Insert disclaimer here that I am just one blog out of a sea of blogs..yadda yadda yadda….
So, my endorsement (and therefore my vote) for City Council goes to:
drumroll please…
Frank Matarrese and Lena Tam.
Suprised? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
The funny thing is that if Eugenie Thomson wasn’t a slate mate, I would have actually voted for her instead of Frank Matarrese.
Yes, that’s right, I would have voted for the non-partisan, pro-Measure A person. Why? Because her work with Earhart Elementary shows that she is able to work with stakeholders on all sides of an issue. Plus, she likes to cruise around Alameda with her computer figuring out where all the congested parts are (according to her interview with Don Roberts). However, I cannot get over the fact that she has pretty much aligned herself with two candidates who made such blatant prejudicial remarks and no one has given me a good explanation as to why or even whether they apologized for such ignorant bigotry.
But more about Frank Matarrese, I think that he has done a decent job on the council. Plus he is clearly open to considering an exemption to Measure A on Alameda Point. It is important for all our elected leader, despite their strong feelings one way or the other to at least be open to something. It frightens me, when someone says that they are going to be “militant” on a particular issue. Plus, I feel that he is positive about the direction that Alameda is heading, and it is important to have people who have solutions to issues and are proactive than to have leaders constantly naysaying and yet providing no reality based alternatives. And, like Beverly Johnson, he has showed great fortitude in the face of vocal opposition, because as mentioned by a commenter in another entry, someone somewhere is going to hate what happens regarding growth and development in Alameda, but it takes a leader to try to listen to all sides and build a semblence of consensus around an issue.
As for Lena Tam, she is by far the most impressive candidate in either the city council or mayor’s race. I think she is smart and she certainly knows her issues. She has been involved in Alameda and Bay Area organizations and seems very connected to the community, which is important. She seems much more accessible than the other candidates and seems as though she is open and would be a responsive city councilperson. From her answers to the Green Party of Alameda, it sounds as though she has kept herself informed as to the important issues in Alameda, but has some real world solutions to these problems. Plus, she seems nice. Yes, I said it, nice. Sometimes a little niceness goes a long way. Suffice it to say, I like Lena and I think that she will be a stellar councilperson and really work for everyone and not just those that agree with her.
So there you have it. Lena Tam and Frank Matarrese.
Amen. Those are the 2 I’m voting for as well. Unfortunatly, they’re also the canidates I see the least media materials.
Comment by Willy — September 20, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
re: Eugenie and computer and determining congested parts of Alameda — I’m glad you brought that up — because (a) I missed that comment watching the DR show, and (b) because as an engineer I totally agree with her, that’s exactly the “engineer way” to solve a problem… characterize it first and then figure out how to control it next.
Otherwise, all this talk of added traffic density when we build out is just that… talk.
Still, it would’ve been nice to have some numbers… if she’s actually doing this legwork, it would have been really useful to all to get a baseline at the bottleneck commute areas (i.e. the bridges and the tubes) so that when we do build out at the Point and other places we have a good metric for what these additions are doing to us and how best to continue to roll out things.
(Maybe her traffic density numbers are part of the “October Slate Surprise”.)
So — other than my engineering geek-out, Lauren — I also previously mentioned the dreaded “prejudical remarks” as a comment in the previous article, specifically to keepmeasurea since (a) it certainly bothers me (if it’s true), and (b) I knew that he also has a mixed-family as I do, so I was trying to understand his continued support of the Slate.
His response… well, I’ll leave for other folks (including him) to interpret.
However, from where I’m standing –
what a person says they’ll do in politics is one thing (support or not support Measure A), but with alleged prejudicial comments like that, if true, really give an insight into the heart and character of a person.
It all depends on what you want and expect from your potential city leaders, I suppose.
But I also haven’t seen any refute or claims of misquoting of them either.
As I’ve said before, it’s a curious thing.
Comment by Dave S. — September 20, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Funny about the association with the slate being a kiss of death. More than few folks have said to me that they thought de Haan was O.K., but then asked, “But what’s with his throwing in with Pat Bail as part of that slate?”
About Doug’s use of the term “tar baby” : Massachusett’s Republican governor Mitt Romney recently made the same gaff. When Doug did it, he stumbled and tried to continue making whatever his point was, but the discomfort level was so high he gave up. Might have had something to do with one of his council mates being African American?
When I was little, my racist Victorian granny read me Uncle Remus, including the story of Brer’ Rabbit and the Tar baby. I always loved the story because the rabbit is the honky cracker and he gets his comeuppance by getting entangled with the “tar baby” because he thinks it’s a black person who won’t show proper respect by returning his greeting.
In that context, the story doesn’t offend me particularly, but I wouldn’t evoke it at a public meeting as an analogy. Poor Doug, I don’t think his reference was extremely racist nor was it malicious, but it was an insensative blunder. Certainly not of the order of Senator Allen and his “macaca” commnents. To me, an important thing about this incident is that it reveals a serious cluelessness which is not an ideal attribute for a mayor.
For all the negatives one could attribute to Mayor Johnson , such as her apparently ignoring all email, she is good at running meetings and I think she has been pretty classy in this respect. She has shown a great sense of humor at times in dealing with people not getting to their point, including council member de Haan.
Of course, hard core Stop Megaplex people still find it necessary to complain how Johnson and other council people have scowled at them and made them uncomfortable at the podium, as if public officials should be all smiles after listening to three hours of insults from public speakers.
Comment by Mark — September 20, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
We were planning on voting for Johnson, Frank Matarrese, but I wasn’t sure on any thing else but I did eliminate Thompson because her name is on the signs along with De Hahn and Bail.
Joe
Comment by Joe — September 20, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
I also saw the council meeting Mark describes, and I agree with his assessment: Councilmember deHaan’s “tar baby” remark seemed more like a lack of awareness than outright prejudice. As I recall it, Councilmember deHaan did apologize once he realized the inappropriateness of what he had said . . . something that was made painfully obvious by gasps and stares.
Being a public official requires a sense of awareness and sensitivity to issues of race, especially in a multicultural community. I think it’s fair to consider the incident when evaluating whether or not Councilmember deHaan is mayoral material.
As for Ms. Bail’s insensitive comment, I heard her say it on the Don Roberts Show. I believe this was back when representatives of Oakland’s Chinatown were talking about suing Alameda over traffic generated by development here, and Ms. Bail quipped that maybe the neighborhood wouldn’t have a traffic problem if certain people didn’t double park while they were buying their live turtles or whatever it is that they eat. I don’t know if those were her exact words, but they were pretty darned close. Unlike Councilmember deHaan’s gaffe, Ms. Bail’s remark stuck me as mean-spirited, if not downright malicious.
Unfortunately I do not remember the date of the show, nor do I have a tape or a transcript. Attempts to document these things are complicated by the fact that, unlike other community access channel users, Mr. Roberts does not allow Comcast to archive the tapes of his shows. If anyone has any old episodes lying around, please let us know what you find!
Comment by Michael Krueger — September 20, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
I had planned to support Mayor Johnson and Frank Matarrese due to my previous encouters with them, and the way that they handle themselves at council meetings.
When looking at Lena Tam, I had to go no further than her list of endorsements on her Web site before I made up my mind to support her.
I was wondering today what would happen in the event that deHaan does win the mayor’s race. Does the third highest vote-getter for council get his seat?
Comment by Steve — September 20, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Mark, you have got to be kidding about the Mayor! She can hardly wait for anyone who does not agree with her to stop speaking. Her attitude and tolerance depend on whether the person agrees with her or not. She has interrupted DeHann rudely so many times, I’m surprised he hasn’t reacted more strongly than he has. I suppose he’s the one with manners after all. She takes more time lecturing others than saying anything of substance. She can’t pronounce a damn name. Her style of argument can best be characterized as bullying. She would exaggarate, bluff and manipulate facts in the hope that you don’t know and somehow would believe her. To call her classy would not occur to me in my wildest of dreams. Did you mean to say “crass”? Oh, and could you explain what you mean by three hours of insults, or was this just a figure of speech of some sort?
Comment by NIMBY — September 20, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
Steve: I believe your are correct about the third highest voter getter for City Council would receive deHaan unexpired term. Here is the legalese from the City Charter:
Sec. 19-12. In case there is but one person to be elected to an office, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast for that office shall be declared elected.
In case there are two or more persons to be elected to the same office, then those candidates, equal in number to the number to be elected, who receive the highest number of votes cast for such office, shall be declared elected. Where full and one or more unexpired terms to the same office are to be filled, the candidates, equal in number to the number of officers to be elected for the full term, who receive the highest number of votes cast for such office, shall be declared elected for the full term; and the candidate who receives, or the candidates equal in number to the number of officers to be elected for unexpired terms who receive the next highest number of votes, shall be declared elected for the unexpired term or terms. If unexpired terms be of different duration, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes shall be declared elected for the longer term.
Comment by Mike McMahon — September 20, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
My vote goes to whomever isn’t in bed with my buddy Don Roberts. I guess that excludes you Pat Bail.
Comment by Ben Kruger — September 21, 2006 @ 5:56 am
I supported Doug in the last election, but this time around I am activiely supporting his opponent, as well as the other non slate candidates. Anyone who associates themselves with Pat Bail shows they have no interest in representing ALL of Alameda. The politics of hate is alive with the Slate. The culturally inapropriate comments were just the nail in the coffin. Like others, at the time DeHaan made his comments, I don’t think he was intentionally racist, just clueless, but when someone is that clueless, then deep inside there has to be racism. As to Bail’s comments, not only did she not apologize, since she said this on the Don Roberts show, she got a nice chuckle from Don in response.
Comment by Jason — September 21, 2006 @ 8:10 am
Nimby,
I guess we’ve been watching or attending different meetings. The last one I attended had a CIC meeting with one aganda item which went until ten o’clock before the regular meeting started.
At one point Doug started to make a motion after discussion but veered off into comments and it seemed he might never get back to the motion, so themayor had to redirect him. I didn’t think she was rude. At other times she has gotten the entire room laughing while trying to keep things moving.
Comment by Mark — September 21, 2006 @ 9:12 am
I will not soon forget this exchange w/ Mayor Johnson: it was during a council meeting on Central Cinema. The Cinema was protested by a few, overwhelmingly supported by the other 99%. The Maqyor snidely (very snidely) quipped that she would never want a cinema in her neighborhood — THIS WHILE AGGRESSIVELY PUSHING FOR A HUGE MULTIPLEX IN OTHERS’ NEIGHBORHOODS!!!
The brazen hypocrisy combined with reckless use of public funds on the multiplex left my jaw on the floor.
Who in the wrold would re-elect such an incompetent politician?
Comment by dave — September 21, 2006 @ 10:30 am
I too have witnessed the Mayor interrupting Mr. deHann on occasion, but it has been when he has tried to start a discussion pertaining to a non-agenda item.
While his heart may be in the right place wanting to discuss a problem posed by a non-agenda speaker, the council is precluded from discussion of such items without proper notice by the Brown Act.
I don’t consider such an interruption by the Mayor to be “rude”.
Comment by Steve — September 21, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
So that no one feels they must wait for candidate Thomson’s personal traffic audit, the city currently has traffic counts on their website for all the major roads on the main island. They can be found at:
http://ci.alameda.ca.us/tmp/pdf/03-04_ADT.pdf
Congestion information at intersections (called Level of Service (LOS)) can be found throughout the myriad EIRs and plans that the city has released over the last year, including Alameda Towne Centre and Alameda Landing.
The idea that city staff doesn’t monitor this info is pretty naive for a traffic engineer who’s going to fix all of Alameda’s traffic problems.
The city already has policy on the books for the tubes where congestion is monitored and reported annually. Developments that will increase congestion through the tubes are required to put in place mitigations that will reduce it. The Traffic Capacity Management Plan (TCMP).
But it’s par for the course for the Slate. Their big ideas are all already underway, directed by leadership from the current city council. From electric shuttles, to a city-wide transportation plan, to using existing infrastructure to mitigate traffic, to creating a citizen-lead ,transportation commission, to measuring traffic volume, etc. etc. etc….sigh.
Comment by John Knox White — September 25, 2006 @ 9:36 am