Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Nearly 100 Alamedans Come Out to Protest the Megaplex
I was at this protest and it was impressive for this town - one person was up most of the night making a sign for her dog to wear, one guy was running around to give water to everyone and put flyers into people's car windows at the stoplights (he keeps a running tab on the yes and no positions of the speakers at the council meetings and says its far ahead for the no's, but the council doesn't care), people self-organizing to place themselves on corners and keep moving all around, balloons that were on really long strings to reach up to the height of the proposed building so people could see what a monstrosity it will be, etc. And most people I handed flyers to didn't know much about it, or did, but didn't know to show up at the meetings. It's nice to be a part of a genuine effort by a whole community, people of all ages and backgrounds, lots of white haired people, people with kids who don't live there anymore but want to help out, etc.
Please see also:
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Next City Council meeting on this issue is set for either August 2nd or August 16th . . . stay tuned.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crowd calls for 'no' vote on multiplex
Protesters say proposed cinema, garage don't fit with character of town
By Hanna Tamrat and William Brand, STAFF WRITERS
ALAMEDA — With a city plan to build a seven-screen multiplex cinema and a six-story parking structure next to the historic Alameda Theater headed for a City Council showdown, opponents of the big project turned out in force Saturday morning.
For two hours, a crowd, which reached nearly 100 at one point, carried picket signs in front of the theater on Central Avenue near Park Street and handed out fliers urging the City Council to stop the megaplex.
A six-story concrete parking garage and a big block multiplex simply don't fit in Alameda, said Ron Schaeffer, a longtime Alamedan and one of the protesters. "We want a theater, but not this," Schaeffer said.
"Look around Alameda, there are shady, tree-lined streets, It's like a town out of the 1920s or 1930s," he said. "But that doesn't mean that people who live here aren't sophisticated and aware."
The city Planning Board approved the estimated $25 million project last month. But citizens organized as Stop the Megaplex have appealed the decison to the City Council. The council is scheduled to hear the appeal on Aug. 16.
The plan calls for a seven-screen, two-story cineplex with ground-floor retail and a six-level parking structure downtown.
Funding would come in the form of bonds paid by the city's redevelopment property tax increment and other public financing. The plan has drawn support from Park Street merchants and other citizens eager to bring movie screens, parking, people and sales tax revenue to Alameda.
"Alameda has been waiting for a theater for years," Mayor Beverly Johnson said.
The 45-seat Central Cinema, at Central Avenue and Ninth Street, is the only theater now operating on the Island.
A growing number of Alamedans are opposing the multiplex project, which they say is a departure from the vision to preserve the Island's historic character that emerged from talks between city officials and the community about six years ago.
"It became a runaway project," said Ani Dimusheva of Alameda.
With more than 600 petition signatures to stop the project in her hands, Dimusheva said people are just beginning to realize the scope of the project is larger than they had initially thought.
The existing art-deco theater, which opened in 1932, is a registered landmark. It was extensively remodelled in the 1970s by Hollywood producer Robert L. Lippert, who learned to love films and movie houses as a child growing up in Alameda and attending the historic theater.
The city declined an offer from Lippert to give the town the theater. He died in 1976 and the theater closed as a movie house in 1979.
It seats about 500 people. It would reopen to show opening-night movies and provide an entrance to the new cineplex, which is expected to host more than 1,000 guests and occupy a 13,200-square-foot lot.
Longtime Alameda residents such as Joseph Inocencio, a former warehouse worker, and Helen Dean, owner of Toy Safari on Park Street, said Friday they miss the historic Alameda Theater they frequented as kids and when they were older.
Both support the addition of the cineplex to keep kids from going to other cities looking for a theater and to bring other people to the area.
While Inocencio thinks the parking garage will help traffic congestion in the area, Dean thinks its bulky design will detract from the structure of the nearby Twin Towers United Methodist Church of Alameda and the theater itself. The garage is expected to provide 350 spaces.
Frank Lopez, owner of Silversword Jewelry and Gift for 27 years, said Friday the biggest complaint he gets from his clients is the lack of parking in the area.
Lopez favors additional parking but thinks maintaining more than three theaters seven days a week in Alameda is not financially feasible.
"You can lead a horse to a water, but you can't make him drink," he said of the multiplex theater plan.
Contact Hanna Tamrat at htamrat [at] angnewspapers.com. Contact William Brand at bbrand [at] angnewspapers.com.
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Next City Council meeting on this issue is set for either August 2nd or August 16th . . . stay tuned.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crowd calls for 'no' vote on multiplex
Protesters say proposed cinema, garage don't fit with character of town
By Hanna Tamrat and William Brand, STAFF WRITERS
ALAMEDA — With a city plan to build a seven-screen multiplex cinema and a six-story parking structure next to the historic Alameda Theater headed for a City Council showdown, opponents of the big project turned out in force Saturday morning.
For two hours, a crowd, which reached nearly 100 at one point, carried picket signs in front of the theater on Central Avenue near Park Street and handed out fliers urging the City Council to stop the megaplex.
A six-story concrete parking garage and a big block multiplex simply don't fit in Alameda, said Ron Schaeffer, a longtime Alamedan and one of the protesters. "We want a theater, but not this," Schaeffer said.
"Look around Alameda, there are shady, tree-lined streets, It's like a town out of the 1920s or 1930s," he said. "But that doesn't mean that people who live here aren't sophisticated and aware."
The city Planning Board approved the estimated $25 million project last month. But citizens organized as Stop the Megaplex have appealed the decison to the City Council. The council is scheduled to hear the appeal on Aug. 16.
The plan calls for a seven-screen, two-story cineplex with ground-floor retail and a six-level parking structure downtown.
Funding would come in the form of bonds paid by the city's redevelopment property tax increment and other public financing. The plan has drawn support from Park Street merchants and other citizens eager to bring movie screens, parking, people and sales tax revenue to Alameda.
"Alameda has been waiting for a theater for years," Mayor Beverly Johnson said.
The 45-seat Central Cinema, at Central Avenue and Ninth Street, is the only theater now operating on the Island.
A growing number of Alamedans are opposing the multiplex project, which they say is a departure from the vision to preserve the Island's historic character that emerged from talks between city officials and the community about six years ago.
"It became a runaway project," said Ani Dimusheva of Alameda.
With more than 600 petition signatures to stop the project in her hands, Dimusheva said people are just beginning to realize the scope of the project is larger than they had initially thought.
The existing art-deco theater, which opened in 1932, is a registered landmark. It was extensively remodelled in the 1970s by Hollywood producer Robert L. Lippert, who learned to love films and movie houses as a child growing up in Alameda and attending the historic theater.
The city declined an offer from Lippert to give the town the theater. He died in 1976 and the theater closed as a movie house in 1979.
It seats about 500 people. It would reopen to show opening-night movies and provide an entrance to the new cineplex, which is expected to host more than 1,000 guests and occupy a 13,200-square-foot lot.
Longtime Alameda residents such as Joseph Inocencio, a former warehouse worker, and Helen Dean, owner of Toy Safari on Park Street, said Friday they miss the historic Alameda Theater they frequented as kids and when they were older.
Both support the addition of the cineplex to keep kids from going to other cities looking for a theater and to bring other people to the area.
While Inocencio thinks the parking garage will help traffic congestion in the area, Dean thinks its bulky design will detract from the structure of the nearby Twin Towers United Methodist Church of Alameda and the theater itself. The garage is expected to provide 350 spaces.
Frank Lopez, owner of Silversword Jewelry and Gift for 27 years, said Friday the biggest complaint he gets from his clients is the lack of parking in the area.
Lopez favors additional parking but thinks maintaining more than three theaters seven days a week in Alameda is not financially feasible.
"You can lead a horse to a water, but you can't make him drink," he said of the multiplex theater plan.
Contact Hanna Tamrat at htamrat [at] angnewspapers.com. Contact William Brand at bbrand [at] angnewspapers.com.
For more information:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/loc...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
These pictures don't show the full crowd but they give a sense of things. People spread out to get more coverage and get the info out. Today's paper says that the theater owner just accepted the million dollars from the city, so the city now owns the theater, so it's going ahead as though there are no voices saying no. The paper's editorial says the city needs the megaplex to pay for streets and such . . . why not just turn the whole city into a mall? Knock down the Victorians and pave it over for more money!
For more information:
http://homepage.mac.com/andcolor/PHOTOS/Ph...
‘Frankenstein’s monster’ multiplex a fright
http://www.alamedasun.com/editorial/letterseditor.htm
Editor:
Talk about a raw deal.
Alamedans who take the time to peer into the development documents for the historic theater, megaplex and parking garage will be shocked by the economics of the city’s contract with out-of-town developer and operator Kyle Conner.
First, let’s look at the stakes.
The city is putting a total of $23 million into the overall project. And Mr. Conner? The documents refer to a $1.25 million “hard money” commitment. But after a number of city givebacks in the form of loans and grants to the developer and after estimating the contributions of Mr. Conner’s limited partners, it’s hard to see how Mr. Conner’s own personal equity stake in the deal will amount to much more than about $250,000, give or take.
So, for every $100 the city is putting up, Mr. Conner and his partners are kicking in about $4. Mr. Conner’s personal stake is likely about a buck.
Given that split, what would you expect the city’s profit participation to be — 75 percent, 50 percent, 40 percent?
Sorry. Try zero.
No, we’re going to make it up with the awesome rents we’ll receive.
For the several million the city will spend on the seven-screen megaplex, we will be leasing it to Mr. Conner for the princely sum of $12,000 a year, for seven years. The annual yield: About 0.4 percent, at best, or a tenth of what the city could get by investing in perfectly safe five-year treasuries.
Now I ask you: If you took an investor’s money and you spent several million dollars to build a spec house, a gorgeous property at the edge of the Point overlooking San Francisco Bay, and then you rented it out for $1,000 a month for seven years, do you think your investor would be pleased? Or do you think he would immediately begin legal proceedings to have your license revoked?
Oh, but it gets worse. We haven’t gotten to the parking garage. There, the city is spending more than $9 million and then charging Mr. Conner the princely sum of 25 cents for each validated vehicle. Leslie Little estimates annual revenues at $34,000. Again, a yield of less than 0.4 percent a year (the council seems to like that number).
Of course, after considering the usable life of the properties and their deterioration, the deals are both money-losers for the city right out of the gate. Between them, you have $13 million to $15 million (and who’s kidding who — after the inevitable cost overruns, it may be closer to $20 million) earning a miniscule yield and a negative total return. And, given the precarious state of the megaplex business, and the fact that Mr. Conner is the only developer the city found, there’s a significant possibility the business could fail.
Of course, there are the tax revenues. Should the project meet its most ambitious numbers, the city could bring in up to $400,000 a year. That’s just 1.75 percent of the city’s investment. And that’s if everything goes right. So, the city is taking a huge risk to earn a maximum possible return that doesn’t even come close to T-bill rates, while Mr. Conner and his investors, who put up less than a nickel or so on the dollar, have a shot at reaping venture capital-style returns.
Remember, this deal comes at a time when the city’s finances are already stretched. In a recent council meeting, I lost track of how many times Mr. deHaan reminded everyone that “we’ll make it up in the out years.” How, Mr. deHaan? And what years would those be? The ones when you and your fellow council members are no longer in office?
Mayor Johnson, council members, Ms. Little and planning board members: When you’re digging yourself a hole, the first rule is: stop digging. This is nothing more, nothing less, than the Great Alameda Giveaway (GAG) of 2005.
Bottom-line: At a time of budget duress, your fearless leaders are bullying and blundering their way into squandering millions to construct look-alike theaters number 93 through 99 in a 10-mile radius, in a deeply troubled industry.
In a recent planning board meeting, member Patrick Lynch jokingly suggested gargoyles for the top of the megaplex. While it may be a bit harsh to suggest they bear the likenesses of our council members, I propose that the 60-foot-high sheer wall of the megaplex be engraved with the names Johnson, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog and deHaan. That way, generations of Alamedans can remember the doctors who raised Frankenstein’s monster off the operating table and jolted it to life.
— Robert J. Gavrich
http://www.alamedasun.com/editorial/letterseditor.htm
Editor:
Talk about a raw deal.
Alamedans who take the time to peer into the development documents for the historic theater, megaplex and parking garage will be shocked by the economics of the city’s contract with out-of-town developer and operator Kyle Conner.
First, let’s look at the stakes.
The city is putting a total of $23 million into the overall project. And Mr. Conner? The documents refer to a $1.25 million “hard money” commitment. But after a number of city givebacks in the form of loans and grants to the developer and after estimating the contributions of Mr. Conner’s limited partners, it’s hard to see how Mr. Conner’s own personal equity stake in the deal will amount to much more than about $250,000, give or take.
So, for every $100 the city is putting up, Mr. Conner and his partners are kicking in about $4. Mr. Conner’s personal stake is likely about a buck.
Given that split, what would you expect the city’s profit participation to be — 75 percent, 50 percent, 40 percent?
Sorry. Try zero.
No, we’re going to make it up with the awesome rents we’ll receive.
For the several million the city will spend on the seven-screen megaplex, we will be leasing it to Mr. Conner for the princely sum of $12,000 a year, for seven years. The annual yield: About 0.4 percent, at best, or a tenth of what the city could get by investing in perfectly safe five-year treasuries.
Now I ask you: If you took an investor’s money and you spent several million dollars to build a spec house, a gorgeous property at the edge of the Point overlooking San Francisco Bay, and then you rented it out for $1,000 a month for seven years, do you think your investor would be pleased? Or do you think he would immediately begin legal proceedings to have your license revoked?
Oh, but it gets worse. We haven’t gotten to the parking garage. There, the city is spending more than $9 million and then charging Mr. Conner the princely sum of 25 cents for each validated vehicle. Leslie Little estimates annual revenues at $34,000. Again, a yield of less than 0.4 percent a year (the council seems to like that number).
Of course, after considering the usable life of the properties and their deterioration, the deals are both money-losers for the city right out of the gate. Between them, you have $13 million to $15 million (and who’s kidding who — after the inevitable cost overruns, it may be closer to $20 million) earning a miniscule yield and a negative total return. And, given the precarious state of the megaplex business, and the fact that Mr. Conner is the only developer the city found, there’s a significant possibility the business could fail.
Of course, there are the tax revenues. Should the project meet its most ambitious numbers, the city could bring in up to $400,000 a year. That’s just 1.75 percent of the city’s investment. And that’s if everything goes right. So, the city is taking a huge risk to earn a maximum possible return that doesn’t even come close to T-bill rates, while Mr. Conner and his investors, who put up less than a nickel or so on the dollar, have a shot at reaping venture capital-style returns.
Remember, this deal comes at a time when the city’s finances are already stretched. In a recent council meeting, I lost track of how many times Mr. deHaan reminded everyone that “we’ll make it up in the out years.” How, Mr. deHaan? And what years would those be? The ones when you and your fellow council members are no longer in office?
Mayor Johnson, council members, Ms. Little and planning board members: When you’re digging yourself a hole, the first rule is: stop digging. This is nothing more, nothing less, than the Great Alameda Giveaway (GAG) of 2005.
Bottom-line: At a time of budget duress, your fearless leaders are bullying and blundering their way into squandering millions to construct look-alike theaters number 93 through 99 in a 10-mile radius, in a deeply troubled industry.
In a recent planning board meeting, member Patrick Lynch jokingly suggested gargoyles for the top of the megaplex. While it may be a bit harsh to suggest they bear the likenesses of our council members, I propose that the 60-foot-high sheer wall of the megaplex be engraved with the names Johnson, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog and deHaan. That way, generations of Alamedans can remember the doctors who raised Frankenstein’s monster off the operating table and jolted it to life.
— Robert J. Gavrich
The next meeting of the Stop the Megaplex group will be held this
Thursday, August 4th, at 7:30 pm at the same location as the last
one—The Garden Room behind the Home of Truth, 1300 Grand Avenue, corner of Alameda Avenue. The previous meeting was a huge success with more attendance than we anticipated. We'll try to arrange the room better this time so more people can be accommodated.
This will be our last meeting before the BIG ONE on the 16th. On
Thursday we will update you on the latest developments, set our
strategy for the 16th, talk about what to expect, and answer as many questions as we can. We will also make sure that everybody has a resource they can go to if they need an answer, and will distribute more phone tree packets for the calling campaign prior to the 16th. We encourage you strongly to attend the meeting on Thursday and get involved right away so that we can make the most impact in the short amount of time we have.
Thank you for your support.
Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com
Thursday, August 4th, at 7:30 pm at the same location as the last
one—The Garden Room behind the Home of Truth, 1300 Grand Avenue, corner of Alameda Avenue. The previous meeting was a huge success with more attendance than we anticipated. We'll try to arrange the room better this time so more people can be accommodated.
This will be our last meeting before the BIG ONE on the 16th. On
Thursday we will update you on the latest developments, set our
strategy for the 16th, talk about what to expect, and answer as many questions as we can. We will also make sure that everybody has a resource they can go to if they need an answer, and will distribute more phone tree packets for the calling campaign prior to the 16th. We encourage you strongly to attend the meeting on Thursday and get involved right away so that we can make the most impact in the short amount of time we have.
Thank you for your support.
Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com
we MUST protest this! Movie theatres are the root of all evil! They are the epitomy of the American capitalist pig! If this megaplex is put into place, it'll be the beginning of the end for democracy. What'll be next? Mcdonalds? Wal-Mart? Who knows.
Everyone knows that Bush puts racist subliminal messages into ALL MOVIES telling people to kill muslims. When my friend went to see "The war of the worlds" he said that when he left he wanted to beat up muslims. And he in fact punched a muslim for screwing up his order at Denny's.
This alleged "movie theatre" is nothing more than an attempt to brainwash the masses so Bushitler can go on with his imperialistic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic agenda to dominate the world. And he'll do it one movie theatre at a time
To combat this movie KKKomplex, I have dispatched a team of ninjas, armed with molotov cocktails and sharp rocks to pelt this evil, corrupt, capitalist adventure.
Movie theatre? NOT IN MY TOWN!
Everyone knows that Bush puts racist subliminal messages into ALL MOVIES telling people to kill muslims. When my friend went to see "The war of the worlds" he said that when he left he wanted to beat up muslims. And he in fact punched a muslim for screwing up his order at Denny's.
This alleged "movie theatre" is nothing more than an attempt to brainwash the masses so Bushitler can go on with his imperialistic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic agenda to dominate the world. And he'll do it one movie theatre at a time
To combat this movie KKKomplex, I have dispatched a team of ninjas, armed with molotov cocktails and sharp rocks to pelt this evil, corrupt, capitalist adventure.
Movie theatre? NOT IN MY TOWN!
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Recall in Alameda?
By Eric Turowski
It never fails that when an opposing group feels they haven’t been represented by elected officials, they immediately forget all their civics lessons and declare a decision “undemocratic.” The meaning of this is that anything that seems important to an individual should be voted on by the entire populace. Lest we forget, we live in a democratic republic, and have for more than two centuries. We elect people to represent our opinions and interests. If we don’t like how they have represented us, we can vote them out of office.
It seems embarrassing that the majority often picks a big loser. Usually, we are content to wait for the next election (and get disappointed again). But Americans don’t always like to wait.
Rumors began flying following last Tuesday’s city council meeting, wherein the appeal of residents opposing the theater multiplex plan was turned down, of recalling those elected officials who voted in favor of the project. And while one might think such an act an overwhelming, complicated task, quite the opposite is true.
Section XX of the city charter provides the recall ordinance. In essence, Section XX says the recall procedure for the city is the same as for the county.
All that is required is a petition must be circulated. A statement of why an official should be recalled must be filed with the clerk. The official in question has the opportunity to respond. Both statements then accompany the petition. Further details of the requirements of the statement can be found in Division 11 of the California Elections Code.
The document must then be signed by qualified electors of a number equaling or exceeding 25 percent of the votes cast for that official. For example, in the case of the 2002 mayoral race, 20,469 people turned out to vote and so the petition would have to be signed by 5,118 registered voters.
Once this petition is signed by the requisite voters, it is submitted to the city clerk, who then has 10 days to verify the signatures. If she finds a deficient number, the petitioners have 10 days to find the qualified number of voter signatures. If she finds a sufficient number of signatures, the petition would go before city council. Council then would declare a recall election.
State election codes give a minimum time for the recall election at 88 days, while the Alameda County charter gives a minimum of 35 days, for the recall election to be held. Recall elections should be held at the time of special or regular elections.
The ballot would be two-fold, like the recall ballot for Gray Davis: one part asking whether the officer should be removed, the other a list of candidates. Candidates for the recalled position must qualify the way they would for a regular election.
Considering the relative ease of recalling elected officials, it seems odd that it doesn’t happen more frequently. In the case of Gray Davis, it didn’t appear that the voters disagreed with the former governor; rather that his entire tenure was so disastrous that no one wanted to take a chance on what would happen for the rest of his term. Did things get better when Gov. Schwarzenegger took over? That’s too subjective a call to make; an educator or nurse might say no, a Hollywood producer might say yes.
The question locally is whether an issue like the theater/parking lot project so fully divides the voters from the officials that something should be done about it. We know that 3,000 residents signed a petition in opposition of the multiplex project. But are 5,118 voters so opposed that they would consider a recall campaign? Would a majority of Alameda voters replace the current elected officials? If so, the voters would send a powerful message that the squeaky wheel not only gets the grease, it also might topple the cart. And in the end, would replacing elected officials be enough to alter plans already set in motion?
http://www.alamedasun.com/editorial/82505editorial1.htm
Recall in Alameda?
By Eric Turowski
It never fails that when an opposing group feels they haven’t been represented by elected officials, they immediately forget all their civics lessons and declare a decision “undemocratic.” The meaning of this is that anything that seems important to an individual should be voted on by the entire populace. Lest we forget, we live in a democratic republic, and have for more than two centuries. We elect people to represent our opinions and interests. If we don’t like how they have represented us, we can vote them out of office.
It seems embarrassing that the majority often picks a big loser. Usually, we are content to wait for the next election (and get disappointed again). But Americans don’t always like to wait.
Rumors began flying following last Tuesday’s city council meeting, wherein the appeal of residents opposing the theater multiplex plan was turned down, of recalling those elected officials who voted in favor of the project. And while one might think such an act an overwhelming, complicated task, quite the opposite is true.
Section XX of the city charter provides the recall ordinance. In essence, Section XX says the recall procedure for the city is the same as for the county.
All that is required is a petition must be circulated. A statement of why an official should be recalled must be filed with the clerk. The official in question has the opportunity to respond. Both statements then accompany the petition. Further details of the requirements of the statement can be found in Division 11 of the California Elections Code.
The document must then be signed by qualified electors of a number equaling or exceeding 25 percent of the votes cast for that official. For example, in the case of the 2002 mayoral race, 20,469 people turned out to vote and so the petition would have to be signed by 5,118 registered voters.
Once this petition is signed by the requisite voters, it is submitted to the city clerk, who then has 10 days to verify the signatures. If she finds a deficient number, the petitioners have 10 days to find the qualified number of voter signatures. If she finds a sufficient number of signatures, the petition would go before city council. Council then would declare a recall election.
State election codes give a minimum time for the recall election at 88 days, while the Alameda County charter gives a minimum of 35 days, for the recall election to be held. Recall elections should be held at the time of special or regular elections.
The ballot would be two-fold, like the recall ballot for Gray Davis: one part asking whether the officer should be removed, the other a list of candidates. Candidates for the recalled position must qualify the way they would for a regular election.
Considering the relative ease of recalling elected officials, it seems odd that it doesn’t happen more frequently. In the case of Gray Davis, it didn’t appear that the voters disagreed with the former governor; rather that his entire tenure was so disastrous that no one wanted to take a chance on what would happen for the rest of his term. Did things get better when Gov. Schwarzenegger took over? That’s too subjective a call to make; an educator or nurse might say no, a Hollywood producer might say yes.
The question locally is whether an issue like the theater/parking lot project so fully divides the voters from the officials that something should be done about it. We know that 3,000 residents signed a petition in opposition of the multiplex project. But are 5,118 voters so opposed that they would consider a recall campaign? Would a majority of Alameda voters replace the current elected officials? If so, the voters would send a powerful message that the squeaky wheel not only gets the grease, it also might topple the cart. And in the end, would replacing elected officials be enough to alter plans already set in motion?
http://www.alamedasun.com/editorial/82505editorial1.htm
ALAMEDA
Environmental suit over multiplex plan
Henry K. Lee
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
A group of residents has filed a lawsuit against Alameda city officials, accusing them of failing to prepare an environmental impact report for a planned seven-screen theater and garage.
The suit was filed Monday in Alameda County Superior Court by Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order that would force the city to set aside its approval of the project.
City officials have said the new theater and garage will make it possible to restore the now-closed Alameda Theater, which was among the Bay Area's premier movie theaters when it opened in 1932. The old cinema would be part of the project.
City Attorney Carol Korade said Tuesday that she could not comment on the suit because she hadn't seen it. But Korade she believed the city had complied with all environmental laws.
Page B - 4
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/05/BABADIGEST2.DTL
Environmental suit over multiplex plan
Henry K. Lee
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
A group of residents has filed a lawsuit against Alameda city officials, accusing them of failing to prepare an environmental impact report for a planned seven-screen theater and garage.
The suit was filed Monday in Alameda County Superior Court by Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order that would force the city to set aside its approval of the project.
City officials have said the new theater and garage will make it possible to restore the now-closed Alameda Theater, which was among the Bay Area's premier movie theaters when it opened in 1932. The old cinema would be part of the project.
City Attorney Carol Korade said Tuesday that she could not comment on the suit because she hadn't seen it. But Korade she believed the city had complied with all environmental laws.
Page B - 4
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/05/BABADIGEST2.DTL
What they don't show with the model is how much higher this whole 6 story bulky thing is compared to the SINGLE and TWO story buildings in most of the rest of the downtown.
-----------
Alameda agrees to changes for cineplex and its parking garage
Revisions would keep the same amount of spaces, officials say
By Hanna Tamrat, STAFF WRITER
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3168366
ALAMEDA — In an effort to address opponents' concerns about the Alameda Theater project, the city has agreed to revisions to the proposed cineplex and parking garage.
"It is the city's way to incorporate other comments from the community and to try to bring people together (on the project)," said Jennifer Ott, Alameda's development manager.
With the help of a new architect, Komorous-Towey Architects, the 56-foot-high parking garage would be designed 8 feet shorter, while the number of parking spaces would remain at 350.
To keep the same number of spaces, some interior work would have to be done, including moving accessible spaces from the first floor to higher floors near elevators and altering the ramps, she said. No extra cost is required to do that.
In addition, design elements will be added to both the garage and cineplex to create greater consistency between their facades and the historic theater, including a marquee-likedesign and Victorian-style windows.
"We wanted to evoke more art-deco to strengthen the relationship with the historic theater (and the surrounding area,)" Ott said.
A group called Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda is seeking a
court order to block the project so an environmental impact report can be done. At the City Council's meeting Tuesday, the citizens group is scheduled to appeal a use permit granted Sept. 29 for the project.
"They have trimmed the size, but we think that the whole thing is not necessary," said Alice Ray, the group's spokesperson. "It puts the city at increased financial risk."
The group — which includes financial analysts, engineers, filmmakers, public space advocates, service workers and software executives — will propose an alternative plan with fewer theater seats and screens, and smaller parking structures spread out in the downtown area.
"We want to propose a plan that can actually fly with people on both sides of the argument," Ray said.
-----------
Alameda agrees to changes for cineplex and its parking garage
Revisions would keep the same amount of spaces, officials say
By Hanna Tamrat, STAFF WRITER
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3168366
ALAMEDA — In an effort to address opponents' concerns about the Alameda Theater project, the city has agreed to revisions to the proposed cineplex and parking garage.
"It is the city's way to incorporate other comments from the community and to try to bring people together (on the project)," said Jennifer Ott, Alameda's development manager.
With the help of a new architect, Komorous-Towey Architects, the 56-foot-high parking garage would be designed 8 feet shorter, while the number of parking spaces would remain at 350.
To keep the same number of spaces, some interior work would have to be done, including moving accessible spaces from the first floor to higher floors near elevators and altering the ramps, she said. No extra cost is required to do that.
In addition, design elements will be added to both the garage and cineplex to create greater consistency between their facades and the historic theater, including a marquee-likedesign and Victorian-style windows.
"We wanted to evoke more art-deco to strengthen the relationship with the historic theater (and the surrounding area,)" Ott said.
A group called Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda is seeking a
court order to block the project so an environmental impact report can be done. At the City Council's meeting Tuesday, the citizens group is scheduled to appeal a use permit granted Sept. 29 for the project.
"They have trimmed the size, but we think that the whole thing is not necessary," said Alice Ray, the group's spokesperson. "It puts the city at increased financial risk."
The group — which includes financial analysts, engineers, filmmakers, public space advocates, service workers and software executives — will propose an alternative plan with fewer theater seats and screens, and smaller parking structures spread out in the downtown area.
"We want to propose a plan that can actually fly with people on both sides of the argument," Ray said.
I think with the cost of gas these days, Alameda should make this little island totally self-sufficient. I, for one, have a disability and it is daggone hard for me to get to other theaters because my scooter doesn't fit on the older buses and you could wait for hours to get one not filled up or one that will accommodate the scooter size. I think it is downright ignorant to think that people are going to come and cause traffic jams in this city just to see a movie or even to go to a Target store. We SHOULD have those things for us local and elderly people who WANT to see a flick or shop at something more than Mervyn's or Walgreens. How many people do you know drive across the bridge to go to Mervyn's or Walgreens? Mainly just locals are in there. And like I said, at the price of gas these days, we need these businesses for our OWN convenience. What sort of traffic jams are you worried about with about 6 lights in town to wait for your turn to go cross a street! Give me a break!!!
This guy is obviously a troll.
Sorry. Didn't know these posts go to bottom. The troll comment was referring to the August 6, 2005 entry.
Regarding the previous comment from Vicki. Here's a suggestion: Why don't you move to a bigger city than? You would be right smack-dab in the middle of everything you want (Target, Walgreen's, Mervyns, Movie Theaters, etc.). Leave Alameda since it doesn't offer you all those services. Why the heck bring the big city stuff into small town Alameda. Give ME a break!
Regarding the previous comment from Vicki. Here's a suggestion: Why don't you move to a bigger city than? You would be right smack-dab in the middle of everything you want (Target, Walgreen's, Mervyns, Movie Theaters, etc.). Leave Alameda since it doesn't offer you all those services. Why the heck bring the big city stuff into small town Alameda. Give ME a break!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network