Advertisement


Rent Increase Survey

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

Alameda Residents Opposed to SunCal (a.k.a. SCC Alameda Point LLC) Circulate Online Petition

Residents opposed to the City of Alameda’s continued negotiations with SunCal, a.k.a. SCC Alameda Point LLC, are circulating an online petition targeted to Alameda City Council, demanding the Council stop dealing with the firm.

The petition reads:

The residents of Alameda were forced by SunCal to go to the ballot box and vote on Measure B, an election that cost the city approximately $300,000. By the overwhelming majority of 85% to 15%, the voters said NO to SunCal. The citizens of this city have spoken. To continue to force this issue is a violation of the letter and spirit of the democratic process. We, the undersigned residents of Alameda want the City Council and city staff to honor this vote and stop all negotiations with SunCal (SCC Alameda Point LLC or any other subsidiary of SunCal or their financial partner D.E. Shaw) on or before July 20, 2010.

In addition to signing the petition, residents can include their own comments as well. One petitioner wrote “Council members, The results of the Measure B seemed pretty clear to me, ‘we do not wish to proceed with Sun Cal’s wretched plan, nor anything similar.’ I request you move to terminate any further involvement with this company. I voted against Sun Ca’s plan due to its reckless disregard for the impact the plan would have on traffic and quality of life in Alameda. I also thought their ballot measure approach was underhanded and dubious, however, I did not vote against the process as Sun Cal is now trying to imply. My message: End all ties to Sun Cal ASAP”

The City of Alameda’s Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with SunCal is currently set to expire on July 20, 2010.

3 comments to Alameda Residents Opposed to SunCal (a.k.a. SCC Alameda Point LLC) Circulate Online Petition

  • Barb

    Sorry folks but I think SUNCAL has us by the throat until the terms of the ENA self-terminate in July 2010. If at any time the City appears to be acting in less than good faith, SUNCAL will undoubtedly claim that lack of good faith as a basis for extending the ENA or forms the legal basis for a lawsuit. A lawsuit would under the terms of thte ENA, operate as an extension of the ENA. Such were the great legal minds of JOHNSON, GILMORE, then City Manager Kurita and the City Attorney at the time the ENA was signed.
    It would appear that a better petition would be to ask the City to pursue the intentions of the electorate in seeking to obtain SUNCAL’s cooperation prior to the termination of the ENA.

  • Barb

    (DARN PUSHED THE WRONG BUTTON)
    Please add to the foregoing:

    It would appear that a better petition would be to ask the City to pursue the intentions of the electorate in seeking to obtain SUNCAL’s cooperation prior to the termination of the ENA; and failing to obtain that co-operation for the City not to extend the ENA or prolong negotiations with SUNCAL in any manner after the scheduled date of termination of the ENA.

    One might preface the petition with the fact that new and continuing relevations of bankruptcy on behalf of SUNCAL, its affiliates, sponsors, and other financial resources, global warming and other geological constraints not heretofore considered, added to the economy in general and its effects on the budgets of the City of Alameda, have triggered additional consideration and needed time for that consideration by all concerned prior to going forward with any development at this time.

  • Alan2010

    A friend in Santa Rosa tells me that there is a retired attorney there who has been very successful in combating the development of high density projects using Article 34 of the California Constitution. Apparently this fellow, and his cohorts, take the position that any cutting of fees, charges, or development standards, or any subsidies, or any public financing for a project, to promote affordable housing in any form, is done in violation of Article 34, unless the majority of the voters in the city turn out and approve the specific details of the project.

    From some of the details on SunCal’s proposals, it seems to me that Article 34 of the California Constitution may be a way to beat back whatever economic “concessions” or subsidies or public financing SunCal beats out of the City of Alameda. Force the project onto the ballot, again, and let the public vote it down again…because you know SunCal cannot develop this project without burdening Alameda taxpayers with part of the cost.

    Here’s the full text of Article 34:

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 34 PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT LAW

    Section 1. No low rent housing project shall hereafter be
    developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to develop, construct, or acquire the same, voting upon such issue, approve such project by voting in favor thereof at an election to be held for that purpose, or at any general or special election.
    For the purposes of this Article the term “low rent housing
    project” shall mean any development composed of urban or rural
    dwellings, apartments or other living accommodations for persons of
    low income, financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government or a state public body or to which the Federal Government or a state
    public body extends assistance by supplying all or part of the labor, by guaranteeing the payment of liens, or otherwise. For the
    purposes of this Article only there shall be excluded from the term
    “low rent housing project” any such project where there shall be in
    existence on the effective date hereof, a contract for financial
    assistance between any state public body and the Federal Government
    in respect to such project. For the purposes of this Article only “persons of low income” shall mean persons or families who lack the amount of income which is necessary (as determined by the state public body developing, constructing, or acquiring the housing project) to enable them, without financial assistance, to live in decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, without overcrowding. For the purposes of this Article the term “state public body” shall mean this State, or any city, city and county, county, district, authority, agency, or any other subdivision or public body
    of this State. For the purposes of this Article the term “Federal Government” shall mean the United States of America, or any agency or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise, of the United States of
    America.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 34 PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT LAW

    Section 2. The provisions of this Article shall be self-executing
    but legislation not in conflict herewith may be enacted to facilitate its operation.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 34 PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT LAW

    Section 3. If any portion, section or clause of this article, or
    the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall for any
    reason be declared unconstitutional or held invalid, the remainder of this Article, or the application of such portion, section or clause to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 34 PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT LAW

    Section 4. The provisions of this Article shall supersede all
    provisions of this Constitution and laws enacted thereunder in
    conflict therewith.

  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/z9s9aa9PmA ,

Directories