Is it self interest or are the incumbent Council candidates simply the in situ representatives of those Emeryville, Berkeley and Sierra Club forces who intend to continue holding tight to the reins of Albany's government in order to further the economic interests of those agencies? How long will we be held back while they continue to steer?
I am not encouraged by the brief answers from Wile and the confusing answers from Atkinson to the questions posed by Patch to all the candidates over the last few weeks before voting day.

Mr Maris's numbers do not add up.

First he says, "less that (sic) 8 percent of the Albany population partially participated" and, "Only 110 residents fully participated."

8% of 16,000 residents equals about 1280 people. That's about right. (Click on the blue-lettered link to Visioning Process in first paragraph to confirm about 1200 residents produced over a hundred maps.)

Alas, perhaps the 1170 other "partial participants" looked away for a moment and thus did not "fully participate." Don't know.

Why is Mr Maris attacking the 3 progressives only? Didn't Councilmember Farid Javandel vote for the Visioning Process along the way?

Furthermore, Mr Javandel recently appointed Mr Maris to the Waterfront Committee to finish out the year, and he attended at least one maybe two meetings before posting this letter.

Thus, Mr Maris had full notice of an ongoing agenda item -- Implementing Voices to Vision. So, how could the vision report "sit on a shelf unused for years."

With regard to outsiders, how do we tell who lives in Berkeley? The city line on the southside meanders along an underground creek: it's hard to distinguish the ins from the outs.

And why are we rehashing the mall aside the racetrack. The developer, Mr Caruso, departed town before ever submitting a proposal.

The only present City Councilmember who was serving when we lost the Pierce St off-ramp is Peggy Thomsen. Why blame the 3 progressives for what was a failure then?

Determining city of residence is easy. The school district does it all the time. If Mr. Dann needs help maybe his neighbor can read him his PG&E bill.

Bill,
The 3 "progressives" are being mentioned becasue they vote as a block for their own self serving reasons, and 2 of the 3 are up for re election this Novemebr.
As far as "outsiders", 1 of the incumbents are "endorsed" by Loni Hancock who we know is married to the Berkeley mayor .Or is it both, on their joint signs.... I can't keep it straight, they are all in cahoots... . There are a good amount of Albany residents who would like to keep Albany politics in ALBANY. Especially where our waterfront is concerned.

Think of the mess we would be in if Caruso's mall next to the race track actually had gone forward.

The owner of Golden Gate Fields, Magna Entertainment, subsequently went into bankruptcy. More recently, the CEO/owner Frank Stronach has sold off most of his holdings and he is in the process of cashing out his shares.

Caruso had already gone to Sacramento to request taxpayer money to fund a change to the Buchanan St interchange. He'd be begging for more from our community to prop up his failed mall plan.

In the companion deal with Caruso at Santa Anna racetrack, litigation is ongoing and nothing has been accomplished.

So, we owe a vote of thanks to the 3 progressives on the City Council who helped us avoid a terrible calamity down at the waterfront. Admit it. You guys were wrong, it turns out.

Loni Hancock was our representative in the state legislature. Albany relies on lots of support from Sacramento that our representative provides. So, isn't that a good thing?

The only thing accomplished was a blocking of Measure C that would have allowed the voters of Albany to decide about the waterfront, not have the decision made by three people in the pockets of Madison Marquette, Denny Abrams, Norman LaForce and He Who Shall Remain Unnamed. Measure C became dangerous to them because the voters would have had the opportunity to come to the same conclusion as they did $650,000 later in Voices to Vision -- some development and some open space. None of us got to be in on that decision, and the damage it did to this community is ongoing, as is evidenced by this discussion.
Funding for modification of the Highway 80/580 interchange and the westbound 80 Albany exit was being sought by the city when Mr. Caruso added his voice to the request, giving it more weight when the money was being handed out by Caltrans. Don Perata was overseeing the funds and they were friends. Albany would have had an exit not pouring onto a residential street leading to a narrow underpass with a tight chicane, and with the addition of a bike path flyover at the railroad tracks. Albany lost big on that one, and I'm still amazed that the bicycling contingent were not more irate.
What of your error about Peg Thomsen? No comment? It may have been Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or it may have been Robert Sobel who said,”Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Mr. Dann's comments on history deserve as close scrutiny as his calculations.

As to the economic collapse of 2008 - 2009; is Bill Dann claiming psychic power as well as being on the side of right(eousness)? He must have reaped untold riches in 2006 knowing what was coming two years in the future.

What would have happened had Mr Caruso and Magna gone ahead with plans to build a mall alongside Golden Gate Fields?

-- The City would have engaged in a long and exhausting Environmental Impact Report process, costing the City time, energy and substantial money, only to have the developer withdraw when the owner of GGF, Magna, filed for bankruptcy.

-- When Magna declared bankruptcy, then the City of Albany would have been stuck with millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses -- unsecured creditors get only pennies on the dollar.

-- The City would have hired additional staff, paid them, supplied their pensions, etc., then the City would have had to let them go with nothing to show in the process.

-- There would be a big hole down on the waterfront that needs filling.

-- The GGF grand stand would have been partially torn down.

-- Albany Beach would have been filled in to provide the minimum setback.

-- The City would have been stuck with adding sewers, pipes, etc., into a now empty hole, with no one to reimburse the City (Magna went bankrupt, unsecured claims pay pennies on the dollar).

Only two candidates running for City Council this term acted to avert this disaster: Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile.

Don't worry Iubov,
We can all see Bill Dann is in la la land. Those of us with real thoughts,not ones fed to us to create some sort of alternate version of reality(too bad it caught on for some), can see the truth.

Caruso and Magna agreed to build malls at Santa Anita Racetrack and Golden Gate Fields. Santa Anita's EIR went first. In 2008 the EIR was tossed. By 2010 the deal is dead.

July 25, 2008|Cara Mia DiMassa | Times Staff Writer

Developer Rick Caruso's plan to build a huge shopping mall next to the Santa Anita racetrack hit a road bump this week, as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the project's environmental impact report must be revised before the plan can move forward.

July 22, 2009 by admin
Filed under Arcadia blogs, Business, City/Gov, Community, Scott Hettrick

The City of Arcadia is likely to get slapped with a lawsuit by Caruso Affiliated in the coming days, according to sources.

By Daniel Miller

Monday, May 3, 2010

After five years and more than $25 million spent to get a retail project similar to the Grove built next to Santa Anita Park, the deal between developer Caruso Affiliated Inc. and bankrupt race track owner Magna Entertainment Corp. appears dead.

Only two candidates running for City Council had the foresight to see that the mall at GGF would have been a disaster for Albany: Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile.

"Caruso left Albany in July 2006, before Wile and Atkinson even took out papers to run for Council. Instead of letting Caruso spend $2 million of his money on an EIR and then saying no, his council members spent over $600,000 of our money on a vision that isn't relevant to any reality. "

What Iubov said.

How can two candidates running for City Council have the foresight on something that was already gone before they took office?? They didn't do anything. They want to take credit for something that didn't happen.

What they DID do was waste $600,000 on a vision to NOWHERE......look at our waterfront! It's the worst I've seen it in my lifetime here. They want to "save" it? it needs to be saved from thier "Saving"!!
oh, and Bill, can you tell your friends Marge and Joanne that "Shoreline"website on all of their signs no longer exists?
It's all a joke really.

Another thing that Mr Maris mis-stated in the letter at the top:

"When their affiliated groups failed to place the initiative on the ballot, their affiliates sued the City of Albany and lost."

That's wrong. Magna sued the City of Albany to stop the City Clerk from certifying the more than nearly 2500 voter signatures. And here's the proof.

ALBANY / Mall opponents qualify initiative for fall ballot
June 08, 2006|By Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer

A citizens' initiative that would delay and limit a mall development on the Albany shoreline has qualified for the November ballot, but the Canadian company that owns the land is suing to invalidate the effort.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters has notified Albany that enough of the 2,466 signatures submitted on behalf of the Albany Shoreline Protection Initiative are valid for the initiative to go to voters, city clerk Jackie Bucholz said Wednesday.

But the owner of Golden Gate Fields racetrack filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on Monday seeking to stop the city clerk from certifying the initiative.

Here's the link to the article:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-08/bay-area/17297433_1_city-clerk-county-based-newspaper-citizens-initiative

Those 3 "progressives" are so far out of sight in their "progressivesness" that they want our city to run on sunshine and dog poop.They have not come up with any ideas for revenue and they have no vision to bring two sides together for the good of our city. What a huge dissappointment that we could have had someone else pay for a vauluable EIR report, instead we paid for a useless (VTV) "study" when we had a citywide vote to turn to if we wanted to find out how all the citizens feel about the waterfront. That "report" gathers dust allright, and years from now if we ever have the chance to work on a waterfront project of ANY kind, we will certainly need another "report" to tell us what the new citizens of Albany think. These exercises in our collective "thinking" make us feel like we have a Voice, and if you are buying all that crap (and trust me, you DID!) then you will keep showing love to Atkinson/Wile while burrying your collective heads in that poop-laden sand!

I think it is important to agree to disagree. And we should be able to have an intelligent debate without name calling. We live in Albany. We are a small town filled with pleasant people. Let's keep the conversation civil and talk about how we feel without making others feel bad for their thoughts.

While I disagree with just about everything Sara and Lubov have said, I respect their viewpoint and am happy to learn from their comments. The final 100-page document is filled with extremely useful points that can be used to guide future development.

On page 97 it states: In Albany, where the future of its waterfront has been contentious for decades, this level of broad participation should be viewed as a true community accomplishment. Not only did an unprecedented number of Albany residents participate, they brought their deeply held values and thoughtful ideas “to the table.”

I am glad we spent the money on this information. I feel like we are actually hearing what Albany residents have to say.

Before running for office, Marge Atkinson was the Co-Chair for the Citizens for the Albany Shoreline (in addition to being active in the Democratic Party and an Albany High School teacher). Joanne Wile was also an officer of Citizens for the Albany Shoreline. They both were leaders in organizing the community for reasonable development on the waterfront.

In a massive feat of organization, we collected about 2500 signatures in the short timeframe allotted by the statute to do so. Even though the Initiative did not go to the ballot, it was already a great success.

Magna then sued Albany to prevent the initiative from going on the ballot: the case was won or lost on satisfying mere procedural niceties: the document was not posted at the library in the locked box, and was not published in the Contra Costa Times (the so-called newspaper of record. In reality, everyone already knew about it and these two deficiencies put form over substance. Everyone in town knew about it. Nobody claimed the signatures were less than perfect or the Initiative itself had deficiencies.

When the City Council elections rolled around, both Marge and Joanne ran as the Save the Shoreline candidates and were swept into office.

Ullan, I'm not hostile, Just fed up. I'm not belittling their accomplishments. In my opinion, I don't feel there are many accomplishments to mention. I have spent most of my life here, and never felt that Albany has been in worse shape than the last 5 or so years. I find it sad. It really has nothing to do with "development" or not, I just really really do not like the direction things in general have turned recently. I don't like the parcel tax after parcel tax that are added on to pay for what just plain good city management and allowance of growth could have taken care of. I'm just sad about it. Just becasue we have differing opinions doesn't mean I'm" hostile". I have a right to say our current City Government office has left something to be desired and not be called "hostile".
What has grown "dire" about the Shoreline is it's current state. It's a horrible place. It could be so much more. Even some nice paved trails, a clean beach free of dog attacks, and some grass with picnic areas would be a whole heck of a lot better than what it is now (the complete opposite of that). But instead we have a homeless camp. I can't take visitors there. I can't take my kids there. Unless I am a derelict or a dog walker by trade, I cannot use it. We could have used V2V dollars to make SOME of the changes I mentioned above. Instead we "visioned" something that could never be anyway. So, again, not hostile, just ready to move on.........

I too am not angry, but I am disgusted and disappointed by the behavior of the anti-progress quorum and the organizations that back them. Their methods have been less than honorable on more than one occasion. I was the one who had to confront Joanne Wile on the sidewalk after watching her remove Francesco Papalia's brochures from porches as she went door to door dropping her own brochures. I live next door to the person who signed the S.L.A.P.P. suit against Caryl O'Keefe. I saw the expensive brochures distributed by hired non-English speaking workers. I saw the campaign signs on He Who Shall Not Be Named's picket fence that disappeared well after the "theft" of the Wile and Atkinson campaign signs around town, and then heard him claim his signs had been stolen as well. Those kinds of stunts were not the way campaigns had been run before, so if I sound disappointed or disgusted I have good reason because I remember a time when the opposing candidates traded brochures and coordinated brochure drops to make sure everyone was informed in the most efficient way.

Francesco Papalia went to the trouble of finding out what the State regulations are regarding dogs on the beach. He told me that all dogs must be on leash (protects wildlife), but even more importantly that NO dogs are allowed on bathing beaches. A bathing beach is any beach where people go in the water. I suspect that if the County Health Department sampled the sand and soil at the beach they would condemn it and close it until it was safe. I was never able to take my children to the beach in Albany. I drove to Rodeo Beach or China Camp to use a beach. That wasn't very environmentally sound nor economical, but our neighborhood beach was filthy, unsafe, and unhealthy. Still is, but more so.

Ulan: "I also disagree with you on increased parcel taxes. Where else are we supposed to get the money? Without good schools and safe neighborhoods our home values would decrease leaving us even worse off."

Are you joking me right now?

When does it end? Should Albany homeowners expect more parcel taxes year after year like it's some sort service fee for living here? In this discussion we have covered that Atkinson and Wile sat on the "Citizens for Albany" Committee that was stated to be "responsible for running an investor/developer out of town". That project stood to bring in a nice chunk of tax revenue (and no, we can't say it was for the best becasue no one has psychic powers in this discussion). Oh, or how about the Safeway project?, or Whole Foods? have they been helping in pushing those through? I bet we get some nice tax revenue from those if they ever come to be.
So, we really can't have this discussion if you aren't going to recognize the big picture. Against development or not, it can't all fall on us residents to foot the bills around here. There has to be a balance. I'm afraid the scale has been tipped a little too far in the wrong direction while they have sat on Council.
I agree that we will continue to disagree, but I feel compelled to say my piece anyway....I know there are others who agree.

I need to weigh in here, Ulan.
One thing that all Albany homeowners can agree on is that we are lucky to have schools that are perceived to be the best this area can offer. One more thing that was always a source of pride was our community was safe. These two things alone are the reason our (in most cases) bugalows are worth more per square foot than any other neighboring city.
However, we are being parcel-taxed to death! Almost every election comes to the homeowners with another parcel tax for whatever our city needs or wants. These measures are adding up to a hefty sum on my tax bill. All of us know this. You can't be serious when you say "Where else are we supposed to get the money?" And are you the same person who is against development on the waterfront? We need money for all of the things that most cities fund as a regular responsibility. Good councils have good ideas. Why is it that we act like our elected officials have no other choice. We have more parcel tax measures that are part of our tax bill than almost any other Californian city. Something is wrong when year after year the council needs to get it's money to run the city from each homeowner. And they hold our good schools and our police dept hostage to be sure you fraidy-cats will never tell them "no". If we did refuse just once, you would see how else we would get money.....good thinking and planning and lots of that "vision" you are so fond of!

I wouldn't describe Albanians as being "parcel-taxed to death," though the taxes issue is ripe for debate. For example, in our case, having bought a house in Albany in 2001, parcel taxes amount to just under 18% of our total property tax bill. A neighbor who inherited their house from a parent has a tax bill that's nearly 75% parcel tax, but I'd argue that that's because the ad valorem tax is horribly low (just over 7% of ours)... that's the consequence of Prop 13.

Looking at my tax statement breakdown, there are 18 individual taxes, most of which, I think, are pretty longstanding. Two are for the library, and I know, in our family of readers, we're getting our money's worth. There're two for landscaping, two for sewers, one to keep the rats and mosquitos in line, etc. The big one, about a third of what we pay for parcel taxes, is $555 for Measure J, a schools thing. But Piedmont's school-oriented parcel taxes far exceed ours.

An additional wrinkle for Albany is the impact of UC on the schools and the school budgeting. I don't know how the parcel taxes reflect UC as landlord... does UC pay them, or is this something that UC as a state-chartered non-profit avoids?

Ross you forgot to mention the new one being proposed this November for the firefighters to get a raise....I'm sure it will pass, Albany loves it's parcel taxes......
The 2 for landscaping were not even being used for landscaping until recent years when complaints were made ( it was obvious that no landscaping was being done all over town, now there is "some", but still so so lacking). The school one is big, AND needed, but the lie that everyone ate up was that it would pay for "extras"(things that enrich education, that keep our schools special) when all it really did was save teacher salaries. There still are no "extras" being provided by that tax. So one could still say that if we had better tax revenue base, things like our firefighters having to ask for .56 cents a year per household for a raise wouldn't happen. It's kind of embarrassing actually.
I have had the opportunity to live in another affluent part of the Country where we had (Gasp!) NO parcel taxes!! And there was plenty of money....it came from the allowance of business growth proportionate to the needs of the City. I can't help but feel bitter when I look at an Albany tax bill
I'm not saying business growth would solve all. I also believe part of the problem is the number of landlords under prop 13 who rent to families of kids in school who could not otherwise afford to own here. If families could afford to buy a houses here and pay current rate taxes, we'd have more coming in.

Allan

Thanks for all the comments.

For those who question my numbers, please take the Waterfront Voices To Vision report off the shelf and read the Executive Summary. All the facts and figures are there which agree reasonably well with mine.

Albany residents and youth clearly want park and open space on our waterfront but also recognize a need for appropriate revenue producing develpment to support our city and schools. That vision is significantly different from the vision proposed by Council members, Atkinson and Wile, during their election campaign four years ago.

The City Council approval to fund the Voices to Vision process was opposed by votes from Council members, Okawachi and Javandel, and suppoted by votes from Wile, Lieber and Atkinson. The vote clearly was not unanimous.

Voters of Albany will decide - as required by Measure "C" - what will reside on our waterfront. The Voices to Vision will not decide what will happen on the piece of property owned by Golden Gate Fields. I hope that our city will work to improve the property we own on the waterfront bulb and elsewhere by applying more urgently for use of the $27 million available from the Eastbay Regional Park District Measure WW Bonds passed two years ago.

Allan

Has anyone noticed that Mr. Caruso is no longer in town proposing ANYTHING? It's over, done, finished. Berkeley is ready to put retail development where the stables are now the moment the land is available. That will leave Albany with nothing to develop even if we wanted to do. No one knew in 2005-6 what would happen to the economy, so leave that out of the discussion. All I see is the flogging of a dead horse. The real issue is that some of the present Council has wasted a lot of money, pursued a lot of their own special interests, and discouraged a lot of progress.
When are we all going to start thinking that Albany is good enough to get the best on offer, and go after it. All I have heard is nearly 40 years of "No" and "It's too big". It's time to grow up and stop letting outside interests stand in our way.

Ulan,
I agree that the Caruso develpment plan did not receive significant support by the majority of those few Albany residents who participated in the Voices to Vision process. Thanks for reminding me of that and others who read my letter.

Albany residents knew before Voices to Vision and the $650,000 of local tax payer funds spent that we wanted significant open space and park on our waterfront along with an improved source of revenue to the schools and the city. Measure C is in place to assure that the needs of the majority of Albany residents are met. Voices to Vision expresses the desires of less than 8% of our population.

Thanks for understanding my position of this issue, and thanks for expressing yours.

Ulan, what you keep forgetting is that the V2V "visioned" something that was *not* available to us. GGF is STILL there and we do not have that land to "develop" on. So we wasted $650,000. If in any part of the future the opportunity to acquire that land and do *anything* with it arises, there will surely be more "visioning" and voicing needed. We won't pull the old V2V down off a shelf, blow the dust off and call it Gospel.
That is the point we keep making. It was a wast of money that could have been used in SO many different ways that are needed NOW! Not in some pipe dream that may come to be in the future (or not).
Have you ever considered that the other 90% or so of the city that did not participate at all in V2V could care less about what happens down there? or that many (like myself) refused to participate because we didn't want to be a part of the huge waste of our City's funds to discuss and plan a moot point? Well, then that makes the possibility that many MANY more could be for SOME DEVELOPMENT there someday. So your "numbers" you keep hanging on don't mean anything anyway.

We will find out who wants what when Measure C is on a ballot. Even then not everyone will bother to participate, and the campaign to suppress it will likely be heavily funded by outside interests.

Christina Van Horn
Ross, I'm interested in your comment about a parcel tax to eliminate mosquitos and rats. The mosquitos are dealt with; I believe the County takes care of that. But there are rat burrows all over town, because the City has no program (It used to work on a monthly basis with the County) to root out the rats. I wrote to the former head of Public Works in the early '90s about this. He never responded, and the rats continue to multiply. There are burrows on almost every street in town, residential as well as commercial. Where is that money being used?

The parcel tax line item is "CSA VECTOR CONTROL" (at $5.92 per parcel), and I'd assumed it was for the county addressing all forms of disease vector issues (from bugs to rabid whatevers), but perhaps it doesn't deal with rats.

Well, the eucalpyptus worked so well, maybe we could import cobras to deal with the rats? (And then when I run in 2012 it can be on the "Mongeese to stop the Snakes!" platform.)

MORE FEDERAL MONEY FOR ALBANY TO COMPLETE THE BAY TRAIL

The East Bay Regional Park District was awarded a $10MM grant for paved bicycle trails. Project 4 is to fill the gap through Golden Gate Fields. See:

http://www.ebparks.org/node/1420

The City has been struggling for years to complete the Bay Trail, and looks like the current administration has done just that (in addition to the $165K feasibility study to restore Albany Beach and sand dunes, and $35K WW funding to run a water line out to and clean up of the Albany Cove.

Have we all read:
Letter to the Editor: Former Councilwoman Okawachi Writes In
?
A local history lesson.