner Steve Leitz. The play was close but “The Hawk” managed  to scramble back through a cloud of dust and beat the throw. Leitz won this battle but Riggall won the war as Rittler beat the Franlin Eagles 2-1 on this day in late July.

Rittler’s Brad Merian was the hero driving in both runs with a base hit in the second stanza, followed by a sacrifice bunt two innings later that enabled Ross Dalby to score from third. Future television spokesperson Scott Sherwood (Don Sherwood’s Golf and Tennis World) collected the win allowing six hits and four free passes, while striking out nine Eagles. Rick Codiga took the loss for cellar dwelling Franklin who chalked up their eighth loss of the 1970 Little Coast League season.

On August 28, 1972 the ARPD named Jeff Hartley as Little Coast Player of the Week. The Longfellow star was clutch in the Tigers run to the league championship. In a must-win game against the Krusi Colts, Hartley’s two-run double in the top of the ninth propelled the Striped Cats to a playoff date against the Washington Pirates. In the biggest game of the season Jeff once again came through in the clutch. His seventh inning single knocked in two big runs that propelled Longfellow to the 1972 Little Coast title. Jeff lived at 523 Buena Vista Avenue.

"Mr. Clutch" Jeff Hartley

Sunday, December 13, is the fourth annual holiday lights flickr meetup in Alameda, more info here.

Also: tree is up! and lit! and has one ornament hung with care! We each get one new one each year, a tradition I started when D’arby was born. There are quite a few ready to go, so I just have to bribe everyone around here with cocoa.

This is my 2009 ornament, a glass crawfish from our trip to New Orleans this spring.

I absolutely love the idea of rating teachers by students.   In fact, I think it is a valuable way for the teacher, administrators and the public to get a read on what/how a teacher is doing. This allows for teachers to self reflect and plan a strategy to improve. These are all positive aspects of this system.

In order for the data to be accurate, it must be from a large enough sample (ex: at a middle or high school, say 100 students over two years), it must be anonymous and the sampling must be done at specific intervals.  The data must be for current teachers at a particular school and the data can not overlap from different subject areas, grades taught, etc. If the data is not managed, it becomes slipshod and does not help anyone do an effective evaluation or work on improvement.

When students are allowed to rate teachers randomly, as is the case with Ratemyteachers.com   ,  what happens is that teachers are allowed to (1) develop a personality cult if they so desire by having students ‘vote’ for them, especially multiple times (2) students are allowed to run a hate campaign at a teacher who may not have given them the grade they WANTED.  Parents and students are able to rig the system and determine how education is delivered by creating inaccurate data.

In theory, Ratemyteachers is great but in actuality it has many mistakes which make it a useless tool.

Example in point:   I have not worked at Wood Middle School in Alameda, CA for over three years and yet I am still on the posting for being rated. I currently live in Eldoret, Kenya and yet a student just rated me……….pretty interesting.

When I have tried to e-mail the website for removal, it can not be done as the captcha code on the website requires 3-D glasses that I do not have in Kenya.

Since I know enough about data, I find it more amusing at this point and would use this as a tool myself to evaluate a school administrator who puts any credence into the numbers. Ratemyteachers.com seems to do a fine job of not teaching statistics.…..oh, wait, isn’t that math?

This is a do-it-yourself guide of how to setup Google Apps for your domain. This is a Tutorial of how to enable Google apps to work on your domain name. What will be covered is only how to setup EMAIL.

First of all what is Google Apps? If you have seen colleagues or people at their office using gmail for their business email with their logo and under their domain name then you have seen Google Apps. With Google Apps, you are able to setup your business email eg. yourname@yourdomain.com to work with Gmail. Email Messaging and services have not been easier than this for business owners. For advanced configurations and setup, you will need a specialist and support services and we offer this very affordably at Boundary Cross.

What is the benefit of moving email to Google? Most small businesses are using the free email service for AOL, Comcast, Hotmail, Yahoo, RoadRunner, etc… and this does not portray a professional image.

Lets Get right to it.

Step 1:
GoTo www.google.com/a and sign up for an account
If you already have a Gmail email you can use this account as the primary account to setup all the settings, or you can sign up for a new Gmail account
Step 2:
Setup Domain Details.
Your Name, Your Organization, how many users, etc…

Step 3:
Setup the Primary Master account

Step 4:
Setup What applications you want
For most of you your just going to want to setup Email and Calendar

Step 5:
The most difficult part is the Changes to DNS you will have to make.
These next steps below are copied directly from Google. They maybe a little different depending on what domain host you use.

1. Sign in to your domain hosting company’s website using the username and password associated with your domain.

2. Navigate to an MX record maintenance page. MX records are special DNS (Domain Name Service) records, and are often located under sections titled “DNS Management,” “Mail Server Configuration,” or “Name Server Management.” You may need to turn on advanced settings to allow editing of these MX records.

3. Delete any existing MX records before entering new MX records.

4. For each MX record, enter information according to the entries in the following table.You may not be allowed to enter the priority values exactly as they appear in the table below; in that case, simply ensure that the server addresses are prioritized in the same order as they appear in the table. (i.e. The priority ranking [1, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5] should work just as well as [1, 5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 10] so long as you keep the addresses in the right order.) If you’re asked to specify the type of each record you’re adding, enter “MX”.

MX records often require the specific format of DNS records, including a trailing dot (”.”) at the end of any full-qualified domain names (e.g. “server.example.com.”)

Set any TTL values to the maximum allowed.
MX Server address     Priority
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.     1
ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.     5
ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.     10
ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.     10

If you need help with this, schedule an Appointment with us for a free consultation.

Remember that pot club which located itself on the west side of Alameda?    Which resulted in the City Council placing an emergency moratorium on the City preventing the openings of any future medical marijuana dispensaries.  The last time we heard about the pot club ordinance in December of last year staff was saying that they needed a year and a half to come up with permanent language.   Well, turns out, they managed to just squeak by in a little more than a year and will be presenting a draft ordinance to the Planning Board on Monday night.

Staff is recommending a complete prohibition on Medical Marijuana dispensaries in Alameda.  Period.

Which means that Alameda cardholders will have to make the long trek to Oaksterdam for their medication.

In other news, Michael Krueger deserves the slow clap award for the year…

For his “My Word” in the Alameda Journal, highlights:

…Control of the land: Once an agreement is reached, the Navy conveys the land to the city, not to the developer. The city has control of the release of land for development. Laws cannot be changed “at whim” by the developer or anybody else.

Fiscal neutrality: Alameda Resolution 13642 requires that the project pay for itself and not burden the City of Alameda or residents outside of Alameda Point. The project must pay its own way for all city services.

…

Rent revenue: The city is spending about $2 million more per year ($2.3 million last year alone) in maintenance and security costs than it collects in rent revenue, and this loss is rising every year due to the deteriorating conditions of the Point. Redeveloping Alameda Point will increase revenue through transfer, sales and property taxes. Financial projections indicate a long-term surplus of funds for the city from the project.

…

Profit: We should hope that SunCal makes a profit on this project, because there is a profit-sharing mechanism in place between SunCal and the city.

Risks: Alameda Point is blighted, full of toxins (the Navy is only required to clean below ground, not the lead and asbestos above ground), largely unusable, and costs the city millions in lost revenue each year. That is the real risk that looms larger for each day the project lies undeveloped…

Put Google’s web-based communication, collaboration and security apps to work for your company or school. Boundary Cross Online Solutions LLC. is here to help you to setup Google Apps for just $ 99.00 with our Bronze Package. With our affordable Google Apps Setup and Support fixed-price packages, small & medium companies can get up and run with Google Apps quickly and easily. Take advantage of our team’s expertise to ensure a smooth transition to this flexible on-demand platform.

Contact Us or Book an appointment with us online today to get Free phone consultation or On-Site consultation within these East Bay locales – Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro, Hayward, Emeryville, Berkeley and other areas in the San Francisco Bay Area

Collaborative Email, Calendar, Docs & Spreadsheets

We are your local Google Apps Setup Solution Provider. At Boundary Cross, we help small businesses in evaluating and adopting Google products and services.

We’ve found that many customers don’t have the time to fully evaluate and deploy Google Apps, and others just prefer the expertise of a local firm or trusted partner when making IT decisions. We are a solution provider who can help you get the most out of Google Apps. We offer services related to deployment, migration, training, systems integration, ongoing support and more.

Give your Employees/Users Email Services with Gmail (7 GB+) (25 GB with Google Apps Premier Edition), Google Calendar and Google Talk accounts with your own custom domain (e.g. MyCompany.com), helping them to stay connected and work together more effectively. When Google Apps Setup, your employees can share files and collaborate in real-time with each other.

We provide Google Apps Setup services and Google Apps Support Services in San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro, Hayward, Emeryville and Walnut Creek

Contact Us today or Book an Appointment Online.

To say that this is disturbing would be a VAST understatement!

In the summer of 1974, headbands replaced caps for some cool cats like this Woodstock outfielder. Apparently the look worked well as Tobbie Hoyt and his Dolphin teammates beat Mckinley 21-2.

Tobbie Hoyt in July 1974 (Photo credit: Acamar)