We’re definitely in some sort of Twilight Zone episode. Maybe Black Mirror. I dunno folks…
Advertisements
July 20, 2018
July 19, 2018
Thanks for my support
So based on the filing it appears that the main issue that former City Councilmember and current candidate for City Council Tony Daysog has an issue with is that the City Council — of which Tony Daysog would like to be re-elected to — is trying to retain a bit of control over the process of how laws pertaining to rent stabilization get modified in this city.
He also has a problem with how the ballot question for the landlord’s measure is constructed. Even though, in comparison the two ballot measures are identical except for one would allow the City Council some measure of control and the other one would have to be amended via another vote of the entire populace. Given that we live in a representative democracy expecting every policy issue to be voted on by the entire city is essentially inviting policy gridlock.
July 18, 2018
To sue and serve
Former City Councilmember and current candidate for City Council Tony Daysog is suing the City of Alameda.
That is all.
July 17, 2018
July 16, 2018
National Horror Story: International version
Can I tell everyone how much I love this blimp? And the photos of ALL of the British people protesting?
July 13, 2018
Naming rights
If you were interested in doing something to not memorialize the worst of our US History in Alameda, you can start by signing on to the petition to rename Jackson Park. Because apparently it’s the responsibility of average citizens to initiate these things because our appointed officials coughparkandrecboardcough does not feel comfortable doing anything controversial or something like that.
I didn’t mention because sometimes I forget to go back and make video clips which is typically how I remember to inform you, gentle reader, of some of the more noteworthy bits that are said during these meetings. But now that I’m reflecting back on one of the last Rec and Park Board meetings where this topic was discussed it’s worth nothing that one of the Board members made a suggestion that the name could be retained if it were accompanied with educational plaques to explain why the name was initially chosen (randomness) and why the name is problematic.
He then brought up a visit to concentration camps in Germany and how they just exist without any educational plaques or narratives about how terrible they are. The reason for this anecdote was to offer the point of view that negative portions of the history of a nation should and can still exist as a monument of what not to do.
This is a very good point, however…
July 12, 2018
Real Alamedans of Alameda
Remember that Alameda Citizens Task Force meeting attended and tweeted about by local Historian, Rasheed Shabazz? Well it’s in article form if you’re interested. It’s particularly relevant in light of the discussions around the Wellness and Respite Center which is actively being challenged by folks through the ballot initiative process. And since signature gatherers are gonna signature gather everything short of offering unicorns and ponies are being used to get people to sign.
Insightfully entitled “The ‘Real Alamedans'” Rasheed Shabazz references this comment from last year from one of the ACT leaders:
July 11, 2018
Do not want
Given the number of signature gatherers being paid by the signature that are wandering out there to place on the ballot an initiative to zone the GSA property from
Administrative Professional to Open Space in order to block the Wellness and Respite Center a quick reminder.
East Bay Regional Park District does not want that facility. the developed property in question for their own uses. [edited for clarity]
July 10, 2018
Sending you NextDoor
Does everyone here have access to NextDoor? If you do, I would recommend going there and making sure your settings are open to more than just your own neighborhood.
Are you doing it?
Then search for “Stewart Chen”
And you will get a doozy of discussion.
Then come back here and we’ll chat about it.
July 9, 2018
Preferential treatment
City staff is recommending that the City Council revise the preference requirements for inclusionary housing units in Alameda. Because it’s easier to fiddle around with these requirements of who gets these — essentially — lottery units, then actually do things that will add to the supply of housing and therefore help folks who work in Alameda, live in Alameda. Speaking of which, did anyone catch the piece in the Chronicle about, again, the rise in super commuters? More on that another day.
This is how the preference points currently are structured:
- Living/Working in Alameda. Applications from qualified households with a household member who lives or works in Alameda receive one preference point per household.
- First-Time Homebuyers. Applications from first-time homebuyers receive one preference point per household (a first-time homebuyer is someone who has not owned a house in the last three years).
- Large Housholds. Applications from large households, defined by a family size that is one person more than the number of bedrooms in the unit, receive one preference point (e.g., a four-person household would receive a preference point for a three-bedroom unit).
(Note: Maximum of three preference points per household.)
