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.
I was actually really impressed that one of the speakers basically came out and said the most honest thing I had heard during the whole public comment period about her feelings on the project which epitomized Not In My Backyard (3:15 on the video feed)
…I do like the building, but just one of them — someplace else.
I was also impressed that there were people that came out to support the project, generally it’s always much easier to come out when you are really angry and against a project, but it was a pleasant surprise to see folks talk about how the project is a good fit for the area and that it would provide different business opportunities for small established businesses that are looking a different kind of space in which to relocate their businesses.
This guy wins my award for best snarky comment (and sideburns) of the night (starts at 3:45 on the video feed):
…Couple days ago got a flyer in the mailbox — without a stamp — that said…come speak against this project. Well I’m here to speak for the project.
There was also a pretty entertaining smackdown moment when apparently some woman in the audience was trying to talk while some other guy was speaking (she disagreed with what he was saying) and Mayor Johnson (starts at 4:04 on the video feed) tells her she can’t speak from the audience and then the woman pipes up again a bit later and Mayor Johnson brings the smackdown again and tells the woman that she needs to sit down. I figure it’s probably around midnight at this point and everyone is a little on the cranky side. If you watch you have to watch through the end of the current speaker and see Mayor Johnson having the last word before this woman’s three minutes starts.
So going back to Councilmember deHaan who is fixated on the restaurant that is slated to be part of the project and the possible spillover of parking from the project to the ferry parking lot (quote from Councilmember deHaan: “It’s [the Ferry parking lot] at 90 to 100%, that’s a fact!”). Then he proceeds to talk about how the ferry capacity itself is only at 50%. I’m not sure what he expects from the developers (and owners) of this site. In fact, Marie Gilmore brought this up later that it’s not these developers responsibility to provide extra parking for the ferry if it is required.
Actually Councilmember deHaan’s comments around this whole transportation/traffic/parking/shuttle (around 4:25) is very confusing because he seems to contradict himself. On one hand he is saying that there isn’t enough parking, on the other hand he is saying that he wants to get people out of their cars. And he talks about how preserving the fare box for the ferry (and perserving the ferry itself) is of utmost importance and what would happen if there was suddenly a swell in ridership? Then he talks about a shuttle and staging areas, it’s all very confusing. Here’s what I know, even if people are driving to this new development, wouldn’t it be a reverse commute from the people living in Alameda who work somewhere else? And even if the ferry parking lot fills up during commute hours only, doesn’t the Harbor Bay Ferry only run during commute hours? So if the parking lot is full at commute hours, it’s not like anyone else is going to park there after morning commute hours because there’s no ferry to take anywhere after 8:30 a.m.
Then he goes off on the 100 foot notification requirement, even though staff has indicated that they did more than 100 foot notification and contacted all of the surrounding homeowner’s associations for them to disseminate the information to anyone outside the 100 foot radius. He then announces that the City Manager should take some action on this issue. Personally I think it was odd to talk about your problems with the 100 foot notification during an appeal like this, if he wanted to make it a big deal then put it up for council referral, after all, that’s what it is for.
DeHaan should do the honorable thing and retire gracefully …
Comment by Roberto — April 17, 2008 @ 7:59 am
That’s the kind of decisive leadership voters will be looking for in the next election (I wonder if he will run on the action alameda slate again, because nothing says action like an abstention)!!! There isn’t a tally for votes cast by city council members is there? If I recall correctly, De Haan has abstained on other votes as well, and I would even hazard a guess that he has abstained more than any other council member.
Comment by notadave — April 17, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Hmmmm… If I don’t vote for Doug I’d be happy to see him re-elected for the status quo factor. If David Howard runs, would you rather see him sitting there? How about Tom Pavletic, who has already run for multiple offices and been rejected, thankfully. There is a certain stability in having somebody to abstain on behalf of the appellants. As long as there are four others who are firmly “in the pocket of the developers”.
I wonder if anybody from Alameda attended the Bay Area Council event on the Hornet yesterday to lobby for more ferry parking, since those guys have made it their business to take over our system.
There was a great protest for school funding at the Hornet which was under reported by the media. I saw a live feed by KTVU at 7:30 a.m. interviewing the union rep, but by 5:30 pm the KTVU live feed was from Treasure Island (wrong island) and the taped footage was all from inside the ship with no mention of the protest.
Comment by Mark Irons — April 17, 2008 @ 8:31 am
I thought DeHaan was facing a term limit and unable to run again.
Comment by SteveB — April 17, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Roberto, I think it’s pretty damned clear that DeHaan does the job he was elected to do… represent the people of Alameda. Maybe he doesn’t work for you… or others on this board… but to wipe him off as irrelevant is disregarding a sizable chunk of Alameda. Most of my neighbors, for example.
Comment by Jack B — April 17, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
Good point Jack B, we’re all irrelevant and some irreverent but DeHaan still sounds goofy. Just like he did when he worked at the base.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 18, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Doug DeHaan was elected in 2004 to City Council and therefore can run for one more term. Marie Gilmore is also up for reelection.
Doug narrowly beat Pat Bail by 300 votes in 2004.
http://mikemcmahon.info/election04stats.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 18, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
crap. The A’s game isn’t televised tonight. Oh well, guess I’ll check the blog.
I know this statistic tickles Mike McMahon. I just checked Mike’s site and note that Vernice Boone, a complete unknown and frankly unqualified candidate, got a pretty good chunk of votes for council and a really big chunk for the school board. What the heck? These people are at least motivated enough to vote, but what is going on in their heads? How do we get them to vote for Measure H?
Comment by Mark Irons — April 18, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
“How do we get them to vote for Measure H?”
Buy a ticket, go watch the game and top having lefties promote H
Comment by Jack Richard — April 18, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Lefties came up with the healthcare that the state provides you, Jack. They also came up with the pension scheme that is feeding you. Many of those lefties support the Prop 13 WELFARE that you enjoy.
They are also working on Measure H in a effort to keep your property’s (untaxed) value afloat.
Think twice before biting the hand that feeds you.
Comment by dave — April 18, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Wrong on all accounts dave. Aside from your mistaken belief that the “state” equals “lefties”:
1. Lefties do not provide me with my healthcare. I paid and pay for it.
2. Lefties did not come up with my pension scheme, I paid for it .
3. Measure H has nothing to do with my property’s value. The market determines the value. In fact H is an encumbrance that takes from its value.
4. Lefties supporting Prop 13 are as scarce as hens teeth. And unfortunately I voted against it back in 78.
5. I only have to think once to thank my wife’s hand.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 19, 2008 @ 9:21 am
Maybe Doug and Tracy Jensen from the School Board should get together to compare notes on voting. Whenever there is a political item on the agenda, member Jensen chooes the “abstain” path also.
Comment by PeanutGallery — April 19, 2008 @ 10:39 am
By the way, the only reason an elected official should abstain from a vote is the following:
If the member believes that, because of his personal
interest, he should abstain from participating in the vote on the
legislation, he shall so advise the presiding officer prior to the
commencement of the vote and shall be excused from voting on the
legislation without any entry on the journal of the fact of his
personal interest. In the event a rule of the house requiring that
each member who is present vote aye or nay is invoked, the presiding
officer shall order the member excused from compliance and shall
order entered on the journal a simple statement that the member was
excused from voting on the legislation pursuant to law.
Comment by PeanutGallery — April 19, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Jack,
Was FDR to the left of where you are today?
Dave’s point is that people Like Eugene Debs fought for things like labor laws and social safety nets, not people like Ronald Reagan and Grover Norquist. Does your health care cover glasses? I think you are a little myopic.
Comment by Mark Irons — April 19, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Mark
dave’s in the band of dire straits if he has to rely on the remnants of Debs’ safety net. What’s the history of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia got to do with where I am today? Ethiopia is much better off now than when the Derg installed a socialist state which ruled until overthrown and FDR installed.
Socialism fails wherever it’s tried. But you are right about one thing, it is time I got my eyes tested. I’m becoming more and more farsighted.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 19, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I have to agree with PeanutGallery’s comment #13. I don’t see Dehann as an effective politician.
As for us, we are voting for measure H.
Comment by Joel — April 20, 2008 @ 8:06 am
re the advice in #9 that the way to get people to vote for Measure H is to “[s]top having lefties promote H:”
Aren’t the arguments pro and con more important than whether the person making the arguments is lefty, righty, bi, questioning or none of the above?
I know that endorsements matter in campaigns and that the ideology of the endorser matters to some. I just hope that for most voters the substance of the issue is most important. But perhaps that isn’t the case.
Would it follow logically from #9 that people would vote for Measure H if non-lefties promote it? If so, I am happy to come fully out of the closet as a non-lefty: I’m not a lefty and I’m doing my darndest to promote Measure H. I’m pretty sure Dave is a non-lefty too, though I could be wrong. I think my (non-Alameda) dad may be more righty/libertarian/anti-tax than even Mr. Richard and he is a big school parcel tax supporter where he lives (mostly for the “helps property values” reason). What if Pat Bail got on board in support of H? I’m not entirely sure what her political ideology is, but she does a ton of work for kids and she sure isn’t a lefty. Will more non-lefties vote for H if Pat Bail supports it?
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 20, 2008 @ 10:18 am
They should take that Measure H money and hire some KICKASS lobbyists to go to Sactown to get the rest of our money. Meanwhile, AUSD needs to make some tough choices. And I think, above all, resources should go to academics (and the teachers that teach them) and keeping the ratios low. So grim, so very grim.
Comment by Jack B — April 20, 2008 @ 10:38 am
#15
I don’t care to label myself, though Jack R can if it makes him feel better. dave didn’t refer to Debs, that was my choice, but so what? References like that to far off socialist regimes are silly diversions from the obvious truth that many of our standards and practices today like child labor and over time laws, were originally agitated for by what he would like to call “lefties”. Many were also labled pinkos, Reds, etc., etc. Jack, how about I label you an obfuscater?
Comment by Mark I — April 20, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
re #19
The arguments pro and con on any given issue should be more important than the person making the argument. When it comes to raising taxes the argument for must clearly outweigh the con.
I think, logically, property owning voters who don’t consider themselves affected by the outcome of the vote except having their and only their taxes raised would have a natural tendency to vote against the tax increase. Those who are directly affected, naturally would vote in favor.
To reverse the natural tendency of the first group is the problem of the second group. Endorsements and campaigning by political advocates can be an effective means. However, the “for” group must be careful not to alienate the fence sitters. Whether it’s fair or not lefties have a certain reputation with respect to taxation. The “sky will fall” arguments almost demands a “oh yeah, well let’s just find out what will happen” vote response.
If the arguments of the proponents of the tax increase are so compelling, why must they seek to place a binding tax on a certain city minority instead of devising a method of full participation of the citizenry?
Comment by Jack Richard — April 20, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Your #19 Mark, I was hoping for “farsighted” and “practical” which probably means obfuscated or myopic to some
Comment by Jack Richard — April 20, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
re #20 ’s question “If the arguments of the proponents of the tax increase are so compelling, why must they seek to place a binding tax on a certain city minority instead of devising a method of full participation of the citizenry?”
For a few reasons:
(1) Under Prop 13, a parcel tax is the **only** legally permissible method school districts have to raise additional revenues.
(2) Resolution of the school budget crisis has a very compressed timeline, so there isn’t time to devise a new method (and presumably to amend Prop 13 to allow whatever new method might be revised) to solve the current crisis.
(3) In the past, several commentators here on laurendo.com have been critical of the fact that the exclusions in the parcel tax (seniors, SSI) make the minority paying the tax a smaller minority than it would otherwise be. But given the anti-majoritarianism of Prop 13’s requirement that school parcel taxes must be approved by 2/3 of voters, I think it is fair to place the ultimate responsibility for those exclusions on the high supermajority requirement. If the vote only required a majority rather than 2/3 to pass, there wouldn’t be or have to be any exclusions.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 20, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Re 22
(1) But is it the only legally permissible method for a locality to raise non-property related taxes for schools? Can’t SUTs be levied to fund local programs?
(2) I thought the AUSD Superintendent suggested certain cuts in non-educational school related activities which mitigate if not solve the current shortfall in state revenue.
(3) Part of the beauty of Prop 13 was the state take-away of local control of property tax proceeds and relieving the locals of the ability to raise property taxes easily. By taking local control away and giving state elected politicians the ability to direct funds, the state politicians did themselves big re-election favors by routing funds to gain political power. At the same time, the redirection of fiscal power marginalizes local politicians. If the 2/3 super-majority requirement were eliminated we would again see local politicians making yearly parcel tax increases which would soon be at pre P13 levels.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 20, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Re # 23
(1) A parcel tax is the only indisputably legal method for a school district to raise additional general operating revenue. Although some ideas have been floated that other loopholes that might be exploited, the consensus is that any method other than the parcel tax would not survive judicial scrutiny. So if AUSD tried another method, they would likely be buying themselves hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in attorneys fees fighting off legal challenges and the collection of the tax might be stayed pending legal review. In the alternative, if AUSD was permitted to collect an alternative tax that was later determined to be unlawful, the district might be required to refund the tax collected which would likely drive the district into bankruptcy. In any event, I would be interested to know what type of “special use tax” you think would be both legal and fairer. A use fee charged to parents is almost certainly not constitutional — even without getting into the question of whether or not such a tax is fairer.
(2) While the Superintendent has proposed cuts to non-educational activities, those cuts would not be enough to substantially mitigate and would certainly not be enough to solve the shortfall. If the parcel tax is not passed, there will be substantial cuts to educational activities. There is really no way around it.
(3) I’m not sure I understand your point with respect to the repeal of the supermajority requirement. If the supermajority requirement was repealed, it would still require a regular majority of the voters to approve any tax increase. In other words, it would not be up to the politicians; it would be up to the people. The vote of a local politician would not count any more than your vote or my vote.
Comment by Page — April 20, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Re 24
(3) Politicians “making” was not the best choice words to use in the case of yearly parcel tax increases. Obviously the voting public would make the final choice but local politicians (school or city) would have a much clearer shot at facilitating the passing of a measure which raises the tax of a minority group of citizens. Why not lobby for a 1/4 super-minority in order to pass higher parcel taxes?
(2) I didn’t say “substantially” mitigate. Perhaps we’ll see if there’s a way around it.
(1) I suggested “locality” not “school district”. SUDs can be levied to fund local programs. It’s just that parcel taxes are the easy route to go because its easier to get a 2/3 majority to vote raising taxes on a minority of citizens than it is to get a 2/3 majority to vote raising taxes on the entire group of citizens.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 21, 2008 @ 9:21 am