The Alameda Point project, a Bay Area urban growth hopeful, is struggling to break through legislative red-tape. The argument of the moment? It seems that the City of Alameda and the developer, Suncal Companies, have conflicting fiscal analysis reports.

The city’s report, done by Economic Planning System (EPS), concludes that the Alameda Point project will be much more costly than the developer’s report, done by The Maxima Group, concludes. Each report has chosen a different market to base its numbers on. Actually, EPS admitted in a recent Alameda City Council meeting that the fiscal analysis numbers are based on numbers from “a textbook.” The Maxima Group chose numbers based on a planned development on Treasure Island. Maxima states, “The Treasure Island project is similar in scale (5,500 residential units, over 250,000 commercial square feet) and geography to the Alameda Point project.” Herein lies the problem: the EPS report is not representative of the development area, where it appears the Maxima Group’s is.

So why would the City of Alameda place so much stock in this inaccurate fiscal analysis?

Jennifer Ott, the Deputy City Manager of Alameda, is a past employee of EPS. It looks like Ott and EPS are trying to stack the cards against Suncal’s Alameda Point development.

Foul play in the Alameda Chambers may stem from Interim City Manager Anne Marie Gallant. Could it be that her deputy is following her example?

“The problem: Gallant has been awarding city contracts to her former business associates without the City Council’s approval because the total amount of each contract is being kept just under the $75,000 threshold requiring a Council vote. Gallant has given such contracts to her old colleagues at Westhoff, Cone & Holmstedt, Rips Consulting, and Graphtek.”

http://savealameda.com/2010/06/24/gallants-bad-judgment-not-good-for-alameda.aspx