Alameda Paper Teams up With Megaplex Supporters to Intimidate Residents From Speaking Out

>>"Here is a prime opportunity for the public to come prepared with factual knowledge of the project, including the fact that it is not a "megaplex" but, at its largest, a seven-screen cineplex beside a three-screen restored Alameda Theatre."

Notice how they are now declaring that it cannot be called a 'Megaplex,' but must be called a 'Cineplex' (7 screens, a 6-story parking garage, in tiny Alameda).


>>"The City Council meeting on this topic last month that lasted until well beyond 2 a.m. wasn't productive."

That's right because over 70 people said NO! And the city/developer ignored them.


>> "For example, we encourage anyone who wants to address the financial status of the movie theater industry to do so under the 'oral communications' part of the hearing, not during the use permit discussion item. . . .We also encourage anyone who speaks on that topic to have documentation to support their statements, not just word of mouth "knowledge.""

How are the people of Alameda are supposed to have all the financial details to present? Their concerns are not enough - they have to have already figured out the finances themselves! Here's an excerpt the email I got from a council person, but these facts don't seem to matter:

A Message From Tony Daysog, City Council
August 15, 2005

"I am troubled by the fact that public funds used to construct the cineplex-historic theater renovation project will always exceed project revenues to the public by over $11 million at a minimum. . . . As stewards of the public trust, we have a fiduciary responsibility to manage all of our public funds wisely and to exercise that necessary leadership when the public's appetite for amenities conflict with fiscal prudence."

Tony Daysog, Alameda City Council
http:\\http://www.daysog.info\blog.html

----------------------------------------

LETTERS:
To send a letter to the editor for publishing in the newspaper,
send email to letters [at] cctimes.com.

Times editorial departments:
News, 925-943-8235, newsrelease [at] cctimes.com

Executive editor of CC Times is Chris Lopez
clopez1 [at] cctimes.com

Lucinda Ryan is at
lryan [at] cctimes.com
or 748-1656

http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com/

----------------------------------------

Posted on Fri, Sep. 23, 2005
Editorial A prime opportunity for public to be heard

Come Thursday evening, when the Planning Board holds a hearing on a use permit for the downtown cineplex project, the Council Chamber and the Elks Lodge will be filled with eager speakers.

Here is a prime opportunity for the public to come prepared with factual knowledge of the project, including the fact that it is not a "megaplex" but, at its largest, a seven-screen cineplex beside a three-screen restored Alameda Theatre.

This is an opportunity to support or oppose the project without venom, but with civility, without hyperbole, but with logic.

The first fact to understand about this hearing is that it is for a "request for a Use Permit approval for a multiscreen theater, live theater and public assembly use in the Community Commercial Theater Combining District."

Second thing to know is that the city's Planning and Building department staff is available to help the public review the project before the public hearing. Call 510-749-5800 or 510-747-6850 to set an appointment. The materials are in room 190, 2263 Santa Clara Ave. from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

There is also information about the project at the city's Web site, http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us.

The facts are, and have been, very, very available. We encourage anyone who plans to speak at the hearing to be informed, up to date, and aware of the city government process at public meetings.

For example, we encourage anyone who wants to address the financial status of the movie theater industry to do so under the 'oral communications' part of the hearing, not during the use permit discussion item. We also encourage anyone who speaks on that topic to have documentation to support their statements, not just word of mouth "knowledge."

The City Council meeting on this topic last month that lasted until well beyond 2 a.m. wasn't productive. At best, there were frayed nerves, fatigue, and much confusion about how the project was conceived and planned and how City Council meetings are run.

Let's do better this time, both in addressing the topic without tossing insults and in understanding government process and the project's history.