I say no

It's a fundamental of effective Project Management to engage all stakeholders. Taxpayers in Oakland are affected by changes to Alameda Point. Proximity to the Bay means we also need to ensure environmentalist interests are represented as well. We can have something great at the Point, and the most efficient and effective way to manage the project - with fewest obstacles later on - is to balance the needs of all stakeholders.

I say no

Alameda Point is part of the Bay, I say save the Bay and
save the point for all the bay area residents.

I say yes

The federal government built the Naval Air Station at Alameda on property now referred to as Alameda Point. It was not always federally owned property; the dept of Def. of course had the right to claim the land for the purpose of 'protecting our country’.

When the DOD decided to close the base, arrangements were made to return the property to the city. Under George 'w" the DOD decided to charge the city $108 for the first portion of the property to be transferred back to the city.
(It has been determined that the property is now so toxic it may cost over $500 Million for clean-up. Maybe it was also determined that a portion of this toxicity was from uses prior to the Navy taking the land. All toxics created and left by the Navy should be the Navy's responsibility to remove, not just bury under additional bay dredging materials.)

For the portions of the property that are to be returned to the city, the citizens of the city should have the power of determining how that property is used.

If portions of that property are to be used for other public uses such as national or state parkland it should be approved by Alameda city voters. For the proposed "Bay Trail" to be maintained by Alameda County Park Dept, the costs for purchase and maintenance of that land should also be approved by Alameda County voters.

It should be the voters of the City of Alameda who determine how the property is to be used, whether it is held for public trust, open space, or conditions of development (as an island Alameda has serious traffic concerns) Public access to the entire waterfront should be required.

Development choices approved by Alameda Island voters will still adhere to all EIR requirements. It is likely that these should be more stringent to curtail the increasing pollution created by Bay Area traffic. If ABAG wants to build for more BA growth they should first solve the transportation/pollution problems. If they fear home prices will be driven too high as a result of curtailing housing construction then only low income style homes should be built. Perhaps we should also re-evaluate building codes. High density housing is not a solution; it puts more vehicles on the roads not fewer.

I say yes

Yes, they should as long as the politicians and residents are local (not county residents or county, state or federally elected politicians).

The city of Alameda has supported and been identified with the Naval Air Station (now Alameda Point) since it was offered by the city and accepted by the Navy in the 1930's. The Point has as much historical relevance to the city (perhaps more) than all the Victorian and other historical buildings Alameda has voted to protect (1973 Measure A). Alameda chose to protect our own heritage. We must continue this endeavor.

This an Alameda issue and only citizens of Alameda should determine what's best for our city.

I say yes

The question as posed is certainly not impartial.

I say yes

When the base was announced for closure, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) was created, the surrounding communities were represented. In nearly all the decision that were made by that original governing board, the question asked was how this decision would effect the City of Alameda. The other communities saw realized that when all was said and done, the development was ging to be left up to the citizens of Alameda. The EIR and EIS process, required by law, will eb the opportunity for the surrounding communities to have their input, but the property that will be sold to the City of Alameda, will be within the boundaries of the City.

I say no

Of all the issues relating to Alameda Point, the question of whether the development plans should be decided exlusively by Alameda Residents and politicians is the most inconsequential question to ask. The development process is already being driven by outside interests - appropriately. The Department of the Navy controls the land, the Environmental Protection Agency is overseeing the clean-up, and a Southern California company - Suncal - is serving as the Master Developer, and they have hired an outside firm to lead the public engagement process. Get a real question on here, such as whether measure A should be amended to allow transit oriented development at Alameda Point

I say yes

Unfortunately, outside influences generally have a personal reason for wanting to influence what is decided inside any city, not just Alameda. These reasons usually do not have the best interest of the citizens of the cities in mind. Developers top the list, but neighboring cities, counties, the state and even the federal government have plans they want to push for. As a Pacific Rim port, even some foreign governments might have an opinion.

I believe the outside forces have a right to state their view point and to give supporting information but the citizens and the local governments they elect have the final say in what happens inside the city.

It's important to remember, Alameda is a smaller part of a larger Bay Area government. Our state senator and representative are elected by the voters in the larger cities so our problems are not in the forefront of their decision making.

Few people from Alameda attend City Planning or City Council meetings and I suspect even fewer communicate with the State Senator or Representative. As a person who does frequently attend, I am often left with the feeling that citizen viewpoints, even when in a lopsided majority, are ignored. Decisions have already been made, behind closed doors. It's really hard to keep on trying when you know you will be ignored. Many citizens believe the City government is already influenced by forces outside of the city and it is too late for citizens to determine the outcome of what will happen with ANY future development in Alameda.

I am neutral

It seems to me that land use in California is a local issue and, therefore, this is an Alameda issue. Of course, this is the problem with land use in the Bay Area. Each city pursues its own self-interest, often to the detriment of their neighbors.

If we ask Alameda to agree to a regional planning process, we need to be prepared to create (and abide by) a regional planning entity that weighs in on all land use issues throughout the Bay Area.

I am neutral

Alameda residents will have to live with whatever gets built out there. However, it will have a major impact on the Bay and the surrounding cities. It may be too great of an impact to concentrate in the hands of 3 people (city council majority - 3 out of 5) who no doubt have builders lobbying them, helping fund past or future election campaigns and so on. Do the local people in Alameda have a grand enough vision to do what's right for the City of Alameda and the Bay? Or has their conciousness been narrowed by their own aspirations?

I say no

As an Oakland resident, I have two reasons for believing that viewpoints beyond Alameda's should be considered.

1) I will be paying for the infrastructure impact on Oakland (especially traffic) with my taxes and my time; and

2) The impact of any development on the San Francisco Bay and surrounding wetlands is a regional issue that concerns me deeply.

I would prefer to see Alameda and surrounding stakeholders enter this process cooperatively, rather than as adversaries.

I say no

If the City of Alameda doesn't solicit and integrate feedback from other stakeholders such as Oakland, then the City is likely to be sued by those other stakeholders. So either way those people outside of Alameda will have an impact on Alameda Point decision; and I think it's better to work with these other people proactively instead of reactively (i.e. via court order).

I say no

I say yes

I say yes

I say no