Back in 2006 when Tony Daysog was toying around with whether or not to run for Mayor, he eventually decided to not. Even back then Tony Daysog was still attempting to receive validation from the old guard of Alameda.
For those of you newish to Alameda the grandfather of all Alameda hyper local blogs was Don Roberts of the Alameda Daily News. The white font on black background with yellow title was a hallmark of the site. Anyway, this was Tony Daysog’s letter to the editor about why he was choosing to stay out of the Beverly Johnson vs. Doug deHaan mayoral battle royale.
I have to say that the funniest campaign literature so far has been the one about Tony Daysog taking his own words and using them against him. Add to that the most puzzling photo of him that looks like it was taken on his ubiquitous laptop and you have one of the more entertaining pieces of campaign collateral to hit our mailboxes.
Here’s the address side:
The other day this graphic started appearing on various Alameda specific Facebook feeds which made it appear as though FAAS was endorsing the listed candidates.
To add to the list of people Tony Daysog doesn’t support from yesterday with slight modifications based on added info about the APC’s residents:
Poor people Formerly homeless Veterans
- Formerly homeless families with children
- Bus riders seeing shelter from inclement weather
Back when Tony Daysog was termed out and sought to run for the AC Transit seat, he tried to beef up his transit creds by making all these claims about his work on the City Council. But one of the more disappointing things that he did was to help tank efforts by the City to get bus shelters installed in the City which would have been funded by advertising on the shelter itself. Unfortunately for Tony Daysog, but fortunately for voters, the record was quickly corrected. From the factchecker:
So recall on the City Council’s agenda in late September there was an agenda item about possible phasing for the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. As a refresher this is the parcel under discussion.
I’m sure this has been mentioned before but the residential units currently occupied by Alameda Point Collaborative families are in a sorry state. Add to that the current infrastructure is in complete disrepair and in need of serious repair, if not replacement, like yesterday. The point of this agenda item was to talk about a way to support the existing residents out in that neighborhood, including the Big White lessees, knowing that the only way to fund new/replacement infrastructure is to get a developer to do it by allowing the developer to build residential housing units.
First off, many thanks to the Alameda Peeps Candidate Forum organizers without whom many of this week’s posts would not be possible. So if you are not a member of Alameda Peeps but would like to take a listen to the forum, you can find it here.
One of the final questions for the three candidates in attendance was to consider the last two years and talk about an issue that the candidate disagreed with the majority position taken by the City Council.
Malia Vella spoke about the disappointing outcome with regard to rent stabilization and the subsequent competing ordinances on November’s ballot.
Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft spoke about senior assisted living center on Harbor Bay.
And Jennifer Roloff? Well…she ended up going off into a tangent that should remind people of a certain presidential candidate who spawned a twitter hashtag starting with this tweet:
And culminating in many glorious Trump book reviews, but I digress.
Another Jennifer Roloff fact check based on a not-so-subtle dig toward the other two candidates in attendance at the Alameda Peeps forum. This came as a response to a question about outside money influencing Alameda elections. I believe that the initial goal of the question was really to talk about the huge influence money from the California Apartment Owners Association has been in the M1 vs L1 rent stabilization initiatives, but Jennifer Roloff took this opportunity to announce that she wasn’t taking money from certain categories of people/groups:
I’m not taking contributions by special interest groups, by development groups, by anybody who does business with the City of Alameda.
I think by now most people know how I feel about the term “special interest” it’s really used to describe any group or person that doesn’t support a particular candidate or issue that the person using the term finds important. While I’m sure that Jennifer Roloff does’t believe that her group of advisers are a “special interest,” I would say that they are. They have spent time and money grooming Jennifer Roloff in order to get her on the City Council so that she will represent their (special) interests.
That’s why when people say “special interest” as some pejorative, it really isn’t. We all have “special interests” and, hopefully, can find someone or a group of someones that are like minded enough to support our special interests.
As part of the great Alameda Peeps campaign forum the other night there was a question about development and traffic, natch. Jennifer Roloff had a tough time answering most of the questions offered by the audience in a meaningful and thoughtful way.
Actually, most of Jennifer Roloff’s answers came out sounding like answer given by a student who crammed at the last minute and then was sort of trying to BS her way through an exam, particularly when paired up against Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, by the way this in a nutshell sort of defines Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft:
Also being compared to other “fresh face” Malia Vella, who is as informed as she is articulate, Jennifer Roloff comes off as out of her depth.
Fact check time folks.
It’s taken me a while to get this information, but it took me by surprise the first time I saw it mentioned on City Council candidate Jennifer Roloff’s website.
In her section on development she poses this question to you, gentle reader:
Did you know that that [sic] Alameda, since 2014, has approved close to 2000 new housing units, the great majority of which are not yet occupied?
I’m not typically a fan of negative mailers, but they’re effective. However if anyone deserves a negative mailer in this particular City Council race: it’s Tony Daysog. Some folks are getting undergarments in bunches over the negative mailer, probably because it comes directly from a labor backed independent expenditure group. You can see a copy of the mailer here.
The address side has excerpts from the great op-ed by Planning Board member David Burton, the other side has a side-by-side of how Tony Daysog failed to support Alameda’s seniors as compared to Malia Vella’s work with seniors. The IE is not just supporting Malia Vella but a whole host of candidates.