Scary, scarier, scariest

So, I had already had something in mind that I was going to write about this morning.   I even had the requisite funny title and everything to discuss something that could be considered pretty boring.   Instead I decide to check out what’s going on at Alameda Daily News this morning.   Usually I wait to do that after I have decided upon what to write, but I just had this feeling, you know? 

Lo and behold, this gem pops up:

Editor of Alameda Journal Refuses to Intervene in Complaint About Alameda Journal Blog

Don,

The following is an example of how the Alameda Journal media demonstrated its journalistic integrity. Measure H is mentioned but only incidentally. This example demonstrates how some of the local media perpetuate and exaggerate disinformation. I am sending this example to you in order that your readers benefit from knowing about this incident.

On April 4, the Editor of a web site called “theislandofalameda.blogspot” published an opinion article by me and an opposing opinion by another person regarding Measure H. On April 21, a web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal published an opinion by Eva [sic] Pearlman that stated “Tom Pavletic can blame Alameda’s school funding troubles on a bloated administration…” The article to which Ms. Pearlman referred was the April 4 article published on the “theislandofalameda.blogspot.” My article on “theislandofalameda.blogspot” did not contain the words “bloated” or “administration” and did not suggest the School District had a bloated administration.

Ms. Pearlman reports to Connie Rux, Editor of the Alameda Journal. On April 29, I sent an email to Ms. Rux requesting that “…the offending text written by the [Ms. Pearlman] be immediately removed from [the web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal] and that a correction be published on the website.” On April 29, Ms. Rux responded that “…blog sites are places where opinions, discussions and views are exchanged. If you want to question the piece, respond to Eve’s blog site, as do others when they disagree (or agree) with her comments. It’s an open forum for discussion.”

I do not believe blog sites should be a place where lies are exchanged. I do not plan to respond to Ms. Pearlman on the web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal. I chose to publish an opinion article on “theislandofalameda.blogspot” because the Editor of that site invited me to publish an opinion, and after talking with the Editor, I had a strong sense that she would be fair. In other words, I trusted her journalistic integrity.

Moral of the Story I: To paraphrase Thomas Paine, it is the madness of folly, to expect honesty from those who have refused to be truthful.

Moral of the Story II: Never give up.

Tom Pavletic

[gratuitous pointing out of name misspelling added to point out that Don Roberts who usually points it out did not.]

I haven’t really touched on the many many many letters that have been produced by Tom Pavletic only because, well,  I figured that other people would probably be more offended by the stuff that he writes than I was.  

Boil this all down to “Waahhhh someone paraphrased my underlying opinion from my hundreds of letters about Measure H, FOUL!!”

It’s better in the matinee

I’m not on the mailing list for Central Cinema patrons, but I did catch the initial e-mail from Mark Haskett on Alameda Daily News and then the follow up article in the Alameda Journal last week, evidently we’ve come a long way from this to this.    Evidently, things were still pretty positive for Central Cinema only a month ago, but now we are hearing a completely different tune as the opening of the Alameda Theatre grows closer.    Here is the complete text of the email, since it’s no longer on ADN and the Journal article didn’t reproduce the entire text:

“Sadly, the future of Central Cinema is uncertain. We are now unable to book movies for the summer because the City of Alameda is opening its new movie theater in May and is monopolizing all of the movies (meaning the movie studios won’t let us have any movie that the City’s theater says it wants). I am deeply troubled that the Alameda City Council spent our tax dollars ($35 million?) to build a movie theater. Aren’t there better uses for our tax money?

Central Cinema has had a positive impact on the community and has been a special experience to many families. I’ve seen it first hand in the faces of our customers. I am proud of what we have accomplished and no bureaucrat can ever take that away. We might be able to solve this problem if we could move to a location that is further away from the downtown theater, so if you are familiar with a new space that would embrace our little theater, let me know.”

Point alternatives

As you have probably read on Stop, Drop and Roll, WRT Soloman, the consultant tasked to study transit-oriented development options for Alameda, has produced their report on their current findings.   Of course the report loudly proclaims that it is a “DRAFT” just in case you didn’t catch the little stamp in red on practically every single page in that font that looks like it belongs on a cargo container. 

Basically the report boils down to three distinct plans, which you can read SDR’s summary here, but I will also repost because summarizing it for you helps me crystallize it in my own head.   For those of you who don’t care to read the report itself, feel free to skip all the narrative in the report and head straight to the pictures and graphs that start on page 32 of the reader.

The Restoration, without the hosiery

As much criticism and complaints that get thrown at our public officials, it’s always important to remember that they are volunteers.   Yes, they may get tiny little stipends for their service, but it’s not nearly enough to cover the expense of their time.   And certianly it’s not as if they are doing it for the fame and glory, after all, how many Alamedans could accurately name and/or pick out from a line up all five members of our City Council let alone all five members of our School Board?   Which I suppose was the reason why the League of Women Voters held a “Meet your Public Officials” event last night at the Harbor Bay Community Club.   Which I learned very late yesterday was not just to meet the City Council and School Board, but all the other folks that sit on boards and commissions.  I would have gone except for the fact that it was all the way out on Bay Farm Island which takes me 15 minutes to get there which would have meant a 30 minute round trip. 

Hopefully next year’s event will occur somewhere mid-Island so that it is equidistance for all residences.   Anyway, for those that did go, how was it? 

Birds flyin’ high you know how I feel

Little things tend to make me happy.   Like finding loose change in my pockets — yes after the have been through both the washer and dryer cycle — sometimes I’m absentminded like that.   Or at the very point when the ice cream maker starts thickening the ice cream base to actually looking like ice cream.

My most recent little thing has come courtsey of AP&T.   And not the electric side either.   The poor beleaguered telecom side.    Even with all the current issues and problems they made good on the promise made by one of their installation fellows that we would be getting TNT in High Definition within a few months.  And not a minute too late because it came just in time for the NBA Playoffs, which makes the husband REALLY happy.   I just like it because if I’m forced to watch an inordinate amount of basketball, more than one human really should, at least I can appreciate the shiny bald pate of Charles Barkley in HD glory during the half-time show.

Thieves in the education temple

At last night’s meeting, as reported by Rob S. the County Board of Education did, in fact, vote to deny the appeal for the NCLC/ACLC/Nea Charter School.    The vote came out differently than I had imagined it would, personally I thought the spread would have been a little closer, but instead there was a resounding 6-0 “no” vote.

And, as mentioned by Rob S. I should have put some context behind Mirna R.’s remarks that I had quoted in yesterday’s post.   Certainly I should have not expected anyone to actually watch the video prior to commenting, but I supposed I assumed that curiosity would have pulled in some watchers.   Mirna R.’s remarks were a direct response to two other speakers that had been heard before her, the first was Carlton Grizzle, who has posted here previously, is on the ACLC staff and as been one of the most vocal boosters for the new Charter School.   Since I watched the video recently, personally I did not find his testimony to be his most shining moment during this entire debate about the new Charter School.   Here were a few of his greatest hits from that night (starts at about 55:16):

Leather or upholstered?

Tonight the County Board of Education will be making a decision on the NCLC/ACLC/Nea Charter School appeal.   I have been trying to get a copy of the packet with the attachment (8A) that would tell us all what the County staff has recommended, unfortunately it’s been tough to get my hands on. Of course I probably should have checked Mike McMahon’s site first, he has posted the documents I was looking for including the County Board of Education Executive Report of the Review and the Staff Findings.

In the meantime, I made a public document request to the Alameda Unified School District to get the budgets* for the past few years for Alameda Community Learning Center.   After all, with all the talk about how efficient ACLC is, it should show that even with the revised MOU, that ACLC has and is operating clearly in the black.  Oh by the way, despite news to the contrary that AUSD is non-responsive when one makes a public document request, I have found the opposite.  They were completely responsive, and quick, when I made my online request through their website.

Feed your neighbors

During last week’s City Council meeting, the City Council vote to adopt the 2008-2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, CDBG for those who do not know is funding from the Housing and Urban Development Department of the federal government to provide social services to communities.  Notwithstanding the strange line of questioning that Doug deHaan was heading toward initially, the council seemed very supportive of the efforts of the Social Services and Human Relations Board (SSHRB) who made the ultimate decision on which groups (after submitting a grant application) would receive funding and what the level of that funding would be.

One of this years grantee organizations is the Alameda Food Bank which the Alameda Sun ran a great story about in last week’s paper.    One of the things that struck me during the meeting and reinforced by this article was when the Food Bank’s manager spoke in support of the Council approving the Action Plan he mentioned that there has been a substantial increase in the number of Alameda families that have needed the services of the Food Bank.   Certainly that is not surprising since many articles have been coming out about the cost of necessities like bread, eggs, and milk rising.   These are things that unfortunately the majority of us cannot go without.  Even rice is taking a pretty big hit as well, I was surprised to see that 99 Ranch, the Asian version of Albertsons and Safeway, was carrying so little rice and certainly not my brand of choice.   When I went to look on line to see what the heck was going on it appears that countries like Vietnam are holding back a large number of their rice cops to maintain its own food security, so once my bag of Three Ladies runs out, I might be forced to buy some other brand, but I digress. 

That one Joni Mitchell song

Yeah, you know you know it.   It’s been used to headline (or end) a letter or two for practically any development concept in Alameda: proposed Target at Alameda Towne Centre, Alameda Theatre, Alameda Point, etc…   Even though the irony is that the proposed land is already paved or a parking lot has already existed there.   If we really wanted to talk about paving paradise, the San Francisco Chronicle has a story about sprawl and its subsequent impact on the amounts of open space aka paradise that will be left in the Bay Area if the sprawly trend is to continue.  Coupled with the downturn in the economy and housing market, perhaps it’s as good as a time as any to reexamine our collective land use patterns while the majority of folks are taking a breather from buying homes, even the ones that you have to “drive until you qualify.” Highlights:

…[Tracy] sits as a symbol of the quest by working- and middle-class Bay Area residents to find housing they can afford - a pursuit that often draws them further from the traditional job centers in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

…

The migration comes at costs to the environment: loss of natural habitat, increased greenhouse gases and a growing strain on the watershed.

“Sprawl is an inefficient and unsustainable use of our land resources,” said Elizabeth Adam, spokeswoman for the Bay Area Open Space Council. “It is often the default pattern of development that solves short-term problems but has very negative effects on communities over time.”

Abstaining on the appeal

So after what appears to have been a loooonnggg City Council meeting Tuesday night, on the issue of the appeal of the Esplanade project, it was rejected by a vote of four Councilmembers and there was one abstention, Doug deHaan.  Look, there is a time and a place for abstention votes, but Doug deHaan’s reasoning for abstaining was really weak.   He basically fell into the argument that was presented by some of the appellants that the design was “ugly” or “unattractive” or “out of place” or whatever it was they were using to say that they basically didn’t want those buildings where the developer wanted to put it.   He wanted the developer and architect to tweak and basically redesign the complex.  Which personally would probably make the design even uglier (which honestly, it doesn’t look that bad, apparently brick facades are a no-no next to water because it doesn’t have a “maritime” feel to it) because whenever folks try to design by committee, you know how that always ends up.  

If Doug deHaan didn’t want to vote for the project then vote against it.  Take a stand.  This is a man who, I assume, will be running of re-election in a few short months.   If he can’t do more than grandstand a little bit and then take the easy way out by abstaining, one has to question his ability to represent the citizens of Alameda as one of its civic leaders.  But I’ll come back to Doug deHaan in a bit.