The Cost of "No Cost"

By Jane Sullwold

Many people -- including me -- have praised City staff for negotiating a "no cost conveyance" of 918 acres of the former Naval Air Station from the Navy to the City of Alameda. And few can argue that obtaining the property for "no cost" is better than paying $108 million for it -- which was the price tag formerly demanded by the Navy. But let's make sure that everyone understands the actual terms of the deal.

The agreement between the City and the Navy thus reflected not just a business deal but a policy choice -- i.e., a decision to stay within a 1,425-unit limit for development of new housing at the Point. Sure, more than 1,425 units may be built -- but only at a price.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that the public was fully aware of the implications of the "no-cost conveyance" on future housing development. I expect staff would argue that the summary of the proposed agreement disclosed the $50,000 per unit penalty. And so it did -- in a paragraph entitled, "Enforcement Mechanism." But disclosing a fact is not the same as highlighting its significance. The latter is equally, if not more, important, especially for a controversial issue.

The extent to which development of the Point should include new housing is just such an issue. Those who advocate housing-focused development -- as well as those who oppose it -- ought to have been given an opportunity to speak to the implications of the "no cost conveyance" agreement before Council approved it.

This is yet another example of the need for the sort of reform I have proposed in the way in which the City communicates with its citizens. We must insist that staff inform the public not just of the action being recommended to Council but also the impact of that action on the larger scheme of things. Make it easier, not harder, to connect the dots. Only that way will the true picture emerge.