Last night the City popped out an evening press release which broke the news that the City had settled with SunCal. Before people start ragging on the new Council about this decision or attempt to bitch about the “SunCal slate” or some other assorted nonsense, the vote was made before the new City Council was seated and the vote was 4-0 (and Rob Bonta is, of course, not on the Council anymore) which means that yes, even Doug deHaan and Beverly Johnson voted for this settlement.
So the deal is, the City will return the $1.073 million deposit ponied up by SunCal as well as an additional $3.177 million over the next 18 months. The City is hinting that it didn’t necessary settle because it felt it would lose in court and on appeal, but rather because because keeping the City in legal limbo would just cost a lot more money than just to bite the bullet and settle now. More on this tomorrow.
On Tuesday, the new City Council was sworn in and we all said adieu to the old City Council. I have to say I am looking forward to the new Council and whether they will all mesh well together or if someone will quickly reveal him/herself to be the voice of the “other side” on the City Council.
If I were a betting person, which I am not, my money would be on Tony Daysog only because at the very end of his term the first time around he was is in a sort of love fest with the, for lack of a better term, the “Doug deHaan faction.” I’ll need to find a better term for that group of folks now that Doug deHaan is off the City Council. I think the culmination in my disappointment in Tony Daysog was when he suggested during the 2006 election that the election of the slate of Doug deHaan, Pat Bail, and Eugenie Thompson was a vote to “preserve” all that was good and noble about Alameda and to vote for the others was to vote for “so-called progress” and therefore the destruction of Alameda.
But it’s been six years now and I’m willing to give him a fair shake and see what Tony Daysog will bring to the City Council these next four years. Also given that, despite the addition of Kenneth Kahn in that mayoral election, Tony Daysog viewed that particular election as a referendum on Alameda and Beverly Johnson was the “so-called progress” candidate, I wonder how that will shape Tony Daysog’s next four years.
But I have to say that these next few Council meetings will be a lot of sizing up of the new members because while I think most folks who watch the Planning Board meetings have a good idea of who Vice Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft is and where she stands on — at the very least — planning and land use wise. Stewart Chen is a less of a known entity because his work on the Hospital Board isn’t as close to the issues tackled by the City Council and I’m hopeful that the Tony Daysog will be unlike the Tony Daysog that left the Council the last time around.
On Tuesday night, the City Manager introduced Liz Warmerdam as the new Assistant City Manager. Liz Warmerdam is, as I mentioned yesterday, an Alameda resident, a West End resident to boot. And while folks want to make negative insinuations about Liz Warmerdam based simply on the fact that she worked for the City of Hercules and contracted with the City during the time when there was great corruption at the highest level, the fact that she managed to stay above it all and continued to be gainfully employed while so many others fell under scrutiny speaks volumes about her.
Also, I found this on her Linked In profile, which just solidifies her awesomeness:
Ms. Warmerdam started her career in the US Army and achieved the rank of Captain in just 4 years. She is also airborne qualified. During her service she was a platoon leader, a battalion intelligence officer, and corps adjutant. Ms Warmerdam resigned her Regular Army Officer Commission in 1992 to pursue Master Degrees in both City Planning and Public Administration from UNC- Chapel Hill.
You’re worried about Tony being “the other side.” The other side of what? I thought you liked Bayport. And if there is one accomplishment that Tony usually points to before he takes a breath, it’s Bayport.
You no sooner finished dismissing the existence of a “SunCal slate,” than you imagined a new one (preservationist?) that may emerge, or re-emerge. You’re laying the groundwork now to marginalize any contrary-to-the-majority ideas. Your remarks are not constructive. Anyway, you should be happy that someone with his institutional memory, and training in how to build new stuff (progress), is on the council.
“If I were a betting person,” I would NOT bet against Tony. He was the lone vote for Catellus in 2000 for the first master developer for Alameda Point. So far, Catellus is the only one to produce anything on former military property in Alameda, and most people seem to be pleased with what they’ve produced or have proposed to produce.
Comment by Richard Bangert — December 20, 2012 @ 8:06 am
I agree with Richard. It’s almost like you’re hoping there will be a continuation of bad blood and acrimony on the Council. It makes for more interest in this blog but otherwise, no one stands to benefit from a Council strongly divided. Don’t go looking for a fight. It’ll come around soon enough.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 20, 2012 @ 8:39 am
I’m going to write quickly since I’m at work. Please excuse any mis-spellings or poor grammar. To begin with, as the ol’ Truman saying goes, “If you can’t stand the heat, then . . .” Well, I can stand the heat.
I’m actually fine with what was written above: I think one should have a healthy dose of skepticism toward any elected official, including me. Watch us carefully, and, if you disagree with us, let us know. So, I’m fine with the general thrust of the write-up. What was it that Reagan said about the Soviets with whom he was entering into negotiations on which quite literally the fate of the world hung: “trust but verify.”
I’m even fine with particulars raised in the write-up above. For example, with regard to the letter in the Don Robert’s web-site, thinking back, I’m pretty sure what I was really getting at ( . . . “I know that we can both achieve progress and maintain our local charm, but oftentimes doing so requires fortitude and courage on the part of elected leaders” . . .) was aspects of the movie theater deal that, if implemented, could have made the deal even better, IMO. For example: did the parking garage have to be as high as it is: because the way it is now does impact Twin Towers right next door as many rightfully complained. Couldn’t have there been a compromise to bring that down one story — and if it was, I’m pretty sure we’d still have a garage that met the needs of Park Street and movie-going consumers. See, I felt then that it’s all about compromise so everybody wins. But my biggest concern then was the rent — we were charging a per square foot rent that, IMO, was far, far below market, and we could have upped it even more (and thereby get a little more in revenues to city coffers) and the rent would still be far below market. The fact that city staff contemplated adding a movie fee last year (or was it two years ago?) confirmed to me that the City belatedly realized it had given up a bit too much in this regard. My feelings then were why couldn’t we have a refurbished movie theater, new cinema complex, **and** a parking garage that was a bit lower and a rent that was a bit higher?
But those are details — the bigger picture is that the movie theater is there and it is a beautiful addition to Alameda. From the vantage point of today, looking back on the theater issue, my take away from that is this . . . I failed to see the bigger picture. I got stuck on the details and, as important as they are/were, I did not place those particular details in their proper context. Details are important — and I’m pretty sure we can dredge up many instances when the details I pointed out and fought doggedly for had orders of magnitude significance with regard to Alameda’s public good — but, going forward, along with always paying attention and raising details for colleagues and the public to mull over, I’ll never forget to also ask, “What’s the bigger picture here [insert issue], and how do the details of [insert issue] align with (or not) the ‘bigger picture’?”
PS: I’m holding my first in a months-long series of listening sessions starting tonight at the Blue Danube Cafe (the old Java Rama) on Park Street from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm. What’s on your mind? What do you think the City needs to focus on? Come by and let’s chat.
All the best — Happy Holidays!
Comment by Tony Daysog — December 20, 2012 @ 10:32 am
Roll up your sleeves Tony we’ll be watching the lawn signs.
—These are the three lawn signs you can read without going to his house that makes me likely to vote for Tony Daysog.
-freezing new hiring, freezing wage increases, and freezing step-by-step promotions (in other words, current workers will not be able to get pay increases via step-by-step promotions). Council has entered into some of these steps, to their credit.
-But we need to implement harder measures now, as well as rescind some agreements recently entered into, particularly with regard to sharing future new revenue increases as increases to staff pay.
-City Hall is already projecting negative fund balance (negative reserve ratio, in other words, of -1% by June 30, 2015): act now, don’t wait around until June 30, 2013 or June 30, 2014.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 10, 2012 @ 8:36 am
Comment by Jack Richard — December 20, 2012 @ 12:26 pm