The Eastshore Park in Emeryville, Berkeley, Albany, and Richmond is a real treasure, offering sanctuary for wildlife, a great off-leash dog park, terrific bike and walking trails, and fantastic views. All citizens of the Bay Area owe a debt of gratitude to those who stopped development along the shoreline starting in the 60s, and lasting till today. It's hard to imagine that we could have had a bay, and once did, that offereed no access to its shores.
But now there's kind of a hysteria in Albany about the future of the Albany shoreline. The shoreline is dominated by Golden Gate fields, a racetrack that has been there for decades, and is certainly no pleasure to the eye. Though from all accounts, there are no plans for Golden Gate Fields to leave Albany, all of us want to assure that should that come to pass, we'd have say over what replaces it. Last year a developer from LA (uh oh), came to town, opened up an office, and tried to garner support for a development at one end of the race track, with stores, trail access, apartments, etc. He didn't get very far, and ran out of town with his tail between his legs (though many seem to have heard him say "I'll be back," on his way. Some groups circulated a proposal for a new law that would set up a task force "composed of Albany registered voters selected by the Council and various community stakeholders to develop a Specific Plan for the waterfront." (Note that neither the task force, nor the "various community stakeholders" are elected and beholden to anyone.) Alas, this initiative was thrown off the ballot because its backers didn't follow all the laws required of them. They proposed this, by the way, even though according to Measure C, which we approved years ago, nothing can be done on the waterfront without voter approval.
Last week, Citizens for Eastshore Parks slipped into my mail slot a glossy brochure stirring up a lot of the hysteria, and being, I think, fundamentally dishonest about what they seem to be proposing (though, in truth, they don't seem to be proposing so much as opposing -- that's they're right, of course).
What's wrong with this picture? It's called a "conceptual drawing below illustrates one vision for the future redevelopment of the Golden Gate Fields property." Looking closer at the picture, it looks to me more like a dishonest total fantasy than a conceptual drawing. Along the east side of the park shown here are 9 (or more, it's hard to tell for sure) buildings, presumably apartments or stores. It's hard to say how big these things are supposed to be, but in total area, they must be at least twice the size of the Target store across the street (not shown, as far as I can see, in this picture). This does look like a nice little shopping area. But if you go there -- where do you park your car? Look closely, and tell me where the parking lots are for those 9 (or more) buildings. Look over next to the water, there are a nice set of trails along the beach, and it certainly looks like a nice place to spend an afternoon (if the wind isn't too strong). But, how do you get there? There's a road that seems to head close to it, though it does look like it takes a sharp left over to the shopping area. So, again, if you drive (and it's hard to walk there), where do you park your car? Finally, towards the south there are what appear to be 4 baseball diamonds for Little League. It's nice there's a place for the kids to play organized ball, if the wind isn't too bad (and note that just across the inlet there is one of the best kite-flying places in the country), but if you want to go watch a Little League game, where do you park your car?
This vision certainly looks appealing, especially when it's compared, as the CAS compares it, with reality, as shown here. Reality generally does lose in a comparison with fantasy; and this fantasy is pretty noxious as it can lead to bad political decisions. The word most used in this glossy brochure seems to be "could" and it seems to me a way to advance proposals without actually advancing proposals, just a this fancy painting is not really a proposal but a "conceptual drawing." I'd much rather find a way to see some reality in politics, whether it's on the national or local level. In this 'vision,' I expect to see the lion lying down with the lamb, and Adam and Eve prancing naked in the park. Compare this fantasy wit the designs proposed by that LA Developer. They don't look very appealing to me, but at least they're honest about their proposal and are showing little details like parking garages.
You don't have to be in favor of big development along the shoreline to wonder what's going on here, and wish that there were more honesty and a lot less hysteria here. It seems to me this hysteria is getting in the way of other issues in Albany, such as empty storefronts on Solano and San Pablo avenues, San Pablo rezoning, traffic situations on Buchanan Street, BART noise, disaster preparedness, and more. I don't know yet who I'm going to vote for, but I'd rather hear more proposals than opposals.
12:34:21 PM 
|
|
