Racetrack uses wrong tactic to fight initiative
IT'S NO SURPRISE that Golden Gate Fields is fighting the Albany Waterfront Specific Plan Initiative, which environmental groups hope to place on the November ballot. The racetrack owner has good reason to feel threatened by a measure designed to restrict what it can do on its land while setting in motion a planning process that limits its influence.
Golden Gate Fields and its corporate owner, Magna Entertainment Corp., have every right to launch an aggressive campaign against the initiative, which seeks to prevent a large-scale development on parking lots near the shoreline. But it's one thing to argue against the merits of the initiative. It's quite another to resort to legal loopholes to try to prevent the measure from coming before voters.
Golden Gate Fields is trying to circumvent a democratic process by suing to prevent the city from putting the initiative on the ballot. The racetrack argues that the initiative should be disqualified because it wasn't published in a newspaper certified for legal advertising in Alameda County. The racetrack's argument may be technically correct, but it is nevertheless flawed. The initiative was advertised in The Journal's sister newspaper, the West County Times, which has a significant presence in Albany (more than 1,000 daily subscribers) and covers the city extensively in conjunction with The Journal. It is safe to say more stories regarding this initiative effort have appeared in the Times than any other daily newspaper in the Bay Area.
No one can question whether the backers of the initiative met the test of adequately notifying the public about this effort. We're not legal experts, but we see no reason why an Alameda County judge shouldn't come to the same conclusion.
Whatever we think of the merits of this initiative, the people of Albany should have a right to determine its outcome in November. Backers of the initiative have gathered far more than enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot. Golden Gate Fields is targeting a minor oversight with no practical implications in an effort to deny Albany's voters the right to decide whether they support the initiative's objectives.
By pursuing this course, the racetrack fosters an image a company willing to do anything and everything to achieve its goal of building a retail development at the waterfront. This flies in the face of the image it has tried to cultivate of a good corporate neighbor sensitive to the viewpoints of Albany's residents and working hand in hand with the community on a project that serves multiple interests.
While we have been critical of the aims of the initiative, we believe it has the potential to create at least one positive outcome for the community. If nothing else, it will clarify to a great degree what people want -- or are at least willing to consider -- on the waterfront.
If it is approved, it would send an unmistakable signal to Magna and its partner, developer Caruso Affiliated, that there is no appetite in the city for the type of outdoor shopping center they envision. If it fails, it will not be an endorsement for the Caruso plan but will at least indicate that the people of Albany want to keep their options open and are willing to entertain a sensible development proposal. It certainly would give Magna and Caruso greater standing to argue the merits of their proposal.
Even if Golden Gate Fields prevails with its lawsuit, the strategy may well backfire. Initiative or no initiative, the voters must still approve its development plans. And they'll likely greet those plans with a healthy dose of skepticism when they take into account the tactics used to try to keep them from having their say on a legitimate citizens initiative.
|
