City won't help with tree roots problem

I have been a resident of Alameda for at least 50 years and I called Alameda Public Works several times this year with complaints about their tree roots destroying public sidewalks.

In fact, several public works employees came out to inspect the area and all agreed something needs to be about these hazardous tree roots.

In 2007, the city decided to put in new sidewalks, but apparently failed to cut all the tree roots that have now grown and come up under the sidewalk into my front yard, making it hazardous to walk on the sidewalk or in my yard. The tree roots are also wrecking the sprinkler system in my yard and causing the city sidewalk to buckle and crack, which makes it dangerous for the public to walk, run or ride bikes.

Alameda Public Works said they cannot trim the roots as they are now on private property. A private contractor offered to trim the tree roots, but Alameda Public Works said no. This is a dangerous situation for Alameda residents and I think the city needs to do something about its tree roots destroying the sidewalks and private property.

D. Sanderson

SunCal criticized despite efforts

In last week's article, "Mayor, chamber speak out about ballot initiative," the chamber's Lorre Zuppan states that if the initiative fails, SunCal "can be creative and make something

Let's see, SunCal has spent more than $12 million on performing thorough analyses of geotechnical, climate change, historical and financial conditions and hired one of the world's most renowned planners to prepare a plan that reflects the desires of the community expressed at dozens of community meetings over years of input gathering.

This isn't creative?

The city refused to write its own initiative (an initiative is required because SunCal's specific plan, which the mayor and the Chamber claim to like, isn't Measure A-compliant), forcing SunCal to take on this task. And, now suddenly, the city and the chamber fault SunCal for writing its own initiative?

I'm not sure how much more "creative" SunCal can be expected to be and I doubt there are very many other developers lining up to be dealt a backhand like the city appears to be dealing to SunCal.

Nancy Heastings

Look closely at ballot signatures

In the upcoming council packet that will ask Alameda City Council to vote on certifying SunCal's ballot, city staff should include a rigorous statistical analysis of the ballot signature and signature retraction data so that council can make an informed vote.

The 9,618 signatures submitted by SunCal represent a population, and the 557 signature retraction letters represent a partial sample of that population. From these numbers, we can use standard statistical analysis to estimate how many of the 9,618 signatures are genuinely valid; meaning, people truly understood and supported what they were signing.

As someone who spent hours on the sidewalks of Alameda talking to voters and giving them the opportunity to retract their signature after being informed of the true nature of the initiative, I estimate that perhaps 10 percent — and certainly no more than 20 percent — of the people I spoke with who signed the initiative declined to remove their name. That brings the total sample size to about 696 people.

Given those figures, I can say with 95 percent confidence that merely 1,622 to 2,225 signatures on SunCal's ballot are truly valid, the rest of the signatures the result of SunCal's paid signature gatherers lying to or misleading voters. The 2,225 signatures is well below the threshold of 6,369 signatures needed to certify the initiative.

Further, based on the number of retraction letters submitted, for SunCal's signatures to be genuinely valid, 70 percent of the people who were given the chance to remove their name would have had to decline to do so. But that's simply not my experience when talking to voters, nor is it the experience of any of the several other people I spoke to who collected signature retraction letters. The vast majority of people we spoke to were willing to remove their name from the initiative.

City Hall staffers should perform their own analysis and present it to council for review.

David Howard

City changes game plan on SunCal

The city of Alameda selected SunCal as its master developer for Alameda Point, and the parties entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). SunCal has spent more than $12 million for expert geotechnical, historical and other professionals, as well as for one of today's most renowned planners, to prepare a design reflecting the desires of Alamedans as expressed at dozens of community meetings over 16 years.

Now, here comes the Peanuts version of the football swipe: SunCal has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (per their ENA) to support city staff and consultants to work on plans, including financial forecasts to make them financially feasible. The city of course knows that the plan includes a variety of housing types not compliant with Measure A. It wasn't a surprise that the developer wrote an initiative and gathered signatures for a ballot. There was no outcry from the city.

So now we have a Charlie Brown situation: Lucy has the football (completion of negotiations with SunCal), and Charlie (SunCal) starts to give it a mighty kick (submitting the signatures to qualify the initiative). Not only does Lucy whip the ball out of reach, but she calls her friends (the Chamber of Commerce) to kick Charlie a few times while he's lying there.

Yet he keeps trying (months of good-faith negotiations with the interim city manager). I doubt that Charlie Brown will start over with "something creative," as the chamber's Lorre Zupan opines in last Friday's Alameda Journal. And unlike Blake Brydon's comment in the same article, I haven't heard of any other developers waiting in line to repeat this football debacle.

Come on city and Chamber, I know you want the best for Alameda. Find some experienced negotiators to assist you, sit down with SunCal and don't just kick that football — score a touchdown.

Diane Lichtenstein

HOMES