UPDATED: Alameda development map

UPDATED: Alameda development map

Michele Ellson

Here's an update on our popular Alameda development map, plus an update spreadsheet with more detail on development plans in Alameda. Projects under development include Alameda Landing and Marina Cove II (also known as Marina Shores), which will offer 365 new homes; final approvals for the Del Monte development, which could add another 380 homes to Alameda's housing stock, are expected to be granted by the City Council on Tuesday, while negotiations for development of a waterfront town center with 800 homes, shops, parks and a new ferry terminal are underway.

In addition to the Del Monte development, City Planner Andrew Thomas said the city is actively considered a pair of proposals to develop housing on Clement Avenue and another on Oak Street. He's expecting new proposals to develop Encinal Terminals, the old Island High School site on Eagle Avenue and the Shipways buildings in Marina Village in 2015 or 2016.

As always, our goal is to make sure you know what's developing in Alameda as soon as possible, so if you have any thoughts on how we can best get that information to you, leave us a comment or e-mail me at michele@thealamedan.org.


Submitted by Loves Alameda (not verified) on Thu, Dec 18, 2014

From Steve Tabor:

Judging from the Alameda Sun op-ed page, Alamedans are concerned about proposals by city government to expand housing in the town. Thousands of housing units are proposed.

Like many, I have been wondering just who will live in those units. Since the second Great Depression began in 2008, most Americans have lost income and assets and have no money for either mortgage or down payment. In fact many of us have been pitched out of houses we once owned or evicted due to high rent. Who is all this housing for?

Let’s look at the history. In the 1970s the U.S. power structure decided to dismantle the nation’s industrial system. A major effort was then made to shut down U.S. factories and move them overseas. Not only was capital pulled from U.S. plants, but capital generated by those self-same plants was used to relocate them in other countries, the notorious practice known as "outsourcing."

First Japan, Taiwan and Mexico were the targets. After 1980, it was Communist countries like China, Vietnam and Cambodia, and CIA-funded military dictatorships like Indonesia, El Salvador, Honduras and Pakistan. U.S. planners apparently decided, as Apple Corp. has, that Communism and dictatorship do a better job of producing commodities than a liberal democracy like the United States.

Let’s remember that most of the funds for this transformation came from the U.S. and that money was generated by labor performed in the U.S. by U.S. citizens and invested by U.S. banks, investment firms, insurance companies and pension funds.

At this point in our history, China has led the way with this. When you go into major big-box stores like WalMart, Target and Walgreens you will seldom find any goods in any industrial category that are not from China. As a result China now has some $4 trillion sequestered in investment funds. That money has to go somewhere.

It’s commonly reported that more than 35 percent of residential property transactions these days are made in cash. Americans have no cash with which to buy houses. Foreign buyers are commonly touted as a major part of the real estate market in California. It’s a fair bet that some of that Chinese investment cash is making its way into our town.

Furthermore there is a little-known program in the U.S., dating from 1990, that gives "investor visa" to foreign nationals willing to invest as little as $500,000 in the U.S. With money like that to burn, any foreign national would be able to afford a nice little Macmansion in our region, or perhaps two smaller units, one for living in and one for income.

Immigration statistics list thousands of foreign nationals brought into the U.S. under this program in the past 24 years. It’s been a good program, perhaps not for U.S. native-born citizens, at least for somebody. Meet your new neighbors! This law is still on the books.

The U.S. no longer has much industry. In fact it has little to sell the world except weapons (100 percent subsidized by the government) and agriculture (subsidized by cheap imported labor, both legal and illegal). But coastal California has a couple of things that the rest of the world craves and has very little of: fantastic weather (the best in the world), and a ready-made sophisticated and reliable infrastructure that it has taken our native-born citizens generations to build up and maintain.

Why wouldn’t the whole world want to move here, especially when the alternative is choking coal smoke in Beijing and a corruption-fed rinky-dink electricity grid as in many hastily slapped-together Chinese industrial towns, not to mention a stifling bureaucracy and a sycophantic media with no soap operas and no sports? Moving here is a no-brainer.

Alamedans may be puzzled about all the development, but now you know the reason for it.

The American people have been watching the dismantling of their nation for decades without attempting to reverse that policy; now we are paying the price. All residential development these days is designed to replace the existing impoverished population with someone who has more money. That is what is going on now in Alameda.

Citizens who want to stop this development should be demanding to be told where the money is coming from that fuels it. Who are the real investors? (Please name them; hint: it’s not "Tim Lewis"), and who will be buying the units? (Please name them; hint: it’s not your recent college graduate living at home).

City officials will tell us all about these projects: how many units, how much open space, how many trees and shrubs, how many pets, how many parking spaces, but we are never told the most important facts: who’s putting up the money and what they will be getting for it.

Follow the money, that’s the real issue. We won’t be told this by the city unless we demand it.

Steve Tabor lives in Alameda.

Submitted by Loves Alameda (not verified) on Thu, Dec 18, 2014

I wish we could vote Andrew out, he's possibly the worst city planner ever! Maybe we should start a petition?

Submitted by old Alameda lifer (not verified) on Thu, Dec 18, 2014

You nail it direct on the head Steve. What he said people. This is what happens when you don't get off your asses to get out to the election polls to VOTE!