Plans To Redevelop Alameda Marina In The Works

[fstbttms]

And at a community meeting last night, the developer showed 4 or 5 iterations of the plan, none of which included ANY marine businesses. The boatyard, chandlery, sailmakers, metalshop, electricians etc.- all gone. 100% mixed retail and residential.

Good info, discussion and links here:

http://www.pressure-drop.us/forums/showthread.php?4351-Alameda-Marina-redevelopment

 

[Stu Jackson]

Yuck. They missed the boat, yet again.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Hmm, where do the people who have boats there get to park?

I designed the HVAC for the Monterey Bay Aquarium with ehdd.

They seem to have lost their touch.

 

[fstbttms]

This just in from another forum:

We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign and the Harbormaster, Brock Delappe has been terminated from duties.

Apparently the primary developer Bill Poland is is axe swinging mode....stay tuned...

 

[marke14]

This is a trend in SoCal as well. Boaters are losing out, especially those of us that may exist on the lower end of the tax brackets generally associated with boat ownership.

Just a few examples, pardon my lack of diversity in terms of news sources:

Boating-related properties may transition to retail/residential / up in the air:
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/Ardell-properties-close-escrow-on-Mariners-Mile-holdings
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/Redondo-Beach-receives-public-input-on-waterfront-revitalization
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/Board-of-Port-Commissioners-pushes-Chula-Vista-redevelopment
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/L-A--Supervisors-approve-boater-friendly-mixed-use-project

Termination of boating services due to lease terminations:
(Actually they averted this one at the last minute): http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/Maxum-Petroleum-to-operate-Huntington-Harbour-fuel-dock

These both hurt those of us in LA Harbor / Long Beach:
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/Cabrillo-Boat-Shop-loses-lease-at-Port-of-Long-Beach
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/L-A--Harbor-slip-renters-lose-a-fuel-dock

Here's L.A. City Council's plans to, I fear, screw boaters at the expense of retail development:
http://www.thelog.com/Local/Article/Los-Angeles-to-study-areas-surrounding-San-Pedro-marinas

Granted each of these stories has a ton of backstory and side dealings - most of which you will not find in the articles and may not find anywhere online. Each one is unique, and indeed some of the articles about "redevelopment" of marinas and surrounding areas may break in favor of the boating public. But I kind of doubt it. Does it seem to you that in general, life is getting better, or worse, for folks without significant resources, when it comes to boating and indeed life in general?

 

[Stu Jackson]

Ach, "waterfront development" What an oxymoron!!! It ALREADY IS developed, as in a marina!

First come the houses, then the occupants, who don't like the sound of clanging halyards.

Anyone wanna guess the next step?

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Property owners have a right to develop property to maximize their profit. That's the free-market economy. We can demand zoning that restricts property owners' rights to some extent, but when do we go too far when it comes to restricting another person's economic freedom? It's too bad that California has so many rich people who have little interest in boating and boating marinas. They will crowd you out. That's the price you pay for living in a desirable area - constant conflict between those of you who have what you want and those who want what you have and are willing and able to pay more for it. If you want to keep a marina, you need to find an advocate who will purchase the property above market rate. There is only one way to fight development that you don't want. Find a buyer for the property who wants what you want.

 

[fstbttms]

The story in this particular instance is that developer Bill Poland took city officials by surprise when he announced his redevelopment plans. His claim of fulfilling the city's "vision" for the property has allegedly been refuted by the mayor and city council members, who apparently do not wish to see the Alameda Marina/Svendsen's Marine complex disappear. So hopefully we got that going for us.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Well, if it is re-development, which typically involves compromise between developer and City (City gives on zoning to allow higher residential density to get more retail and/or commercial space from developer) then maybe the City can have some influence in your favor (if they want to). The home buyers pay the way for the lesser value of retail & commercial space, typically. Of course everybody has their own volatile viewpoint with regard to land acquisition through "re-development".

If the development is straight-up with regard to zoning and no concessions needed from the City, what right does the City have to say how developer utilizes their property? (I admit, I'm not following this closely - I'm just a little experienced from the developer's side)

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I've been involved in "re-development" acquisitions in the past. A common trick when there are numerous developers competing for the right to be named "re-developer" by a City is to promise everything the City wants before the selection takes place. All of the renderings are drawn with VERY expensive-looking buildings, for instance. And everything the City wants is prominently portrayed. Then, after City names the developer (who will then have the exclusive right to acquire property - via condemnation if necessary), the developer starts to cry about how costly all their promises are and they need to change their plans and get concessions that they didn't 'originally' think they needed. Lots of the stuff the City wants is 'no longer feasible'. That's what they say ... it's a common game.

 

[marke14]

I don't think it should have to be legislated to do the right thing. I think removing what little precious boating infrastructure that Southern California has going for the sake of commercial expansion in a bad thing. I even thought that before I owned a boat!
I'm not saying you're incorrect about it only bemoaning how sad it is that greed basically drives up the cost of everything.

 

[jssailem]

Stu you did terrific work. Love the "Monterey Bay Aquarium"

 

[jssailem]

Scott, you hit the nail on the head. It is the traditional bait and switch. At the planning meeting the talk is big, and the promises are wild, yet without much substance or answers of how the promised ideas can be accomplished.

Ideas I have used is to get a group of individuals to each take a piece of the proposal and address the inconsistencies or question the proposals. Not one person talking but a chorus of citizens. In one case we lined up 20 individuals each with a specific piece of the proposal. Each was allotted 5 minutes. The developer was allotted 20 minutes. He complained about the amount of time the "citizens group" took. Wanted "equal time to address the many issues raised". Rules allowed 10 minutes of rebuttal. Opps.

Another idea. Find a snail darter or Alameda frog that needs to be protected. Or at least researched. Delay is the developers worse nightmare. Funding is limited and delay attacks funding.

At the least get your friend together and walk, camp out and or engage the Political decision makers. There is a reason so many voters are using the marina and the suppliers there. Historical reasons. Maybe not all but some of the history deserves to be protected. They built a "Jack London" cabin down by the marinas on the Oakland side. Let the politicians know that a compromise that, at the least, includes some of your groups needs makes sense if they want to get reelected.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Stu you did terrific work. Love the "Monterey Bay Aquarium"

Thanks, John. It was a fun meeting when I had to convince them they NEEDED air conditioning; they just wanted to use outside air. I finally got David Packard to understand that his gin & tonic glass sweated when it was humid outside or inside. If he didn't install A.C. especially in the main hall he wouldn't be able to see the fish!

 

[Stu Jackson]

They built a "Jack London" cabin down by the marinas on the Oakland side.

Actually, IIRC, that cabin had been around literally forever. I think it was Jack London's. They'd moved it from somewhere, didn't actually build it.

 

[jssailem]

Stu. I think the story on the building says that London stayed in it while in the Yukon seaching for gold. Something about half the logs are originals and half are not. Had to share the cabin with Canada. Maybe that could be a hook to get the developer to share the marina like the US and Canada shared the cabin.