Ferry. City Council. Here’s the summary:
A few of the City Council members took issue with the fact that the largest ferry operator: Golden Gate, was not included in this “emergency” water transit system. Jack R. should be pleased with the comment made by Councilmember Gilmore who also quipped that perhaps the Golden Gate Ferry System had better lobbyists than Alameda and perhaps we should solicit their names from the GG Ferry System. Councilmember Tam questioned the seemingly rushed nature of this legislation, and why there was not more input requested to craft the legislation. So while the City Council was not pleased with being faced with this situation, they did — as required — pass the motion to accept the staff report.
What was also mentioned from Lisa Goldman, the deputy City Manager, was that more likely than not the Governor would be inclined to not fight this bill in order to push other interests to the forefront. A little political backscratching. She mentioned that the regional ferry system has been pushed for very vigorously by Bay Area business interests who fear that in conjuction with the “Big One” that the Bay Area economy will collapse if nothing is left but the ferry system to shuttle people to and from their jobs.
While Vallejo is probably holding out hopes that the bill will turn out to not be legally enforcable it sounds like it is pretty much a done deal and the only thing left for our communities is to push hard to make sure we retain a seat at the proverbial table and get out concerns added into the clean-up language for the bill.
With the amendment of the Muncipal Code, it was also voted on unaimously to make the changes necessary in order to bring the Transportation Commission’s role and responsibilities in line with the other Boards and Commissions. While Councilmember deHaan tried to go the “I have a concern about the technical knowledge” route and we have Alameda Daily News this morning going with the “appeals will go to non-elected members of the TC rather than elected members of the City Council” how would that be any different than the Planning Board? While there are a lot of members of the Planning Board with Planning backgrounds, they are not all experts in the field, similarly they are not elected either. In fact, Councilmember deHaan should be most familiar with the background of the members of the Transportation Commission, if he had concerns about the lack of technical knowledge then he should have rejected their nomination to the Commission rather than questioning it after the fact. And now, the Transportation Commission has been brought into line with the other boards and commissions, as mentioned by Mayor Johnson as well.
I thought the asleep at the wheel comments about our C.C. to be a little premature, but I caught a good chunk of this item on the tube last night, and even though some appropriate questions were asked and the Council seemed to have the proper concern, I was disappointed that none of them had been on the phone to Vallejo themselves or had a story to tell about querying Perata’s office and maybe giving him a hard time.
To me this has a correlation to the widening of 880 and the commencement of work by Union Pacific near the Fruitvale bridge without any permits.
Is it not accurate that in both cases Alameda home boy Don Perata has not been covering our backs and has maybe even stabbed us there, metaphorically?
This is slightly reminicent of the California electrical debacle where people were so stunned that little action was taken. There should have been a grassroots campaign to demand Davis declare eminent domain on the power production facilities in the state. That may not have succeeded but it would have made serious waves and maybe acted to quell the shark feed of profiteers.
If this ferry plan is a so called done deal, that is pretty horrible. How much noise can Alamedans and Vallejo residents make before this is signed or becomes law? How to mobilize? Do I hear a call of a press conference of local politicians to publicly complain to the media?
Comment by Mark I — October 3, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Yes, Mark… this really reeks. It’s really unbelievable.
Comment by Jack B — October 3, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Forget the analogies. The legislation sounds like an Arnold signing slam dunk. The task at hand is for Alameda to wrap up at least two of the five WETA board members. Surely some of you powerful democrats can call in some chips and get your boy Perata to select a crony from his hometown.
Arnold could probably care less who’s on the board so it’s time for this city to yelp, now.
*The WETA Board shall consist of five members: three appointed by the
Governor, one appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and one appointed
by the Speaker of the Assembly.*
Comment by Jack Richard — October 3, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
I know Perata’s not speaker of the Assembly but he could exert trade off pressure with Nunez.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 3, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Does anybody understand the point that Bruce (guy who works on ferry) was attempting to make?
Comment by Jack B — October 3, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Arnold doesn’t have to sign this thing. It will become law anyway, if he does nothing for long enough.
What makes anybody think we will get two of five seats? Or that Perata will push for that? That is unless there is a grassroots insurrection. Soon.
As was stated last night, this may not be all bad for us, but there is far too much uncertainty and the way it was drafted sucks.
Lauren, I missed the I.D. of second public speaker who recommended the Council not vote to approve to accept the report by way of continuing the item. I got distracted at this point but this speaker seemed to know more than Matt Neclario and he was more forceful.
Comment by Mark I — October 3, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I’m not sure I agree that the Guv doesn’t care. He specifically called call for its creation in his state of the state speech in January
Jan. 11 – KGO – Governor Schwarzenegger called for developing an emergency water transit system in the Bay Area during his State of the State address.
I would have personally preferred the council voice “official” concern with the handling of this matter. I think that there a lot of political calculus going on. The bill passed the assembly with 80% of the vote (enough to override a veto even if one were to happen). Nobody but Vallejo and Alameda give a fig, most of the state legislators will be more interested in currying favor with the party bigwigs, and the Guv is looking for places to create “Bi-partisan moments” in order to gather chits he can call in for future projects he really cares about.
At the end of the day, I think what we heard last night was that this is a done deal and it’s better for Alameda to work to fix the problems in the upcoming clean-up language than fight a losing political battle with someone who’s help we’ll need on future projects.
Jack, I think the “ferry guy” was trying to claim that Alameda has a big stake in the “emergency” aspect of this project because of his perceived terrorist threats to the Port and Airport. I couldn’t get a real handle on it.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — October 3, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Worst case scenario. WETA becomes law, Alameda is locked out of the five person Board and has no say during an emergency. The big one hits, bridges fall and tubes flood, WETA takes over all water transportation and Alameda is left with no transportation in or out because WETA has higher transportation priorities ferrying commuters to and fro from Oakland to SF…so Alameda is left with nothing…except, this is a water community. Why can’t Alameda organize a volunteer community based emergency boat transport system? Doesn’t have to be complicated. TC could frame an emergency plan. Count the boats available and wherever the citizens required destinations are and schedule accordingly.
Probably this scenario would never need to be enacted but better to have something then relying on others and get nothing.
Why should Alameda depend on the Feds, State or Bay Area to come to our aid? There must be a thousand floating devices docked around Alameda just waiting for an excuse to sail.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 3, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Geez, the BA had ferry systems before Alameda started ours. (Why did we have to start our own?)
Maybe Alameda should take the proceeds from the sale of our ferry system to WETA and buy a more economical, faster used boat (converted to biodiesel of course) then we can have our own system to control. (For those who miss groundhog day) Obviously we didn’t like what was going on before we stated our city’s own service. To prevent taking the ridership away from WETA, they can provide Alameda seats on the board.
What’s next? Can the Federal Highway System take control of our state highways and then charge us a fee to use them?
Who feels good about our representation now?
Comment by David Kirwin — October 3, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Er, Kirwin … you ought to know this!
Why did we have to start our own?
http://www.portofoakland.com/newsroom/pressrel/view.asp?id=68
After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the Port of Oakland and the City of Alameda created a ferry service for Oakland, Alameda, and San Francisco. Under the agreement, the city of Alameda manages the AOFS, including scheduling services to-and-from Jack London Square, contracting with a ferry operator, maintaining the vessels in good and safe working condition, managing necessary dry docking maintenance, and marketing the ferry service. In return, the Port contributes an annual sum to the city of Alameda.
Who feels good about our representation now?
Not sure I understand. Are you implying that the “Slate” would have somehow prevented this piece of legislation from happening?
Comment by alameda — October 3, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
In a quake I’d swim the estuary with possessions in a garbage bag held in my teeth.
It’s the injured who will need transport, it’s just hard to think where they will be able to go. Our own hospital may be as good a place as any others locally. All the effected areas will needs lots of National Guard helicopters.
Of course JKW is correct about the pragmatic reality and working with the powers that be. I’m a hot head and feel really resentful about pandering deal makers. No point in being too idealistic I guess.
Comment by Mark I — October 4, 2007 @ 8:04 am
[...] I sat in the back of the Council Chambers on Tuesday night, confident that what actually transpired on the issues of the ferries (voted to hold a meeting, accept the staff recommendations and work on the problem in the clean up [...]
Pingback by Don’t Pay the Ferryman « Stop, Drop and Roll — October 4, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Council representation for citizens – ha. Council representation (rubber stamping) of City staff recommendations – yeah.
Comment by Mike P. — October 4, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Whose that man behind the curtain?
Perata ally at helm of East Bay ferry systems takeover
“State Sen. Tom Torlakson authored it, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata muscled it through the Legislature at the last minute and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it with a flourish – but the real force behind the state takeover of the East Bay ferry systems was Alameda developer and longtime Perata friend Ron Cowan.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/21/BAIHST5B5.DTL
Any question as to why BJ fell in line so fast?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 21, 2007 @ 9:49 am
LA Times story on the deal to take over the ferries
Donor-backed bills challenge governor
Both were written at the last minute, both could hike taxes and both fly in the face of Schwarzenegger’s campaign promises.
By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 12, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/288uje
“The bills could raise taxes on consumers to fund subsidies available to oil companies and would lay the groundwork for a controversial expansion of ferry service in the Bay Area.”
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 21, 2007 @ 10:17 am