Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Debunking SunCal’s Guff on Measure B

SunCal and their proponents are perpetuating some mis-characterization and outright lies this week on Measure B, the Alameda Point Development Initiative. Here we debunk two of them.

The first, reportedly by SunCal representative Pat Keliher at the Alameda Association of Realtors forum this past wednesday, is that SunCal is still “negotiating” with the local trade unions. That’s bunk – the Alameda Labor Council and Building Trades Council have already adopted a “no” stance on Measure B.

Second is the idea that Alameda Point is a drain on the City’s finances. A March 16th, 2009 letter from the Navy to the City of Alameda notes that since the base closed, the City has received over $70 million in lease revenues from tenants at Alameda Point. WE argue that more could be realized if the City of Alameda aggressively marketed the buildings at Alameda Point for long-term lease and light industrial lease by sustainable energy research companies.

$70 million in Lease Revenue from Alameda Point Tenants

$70 million in Lease Revenue from Alameda Point Tenants

8 comments to Debunking SunCal’s Guff on Measure B

  • barb

    “Negotiating” with is SUNCAL speak for “trying to dig our way out of the hole we have dug for ourselves” by doing everything A– Backward and pissing off every legitimately concerned interest from the Chamber of Commerce, the Sierra Club, the School District, the City Council, the Labor Council, those interested in housing for low income persons, to nearly every level of intelligent life out there.

    SUNCAL and DESHAW should take the remainder of the money they are willing to spend on this ersatz campaign and donate it to the homeless or other charities in Alameda. Along with an apology for their extreme arrogance, poor business acumen and general selfish idiocy. Happy Holidays to All!

  • Clay Davis

    70 million taken in, but how much has been spent? you conveniently leave that out.
    not to mention the toxic buildings that the navy won’t clean up. I can’t tell if that’s west baltimore or alameda in some parts.


  • If you have a figure, you should provide it, and substantiate it.

    We have an outstanding public records request into the City for more details. The ARRA budget, which took in the $70 million, is separate from the City’s General Fund. The ARRA financial reports are online at the City’s website if you want to take a look.

    Lease revenues could be increased if the City aggressively marketed the buildings and offered long-term leases, instead of keeping buildings off the market in anticipation of tearing them down to build houses.

  • Here’s a perfect example of how long-term leases of Alameda Point buildings to the right sort of light industrial companies can benefit the City – see how Bay Ship & Yacht contributes to the City of Alameda. (From the Dec 2. ARRA/CIC/City Council meeting minutes.)

    Leslie Cameron, Owner of Bay Ship & Yacht , supports a continued
    relationship between the City and Bay Ship & Yacht and stated some
    key points: Bay Ship & Yacht provides $90 000 to $110 000 sales tax
    dollars per year, has spent $17 million on its facility, pays over
    $100 000 per year in property taxes , spent $600,000 in Alameda this
    year, and is actively involved in many community projects. Bay Ship
    & Yacht currently employs 250 people. Ms. Cameron expressed that
    she appreciates the support of the City.

  • Clay Davis

    no, I’m asking you to give a figure on how much has been spent.
    In those Suncal yes on B calls they say 100 million, that sounds a bit dodgy so that’s why I was wondering what number you no on B folks have.

  • Don’t have a figure for how much has been spent – that’s part of the public records request.

    You should ask SunCal how they justify their numbers.

  • Clay Davis

    I shall if I get a call from those guys again.

  • barb

    A number of really good companies that pay sales tax, and are good commercial, water oriented companies have essentially been “run out” of the Point by the lack of future and refusal to continue their leases in light of the SUNCAL derailment. As Action Alameda points out, even the $70 million has been reduced by SUNCAL’s actions and threatened take over.

    According to the initiative, SUNCAL would get that 10-11 million or more lease income per year for the next 25 years even if it sat around and did nothing. 260 plus million? I’d take that in a minute. Pour a little asphalt on the roads and let the subcontractors bear the cost of cleaning up any above ground pollution that is needed for their individual plots and desires.

    I don’t think the City is going to spend any thing it doesn’t have to spend on infrastructure with the black cloud of SUNCAL on the horizon. The better question is under SUNCAL what is the schedule of development/payment for development of each of the elements of the “world reknowned” planner’s plan? I think SUNCAL will not put in a dime it doesn’t have to put in, until it has taken as much profit as can out. I translate this to mean build and sell development rights to the 6000 homes. Then and only then will SUNCAL, if it is still around and solvent, start to put in the schools, sports center and transit hub. And this makes some sense. Why build a transit hub if no one is there to use it? Why build two schools if one doesn’t know if the homes will be buillt or sold and the children attend public schools?

    The main problem with SUNCAL’s plan is that it does not allow for building out on a gradual basis, and seeing if the planning figures fly. And if not making corrections by way of land use changes. SUNCAL simply demands guaranteed limits on its obligations up front, locks in the land uses, and takes away the power of the City to achieve the best results for all of its citizens if there is any error.

    The only people who deserve this kind of power are parents of small children.