Alameda Planning Board Approves St. Joseph Amendment Despite Citizens Concerns

By Erica Madison

“I am not anti-education”, said Nancy Pyle, at Monday night’s Planning Board meeting. Pyle, who lives in the St. Joseph neighborhood, was in opposition to the continuation of the St. Joseph master plan.

“[This] Master plan needs to die here to night, with a no vote on the amendment”, said Pyle.

Pyle believes, the context of the plan takes great strides in ruining the neighborhood for several reasons.

1. The master plan is missing a car seat. More building along the property line will expose students to an unsafe environment.
2. The gym and music hall, are more likely to place students in a secluded area during off school hours.
3. Building these structures will have no affect on adjacent properties.

According to Pyle, the use of the gym has increased over the years, and will continue to increase the problem.

“Nobody who has a choice wants to live near campus, even the people who send their kids to school, don’t want to live near the campus”, said Pyle.

But Pyle was not alone in saying the amendment would undermine the strength of the neighborhood.

“An door gathering place is not on the plan. The indoor parking space will create a parking problem. I have talked to Andrew Reid and other planning committee members and they have asked me to be patient for ten years”, said Alameda citizen Kathy McIntyre.

According to McIntyre, Andrew Reid is lying when he says the St. Joseph planning committee has kept an open dialogue with neighbors in the community.

“We were sent a notice on the 7 of Oct., but only 4 people showed up. When I asked my neighbors, they said they didn’t receive a notice”, said McIntyre.

McIntyre also alleges the St. Joseph planning committee threatened the neighbors who did attend the meeting.

“They said, if the master plan was not approved they wouldn’t have to adhere to the stipulations of the original agreement”, said McIntyre.

Despite these concerns, the Planning Board was only concerned with the length of the amendment request.

“I have concerns about the length of time they want us to grant”, said Planning Board Vice-President, Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft.

“I question the number of years as well, but for different reasons. I think this is an aggressive fund raising program. Fifteen years doesn’t seem to be long enough”, said Planning Board member Patrick Lynch.

Despite the concerns about the length of time, the amendment was unanimously approved.