Happy Holidays!

That’s it for me for this year folks.   Traditionally our family takes off these last two weeks of the year to enjoy the season, and I’ve decided to check out a bit earlier than I typically do.  Last year was so jam packed of juicy City happenings that it was super hard to just walk away even to enjoy the holidays.   But this year is a bit more mellow, so I’m going to start up again the beginning of next year.  Till then, I wish all of you a very Happy Holiday regardless of what holiday you may (or may not) be celebrating this year.

I might be periodically updating my Twitter feed which you can see in the upper right hand corner of the blog or if you have Twitter you can always follow me at @laurendo

Thank you all for reading and commenting, may next year be just as interesting!

Stand next to your fire

On Sunday there was a huge fire at the South Shore Beach and Tennis Apartment Complex, in the afternoon I spaced on my way to South Shore Shopping Center and took my usual route to via the Shoreline and ran into numerous emergency vehicles and plenty of news vans in the aftermath of the fire.   According to a KGO report, there were 20 families displaced by the fire and eight units sustained damage which caused $1.5 million in damage.

The good news is that there were no injuries to Fire personnel or to civilians, there have been references to a missing puppy, but most news reports haven’t covered that yet.   However, if you watch te KGO report, the reporter speaks to a resident that was trapped by the fire and rescued by ladder with his maltese.   The report also posted a photo of another firefighter rescuing what looks like some sort of terrier type dog.

On Board

I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of a singular elected official on any give body such as the City Council, School Board or Hospital Board.   Mostly in reflection to a comment which noted that School Boardmember Trish Spencer was valuable because she “asks questions that need to be asked.”   While certainly asking questions is an important part of any elected officials job, shouldn’t a person’s role on a legislative body be known for more than just asking questions?

While “building consensus” may be a feel good term that gets thrown around, the ability for any elected official to coalesce support behind their particular stance is probably the most important task for any elected official.   If you can’t manage to get others Boardmembers to support your issue then even asking a million and one questions won’t really do anything but suck time and attempt to derail  through procedural methods.

Respect yourself

I have to admit, I haven’t written too much about the breakdown in negotiations between the Teacher’s Union (AEA) and the School District mostly because it was all just so messy and frustrating that to dig deeper would just end up giving me an ulcer.   Plus, there are people that I genuinely respect on both sides of the debate so it was tough to take “sides” in the whole mess.

It was with that frame of mind that I watched Tuesday night’s School Board meeting, which I really wish was online (hint hint).   Even though the issue of the negotiations was not on the agenda, some teachers opted to talk about the issue during public comment and I have to say that as someone who really didn’t have a strong opinion either way, some of the teachers that spoke that night didn’t do the union any favors with message they presented.

It’s my turn

Tuesday night I watched the School Board meeting.   The husband was at a company holiday party so I had full control of the television after the kids went to bed.   So naturally, Alameda Unified School District Board meeting would be at the top of anyone’s must see TV, right?

The first thing that I witnessed when I turned on the television was School Boardmember Trish Spencer going on a tear after School Boardmember Ron Mooney nominated Boardmember Margie Sherratt as president for the next term.  Naturally I immediately hit record on my Tivo.  For those that were not aware, at the end of every year they switch up the officeholders by a simple election among themselves.   Apparently Boardmember Spencer was under the impression that, like grade school kickball, everyone gets a turn at being president.

Out of the question and answer

At the November PTA Council meeting, there was discussion about the Labor Negotiations and I was forwarded yesterday some questions that were answered offline by both the School District (AUSD) and the Teacher’s Union (AEA) which I found very enlightening.  So I thought I would share them to those of you that aren’t on the PTA Council mailing lists or were not forwarded a copy from someone who is.

I’ll warn you all in advance, it’s pretty long so you’re on notice.   I thought the answers to the merit pay question was very promising.

I was really concerned by the answer about “problem teachers.”  I mean I had heard that there are problem teachers out there, but because my exposure to teachers is fairly limited I haven’t actually been confronted with one.   My guess is this is probably one of the biggest gripes about the seniority system — and I can’t imagine that “good” teachers (however you want to define that) are pleased with “problem teachers” getting to essentially choose wherever they want to teach and do a questionable job without any real repercussions.

Step and column it up

Last week Susan Davis on In Alameda posted a really helpful guide on the salaries for those in the public education sector (aka teachers and administrators).     She breaks down the different terminology that has been floating around the discussions of the negotiations — or rather stalled negotiations at this point.

Highlights from her post:

Step and column: This is the basic salary schedule that governs teacher pay. The “step” refers to the number of years the employee has worked. The “column” refers to the amount of education the employee has.

…

Pulling into the Alameda Station

While watching the Historic Advisory Board meeting at the end City Staff mentioned that the Good Chevy site — where the holiday ice rink is — the owners have submitted an application for demolition of the exisiting building.   When I tweeted this info, Alameda Journal’s Peter Hegary tweeted back:

@laurendo And it's possibly the site of a new CVS store, I hear. Also heard that Chase bank may be coming to Park St. in #Alameda.—
Peter Hegarty (@Peter_Hegarty) December 02, 2011

Which was definitely the first time I had heard about definitive plans for moving the CVS (previously Longs) to Park Street itself.   There was some discussion during the Civic Center Vision Plan that CVS was interested in being located on Park Street itself, but most of the vision plan stuff was really just ideas and less about definitive plans.    But I did check in with City staff about this.

Compliance check

A commenter in yesterday’s post asked why Alameda’s Housing Element was out of compliance with the state.   In 2009, the State Department of Housing and Community Development — the agency that certifies the Housing Element — transmitted  a letter to the City of Alameda indicating which portions of the Housing Element were not in compliance.

Some of the issues are small and easily correctable, like stating whether or nor a parcel is vacant or not.   Some of the issues are more complex, such as the failure to rezone the identified parcels to residential which would be a barrier to construction of the actual units.   Another issue was that carryover number of units that were assigned to Alameda in a previous cycle that it simply did not take care of during that seven year cycle.

In your Housing Element

As mentioned in the comments section under yesterday’s post, the City is going to be rebooting the Housing Element process to bring Alameda’s Housing Element into compliance with the state.  The Housing Element is part of Alameda’s larger General Plan and the State requires that the Housing Element identify sites in Alameda to fulfill Alameda’s allocated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Previously, it appeared that simply identifying sites was sufficient and that there was no real penalties for jurisdictions that failed to actually build the RHNA identified units.   Now, for every unit unbuilt from each seven year cycle, the balance will “carryover” into the next seven year cycle.  Did I mention the part about how jurisdictions can be sued if they don’t have an approved Housing Element?   And given Alameda’s Measure A elephant in the room, Alameda really doesn’t want to give the State any other reasons to get pissy at Alameda on the subject of housing.