Blast from the past: “it takes forever to get anything done”

From February 1973 and just as relevant today:

Advertisements

First day of school

Watch the roads out there folks, there are kiddos back on the streets.

Blast from the past: overcrowding, overpaying

From January 1973

Blast from the past: “those people”

From January 1973, bet you never thought it would be in reference to Navy families

Blast from the past: initial Measure A analysis

From January 1973, note there’s nothing about preserving Victorians:

Blast from the past: federal intervention

January 1973, the City of Alameda must be told to lower the income limits for tenants at the Esperanzas

Blast from the past, a Measure A-ish series

I’m taking a bit of a hiatus the next two-ish weeks or so, I’ve been a bit burnt out between work and a special (non-blog) project I’ve been chugging away at but I wanted to throw up some special research that I had started about a year ago.

Number 1 daughter and number 2 son both started activities located around Park Street about a year ago which gave me the opportunity to have about two hours of uninterrupted library time, so I took the chance to spend a little quality time with the microfiche machine at the library.  The first time I went I armed myself with loose change from our change jar but after the money not successfully loading the the machine I realized I could just save myself some time and money and just take photos on my phone.  Thus began my 1973 research of Measure A.

Diss-information, part 4

And lastly, here’s some more from ACT PAC/A Better Alameda on housing issues specifically.  If I had to retitle this section to something other than “Housing” I’d label it “Leading questions on development issues.”

Essentially you know all you need to know about this group’s position on development issues based on how the questions are phrased.

Question 19 is interesting because “ingress and egress” is not a standard on how RHNA numbers are allocated.   The very next question asks about “objective standards” but “ingress and egress” is also not an objective standard.  But I really appreciated the “Will it be of concern to you” line of questioning.  Because, I’m guessing here, any candidate that write, “No this is not a concern to me” would definitely not get ACT PAC/A Better Alameda’s sweet sweet PAC money.  Of which they have something like $7000 pledged but yet have not disclosed the donors or the total amount raised.  But, you know, good governance and transparency for you but not for me.  Amrite?

Diss-information, part 3

This group styling itself as good governance and attempting to tone police the City Council campaign by asking at one point:

Has no problem putting out untrue information itself posed in the form of a question.  From the “Housing” section, ACT PAC/A Better Alameda asks:

Diss-information, part 2

ACT PAC/A Better Alameda website update. It’s still password protected.

Non ironically, A Better Alameda is asking candidates to answer this super long questionnaire full of really suspect questions when they have zero information about themselves available for those candidates to vet.  Oh and they have a whole section on “Donations” which I think they mean “Contributions” since a “donation” typically carries with a connotation that it’s for charity or something like that.

But really this section should just be labeled “We don’t like union money and think that anyone who is receiving any is bad.”