Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Eco Watch

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

Mike, where is the city going to get the great amount of funds needed to make it a park, especially a highly accessible park?

What the Bay Area really needs most is more housing to address the acute housing shortage. That is the reason the housing prices are so high. And if most of the housing at this new location will be high cost, so what, that will take the price pressure off of all available housing in the area as the well-to-do will abandon existing housing for this site. Let them have their big boardwalk. The site was awful before and no one went there. In the future I can bicycle there, it will be a great bike destination. The handicapped can take East Bay paratransit service to get there or a taxi.

Posted by Vincent Sauve on 10/15/2015 at 8:35 AM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

To Gary Patton
You're right, of course, and the public already decided what it wanted. We learned when the project was first proposed that a ten-year-long city-wide open consultation process determined that the entire Oak to Ninth area should be open space park, as per Cali state requirements that waterfront be recreational or water-based industrial. Never residential. Perata pushed an exception through the state legislature allowing Oakland and Signature Development to build residential there, in direct opposition to the city-wide decision to make it parkland.

Posted by Mike Bradley on 10/14/2015 at 11:08 PM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

Architect Peter Birkholz of the landmarks board brought up an interesting point, that they proposed the deck would be raised slightly from the concrete. I think he called it a potential "rat haven".

Posted by Naomi_Schiff on 10/14/2015 at 10:47 PM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

The deck might work if it went somewhere, if it was a boardwalk to and from somewhere. But a big empty dead-end space? No. Wood that wears and weathers, then doesn't get repaired promptly? No. The last time there were wooden structures in Jack London they wore out and the Port tore them down instead of repairing them—the new buildings south of the plaza are there now. What will happen to this structure? And why isn't it on land instead of over the water? Is it because building on the land is too profitable to use it for a mere park?

Posted by Mike Bradley on 10/14/2015 at 10:44 PM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

This project is horrible on so many levels: access to schools, stores, hospitals because this huge development is on the other side of the freeway and railroad tracks. There is no bus service there so people will depend on cars. Imagine the backup when trains block the roads. The impact on the 5th Ave. businesses has not been considered, the impact on wildlife habitat and the fact that the 9th St. Terminal brought in $7 million a year to Oakland for the port business there. No thought to global warming and water rise not to mention the horrendous financing and gifts to the developers again at taxpayer expense. Yet, this was a project that Jean Quan was proud of.

The worst part is, this project is typical of the sloppiness under which Oakland is and has been run. Citizens need financial accountability and respect for our lives and the land and the law. If Oakland refuses to handle the basics we will just find ourselves in a greater mess with a bigger population and even less open space and amenities.
Caroline Kim

Posted by Caroline Kim on 10/14/2015 at 1:09 PM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

Maybe adding shade and benches will be good for Lake Merritt users as many of the bums, homeless and other less desirable people will leave Lake Merritt and head over there instead.

Posted by Vincent Sauve on 10/14/2015 at 1:07 PM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

Fortunately, the Landmarks Commission didn't fall for the vague proposal and sent it back for another review. Folks, now is the time to comment (at the next Planning Comm. mtg.) because once it clears these groups they will be home free. And they shouldn't get a free pass: their history of fibs is long and lasting. currently they are lying to the city about the "temporary bay trail" they claim to have already built but no one has ever been able to access. As well, let's look at and - both groups point out that potential flooding here will be costly.

Posted by Daniel Franco on 10/14/2015 at 12:20 PM

Re: “New Oakland Park to be a Giant Wooden Deck

No response from the Planning Department, what a surprise. The design concept for this huge wood deck is questionable, at best. The materials are not warm and attracting and what do you do when you get here?The reality for this deck and much of this "new" open space west of I-880 (Brooklyn Basin) is that the general public will have little, if any incentive to brave the constant traffic gridlock to get here. The people who will live in this development will be the only people utilizing this open space most of the time. A basic urban design concept is that form follows function. You don't design an open space area based on cost and maintenance requirements and then figure out how it can be used. You should interact with the public to determine what kind of programming for the space is desired by the community and that should drive the design. The City should be very cautious and the citizens very diligent. Signature Properties seems to be very good at promising the world on the front end and then finding ways to minimize the commitment on the back end. Maybe the Planning Director can find some time while sharing seminar appearances with developers to insure that community benefits are maintained in the manner promised when the entitlements are granted.

Posted by Gary Patton on 10/14/2015 at 4:02 AM

Re: “Water Transfers Threaten Fish and Tribes

The Potter Valley Project transfers water from the Eel River watershed south into the wine country of the Russian River.

Posted by David Janowski on 09/23/2015 at 2:36 PM

Re: “Evidence Mounts that Roundup Is Toxic

why not use the words; alarming, frightening or even scary instead of
'concerning' in the last paragraph?

Posted by Geoff Sturm on 09/19/2015 at 9:28 AM

Re: “Big Organic Joins Monsanto in Fighting Prop 37

Please consult a scientist before making scientific claims.

"Monsanto's GMO sweet corn has been altered to include the genetic code of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)...
...a crop modified with intact genetic code from the cauliflower mosaic virus. This means that viruses and bacteria in the food mingle in the hotbed of active cultures in your stomach."

No, that's not what it means at all. It means that those crops may express some proteins (or maybe not even a whole protein) that come from bacterial or viral sources. The food does not contain those viruses or bacteria themselves.

I'm a big supporter of GMO labels, but let's try to win the battle using truth rather than misinformation. Anyone who'd like to understand the science a little better could start by reading up on recombinant DNA, even from wikipedia. I suggest the author do so as well prior to covering this topic in any more articles.

Posted by Ausitn Head on 09/17/2015 at 4:52 PM

Re: “Evidence Mounts that Roundup Is Toxic

It's refreshing to read some honesty on this topic! This piece should be picked up by a larger organization and distributed far and wide, but unfortunately Monsanto has paid most of them off. Great article!

Posted by Kristi Rae on 09/07/2015 at 10:01 AM

Re: “Bad Air? There's a Pill for That

Oh great! Another way that we can avoid taking responsibility for the air pollution that we are creating! American adults do LOVE avoiding responsibility. It's our 'right!' After all, America was founded with a 'Bill of Rights,' but no 'Bill of Responsibilities'... Important article topic and good research, but it does sort of ignore the bigger picture and all the OTHER health and environment impacts of air pollution generators. For example, an nicotine addict suffers from far more than just lung contamination….

Posted by Segue Fischlin III on 09/05/2015 at 11:04 PM

Re: “Compost or Biogas?

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 08/26/2015 at 7:16 AM

Re: “Oakland Officials Withhold Air Pollution Plan

In health tests, I'm already finding significant levels of Lead, Cadmium and Arsenic from living in Adam's Point, Oakland. I certainly believe that this issue should be high on everyone's priorities if they live in Berkeley or anywhere in Oakland or Alameda. There's a significant amount of toxic pollution here, and were all getting poisoned.

Posted by Segue Fischlin III on 08/05/2015 at 9:44 AM

Re: “East Bay Hills Tree Removal Plan Still Sparking Debate

Introducing eucalyptus trees to the hills was an historic mistake and no more a "heritage" than the Confederate flag is.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Paul McGee on 08/04/2015 at 11:35 AM

Re: “East Bay Hills Tree Removal Plan Still Sparking Debate

The Sierra Club is right: introducing eucalyptus trees to the hills was an historic mistake and should no more be considered a "heritage" than the Confederate flag.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Paul McGee on 08/03/2015 at 4:13 PM

Re: “An Alternative to the Tunnels

Always a delight to know about some out-of-the-box thinking. Sometimes known as Plan B.

There's enormous problem-solving potential in imagination.

Unfortunately imagination is usually unemployed and permanently out-of-work.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Hobart Johnson on 07/24/2015 at 10:29 AM

Re: “An Alternative to the Tunnels

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Editor on 07/23/2015 at 9:38 PM

Re: “An Alternative to the Tunnels

An excellent article illuminating a huge cost-savings that ought to be implemented now. With no construction involved, its efficacy can be evaluated swiftly - much earlier than any tunnel completion. Even at a cost of $1 billion, it is 1.4% the projected costs of Brown's $67 billion tunnels, a project that will surely have $4.7 Billion in cost overruns if history is any indication, overruns 5 times the entire cost of this approach. With this plan in place, 454,000 acre feet of immediately needed water could begin its flow to high priority uses - perhaps to those now willing to pay higher rates thus offsetting the $1 billion cost. Non-partisan logic says this is a winner.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by William H. Thompson on 07/22/2015 at 11:08 PM

Most Popular Stories

© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation