The fate of Crab Cove redevelopment hangs in the balance in advance of a hotly contested special election vote on land use in Alameda on April 9.
Measure A, if approved would convert several vacant, former Federal office buildings adjacent to The Crab Cove open space site into senior citizen housing and a homeless services center.
Measure B, a direct counter ballot initiative, would expand the 3.65 acres of former Federal land to add to the size of Crab Cove.
The showdown has become a focal point for so-called Not In My Backyard forces pitting themselves against those who side with expanded care facility policy aims.
Both goals –more recreation space and facilities or more care facilities for those in need– have merit to most in the public eye, but only one will prevail.
In their quest to be the victor in this pitched battle, polarized proponents on both sides have flooded the public with newspaper opinion pieces, letters to editors, campaign voter handbook arguments, mailers, phone banking, door to door campaigning, social media blasts, lawn signs and more
The core question –given the nullifying nature of these measures, comes down to which should voters believe based on key assertions and tactics of their propaganda? A “Yes On A” vote is effectively a No On B vote, and vice versa, which muddies things up on its own.
LAWNSIGN GRAPHICS:
Some lawn signs that sprouted up around town sport a happy, anthropomorphic crab holding up a gray “No On A” sign with a larger, warm, crab shell orange colored “Yes on B” rectangle.
The “Yes On A” sign, by contrast, has a couple of rickety looking stick figure people –-a doctor with left arm over the shoulder of a heads down elder with a cane– in more somber, subdued hues of gray and blue and the ‘feel good’ slogan “Because Alameda Cares.”
By implication it seeks to make the “Yes On B” out to be compassionless, curmudgeonly crustaceans.
Well, it’s mighty hard not to just love a happy, smiling cartoon crab, walking legs standing above the logo “Crab Cove”, pincers in the air, rooting for home turf and young ones with the “Save Our Parks” slogan on high.
The cold hues of gray and blue and graphics used in the “Yes On A” sign look as though they came from the third grade, and don’t much catch the eye or directly get to the message that old, ill homeless people need care just like the rest of us who can get it.
The scorecard here is going to favor Yes On B’s two slogan, bright- eyed claw critter and its implied link to EBRPD’S Crab Cove park, as more eye-catching and the winner of this ‘drive by’ category.
MAILER GRAPHICS AND TEXT CLAIMS
The “Yes on B” mailer is just a postcard replicating the lawn sign with eight bullet points on the back.
It is simple, inexpensive and fraught with overreach on matters dealt with later in this analysis, but the most blatantly misleading claim is that “ If we lost The McCay Avenue land (for the Wellness /Senior Residence) at Crab Cove, it’s gone forever.”
Strike one comes from the foul ball that The McCay site is not a part of Crab Cove anymore than the proposed Wellness Center/Senior housing facility are.
Strike two is that the land will not legally ever be an extension of Crab Cove regardless of A or B’s passage.
Strike three is that EBRPD has no plans to close Crab Cove, and that the parcel “Yes on B” seeks was rejected for expansion by EBRPD.
The “Yes on A” mailer features three persons, using the good old testimonial technique, who reside in Permanent Supportive Housing. “Yes On A” spokesperson Doug Briggs confirmed in an interview that three former homeless, Permanent Housing residents at Alameda Point are real people and examples of program success.
The back of the four page, glossy mailer makes slightly misleading oversimplification, claiming “Caring Without Cost.” Federal, State and other agencies, not the city, will bear the price tag, so there is a cost.
Its claims that “Yes On B” has “No Plan” is up in the air.
A spokesperson for “B” declined to go on record to disclose whether B has “plans” for the site in the formal sense of blueprints, land transfer and conversion mechanisms or had entered into any formal conversations with the city about a new city park.
The person also did not respond to an inquiry as to whether “plans” simply means a vision, for example an unsubstantiated report that former mayor Spencer once floated an idea about turning the site into a parking lot and bus turn around.
This one is up in the air, and Yes on B did not meet its bigger burden of proof, though it had every chance to be transparent and make its case.
The most effective part of the “A” mailer is the two page center spread that employs an aerial graphic of Crab Cove, the site, the Neptune Beach Shopping Center and more. It shows that the proposed Wellness Center site is adjacent to Crab Cove Park and EBRPD’s extension of the park paid for with Measure WW funds and that parts of it are slated for maintenance and equipment storage, not open space.
The graphic shreds the deceptive “Yes On B” argument that the former Federal site will expand anything at all at Crab Cove.
A major advantage to this category goes to Yes On A.
SLOGANS: SIMPLICITY AND FACTS
The dueling slogans –all glittering generalities– involve “Because Alameda Cares” for Yes On A, and the duo of “Save Our Parks” and “ For Our Children’s Future” for “Yes On B.”
All are long on
feel good” notions of hope and promise but essentially devoid of details, the essence of the tactic. “Caring” and “Children’s Futures” appeal to people’s more humane, nurturing and protective sides.
“Caring” is more tangible given the obvious link between taking care of old, sick, tragic homeless persons compared to the pure fluff of youngster’s well being for years ahead, a leap based on elements that are not so clear.
The “Save Our Parks” slogan works on another wavelength. It is an implied, unsubstantiated, cause and effect claim that is plain phony.
“B’s” notion that not building a new city park on the site, to the tune of $11 milllion is also bogus, as its seeming, unspoken proposition that suddenly homeless camps will spring up at Lincoln Park, Jean Sweeney, Washington Park etc. is patent nonsense given Alameda City and ongoing Alameda Police enforcement policy on use of our public parks.
As such, the threat to the parks claim is an overreach of major proportions.
THE SPECTRES OF FEAR AND FAILURE.
Both campaigns, in different ways, invoke another oft used propaganda technique: fear, another emotional dynamic that operates in all of us for protection of self and interest.
“Yes On A” asserts financial phobia: a price tag of over $11 million if A fails and B wins.
Briggs said he finds a Keyser Marsten Associates cost study (see Alameda Sun, 3/21) estimate of an $11.7 million price tag for the city to be “reasonable. Including the additional emergency response cost of $185,000 which we are of course willing to reimburse. “
As such, this invocation of the fear of large financial hit and reverberating fiscal effects on the city seems sound.
On the other hand, a couple of Parks and Recs workers suggested, in a conversation, that additional city parkland , even at the high price tag of around $4 million an acre, might not be a bad idea, but expressed doubts as to whether the city could even legally acquire Federal property as the law prioritizes transfer for such land for providing solutions to homelessness.
So, the fear related to the financial costs failure on the part of Measure A seems to be on pretty solid ground
A DIFFERENT SORT OF FEAR
The “Yes On B” worry card appears to be of a different suit.
Again, a spokesperson for “Yes On B” declined to comment about the premise that parks will be threatened or that Alameda will incur an increase in homeless or transient populations in that locale , which if true, would be reasonable grounds for community anxiety.
“Yes on A’s” rationale is as follows according to both Briggs and Vice Mayor John Knox White: Admission to the medical, recovery facility can only take place after hospitalized patients elsewhere are deemed fit for release and two levels of professional medical screening take place. The facility will then evaluate the patient to match suitability with their services. It is not a ‘ come here and wait on the doorstep’ policy.
Patients at the medical facility will reside in a closed campus setting, and when healthy, be put into programs to guide them out of homelessness through reunification with family, providing job training, participating in a housing discharge plan, finding availability in shelters and more. They will not simply be discharged onto the streets. If they wish transportation out of Alameda the program will provide it.
Patients in the facility may leave for therapeutic reasons, but only when accompanied by a Wellness Center professional.
According to Briggs it is “a way out of homelessness” and he says other such programs as the one the Alameda facility will follow have an 80-95% success rate.
While that range seems a bit conjectural , given its 15% differential, there seems to be credibility in the claim that the program could actually reduce the homeless cycle in some measure.
That said, there may be some nominal aspect of validity to the implied “Yes on B” assumption that people from the Senior Permanent Residence facility could be out in the greater community at their personal discretion and with the same liberty as any other person.
“Residents of the permanent Senior housing will be free to come and go — as with anyone in any housing. We will have desk clerks and security to ensure folks are safe coming and going, “ said Briggs.
Additional security aspects for the facility, according to Briggs, are that current fencing around the site will be kept in place, there will be 24/7 security personnel on site as well as cameras as well as improved lighting and other features.
The senior citizen’s facility will be permanent housing until they or natural causes make a vacancy, “but there will be a hospice component to it. Our goal is to allow homeless seniors to live out their lives.,” he added, in an invocation of compassion.
As such, the scary specter of wayward, sick, mentally unstable, old or other types of displaced, transient homeless people wandering about or encamping in the community, –especially parks– has a weak footing at best in the absence of any “Yes On B” response to provide a detailed answer to a question on this matter.
Another “Yes On B” fear tactic, this one relating to money, is the partly true claim that Alameda tax dollar coffers will take a $185,000 hit for fire and police.
That is in line with the KMA estimate, but omits — ah, yes, the good old tactic of omission– that the cost of a city park on the site will run about $140,000 per year including maintenance.
The savings of $45,000 is accurate enough, but it will take about 260 years, or until the year 2279 for Alameda to break even given the cost to create a city park in the first place. We’ll all be well past senior citizen status by then.
Overall, B falls far short based on the relationship between fear and facts. The campaign essentially operates on a No Boogeyman In Your Backyard (NBIYBY) strategy that doesn’t cut it when faced with established facts.
DIFFERENT BURDENS TO VICTORY
“No On B” still has a distinct electoral advantage given their task and how their message is tailored to carry it out—whether strategic or just intuitive.
They only have to sew enough anxiety about homeless folks residing near a park where kids play. That might be enough on its own.
Add to that the feel good, healthy and fun ideal of more parks and more happy children to get votes.
Who doesn’t laud more parks for more happy children as a matter of heart and nurture?
“Yes On A” has to take on a substantial burden of proof to overcome the opposing side’s myriad speculative claims or allegations. “Yes On A” has to juggle factual complexities surrounding funding, campaign contributions, city hall, land acquisition, Federal law, admissions processes, site location and much more.
“Yes On B” just has to keep it simple, stir up enough dust to cloud things and put voters into what is known as “cognitive dissonance”, fancy poli -sci speak for the tendency of confused or uncertain voters to reject a complex, fact- based matter which takes effort to understand, despite the on the record transparency and active outreach efforts of Yes On A.
Another advantage for “B” rests on whether they can get folks to buy into their two basic and subjective premises that parks and children are in danger if A wins – not withstanding their not going on the record on these aspects, and despite evidence to the contrary. If “Yes On A” is not successful in mitigating the approach, “Yes On B” can win the day, given this default advantage.
“A”, on the other hand, has to keep voters’ eyes on a center stage filled with a number of moving elements
Put differently, drinking orange hued kool aid could prove easier for voters to swallow than supporting the bringing of a cup of cool, blue panacea to a small group of anonymous persons in need.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS NOT PROPAGANDA, IT’S POOR PRIOR PLANNING
The deepest problem is the way these two measures were crafted in the first place. Both are built as negations of the other. Only one will prevail.
Had more reasoned heads come together , voters might just have one choice before them which could have found a win-win way to have enough of more parks for kids and more spaces for the marginalized.
That will not be the case at the ballot box on April 9.