Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
TONIGHT! Alameda Planning Board Meeting on MEGAPLEX - Please Attend!
These meetings go on until very late so even if you arrive late, it makes sense to at least check and see if things are still going on. Every person who shows up helps us to stop this project.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION ON THE THEATER/GARAGE ISSUE CONTINUES THIS MONDAY JUNE 27 AT 7 PM IN CITY HALL!
Two weeks ago the Board was overwhelmed by the number of speakers opposing the megaplex, and voted to continue the agenda at the meeting this coming Monday. ALL OF US NEED TO BE PRESENT AGAIN, IN LARGE NUMBERS, AND URGE THE BOARD NOT TO APPROVE THE DESIGNS BASED ON THE LACK OF MERIT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT!
We also encourage you to share your ideas and help the Board visualize a better parking solution than the one Michael Stanton has given them. At the last meeting someone showed a sketch of a structure respectful of the surrounding buildings that made people in the audience applaud. We agree that parking is needed, but we want it to fit the scale of the Civic Center area and look less like a parking garage; or consider building up several smaller lots as opposed to one big concentration downtown. Bring ideas to the table and convince the Board to not make a decision until a discussion of alternatives has occurred!
The agenda for the meeting is at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/planning/2005/m_1119880800.html Please submit a speaker slip, and give copies of any written communication to the City Clerk.
See you there!
Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
Two weeks ago the Board was overwhelmed by the number of speakers opposing the megaplex, and voted to continue the agenda at the meeting this coming Monday. ALL OF US NEED TO BE PRESENT AGAIN, IN LARGE NUMBERS, AND URGE THE BOARD NOT TO APPROVE THE DESIGNS BASED ON THE LACK OF MERIT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT!
We also encourage you to share your ideas and help the Board visualize a better parking solution than the one Michael Stanton has given them. At the last meeting someone showed a sketch of a structure respectful of the surrounding buildings that made people in the audience applaud. We agree that parking is needed, but we want it to fit the scale of the Civic Center area and look less like a parking garage; or consider building up several smaller lots as opposed to one big concentration downtown. Bring ideas to the table and convince the Board to not make a decision until a discussion of alternatives has occurred!
The agenda for the meeting is at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/planning/2005/m_1119880800.html Please submit a speaker slip, and give copies of any written communication to the City Clerk.
See you there!
Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
For more information:
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The Word on the Street
What you've heard:
"The opposition to the megaplex comes from a small group of people."
What you didn't hear: Our petition has doubled in size in one week and is growing rapidly. The City Council and Mayor cannot answer their communications promptly because they are overwhelmed by the number of letters and emails being received on this topic. The conversation is happening all over town, in the newspapers and on community websites. The opposition to the megaplex is a growing movement.
Do not feel "belittled" or alone. Keep insisting that your elected officials acknowledge your request for a community meeting on the issue. Some of them will be at your door next year asking for your reelection vote, finding out the exact size of a "small" group.
What you've heard:
"Without the megaplex, the theater will rot."
What you didn't hear: Several people have attempted to lease the Historic Theater from the owner in the past, and while the City has charged them permit and planning fees it has not offered them any assistance. One fairly recent offer was made while theater owner John Cocores was under the threat of litigation and couldn't discuss it. Compare this to the very big, very questionable step taken for this developer with Eminent Domain! (Eminent Domain is a complicated legal process reserved for taking private property only when it would significantly benefit the public. It was not meant to take from one private owner to give to another!)
Even now there is an offer on the table from Mark Haskett, the owner of Central Cinema, to partially fund and operate 3 screens in the Historic building. This could be just one of many possible options. If Mayor Johnson's first choice is indeed a restored Historic Theater, as she recently stated in the Alameda Journal, then here is an opportunity to explore this option.
What you've heard:
"The theater will be a catalyst for downtown business."
What you didn't hear:Multiplexes are closing down as we speak because of a drop in attendance and tanking ticket sales, and just recently Councilmembers DeHaan and Daysog have asked for a new look at the economic feasibility of the theater, as well as a new marketing study (the last one was done in 1997). With the press saturated with reports on the bleak future of multiplexes, we feel that this is a timely and reasonable request on their part, and we demand a new study before any more funds are committed to the project. Some recent highlights:
New York Times, June 21, 2005, AMC to Merge With Loews in Bid to Become Top Movie Chain: "...some operators struggled to stay afloat in what many analysts say is a glut of screens built in the 1990's. Loews, for one, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001."
MarketWatch, June 2, 2005, Movie Theaters Go Dark on Analyst Call: "...advances in home entertainment will continue to slow down attendance at the box office." and "...the 2% attendance growth that has been something of a tenet for the industry is no longer valid..." and "...these trends will continue at the expense of the box office."
New York Times, May 29, 2005, Movie Attendance Down in 2005: "With box office attendance sliding, so far, for the third consecutive year, many in the industry are starting to ask whether the slump is just part of a cyclical swing....or whether it reflects a much bigger change in the way Americans look to be entertained a change that will pose serious new challenges to Hollywood." and "It is much more chilling if there is a cultural shift in people staying away from movies."
New York Times, May 27, 2005, With Popcorn, DVDs and TiVo, Moviegoers are Staying Home: "For 13 weeks in a row, box-office receits have been down compared with a year ago..." and "the number of moviegoers has dropped, sliding 4% in 2003, 2% in 2004, and 8% so far in 2005."
The Business Journal, Nov 9, 2004, AMC Financial Picture Features Larger Loss, Revenue Gain: "The company... recorded $10.5 million charge in the quarter for closing three theaters with 22 screens....for the same period a year earlier the company recorded $891,000 related to the closing of one theater with six screens."
What you've heard:
"It's a done deal."
What you didn't hear: The City does not own the Historic Theater it is trying to acquire it. They have signed a contract, but as in every contract there are contingencies, and failure to acquire the Theater is one of them. (In fact, it would be grounds for impeachment if they actually signed a multi million dollar no-contingency contract and the deal failed.)
The deal is also not "done" until the designs are approved. The City has signed a contract with Kyle Conner, a theater equipment salesman, who has never developed a similar project before, without seeing any definitive designs from Michael Stanton, an architect, who has never designed a parking garage in his life! Now, with so many people objecting to the hideousness of the structures it is not unlikely that the design approval step will fail. Don't buy the "done deal" argument fight it!
What you've heard:
"Parking is a problem downtown."
What you didn't hear: There are many other ways to solve a parking problem than to erect a 6 level, 60+ ft high, thoroughly uninspired utilitarian structure in the heart of the Civic Center. Smart urban planners are stressing the advantage of many small, dispersed parking lots over big structures which create instant blight. In addition, a parking structure doesn't have to look like one necessarily, and green areas and other human features can be incorporated in, around or on top of it. We need to give the City ideas and visuals about just such parking structures they seem to be stuck in the hired architect's world of blank walls and boring unrelated elements, in addition to being blinded by the fallacy that parking brings business when in fact it is atmosphere that brings business.
What you've heard:
"These people are spreading misinformation the garage will not be the tallest building downtown."
What you didn't hear: The height of the garage at 6 levels will be 60 to 70 ft, the elevator shaft being the highest. The Historic theater is 62 feet at its peak, 56 ft at the sides. Even if the garage is 2 ft shorter than the highest point on the theater, its massing is overwhelming in comparison. To get an actual idea of how tall the proposed parking structure would be, stand in the Longs' parking lot and look to the top of the Alameda Theater that is the approximate height of the proposed six level parking structure. Visualize the top of the Alameda Theater at Oak Street. It will be really, really big. (And really, really ugly.)
What you've heard:
"The public has had ample opportunity to provide input."
What you didn't hear:
The first Planning Board Study Session of the Multiplex/Parking Structure was on February 14th, 2005.
Theater Design Guidelines and conceptual (not actual) parking structure designs were presented to City Council on March 15, 2005.
The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) website stated "Council Approves Design Guidlines . . . We will invite your comments on the design when it becomes available to the public," posted 3/16/05.
The PSBA website stated "Parking Garage Design. The first look at the parking garage design will be offered tonight at the Planning Board Meeting . . . and it will be five levels high," posted 3/28/05. (Wait, is it five or six?!)
Since mid-February there has been steady flow of letters to the Editor questioning the wisdom of the project. Public comments at Planning board and City Council meetings, except those by PSBA, raised a rainbow of concerns, including traffic on Oak street, design, mass, compatiblity with surrounding buildings, disrespect for Alameda, and bike and pedestrian safety.
The public tried to comment as best they could on a moving target in a short amount of time. Unfortunatley, PSBA was louder. The Park Street Business Association would like you to believe they care about the citizens of this city but the fact is they call an open public discussion of the current project a "ludicrous" idea.
What you've heard:
"Well, it's too late."
What you didn't hear: Both City Council and PSBA want people to believe that it is too late, and leave them alone. But remember the other "done deals"? Advertising on the bus shelters was a recent one. It got turned around at the 11th hour because people cared. So can this.
Please continue to speak up!
What you've heard:
"The opposition to the megaplex comes from a small group of people."
What you didn't hear: Our petition has doubled in size in one week and is growing rapidly. The City Council and Mayor cannot answer their communications promptly because they are overwhelmed by the number of letters and emails being received on this topic. The conversation is happening all over town, in the newspapers and on community websites. The opposition to the megaplex is a growing movement.
Do not feel "belittled" or alone. Keep insisting that your elected officials acknowledge your request for a community meeting on the issue. Some of them will be at your door next year asking for your reelection vote, finding out the exact size of a "small" group.
What you've heard:
"Without the megaplex, the theater will rot."
What you didn't hear: Several people have attempted to lease the Historic Theater from the owner in the past, and while the City has charged them permit and planning fees it has not offered them any assistance. One fairly recent offer was made while theater owner John Cocores was under the threat of litigation and couldn't discuss it. Compare this to the very big, very questionable step taken for this developer with Eminent Domain! (Eminent Domain is a complicated legal process reserved for taking private property only when it would significantly benefit the public. It was not meant to take from one private owner to give to another!)
Even now there is an offer on the table from Mark Haskett, the owner of Central Cinema, to partially fund and operate 3 screens in the Historic building. This could be just one of many possible options. If Mayor Johnson's first choice is indeed a restored Historic Theater, as she recently stated in the Alameda Journal, then here is an opportunity to explore this option.
What you've heard:
"The theater will be a catalyst for downtown business."
What you didn't hear:Multiplexes are closing down as we speak because of a drop in attendance and tanking ticket sales, and just recently Councilmembers DeHaan and Daysog have asked for a new look at the economic feasibility of the theater, as well as a new marketing study (the last one was done in 1997). With the press saturated with reports on the bleak future of multiplexes, we feel that this is a timely and reasonable request on their part, and we demand a new study before any more funds are committed to the project. Some recent highlights:
New York Times, June 21, 2005, AMC to Merge With Loews in Bid to Become Top Movie Chain: "...some operators struggled to stay afloat in what many analysts say is a glut of screens built in the 1990's. Loews, for one, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001."
MarketWatch, June 2, 2005, Movie Theaters Go Dark on Analyst Call: "...advances in home entertainment will continue to slow down attendance at the box office." and "...the 2% attendance growth that has been something of a tenet for the industry is no longer valid..." and "...these trends will continue at the expense of the box office."
New York Times, May 29, 2005, Movie Attendance Down in 2005: "With box office attendance sliding, so far, for the third consecutive year, many in the industry are starting to ask whether the slump is just part of a cyclical swing....or whether it reflects a much bigger change in the way Americans look to be entertained a change that will pose serious new challenges to Hollywood." and "It is much more chilling if there is a cultural shift in people staying away from movies."
New York Times, May 27, 2005, With Popcorn, DVDs and TiVo, Moviegoers are Staying Home: "For 13 weeks in a row, box-office receits have been down compared with a year ago..." and "the number of moviegoers has dropped, sliding 4% in 2003, 2% in 2004, and 8% so far in 2005."
The Business Journal, Nov 9, 2004, AMC Financial Picture Features Larger Loss, Revenue Gain: "The company... recorded $10.5 million charge in the quarter for closing three theaters with 22 screens....for the same period a year earlier the company recorded $891,000 related to the closing of one theater with six screens."
What you've heard:
"It's a done deal."
What you didn't hear: The City does not own the Historic Theater it is trying to acquire it. They have signed a contract, but as in every contract there are contingencies, and failure to acquire the Theater is one of them. (In fact, it would be grounds for impeachment if they actually signed a multi million dollar no-contingency contract and the deal failed.)
The deal is also not "done" until the designs are approved. The City has signed a contract with Kyle Conner, a theater equipment salesman, who has never developed a similar project before, without seeing any definitive designs from Michael Stanton, an architect, who has never designed a parking garage in his life! Now, with so many people objecting to the hideousness of the structures it is not unlikely that the design approval step will fail. Don't buy the "done deal" argument fight it!
What you've heard:
"Parking is a problem downtown."
What you didn't hear: There are many other ways to solve a parking problem than to erect a 6 level, 60+ ft high, thoroughly uninspired utilitarian structure in the heart of the Civic Center. Smart urban planners are stressing the advantage of many small, dispersed parking lots over big structures which create instant blight. In addition, a parking structure doesn't have to look like one necessarily, and green areas and other human features can be incorporated in, around or on top of it. We need to give the City ideas and visuals about just such parking structures they seem to be stuck in the hired architect's world of blank walls and boring unrelated elements, in addition to being blinded by the fallacy that parking brings business when in fact it is atmosphere that brings business.
What you've heard:
"These people are spreading misinformation the garage will not be the tallest building downtown."
What you didn't hear: The height of the garage at 6 levels will be 60 to 70 ft, the elevator shaft being the highest. The Historic theater is 62 feet at its peak, 56 ft at the sides. Even if the garage is 2 ft shorter than the highest point on the theater, its massing is overwhelming in comparison. To get an actual idea of how tall the proposed parking structure would be, stand in the Longs' parking lot and look to the top of the Alameda Theater that is the approximate height of the proposed six level parking structure. Visualize the top of the Alameda Theater at Oak Street. It will be really, really big. (And really, really ugly.)
What you've heard:
"The public has had ample opportunity to provide input."
What you didn't hear:
The first Planning Board Study Session of the Multiplex/Parking Structure was on February 14th, 2005.
Theater Design Guidelines and conceptual (not actual) parking structure designs were presented to City Council on March 15, 2005.
The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) website stated "Council Approves Design Guidlines . . . We will invite your comments on the design when it becomes available to the public," posted 3/16/05.
The PSBA website stated "Parking Garage Design. The first look at the parking garage design will be offered tonight at the Planning Board Meeting . . . and it will be five levels high," posted 3/28/05. (Wait, is it five or six?!)
Since mid-February there has been steady flow of letters to the Editor questioning the wisdom of the project. Public comments at Planning board and City Council meetings, except those by PSBA, raised a rainbow of concerns, including traffic on Oak street, design, mass, compatiblity with surrounding buildings, disrespect for Alameda, and bike and pedestrian safety.
The public tried to comment as best they could on a moving target in a short amount of time. Unfortunatley, PSBA was louder. The Park Street Business Association would like you to believe they care about the citizens of this city but the fact is they call an open public discussion of the current project a "ludicrous" idea.
What you've heard:
"Well, it's too late."
What you didn't hear: Both City Council and PSBA want people to believe that it is too late, and leave them alone. But remember the other "done deals"? Advertising on the bus shelters was a recent one. It got turned around at the 11th hour because people cared. So can this.
Please continue to speak up!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network