Some positive thoughts on the value and meaning of surplus:

“Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community.” - attributed to Andrew Carnegie

“A man with a surplus can control circumstances, but a man without a surplus is controlled by them, and often has no opportunity to exercise judgment.” -Harvey Firestone (Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 1868-1938)

“Life is perpetually creative because it contains in itself that surplus which ever overflows the boundaries of the immediate time and space, restlessly pursuing its adventure of expression in the varied forms of self-realization.” - Rabindranath Tagore, Indian essayist - Nobel Prize winner for literature.

The big picture seems to risk getting lost in the technical legal matter of whether or not the site is considered city “surplus.” Is it a good idea to sell this property without more time to solicit community input and professional planning strategies/response for its best design use?

The San Leandro City Council wisely conducted a nation wide search and deliberated carefully before hiring our new city manager, Chris Zapata. Don’t we owe similar consideration and deliberation of this site, which is located 1/4 mile from the downtown BART station and has been identified in several urban revitalization strategies and studies?

With respect and acknowledgement to the developer and designers who has been working on this project, it doesn’t seem to me that it is intellectually rigorous. If it the project deviates from standard strip mall development, those aspects are apparently lost on many Patch readers and contributers.

Many of us seem to feel that this project fails to meet the standard it should be setting for responsive downtown development and don’t understand why the city owned property needs to be sold before the standard has been met.
(continued)

Neighboring cities use there parking lots for varied uses in anticipation of development that will eventually meet the standard they require. This parking lot is well lit, recently paved, and surrounded by fairly good looking street trees. It is hardly an eye-sore nor defunct in any obvious way. In addition, San Leandro has a high percentage of empty commercial space nearby, some (like the vacated Starbucks and restaurant spaces in the plaza) could very reasonably house a new national chain coffee shop and restaurants.
(continued)

City council members, will any of you speak to these concerns? Patch, can you help facilitate a Q&A discussion?

Can you explain how this project fit into larger uptown and downtown area urban revitalization strategies and why it is not better to take the steps necessary in order to ultimately create a more desireable place and vital part of our downtown area?

Good point, Fran. The city would obviously be getting the proceeds from the sale and taxes. I think it is good to keep in mind the long term needs and desires of our community also, and balance these with immediate concerns and financial incentives.

For example, a mixed-use project would be costlier to build, but would generate more tax revenue and bring more foot traffic to downtown. I would imagine in the current ecomomy, housing projects are on hold indefinetely.

Still, once we have another strip mall type project built down town, I assume it will be with us for better or for worse until most of us have long been buried. Does this project make sense? Does it align with our city and region's revitalization planning strategies? If yes, then cool. If not, what steps and initiatives should we set into play in order to try to make it better?

Yes, the million dollar question.

Return your seat back and tray tables to their upright position. Keep your seat belts fastened....

I think in addition to the regular RDA employees, the RDA reimburses the city for time regular city employees spend on RDA projects. I have seen studies that found RDA employees make more on average than other city workers.

Chris, well said. What you may want to join is the chorus of those that believe that the folks who approved Redevelop Money to be used for salaries and raises and not for redevelopment were in fact of violation of the law as well as the public trust. Toss out the incumbents for sure and indict as many of these crooks as possible. Perhaps the Grand Jury will do that. We can always hope that the real crooks, the established politicians and their lobbyists and financial supporters will in fact be judged and held to answer for their rape of the public trust.

Jason, for some of us "chain restaurant" and "good stuff" don't go together. I know there are lots of people who love Chipotle and Peets. Lots of people love McDonalds and Burger King. Personally, I want something else for my downtown.

If they want to move into our empty Starbucks and hoggie shop at the Safeway Plaza just down and across the street, I'd be more understanding. The city doesn't own those properties, they are already built to suit, and the move wouldn't impact the desireability of the Albertson's site.

I agree at least in part and probably to a large degree with Marga. Something locally owned and operated, or at the very least with a proven Bay Area track record would be much better for our community in the long run.

You might want to look up where Peet's is headquartered, Leah. Sheesh.

O.K. Peets gets a pass.

I spent some time in Seattle, so these big coffee houses start to blend in the old gray matter.
http://www.peets.com/stores/store_list.asp

As I've written before, quoting Bertolt Brecht (but no one noticed): Would it not be easier/In that case for the government/To dissolve the people/And elect another?
i.e. the restaurants will come when/if rich people move here. Given rich people's alternatives (Oakland Hills, Alameda, Piedmont, Berkeley), I find it somewhat hard to believe that gentrification will sweep SL.

Rob, you need to get around more. Not everything that's happening in town makes it to the papers.

As to what they should do, well, I've been writing about this for ages. They should /sell/ the city of San Leandro. In the case of restaurants, there has been a trend in recent years of San Francisco "name" restaurants opening branches in Oakland. They should be on the phone with the owners of such restaurants selling them on the idea of opening a branch in SL. And they should also be recruiting the lower end restaurants that make the culinary scene in Oakland/Berkeley and other towns so much more vibrant. How about going after Naan-n-curry or one of the other similar mini-chains of Indian quick/cheap restaurants? How about reaching out to the Eritrean/Ethiopian community in town and encouraging them to open that sort of restaurant? And how about helping promote those restaurants and businesses in town? A simple listing of all San Leandro restaurants (organized by cuisine and neighborhood) in the city website would be easy, cheap and fast to do. And indeed, they could do the same thing for other businesses. They can even steal the Patch's data about them, but organize it in a usable way :-)

And finally, what they could do is stop promiting the building of affordable housing downtown, which brings median incomes down and makes downtown less attractive to businesses.

And David, the "first people, then restaurants/business" model that you propose is not the only one. Look at Temescal, the restaurants and businesses moved in first and the people followed. I think the same thing happen with the Mission.

Again, Marga, Temescal restauranteurs noticed the surrounding area, i.e. Rockridge is literally 5 minutes away, lots of young people with disposable income in Adam's Point and Grand/Lake apartments etc. We don't have that proximity to rich people or the "young/hip" crowd. Ditto for the Mission, folks from Stroller Valley, er Noe Valley just roll down there in 5 min, etc. Therefore, a much more realistic model is Alameda, which started improving as families fled Berkeley/Oakland/SF to go to Alameda for cheaper housing (15 years ago), decent (soon to be very good) schools and much much lower crime. We have families coming here from Berkeley/Oakland, but the reason they're coming here is because housing is cheaper; they don't have the disposable income to eat at a Citron or Chez Panisse, but they can eat at Mae's price range. A way to do this is, as you say, get some mini-chains. For example, I was dreaming that a place like Jupiter's could open up down here--serving Drake's beer (or mine) as i was walking around the other day. But I disagree that we have any chance of attracting a lot of great "destination" restaurants without significant, local gentrification. I'd also note, I violently agree with you that the quest for more "affordable housing" will cement SL's slide into Hayward (best case) or Deep East Oakland (worst case) in the future, and I'd note that Alameda hasn't built a stick of multi-unit housing since 1973, something we could learn from.

What if the strip mall concept was tweaked but not thrown out entirely?

Pitch for a tweaked design concept/strategy (thought up over a cup of morning coffee):
Step 1) Throw out the grocery store, Fresh & Easy
rationale - The F&E business model is not up to snuff and undertested in surrounding areas. The financial situation of the parent company is too uncertain. It requires a heavy amount of onsite parking.
Step 2) Reduce offstreet parking on site and create a community amenity like a victory garden, a tot lot, and a simple urban park with appropriately designed landscaping.
Step 3) Use the park space for different activities throughout the year. Use it to extend and expand current festivals and the farmer's market on Parrot Street.

I realize it is popular in some circles to demonize affordable housing, but the fact is that nice restaurants, shops, and affordable housing are not mutually exclusive. Many of the communities that are held out as examples of what San Leandro could look like have been much more successful in developing safe, decent affordable housing than we have.

Rob, I wonder how many "affordable housing" advocates, who tell tales like yours, actually live in neighborhoods with large affordable housing projects. I remember when they wanted to build a project in front of my house. I asked the guy advocating it where he lived, he said in Kesington. Aha.

Rob, point me to that neighborhood. Is it Hunter's Point? West Oakland? Cabrini Greene?
No matter what, decreasing the median income of the area will not attract businesses that cater to higher median incomes. If you can't see this, you're beyond hope of ever responding to simple logic.

David - I'll start with North Beach, Temescal, & Berkeley. I think those areas have been mentioned longingly on this page.

David, Marga,

You wouldn't know a project that included some affordable housing around here if it bit you both in your buttocks. Keep repeating your beliefs though.... it is certainly enlightening :)

Really, Leah? I live across the street from an affordable housing building for seniors, and "Casa Verde", the affordable housing site into which the Islander Motel was converted, is a block or so from my house. Neither have brought any renewal to our neighborhood. How about you, Leah? How far away do you live from the nearest affordable housing building? How about you Rich?

I live about 2 blocks from this buidling, Marga. Very nicely maintained, it was built a couple of years after we moved here. Fits in with the neighborhood.

I doubt most of my neighbors even realize it is affordable housing.
http://sanleandro.patch.com/listings/broadmoor-plaza

There are a few other fairly new affordable housing projects similar to this one on East 14th.

We have la considerable stock-pile of vacated retail space nearby (within a fraction of a mile, i.e., walking distance) that Peets and Chipotles and other similar vibe national chains should lease first. In my opinion the city should strategize recruiting of chains, not rule them out entirely. To give up the Albertson's site to a strip mall development populated by national chains that may or may not make it 5 years in San Leandro smacks more of a "Fire Sale" than part of a strategic urban revitalization plan.

Peets seems to get a pass with many on Patch, though I could take it or leave it, personally. The one on 4th Street in Berkeley has done a lot with their digs. The ones in Alameda, Monteclair, and Livermore, apparently less so.

Years ago, SLUSD sold a high school campus near Marina Blvd. in order to pave the way for the Outlet mall and car dealerships. Maybe those that understand the economics of our city well would say that was a good deal and that the proceeds and tax revenue has kept us in the black for many years.

Why not open up the development process and award it to the developer who comes up with the best project mix? The various proposals could be judged or juried and financially incentivized.

Correction to Jason's post above: This developer is slated to pay aprox. 3 million for the property, not the full 6 million or so that our city paid for land, demolition, and repaving it in 2009.

Jason, when the city bought the Albertson's site they did it claiming that they would use it to build a mixed-use, business/housing project that would pay for itself. Still, the moment they got the deed, they turned around and gave it to Irmer to build whatever he wanted. And now Irmer is going to go and put a Fresh & Easy there, with a few small chains - one of which is moving from across the street, and two of which could use other existing spaces downtown. How is that better for the city than having a Grocery Outlet on the site? Why are we paying $3.5M for the privilege of having F&E instead of GO?

If it made no sense to put a GO there 3 years ago, it makes just as little sense to put a F&E and lose $3.5 M. We bought the property, now let's use it for something that's good for the community. And if that means that you'll have to drive to Oakland or Castro Valley or - God forbid - get your coffee at Mr. Bagel and your burrito at Los Pericos -, so be it.

OK, Marga. I am very clear on what you don't want. Name a business that you would like to see there that has enough financial backing to actually happen.

Jason, to answer both of your questions. I don't think we need to be in a hurry. If we can't afford to develop the site into something that will serve the community now, then let's wait until we can. I don't feel your need of having "businesses" at that site. I'd be very happy with a community garden. And I don't think it would be terribly expensive to build that.

Another possibility? Offer the site to Faith Fellowship to settle their lawsuit against us. They could build a nice church there, and bring 1700 people there on Sundays, some of whom would surely patronize our area restaurants.

I want a stab at this question also, Jason...

As a very wise and powerful man recently shared with me, dream first. If the dream and design are strong, the money will probably follow.

How will we ever attract business's like the YMCA if we don't go a courting? This type of sustainable and community focused organization will simply pass us for one of our neighbors such as Alameda or Pleasanton.

You snooze you lose!

OK, Marga wants a mega church or garden downtown. Leah likes the current parking lot but would also like a YMCA. Awesome, I'll start working on the post cards. I think the parking lot might have the most potential. San Leandro, City of Parking Lots. Perhaps we should knock down the other empty buildings and build more parking lots.

Jason, why are you fixated with the parking lot? A parking lot is a temporary use of the property until we can build something that is good for the community. And I rather be a temporary city of parking lots, than a permanent city of strip malls like you seem to want. There are too many of those, I'm sure you won't have trouble finding one if that's what you want.

Yes Jason. Look beyond the parking lot, grasshopper. Think $ still on the table (maybe).

To wet your imagination, check out what the community of Alameda and a generous private donor (Preforce Software) created over December and January, at the site of a former car dealership. http://www.thelittleicerink.com/ If you hurry, you can still go. It's pretty awe----some.

Alameda has a very nice downtown with lots of restaurants and businesses. It doesn't have a mega church, community garden or massive parking lot but it does have a Peets. Alameda's Chipotle is down by their Trader Joes which is more of a mall. God forbid I have more choices in SL. I guess I should be happy with the restaurants we have downtown already until we get around to deciding what would be "good for the community." I work with Perforce a lot and they've done a very nice job with their corporate headquarters in Alameda and it's nice to see they also give back to the city.

I think I hear us all agreeing on better alternatives, Jason. It's how we get from point A to point B. A "massive" parking lot within a short walking distanance of the downtown Bart station apparently looks more seductive to some Patch readers than others. It takes all kinds. As Beyonce says:

Cause if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it
If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it

I got gloss on my lips (lips)
A man on my hips (hips)
Hold me tighter than my Dereon jeans

Actin' up (up)
Drinkin' my cup (cup)
I can care less what you think

I need no permission
Did I mention?
Don't pay him any attention

Cheers! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRGogYu2gRE

Does the city need the proceeds from the particular deal on the table so very desperately? The answer might be "yes." I really don't have any idea for media reports haven't shown the city bringing forward alternates or the council questioning this proposal in relation to alternatives.

We can have "Village Marketplace" or we can have "Village Marketplace."

Well you are right only deep pocketed or highly leveraged chains can afford to pay what will be high rents, at least definitely higher than surrounding. And when these developers own the land and lease it out its big money. Everyone knows by now Kroc didn't get rich from hamburgers but real estate. I know somebody who invests in these properties, they sit back and do nothing but collect a big fat check every month. And as far as building the actual plaza is concerned, I know a little bit about construction and they pay the least in wages they can get away. Palma Plaza is a nightmare. Can they possibly make tighter parking?

Are you saying you want more parking or bigger spaces at Palma, Fran?
This is E. 14th Avenue you are talking about, right?

Just as a bit of an aside. Real estate owners don't collect rent on free on site parking - a fact which is reflected in tax revenue as well. That's what makes big box/strip mall development so inefficient relative to mixed-use with housing and higher density development.

Fran, can you comment on any of the following?
Do real estate owners write off their vacant properties? What's the incentive for property owners to be proactive about reducing high rates tenant vacancy or serial vacancies (by which I mean spaces that keep turning over year after year, like many of the shops at Pelton Plaza)?

Regarding Palma Plaza being a "Nightmare" now what did you think of it before when it was burned out and boarded up? The new plaza does lack that post-apocalyptic charm of the old one but I find it's convenient if you need to pick up a prescription or an ice tea.

Leah, the incentive is to get a sucker to pay high rent so that you can goose your rent roll to sell the property to the next greater fool for more than you paid for it based on the higher rents. This is why Beckett's got closed in Berkeley to my eternal dismay.

Beckett's closed? Thanks for sharing the sad news :(

BTW - The architect who designed the Beckett building (actually called the Tupper and Reed building), built in 1925, also designed my house.
W.R. Yelland, "Master of the Storeybook style"
http://storybookers.com/

This raises an interesting point, but not the one Justin intended perhaps. I think this is what Rob Rich was getting at above:

What % of redevelopment and new development did our Redevelopment Agency play a hand as compared to "market forces" by themselves? It seems to me that the latter hasn't exactly been beating down our door nor has it been hindered all that much by the agency. Maybe Grocery Outlet would disagree, but as they located just down the street that hardly seems worth mentioning.

The Estudillo shopping area at MacArthur Blvd. is fairly cozy and attractive, but it would be interesting to see this in a city-wide development/improvement context.

Nobody said that affordable housing will cure all social ills (though Justin did say redevelopment was the cause of San Leandro's current problems). I do believe the immediate area around the former Islander Motel has improved since redevelopment partnered with Mercy to convert it into affordable housing. I think the police blotter supports that. Less violence, less prostitution, and less drug dealing. It is hard work to improve a town and we have a lot of improving to do. It takes a community investing in itself and working together. The job just got even harder with the demise of redevelopment. Make no mistake, communities that are willing to roll up their sleeves and invest in themselves will continue to do so. The public sector is not the enemy, nor are developers, investors, unions, or low income folks. We should vigorously challenge our own and each others' assumptions. The trick is how to do that in a way that doesn't end up "chilling" the voice of those with whom we disagree. Because sometimes it turns out that they were right all along.

Rob, again, listen to yourself. Converting a decrepit motel into "affordable" housing is probably a step up, sure. Taking a prime parcel downtown or next to BART and turning that into "affordable" housing is not. And, I would bet a lot of money that demolishing the motel and turning the area into MARKET-rate housing would have been an even bigger improvement. I'd also point out that Cabrini Greene was considered a step up from the tenements it replaced, along with the Stuyvesant projects in NYC etc etc. That turned out great, right?

Rob, the Islander Motel was a motel for transients. Crime went down the minute it was shut down. If you have any statistics showing it further went down (more than the average decline in crime citywide) /after/ it re-opened as Casa Verde, I'd love to see them.

And while the /motel/ itself has improved (and I'm definitely glad it did), the area around it has not. It's exactly the same it was even before the Islander closed as such. Now, the area itself was never that bad. I've never been afraid of walking by it, and I never saw any prostitution/drug dealing/etc. taking place outside it (though granted, I'm not very observant). But it's definitely not that better.

Hey, I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. The Broadmoor Plaza has brought down the demise of the E. 14th SL cooridor. It is the "Cambrini Green" of the East Bay.

Damn Babtist Housing and low income seniors! Get a job, cane carriers!

Leah, I'd invite you to re-read Bastiat's comments on "That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen"
As I stated, poor people, poor elderly, poor children whatever, by definition don't have money to spend. To look to "affordable" housing to revitalize an area's restaurants and shopping is simply not logical. Can you really not see this? Furthermore, the occupation of that parcel by poor people prevents MARKET rate housing from being there, which would be more likely to have people who have the income to spend on local shops and restaurants. Can you really not see this?

Glad to see David thinks converting a decreptit motel is "probably" a step up. Big of him, certainly. :)

For anyone actually curious, and not just interested in beating drums and shaking around smelly red herrings, there are very good examples of mixed-use housing with a smallish percentage of affordable and the majority market rate. I will say that we probably see a lot of senior affordable housing build of late near downtown because the real estate market and commercial space is so "soft." An over representation of nail shops and beauty supply stores is symptomatic of urban and suburban decline. Silver lining: all our seniors have pretty nails and nice hair. :)

I agree with the idea that San Leandro and its downtown could sure use more mixed-use housing with market rate and affordable criteria in the mix. I'm quite certain that the majority of passersby not familiar with the building would even realize that it had some affordable housing options therein.

Rob is entirely on the right track when he says we need to invest in our communities and that affordable housing for some is merely a convenient target for whipping up irrational fears, not unlike targeting gay marriage and the Muslim faith.

Leah, your goal is simple: gentrification. Do you achieve that goal by importing poor people or rich people?

There are good examples, yet you cite none. And then you state that I'm waving around a red herring? That's pretty awesome. you like Broadmoor Plaza, I point out that poor elderly haven't "saved" that section of E.14th from having quite a few vacancies. But that's a red herring? That's a real example. Where are yours?

Here's your challenge. Show me an area where median income INCREASED by increasing "affordable housing" set asides. Even better, show me an area where median income increased with the establishment of blocks of "affordable" housing as has actually been proposed (for real, not some "red herring") like in SL (which is thankfully likely never going to happen thanks to the abolition of RDAs).

Simple math says you can't. But I'd love to see otherwise.

So, Leah, any examples? One correction. The poor old people in Broadmoor Plaza do support a vacuum repair shop, a 7-11, a discount auto parts store, an Herbalife outlet, TV repair shop, and the ubiquitous to SL nail salon within walking distance. However, San Gaspar restaurant is there. I'm not sure that's what you mean by a "destination" type place though. While I'm happy that all those businesses are there and I hope they prosper, I don't think that's your idea of the "future" of SL.

Is San Gaspar still open? I thought it was still closed after a fire or something.

I'm guessing there is a difference of opinion as to whether there is a scarcity of affordable housing, and if there is, whether that is a problem. I'm squarely on the side that it is a big problem, one that the free market struggles to address. The old Islander Motel was the free market at work, externalizing the costs and privatizing the profits. Rational economic behavior. Capitalism is a wonderful tool, but it has it limits.
As for affordable housing increasing median incomes, I haven't see anyone making that claim. What I have heard, without any substantiation, is that affordable housing decreases property values. Here's a link to a study of supportive housing in NYC that concludes that simply is not true. http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenterPolicyBriefonSupportiveHousing_LowRes.pdf
The gist is, I believe it is poor policy to "economically cleanse" San Leandro. I would like to see people who work here be able to live here for numerous reasons, including to reduce traffic congestion. Same with people who grew up here and people who grow old here.
To take it a step further, I believe economic segregation leads to slums. That's a tried and true free market model that goes back centuries.
We can do better.

Then, Rob, I'm sorry, but you can't read.
You have been writing that having "affordable housing" as part of the development plan would encourage nice restaurants etc to locate here: ("the fact is that nice restaurants, shops, and affordable housing are not mutually exclusive").
Well, if that were true, where's the fine dining across from Broadmoor Plaza? Oh yeah, it burned down, never to be replaced. Perhaps you consider 7-11 to be a "nice" shopping experience, however, I don't think that's what you had in mind. What's near the ex-Motel? anything you consider "nice"?
My point is that "affordable" housing does nothing for the neighborhood except house poor people, who by definition, don't have a lot of disposable income to spend on "nice" restaurants and shops. Are you really arguing this? Really?

Yes, I can read and fully comprehend invective. When I said they are not mutually exclusive, that is precisely what I meant. There are plenty of examples where affordable housing is located in the same neighborhood as the kind of restaurants and shops many folks on this page say they want for San Leandro. It is quite frankly disingenuous to fault affordable housing for the vacant storefronts on E14th. I realize I'm repeating myself, but to eliminate any confusion, it does not cure all social ills. When the people who work in the nice restaurants we want can actually afford to live here, rather than say, Vacaville, it reduces traffic and pollution and they spend their money here in town supporting other businesses. I think that is a good idea.

Rob, you're not seeing it. Of course you can fault "affordable" housing. why? Because it took the place of market rate housing. It is mutually exclusive. A lot that gets 100 apartments of "affordable" housing won't get 100 units of market-rate housing. What would have happened if Broadmoor Plaza was a bunch of market rate condos with 25-45 year old single people making $40-$60k living there? Do you think you'd still have a vacuum repair shop on the corner, or might that have been replaced by something more to your (and Leah's and Marga's) taste? You honestly think that it wouldn't be any different?

Pretending that affordable housing is somehow preventing the development of market rate housing doesn't make it so. Personally, I want both. There obviously are dozens of vacant and underutilized sites on E14th. Affordable housing is often built on the least desirable sites, acting as a buffer for market rate housing. Like at the Crossings, the affordable component is wedged cheek and jowl between CalTrain and BART, while the market rate component is across the street, convenient to BART, but not in a train track sandwich. And the reason the market rate component is stalled? Why, it's the market!
In any case, I thought it appropriate to note that Alameda, partnering with RCD (anybody remember them?) is having a ground breaking 1/31/12 for the adaptive reuse of the Alameda Islander, converting it into 61 units of green, affordable, workforce housing. All within walking distance of the shops and restaurants of Park Street. http://alameda.patch.com/articles/islander-motel-alameda-affordable-housing

Rob, I have a question for you. /Who/ lives in those affordable housing units at former motels? I don't think they rebuild the interiors, so it must be one person, or at the most two, per unit. They have affordable housing places specially for seniors, I imagine they must have other ones specially for disabled people, and families (except perhaps a single mom/dad with one kid) won't fit there. So what type of people live in these units?

Marga asks an important question.

While I realize we all have busy lives and some of us have children or parents to take care of, I invite all concerned citizens to attend a Human Services Commission meeting. Once a month we meet to learn more about the social programs meeting needs in our community. The City of San Leandro helps fund a handful of highly efficient non-profit organizations, like Davis Street Community Center and ECHO Housing. In our current economic recession, with increasing funding cuts as far as the eye can see, it is more important than ever to remain vigilant about real human needs in our community. At the end of the day, it isn't really all that complex to identify the bottom line basics of human need: food, shelter, medical care, employment. When we weren't in a recession, the city received enough funding to award more ambitious programs which went beyond critical needs.

While I don't expect folks to attend these meetings, I do invite the public to do so.

Would it be helpful if Patch wrote stories about human services related issues, or recruited someone who would volunteer to write a regular column?

Rob, the only reason anyone WAS going to build the ghetto, train-track sandwich apartments was in order to collect our tax dollars to do so (even proposing a $15M bond, with a $1M annual payment). When those taxes disappeared, the developer did too. Marga, and as I recall, you talked a lot about putting a F&E at the Village Marketplace would (nearly) permanently alter the potential of that spot for alternative, higher value uses, even raising the specter of Wal-Mart adding one of their small stores there after F&E hypothetically failed. Yet you cannot fathom that putting a bunch of affordable housing might also alter the landscape? You're being quite dense.

http://www.sanleandro.org/depts/rec/rh/default.asp

The HSC meets the fourth Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Sister Cities Gallery Room at City Hall. The public is welcome to attend.

For further information on the City's Community Assistance Program, contact Joann Oliver, Recreation and Human Services Department, at (510) 577-3463.

Rob, don't pay David too much mind, he talks to everyone but his own reflection that way. Who can blame him? Gor---geous...

Flattery will get you everywhere Leah, but a winning argument.

Winning is everything, I hear. Oh well...morals and ethics be damned.

Where the heck is your tribe, David? Hello? Hello? Check...check...

San Leandro: do you copy?

I believe Casa Verde on E14th has both studios and one bedrooms. When you're talking about very low income housing, like Casa Verde, a one bedroom is frequently used a family unit. RCD's Alameda Islander is work force studio units, which could house a single adult, couple, or family with a child. I'm not familiar with Alameda County housing codes, but San Francisco typically "doesn't count" kids under 6 for occupancy standards, so the actual number of people in a small unit can be quite large. SF's Chinatown has been a real eye opener for me.
As for the Crossings, the nonprofit developer, Bridge, did not "disappear," the funding did. That's part of the risk of being a developer, for profit or non-profit. I have had the honor of working with Bridge several times over the years, and I have always found them to be as hard working, dedicated, talented, and intelligent as anyone posting on this blog. They would make the late Don Terner proud. http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/ternerprize/terner.html

And where did the funding come from? Taxpayers. Yes the funding disappeared, because the taxes and RDA did. That's the only reason they wanted to/planned the units--to collect our taxes. I don't care how smart they are, they're tax farmers/rent-seekers plain and simple.

Yes, the subsidy that creates affordability is public dollars, whether in the form of tax credits, block grants, bonds, you name it. And the people who work at Bridge do get paid. So certainly part of their wages come from tax dollars. And you're correct that the project cannot move forward without public funding.
Not to be too picky, but you're wrong about the rest.

fact check:

/discerning/ not /picky/

Buona Ventura!

Yes, and I'm very happy about that.

(a very modest %) and but a small part of the trend of the demise of the middle class.

Bye, bye, American pie....

Leah, it truly is amazing that you cannot see that "affordable" housing set-asides are CAUSE the demise of the "middle class" by increasing median housing costs and decreasing availability of middle class housing. Must be that Yale "education."

David, whatever pharmaceutical they are cooking up at your workplace today, I think it's leaching fumes. Go get some air, neighbor. :)

I'd use my pizza analogy again, but clearly simple math is beyond your grasp.

I think I read somewhere that some Los Angeles company is buying Lakeside Village apartments on Springlake Dr. for low-cost housing. Don't remember where I read it though.

what map

(click on the photo of San Leandro's cherry plaque above)

When the map appears, just follow "Genetically Enhanced Apes Waiting for Sequel" southeastward past "Oakland State Park." If you've past "Rich People Living on Hills" then you have gone too far...

(as I might have by posting this map. I hope Tom is feeling forgiving today)

I also do not like the Safeway at Bancroft and Dutton, it is an unpleasant shopping experience, lacks variety and is often out of items. I have shifted most of my grocery shopping to Dublin, near my job or the Safeway on Foothill in Hayward off 580.

Thanks for repeating falshoods, David. The more you repeat, the more chance they become true?

There are many examples of market rate multi-family housing and housing over retail that includes a small percentage of affordable housing. Common sense says you don't know what you are talking about.

Just saying there are many examples doesn't actually, you know, give them.
I gave an example that quite nicely shows my point. There are others. For example, the apartments that line Bancroft between Broadmoor and Dutton--while not tax-subsidized like Broadmoor Plaza, are certainly "affordable." How exactly do they contribute to "high end" shopping and restaurants? The Safeway there as we know is disgusting, Parker House isn't exactly a tapas and wine bar, Atlee's Cheesesteaks probably doesn't qualify as fine dining in your book, neither Happy Donuts or the two or three nail salons on the block and the liquor store on Victoria. Has that neighborhood improved in the 30-40 years since they've been built? A long-term example there. So, Leah, repeating that there are many examples to the contrary yet not actually giving any doesn't really add to the quality of your "argument."

Now I bet you're going to say that my examples don't count because they're "not over retail" nor do they include "market rate" housing. They're surrounded by market rate housing, and there is all the retail the area can support (there are still vacancies). Yet for all that, Broadmoor Plaza has a vacuum repair shop in the next block, and the Bancroft strip of apartments supports Atlee's. Whoopdefrickingdo.

David, a few corrections: I am not seeking gentrification, I have provided examples which you found unpersuasive, if the apartments on Bancroft aren't subsidized then they are market rate (so if you don't like them blame the market), I don't find Safeway disgusting, the cheesesteak shop is Attles, not Atlee (his father was a Warrior, not a Giant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Attles), and Zocalo & Paradiso are both within walking distance of the apartments you apparently loathe.
I think it comes down to this - you want rich people as neighbors. People below a certain income threshold (is it $45k/yr for a single adult?) should move somewhere else, preferably far away.

Elegantly put, Rich.

Thought you might be interested in this report, I caught a little of it yesterday. It raises similar concerns: politics in an age of scarce resources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwaiMCsyXas

Rob, originally you asked what we should do to attract fine restaurants etc to our "fair city" now that we had gotten rid of RDAs. To which a discussion ensued including a back and forth that RDA's and "affordable housing" mandates do nothing to attract fine restaurants etc. Forgive me for assuming that by attracting such ...attractions for the upper middle and upper classes, you aim to gentrify San Leandro. As I stated, the apartments on Bancroft *are* market-rate and "affordable" and do nothing positive for the neighborhood (in fact, our police chief commented that the "majority" of crimes committed in SL occur at apartment complexes). What I care about is not giving my taxes away to developers who are going reduce the quality of life in this town, and that includes those who would build "affordable" housing.

And Rob, if you don't find that Safeway on Dutton & Bancroft (which I go to quite frequently as it's within walking distance of my house) disgusting, you're definitely in the minority. Ask around, yelp it.

David, why do you find the Bancroft/Dutton Safeway "disgusting"? I shop there from time to time (and used to do it quite often) and I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't find it to be dirty or disorganized, and the staff is very friendly.

It's dirty. Leaking milk cartons, the freezers are frosted over and often leaking, the meat cases are not clean, the produce is inferior to places like FoodMaxx. The staff is fine, but if I were Moe (the manager), I'd work them a little harder--as I heard constantly from my manager in my first job, "if you have time to lean, you have time to clean."

Gee wiz, I kind of like my neighborhood Safeway + www.farmfreshtoyou.com....

PS. Marga, this is where you would really benefit from visiting other parts of the country. The uniform, and I mean uniform reaction from anybody who's lived/grew up out of state (especially in a "normal" part of the country like Wisconsin or Colorado or Virginia), is that that particular Safeway is foul. I had the same reaction with, well, just about every California shopping experience when I first moved here. It's generally filthy. Along with all these other little things, like the constant urine stench in SF, the lack of insulation, dual pane windows, screens, and central heating in a lot of the housing stock, etc etc. It's really moving backwards. For all the wealth in this state, it's bizarre that so many things are just not done. And again, I grew up in a working class neighborhood in Milwaukee. There's no excuse for the degradation of standards in this state. Heck, this morning at BART, there was a pile of food containers piled up RIGHT NEXT to the garbage can. Like, really, you couldn't be bothered to toss them in the trash? We spend more per mile than any other mass transit system on BART, and this was yet another day when the escalators were out of service, etc etc. The value we get for our dollar here is pathetic.

...and the libertarian/extremist opinion is: starve, starve, starve?

interesting times ahead, for sure.

Leah, your statement has no bearing on this discussion. This is what happens when, as a liberal in a sea of orthodox liberal opinion, you're presented with an alternative philosophy. You cannot defend your own opinions and so you resort to non-sequiturs, ad hominems, and other deficient rhetorical tactics.

Well, David, I will admit that having lived and traveled in many developing countries, my standards of cleanliness are probably lower than those of Midwestern folk. If there isn't a putrid carcass dripping blood on the floor while a scruffy dog licks it, I probably won't notice.

Yes, Marga, that's the interesting thing. California, one of the richest countries in the world has a standard of living on par with a "developing" country. And it's not due to lack of money, it's due to lack of standards and cultural defects. Seriously, we're all "green" right? So how many of your houses have insulation under the floor to stop all that cold air in the crawl space from jacking up your heating bills? Never mind the dual pane windows etc. It's as if, it's just an empty genuflection for the Californians who have given up God. Oh, wait a minute...
And it's not just SL. Like we all know, SF is filthy. The Peninsula is really nothing special despite its multimillion dollar 2/1 ranchers. And like I said, it's not a class thing; a working class 'hood in the Midwest is far cleaner than here.

But Fran, Leah and Rob have many many examples, so many they can't even begin to mention them to the contrary. hahahahahahahah.

Fact check. Fact check. It matters not what the facts are, David? I know it's trendy in liberarian circles to spout off like the angry marshmallow man in New York. We'll see how far that kind of rational goes in San Leandro, and where it takes us if it somehow prevails. :)

And you still provide no examples. It's not much of an argument when all you can do is say, "there are a lot of examples" without ever citing a real one, and then proceed to call the person you're arguing with a liar with zero evidence. I've provided real-world examples with the community we actually live in that destroy your simple faith that "affordable/mixed use" housing will bring in high-end restaurants and shops. And judging from the utter lack of support for the rent-seekers of "Bridge Housing" to build more ghetto housing in SL, I think that SL tends to agree with me much more often. So, as with all your other commentary, I'll expect another youtube video about now.

You raise a very important point, Fran. However, good schools as critical as they are, are not the end of the story. Consider reports like this one from the WSJ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00276-urban-legends-why-suburbs-not-dense-cities-are-future
Elsewhere, real data:
Contrary to new urbanist theoreticians, detached housing – not urban condos – overall accounted for the most housing growth [in the past decade], both owner-occupied and rentals.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002349-why-america%E2%80%99s-young-and-restless-will-abandon-cities-for-suburbs
Yet evidence from the last Census show the opposite: a marked acceleration of movement not into cities but toward suburban and exurban locations.
Cox looked at where 25- to 34-year-olds were living in 2000 and compared this to where they were living by 2010, now aged 35 to 44. The results were surprising: In the past 10 years, this cohort’s presence grew 12% in suburban areas while dropping 22.7% in the core cities. Overall, this demographic expanded by roughly 1.8 million in the suburbs while losing 1.3 million in the core cities....
According to a survey by Frank Magid and Associates, more millennials consider suburbs as their “ideal place” to settle than do older groups....

These are the actual facts, Leah, not your gauzy dreams about "young and hip" people moving to live in "affordable" apartments on top of bars on E. 14th street if you build them. Or whatever other "mixed use" fantasies you're maintaining. People, when given a choice, move to their nice, detached, single-family house in the 'burbs, once they can.

David,
As a point of fact, I have posted local examples by design firms I admire. I will try to again. However, I am not your teacher, and it is highly irrational and a silly arguement to make that because /I/ "haven't" therefore they don't exist.

Not design firms, Leah, I want real examples of projects like Broadmoor Plaza changed the neighborhood in the direction you've stated you want it changed (fewer nail salons, nicer restaurants, better/higher-end shopping). You mentioned Broadmoor Plaza so far, and that has had zero effects in the categories you have YOURSELF stated you want. Neither has converting that Motel. What else?
Leah, when you're calling me a liar and providing no grounds for your accusation, you're not being "my teacher," you're being an extremely poor debater. I can assert that there are pink unicorns running around Washington Manor, and you'll just accept that *without* any evidence or examples? That's a "rational" argument? You're arguing on faith, and wish for me to accept your fictional examples on faith. Your arguments wouldn't pass muster in a theological debate over the existence of God, much less an argument over a literal concrete example to support your thesis.

David, I have.

BTW - I really don't care what you want from me. You're a grown-up, you are perfectly capable of finding them yourself.

Ok, Leah. I found Broadmoor Plaza. I will record that you then consider a Vacuum Repair, TV Repair, Discount Auto Parts, Herbalife, a Dry Cleaner and 7-11 as "upscale shopping" supported by shiny, new taxpayer-subsidized "affordable housing" and the burned out San Gaspar as "fine dining." You're very very convincing.

....and you're a joy to chat with sometimes. Rob has it right though, on some level your merely want to destroy any and all compromise solutions. I don't see anybody opposing market rate housing on this thread. What I do see is opposition to compromise which included affordable in the mix and higher density housing of any cost.

If I'm wrong about that and we are in violent agreement, then "Hallelujah, it's good to be wrong!"

I'm fine with market-rate housing, even when I don't like the results. If a developer wants to build ON HIS OWN DIME, an apartment complex on some parcel (for example, there's a parcel on Victoria between Mac and Foothill with a couple tear-down houses on it that could easily be a 6-plex or so). That would also likely be "affordable," given it's location. What I'm opposed to is "affordable housing" or "mixed units" built with my tax dollars. What I'm also arguing against is this clearly mistaken idea that "affordable housing" whether market-built or tax-subsidized is going to bring "fine dining" or whatever else to the area. As for "mixed" and "market-rate" projects, if a developer can do that on his own dime, fine, but I doubt it will happen, or it would already have--the TOD had market-rate housing in it, yet it rapidly went away to the point where the only thing the developer could do was build a 100 "affordable" unit block sandwiched in between 2 train tracks with a tax subsidy.

Yes, David. There are things each of us believes tax money /should/ and /should not be/ used for and things that the government can do that the market cannot or will not do. Politics is pretty complicated stuff.

Liberals believe in compromise solutions. Libertarians/Hardine conservatives believe in scorch and burn + digging their heals into the ground. I don't necessarily mean this as a criticism but merely as an observation of politics of the last 50 years since the Civil Rights Era and the Women's movement.

Yes, Leah, that's how you convinced yourself you're right. And "liberals" compromise on so many things. Like what exactly? Affirmative action? Abortion? Right to work laws? Public unions? Public schools and vouchers? your "compromises" are numerous, as in zero also being a number.

"usually after several years in the city people's incomes may have gone up and they may want to live in a city with nicer stuff and less crime."

Yep, you got it Jason. And better schools make a huge difference for wanting to locate or stay in a suburban location like San Leandro that offers none of the urban amenities or the atmosphere of places like Grand Lake, Rockridge, etc.

Yep, and that's why for San Leandro, the people who care about schools etc have to move here first. We're never going to compete with the dining of Rockridge; the model is more Alameda, where people moved there from Berkeley/Oakland for cheaper housing (it was cheaper in 1997 when families started flooding Alameda) and lower crime. After the demographics changed a bit, the schools got better, property values improved, higher income people moved in, and shops and restaurants followed. We're not going to gentrify (again if that is the goal, which it seems to be if you distill down what people are stating here), unless we keep crime low and families who care about schools etc move in. Housing is already cheap.

Freeways, pyramids, dream homes with washing machines and big back yards with BBQ's and an adoring dog. All were but a "fantasy" at one time.

Tip of the Hat to the dreamers!