Comments on: Albany hires new consultant for waterfront planning

By: Katie McNenny

Katie McNenny — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:35:26 +0000

…and just like the City of Albany cannot force an individual homeowner to use a contractor of the City’s choosing, the Albany City Council cannot tell Golden Gate Field which developer to partner with. Albany residents can however work with Magna to help insure that they include things that the community would like down there. A compromise is what is needed. Some economic perks for Magna and some lovely landscaping for the community.

By: Katie McNenny

Katie McNenny — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:30:14 +0000

The fine people of Albany should note that Magna (Golden Gate Fields) partnering with a developer is in essence an act to try and make their business MORE successful and attractive to a wider variety of people. Shouldn’t the City of Albany WANT that? A developer is the ONLY ONE WHO CAN FACILITATE ANY BUILDING ON OUR WATERFRONT. Be it creating some open air retail space similar to 4th Street in Berkeley (more tax revenue for the city), park space (for picnickers and families to enjoy), extended bay trail plus landscaping (for bicycles, baby strollers, runners, etc.).“Developer” ISNT A DIRY WORD. A developer, working with Magna —working with Albany is the actual component you need to to create a different landscape. Consultants don’t build things; endless visioning processes don’t build things. Albany City Council members and residents have a tremendous amount of leverage to get the type of “development” that they want down there because Measure C gives them final say at the polls. Why isn’t this leverage being utilized to build “green” buildings and re-develop that huge ugly parking lot? Also, working with Magna (and their developer) would be FREE to the City of Albany and the final outcome would be actually getting something built. Imagine that.

By: Brian Parsley

Brian Parsley — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:16:03 +0000

Since we are going to spend at least half a million dollars on a waterfront vision shouldn’t we be getting more bang for our buck? We should not only be envisioning the privately owned property at Golden Gate Fields, but the city owned property known as the bulb. The “Bulb” is slated to be absorbed into the East Shore State Park; however there appears to be no firm date when this will occur.

Since the State of California is in an fiscal freefall (not unlike Magna Entertainment Inc.), and is currently proposing the closure of 48 State parks and recreation areas, wouldn’t it be prudent to include a “vision” of the entire Albany waterfront including those areas currently operated by the East Bay Regional Parks District for the State of California?

Next year the State my face an even larger budget dilemma with some estimates showing a 20 billion dollar shortfall. Could there be a possibility of more State Park closures? I believe now is the time to act while we can. We should include all areas of the waterfront in the process, this way when and if East Shore State Park were to close, we can also have a clear community driven common vision for Albany’s entire waterfront.

By: Brian Parker, Albany Waterfront Committee

Brian Parker, Albany Waterfront Committee — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:17:34 +0000

The City’s planning process is designed to come to terms with the long running dispute about how much and what kind of development and open space Albany citizens want on the waterfront. This is an investment in our community’s future. The Albany Waterfront Committee and the City Council are cognizant that Magna Entertainment, the owners of Golden Gate Fields, has been incurring huge financial loses and has seen its stock value decline 90% in the last year.

Since it is such a large part of Albany we need to decide what we would like to see on the property if we get the opportunity to see it redeveloped in coming years. By clarifying what type of development the community would support, the City in a very positive way will be assisting Magna or a future owner plan for the property’s future. That future could be continued operation as a racetrack or redevelopment consistent with the common vision developed through the City’s process. That would be entirely their choice, but giving alternatives we could support is the goal of the visioning process.

In the past Magna has brought developers forward with plans for large shopping centers and even proposed developing a casino on the property. These proposals have divided the community. The City is now pursuing a process with the goal of uniting Albany residents in developing a new vision for our waterfront. The City has retained Fern Tiger and Associates who is now meeting with a wide cross section of community members to gather input that will be used design the details of the community involvement process that will produce the vision plan. All Albany residents will be given opportunities to participate in the visioning process. Stay tuned as we plan together for Albany’s future.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:03:42 +0000

I agree the cost is too high and bringing in this type of consultant firm will waste money and leave the city with no executable plan. We should instead open up a request for bids from developers who are aligned with preserving the natural ecosystem and providing a functional use for the community – and some city revenue wouldn’t hurt either.