City Council Candidate Profile, part 3 of 6, Frank Matarrese
Frank Matarrese is running for City Council, there are only two seats for six candidates.
Frank Matarrese’s other hat, when not being a city councilperson, is consulting around the area of biotech and pharmaceuticals. Under “Background” there is some info about his education.
Frank Matarrese was part of a delegation from St. Phillip Neri to go to El Salvador to visit their sister parish there:
The church, though, was severely damaged in the 2002 earthquake and needed to be rebuilt. The film was used to help fundraise over $20,000 to help rebuild their church.
And I saw the Don Roberts episode when he had Frank Matarrese on to talk about the film and about his trip. Methinks that Frank Matarrese will probably not be invited any time soon on to the Don Roberts Show again.
Thanks to John W for this link to the Green Party’s questionnaire, with answers from the candidates.
There are some entries on the Alameda Magazine Blog from and about Frank Matarrese.
He is an honorary member of the Altarena Playhouse board.
He was also designated as one of the Alameda representative of the Oakland/Alameda Task Force to discuss traffic impacts from development projects according to the Sun.
Frank Matarrese was initially intending to run for a County Supervisior seat, but the Oakland Tribune reports that he dropped out the race because:
his Island supporters expressed a need for his continued leadership on large issues facing the city, including the conveyance of the base from the Navy, the Alameda Theater project and improvements of the commercial Webster and Park streets.
The Oakland Tribune also captured his response to Blockbuster wanting to relocate a store in the Bridgeside shopping center:
Councilwoman Barbara Kerr and Councilman Frank Matarrese showed an interest in rewriting the development agreement, heaping praise on the quirky store known as much for its pizza as its eclectic selection.
Frank Matarrese also proposed that the council pass a measure to urge the government to pull troops out of Iraq, saying that:
“It’s not theoretical for Alameda,” Matarrese said.
Federal money spent on the war means the city will receive less for redeveloping Alameda Point or for local subsidized housing programs, he said.
“I believe that’s our justification as a council for looking at this,” Matarrese said.
And then, of course, how can we forget the big fuss over the Joseph Matarrese (son) alleged death threat to Deborah Overfield. Although I hesitated on adding that information here because I don’t think it has any relevance to Frank Matarrese’s qualifications as a city councilperson. But I know if I omitted it, someone would have accused me of partisanship.
If anyone has more information about Frank Matarrese, please feel free to add it to the comments section. BUT…if you do post something, please make sure to cite your reference and add a link so that others can reference it.
Alameda Journal, Friday September 15th
Frank Matarrese goes on record as saying density/Measure A for Alameda Point should be open for discussion.
Quote - “I think we need to lay all our options on the table”
Comment by keepmeasurea — September 15, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
My comment isn’t about Frank, it’s about the council votes on the resolution on pulling troops out of Iraq.
My recollection is that de Haan stated he vowed to himself before getting eleceted that he wouldn’t vote on issues not narrowly related to City business, though I don’t remember him being that precise in his wording. I think he abstained?
Mayor Johnson was very concerned about phone calls and emails balancing out the majority who came to council to speak in favor of the resolution. She wanted a mandate from the public and voted against.
Marie Gilmore made a motion tayloring the resolution to refer only to the California National Guard, making the relevance to impact on Alameda and the Council’s purview as clear as possible. This revised motion failed 3-2.
Tony in typical fashion wanted it both ways, saying he was very supportive of the troops and of course wanted them home ASAP, but the most he could offer was a resolution offering our prayers. His motion failed and made us wonder if Tony ever heard of the separation of church and state.
I am baffled by liberal types who oppose the war, who also want Frank out because of theater, but are able to ignore how the slate would handle a resolution like this. They also want it both ways.
Comment by Mark — September 17, 2006 @ 11:29 am
All good works start at home. You can’t hold high-minded liberal ideas about national and international issues, and at the same time despise expressions of democracy in the one place where you actually have the power to uphold it. Fact is, I don’t care if the slate passes a symbolic resolution matching my sentiments, as long as they keep my community liveable, so I can send my kids from one end of town to the other on their bikes, instead of having to drive them because the place is becoming more traffic-ridden and impersonal, thus saving the environment and using less gas, thus reducing demand for oil, thus eliminating the need for war, and anti-war resolutions.
Comment by NIMBY — September 17, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
I commend Nimby for having the patience for the long view.
I don’t relish the Council going off every five minutes to place these types of resolutions on their aganda (”like Berkeley!”), but they generally don’t do that. I felt strongly that Marie’s motion should have passed and I was glad that Frank brought the resolution to Council because the situation has become acute and the federal government needs to be accountable by somebody.
There was at least one preeminent “liberal” who spoke in favor of the resolution who is an adamant (rabid) supporter of the slate but will not publicly recognize Frank for his bringing the resolution to council. I think that is hypocritical.
A fifty two year woman from Alameda was killed in Afghanistan last week. How many have to die to make it a relevant issue to discuss at City Council?
Comment by Mark — September 18, 2006 @ 9:24 am
A quick P.S. to Nimby’s statement about despising expressions of democracy in the one place we have the power to uphold them. So who is doing that? I suspect the slate would be as abusive as anybody on that count. There were a majority of us speaking in favor the night of the resolution, just like with the theater opposition, but there is no telling what a majority of Alamedans want on either account without some kind of scientific survey.
On the resolution, I was very impressed when Marie Gilmore stated that even though the negative emails she recieved equaled the speakers in chambers in favor, at critical points a Council person has to lead by voting to uphold their charge to protect the safety of the citizenry, even if it appears a majority objects to that vote.
Comment by Mark — September 19, 2006 @ 9:23 am