Letters to the Editor
Kudos to Beverly Church for her critique of the South Shore bike lane fiasco ("Concerns over South Shore bike lane," Feb. 26). I echo her sentiments in the fullest measure! This project has been an unmitigated disaster!
I am a frequent biker; and, even before this project began, I have never seen a multitude of bikes along this thoroughfare; what I have seen are an abundance of cars!
I am in utter amazement that this endeavor was ever approved. The expense, the inconvenience, the lack of artistry in design or function just boggle the imagination. Even with the heavy amounts of traffic, Shore Line and Westline drives were scenic routes along this shore. Now, we have a hodge-podge of confusion and ugliness.
Cars appear to be parked in the middle of the street, lanes are constricted and minimized into dangerous proportions and an environment that, in the past, at least gave the semblance of beach front leisure and beauty now evoke a choked and freeway-like feeling of congestion and mess.
Alameda has had so many opportunities to display the beauty and uniqueness of our location and our charm. This project has, unfortunately, again diminished those chances for this lovely place to shine.
We moved to Alameda nearly 25 years ago and have attended meetings about plans to redevelop the former Naval Air Station. We think the current development approach by the city and Alameda Point Partners has real meat and merit.
Housing and commercial-retail will coexist in this first phase of development of the Point. Without this financial base, there is no way to afford the infrastructure. This funding is critical to support the other neighborhoods, the desired sports complexes, Spirit Alley, new power and communication systems, plumbing, roads, bike trails and walking paths, as well as new transit. The mix of uses proposed for Site A has enormous potential for success in our current market.
We know people are concerned about traffic. We say look to the past when the Alameda Naval Air Station was active. They housed Navy personnel, while civilian staff lived throughout town, or off-Island. Employees commuted daily onto the island for any one of three shifts, often making traffic unbearable. Unlike the strictly housing development at Bayport, the Site A plan offers the potential to walk or bike to work. Additionally, it creates opportunities to take the ferry or bus to a job or event off-Island.
We believe strongly that the former Naval Air Station should not continue to languish and deteriorate, costing our community tax dollars to maintain and sacrificing new revenue streams that proper development brings. We ask the city to accept this plan and allow Alameda Point Partners to move forward to the next stage.
Before this morning, I’d never heard of Rosas Brothers Construction, have no connection to them whatsoever, don’t know who they are, and don’t really care.
I thought the caption for the picture of Rosas Bros.’ truck at the bottom of today’s Sun used phrasing that unfairly insinuated that they were somehow cheating Alameda’s taxpayers.
Maybe someone was trying to be wry; if so, they missed the mark considerably, it just sounded cheap. Should the truck have been parked in a handicapped zone? Of course not.
So write the company a $350 ticket, or whatever the fines are now, and ridicule them for that. But to insinuate that they were somehow cheating the city because they parked illegally is below the journalistic standards I’ve come to expect from the Sun.
Frankly, I think the Sun owes Rosas Bros. an apology.
Editor’s note: Rosas Construction was cheating the taxpaying members of the handicapped community out of a parking place clearly marked for their parking only. No one who takes advantage of the handicapped in this city is owed an apology. A company being paid more than $1 million by the city should not be permitted to break the law and just pay the ticket. The role of a local newspaper is to look out for the residents of the city it represents, including, especially including, the handicapped.