Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 6, 2012

Reasonable accommodation

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, City Council, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

At Tuesday City Council meeting  the topic of the North Housing parcel came up, apparently after a lot of back and forth with the Navy, the City wants to restate a legally binding agreement with the Alameda Point Collaborative and Building Futures with Women and Children for a “homeless accommodation” for the parcel.  Remember, when the parcel was first surplused, there was a disposal process that had to be followed.   The “homeless accommodation” in this case which will be run by APC and BFWC will be a 90 unit permanent supportive housing project, I wrote a whole post here on the different options that were considered.   Just to note, the 90 units will only take up 13 acres of the surplused land, 42 acres was surplused.

Essentially this agenda was simply to restate the legally binding agreement, nothing surprising.  Councilmember Beverly Johnson asked a good question about the City being on the hook for the environmental, Staff member Debbie Potter noted that if the City could not secure environmental insurance at a reasonable rate then there was no obligation for the City to take title.

On the other hand, Councilmember Doug deHaan asked this, almost rhetorical,  question:

The question always has been, when we do get in to these kinds of agreements, of providing services back to financial, back to the City, this would not provide any financial stream coming back to the City for basic services, would it?

Just note I transcribed it exactly the way it was said, Debbie Potter answered:

This is a homeless accommodation.

And Doug deHaan then said:

So clarification to the people, and indeed this is an accommodation and therefore there would be no funding stream coming back for public services from it.

To which Debbie Potter answered:

The homeless accommodation is intended to be a 90 unit project that provides affordable housing, permanent affordable housing, to formerly homeless people.

Now, I don’t know if Debbie Potter simply didn’t understand what Doug deHaan was putting forward or if she was graciously ignoring it the implications, my guess is it was the latter because I got it right away, as did APC Executive Director Doug Biggs who responded during public comment:

Our role out here in working with the group that we do is to really build self-sufficiency and one way that we do that is through economic opportunities.  That alone brings a lot of value to the City, both in decreasing the amount of emergency services needed and their ability to contribute to the economy.

Of course the practically rhetorical “question” of Doug deHaan’s was not about clarification, it was to drive home the fact that the residents of the project would not be paying property taxes (aka “no funding stream coming back for public services” and “not provide any financial stream coming back to the City for basic services”).

Who cares that the property right now doesn’t provide any financial stream for public and/or basic services for the City and hasn’t provided anything since it was surplused in 2007 and who knows how much longer before that.   It’s important to clarify that this project — this “homeless accommodation” — won’t provide any financial stream for public and/or basic services.

And I suppose that even though sales taxes are a source of revenue for public and/or basic services, the fact that the residents of these projects, who will probably be more reliant on Alameda based businesses because of transportation issues, will be contributing to the sales tax base that doesn’t count either because they don’t pay property taxes.

About these ads

55 Comments

  1. “Who cares that the property right now doesn’t provide any financial stream for public and/or basic services for the City and hasn’t provided anything since it was surplused in 2007 and who knows how much longer before that.”

    I would suspect that, oh, say 99% of the taxpayers who are concerned that the ‘financial stream’ has way more flowing out than in might have modicum of ‘care’. Just because this city was stupid in the past doesn’t mean we can continue stupidity. If there’s a way for the city to make money on the property, I say yea for deHaan.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 9:03 am

  2. As I mentioned above, there is a disposal process that has to be followed for surplus federal land. First is up for grabs for any other federal agencies, no one wanted it. Second is a public benefit conveyance — which the City did put in for the fields if I remember correctly — then homeless services providers get next dibs at the property (see link above) which is what happened here. The City only gets to “make money” on the property after all these other people get a bite at the apple, if there is even the opportunity for the City in the first place.

    Dressing up NIMBYism and subtle prejudice against future residents who may not be someone’s ideal in “oh well no money is going to be coming in from the project for public services” is nothing to cheer about.

    Comment by Lauren Do — July 6, 2012 @ 10:24 am

  3. By the way, what software do you use for voice to print?

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 11:04 am

  4. I don’t use software.

    Comment by Lauren Do — July 6, 2012 @ 11:08 am

  5. Can’t we rent it the corporation that oversee’s the homeless operation? Maybe the Feds would pay, surely Obama has some of his stash left for the homeless, after all, he spent 1.6 mil to take care of six homeless Alameda firemen. Speaking of firemen, what the city should do is lay off six more firemen and save 1.6 mil more.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 11:17 am

  6. You mean you sit there and type out all that CC gibberish?

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 11:18 am

  7. Lena Tam must be furious that there will be more people living on the Point who aren’t paying Property Taxes. Because she is always telling us there must be property taxes to pay for the infrastructure at the Point. Perhaps Doug was just trying to point that out to Lena.

    Comment by vigi — July 6, 2012 @ 11:54 am

  8. I just watched Tuesday’s council meeting online. Biggs was definitely responding to deHaan. Based on Tam’s vote (and deHaan’s non-vote) on the Housing Element and her comment about “providing a mix of housing for working families” (although camera was on Bonta), it sounds like she understands the need for the North Housing parcel to provide housing for the homeless, but deHaan does not.

    Comment by BarbaraK — July 6, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

  9. Lauren, I wouldn’t say that the sales tax revenue doesn’t count, but rather, that it doesn’t count much:

    http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/getdoc.cfm?id=8860

    Page 6 has a nifty pie chart of the City’s revenue by source. I can see from this why someone may harp on property tax revenue.

    In this agreement, was there a calculation that led to “90 units?” Is that the count of homeless Alamedan families? Are we adding to our population with these units?

    Is there an mechanism to recoup costs or to staff for additional emergency service calls? I realize there will be no revenue stream, but is there a provision for a cost offset? It seems to me that if we would be taking in homeless people from other communities, than we ought to get our costs defrayed in some way by those other communities.

    In my personal experience, working on ambulances and fire engines for a number of years, lower income areas use more resources on a day-to-day basis than do more affluent areas. I’ve also seen projects go through with no thought to the added need for emergency services, leading to increased demand on limited resources.

    As much as I hate to agree with anything penned by Mr Richard, the idea of renting out the land to someone seeing to the needs of the homeless does not turn my stomach. Although, that may be a violation of the agreement. I haven’t read it that closely.

    Comment by Seth — July 6, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

  10. 7.The housing looks perfectly fine to me. It is probably less than 40 years old. Why not fix them up a bit, redo the grounds and rent them out? Wouldn’t that be the most environmental friendly thing to do?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 31, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

  11. I wish I had a buck for every person who has commented on this blog that has prefaced their common sense comment with what Mr. Seth wrote in the last sentence of his #9.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

  12. Jack

    You Could buy the Base with that money. Then Donate it to “Transform” ers.

    Second thought maybe the City has already done that.

    Comment by John — July 6, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

  13. “I haven’t read it that closely.” It really bothers me when I have to write that next to a comment.

    It means “I don’t have time for this and I’m throwing up my hands and hoping that those responsible for these decisions are doing their due diligence.” I am not that trusting of people whom I don’t know well – less so of politicians. But, in the end, if I don’t have the expertise, I have to admit that my “common sense” opinion is just that, common. Common in the pedestrian, layman, not-in-the-know kind of way. We have people that are supposed to immerse themselves in complicated issues for us.

    It is a frustration of mine when I see people spouting off on things that I know they know very little about, things that I know a lot more about. I hesitate in weighing in on lots of things for that reason – I don’t really want to be that guy frustrating the hell out of someone else in the same way.

    I’m reminding myself that my opinion is only as valuable as the facts that inform it. It is therefore on me to be sure I am informed well beyond the Google level of research before throwing out opinions. This is a good place to ask questions. Council meetings are also good venues for well thought out questions (the pointier the better, sometimes).

    Comment by Seth — July 6, 2012 @ 7:51 pm

  14. Well put, Seth, none of us meet the expertise label…least of all elected officials. I would only suggest you not take too much of this seriously.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 6, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

  15. Seth: as to your question about who the project would be serving, in preparation for requesting the Homeless Accommodation from the Navy the City had to commission a needs assessment for the City of Alameda. The first “need” identified that was lacking in Alameda’s Continuum of Care was Permanent Supportive Housing. “Permanent Supportive Housing” is one of the last steps for individuals and families who wind their way through homelessness programs (emergency shelters, temporary housing, permanent supportive housing) there are variations on the model and the tracks depending on the provider and the family/individual. The goal of this project is to serve an Alameda population, homelessness, of course, is not just defined as people on the street, so there is a lot of homelessness that is invisible because these aren’t people who are camping under freeways.

    The original request made by the consortium who would oversee the project initially pegged the unit number at 120, but that number was reduced by the Evaluation Committee which noted that the balance of the land — which would then be auctioned off to the highest bidder like the Neptune Pointe site — if it is housing would require a certain number of inclusionary housing units too.

    So even with this project and other assorted carve outs (parks and things) there is still more than half of the acreage left for market rate development.

    Jack: Yes, I sit through and type out that City Council gibberish mainly because once I write out something it embeds itself in my memory and allows me to better understand what is going on.

    To no one in particular: In my morning haze I remembered that another project was recently pushed forward involving supportive housing as well, the Jack Capon Village, which was made possible by a sale of a former City owned parking lot to the Housing Authority aka no property tax revenue forthcoming. There were no suggestions or “clarifications” from Councilmember Doug deHaan regarding the status of the property tax revenue received by these permanent supportive housing residents. And in fact commended everyone involved in the effort. Perhaps because these residents are developmentally disabled adults and not formerly homeless families and individuals.

    Comment by Lauren Do — July 7, 2012 @ 7:00 am

  16. Any idea how one qualifies to habitat one of these permanent housing units?

    I looked online and apparently one has to have some kind of psychiatric disorder in order to get Permanent Supportive Housing (note the capital letters, that makes it more important). I think I (and probably a few others here) may qualify based on some of the disabilities listed. Be nice to live out in boondocks, neighbors can’t be any worse than what they are around here.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 7, 2012 @ 10:34 am

  17. “Permanent Supportive Housing offers
    voluntary, flexible supports to help people
    with psychiatric disabilities choose, get, and
    keep housing that is decent, safe, affordable,
    and integrated into the community.
    Central to the approach is a belief that people
    with psychiatric disabilities should have the
    right to live in a home of their own, without
    any special rules or service requirements.”

    But how does one qualify for the right? The key phrase is ‘psychiatric disabilities':

    “Psychiatric disabilities” is a generic term referring to a range of syndromes and conditions characterized by different types and degrees of emotional, developmental, cognitive, and/or behavioral manifestations. The terms “psychological disabilities” and “psychiatric disabilities” are used interchangeably by professionals in the field and within this document. The source for understanding the exact nature of these conditions is typically the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases: Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD). Common subtypes of psychiatric disorders include but are not limited to obsessive-compulsive, bipolar, generalized anxiety, mood, and post-traumatic stress disorders.”

    Here’s some of the ‘Disorders':
    Index of Psychiatric Disorders

    Sort By:

    Disorder Name | Disorder Category | DSM-IV Code

    Code Disorder Category
    308.3 Acute Stress Disorder Anxiety Disorders
    309.9 Adjustment Disorder Unspecified Adjustment Disorders
    309.24 Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety Adjustment Disorders
    309.0 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood Adjustment Disorders
    309.3 Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Conduct Adjustment Disorders
    309.28 Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood Adjustment Disorders
    309.4 Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct Adjustment Disorders
    300.22 Agoraphobia without History of Panic Disorder Anxiety Disorders
    307.1 Anorexia Nervosa Eating Disorders
    301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    293.89 Anxiety Disorder Due to Medical Condition Anxiety Disorders
    300 Anxiety Disorder, NOS Anxiety Disorders
    301.82 Avoidant Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    296.8 Bipolar Disorder NOS Mood Disorders
    296.56 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, In Full Remission Mood Disorders
    296.55 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, In Partial Remission Mood Disorders
    296.51 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, Mild Mood Disorders
    296.52 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, Moderate Mood Disorders
    296.54 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, Severe With Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.53 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, Severe Without Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.50 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed, Unspecified Mood Disorders
    296.46 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, In Full Remission Mood Disorders
    296.45 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, In Partial Remission Mood Disorders
    296.41 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Mild Mood Disorders
    296.42 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Moderate Mood Disorders
    296.44 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Severe With Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.43 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Severe Without Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.40 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Unspecified Mood Disorders
    296.66 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, In Full Remission Mood Disorders
    296.65 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, In Partial Remission Mood Disorders
    296.61 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, Mild Mood Disorders
    296.62 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, Moderate Mood Disorders
    296.64 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, Severe With Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.63 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, Severe Without Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.60 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed, Unspecified Mood Disorders
    296.7 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Unspecified Mood Disorders
    296.40 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Hypomanic Mood Disorders
    296.06 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, In Full Remission Mood Disorders
    296.05 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, In Partial Remission Mood Disorders
    296.01 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, Mild Mood Disorders
    296.02 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, Moderate Mood Disorders
    296.04 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, Severe With Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.03 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, Severe Without Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.00 Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, Unspecified Mood Disorders
    296.89 Bipolar II Disorder Mood Disorders
    300.7 Body Dysmorphic Disorder Somatoform Disorders
    301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    780.59 Breathing-Related Sleep Disorder Sleep Disorders, Dyssomnias
    298.8 Brief Psychotic Disorder Psychotic Disorders
    307.51 Bulimia Nervosa Eating Disorders
    307.45 Circadian Rhythm Sleep Disorder Sleep Disorders, Dyssomnias
    300.11 Conversion Disorder Somatoform Disorders
    301.13 Cyclothymic Disorder Mood Disorders
    297.1 Delusional Disorder Psychotic Disorders
    301.6 Dependent Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    300.6 Depersonalization Disorder Dissociative Disorders
    311 Depressive Disorder NOS Mood Disorders
    300.12 Dissociative Amnesia Dissociative Disorders
    300.15 Dissociative Disorder NOS Dissociative Disorders
    300.13 Dissociative Fugue Dissociative Disorders
    300.14 Dissociative Identity Disorder Dissociative Disorders
    302.76 Dyspareunia Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    307.47 Dyssomnia NOS Sleep Disorders, Dyssomnias
    307.44 Dyssomnia Related to (Another Disorder) Sleep Disorders
    300.04 Dysthymic Disorder Mood Disorders
    307.5 Eating Disorder NOS Eating Disorders
    302.4 Exhibitionism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    625 Female Dyspareunia Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    625.8 Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.73 Female Orgasmic Disorder Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.72 Female Sexual Arousal Disorder Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.81 Fetishism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    302.89 Frotteurism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults Sexual Disorders, Gender Identity Disorder
    302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children Sexual Disorders, Gender Identity Disorder
    302.6 Gender Identity Disorder NOS Sexual Disorders, Gender Identity Disorder
    300.02 Generalized Anxiety Disorder Anxiety Disorders
    301.50 Histrionic Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    300.7 Hypochondriasis Somatoform Disorders
    312.3 Impulse -Control Disorder NOS Impulse-Control Disorders
    307.42 Insomnia Related to (Another Disorder) Sleep Disorders
    312.34 Intermittent Explosive Disorder Impulse-Control Disorders
    312.32 Kleptomania Impulse-Control Disorders
    296.36 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, In Full Remission Mood Disorders
    296.35 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, In Partial Remission Mood Disorders
    296.31 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Mild Mood Disorders
    296.32 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate Mood Disorders
    296.34 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe With Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.33 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe Without Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.30 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Unspecified Mood Disorders
    296.26 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, In Full Remission Mood Disorders
    296.25 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, In Partial Remission Mood Disorders
    296.21 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Mild Mood Disorders
    296.22 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate Mood Disorders
    296.24 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe With Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.23 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe Without Psychotic Features Mood Disorders
    296.20 Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Unspecified Mood Disorders
    608.89 Male Dyspareunia Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.72 Male Erectile Disorder Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    607.84 Male Erectile Disorder Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    608.89 Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.74 Male Orgasmic Disorder Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    293.83 Mood Disorder Due to Medical Condition Mood Disorders
    301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    347 Narcolepsy Sleep Disorders, Dyssomnias
    307.47 Nightmare Disorder Sleep Disorders, Parasomnias
    300.3 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Anxiety Disorders
    301.4 Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    625.8 Other Female Sexual Dysfunction Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    608.89 Other Male Sexual Dysfunction Due to Medical Condition Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    307.89 Pain Disorder Associated with both Psychological Factors and Medical Conditions Somatoform Disorders
    307.8 Pain Disorder Associated with Psychological Features Somatoform Disorders
    300.21 Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia Anxiety Disorders
    300.01 Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia Anxiety Disorders
    301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    302.9 Paraphilia, NOS Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    307.47 Parasomnia NOS Sleep Disorders, Parasomnias
    312.31 Pathological Gambling Impulse-Control Disorders
    302.2 Pedophilia Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    301.9 Personality Disorder NOS Personality Disorders
    309.81 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Anxiety Disorders
    302.75 Premature Ejaculation Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    307.44 Primary Hypersomnia Sleep Disorders, Dyssomnias
    307.42 Primary Insomnia Sleep Disorders, Dyssomnias
    293.81 Psychotic Disorder Due to Medical Condition, with Delusions Psychotic Disorders
    293.82 Psychotic Disorder Due to Medical Condition, with Hallucinations Psychotic Disorders
    298.9 Psychotic Disorder, NOS Psychotic Disorders
    312.33 Pyromania Impulse-Control Disorders
    295.70 Schizoaffective Disorder Psychotic Disorders
    301.20 Schizoid Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    295.20 Schizophrenia, Catatonic Type Psychotic Disorders
    295.10 Schizophrenia, Disorganized Type Psychotic Disorders
    295.30 Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type Psychotic Disorders
    295.60 Schizophrenia, Residual Type Psychotic Disorders
    295.90 Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type Psychotic Disorders
    295.40 Schizophreniform Disorder Psychotic Disorders
    301.22 Schizotypal Personality Disorder Personality Disorders
    302.79 Sexual Aversion Disorder Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.9 Sexual Disorder NOS Sexual Disorders
    302.7 Sexual Dysfunction NOS Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.83 Sexual Masochism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    302.84 Sexual Sadism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    297.3 Shared Psychotic Disorder Psychotic Disorders
    780.54 Sleep Disorder Due to A Medical Condition, Hypersomnia Type Sleep Disorders
    780.52 Sleep Disorder Due to A Medical Condition, Insomnia Type Sleep Disorders
    780.59 Sleep Disorder Due to A Medical Condition, Mixed Type Sleep Disorders
    780.59 Sleep Disorder Due to A Medical Condition, Parasomnia Type Sleep Disorders
    307.46 Sleep Terror Disorder Sleep Disorders, Parasomnias
    307.46 Sleepwalking Disorder Sleep Disorders, Parasomnias
    300.23 Social Phobia Anxiety Disorders
    300.81 Somatization Disorder Somatoform Disorders
    300.81 Somatoform Disorder NOS Somatoform Disorders
    300.29 Specific Phobia Anxiety Disorders
    302.3 Transvestic Fetishism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias
    312.39 Trichotillomania Impulse-Control Disorders
    300.81 Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder Somatoform Disorders
    306.51 Vaginismus Sexual Disorders, Sexual Dysfunctions
    302.82 Voyeurism Sexual Disorders, Paraphilias

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 7, 2012 @ 10:39 am

  18. Yes, I see we All qualify. Let’s just have the entire Island declared P.S.H. [except Bayport, of course-a haven for the hyperNormal]. Maybe Alameda will then qualify for even more juicy Federal grant money. I could really use some to fix up my place.

    Comment by vigi — July 7, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

  19. Maybe even Bayport has one or two in need…just saying

    Jack: Yes, I sit through and type out that City Council gibberish mainly because once I write out something it embeds itself in my memory and allows me to better understand what is going on.

    300.3 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

    What is obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)?
    Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by uncontrollable, unwanted thoughts and repetitive, ritualized behaviors you feel compelled to perform. If you have OCD, you probably recognize that your obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors are irrational – but even so, you feel unable to resist them and break free.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 7, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

  20. Then there is always (DO) Disorder. (DeHaan Obsessive.) It is an anxiety disorder characterized by uncontrollable, unwanted thoughts and repetitive, ritualized behaviors you feel compelled to perform against anyone who might have the best interest of people not profiting from the taxpayers.

    Comment by John — July 7, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

  21. Like vigi said, John, maybe not the entire island, but pretty sure Marks, Do, vigi, you, and I qualify for free housing.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 7, 2012 @ 7:32 pm

  22. LOL…I agree Jack…….Give me one with padded walls on the water. I will even let the transformers pick out the drapes.

    Comment by John — July 8, 2012 @ 3:53 am

  23. I don’t think we need to look to hard to find people to qualify for these 90 Units.

    Overall, 44 million people were on food stamps on a monthly basis in 2011, compared with 17 million in 2000, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    The Number of Ph.D.s on Public Aid Triples in U.S.

    One in six Americans received food stamps or other public assistance last year, but the number of people with a Ph.D. or Masters degree who receive that aid has tripled in the past two years, according to government data.

    Of the 22 million Americans with master’s degrees or higher in 2010, about 360,000 were receiving some kind of public assistance, according to the latest Current Population Survey released by the U.S. Census Bureau in March 2011.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/growing-number-americans-phds-receiving-food-stamps-aid/story?id=16310858

    Comment by John — July 8, 2012 @ 4:39 am

  24. Reasonable accommodations

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 8, 2012 @ 9:54 am

  25. I thought it odd at the time that my best friend in UCLA dental school had figured out how to get food stamps & was urging the rest of us to do so. Now it seems she was just ahead of her time!

    Comment by vigi — July 8, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

  26. “Why Marxism is on the rise again

    “Capitalism is in crisis across the globe – but what on earth is the alternative? Well, what about the musings of a certain 19th-century German philosopher? Yes, Karl Marx is going mainstream – and goodness knows where it will end.”

    “Today, 164 years after Marx and Engels wrote about grave-diggers, the truth is almost the exact opposite. The proletariat, far from burying capitalism, are keeping it on life support. Overworked, underpaid workers ostensibly liberated by the largest socialist revolution in history (China’s) are driven to the brink of suicide to keep those in the west playing with their iPads. Chinese money bankrolls an otherwise bankrupt America.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 8, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

  27. For Markx…Slavoj Žižek, at least he’s a lot more interesting than Naom Chomsky

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 8, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

  28. Jack, John, Vigi….use to enjoy reading you guys but now it is all old and you all have no souls.

    Comment by J.E.A. — July 8, 2012 @ 6:26 pm

  29. You must have changed because we damn sure didn’t.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 8, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

  30. I think you are right Jack…I just don’t care much anymore…you guys bore me to death….and I can not believe I am reading this while on vacation in the middle of Mexico…..they have better internet than Alameda…..Adios!

    Comment by J.E.A. — July 8, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

  31. We bore you to death? Why are you reading us than? It would seem to me skipping the John, vigi, Jack comments would be easy regardless where your present location is, vaya con Dios.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 8, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

  32. 30

    “I just don’t care much anymore”

    You probably don’t……But hope you have safe travels.

    Current Travel Warnings

    Travel Warnings are issued when long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable lead the State Department to recommend that Americans avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country. A Travel Warning is also issued when the U.S. Government’s ability to assist American citizens is constrained due to the closure of an embassy or consulate or because of a drawdown of its staff. The countries listed below meet those criteria.

    According to the most recent homicide figures published by the Mexican government, 47,515 people were killed in narcotics-related violence in Mexico between December 1, 2006 and September 30, 2011, with 12,903 narcotics-related homicides in the first nine months of 2011 alone. While most of those killed in narcotics-related violence have been members of TCOs, innocent persons have also been killed. The number of U.S. citizens reported to the Department of State as murdered in Mexico increased from 35 in 2007 to 120 in 2011

    http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5665.html

    Travel Summary for Mexico

    Crime and violence are serious problems in Mexico. While most victims of violence are Mexican citizens associated with criminal activity, the security situation does pose risks for British nationals as well. See Safety and Security – State-specific Information for further details about the security situation in individual states.

    The Mexican government makes efforts to protect foreign visitors to major tourist destinations. Resort areas and tourist destinations in Mexico such as Cancun, Playa del Carmen, Cozumel, Los Cabos and Puerto Vallarta have historically not seen the levels of drug-related violence and crime reported in the northern border region and in areas along major drug trafficking routes.

    You are advised to travel only during daylight hours throughout Mexico, to avoid isolated roads, and to use toll roads (“cuotas”) whenever possible. You should keep your car doors locked at all times and the windows shut, especially at traffic lights. You should seek advice from local contacts, avoid travel off the beaten track, stay abreast of media coverage of events in the areas to or through which you intend to travel, and ensure that trusted contacts are aware of your travel plans. You should remain vigilant and be aware of your surroundings at all times and be aware of the risks of travelling to certain areas in Mexico. Security considerations should always be factored into your travel plans. While British nationals are unlikely to be specifically targeted, there is always a risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    •We advise against all but essential travel to Ciudad Juarez, where there is a high level of drug-related violence and criminal activity. There has been an increase in violent incidents in the northern states of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, including in and around Monterrey and the border areas of Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, and in Tampico. We advise against all but essential land crossings between the US and Mexico in Ciudad Juarez following an alert issued by the US Consulate in Ciudad Juarez on 15 July 2011. See Safety and Security – General, Safety and Security – Crime, Safety and Security – State-specific Information (Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas) and Safety and Security – Road Travel.

    •There has been a significant rise in bus hijackings, car-jackings, abductions, robberies and illegal roadblocks in the Monterrey metropolitan area and on highways leading from Monterrey to the US border areas across the states of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon. You should exercise extreme caution when travelling on the highways between Monterrey, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa, as there have been reports of disappearances. See Safety and Security – General, Safety and Security – Crime, Safety and Security – State-specific Information (Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas), and Safety and Security – Road Travel.

    •There have been a number of violent car-jackings and robberies along the Pacific Highway. You should exercise particular caution along this route, travel in convoy where possible, and avoid travel at night. See Safety and Security – General, Safety and Security – Crime, Safety and Security – State-specific Information (Sinaloa), and Safety and Security – Road Travel.

    •295,831 British nationals visited Mexico in 2010 (Source: Instituto Nacional de Migración). See General – Consular Assistance Statistics.

    •There is a low threat from terrorism. But you should be aware of the global risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, which could be in public areas, including those frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers. See Safety and Security – Terrorism.

    •You should take out comprehensive travel and medical insurance before travelling. See General – Insurance.

    http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/north-central-america/mexico1/

    Comment by John — July 9, 2012 @ 1:51 am

  33. But they have good internet. I know those 1/1000’s of a second download speed in Alameda is kinda boring me also.

    Effective July 15, 2010, the U.S. Mission in Mexico imposed restrictions on U.S. government employees’ travel. U.S. government employees and their families are not permitted to drive for personal reasons from the U.S.-Mexico border to or from the interior of Mexico or Central America. Personal travel by vehicle is permitted between Hermosillo and Nogales but is restricted to daylight hours and the Highway 15 toll road (cuota).

    U.S. government personnel and their families are prohibited from personal travel to all areas described as “defer non-essential travel” and when travel for official purposes is essential it is conducted with extensive security precautions. USG personnel and their families are allowed to travel for personal reasons to the areas where no advisory is in effect or where the advisory is to exercise caution.

    For more information on road safety and crime along Mexico’s roadways, see the Department of State’s Country Specific Information.

    http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5665.html

    Comment by John — July 9, 2012 @ 2:08 am

  34. “U.S. government personnel and their families are prohibited from personal travel…” Really? Are they being turned back at gunpoint by US Marshals at the Border? I’d like to see film footage of that b/c it sounds really hard to enforce. At least in the Tijuana-San Diego Metro Area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego%E2%80%93Tijuana

    Comment by vigi — July 9, 2012 @ 9:58 am

  35. 27

    Jack

    This guy either has a bad cocaine problem or a total fixation of rubbing his nose every 15 seconds.

    I couldn’t watch after 15 minutes or so.

    Body language says the following.

    Nose body language – clinical explanation

    When you tell a lie your blood pressure increases and the blood vessels in your nose allow more blood to enter by dilating. This causes the tissues in your nose to swell. The additional blood causes mast cells to release histamine and your nose tingles or becomes itchy. You then touch, scratch or rub your nose lightly to satisfy the itch. (If you have a genuine itch – not caused by lying – you usually rub your nose more vigorously.)

    Comment by John — July 9, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

  36. John, well, that guy is one the preeminent spokesman for modern Marxism. But, forget about him for a moment, vigi in # 34 poses a rhetorical question that seems to be aimed at you. vigi should understand that what you provided in your # 33 is fact based on the US State Department edict not something made up. I believe you passed on that information to J.E.A. in order that J.E.A. be made aware of potential dangers in travel to Mexico.

    I commend you for providing that info and doing your part attempting to bring a wayward soul back into the triad of truth based on facts.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 9, 2012 @ 10:03 pm

  37. Jack

    Yes that was from the State Department. Yes it was just information.

    I spent alot of Spring Breaks and Vacations down in Mexico. Love the place..I also have friends who have family ranch in Nogales……These are interesting times.

    The reason I gave heads up to JEA is alot of people don’t really have a clue on whats happening down in Mexico. I have friends that use to teach on Cruises in Mexico and they were the ones that gave me the heads up on State Department Travel Warnings. After last spring he felt it wasn’t safe any longer for him and his wife to travel in Mexico. He volunteers coaching baseball at San Quentin so I really don’t consider him a wimp.

    Comment by John — July 9, 2012 @ 10:59 pm

  38. Before you ask Jack…..Yes they play all Home Games.

    Comment by John — July 9, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

  39. Think I’ll be okay…Guanajuato: San Miguel de Allende and Leon are the major cities/travel destinations in Guanajuato -see map (PDF, 286 kb) to identify their exact locations: No advisory is in effect. You know that if we just leagalized drugs most of this would stop.

    Comment by J.E.A. — July 10, 2012 @ 5:56 am

  40. Things are lovely and peaceful here in La Paz. there are places i would avoid elsewhere, but this is a very safe town.

    Comment by Kate Quick — July 10, 2012 @ 6:58 am

  41. I expect it is peaceful in Bolivia.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 10, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

  42. May be Jack but I am in Mexico. Went snorkeling with the sea lions today in a tranquil lagoon on the Isla Espiritu Santo.

    Comment by Kate Qiick — July 10, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

  43. How did oz wind up in this two-bit burg?

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 15, 2012 @ 9:53 pm

  44. What i do not realize is actually how you are not really much more well-liked than you may be right now.

    You are so intelligent. You realize thus significantly
    relating to this subject, made me personally consider it from numerous
    varied angles. Its like men and women aren’t fascinated unless it is one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs outstanding. Always maintain it up!

    Comment by Charles — September 16, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

  45. What’s the procedure for unposting a comment?

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 16, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

  46. Jack

    Lauren is probably only one who can delete a comment.

    Unless someone else has admin privileges.

    http://wordpress.org/support/topic/remove-comment-function-from-a-page

    Comment by John — September 17, 2012 @ 9:02 am

  47. Jack

    I hope this helps.

    if you wish to modify or delete comments made on other blogs, you will need to contact the blog owner directly. It is up to them whether or not they wish to respond to you or honor your request.

    Please see http://en.support.wordpress.com/my-comments/

    http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/need-comments-i-made-on-someone-elses-blog-deleted

    Comment by John — September 17, 2012 @ 9:14 am

  48. If you want to unpost a comment contact me via email.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 17, 2012 @ 9:18 am

  49. Yesterday a comment was posted by someone using the name “Charlie”. The name hyperlinked to a website advertising a self help Negotiating Skills online program. The comment was innocuous and somewhat puzzling but it went missing shortly after I read it yesterday afternoon. After it was expunged, I asked the Blog Hostess, “What’s the procedure for unposting a comment?” and finally received an answer from John this morning followed by another from the Blog Hostess which didn’t really say much. So in the interest of transparency:

    1. Under what circumstances will a comment be expunged?

    2. Explain the current procedure (if there is one) one must go through to have a comment expunged.

    3. Who makes the final decision on the expunction?

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2012 @ 9:28 am

  50. Jack: That comment was spam that escaped the spam filter. If you found the link useful, I can always send it to you.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 17, 2012 @ 9:51 am

  51. It wasn’t the link, it was the comment. Put it back up.

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

  52. I don’t generally leave up spam, but whatever, it’s back up.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 18, 2012 @ 8:02 am

  53. I was interested in how the Gordian Knot was resolved in Tammy Lenski’s website and whether it had any connection to the comment, or in other words, did John Adams ‘cut’ the knot that he and John Wilkinson (of Pennsylvania) were confronted with in 1776 in Philadelphia as interpreted by Lenski or did he ‘untie’ the knot without cutting it.

    Legend’s popular version is that Alexander the Great, after puzzling over the Midas knot (there were no loose ends and which his seer felt if left unsolved would cause bad luck) Alexander pulled his sword and sliced the knot. The other version has Alexander pulling the cord from the pin securing it and exposing the loose ends to the knot making it able to be untied.

    John Adams ‘cut’ the knot by suggesting Wilkinson not vote on declaring Independence from England by absenting himself from the meeting the following day. Pennsylvania voted ‘yea’ the next day absent Wilkinson and the Declaration was submitted. The difference between ‘cutting’ the knot or ‘untying’ it is significant in my opinion. Wilkinson kept his pacifism beliefs and Adams his Independence views. If it had been untied, they would have agreed on untying the knot…which could not be done and England would still rule.

    Upon reading Lenski today, she didn’t offer an opinion whether the knot was cut or untied by Adams. Leaving me less confident of her negotiation philosophy and without help in interpreting the comment.

    Thanks, sorry I bothered you.

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2012 @ 10:15 am

  54. I think you are overthinking the spam bot. It’s generally some weird collection of phrases with something nice about the blog owner to stroke the ego (“You’re so smart, blah blah blah) and then a link to a website where someone is paying for eyeballs to the site. Besides, you forgot the factor in how “Lady Gaga” ties into the whole thing.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 18, 2012 @ 10:20 am

  55. I don’t know, some of the legitimate comments on your blog make as little sense as the Charles comment. But I got caught up in the website and Gordian knot so that’s why I wanted to re-read the whole thing to see if there was a connection.

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2012 @ 12:29 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Theme: Silver is the New Black. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 855 other followers