Letters to the Editor
Thank you, Eric, for finally writing about something that needed to be said ("Building Walls Versus Building Bridges," July 10).
Our town is being destroyed and I don’t like it.
The Alameda Sun received a copy of this letter.
Mayor Gilmore and City Council members and staff:
Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP) is an East Bay parks organization, working to protect and preserve the East Bay shoreline. We join the Sierra Club in opposing the inappropriately named ‘Alameda Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure’ and ask you to vote "no."
This proposal is intended to gut the citizens’ initiative and to prevent the people of Alameda from realizing the promise that you all made to the citizens and taxpayers of Alameda that the Neptune Cove property was to become part of Robert Crown Beach Regional Park.
The measure has two fundamental flaws:
The provision that allows you to suspend the people’s initiative is a subterfuge to amend the people’s initiative, is illegal and shameful.
The provision that would require the purchaser of the property to pay the city all attorneys’ fees, costs and damages from a lawsuit brought challenging the people’s initiative is clearly intended to block the East Bay Regional Park District from acquiring the property because it would make it unreasonably expensive to do so.
CESP urges you to do the right thing for the City of Alameda and the region: Vote "no" on this proposal.
If anyone knows about discriminatory housing practices, it would be Helen Sause ("The facts about Measure A," June 26). For years, she worked for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. "Redevelopment" was the successor term to "urban renewal," and, whatever the term, those theories of land development produced racially discriminatory events such as the mass dislocation of African-Americans in San Francisco’s Fillmore District, the subject of an excellent PBS documentary, and racially exclusionary public housing projects such as Cabrini Green in Chicago.
If the land development theories that Sause advocates lived up to the promises, then we should expect to see no automobile gridlock in San Francisco (or Manhattan), MUNI trains and buses that always run on time, consistently clean, safe and uncrowded BART trains, and an ample supply in San Francisco (and Manhattan) of affordable multifamily housing. But we don’t.
The reality about Measure A, in contrast to Sause’s purported "facts," is that over the past several decades, any developer serious about building affordable multifamily housing could have bypassed Measure A under state law, by submitting a density bonus application to the city of Alameda. Until just recently, none ever did.
And as an aside, Alameda has steadily grown more racially diverse since Measure A was approved by voters.
Sause steadfastly refuses to acknowledge both of these points, despite seeming to appear otherwise very knowledgeable about these matters. I don’t know what her ulterior motive is, but Alameda residents would be wise to take her comments with a large grain of salt.