Development:

      To develop or not to develop? This has forever been the question that plagues cities with great potential for growth. Should Fremont be a purely residential area, or should it be the next boom city? The City Council's vision statement says "Fremont, in the year 2020, will be a globally connected economic center..." I think it is fair to say that our current Council is leaning towards the latter of the two developmental options. However, I do hope that they realize that the year 2020 is only about 10 1/2 years away. I'm sorry, but, I just don't see the kind of effort that is needed, to execute such an ambitious goal, being demonstrated at present. Please do not misunderstand me; this Council has been making an effort. By creating the new water park facility by Lake Elizabeth,  they have taken a step forward. However, in my opinion, I feel that the aforementioned water park should NOT have been given priority over a project that would have created new schools, businesses, & affordable housing for our city. I speak of course, about the Oakland Athletics ball club, but more on that later.

    Please consider the following: How can a Council that doesn't have a soul under the age of 35 claim to understand the desires of the 18-34 year olds?! Its a different mindset, and a different way of thinking, that we bring to the table. It will benefit not only us, but ALL the citizenry to have another way to look at things.As a candidate, and as a member of that group, I take issue with the unfair representation. We have gender diversity, race diversity, why not age diversity? Because we lacked that point of view in our governing body, Fremont made choices that, while productive, were not big enough steps. For example, who is more likely to spend money: somebody between the ages of 10-12 (for whom the water park was made) OR 16-25 year olds who have incomes, cars, and are looking for something to do on Friday nights (for whom the A's would have been the proper development)? I think the question answers itself.
   
     I was pro-A's. Now before some of you start to celebrate and others cringe in disgust, please know that I do not feel the plan that had existed was perfect. But, we must consider things for what we have to give up and what we have to earn. By 2012, the city of Fremont is expected to be in a 13,000,000 dollar deficit, at present, it is already at 12,700,000 dollars. The state is out of money and the federal government has more pressing matters on its hand (Please see Government Motors, ehem... I mean...General Motors) The only way to bring our city back, to pull ourselves out of this hole, is to develop something I have been referring to as "the wow factor, or TWF for short." TWF represents the aspect of a city that makes people want to go and spend money there. It essentially poses the question, what does Fremont have to offer that I should go there rather than San Fransisco or Pleasanton's Stoneridge Mall to keep myself entertained? Its my belief that Pacific Commons and the surrounding undeveloped land is the biggest weapon in Fremont's arsenal. If you want to generate revenue to make the residential areas of Fremont better places to live, you need to have things to do within the city itself! An attraction of sorts if you will. The Council now and in the future needs to listen to the input of the people on this matter instead of trying to use their titles to supercede the opinions of others. That statement in no way attacks our present Council; it is simply how I feel things should be handled. The people know what the people want after all.

    Another thing to consider is the development at Patterson Ranch. For those of you unfamiliar with it, PR is an area by Ardenwood upon which our Council just approved the construction of 800 new residential units. I oppose this decision. The primary reason for that is this:  I am a student; I am seeing firsthand what overcrowding is doing to our schools. My counselors, who are supposed to assist students in applying to college, will most likely be losing their jobs next year. Our classes will approach 40-45 students in size. The schools can not take any more. If the Council wants to bring more homes to Fremont, they need to build new schools. That requires money, money we don't have. The reason I supported the A's residential plan was because they planned to build new schools as part of the deal. Until we pull out of our economic slump, residential development should not be our priority.

      We must gear our development, what little we can afford in these troubled times, towards those who are most likely to use their funds thereby offering the city an immediate financial return. Knowing that, I propose something so ingeniously obvious that I scolded myself for not thinking of it earlier. I propose to bring a movie theater to the shopping complex at Pacific Commons. This way, we pick up the revenue of both recently closed down/closing theaters in the area (Fremont/Newark respectively). In addition, the patrons who normally leave Fremont to spend money to go watch movies are kept in Fremont. That doesn't even begin to delve into the potential for attracting people from other cities to come here as well! On top of all that, we further assist the pre-existing restaurant businesses already in the area. Shopping, dining, and movies offer the ultimate revenue- generating, wow factor-boosting, triple play that Fremont so desperately needs. With so much to gain, I believe it is something we should at least look into.

    That's all I got for today ladies and gentlemen, I greatly appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedules to read this.

                                                                                                                    Ishan Shah