Comments on: Albany City Council votes to move forward with waterfront planning

By: Albany Today » Blog Archive » Quarrels over Albany’s waterfront planning begin to subside

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:32:14 +0000

[...] the foreseeable future, and the city should get prepared for the scenario. As a result, the Council passed a waterfront planning project last November, and hired a consultant in the spring to engage residents and develop a common vision [...]

By: Robert Lieber reelected as Albany Mayor after bitter debate « Albany Today

Robert Lieber reelected as Albany Mayor after bitter debate « Albany Today — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:06:44 +0000

[...] waterfront planning, the most controversial issue in the city. The city has recently started a waterfront planning process driven by Lieber and his allies on the [...]

By: Linda Fan

Linda Fan — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:42:15 +0000

Thanks for the comments! Many of your points are convincing, and I have made revisions accordingly. But I have questions for your first point. You said the visioning process just includes 102 acres. But I think it’s for the whole area, since the program will take the waterfront area as a whole for study. Mr. Neuwirth didn’t seperate the Bulb and the Plateau from the racetrack area as objects of his study and report. And also, information on the history of the whole waterfront area will be collected and studied, and the community will be consulted for their ideas of the entire waterfront, rather than just the area of the Golden Gate Fields racetrack.

As to whether it’s appriopriate to say Councilmember Okawachi “pro-development”. I think the phrase is a neutral rather than negative one. And she does want to see commercial development on the land.

I keep the picture, for aesthetic reason, and also because the Bulb is part of the waterfront and part of the bigger controversy.

Your further comments are welcome.

By: Howard McNenny

Howard McNenny — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:07:25 +0000

I have a few comments, as follows:

1. The council voted to study the 102 acres of Golden Gate Fields that lay within the Albany City Limits. They excluded the rest of the 160 acres–the Bulb and the Plateau.

2. Therefore, the photo of the bulb is a bit misleading…the study will not include that piece of land. You probably should have included a shot of the vast wasteland of a parking lot instead–the embarassment that we call our waterfront.

3. It is misleading to say that the Magna development was opposed by a majority of Albany voters. There was massive misinformation circulated during the city council race, and the only thing voters were voting on was the council members, some of whom were responsible for the misleading information. A vote by the electorate on any proposed development with objective analysis (such as an EIR), or a vote on alternative plans for waterfront development, with objective information on each proposal is the last thing some people want, but it is exactly what the voters deserve.

4. It is not clear that the “grounded visioning program” will cost $300,000. In fact, Mr. Neuwirth estimated $500,000 for this in his preliminary report. He modified the recommendation by substituting a design competition for a design developed by the planning consultant and lowered his estimate to $300,000, however the design competition is exactly what the council rejected.

5. I prefer to avoid labels, such as “pro development” for councilmember Okawachi. Everyone proposes development…it is a matter of where the development should go, and the extent and type of development that is in question. She does seem to be unique on this particular council, however, in recognizing the impracticality and futility of proposing the demise of the track with no financially viable replacement.

6. The quote you attributed to Clay Larson was actually part of Mr. Neuwirth’s preliminary report.