Parental advisory explicit content

Over the weekend S.E.R.V.E. Alameda hosted a town hall meeting at the Library.   I didn’t go so I don’t know what happened.  

But to back up a bit, Michele Ellson gave a really good overview of what happened at last week’s School Board meeting, but I wanted to go back and highlight some of the stranger moments during the discussion around the Caring Schools Curriculum and Lesson 9.  

The agenda item that night was to discuss the Caring Schools Curriculum Support Guide and how the curriculum would be implemented as well as discussing the plan to move forward with creating a new curriculum to replace the Caring Schools Curriculum to better address issues of bullying.   Here is a clip of Superintendent Kristen Vital explaining just that.

Them’s fightin’ words

The first thing I thought when I read John Diaz’s editorial on SFGate was that I should probably mail him a flak jacket.

But then realized that he probably picked one up in advance after he wrote his piece on Alameda.   But it can’t hurt to layer, right?

Considering how wishy washy most traditional journalist type people are on these highly volatile subjects it came as quite a shock to read the piece and how, um, strongly worded and opinionated it was.  Especially after the rather boring Carolyn Jones piece earlier this week on Alameda Point.

The great Escape Clause

Back to that Alameda Point Info site, so the next item that caught my attention is this line that appeared on the “Dear Alameda Voter” page (screen capped below), which said:

…We are concerned because voters will be asked to approve exclusive development rights over a quarter of the island for a long period of time without knowing whether SunCal will keep its part of the deal. The Development Agreement explicitly states that SunCal will have complete control over what, when, in what order, and even whether anything at all will be built…

The troubling questions the initiative raises for us are matched only by the escape clauses we’ve discovered in the accompanying Development Agreement…

Planning bored

Oh. My. God.

That had to be one of the most painful Planning Board meetings ever.  EVER!

Let me nutshell it for you:

Blah blah blah noise blah blah blah parking blah blah blah alcohol blah blah blah compliance blah blah blah.

But I had to continue watching, at this point, I’m pot committed to this topic.   There’s no turning back now.

What am I talking about, oh yes, Point Marina Vista.   So after hearing the same comments again, the Planning Board was heading down the path of sounding as though they were going to not approve the project until it was pulled from the brink.  So basically here’s what happened people complained (see nutshell above) and then the PB kicked around some ideas, asked some questions, and then decided to take a document written up by some residents as an alternate proposal and go through the items to find consensus that everyone could live with.

Or rather that they could vote on.

Throwing for a loophole

ANT made a thoughtprovoking comment to my post about Alameda Point Info and the framing of CEQA, EIRs, and the Alameda Point Specific Plan:

So, by going the route of a ballot initiative rather than adoption by the Council, SunCal uses a loophole in the law that does not require CEQA until after the ballot measure is passed.

Also, the wording of the specific plan is very precise stating that the City Council must seek exemption to the fullest extent legally possible.

I think that the characterization of the voter-sponsored ballot not requiring CEQA review as “a loophole” to be rather interesting because I suppose that I never considered that something settled that has lots of case law to support it to be “a loophole.”   Loopholes, I have always considered to be something just shy of breaking the law.   Like technically living in San Leandro, but using someone else’s mailing address to get your kid into an Alameda school.   Something like that, but I digress.

EIR, the CEQA

I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about the (relatively) new kid on the block in anti-Alameda Point Development websites: Alameda Point Info.   The innocuous sounding name works perfectly to the advantage of the folks providing the content because it doesn’t have the ring of having an agenda other than pure education of the ordinary citizen on the Alameda Point Initiative.

In fact, I think this website is probably the most effective, so far, of the anti-SunCal websites because they have managed to keep it as matter-of-fact – for the most part — without sounding shrill and conspiratorial.   They have done a good job of linking to documents — they call it “referring documents” —  in which they have chosen to use as reference in order to lend an air of credibility which it does pretty well.   Not to mention that the site is professionally designed, well laid out and organized which makes it very appealing visually and highly user friendly.

However, in combing through the site, there were a few things that jumped out at me.  The first was part of the “Point.Counterpoint” series which talked about Local Oversight (screenshot at the bottom):

Slippery when what?

Not necessarily Alameda related but should strike fear into the hearts of anonymous bloggers everywhere is the recent court ruling that has ordered Google to give up the name of a now-not-so-anonymou blogger to a “defamed” party.    To nutshell, someone had a blog set up called Skanks in NYC, the person (a woman) called some model (another woman) the number one skank in New York City, model sues to get identity of person so she can sue for defamation.

In the ruling, the judge (a woman) says:

“The thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman.”

And so, I guess that was enough for this judge to rule that Google (who owns Blogger where the site used to live) should turn over the IP address of the blogger to defamed model.   While the site appeared to be in poor taste, I have a huge issue with the outing of this blogger.   “Skank” is not like saying, “hey she’s a prostitute who only accepts $50 bills folded up into tiny squares.”   It is an entirely subjective opinion — a mean spirited and nasty one — but an opinion nonetheless.     It’s a slippery slope we walk down when someone’s anonymity can be uncovered just because someone doesn’t like what it said about them.

What happens in the case of criticism of corporations or political figures?

Insert Facts of Life theme here

I finally have the last response from Ron Mooney:

Simply put, proponents of the recall have their facts wrong. Based on feedback I received, my vote represents the will of the majority of our families and residents – not the opinion of a small, vocal group. I voted to make sure our schools are inclusive and safe for all children and families. I voted to support our teachers and administration, and to provide the tools they need to educate our youth. Our action will strengthen the school’s existing anti-bullying curriculum, which includes race and ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality and religion. We approved this update to the curriculum with just one additional 45-minute lesson for the entire school year.  I will continue to support the best education possible and safe schools for all and hope you also will demonstrate your support by rejecting this petition.

Tam it

JKW posted Tracy Jensen’s response to the recall this morning and I just received Niel Tam’s:

As a member of the Alameda Unified School District School Board, it is my responsibility to think about the good of our children, teachers and parents.  Providing a safe inclusive school environment is a top priority.

There is a critical inaccuracy in this petition for recall.  The School District already had in place a program to address racial and ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality and religion.  After a number of community meetings to hear parent concerns for and against this curriculum, I voted to strengthen the current school district’s anti-bullying curriculum by adding an additional 45 minutes lesson at the recommendation of staff.  A majority of parents and the community were in favor of expanding anti-bullying messages.  Those who are opposed to the recommendation are spearheading this recall of myself and two others who also voted for the additional lesson.  I support teachers in providing tools to educate our children so that discrimination on any level is unacceptable.  I hope you will show support by rejecting this petition.

If you haven’t yet signed the petition opposing the recall…here it is…

You get me closer to God

In another “wow” moment, apparently the Pacific Justice Institute feels as though they have so much to accomplish here in the Bay Area that they have opened up a Bay Area branch only a short ride through the tube away from Alameda.    It appears that PJI is in for the long haul on this controversy over the Safe School Curriculum that want to make it easier on their commuting staff and have someplace local.   According to their press release:

“The San Francisco region is without a doubt one of the most hostile places in the country toward religious liberties and values,” noted Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “But with growing challenges come greater opportunities. We are thrilled to have a new way to serve the courageous faith community in the Bay Area, and also to provide resources for our many affiliate attorneys in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and nearby cities.”

…

“The hostility and intimidation towards this protected class has created a general environment of fear and intimidation,” said Snider, referring to the longtime legal designation of religion as a fundamental, legally protected class. “We want people of faith in the Bay Area to know that they are not alone,” he continued…