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.”
So, this can only mean one thing: Frank Matarrese is officially announcing his candidacy for Mayor. Which is not a huge surprise. The surprise is that given that one other sitting City Councilperson and possibly another (coughdougdehaancough) throwing their name in for Mayor that Beverly Johnson would make what would appear to be an endorsement so early in the game. But as we learned with the whole Measure B thing, it appears that Beverly Johnson doesn’t mind changing her opinion mid-stream.
That brings the Mayor race up to a big three:
- Marie Gilmore
- Frank Matarrese
- Hadi Monsef
I heard a rumor that Kenneth “Kenny the Clown” Kahn was considering another run for Mayor again. Considering how early folks are announcing their candidacies, this race is shaping up to be one of epic proportions.
I want the clown to run. Better to have a professional clown than a bunch of amateur clowns.
Comment by E — December 30, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Marie Gilmore, Lena Tam, and Frank Matarrese are all smart and capable people and have served Alameda well on the City Council. I have supported all of them in their past Council races despite having sometimes significant disagreements with their decisions and positions.
Since Lena Tam had also mentioned the possibility of running for mayor, this creates a conflict for me, but the job of mayor requires a different skill set than that of Councilperson.
In the mayoral race it is no longer just a matter of who represents one’s positions and values. Who can best chair divisive meetings and lead a strong-willed group of diverse individuals towards policies that will best serve our city? Who would be the best “face” for Alameda in the still-new but critical early 21st century?
This is not the time for self-serving and ambitious politicians who are only seeking a stepping-stone to higher office, but someone who is dedicated to
Alameda’s best interests in the long term.
I hope we will give very careful thought to who offers the best vision and leadership for Alameda, not just who is the most ambitious or most vocal advocate–or opponent–of particular policies and viewpoints.
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 30, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Mayor Johnson, Doug dehaan, Frank Matarrese and Marie Gilmore are responsible for the initiative on the February 2 ballot. They were our elected representatives who signed up and created the partnership with Suncal over three years ago. They had the ability to provide real leadership when Suncal came back to them and told them how Alameda Point needed to be developed. Yes, they as a council needed to address the conflict of the business plan presented by Suncal with existing city law called Measure A, but they were the ones who sat on their hands and let Suncal twist in the wind. Where was the partnership and the willingness to work together to address this issue? A true failure of leadership on the part of City Council.
None of the four deserve to be Mayor.
Comment by NotGettingMyVote — January 1, 2010 @ 8:55 am
I would vote first for Marie and then Frank….I would never vote for Doug. I think athough I don’t always agree with Marie…she is just there for me 90% of the time.
Comment by Joaquin — January 1, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
#4 and where is Marie Gilmore regarding Measure B?
Is this part of the 90% when she is with you, or part of the 10% when she is not with you?
If there was ever a time for her to take a public stand, this is it.
Comment by RM — January 2, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
I don’t know Marie position on Measure B…I am for it. The 90% comes from the counsel meetings I have gone to and she seems smart, and fair in her decision making.
I just hope Pat Bail has enough since to stay out of this one.
I read Beverly Johnson’s post which makes no sense. People who live here will pay more and newcomers will pay less…people who live here won’t have there property taxes go up more than 2% a year…the new people will be caring the weight. Probably those in their 20/30′s who are first time homeowners and struggling to make it work with large mortgages, property taxes. Prop 13 wrecked the system…in my opinion.
She goes on to say they won’t be required to build parks, schools or fire stations…doesn’t make sense…if you want to sell houses and have business…you will do this or no one would buy them…unless they were dirt cheap.
Comment by Joaquin — January 3, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
5.6. I prefer a politician who is assertive about their positions, but I have my own misgivings about either out come on this election, so there are limits on my second guessing Council on their positions. Wearing their shoes I’d prefer to have played a slow hand than gone the route of Frank Matarrese and Mayor Johnson.
Since there appeared to be a council majority who at least supported the plan, it would have been nice to see enough leadership to have headed off the current initiative by Council putting a simple amendment change on the ballot.
Kevis and others have made that point, but my emphasis is that there has been a line in the sand drawn by opponents of Measure A with regard to any possible initiative to alter it. The language used in public letters pretty much threatening any council person(s) who dared side step a petition process for such an initiative with being run out of town.
In council’s shoes I doubt I would have lead on such an effort. As Kevis has suggested, perhaps a competing amendment is called for, but I have misgivings about that scenario muddling the issues as much as clarifying them.
We are in legal contract with SunCal until June and the option of another clean MA initiative is theoretically still an option, but I wouldn’t bet money on that.
Back to the line in the sand, I hold the people who have drawn that line responsible for pushing SunCal to draft the initiative they have. They didn’t make SunCal do it, but they lent plenty of incentive for SunCal’s to choice that option and go for broke in the process.
The outcome for many with more moderate views on the sanctity of Measure A is to be denied the option any middle path.
I wouldn’t argue too strenuously with the impression Len has supported the initiative but the fact is her position was been one of supporting the public’s choice to vote on the plan. She certainly has emphasized the liabilities of doing nothing.
Marie hasn’t stuck her neck out and now she has announced for mayor. One may consider taking no position to be at a minimum ineffectual behavior, but in the end she won’t be responsible nor can she take credit for either outcome. She will not be making this decision, the voters will.
Taking in her entire career on council, I’d agree with Joaquin that Marie is in synch with me 90% of the time A
Comment by M.I. — January 3, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
#7 posted prematurely. In closing, despite how her actions or inaction on Measure B process may reflect negatively in one way or another, I am strongly inclined to support Marie for mayor over the other candidates. It’s not like she is a chronic waffler who avoids taking a stand. When she is reserved, I generally attribute that to being circumspect at the right moments.
I fully understand and respect RM’s position that Measure B is so bad and so important that it warrants a position be taken, especially by a candidate for mayor, but for me it’s more complicated.
Comment by M.I. — January 3, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
3rd paragraph #7 should obviously read “proponents” not “opponents” of Measure A.
Comment by M.I. — January 3, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
M.I. has a good memory re #7. Trying to get the City Council to even “talk about talking about Measure A” in 2007 was a nightmare. Pat Bail paid the $100 to appeal the “non-action” by the planning board to have a forum about the housing element and Measure A. If anyone has hopes of this or future city councils placing a charter amendment to exempt Alameda Point from Measure A, they live in never never land.
Comment by David V. — January 3, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Why would Pat Bail do that, she has already lost two elections… she must be clueless…she should learn people don’t like her money thown around…unless it my direction…
Comment by Joaquin — January 3, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Has anyone ever considered that Measure A support is so strong simply because Measure A is very popular?
Nah, it’s just a few ideological meanies….
Comment by David Hart — January 4, 2010 @ 6:19 am
12. It obviously occurred to SunCal that Measure A was popular enough that in a straight charter reform campaign the ideological meanies would be able to whoop up their, the world is black and white arguments enough to make passage difficult. That doesn’t mean that Measure A isn’t Draconian and an overly simplistic law which lacks any semblance of nuance. It disallows reverting offices back to the apartments as they were originally built to be in many of the commercial buildings in the old stations and along Park and Webster. It puts limits on condominium conversion, there by limiting cash flow into the general fund. Local realtor Kirk Knight has posted about this at length.
Yeah, Measure A is also just fine for Alameda Point too, if you want to limit even the reuse of existing buildings and make sure economic viability for development is hobbled. Even our work/live ordinance is hobbled by stupid limitations caused by an attempt to make sure it doesn’t in any way conflict with Measure A.
Comment by M.I. — January 4, 2010 @ 9:13 am
While you are correct about MA’s limitations and lack of nuance, I don’t understand how it limits condo conversion. The law is quite brief & succinct and doesn’t mention condos specifically. Can you elaborate?
Same for conversion of offices to apts, which seems more like zoning than charter.
Comment by David Hart — January 4, 2010 @ 9:53 am
I can’t speak directly to the condominium conversion issue, but I do know that only multiple units that existed when Measure A was passed are “grandfathered in” under Article 26. Converting an office or some other use to apartments has been interpreted as “construction” of multiple units and is therefore prohibited, even if the building itself existed before Measure A was passed.
Furthermore, I believe that pre-Measure-A multiple-unit buildings are no longer covered by the grandfather clause if they ever become completely vacant; for example, I know that Measure A prohibits the vacant multiple-unit buildings at Alameda Point from being re-used as multiple-unit housing, whether for sale or for rent.
Comment by Michael Krueger — January 4, 2010 @ 11:26 am
As for the argument that “they (the Council or the citizens) should have just put a pure Measure A exemption on the ballot, I still feel confident that strategy would have failed spectacularly.
In the absence of a specific plan with a limit on the number of residential units and the height of the buildings, opponents to the measure could make wild claims that the developer was planning to build “Manhattan by the bay,” with a wall of 60-story apartment towers on the waterfront. Even people who might support a change to Measure A to build a modest 4- or 5-story condominium with ground-floor shops at a transit station might be frightened into voting “no” on a blanket exemption, based on the persuasive argument that the Council and Planning Board can’t be trusted to resist the drive to build luxury towers with multi-million-dollar views.
By putting a very specific plan on the ballot along with the Measure A modification, the debate has largely been shifted from “Manhattanization” to scrutiny of the developer’s finances, the public benefits, and intricate details of the development agreement. At least in this scenario it’s clear what will be built if voters say “yes,” and it will be up to them to decide.
Whatever one’s opinion of the SunCal plan, it is the only financially feasible plan that has ever been presented for Alameda Point. The previous developers dropped out because they could not make the numbers work, even on paper. Nobody, including the interim city manager, the mayor, and the council members opposed to Measure B, has run all the numbers on an alternative scenario and shown that it pencils out, even in theory. Voters should think hard about that before rejecting the only real plan that exists and sending us back to the drawing board, right where we were when the base closed in 1997.
Comment by Michael Krueger — January 4, 2010 @ 11:55 am
#16
The success of any sort of Measure A exemption for Alameda Point would likely depend on the wording of the proposed measure.
It is doubtful that Measure B will convince voters to support an exemption to Measure A. If anything, it makes such an exemption less likely. If Measure B loses, that does not mean that an exemption to Measure would not pass. How many people do you know who are opposed to changing Measure A will vote for Measure B? How many people who support changes to Measure A will vote against Measure B?
As for the Suncal plan being the *only* financially feasible plan, that is questionable. It is questionable because there is considerable opinion that the financial plan is not self-supporting. It is pure speculation that no other plan could be developed that would be financially feasible
1997 was not that long ago. Whatever is built could exist for 50-100 years. Impatience is not a good reason for a bad decision.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 4, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
I don’t see how it can be built out in 50-100 years. If it was farm land sure. But there are existing buildings and there are tenants…the infrastructure won’t last that long…unless you just evict every one and put a fence around it. The siding is coming off the gym…the big whites are turning green with moss or mold…The base closed in 97? maintenance was probably not done for a few years earlier.
Comment by Joaquin — January 4, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Something that’s alluded to here that should be spelled out — when SunCal was selected as developer, the PDC plan was still on the table (w/ 1800 homes), Measure A was of course in effect and nobody made any promises about changing it. For whatever, SunCal sought to become the developer under those circumstances.
I don’t think it’s fair or correct to say that the Council “forced” SunCal to put Measure A on the ballot, because obviously the Council didn’t “force” SunCal to come here in the first place. They knew the situation and they chose to take the risk — they’re supposed to be experienced developers in California, so the expense of developing the site, the toxins, elevation, soil stability, should have been apparent to them.
Comment by louise — January 4, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
#6: The property taxes at Alameda Point would be capped at 2% under the terms of Measure B. That’s pretty high, but if it doesn’t keep up w/ expenses, then I suppose that a parcel tax could be levied on the rest of the community. I’m not saying that it would be presented as a direct subsidy to AP — it might be a means of shoring up police or fire services in the face of a budget deficit for example.
The “public benefits” (fire station,library, etc.) are NOT spelled out in Measure B, that’s the point — there is no reliable guarantee in writing, so it’s false to claim w/ certainty that the public benefits will ever be delivered.
On the schools issue,see the Joint CC/School Board meeting that’s on for tomorrow night, at 7:00 pm, at the Mastick Senior Center — the school issues should be covered there.
Comment by louise — January 4, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
I have to agree with you Louise on 19, but they didn’t do the math. I still think they could do it with 1800 homes if they could sell them at market rate…but they have to subsidise the affordable and low income housing also which makes no sense to me. I have a neighbor in an affordable house with 2 nice Mercedes in the driveway.
But I have to disagree you on number 20…you can build houses but if you don’t include services…people won’t buy them. If you had kids or thinking about having them would you buy without checking the schools, parks grocery stores first…and the development plan? If they want to maximise their profit…have to put in services…look at Pleasanton Dublin…if they want a houses to be 700K to 1 million or more they have to address those issues or otherwise people would buy a house in Tracy or Oakland for $250k.
Comment by Joaquin — January 4, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
It’s nice to hear from a proponent on this issue who sounds like an ordinary citizen and who has an honest (unscripted) viewpoint.
On the affordable housing: That was apparent from the outset too — in fact, I think it was a 25% requirement at the time, which is now 15% — so I think they should have considered all this up front — it’s their fault if they didn’t.
On the parks, schools, etc: The city would need to negotiate upfront and get reliable numbers on what’s being built and on what the developer plans to spend on parks, schools, etc and they’re not doing that — we’ve voting up or down on the deal.
I don’t honestly think that a decision — or a vote — on a billion dollar development can be made on the basis of a hopeful assumption — it needs a much more definite assurance than that.
Comment by louise — January 4, 2010 @ 8:58 pm