Up for grabs
It is official, Gina Mariani is stepping down from the Planning Board. I had heard rumblings previously, but it has now been made reality with the release of the ubiquitous press release. So what does that mean, City Hall watchers? Well, Don Roberts is already prophesizing doom for the “Measure A” voice on the Planning Board with this statement:
…Based on the current makeup of the Planning Board, all of whom were nominated by Mayor Beverly Johnson, the chances for appointment of a Measure A supporter appear to be highly unlikely.
And Pat Bail is putting out feelers to see if anyone would bite on the issue of supporting her appointment to the seat:
…Pat Bail to Replace Gina Mariani on Planning Board?
Don:
Sorry to read that Gina Mariani resigned from the Planning Board. What do you think of my chances to be appointed if I applied? Might make the meetings more interesting.
Pat Bail
While both remarks by Don R. and Pat B. are seemingly meant to convey resignation about the fact that the Planning Board will be Measure A supporter free, I read this to be the start of a campaign to dare the mayor to try and attempt to do anything but appoint a very visible Measure A supporter. Sort of a bit of reverse psychology or some other such nonsense.
While I will refrain from using the term “litmus test” and Measure A, I would hope that the Mayor will appoint the person best qualified for the seat rather than look to fill a particular demographic. If I were the Mayor I would look for someone that has shown him/herself to be willing to take on the enormous task of volunteering, but also willing to put the time and effort into understanding the issues. It’s one thing to be open to volunteering, its another to take the time before and after the meeting itself to do any due diligence and research necessary. The person may not need to have any experience in Planning and Land Use issues, as I don’t believe that Gina M. did, however it’s probably preferable. When one watches the Planning Board meetings it is quickly evident that there is huge need, for whoever the person is, to be able to understand complex issues and be open to compromise and consensus. The Planning Board is tasked with a particular duty and its not the place to dig in one’s heels to further pet causes or make a point.
It will be interesting to see who fills out an application to secure a spot on the Planning Board and it will be interesting to see who is selected by the Mayor to fill the seat and her explanation for doing so. This process is entirely at the discretion of the Mayor, but I imagine that the other Council people will have pretty strong opinions on who should be appointed. This is definitely an issue that will make for good Alameda political drama in the coming weeks.
If you are interested, applications are due to the City Clerk’s office by Friday, January 25th.
Planning board needs to be an elected position. A body with such power should not be an extension of the Mayor’s rolodex.
Comment by dave — January 11, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Thanks for expanding the “recent comments” sidebar, iLauren, in return I declare you winner of the festivus mother pinning contest.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 11, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Oh, and thanks also for letting us know you’d, “refrain from using the term ‘litmus test’ and Measure A, (presumably in the same sentence). If my memory serves, I recently read a study that suggested city planning boards are nothing more than a waste of time and money.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 11, 2008 @ 8:44 am
In addition to general “smarts”, subject matter knowledge, an open mind when it comes to the analysis of data and staff reports presented to the Planning Board, another important criteria for the character of any appointee should be “Plays well with others.”
I would hope that the City Council would consider candidates for any Board or Commission with these principles in mind:
Open Mindedness
Intelligence/Critical Thinking Skills
Subject Matter Knowledge
Ability to be Flexible
Respect for Others
Fairness
Comment by Kate Quick — January 11, 2008 @ 9:50 am
The planning board does have power to sway the council by giving initial approval on projects and that power can be substantial, but the ELECTED council should be where the buck stops.
The Council posts should be paid so we could insure that we get the best people and that they can afford to serve. Considering we have a volunteer council I feel fortunate at the quality of folks we have gotten recently, whether people like their values and voting records or not. To me, electing the PB might makes sense if it was a paid position as well. But elections cost money for the city and the candidates and there are big down sides to that. I just read a Mark Hanna quote, “There are two things which count in politics. The first is money and I don’t recall what the second one.”
I’m not aware how Ms. Mariani described her qualifications when applying or what they may be. People who are critical of the mayor and some of the PB decisions have singled out Patrick Lynch as somebody they don’t trust, but he is a professional in the field. Ann Cook has great qualifications whether people like Pat Bail complain about her or not. Pat did recognize her no vote on the Safeway gas station, even if it was in the context of a nasty rejoinder like, “at least she got that right”.
Not to knock the others, but a person like Ann Cook would be unimpeachable in my mind, but to do this volunteer job well takes a great effort. The pool of really well qualified applicants may not be huge.
Jack, how about confirmation hearings for PB? What fun.
Comment by Mark I — January 11, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Mark I, -How about having a random selection. Ever citizen of Alameda 18 or over’s name be placed in a big tub with a least tern. The first name the tern …um, dirties’ , is the new pb member.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 11, 2008 @ 10:39 am
I would hope that the person filling the seat will be someone whom isn’t hell-bent on merely protecting homeowner’s property values. Time for someone who will listen to the interests of not only homeowners, but to the nearly half of us who rent and might want to call Alameda home someday. Permanently.
Comment by edvard — January 11, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Gina Mariani is an attorney; She was nominated by Mayor Johnson in October of 2003.
Comment by Susan — January 11, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Elected, perhaps.
But his person should most DEFINITELY have actual PLANNING experience. This should be a requirement,not just “favorable”.
As Dave said, this person does have a lot of power. Appointing someone who lacks substantial expertise is provincial beyond belief.
Comment by MarkD — January 11, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
This*, oops
Comment by MarkD — January 11, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
How about this man? He sounds like a real Alamedan with a strong grip on reality.
“And as for those idiots over in Harbor Bay, I tell the airport to turn on the after-burners full-blast, and shake each and every home until the entire fill is liquidated. Amelia Earhart flew out of the airport, and those stupid people when they bought those homes did so knowing that the airport had been there for decades. I have no sympathy for them.”
http://tinylink.com/?kuSjJQ6PkK
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 11, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
I think that the election of planning board members would make that board so political that it would not be able to function. A body of that power is appointed by the Mayor, and approved by the council. If the council does not back the mayor on his or her appointments, then that person will not be appointed. These appointments are actually made by the full council. As there is always a second and a voice vote on each appointment.
As the Planning Board is directly answerable to the council I think the system works just fine.
Now for my 2-cents worth I hope the Mayor and council appoint someone like John-Knox White, or Micheal Kreuger as they “play well with others”. Kate Quick has the right qualification list in post#4.
Just my simple opinion John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
OOOH BUY THE WAY,I don’t like to make trouble, but I served as an Italian-Alamedan on the planning board and Gina served as an Italian-Alamedan on the board planning board and I feel that this new seat should also go to an Italian-Alamedan, its our seat after all. again John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 11, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
#13
If you like Italian food is that good enough?
I do not know of a single city in the Bay Area that elects its planning board/commission. Usually the mayor nominates and the council approves. There is no shortage of local elected officials and the planning board should answer to the council.
BTW, can anyone name each and every local elected offical for which we vote? (Don’t forget AC Transit, EBMUD and Board of Equalization.)
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 11, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Post # 14 Yea thats good enough,unless your initials are P.B. I will have more to say on Sun. later John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 11, 2008 @ 5:48 pm