Inaction in action

At the City Council meeting on the 2nd of this month, a public speaker mentioned during public comment that he didn’t understand why Tony Daysog had shirked his responsibility to make a decision on an issue before the City Council yet again. In this case it was the cannabis ordinance which passed the first reading on that night.

Oh, by the way, I think I might have mentioned it before, but cannabis proponents in Alameda really need to come and collect a certain speaker whose name rhymes with dread. He is really the worst face to come before the City Council to advocate for anything. To say that he is ineffective is to really understate the harm that he does for the cannabis community.

Anyway, back to Tony Daysog, if someone — who probably doesn’t track City Council meetings that closely — notices how often Tony Daysog doesn’t seem to want to do his job, you can only imagine how people who actually pay close attention view this dereliction of duty.

Style over substance

Last week’s Planning Board meeting was, well, Planning Board-y.  What do you mean by that, Lauren, you might be asking.  Well, an issue that should be pretty straightforward design guidelines hearing on, essentially, cell facilities to bring 5G to Alameda became a aesthetic-off between the majority of the members of the Planning Board.

The only person to inject a bit of sanity into the process was Ronald Curtis who, for the most part, can be counted on to be pretty pro business and pragmatic.  He was the only one who pointed out that given all the existing regulations more likely than not these cell providers who probably choose the path of least resistance and not attempt to try for the most difficult installation to upset the most people possible.

By the way Ronald Curtis was also the only member to, lightly, push back against the sitting President of the Planning Board when she declared that housing for the homeless should not be a priority for the City:

Mental health breakdown

So I actually missed the epic City Council meeting from earlier this month because I was gone and without any meaningful internet coverage.  So it looks like a fair amount of work was done around rent stabilization and the cannabis ordinances which hopefully I’ll get around to when I have some time to listen to the full meeting.

But tonight the City Council has one really interesting item on its agenda and it actually piggybacks on some of the discussion that occurred during this last election: mental health issues.  While this presentation by the Alameda Unified School District is specifically youth centered, we should have a larger discussion since usually people are more eager to assist kids than they are homeless senior citizens.

From the staff report:

Following the presentations, the ACCYF discussed the need to destigmatize mental illness and find ways to promote the mental health and wellness of students and their families through a public awareness campaign that has a consistent message.  Supervisor Chan coordinated a meeting on April 4, 2019 with an ACCYF workgroup and a consultant to discuss messaging strategies around raising mental health awareness and destigmatizing mental illness for youth and families in the City.

AUSD made a presentation on its needs assessment to the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) at its January 24, 2019 meeting.  SSHRB members stated that a larger conversation needs to take place with the entire community.  The SSHRB recommended that AUSD present its report to the City Council, so that Councilmembers can determine the City’s role, if any, in addressing the issue.

Saturday, March 16, 2024

One beginning exercise at the City Council workshop on March 16th was to write a headline of what the individual City Council members wanted to see as a headline in five years from now.  This was one of those blue sky exercises where anything goes and speaks to what the individual City Council member values.

As you can imagine most people took this opportunity to really think big.  I’m going to transcribe what each City Council member said.

We’re on a break

Just a short one until next Monday.  That campaign — as truncated as it was — took a lot out of me mentally and emotionally.  Probably because I read too much NextDoor.  That was a whole lot of awful.

And thank you again, Alameda.

 

 

 

Yay!

Thank you Alameda for voting yes on Measure A in such a huge majority.

And thank you for proving that NextDoor is not indicative of all Alamedans.

Guest Yes on A blog: Rasheed Shabazz

Alameda, the City of Beaches and Homes. “Everyone Belongs Here,” (‘unless you are “homeless.’)

Alameda has a long, long history of policies which have excluded, quarantined, and expelled poor people and people of color–especially Black people. Racially restrictive covenants, redlining, and exclusionary zoning at the ballot box are collective manifestations of residents stating who belongs and who does not.

While Alamedans have produced and reproduced racist ideas to advance their interests, others have consumed those ideas–even when it conflicted with their economic interests or contradicted some of their more righteous beliefs.

Examining some of the campaign strategies of the Friends of Crab Cove and the potential impact if Measure B passes shines light on the underlying racism at work and what’s at stake.

Yes on A, no on B

If you have not yet cast an absentee ballot, please remember to get out to the polls today.

Yes on A, no on B!

And just in case you weren’t clear on how you should vote.  There is this handy dandy website to help out.

Calling out the lies

To round out all of the local media organizations endorsing Measure A and telling you to say no to Measure B, the East Bay Times made up for their puzzling placement of an opinion piece a few weeks ago which, falsely, claimed that the Wellness Center would end Concerts at the Cove.

From the East Bay Times:

Voters in Alameda’s upcoming special election should reject a ballot initiative from a group of residents trying to block a homeless care facility on the south side of the city.

…

The idea of park expansion is a subterfuge. The bottom line is that proponents of Measure B don’t want the planned “wellness center” for the homeless. Not in their backyard. Voters in the city’s special April 9 election should reject Measure B.

An ER is not a home

And if you have been following anyone on social media who is a yes on Measure A, you’ll probably have seen reference to this Vox piece, but here it is again because it’s important and goes directly to what the Wellness and Respite Center means to do: house people and get them out of emergency rooms.

From Vox:

• A 2017 RAND Corporation analysis of the Housing for Health program in LA County concluded that the county saved about 20 percent by putting people with complex mental health issues in supportive housing rather than relying on law enforcement and emergency room visits.
• A 2015 randomized control trial of a housing-first approach across several Canadian cities saw essentially no change in money spent (Canada’s structurally lower health care costs are likely a factor here) but gains in quality of life and community functioning.
• A separate randomized trial study in Toronto found that housing first was effective in combatting alcohol abuse disorders.

Earlier studies from Charlotte and Southeastern Colorado also show large cost savings from focusing on simply housing the homeless.