Mario,
I just read you Measure M oped. You conclude with:
"If in a year or two the council is clearly letting
developers call all the shots and ignoring residents’ wishes, we
wouldn’t hesitate to support a measure like M and even call for
some council members’ ouster.
But right now Measure M is a preemptive strike that
doesn’t need to be delivered. The Daily News recommends a no vote
on Measure M."
You realize, of course, that two
years from now will too late. Once Stanford and Greenheart's
projects go forward, those buildings will be here in perpetuity.
We only have once chance to get this right. Measure M may not fix
every issue in the Downtown Plan, but its the only way we have to
effect substantive changes in these projects.
Your faith in the current Council is misplaced. They have had
numerous chances to make real changes to the Specific Plan and
demonstrate that they can stand up to developers. They have
failed at every opportunity. They have very little negotiating
leverage and are reluctant to use what little they do have*. They
don't embrace or understand the Community's vision or goals for
Downtown (developments whose jobs/housing ratio is 2.5 to 3.1 and
whose office component is 90 to 100% of non-residential are far
from what was envisioned). Any changes that have been made to
these projects are mostly cosmetic. If you see the office
component of these projects reduced, we will know that the Council
is actually negotiating. Otherwise its just for show.
Heyward Robinson
* When the Specific Plan passed in 2012, landowners like Stanford
and Greenheart saw their development rights more than double
without ANY required public benefit. Stanford alone received a
windfall between $250 to $300 million. But because Council set
the "by-right" development level so high, Stanford and other
developers are able to propose projects that do not require
development agreements and public benefit negotiations. The three
incumbents running for re-election, Kirsten Keith, Peter Ohtaki,
and Rich Cline, have twice voted against lowering the by-right
level. Given this track record and that 50% or more of Keith,
Ohtaki, and Cline's campaign donations come from real-estate
and/or development interests, should we be giving them another
chance?
Received on Wed Oct 29 2014 - 11:43:57 PDT