And the nominees are…
According to the Alameda Journal 13 residents have applied for the open Planning Board seat recently vacated by Gina Mariani, they are, in Alameda Journal — which means no particular — order:
-
Albert Verm
-
Horst Breuer
-
Jeffrey Mitchell
-
Brian Buckingham
-
Charles Wallis
-
John Knox White
-
Michael Henneberry
-
June Grant
-
Noel Wise
-
Ronald Silva
-
Cecilia Campbell-Notar
-
Gregg deHaan
-
NormaJean Washingtonpalmer.
From what I understand, some of the names were not ones solicited through this recent publication. Starting from June Grant and ending at NormaJean Washingtonpalmer (I feel like there should be a space between Washington and Palmer) those were folks that had submitted an application previously and since applications are valid for a year after submission, they are on the list.
So of course I did some googling of some of the folks, some of the names you will recognize, some of the names are not so familiar. For example Horst Breuer was previously on the Planning Board and, according to a proclamation, had to resign for personal reasons, also he once ran for City Council. Jeffrey Mitchell, who you all would know better as “Jeff Mitchell,” yes folks our former editor of the Alameda Journal is casting off the mantel as journalist and entering into the world of civic volunteerism. What was all that about Jeff not living in Alameda that used to float around? John Knox White you all know. Michael Henneberry filed an application to be on the Planning Board once before when Marie Gilmore left to fill her Council seat and also is (was?) the communications director for a local union. Noel Wise is a local relator. Greg deHaan used to be a Rec and Park Commissioner and is, of course, Doug deHaan’s son. NormaJean Washingtonpalmer ran for City Council once before.
I don’t know if anyone necessarily sticks out as a shoo-in for the position. It’s pretty difficult to guess which way the political winds will be blowing for this particular appointment. Had it been any other open seat, I think the appointment would be pretty simple. Select the best person for the job, but since Gina Mariani represented the most hard core support Measure A at all costs voice on the Planning Board, there might be some pressure on the Mayor to appoint someone with a similiar ideology to Gina M. Regardless of who gets appointed, I imagine that there will be a pretty long winded explanation leading up to why that person was selected and why the Mayor thinks that person will do a good job.
Interesting conundrum, if (big IF here) the Mayor selects Greg deHaan, would Doug deHaan have to recuse himself?
Lauren,
Horst ran for council two times and never drew a substantial number of votes. Mine were among those he didn’t get. I only spoke with him once in a group setting and don’t really know the man, but one night he said something at a PB meeting which caused me to abandon the TV and run to chambers to object in person. Can’t recall what it was.
I only know Gregg from some posts he made on this blog after Doug ran for mayor and lost. I may have crossed paths with him any number of places without knowing.
JKW and Jeff Mitchell are the others on the list I know, though I never met Jeff in the flesh. I happen to think John is imminently qualified, but if I were mayor I would not relish nominating either of these men because of the ragging from a long list of people, which might start with “our own” David Kirwin. I thought DK would have rung in by now with vociferous negative comments on both John and Jeff, but maybe he’s been at work.
Comment by Mark I — January 30, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Mark - I don’t have to make any negitive comments on JKW or Jeff Mitchell trying to be appointed to PB - like Loren said ‘everyone already knows them’.
Comment by david Kirwin — January 30, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Re: #1 I meant eminently not imminently.
DK, I know John as eminently qualified and you agree of course.
Comment by Mark I — January 30, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Well being that we are making nominations my pick is John Knox White. He would bring a transportation background to the board and he is always willing to listen to both sides of any issue and then make his decision.
You don’t get appointed to the planning board to promote your own agenda, your supposed to be there to try to help your neighbors and do what you believe is best for the greater good of the city. I believe that John already does this on the Transportation Com.
Comment by john piziali — January 30, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Gentleman though he is, JKW most assuredly has an agenda wrt to the base and other issues relavant to the PB.
Comment by dave — January 30, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
#5
Please explain the difference between an agenda and a political perspective.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 30, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
#3 Obviously you used too much LSD during the 60’s and 70’s, or for some other reason your sense of reality shows you need to remove your head from your arse, or you just have a sick sense of humor.
#6 ANT why don’t you state how YOU are using those terms?
Comment by David Kirwin — January 30, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
#8 GFYS
Comment by Mark I — January 30, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
screwing the numbers up kind of puts the joke on me. obviously meant #7 GFYS
Comment by Mark I — January 30, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
Hear, hear … well said Mark! Turdwin needs to get a life (other than hanging out with Don Roberts, that is)
Comment by Roberto — January 30, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
#7
An agenda is the political perspective of your opponent.
NayTiff has a political perspective - Kirwin has an agenda.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 31, 2008 @ 6:37 am
#7 - If you believe I have an agenda, please explain what it is.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — January 31, 2008 @ 7:51 am
JKW has a very clear agenda, from my perspective, it is to promote transit oriented planning - he has failed to keep it a secret. Having someone with some “street cred” (oh! did you see what I did there!)would strengthen the planning board immensely. I hope the Mayor in really looking out for the interests of the community will appoint him.
Comment by notadave — January 31, 2008 @ 9:19 am
DK #12
Please reread #11. I don’t know what more I can say.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 31, 2008 @ 10:06 am
#14 ANT - I believe you are partially correct - at least when you say you “don’t know.”
You don’t know don’t know if I have an agenda, you just want to state that I do, but you cannot state what it is… Well that doesn’t make any sense ANT, and neither does post #11.
Comment by David Kirwin — January 31, 2008 @ 11:22 am