Running up that hill

That’s it folks, we have our roster of candidates for the office of Mayor as the filing period closed yesterday:

Yes it will be a head to head, I mean I know there’s Barack D. Obama Shaw right there but my guess is that he won’t play nearly as much of role as Frank Matarrese did when he ran for Mayor, of Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft vs Trish Spencer once again. I’ll probably sound like a broken record by the end of this election but, at this point, anyone who still votes for Trish Spencer for anything is voting for obstruction and stagnation. If you’re a conservative and that’s what you’re looking for then she’s your candidate. But if you’re a purported Democrat and appalled by the obstruction and stagnation (and really, the backsliding of progress) that we’re seeing on a national level and you’re STILL supporting Trish Spencer and will happily vote for her then maybe you need to do some deep soul searching as to how “progressive” you truly are. While Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft hasn’t been great on all issues all the time in the end she’s still not Trish “when will homeless encampments not exist” Spencer.

The City Council race is extended because Councilmember John Knox White is not running for re-election. A quick look at the folks who have already qualified for the City Council portion should greatly concern Tony “I only want to house homeless unwed teen moms” Daysog:

IOU

The latest drop of who is thinking of running for City Council has a familiar name of a perennial candidate and no I’m not talking about Trish Spencer, Tony Daysog, or Jim Oddie. No it’s Amos “actually Italian citizens had it just as bad as Japanese Americans during WWII” White.

There’s a bit of an outstanding issue with Amos White and his 2020 campaign though which I was tipped off to based on someone’s PRA that was posted on Twitter. According to the emails between Amos White, his campaign treasurer, and the City Clerk’s office it appears that Amos White still owed a fair bit of money to the City of Alameda for his candidate statement. I’ve pared down the email document because it’s pretty repetitive and hard to find the full thread. This is the most complete bit I could find with the most recent correspondence between the parties:

pages-from-emailsDownload

Ground and aground

Not much to see or listen to other than some real normal public comment from opponents of the Wellness Center likening the process of determining whether or a historic nomination to “priests abusing young boys.”

Because some folks couldn’t wait until the end of the meeting they decided to hijack the consent calendar public comment period:

I mean, that was the absolute highlight but, of course there was more special comments in the open comment section which was referenced in the comments section beginning with the nominating party herself who spoke to her disappointment with not being able to present their nomination and even though acknowledged that they were the only person who wrote the nomination proceeded to use “we” statements intermittently throughout the comment. Oh and they also gave a shout out to William Burg on the SHPO staff.

Unprecedented

I was going to write about some of the public comment at the SHRC meeting on Friday but this seems bigger:

Fed's Raided Mar-A-Lago. Oh shit…. Shit's poppin off.

— ICE T (@FINALLEVEL) August 8, 2022

Integrity

Every one who sent a letter to the State Historic Resources Commission opposing the Maritime School nomination should take a victory lap right now.  It was the collective action of folks who refused to allow this historic nomination process to be weaponized against the voiceless and vulnerable which has (hopefully) ended the reign of terror against the Wellness Center.  I mean, we all thought that the kitchen sink had already been thrown at the Wellness Center but it wasn’t until this nomination marched its way through 15 months of humoring (and helping) by the staff at SHPO that we all realized how far opponents would go to stop the project.   And it seems like all it really took was the SHPO herself visiting the site and realizing there was no there, there.  

Ends justify the means

Looks like I’m not going to make it to the first two bibliography pages folks but you can see links for the first two pages here. Today is the SHRC meeting to about the McKay site but I’m not 100% sure that the appeal process that is being followed is 100% correct here, nonetheless, it’s on still on the agenda.

To be honest seeing the SHRC and their support staff in action at the last meeting I didn’t have a lot of hope that anyone was going to stop this nomination train from plowing through. It’s clear that SHPO/SHRC are working with a playbook that is heavily skewed toward getting these nominations approved no matter what and it doesn’t matter rules they bend on the way to getting there. After seeing the emails between the nominating party at SHPO/SHRC staff it feels like it was going to get there eventually given the amount of effort being put in by SHPO/SHRC staff themselves to get it done.

Take for example the designation of St Francis Wood as historic, the SHRC absolved itself of any of the impacts that would happen as a result of this designation because they believe that their decisions should happen in a vacuum and unconnected to what happens after that designation. It’s also disappointing to see this article not even mention the lack of meaningful discussion and the, possibly, incorrect reading of whether AFFH affects how SHRC should make decisions. From the article:

Checking it twice, part 15 (page 3)

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16A~ How to Complete the National Register Form. 2021

Not sure why this is here since it doesn’t seem to matter if it’s used at all. Remember though the person who helped revised this bulletin also said the Maritime School no longer contained sufficient integrity but SHPO/SHRC doesn’t care what subject matter experts think, only what feels good.

National Park Service. Application to National Register. National Historic Register, Patrick Rodgers Farm, 1991. 315 Cortsen Rd. Pleasant Hill, CA. 1991.

I’ve written about this here and here. I don’t know why it’s still here.

Checking it twice, part 14 (page 3)

Nearly there, people.

Lay, Kenneth Edward Jr. A Master’s Report: Contemporary Design Philosophy in American Architecture. College of Architecture and Design. Kansas State University. 1966.

Probably to shore up the “International” design theory but what is interesting about this report was this part:

Which is interesting because in the City of San Francisco report from the other day it noted that, in San Francisco at least, the Second Bay tradition architecture was built mostly for the wealthy not not for the “common man.” This also is a bit of a detraction from the narrative in the nomination which focuses on the school being in a way that harmonized with the site (which is a key of one of the architecture movement, I can’t remember which one but it was one in the salad that was thrown at this project but it’s debatable about whether the Alameda school was placed perfectly into its surroundings) but this claims that International style divorced the building from the site. Anyway this is what happens when you have a lay person like me throwing every single thing against the wall and not necessarily understanding the subject matter with any sort of real expertise.

Checking it twice, part 13 (page 4)

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, “Modern Movement 1925-1950”, August 16, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/modernmovements.html

These are the parts in the nomination that this link is supporting:

However the link, while discussing “modern movement” architectural styles does not reference an “International ‘moderne'” style. It does separately reference “International” and “Moderne” as distinct styles although there is a fair amount of overlap between the two. Ironically if you just read the descriptions of these they could describe any number of new, modern buildings which crop up everywhere these days which immediately is declared “ugly.” It makes me wonder if you throw a sepia tone and some noise on a photo of a modern building and ask people to judge it if they think it was built in the 1930s and 40s if they’d find it less ugly. Maybe say it was designed by Mies van der Rohe or something.

These are the identifying features of the Moderne style:

And the International style:

Checking it twice, part 12 (page 4)

Page and Turnbull Associates, “Determination of Eligibility, National Register of Historic Places, Alameda Federal Center, Alameda, CA.” San Francisco: 1996.

This is the big daddy of the documents, this is the important one that was borrowed heavily from when the nominating party liked what was written but then whole sections about integrity and the lack of integrity were discarded when inconvenient for the application itself. I have a strong feeling that SHPO/SHRC staff did not read this document because it also did not fit into the agenda that this agency seems to have which is simply to push through any and all applications that they have formed an attachment to. Remember this was written when there were still lots of other buildings standing and an additional 26 years of wear and neglect had not added a patina of age to the site as a whole. This is what Page and Turnbull concluded and the nomination has not made a convincing argument other than painting a colorful picture that somehow the living of the students was integral to the war effort.

Remember that integrity, from the NPS bulletin, at a minimum, requires: