And to Ms Nadel’s aide- I second an earlier post that what you should be addressing is the facts- why is your office not looking into the lies about building height? And, why must your office be meddling with the design of the city in the first place? You have not demonstrated common sense or vision to date.

http://novometro.com/uploaded_images/news_image/2285_EmeraldViewArialView.jpg

http://grandlakeguardian.org/media/2007/08/07.08.14.Emerald_Views.600×834.jpg

All agree it would be 457′, right? So, the Kaiser Engineering Building behind it: half its height, or about two-thirds?

It’s fairly clear, however, that that’s not what’s happening here. The proof lies in the S.F. figures. Ask someone from the S.F. Planning Department if 50 Fremont is 430′, and you’ll get a very funny look. The Millennium going up across the street is 645′. Does it look 200 feet taller? (Note that it is topped-out–what you see is what you’re going to get.)

Emporis figures often come from blueprints. But generally, they’re about as accurate as you’re going to find.

Rather than handing out blame, how about just saying that you’ll see to it that the City gets it’s height numbers together. I mean, they’re blatantly blatantly factually actually WRONG.

And while were at it, any comment on the link in the article? You know, the one that reminds us all that Nanny Nadel put a code violation into her own sidewalk and then talked smack about a neighbor’s legal sidewalks? Any comment? Didn’t think so.

I’m sure you’re right regarding the way the numbers were determined, but I still find the whole thing perplexing. The 10 foot per floor assumption for office towers is preposterous. I just can’t figure out why it would ever occur to anyone who knows anything about development to estimate that way.

Odder still, the powerpoint presentation (PDF!) from the previous meeting provides a list of building heights that are neither the numbers listed in Emporis nor the numbers on Saturday’s handout (Ordway Building: 369, Kaiser Center: 357, Lake Merritt Plaza: 339, Kaiser Engineering Building: 306).

dto510 -

Thank you for sharing some additional details about the discussion.

John -

I’m sorry you don’t enjoy my writing, but you needent feel obligated to read the blog if you find it painful. I readily admit that I have a regrettable tendency towards being long-winded and rambling. I blame this guy.

John & Marisa -

I have to confess, I’m not entirely clear on what you think is wrong with me electing to not attend the meeting. The blog post is not about what was said at the meeting, but about the content of the handouts that were distributed at the meeting, and all three handouts that I reference in the post are in my possession and accurately quoted, so I fail to see where the problem lies.

David -

Thank you for reading (and jumping to my defense)! I hope that even those who don’t share my all my political views can find some useful information on my site.

My original phrasing may have been somewhat of a shorthand, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it “misinformation.” I (perhaps, mistakenly) assumed that my readers would be familiar enough with the zoning update process (or, if not, curious enough to click on the link provided) that my meaning would be clear. To address your concerns, I have altered the references to Nadel in the post to employ the exact language used in the announcements you sent out about the meeting. I have also added an paragraph with some background information, taken from the study website and Yahoo! group website. It makes for somewhat more awkward phrasing, but I’d certainly rather be guilty of writing a clunky post than mislead anyone.

VS no only disagrees, she trashes. And it is not just trashing, it is scorched-earth trashing to the point of being irresponsible. Her comments lose all appearance of trying to be helpful, or of providing useful additional information. She attacks, rather than supplements, the proceeding that took place. As such, who wants to listen to someone trashing the work of the City Council and City staff in such an unreasonable manner? I, for one, do not. It is obvious that VS is on the payroll of the developers to write this.

VS may think she has written some cute prose about what she did last Saturday instead of attending the meeting and why she did not attend. But, it is not cute at all – it is self-indulgent and lazy, for starters. Her “story” and response to a meeting she did not attend is one of the cheapest shots I’ve seen in a long time. VS, maybe for the next meeting, you will put down your fork or sacrifice your sandwich for what will probably be the first time in your life and attend the meeting like the interested and concerned Oakland residents who aren’t on the take and who did attend last week. If you want to be the laziest person in Oakland, the least you can do is not force the rest of us to hear about it.