Candidate for
Council Member; City of Alameda

I believe the two most pressing issues facing the City are:

• Bringing the budget under control without impairing public safety.

• Renewing Alameda Point without creating traffic nightmares or risking public exposure to toxics.

I have addressed the budget issues at length in response to the League of Women's Voters' mandatory question. I'd like to say a little more here about Alameda Point, and also address my ideas for improving public involvement and engagement.

ALAMEDA POINT

A number of the issues involving the Point bear a striking resemblance to the issues I confronted involving the Chuck Corica Golf Complex: deteriorating infrastructure, unrealistic "master plans," years of inaction. And my approach to the Point will be similar to the one I took for the Golf Complex: gather and analyze the data; find out what the public wants and what economic reality will permit; seek creative solutions -- and get going.

The goals set forth in 1996 Community Reuse Plan -- which were reaffirmed during the community workshops held in 2010 -- should remain our guidepost. Development of the Point must provide for a mix of uses: residential, commercial, and open space. Tradeoffs will be necessary. Choices, of course, carry consequences -- and hard choices may carry harsh consequences. But this poses a challenge to our creativity -- not an excuse for our passivity.

Last year, the City and the Navy signed an agreement whereby title to 918 acres of the developable area would be transferred to the City beginning this year. Recently, it was reported that contamination remained in several areas of this parcel. The City should act immediately to ensure that all of this land is clean and safe for its intended uses. Then we should proceed apace with reuse and redevelopment.

I do not favor ceding control over the entire Point to a private master developer. We've tried that route twice; three strikes and we're out. Nor can we wait for the housing or commercial real-estate markets to recover; we should be ready to pounce once they do. Earlier this year, City staff laid out the following framework for the next steps:

• Adopting a phased approach to disposition and development;
• Taking different, concurrent approaches to the northern, southern, and adaptive reuse areas; and
• Performing master infrastructure planning for the entire base.

Finally, even as we proceed with economic reuse and redevelopment, we should not ignore the western portion of the Point, both the area to be transferred to the Veterans Administration and the Northwest Territories. From the beginning, the community has wanted this area used for a wildlife refuge, open space, and parks. We must make sure that vision is fulfilled.

I recently attended a meeting of the Restoration Advisory Board ("RAB") and came away more convinced than ever that this City has a lot of smart people who think analytically and creatively in identifying problems and proposing solutions. The RAB, of course, focuses on environmental issues, but I'll bet there are other Alameda citizens with business expertise and no axe to grind who can be enlisted in the effort to renew the Point.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

I commend the work of the Sunshine Task Force and the efforts made to implement its recommendations. But more can be done.

Not only should Council agendas be published 12 days in advance of public meetings but those agendas must be written in such a way as to make clear -- in plain English -- the issue Council intends to consider and decide. Especially is this so where the issue is one likely to incite controversy.

In addition, the meetings themselves must consist of more than a show-and-tell session by City staff followed by a public "comment" period -- with the real discussion taking place after the public comment period is closed. Instead, citizens should be allowed to ask questions of staff and to answer questions by Councilmembers.

I recommend that Council initiate a process whereby the public can submit written questions at any point in a meeting prior to a vote on an issue, even after public comment is closed. Those questions could be screened by the Mayor or someone else to eliminate frivolous or non-relevant ones, but they should all be answered by staff members or by the Council itself. A representative government such as ours only works if the representatives are responsive to the concerns and questions of the citizens who voted for them.

In addition, Councilmembers should be encouraged to turn back to members of the public, again even after public comment is closed, if a question or issue is raised during Council discussion that staff is unable to answer on the spot but as to which a citizen has particular expertise. Public participation should be viewed not as providing a chance for citizens to vent -- but as creating an opportunity for Council to obtain insights from people who may actually know more than staff does.