A climate for change

Fairly recently our own Climate Protection Task Force had recommended adoption of a shiny new report called the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection, it is chock full of action items for the city to take in order to help protection our environment.   This item will not be before the City Council until early February so if you feel strongly aboout the issue of climate change, this one’s for you.  As you will notice, solving the greenhouse gas emissions by telling our garbage companies to stop using three separate trucks to collect recycling, garbage, and compostables was not one of the items, but I digress.

Some of the action items are sort of a nice sentiment, but I feel it will be difficult to actually get folks to conform to.   One that I am particularly thinking about is Initiative number 5 (p. 24) which is to “encourage” Alameda employers to offer flex hours, compressed hours, and better telecommunting options.  I suppose that some companies could offer it, I think it’s more of a feel good initiative than one that will actually substantially reduce the number of car trips taken by employees of these Alameda companies.  

The discussion about the bus goes round and round

After almost a year, the Otis bus stop issue has finally made its very circular way back to the City Council.   If you will remember City staff was proposing to place a bus stop in front of Lum Elementary in order to better serve the neighborhood.   Of course, as with any issue in Alameda nothing is ever as simple as, “bus stop?  sounds like a plan!”  Ensuing outcry, bus stop pulled, alternatives examine, ensuring outcry over alternatives, a decision was made, an appeal was made to the City Council, City Council shunted it back to the Transportation Commission and so the process began again.   And here we are, right in the place where we started, which is to place the bus stops on Otis at Sandcreek and Otis at Willow.   There’s some other stuff about rerouting the bus line or cutting some levels of service (such as to Encinal High during school hours), but no one really cares about that, right?

The motion made by Councilmember Matarrese to approve the first six recommendations minus the recommendation number four made by staff, but of course this is contingent on finding funding for the improvement on Shoreline, as well as figuring out the route time.  So basically everything will stay the same until the money is found to do something different.   Let’s see who ends up getting the short end of the stick in Alameda’s own version of Sim City Rush Hour.   Will it be the riders who might possibly see one whole bus removed from the line in order to make up time and therefore left with less frequency, so that if they miss one bus then they will be waiting and additionally long time for the next one?  Or will it be the riders who will see a reduction in the reliability of the timing of the bus because the schedule is so tight, so that they maybe waiting longer for the bus because they aren’t sure if it will be on time or not.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Movies killed the video star

According to the Alameda Journal, the owner of Video Maniacs on Park Street (and on Bay Farm) has filed a lawsuit against the City of Alameda, citing that he was damaged by being forced to move from his old site on Central Avenue when the City purchased the property to make way for construction of the Theater/Cineplex/Garage.   From the Alameda Journal:

…His move, to 1511 Park St., resulted in a “drastic loss of business,” according to the suit, which was filed Nov. 9. As a result, the store is closing today, due in part to much higher rent costs, according to employees.

“We had higher costs and weren’t getting as many customers,” said store manager Brian Tetirick. “We tried to hang on as much as we could and eventually we couldn’t.”

…

Located in the same Park Street building as Video Maniacs was the poster shop Reprint Mint, which also is closing. Reprint Mint also has a store at 2484 Telegraph Ave., in Berkeley.

…

But I play one on TV

As though there wasn’t enough excitement going on between the upcoming primary election, charter schools, and such, we now have the Measure A Forum coming to a large space venue near you!

The event is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, February 2, 2008, mark your calendars and don’t forget your cache of antacids, it should be a doozy of a forum.   While my expectation is for everything to run pretty smoothly and for all the panelists and audience to be relatively civil to one another, the small evil part of me wants it to implode for the sheer entertainment factor alone.   After all, if I am going to devote an entire Saturday (9 am - 4 pm) to the event, the least I should get is some drama to keep me engaged.

This item is, once again, up on the Planning Board agenda.  Staff is recommending that the small group portion get axed in order to make more time for the panelists.  This should make Barbara Kerr really very happy, since she was against the idea of the small group exercises from the start.   But at this point, after seeing the people who were asked to join the panels, I say, the more time given to the panels the better.    

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.  

Open Forum

Of course, the most interesting part of any meeting are the public comments.   Often the comments can be a mixed bag, some people are very clear in what they want the body they are standing before to do, others tend to waffle a little bit leaving any observer to wonder what they were trying to say.   Personally, I like it when young people participate in the public process, it is always fascinating to see what they will say and how they will say it.   At the school board meeting, it was no different, by far the most compelling statements, for me, were those made by those who would be most directly impacted by the granting of the charter.   Surprisingly there was only one student from ACLC that spoke in favor of the charter petition, I would have figured that they would have been out en masse to say how great their program was and how we should all support “choice.”

Right now, I’m relying on my — often times faulty - memory to recount some of the more eyebrow raising, or inspirational public speakers from Tuesday night’s School Board meeting.   In no particular order but the ones that arise to mind quickly:

Chili Reception

Okay, taking a little bit of a break from the Charter School stuff other than to report that this was the decision made at last night’s meeting, denial of the Charter School by a 5-0 vote.

Even I am getting a little fatigued of all the Charter School talk and generally when I get obsessive about something I can talk about it forever.  It’s been on my mind so much I even had a dream about it one night.   Probably the best sign that I need a much needed mini vacation from Charter School talk, but first, I have to say that this is what I would have said had I gone to the meeting last night, if I had ended up speaking near to the end:

Good evening.  Tonight, a lot of supporters of the charter school have asked you to be couragous and take a leadership role and vote for the charter school.   However, I believe that it will take courage to vote against the charter school application.   It would be easy for you to all take the attitude that the charter school, with its endless abilities to appeal to higher and higher bodies and the power of Prop 39 behind it to say, “It’s inevitable, so let’s just make sure we have a measure of control.”

Other supporters of the charter school have told you that the “system is broken” and that they need other options, they need “choice” for their children.   When I look to the student representatives from Encinal and Alameda High that sit before you and the handful of Alameda and Encinal students that have spoken so eloquently on this subject, it is evident to me that it is not the system that is broken, but what is broken is some parents’ expectations of what the role of public schools should be.   But if these parents truly think that the system is broken, instead of jumping ship and trying to find an alternative, they should take the passion that they have for their children’s education and participate actively in the children’s education and in their children’s classrooms.

This charter school application had its bite of the apple so to speak to present their best foot forward and they failed.   They now want the school district to work with them to craft a proposal that would work, but it is not the responsibility or the role of the school district to do the job that the charter school applicants.   And to expect it speaks to the nature of the sense of entitlement that pervades at ACLC.  

Please be couragous and deny this charter school application.

Regrouping

I had a different post in mind for today, it was part two of Charter School 101, but instead I wanted to post one of the comments made on Mike McMahon’s website.  The comments section has since been moved to another page because of the high volume of comments from community members regarding this issue.   There is one letter that particularly stood out (and was emailed not once, but twice to me).   I am trying to get permission from the letter writer to credit it to him, but for now, it will be “anonymous” until I can get an okay. The letter was written by Encinal teacher, Brian Rodriguez, who was quoted in a 2005 article in the Washington Post about How to Build a Better High School, which was part of a larger Challenge Index which measures the best high schools in the US based on the number of advanced classes (AP and International Baccalaureate) offered and taken by students:

…some large studies, such as an analysis by the National Center for Educational Accountability of Texas state-college data, suggest that even students who do poorly on AP tests have significantly higher college-graduation rates than those who do not take AP tests at all. In public schools where average parental income is low and minority students are numerous, enthusiasm for AP and IB has never been greater. “Only 17 percent of our parents have attended college,” says Brian Rodriguez, the AP coordinator at Encinal High School in Alameda, Calif., “but AP has had a tremendous impact here, as we regularly send kids to Stanford, Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Berkeley and UCLA who never would have had a chance to go there even six years ago.”…

But before that, I’m sure the Charter School followers have all seen by now either the email from Paul Bentz of ACLC or at the very least the article from the Alameda Journal about ACLC/NCLC seeking to delay the vote on the charter school application.   Perhaps the School Board can address that item first before all the community members schlep out to the meeting, sit through hours and hours of comments only to be told that, whoops, they decided to allow for the postponement.   Regardless of how the Board votes though, it looks like ACLC/NCLC already has plan B well into effect:

Officials with Alameda Learning Center Schools say they likely will appeal to the county and then the state department of education if their application for a new charter school in Alameda is turned down by the Alameda Unified School District.

…

“We wrote the charter so it could be presented at the district,” said Maafi Gueye, the lead facilitator with the Nea Learning Center. “If it’s rejected by the district, we would go to the county and put it in front of (Alameda County School District Superintendent) Shiela Jordan.”…

Charter School 101, part one

Last week, the Alameda Unified School District staff released their report on the ACLC/NCLC charter application, their recommendation?  To deny the petition.   Thanks to Mike McMahon for keeping everyone updated on his excellent Charter Overview page.     So now, it is in the hands of the School Board on Tuesday night to make a decision as to whether to grant or deny the petition. 

Later I will discuss elements of the reasons for denial, but first I wanted to address the commentary written by Jeffrey R. Smith, a math teacher at Encinal High School, who has in the past written many columns — I believe for the Alameda Sun.   I have to say that the past columns I’ve read, I’ve rarely agreed with, but since his column was brought up by just plain dave as:

…full of offensive notions like accountability, efficiency & achievement.

It’s worth examining.   First, the commentary echos the oft repeated mantra of choice and best practices, touting ACLC as having the solutions, but yet acknowledging that students not meeting the profile of an ACLC learner should be shunted off to the public school from whence they came:

Thorough Fore

See what happens when you try to watch “Deal or No Deal” and the City Council meeting at the same time, you lose crucial parts of the discussion and particularly what was decided and why it was decided that way.   Alameda Daily News “reported” yesterday in a breaking update at 12:33 p.m. that:

Convoluted “Decision” by Council on Private Lease for Golf Course

At last night’s meeting, the Alameda City Council considered the National Golf Foundation’s Operational Review of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The Council was also supposed to make a decision on a recommendation to authorize City staff to begin the process to secure a long-term operator for the golf complex. While the Council did make a decision to have “requests for proposals” prepared for private companies to make offers, it was wrapped with so many strings attached that, in essence, no real decision was made. The problem for a private company proposing a lease is that the Council waffled on whether they want the lease to include the entire complex or just a part or parts of it. Such decisions, which should have been made last night, will have to be brought back to the Council at a future date, with no assurance that the basic issue of leasing the entire golf complex will ever be made.