The recall attempt: epic fail

I would be entirely remiss if I didn’t address the issue of the failed recall attempt on the part of S.E.R.V.E. Alameda to get the three members of the School Board bounced.

Now, Michele Ellson and Susan Davis have been nice enough to phrase it in the terms that the S.E.R.V.E. folks would prefer us all to think about it, that they had retracted their recall efforts in hopes to “heal” the community.   But let’s call a spade a spade.   They waited till the very last day before they had to turn in their signatures and are not telling how close they were to getting the requisite number of signatures.  They failed.   Period.

It wasn’t just a failure, it was an epic fail.

Race to the top

I received a rather cryptic email yesterday from Jeff Mitchell, former editor of the Alameda Journal, late of freelancing for the Sacramento Bee, and now…campaign manager?

The email was a notification that:

Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson, state Assemblyman Sandre Swanson (D-Alameda) and Alameda Councilman Frank Matarrese for an important local political announcement…

And is signed by “StratagemPolitics: A Bay Area political and communications consultancy.”

More about that Treasure Island development

I love a totally misleading headline, like the one for the Treasure Island article which says: “Treasure Island utopia gets reality check.”   And then proceeds to back up that headline with sections like

Skeptics question whether a recently announced deal that will pay the Navy at least $55 million to transfer most of the island and part of neighboring Yerba Buena Island to the city is a good idea.

But then when you read on the only quoted “skeptic” is former San Francisco Board of Supervisor, former head of the Treasure Island Authority, and wedding singer extraordinaire Tony Hall, who may have a teensy eensy ax to grind given that he was sort of punked by Gavin Newsom.

Anyway, here are some highlights from the article:

Treasure Island was built using fill in 1936 and 1937 to host the Golden Gate International Exposition. That fill dirt has been settling for decades, prompting concerns that the island is sinking.

More about those lease revenues

As mentioned by Doug Biggs, in early October the City sent the Navy a letter discussing recommendations made by the Historic Properties Inspection Report which suggested that the Navy and the ARRA (the City) consider apportioning lease revenues to the maintenance of the historic structures at Alameda Point.

Essentially the City says, ain’t gonna happen.  To quote the letter:

Happy Holidays!

I know not everyone celebrates Xmas, but I wanted to share one of my favorite Xmas movie scenes:

Stay healthy everyone!

Paint it black

“Louise” and I have been having a back and forth over the comments section over whether or not Alameda Point’s lease revenues have been, in fact, covering all of the expenses for Alameda Point.   Louise suggests that the fact that the fund balance has shown itself in the black is indicative that indeed the lease revenues are positive generators of money as opposed to a huge sucking black hole.

I was recently reminded that it is not just supporters of Measure B that have discussed the inability of Alameda Point leases to support the expenses out there, but even stalwart Measure B AND SunCal plan in general opponent Councilmember Doug deHaan discussed the issues around Alameda Point leases as one of his campaign talking points, he says:

Prescient

Last week, Tony Daysog posted a comment which linked to a very old editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle about the closing of the Naval Base.   The editorial entitled “Think Big” is every bit as relevant today as it was in 1997.

Yes, 1997.

Almost 13 years later we are still talking about developing Alameda Point and are on the cusp of a real opportunity to do so, but even today portions of that editorials we should be considering in light of the election on February 2, highlights:

Land Trust redux

It was inevitable that news of the Jenner Headlands being purchased by the Sonoma Land Trust for a cool $36 million would pick up discussion of an “Alameda Point Land Trust” once again.    Of course, not much has changed since the Trusters had proposed the idea earlier this year when they said we should have a land trust, then backed off saying that it wouldn’t be in the model of the Jenner Land Trust or the Presidio Trust.   Now, after news that the pristine and untouched Sonoma land would be part of a protected land trust, once again, the same folks are touting the Jenner Headlands model as an alternative for Alameda Point.

I guess I could write a long post again about how infeasible a Land Trust is at Alameda Point, but I’m just going to repost sections from previous posts about the same subject, actually this first passage is taken from Michele Ellson’s post about Land Trusts:

Shiver me timbers

If you haven’t seen the news about Treasure Island yet, highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Mayor Gavin Newsom struck a deal Wednesday with the U.S. Navy to transfer Treasure Island to San Francisco for a $55 million guaranteed payment over several years. Additional considerations could make the package worth more than $105 million to the federal government.

…

The mayor and local congressional leaders hailed the agreement as an economic boon that will create badly needed jobs after years of talks.

…

Saucer of milk, table for two…school board style

On Tuesday night, the School Board in a special session voted to approve the charter petition for the Academy of Alameda.  Yay!

And here’s the answer to the question that you may (or may not) be asking.   Trish the Charter School proponent showed up on Tuesday night to not only cast a vote approving the charter petition, but to make the motion to approve the petition.   But not after some claws came out at one point during the meeting, which made for serious awkwardness for a large portion of the hearing after that.

So here’s what kicked off the uncomfortable exchange:

Trish Spencer: So if there are a sufficient number of families that are not interested in going to the charter from Chipman, is there a possibility they could stay at Chipman in a traditional school?

Kirsten Vital: I think, Boardmember Spencer, these are issues that you raised before at the last meeting as well and one commitment we made as staff to this board is that we need to keep the charter separate and the decision around the charter separate from the effects of what happens with the charter.  And so staff has prepared and gave a timeline around the effects that we would need to come back in February once we have a clearer sense of enrollment if in fact the board approves the charter.