Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 25, 2006

“Intimate Domain”

Filed under: Alameda, Election — Lauren Do @ 1:14 pm

I thought I would never find out who said it, as reported by Leah Garchick in the SF Chronicle:

At a recent mayoral debate in Alameda, I hear that one of the three candidates — incumbent Beverly Johnson, Councilman Doug deHaan and Kenneth Kahn, who in his professional life is Kenny the Clown — referred to the process by which a government can take property from a private owner as “intimate domain,” which sounds (I just saw “Marie Antoinette”) like something between the dauphin and the dauphine. Not pointing a finger at the mis-speaker because the election’s not about oratorical mastery.

Thanks Linda H.


  1. We know what a big deal Don Roberts makes about spelling, so how bad is it? As Garchick says, it’s not about “oratorical mastery”.

    Personally I can’t spell to save my life, but I get annoyed when people say “imminent” domain, instead of eminent. Words have different meanings for a reason. What are we to make of “intimate”?
    To me it is a reflection of how I see Doug’s thinking, muddled, not making a clear choice or being sure what he is saying. What would Freud say? and should we care? I dunno.

    A previous candidate for mayor referred to our ambulance services as our “ambulatory” services, so I guess it’s par around these here parts.

    One more kick at Doug while he’s down. He and Bail both pronounce theater “thee-A-ter” which also drives me nuts. I guess my picking on the guy is overcompensating for my bad spelling.

    Comment by Mark — October 25, 2006 @ 6:58 pm

  2. “you take the high road, and I’ll take the low road…” Nobody else mean enough to pile on? I guess I’m the David Howard of the anti-slate crew.

    Comment by Mark — October 26, 2006 @ 9:32 am

  3. Mark – Don’t try to take another shot at Doug for this – I was there at the Harbor Bay center when the candidate used the incorrect term – perhaps a Freudian slip in her case.
    -but so what? I’m not a fan of Beverly’s style of politics but this slip certainly wasn’t an issue, I think the levity actually helped the meeting. But you should not continue to make unjustified accusations.

    On the other hand Beverly’s dad was making accusations about where the Pro-Slaters were putting signs, but that was de-bunked when it was reveled that yes the Slaters had the permission of the owner.

    But today there are Johnson signs along the golf course, and attached to the guardrail on Otis near Fernside. They know it is illegal to put up signs on public property. Nobody knows the outcome of this race and for the Johnson people to wrongly cry foul and then break the law to boost their candidate speaks volumes of their integrity. Cheaters never win.

    Just another reason to vote for deHaan, Bail and Thompson.
    -David Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 5, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

  4. The sign issue is such a non-issue. All sides are putting up signs, trucks, people, etc. in places that they shouldn’t go.

    It’s amazing how any side could become so indignant about signs in the ROW or on fences, when one only has to walk 25 feet to find a similar infraction by an opposing sign.

    If there’s a nit-picky issue out there. The sign issue is it in my opinion.

    Comment by John Knox White — November 5, 2006 @ 4:27 pm

  5. Are you saying it’s okay to violate the law for self benefit?

    I think the City should use the Press to better inform the public on what campaign committees know; It is okay to post signs on people, trucks and property as long as you have permission, but you cannot post signs on property without permission nor can you ever post political campaign signs on public property. If everyone knew the lack of integrity that placing such signs on public property reflects, perhaps those violations would stop.

    I have not seen a Slate sign on public property. Because Swanson or Tam violates the law does not make it okay for Johnson to do so.

    Violating laws because others are doing it is the most awful defense of such action. I’m disappointed in you John. I know you can be better than that. Let’s work together to abide by the law.
    -David Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 5, 2006 @ 4:44 pm

  6. So here we go again David K says that the Slate has not posted any signs where they should not be, however the other candidates have. John Knox White I have a question for you and the others on this site ( myself included) Why are we having this dialog with these people, can’t we just ignore thier taunts and dicuss issue’s with real people. They are just “playing” us. John P.

    Comment by John Piziali — November 5, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

  7. Regretfully, I must concur with John Piziali.

    Comment by Linda Hudson — November 5, 2006 @ 5:15 pm

  8. Great work John P – go ahead and destroy an attempt at rational discussion. Obviously I wasted my time trying this weekend. Just attack me – not what I say. To think you used to chair the planning board, you really disappoint me. You can have your site back now it is obviously useless as a site for rational discussion.
    -Dave Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 5, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

  9. Kirwin says “I have not seen a Slate sign on public property”

    Not so fast — have you verified with every public property in Alameda?

    There are a few Slate signs on Webster/Atlantic. How do I know this? I use #51 regularly and there’s a Slate sign right at the bus stop. Isn’t this public property?

    This is the main problem with Slate: lots of generalities, but ZERO specifics.

    Comment by Chris — November 5, 2006 @ 6:02 pm

  10. David K.

    I totally agree that all campaigns should follow the law, I don’t follow the logic of your comment.

    What I meant to say, I may not have been clear, was that the issue of campaigns (and many including the slate have mentioned this) talking about illegal postings is a bit silly because they all do it.

    I am under the impression that the public works department has been called to remove slate banners hanging on public fences and that they have been removed. (Sadly, I have forgotten both who told me and where they were located, so I’ll have to remain vauge). I see as many slate signs in the ROW as I do Johnson or Mataresse signs. I would say that people, not campaigns, do this. I can tell you that the Mataresse campaign was very clear with me about not putting my sign in the ROW. But I see signs in the ROW for his campaign. It happens. I don’t see it as sinister or even that big a deal (I would say that the ROW issue is silly and that perhaps the city should look at whether there’s a way to repeal it).

    Comment by John Knox White — November 5, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: