Base Reuse process working well

An article last week in the Contra Costa Times – "Behind the scenes, developers influence Concord Naval Weapons Station planning" – leaves the impression that Council members and city staff are secretly meeting with developers to find ways to change the adopted Reuse Plan.

That's not happening.

First, while it is true that market-rate developers have not, so far, actively submitted formal comments during the Reuse Plan process they were in attendance at the various workshops and CAC meetings that were held.

As crazy as it seems – given that this process has been going on for over four years – it's still too early and too uncertain for most builders or developers to care about or spend resources on the Base Reuse project.

Further, I think it is smart the Council has asked staff to have the Base Reuse plan's economics re-examined and NOT getting the development community's expertise and advice in that process would be a huge mistake.

Second, the story doesn't explain that ALL the other groups – labor, affordable housing, social justice, education, environmental, neighborhood, sports, etc. have held numerous informal meetings, workshops and even rallies with Council members and city staff invitees in attendance over the past four years. I know. I attended many, if not most, of them.

It's the Council and staff's responsibility to hear the viewpoints of the various stakeholders and make recommendations and decisions in the best interests of the entire community.

The Base Reuse process is far from over and everyone should continue to express their views and advocate for their cause. So far I think the process is working well. The fact not everyone is completely happy proves it.

http://www.PulseOfConcord.com EdiBirsan

If the meetings are not:
“to find ways to change the adopted Reuse Plan.”
then what is the purpose or the actionable nature of the meetings?
This is what needs to be explained to reduce the fear out there.

The scenario that people are afraid of is this:
Developers meet with City Staff/Council and say that the financial basis is unrealistic and this results in ….change of some sort. Change that is based on a non-reviewable, non-disputable or known set of circumstances that the public feels it did not participate in and they get upset.

Further what people are upset with is the process of acceptability. There were a lot of conflicts in getting to the point of where the Reuse plan is now. Then there was some votes and decisions and people thought that on ALL sides that there was a resolution and life goes on. What people are getting concerned about is that the public’s battles achieved an acceptance of the result but only amongst the public and not the private (developer) sector. Now they perceive that the ‘result’ is not final and that there is another layer of negotiations going on where there will be action taken to alter that result and they are not a party of it.

Its like leaving the game in a play off and then finding out that there are several more games to be played to determine the series and you are not invited.

This is the perception that the article was playing into.
This is the fear.
The city has to deal with this. For example in the recent decision on putting the entire Reuse area into the Redevelopment plan the city staff side said that if there is no Redevelopment inclusion the entire Reuse plan is dead.

What might be helpful is for the city staff/Council to outline what is going on and what the parameters are that are subject to change based on the realities of what the developers are bringing to the discussion or what the impacts are expected.
Things like- these things are not going to be changed: XYZ,
these things are subject to change ABC
If ABC is to be changed then the decision making process will not be complete until we do 1-2-3- which will include the input from you-you-you all whatever.
This way people have a little more comfort that what is going on is in an ‘acceptable process’ so that while everyone can be unhappy as you state with the results, they can at least be happy with the process and that is what the stirring is about.