Letter to the Editor: Desire for more homes isn't greedy

Letter to the Editor: Desire for more homes isn't greedy

Letters to the Editor

Editor:

Those opposed to additional housing in Alameda can’t be aware of Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and state law that requires all cities surrounding the San Francisco Bay to provide for a certain number of additional housing. Each city is given a number of housing units it must add to reach its quota; the requirement is updated every four years. So, although some may think that our leaders are greedy in building more housing, is not that they so greedy for more revenue, but it is an allotment determined by state law.

In addition, Alameda Point has 5.5 million square feet of land at Alameda Point that should be made productive, including much needed housing, retail, commercial, cultural and recreational uses. Single family, apartments, town homes and condominiums would provide homes for people in all incomes as well as a hometown labor force that will stay on the Island and fill the many jobs created by new development - and would not crowd the tubes by commuting.

I do not think that increased tax revenue is greedy. I for one would be most happy to have others share in my tax load while providing employment, increased shopping opportunities, population for our schools as well as supporting city services such as fire and police protection.

I agree that our city is unique, and we can help keep it so by thoughtfully designing quality homes wherever they are built, analyzing and initiating new traffic measures, and welcoming families who can add new thoughts and vitality to our city.

Diane Lichtenstein
HOMES

Comments

Jon Spangler's picture
Submitted by Jon Spangler on Tue, Feb 19, 2013

I agree with Diane and HOMES that we need more housing at Alameda Point than is currently planned. I would like to see at least 3200 residential units built at AP, designed along the sustainability guidelines shown by Peter Calthorpe's visionary plans--without SunCal's toxic baggage, of course.

In our post-SunCal political atmosphere i do not think that the 4500 units desired by HOMES will be politically viable but I want to see the comparisons between 1400, 3200, and 4500 residential units and build whatever number of units provides the most sustainable and vibrant community at AP. We deserve the best we can imagine, after all.

Submitted by Michele Ellson on Tue, Feb 19, 2013

Hey again :) Jon: I just finished reading through the Planning Board packet for Monday - they are apparently having a redo of the public hearing on EIR scoping for the Point since the last meeting didn't get recorded - and it says pretty explicitly that they won't study additional homes beyond the 1,425 laid out in the deal with the Navy. From the staff report, it appears that the rationale is that it'll take a long time for those homes to be built - Bayport's 500 or so, for example, took nine years, it says - and anything over that amount will have to come with a $50,000 per unit check to the Navy per the transfer agreement. They're saying that if a developer comes in at some point seeking the right to build more, the developer could perform an environmental review of any additional homes separately, if I've got it right. So I gather Monday's Planning Board meeting should be interesting.