| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 1 | Heath Carlisle | The Inclusionary Housing Initiative is meant to help communities by providing moderate and low income families the opportunity to have a home alongside those of greater means.
The developer's proposal seeks to condense 36 of those families into rental units on less than an acre of land.
It's a shame to see a large developer like this try to pull a "fast one", relying on misinformation and public apathy to increase their profit margin.
We shall continue to be vigilant. |
| 2 | David Howard | This is a throwback to the failed public housing projects of the 1960s, where developers swept all the lowest-income people out of their projects with $1 million waterfront homes and concentrated them into high-density apartment blocks.
Harbor Island Apartments - now Summerhouse - in Alameda is an example. It was built in the 60s as a HUD low-income project, then around 1990, it was converted to a market-rate complex, and sparked the Guyton Lawsuit. From then on, even though there were ultimately many, many Section 8 tenants in the complex, which the City of Alameda Housing Authority is supposed to inspect, the complex was allowed to deteriorate so badly that a new developer came in and evicted all the tenants to renovate it.
During the '90s and '00s while the project was allowed to deteriorate, police service calls to the complex skyrocketed, and tenants complained that the units were not being maintained. This is documented in Alameda City Council meeting minutes through 2002 to 2004. |
| 3 | Malyka Chop | Stop this project for 36 low to very low income apartments. It is bad for the city, the neighborhood, and very bad for AUSD who could develop this site in a more profitable manner. |
| 4 | Sean Cahill | I do not want this island high project to be built. Unfair in the inclusionary housing initiative. |
| 5 | Karry Kelley | |
| 6 | Rosemary McNally | |
| 7 | Patricia Bail | Another assult on Measure A and building even more jhgh density housing in an already built out community. |
| 8 | Jennifer Cobb | |
| 9 | Karen Nelson | Keep the letter of the agreement Catellus, and put the housing in the Grand Marina site!!! |
| 10 | Betsy Mathieson | |
| 11 | Griffith D. Neal | |
| 12 | Margie | |
| 13 | Anonymous | Hey out there....I haven't heard/read anything about this proposal being an out and out violation of MEASURE A. The guise of so-called 'affordable housing' is a typically used ploy by developers to build and fatten their coffers.
An obvious alternate use for this property would be a creative (not just a park) recreationally oriented facility that could help keep kids off the street.
Further, we need to get our Leaders to simply 'kick the rascals out' ...Catellus and Warmington, etal. Let's just say NO...not just to the current proposal, but to others that will surely be upon us before we can wink..... |
| 14 | Emerson Brown | |
| 15 | Emerson Brown | |
| 16 | Deborah Overfield | |
| 17 | Cybelle Kelley-Whitley | |
| 18 | Anonymous | |
| 19 | David Kirwin | |
| 20 | Bobbie V. Centurion | I am grateful to be able to sign this petition since I have felt strongly for many years that high density, low income housing is not beneficial for anyone. |
| 21 | Anda Bockis | An apartment complex does not belong in that neighborhood-- way too dense ---will overcrowd present school. |
| 22 | Sheila Leonard | For all of the above reasons, I do not support this 36-unit project at Eagle Avenue and Everett. Sheila Leonard |
| 23 | Noel W, Folsom | This development should be rejected out of hand! |
| 24 | Nancy A Hird | |
| 25 | Patr Payne | Low and very low income housing should not be lumped together in a big apartment complex; they should be mixed with other housing of all income levels.
Developers who are making all the money should be forced to supply housing in the development they are building, not force it onto other residential areas.
This is incredibly wrong and I think all of Alameda should scream about it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of the decisions the planning board is making and council seems to be condoning. I live in Alameda, but not in the neighborhood in question. |
| 26 | Jean Sweeney | 36 units on less than an acre of land is too dense. Please do not approve this project.
Surely a better plan would serve the teachers and the community. Please reconsider their proposal. |
| 27 | Dorothy Reid | |
| 28 | Katie Smith | |
| 29 | Eugenie Thomson | |
| 30 | Claire Risley | |
| 31 | Lisa Klofkorn | |
| 32 | Monica Pena | |
| 33 | Patricia M. Gannon | This project is inapapropriate to the site. The City and the Board of Education should develop a plan which would be in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood. These homes should be located where they were originally intended; at the Grand Street Marine. |
| 34 | Susan Chung | |
| 35 | Alex Hau | |
| 36 | ken loi | |
| 37 | Anonymous | |
| 38 | Anonymous | |
| 39 | Anonymous | |
| 40 | John McNulty | Low-income homes mixexd into a new development benefit the community and are the intent of such requirements. Lets keep it that way for the benefit of all the residents of the new development. |
| 41 | Gene Calhoun | |
| 42 | Dora Calhoun | |
| 43 | Markus Roskothen | The Inclusionary Housing Initiative was created to AVOID high density low income housing complexes. We have learned from our mistakes but Catellus and the city government of Alameda think otherwise. |
| 44 | Nadi & Debbie Elsibai | We like our little town... |
| 45 | Robert Risley | I can not think of a worse place to shoe-horn in 36 units. |
| 46 | Roberta Bernardi | |
| 47 | Mary S. Hogan | Dear Members of the Planning Board, City Council, and Board of Education,
My husband and I are new residents in Alameda. We just bought a house here, on Gould Ct. , in April. One of the things that made us decide to live here was that we just loved how integrated Alameda is, both ethnically/racially as well as by income level. And from talking to Alameda residents, we were led to understand that some of the areas in Alameda which have been traditionally poor are changing to reflect a variety of income levels.
The proposal for the 36 low income units to be built all in one place is not in character with the Alameda that brought us here. I have been low income myself in the past, and one of my best friends lives in public housing, so I am completely supportive of building adequate affordable housing, both in my own neighborhood and in other neighborhoods. But this ghettoizing of low-income people all into one small area is unfair to them as well as to their neighbors. It is also unfair to the residents of Grand Marina and future developments, to be denied the kind of diversity and richness that comes with a multi-faceted community.
We don't want Alameda to be a loosely-formed amalgam of prejudiced, restricted neighborhoods surrounded by slums. Please enforce the Inclusionary Housing Initiative and keep Warmington/Catellus and all developers within the law that your voters passed.
Sincerely,
Mary S. Hogan |
| 48 | Matthew Gross | |
| 49 | Anonymous | With the school capacity issues we are having on this part of the island, I am baffled how the school district might consider this a good idea. Do we really need more housing on this end of the island? I would love for this to be a Park or other public property for the community that is already here. |
| 50 | Ann Quarles | |