I’m a little late on starting up all the Campaign 2010 items, but better late than never! Like in past election years I have created a round-up page to attempt to consolidate articles and news about candidates, as well as a matrix of endorsements that have been made by notable organizations or media. If anyone knows about missing endorsements, send me an email or stick it in the comments section and I’ll update the page.
Plenty of endorsements already for the Mayor and City Council. Not as many for School Board and even fewer for Bart Board. I stuck the Bart on in this time because it’s a race I’m interested in purely because the incumbent, Carol Ward Allen, has run unopposed these last few elections and this year there’s actually a race and in appears that the big deciding issues will be (1) name recognition and (2) the Oakland Airport Connector decision.
An exercise I like when I create these pages is to attempt to remember who is running for which office from memory. Then I stare at it a bit and wonder who I’ve left off, there’s always one or two. It’s not scientific, but I find it interesting, but for Mayor, I left off Frank Matarrese after my initial pass and for City Council, I left off Tracy Jensen.
As I mentioned, lots of endorsements made already, but I’ve never been quite clear on the power of endorsements, especially in a local election. But it’s not really the name of the organization endorsing a candidate, but rather the additional help that comes with the endorsements in recruiting volunteers for a campaign for sign delivery or phone banking for get out the vote efforts.
So most of the endorsements have rolled in for Marie Gilmore for Mayor and for City Council Rob Bonta and Lena Tam. The most interesting slight for the endorsement was by the Alameda Labor Council which opted to endorse Marie Gilmore for Mayor as opposed to Frank Matarrese. Frank Matarrese has always been the big labor guy. The one who pushed for a project labor agreement at Alameda Point. So this was a fairly significant rejection.
An interesting side note is that I have been hearing word that Frank Matarrese supporters have been declaring him to be independent of unions and that is a reason to vote for him. Except for the hefty contribution he received on June 2 for his Mayoral campaign from the Sheet Metal Workers Union, a contribution in January from the Carpenters Union, and a contribution in June from the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union. All total he’s received $2500 from unions that he is, apparently, not beholden to. And, Frank Matarrese also placed on the Council Referral agenda to talk about creating a city-wide Project Labor Agreement for the unions that he is completely independent from.
Should be a fun election season folks!
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
“An interesting side note is that I have been hearing word that Frank Matarrese supporters have been declaring him to be independent of unions and that is a reason to vote for him.”
Who is telling you these words? Has the candidate himself declared to be independent of unions? You then go on to attack the candidate for being inconsistent because he is both a strong supporter of unions and supported by unions.
Where exactly are you, “hearing word?”
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 22, 2010 @ 6:30 am
The fact that the Central Labor Board didn’t endorse Mataresse is a huge blow to his campaign.
Mattaresse has been campaigning the longest in this race and they give their support to Gilmore?
I think the writing is on the wall that Frank’s vision is purely fantasy; I mean come on, “Federal stimulus dollars” is the best he can come up with? People are seeing that his messages are pure vapor.
Comment by Dave L. — September 22, 2010 @ 7:12 am
Lauren,
Thank you for putting together an electon roundup page. Very informative.
The Sierra Club, besides endorsing Rob Bonta and Lena Tam for Council as you reprot, has also endorsed Robert Raburn for BART board. The Club has not endorsed anyone for Mayor or for the School Board positions.
William (Bill) Smith
Sierra Club Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee
Comment by William Smith — September 22, 2010 @ 7:33 am
I’ll be putting up my endorsement list soon. So far I’ve really only gotten vocal about my STRONG endorsement for Robert Raburn.
You might want to note Raburn’s endorsement by Sierra Club; you could also put in a row for the Metropolitan Greater Oakland Democratic Club (MGO), who endorsed Raburn (as well as Ortiz and Young for AC Transit board).
Comment by Dan W. — September 22, 2010 @ 7:36 am
An interesting side note is that the labor union hearsay about Frank is a textbook example of what separates blogging from journalism.
Nothing wrong with being partisan, just as long as everyone knows that the interesting strategy (aka side note) to such insertions of hearsay is to get them repeated enough times to take on the weight of fact and eventually get such hearsay reported in a newspaper as fact.
#2 federal stimulus dollars are pure fantasy? You mean like the fantasy of hedge fund dollars building a billion dollar new community at Alameda Point?
And by the way, the Central Labor Council’s endorsement, in my opinion, says more about the CLC than it does about Frank. He has been consistently strong for organized labor. Look back at the minutes of when we went to a new master developer in 2006. Who was the one who wanted a project labor agreement clause in the RFP? And who was quoted in a local newspaper after SunCal belated came up with a project labor agreement?
Comment by Richard Bangert — September 22, 2010 @ 7:49 am
I’ve heard Gilmore supporters say that Marie Gilmore has made promises to the police and fire unions that she knows she doesn’t have the ability to deliver.
Comment by Mike — September 22, 2010 @ 9:14 am
#6 The empty promise sheds light on the union endorsements then.
The other candidates haven’t learned that lieing has its benefits.
Comment by Liz — September 22, 2010 @ 9:30 am
Robert Raburn has been campaigning for the BART board at the Tuesday farmer’s market for the past couple of weeks. All I needed to learn was that he was against the airport connector boondoggle and he won my vote.
I walk 3-4 miles around Alameda every day and there seem to be 25 DeHaan signs for every one Gilmore or Mataresse sign. If I just went by that as an indicator, I’d have the impression that DeHaan has it in the bag.
Comment by Sue T. — September 22, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Hey, maybe if Marie Gilmore is elected mayor she can help out those union projectionists outside the Alameda Theater who picket. Surely I am not the only one who doesn’t cross a picket line to see a movie? It would be nice to see that situation finally resolved.
Comment by Kristen — September 22, 2010 @ 10:06 am
#6,7,9:
At the City of Alameda Democratic Club endorsements meeting last week, Gilmore emphasized for the record that “the only thing” she ever promised to Alameda’s firefighters union (IAFF local 689) – or to any union – is that she would listen carefully to what they had to say and give them a fair hearing.
I have never heard her say or vote for anything other than that over the years.
Gilmore’s stance would seem to represent a big improvement in the treatment the firefighters have been receiving recently from the City Council and the city administrative staff, as Lauren documented here (a few sample posts: July 20, 27; August 4, 13, 16).
(Some of the results of the city’s past and current actions against the firefighters came home to roost last night when the Council was warned of imminent action by Alameda County to interrupt or replace the city’s existing ambulance services if a contract is not signed soon.)
Gilmore is the mayoral candidate who seems most independent of the Interim City Manager, which may correlate with her willingness to offer the firefighters a fair hearing, which is all that Local 689 officials want.
That independence was amply demonstrated last night at the City Council meeting that provided, once again, that we really need a change at the top in Alameda. That’s why i’m working and voting for Marie Gilmore (Mayor) as well as Rob Bonta and Lena Tam (City Council).
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 22, 2010 @ 11:49 am
3, 4, 8:
I worked with Robert Raburn at the Webster Street Jam, much of the weekend, and most of the people I spoke to who knew about the Oakland Airport Connector strongly opposed it. (And most people who stopped by did know about the OAC.)
The abundantly clear differences between Raburn and the incumbent were the same reasons for the Sierra Club’s and CADC’s endorsements as they are for most people.
Raburn offers a fresh, knowledgeable, and 21st-century approach that stands in stark contrast to BART’s old-style “build it at any cost” mentality that is grossly out of touch with both taxpayers and BART riders.
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 22, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
god I hope dehaan doesn’t win. he would probably throw out WindRiver and Peet’s Coffee because they cause TRAFFIC and OUT OF TOWNERS to come to alameda.
Comment by E — September 22, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
I agree with 5 on hearsay but same applies to 6 and 7.
If somebody supposedly agrees to something according to hearsay, at least include what it is they have supposedly promised. I’m confident that Marie and Lena are in the fire fighters corner ( not pockets) when it comes to defending arbitration and fending off changes to the charter a la ICM’s ballot proposals, bu public employees everywhere see the writing on the wall and know better than to expect extensions of existing contract terms to new hires. I’ll be blown away if any elected official endorses the fire fighter’s ballot initiative for minimum staffing. A charter change for that purpose is simply wrong. I don’t support it, won’t vote for it, but I support Lena’s attempt to give them a reasonable election date and not sand bag them.
9. I’m with you on the projectionists and thought I was alone. Many of my supposedly progressive friends are down right indifferent about the projectionists, but I’d like to ask the next mayor to step up on that. The City is a business partner.
I generally support labor and I support the principles of organized labor for sure, but lots of rank and file union people aren’t all that progressive. When it comes to the construction unions, most would back Armaggedon if it meant “jobs”.
Comment by M.I. — September 22, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Lena’s list of endorsers is very long and strong, as is Marie Gillmore’s and Rob Bonta’s. Why is that? Simply speaking, they stand for something. They provide leadership. They don’t bad-mouth or spread gossip and lies about their opponents. They consistently contribute to the community, and have done so for many years. They have ideas, do their homework, and listen well. They respond to their consistuients. Come to the candidate’s forums (first one is on the 29th at 7 pm at Mastick Sr. Center.) Ask questions directly and demand real answers.
Look at the tape of last night’s council meeting – the discussion about the provision of paramedical services, to get a flavor of who is most able to intelligently discuss issues, and be decisive, and push for action to be taken.
Comment by Kate Quick — September 22, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
Kate, Last night was the epitome of grandstanding. Marie Gilmore made a fool of herself.
Comment by Sam — September 22, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
#14 “You ask why is this?” Well, I think I can help you with this answer. It is because they are Don Perata’s pick. Plain and simple. Mr. Perata will be Mayor of Oakland and he’ll still be pulling the strings here in Alameda. You may not have a problem with that, but I do. We have other Democrats running and perhaps they can be independent of the Don.
Comment by J.E.A. — September 22, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
Gee, I guess I didn’t know that Mr. Perata was controlling them! I thought it was SunCal! I guess this is the newest on the rumor/smear mill. Got any hard evidence to back it up?
Of course there are others running. They may have many good qualities as well. I’d like to hear about those good qualities instead of hearing about what’s evil about the people I support, who I saw showing leadership and purpose last night. And, trust me, the Asian Democrats and the NWPC women and many of their other endorsers are not taking marching orders from Don Perata, nor am I.
Comment by Kate Quick — September 22, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
16. do you have any basis in fact for your Perata theory or is it just the same old hype about the Perata political octopus? Having a simple endorsement from The Don doesn’t count in my book, I want proof he has thrown his full political weight behind these folks.
Comment by M.I. — September 22, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
I’d say listing his Endorsement as the first one on your endorsement page would be the first clue. Why would anyone want to do that? Why would anyone even want his endorsement? He gives Democrats a bad name and I’m tired of it.
Comment by J.E.A. — September 22, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
13:
Mark, At the CADC, Marie specifically said that she OPPOSES the firefighters’ minimum-staffing charter amendment, and that she always has.
The firefighters endorsed her despite Gilmore’s steadfast opposition to putting minimum staffing levels in the City Charter. They also endorsed Lena Tam and Rob Bonta, probably on the same basis…
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 22, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
19. you make my point for me. I myself am not impressed or dissuaded by Perata being on the list, even though my attitude about his politicking is also very arms length.
This is politics. I’m sure J.E.A., that you are so principled that you would never use such an endorsement, but for most people who are serious and pragmatic about playing this game, when you get an endorsement from a major player you run with it. Then you list that person in order of their political stature, lest you insult them. Just because it is gone about as a game, does not mean the stakes are not high.
Marie endorsed John Russo for state legislature over Sandre Swanson and I don’t expect to see Sandre endorsing her any time soon. I believe Sandre is generally in with the Perata camp. or machine if J.E.A. prefers. Endorsements can be seen as trading in political favors, but unless you come up with a smoking quid pro quo, an endorsement is just and endorsement. Like I said, don’t just cry about a lousy endorsement as proof of your theory, show us the strings.
Comment by M.I. — September 22, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
Here is more about Robert Rayburn http://www.raburnforbart.com/
#4 I have to say, that is an effective video. Stopping this $500 million idiocy is reason enough to get this individual on the BART Board. I hope he can tip the scale toward sanity.
Comment by Richard Bangert — September 22, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
21. You know M.I. if the connections were that easy we would all know where he would be right now. As a Democrat I am tired of us making excuses for bad behavior. Go back in Alameda politics and see who won and where the endorsements came from. He (Don) has a very good record. You can call me a purist or an a***ole; I don’t care. What I care about is…. what is best for Alameda? If you think I am in love with any of the candidates ….you’re wrong. The only thing that is happening now is we have JKW, LD, KQ and JS trying to blame everyone for smearing his/her candidates as they smear everyone else’s.
Comment by J.E.A — September 22, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Richard Bangert! Thanks for not addressing my question.
I ask about Frank’s “Federal Stimulus” money and you bring up SunCal. Can you move on from this already?
Does anyone on this blog think the Federal government is going to pick good ‘ol Alameda and send us some money?
Does anyone on this blog really believe the Navy will accept less than the money they’re asking for the Point?
Richard, I’m guessing “Suncal” or “hedge fund” will be your answer, so I’m asking everyone else.
Comment by Dave L. — September 22, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
#24
Yes, the Congressional Research Service believes so.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Transfer and Disposal of Military Property
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
March 31, 2009
“Public benefit transfers are authorized under FPASA and allow for conveyance of property at a
discount or for no cost for specified public purposes.”
Click to access R40476.pdf
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 22, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
#21 – Perata does not leave a trail, just ask the FBI. He is still one of the most powerful ‘string pullers’ in the Bay Area. He did nothing to address the inequity of the school funding when he was in the best position to make it happen. He is behind Ron Cowan, (why do you think there is a road named after him), and he supported Beverly Johnson. Proof —-not available for publication. But, sometimes you need to trust your gut, or your sense of smell.
Comment by JD Walter — September 22, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
22:
Richard, Robert spells his last name without the “y”.
Raburn. Seems like everyone wants to make him into the former Speaker of the House….
Thanks.
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 22, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
Attention everyone!
There’s a very instructive exchange going on here:
Earlier on this page I wrote that, “… Frank’s vision is purely fantasy; …“Federal stimulus dollars” is the best he can come up with? People are seeing that his messages are pure vapor.”
Richard Bangert then brings up “hedge funds” and doesn’t address my question.
Then I write, “Does anyone on this blog really believe the Navy will accept less than the money they’re asking for the Point?”
And AlamedaNayTiff quotes a BRAC sentence.
It’s almost as though Matarresse is writing this himself because he’s not answering the question.
The Navy has never indicated it will accept less than $108 million, and the president himself (Obama) put the smack down on Pelosi after she made this genderal request.
What does Mattaresse know that Obama and Pelosi and the Navy don’t know?
Now, can someone help me and answer my question?
Thanks!
Comment by Dave L. — September 23, 2010 @ 6:28 am
28 Your original post referred to the Labor Council’s choice of Marie Gilmore over Frank for mayor. The implication from your post, as I read it, is that since federal stimulus dollars are iffy at best, then Marie Gilmore is labor’s logical choice.
Later you tie the one-dollar conveyance proposition to Frank as if it is the lynchpin of his vision for Alameda Point. I haven’t heard or read of him saying he is hanging on the one dollar conveyance.
We’ve had two tries at having a master developer deliver the ocean of cash to produce the ideal community at Alameda Point. The first one said it didn’t work for them. The second one, we said it didn’t work for us.
One approach that Frank has been talking about is more and better tenants and tenant agreements. Based on the successes and failures of reusing closed military bases, the odds of success are on the side of using what you’ve got, not with a total makeover into an ideal community. But if, in the coming months, it appears that the writing is on the wall, and we will have to put out another request for a developer who can do the entire 700 acres, then I guess that’s where we will be going, and I don’t see how you translate Frank’s statements as having him trying to block such a move.
His orientation is the one we should have had when Alameda Point Community Partners bailed out in 2006. We’re having that conversation now.
Now, please answer my question: What statements have Marie Gilmore made that indicate she knows how to get the Calthorpe Plan financed and built? What statements by her would lead a labor organization to see more jobs with her as mayor than with Frank?
Frank’s ideas for the Point are vapor? Show me the Gilmore plan.
And just for the record, you’ve never heard me say here or anywhere else that Marie Gilmore would be a bad mayor. Why are you so adamant on dissing Frank?
Comment by Richard Bangert — September 23, 2010 @ 7:53 am
Attention blog members:
I rest my case.
Thanks Richard. I think you’ve made things crystal clear.
Comment by Dave L. — September 23, 2010 @ 8:26 am
Listen folks, I don’t like this kind of video, but Matarrese gets what he deserves. He leaves himself vulnerable to these accusations and that’s why ActionAlameda! is supporting DeHaan.
The city manager should open an investigation on this B.S.
David
Comment by Mowster@sbcglobal.net — September 23, 2010 @ 8:37 am
Comment by Mowster@sbcglobal.net — September 23, 2010 @ 8:38 am
Folks should be aware that “mowster” is david howard.
Comment by notadave — September 23, 2010 @ 8:56 am
#31 – how can you not like your own work?
Comment by notadave — September 23, 2010 @ 8:57 am
The voters who have busy lives and will determine the outcome of this election don’t care about Action Alameda or David Howard.
It doesn’t matter what he posts or says.
Comment by Dave L. — September 23, 2010 @ 9:02 am
The Materesse video seems appropriate…in my humble opinion true leaders dont flip flop on issues or projects. They do their homework and then make a decision.
Comment by Mobi — September 23, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Materresse would be worse than Bev Johnson. Has he ever taken a serious position on anything?
Comment by Dave L. — September 23, 2010 @ 9:43 am
That video reminds me of how deHaan voted against the theater project and now claims credit for it–and how he voted for SunCal and now is against them.
Democratic machine candidate Gilmore and her supporters will love it, as the video tells the viewer nothing about why we should vote for deHaan.
Comment by Mike — September 23, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Frankly, I don’t care what Mr. Howard has to say. He says his postings are “news,” but it’s just slanted opinions and skewed information under the guise of self-appointed authority. And God help you if you strongly disagree with him, because you may get hit with a lawsuit.
Comment by Mike K. — September 23, 2010 @ 10:28 am
37: I am not sure that Matarrese would be “worse than Bev Johnson.”
In fact, Doug deHaan might well be a more forthright and less “flip-floppy” mayor than the incumbent, too. And I trust Doug’s integrity. I would also trust Tony Daysog to lead Alameda very well because he has a clear vision, solid experience, and professional expertise. (In fact, if Marie were not in the race I might be backing my West End friend.)
But none of these candidates have the combined independence, intelligence, temperament, and broad vision that Marie Gilmore has amply demonstrated
in her career of public service in Alameda.
With Lena Tam, Marie Gilmore has also been the most outspoken advocate of open government and transparency on the current council. That is a huge factor right now, IMHO.
I’m voting for Marie Gilmore because she is, quite simply, the best candidate in the race.
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 23, 2010 @ 10:43 am
I agree with you Jon. Gilmore’s the one.
Comment by Thomas Quintal — September 23, 2010 @ 11:01 am
31 — David,
If you really don’t like the sleazy video, then why did you post it here?
I guess we’ve now cracked the case of who sponsored the anti-Matarrese push poll. That would be supporters of Doug deHaan. If Action Alameda is supporting deHaan, then that’s just one more reason for me not to vote for him.
Comment by Hello, Pot? It's Kettle. — September 23, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
#38
Are you telling me DeHaan voted against the Alameda Theatre? I just heard him say that he *always* supported it.
Classic DeHaan.
Comment by Thomas Quintal — September 23, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
#42…Apparently its the truth…this is definately a David Howard video
Comment by Mobi — September 23, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
David is mowster!
http://www.petitiononline.com/aa1001/petition.html
Comment by alameda — September 23, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
23. and 26. I’m not calling anybody an a**hole, at least not here and now. I just think people read too much into things without any real knowledge or proof. I get the “go with the gut” thing, but one has to be careful not to go too far, like Dubya on Iraq.
Whining about JKW , LD etc. doesn’t change the facts about ICM and City attorney over reaching. Any council candidate who embraces them whole heartedly is suspect as far as I’m concerned. Doug and Jean seem pretty keen on ICM.
Comment by M.I. — September 23, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Hijacking this thread a moment: SF 11, Cubs 0 with two out in the bottom of the third. Now if only the Giants could score consistently…
Comment by Linda Hudson — September 23, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Nasty video, nasty push polls, nasty people complaining about my yard signs and asking City staff to come to ask me to take the one off the sidewalk area (which we plant and water, although it belongs to the City, technically). Can we get a few posts with factual information and positive statements about what people who are running for office are FOR?
Comment by Kate Quick — September 23, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
#31
So, is Frank Matarrese the only candidate for mayor who can differentiate between a corner liquor store on Park Street and a high-end distillery at Alameda Point?
Why do we need to have Speisekammer on Park Street when we already have Der Wienerschnitzel? How many of these German type restaurants do we need? Sauerkraut is sauerkraut folks and one bun is as good as another.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 23, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
ANOTHER ELECTION FORUM TO ATTEND WED, 10/06
Board of Education & City Council Candidates Forum
Co-hosted by Franklin and Washington PTAs
The Franklin Elementary and Washington Elementary PTAs are pleased to co-host a public forum on Wednesday, October 6, for both Board of Education and City Council candidates.
Event details:
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
6:30-7:30 pm: School Board Candidates
7:30-8:30 pm: City Council Candidates
Washington Elementary School
825 Taylor Avenue, Alameda, CA
All are welcome.
A limited number of questions will be decided in advance and asked by a designated moderator. Each candidate will be given equal time to respond to each question. To submit questions email Amy Garcia at amyj33@yahoo.com or Lorrie Murray at lorrie@astropitch.com by September 27, 2010.
In addition, drop boxes for written questions will be located in the school office at both Washington Elementary (825 Taylor Ave) and Franklin Elementary (1433 San Antonio Ave). Questions must be left during school hours, no later than September 27.
Free childcare will be provided on site during the forum as space allows.
Thank you,
Lorrie Murray
PTA President
Washington Elementary
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 24, 2010 @ 8:38 am
# 31, 32, 33, 35,36,36,38,42, 45, 48
Political campaigns can get ugly.
Someone has posted a video about Frank Matarrese on this blog and signed that post David. That sender even went so far as to claim a false email address.
I have talked with David Howard and he said he did not make that video, and he did not post that video.
Someone used the name David and claimed it was sent from David Howard’s email address.
This election has turned extremely ugly and we have over five weeks left.
Who among you is technically savvy enough and evil enough to do that video and post it under a false name?
For those of you interested in open government, sunshine, transparency, and truthfulness: be aware that others are interested in darkness and deceit.
For those of you so quick to skewer him, please note the following:
David Howard has not looked at this blog since 2007.
He has been researching city documents and he discovered approximately $4,000,000 (that’s approximately four million dollars) in city accounts that were earmarked for the Alameda Unified School District.
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s (Sept. 25) special meeting of the city council and the board of education. David Howard is directly responsible for the money being turned over to the AUSD.
http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2010/09/24/interim-city-manager-ann-marie-gallant-to-find-money-for-woodstock-child-development-center-programs/
Comment by RM — September 24, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
There is, indeed, a “Regular City Council Meeting” tomorrow (Saturday, 9-25-2010)
Here is the link to the agenda:
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/agenda.html?agenda=cc_100925_1645
And here is the pertinent part of the agenda:
Roll Call
Agenda Items
2-A. Recommendation to Support Alameda Unified School District Special Legislation. [ view item ]
2-B. Policy Discussion on Joint Use Agreement, including Capital Improvement to Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) High School Fields. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to finalize a joint use agreement between City of Alameda and AUSD with respect to joint use of Encinal and/or Thompson athletic fields, including an evaluation and recommendation for installation of artificial turf (all-weather/multi-purpose) fields at these sites.
2-C. Evaluation of City Assistance to AUSD in Order to Offset Some or All of the Costs in Operating the Toddler and Before/After School Program, Presently Operated by AUSD. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to analyze any potential funding and/or operational solutions that the City can offer in order to continue service delivery of one or both of these programs.
Adjournment
********
MY NOTE: There is no mention of this being a “joint meeting.” It is a City Council meeting to approve DRAFT legislative language that must be approved by the California Legislature before the AUSD can utilize existing redevelopment monies dedicated to low- and moderate-income housing to support its general education programs:
“Due to the serious economic condition of the Alameda Unified School District, as a result of the combined loss of federal funding due to closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station , and significant reductions in state funding, the bill language recommended herein would declare that the agency and district agreement, entered into pursuant to former Section 33401 , may be amended to provide that the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund monies deposited in this special fund for use by the district, for increasing and improving the supply of low- and moderate-income housing in accordance with the agreement, may be reallocated for use by the district for any General Fund purpose including payment of operational expenses, subject to certain conditions. It further states that notwithstanding any other provision of law, such reallocated funds shall be deemed to have been expended by the agency pursuant to Section 33334.2 and therefore , the agency shall not be obligated to reimburse the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for such amounts.” (From the Interim City Manager’s staff report)
***
MY NOTE: The Council’s action – and the possibility that any additional funds may be made available to AUSD – is completely dependent on the legislature passing enabling specific legislation sometime in 2011.
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 24, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
RM: Now that’s FUNNY.
I guess you’re responding for David Howard because he’s busy at the moment making signs and designing buttons.
By the way, since you’re not giving your real name, I’ll assume you too are “technically savvy!”
“Darkness and deceit?”
RM, I would love to see your stand up act in person. Let everyone know when you’ll be in town.
P.S. Give David my best.
Comment by Dave L. — September 24, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
51, 52:
There are at least two odd things about the 9-25 agenda:
1) It is listed incorrectly as a “regular meeting” of the City Council when it should have been listed as a “special meeting,” according to the City Clerk’s office.
2) The location is listed as the “3rd Floor Conference Room,” which would usually denote a closed session and not a regular meeting.
I am seeking clarification of these anomalies…
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 24, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
51-54:
UPDATE
According to Deputy City Manager Lisa Goldman:
1) Despite the lack of mention on the City’s web site, this IS a joint City Council – Board of Education meeting.
2) It IS a public meeting, not a closed session.
3) Because of already-scheduled meeting spaces, the joint meeting is being held in the AUSD’s conference room at 22200 Central Avenue. (I apologize for previously missing that detail.)
4) The AUSD Board of Education’s separate agenda for the same meeting looks different (5 items, not 3):
Click to access boe_092510_agendaspecial.pdf
Based on the unfamiliar (to me) location, I do not yet know whether this meeting will be televised, videotaped, or only have an audiotape record…
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 24, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
There is a Joint Special meeting of the City Council and School Board Saturday starting at 9am.
It will be held at the School District’s 3rd Floor Conference room (2200 Central).
Postings are on AUSD’s website http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us under Board of Education …
Comment by Ron Mooney (not RM!) — September 24, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Dave L.
It’s posters like you who are making this uglier than it needs to be. There are plenty of people on this board who know who RM is and, while I don’t know her to be super tech savvy… know her to be somebody who does show up in person and his a regular participant in the real world of Alameda. Not to mention a SUPERCOOL lady.
As opposed to a typical attack-dog troll on a blog, like we see evident above. I don’t know who created that video but I’m sure Lauren can vouch that it wasn’t David Howard posting it here.
Comment by Jack B. — September 24, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/california-state-senator-proposes-law-to-outlaw-malicious-online-impersonation/
Comment by RM — September 24, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
57. there are a lot worse posts than 53.
Post 31 is ambiguous. I wasn’t sure what to make of it, but never thought it was Howard. He wouldn’t show up like that after all this time avoiding this site.
RM’s “which one of you.. would be so evil..?” should be “which one of us”. It’s a big bad world full of computers and trolls and rats. We are all swimming in the same soup. My first thought on the source of that video is that it’s whoever paid for the push poll against Frank, which was not some Joe Blow blogger.
David Howard by the way is not above using false email addresses when he wants to. He’s plenty savvy on that front. Anybody ask Adam? it’s been a while since we heard from him.
Comment by M.I. — September 24, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Is it odd that 32 left out the flip flop on SunCal?
Comment by M.I. — September 24, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
Okay, it is time for that Friday night cool down. Here’s a great video about Alameda’s new bakery.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 24, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
I think it was Beverly Johnson who supported SunCal and then went against. I’m not aware that Mataresse ever publicly supported SunCal.
Comment by Dave L. — September 25, 2010 @ 9:07 am
Frank came out in support of the SunCal plan right after the Mayor did.
Comment by John Knox White — September 25, 2010 @ 9:32 am
oops, hit submit too quick.
On November 8th, he wrote to supporters that he had withdrawn his support for Measure B, but that “The land use plan as described is worth adopting in the General Plan”
Comment by John Knox White — September 25, 2010 @ 9:35 am
64 Within the scope of a General Plan, don’t we already have language that would allow for a mixed-use development? See Chapter 9 http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/planning/pdf/GPChap9.pdf It covers everything in a general way as the name General Plan implies. A lengthy Specific Plan is not customarily included in a General Plan, is it? Aren’t we now talking about the priorities (jobs first) and order of what gets developed and the number of housing units?
Regarding housing choices at Alameda Point, here is anecdotal comparison of mayoral candidates, and it can be corroborated or corrected during one of the candidate forums. Hopefully, someone will ask the question about Measure A and Alameda Point.
> Frank Matarrese has not ruled out amending Measure A for Alameda Point. Please confirm or deny.
> Marie Gilmore has ruled out amending Measure A for Alameda Point because she believes the message of voters on Measure B is that Measure A is off the table. Please confirm or deny.
> Doug deHaan has ruled out amending Measure A for Alameda Point. Confirm or deny.
> Tony Daysog has not ruled out amending Measure A for Alameda Point because he has publicly advocated “stylish condos.” Confirm or deny.
Candidate question: Would you support placing an amendment to Measure A for Alameda Point on the ballot with a specific housing cap? What housing cap would you support?
__________________________
As a side note, when looking over the General Plan I found this clause in the Airport section to be amusing: “Enhanced transit access to the airport via a BART/light rail extension.”
Comment by Richard Bangert — September 25, 2010 @ 11:19 am
65:
RM, the 1991 General Plan has not received a comprehensive update and is two decades out of date in most respects. Lots of technological improvements in transit design and technology have occurred since then and society’s transit priorities have changed, too.
The OAC as approved by the voters years ago is not the same theoretical project listed in 1991. Nor is the OAC as approved by the voters the same gutted and overpriced boondoggle that is now scheduled to be built.
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 25, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
66, this is 65
I’ll plead acronym overload. What is RM and what is OAC?
What boondoggle are you referring to?
As for the General Plan being out of date, chapter 9 regarding Alameda Point was added in 2003. What new transit innovations have occurred since 2003? What transit priorities have changed since 2003? Chapter 9 has “transit oriented” all over it. What new language in chapter 9 would satisfy you?
As for priorities changing, the Alameda Point Visioning survey ended up ranking open space/shoreline access higher than mass transit access.
Comment by Richard Bangert — September 25, 2010 @ 1:44 pm