Okay, after watching Tuesday night’s meeting, I am convinced that the City and Council majority (Beverly Johnson, Frank Mataresse, and Doug deHaan) have screwed the pooch on this one. The City Clerk and City Attorney were fixated on the two particular (or three actually) pieces of election code and convinced that the February date is the only option for the City to move forward with the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.
The problem last night was that the two Councilpeople who eventually voted against scheduling the election for the February date didn’t focus enough on the key issues here. Everything was made so confusing and overly complex with trying to figure out if the Initiative was an ordinance or a charter measure that the reading of the ordinance election code law was deficient.
For arguments sake, let’s go with the City Attorney’s reading of the Initiative that it is an ordinance as opposed to a charter initiative. I’m willing to say, yes, the Initiative is more ordinance than charter initiative since the City Attorney was insistent on pulling out from the Initiative Election Code 9217, which IS in the Initiative as to what happens if the Initiative is successful.
Now, let’s look at the code that the City Clerk and Attorney used to base their opinion, they were using Election Code 9214 which says:
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters of the city according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, and contains a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election, the legislative body shall do one of the following:
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented.
(b) Immediately order a special election, to be held pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1405, at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city.
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b).
So here is where is gets fuzzy, because the language is not clear and so if we were actually doing a highly conservative reading of the law, we would go for the most restrictive reading and not the more lax reading. So there are two ways to interpret the first paragraph.
The first interpretation is the more lax reading which is how the City interpreted it, meaning that as long as the number of voters is greater than 15%, a special election must be called.
The second interpretation would be a more conservative reading of the code which is what Lena Tam and Marie Gilmore were hinting at but never really hit the mark on which was that the 15% threshold AND an explicit request for the special election must both be present in order to call for a special election. And since both the City Attorney and City Clerk both agreed that SunCal did not place an explicit request asking for a special election, there should be more flexibility in scheduling an election. As an alternative, election code 9215 says:
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, the legislative body shall do one of the following:
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented.
(b) Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1405, unless the ordinance petitioned for is required to be, or for some reason is, submitted to the voters at a special election pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1405.
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b).
Let me pull out the relevant portions though:
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, according to the last report of registration by the county elections official… the legislative body shall do one of the following:…
(b) Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1405, unless the ordinance petitioned for is required to be, or for some reason is, submitted to the voters at a special election pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1405.
Since the petition was signed by more than 15% (aka “not less than 10 percent of the voters”) of registered voters and did not contain a request for the special election, subdivision (b) of Section 1405 would have allowed for the city to schedule the election later:
(b) The election for a county initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9118 shall be held at the next statewide election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election. The election for a municipal or district initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9215 or 9311 shall be held at the jurisdiction’s next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.
Which means that the City Council could have voted to place it on the next regular election, which would have been June.
Given that there is confusion and that the cost to the City is so high depending on when the election is scheduled, $325K for the February election, $50-75K for the June election, the Council should have taken the conservative route and gone with the reading that would have required greater scrutiny if the expense was more than six times the amount of scheduling it during a regular election. I wonder which department’s budget that $325K will come out of because even though the question about SunCal paying for the election came up last night, that would be an awkward precedent to set and would bring up issues literally buying an election.
Personally, if I were the Firefighters I would be pissed about the money being expended for this election, when their initiative was shunted off into the recesses of November 2011.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
I think I saw the “and” part was brought up by Lena Tam and not taken up for discussion. The other thing not really paid much attention to was the idea of the City’s consulting with an election attorney (or maybe even Sec. of State Debra Bowen) regarding the interpretation of the language and what the consequences might be if the Council “got it wrong”. It was mentioned twice and disregarded.
The League of Women voters, in accordance with our principles of good government, fairness and transparency, spoke in favor of trying for a later date. Both the unnecessary cost and the shortness of time for the opponents and proponents to make their case to the public are of concern to us.
Comment by Kate Quick — November 5, 2009 @ 7:17 am
Hey Kate,
Just a quick clarification perhaps on your point – you are correct that the request about seeking outside advice was not answered in the initial askings, but my notes show that just before the second vote (to put the item on the ballot in February), Frank Matarrese asked if outside counsel had been sought and Terri Highsmith indicated it had. Maybe one of the folks who are quicker on the playback reel can confirm?
Comment by Michele Ellson — November 5, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Screwin’ the pooch, I can understand but the rest is geting way too complicated for mere mortals.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 5, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Isn’t true that if the council hadn’t taken the first vote under the consent section, which certified the number of initiative signers, that the second vote could have been put off? In other words, they could have waited until a point in time that even with their convoluted reading of the code, the election could have taken place along with the June election.
Comment by notadave — November 5, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Recapitulating what I remember: The City Clerk said initially that the election had to be held between 88 and 103 days after the Council vote, which led to the February (consolidated) date.
Then she said something about extending that to 180 days, thru April, but that there were no other elections for consolidation.
Then the discussion went to whether there was anything really preventing them from using the June date (“what’s to stop us?”), and Lena Tam pointed out the language re the request for a special election.
Anyway, I think the council wanted a definite assurance that a June date would be legal and they weren’t getting that.
#2: Yes, towards the end of the discussion the City Attorney said that she had consulted with outside counsel.
#4: That’s possible. Frank Matarrese said that towards the end of the discussion (“So, if we hadn’t taken the earlier vote…?”). It was never clear from the outset why they *had* to discuss the election at this meeting, but once they took the first vote to certify, then they had to put the initiative on the ballot.
Comment by Louise — November 5, 2009 @ 11:09 am
#4 They coulda meet within 10 days to actually vote, if pushed to that, after they had gotten more info from the election code guru. What it seemed to me was the city attorney wasn’t really interested in giving them time to think about trying to schedule the election later. I really thought she was telling them they did not have a choice.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — November 5, 2009 @ 11:35 am
The entire discussion about ordinance vs. charter change is by definition a discussion about two different subjects. This quandary about what rules apply seems to me directly related to this fact of there being two subjects. Perhaps the people who first came up with the concept of a “single subject” rule for initiatives and referendums were hoping, among other things, to avoid complicating the scheduling of an election such as we witnessed at the city council meeting.
California, along with other states, has adopted the “single subject” rule in regard to initiatives and referendums. The point of such a rule is to avoid placing voters in the predicament of having to vote against something that they otherwise would favor just because there was another subject in the initiative that they find objectionable. (Which is what we have here.)
This single subject rule was not trying to prevent, say, an initiative that addressed lawmaking for both animal husbandry on farms and forestry practices. It was designed to avoid a scenario something more akin to an initiative that seeks to ban the death penalty which also contains a provision to expand the number of crimes with mandatory life sentences. Yes, in the second example the two issues are related, but the sentencing “rider” involves a subject that is ethically and/or jurisprudently distinct from the death penalty.
The supporters of the SunCal initiative claim it is all one subject because the charter change is first necessary before moving on to the details of the development agreement, etc. But they are not one subject, in my opinion.
Supporters would counter that we could not get passage of a Measure A amendment without inclusion of the ordinance changes. For the sake of argument, let’s say that is true. The state election law does not have a default rule to deal with local political necessities in the event that only a hybrid initiative can get us what we want. The Secretary of State may have sympathy for our predicament, but sympathy is not a substitute for the existing laws. If “hybrid” is not in the election code, then it’s not in there.
Instead of getting turned in knots over this exercise, perhaps someone will use the experience to draft an amendment to the election code. Or, maybe the existing rules have served us well and don’t need changing.
Comment by Richard Bangert — November 5, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Well, if this thing doesn’t follow the single subject rule, how can it be going ahead? I don’t how that is possible.
If I get what you are saying, Richard, I am with you on that! We should be dealing with the charter, and then the election could have been in June.
But then, there was all that stuff from Ms. Thompson said (which I couldn’t hear too good on TV) about the plan and how it doesn’t comply with state laws or codes, or what have you. How come everyone breezed by that and went and certified anyway?
Comment by Jayne Smythe — November 5, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Richard, just a point of clarification, the first speaker at the Council meeting to make the claim that “it is all one subject because the charter change is first necessary before moving on to the details of the development agreement, etc.” was Barbara Kerr. Since when did she become a supporter of the initiative?
Comment by notadave — November 5, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
#9. You are correct. And thank you for reminding me about Barbara Kerr’s comment. Indeed, she is not a supporter of the initiative. I should have left out the words “supporters of the SunCal initiative” and just said that some people claim it is all one subject. I respectfully disagree with Barbara Kerr on this point.
#8 asks how it is possible for this to be going ahead if it doesn’t follow the single subject rule. I think, but am not certain, that neither the city clerk who processed the intent to circulate an initiative petition, nor the Registrar of Voters, have the authority to make a ruling on the legality or constitutionality of an initiative; nor will a court intervene before the signatures are certified and an election date has actually been set. It appears that the only way that a dual subject initiative can be halted is if some individual or group petitions the court. The courts can’t just initiate a proceeding because of something they read about in the news.
So, I think that’s how we can end up with a dual subject initiative. I think that if it passes, the dual subject issue would be water under the bridge. The only clauses that could be struck from the initiative after the election would be something that violated an existing law, for example a CEQA EIR provision. Even though the initiative might have violated an election law, it’s somewhat like campaign irregularities. It would be very rare for there to be a court-ordered re-do of an election.
Comment by Richard Bangert — November 5, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
At the meeting, there was a cross-section from both proponents and opponents taking differing positions.
Let’s give the city council a break. They followed the advice of our city attorney who, at the end of the meeting, said she sought the expertise of election law counsel and that they concurred with the city’s legal analysis.
This initiative has been around since March and has been vetted by various groups. Anyone who claims that they need more time has been asleep at the wheel.
In any event, Richard brings up an interesting issue and it’s another viable reason why this initiative way too complicated.
Comment by Sharon — November 5, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
I agree with Lauren on this one. Still, not much that we can do about it now. Best to move on.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 5, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
11. I agree with Sharon that we need to give the CC a break. After viewing the meeting as it happened and thinking about it, I believe they were railroaded into having no choice.
Think about it. Two agenda items, the first of which was a certification vote, the second of which was setting the date. None of the discussion about the election code happened during the first of the two agenda items, but if it had, the CC would have been in an informed position to strategize on date setting (i.e., if we hold off on certifying, we will have more than 10 days time to get legal clarification on how to handle the hybrid situation).
Because all of the discussion of legality happened after the certification vote, the CC was probably chagrinned that it had voted away any choice in the matter during the first agenda item.
This was a staff driven railroad manuever on the CC. If they had wanted to do this properly, the two agenda items should have been handled together in such a way that the attorney and clerk presented the election code information prior to the certification vote, so that the CC could have the opportunity to strategize timing in an informed way, with real choice.
12. I second that.
Comment by E T — November 6, 2009 @ 9:46 am
why does this need to be presented to the voters? aren’t the city council our REPRESENTATIVES and thus empowered to make these decisions for us? Didn’t Madison warn us about the tyranny of the rabble?
Comment by E — November 6, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
13. Was there not enough time to have continued the item for just two more weeks in order verify the legal options? I don’t know what outside counsel the City Attorney may have consulted, but I would like to have seen the question go Debra Bowen’s office. Tam and Gilmore were apparently not willing to be railroaded. Everything about having the election in June would have been better better.
Comment by M.I. — November 6, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Yeah, they had ten days. They might have had more than that if they hadn’t certified. That is what I mean. The CC was not given an opportunity to strategize because they did not have the information they needed prior to taking a certification vote.
Comment by E T — November 6, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
16. Thanks. I knew they had a bigger window for the date of the actual election, but was confused that at the time of the meeting they didn’t even have another two week cycle to burn before their deadline to calendar the election. Maybe that situation was cause for scheduling an emergency interim meeting in order to make the best choice possible. To me it’s not about outcome because I think the initiative is pretty much dog meat no matter what, I just think the process is flawed.
There are plenty of experts and depending on who one consults one can solicit different answers. If this were not true we wouldn’t have appeals court process and the supreme court. I look to Bowen’s office as the highest authority on this, short of a series of law suits. Having consulted “outside counsel” is better than not having done so, but to me it is muddy. It is far too easy to second guess, but that’s what I think just the same.
Despite all the contentiousness and other negatives generated by the entire process, overall I am impressed by the level of activism and civic involvement across the board.
When I look back to when I moved here in 1991 I think this town as a whole, from elected officials, to media, to general citizenry, was far, far less prepared to deal with all that we have been dealing with and the mobilization of civic involvement is positive, even with all the spin and weirdness which typically ensues in these situations.
A slight tangent here. I read David Mamet’s comments on his recent play “November” which is about politics where he commented about claims we are “a nation divided”. He said it’s called democracy and when a people are not divided it’s totalitarianism. That’s an over simplification and I am infuriated over things like the Republicans boycotting the climate legislation subcommittee, and vicious little pricks like Glen Beck, but I guess we are still lucky we are free to disagree.
Comment by M.I. — November 7, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
In some respects this was a far better town in 1990 than 1991 and after. For one thing we didn’t have some people go around measuring other people’s pricks.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Announcement requesting comments on the competing resolutions the Sierra Club is considering for Alameda Point
At a meeting of the Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee in the latter half of November, the Sierra Club will consider taking one of two competing positions on the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.
One position would be to actively oppose the Initiative, the other would be to remain neutral and actively publicize both the possibilities for environmentally beneficial development the Initiative would enable and the concerns the Club has that the Initiative would set a bad precedent.
Passage of the Initiative could result in, and would at least enable, the achievement of the Club’s top long standing priority in Alameda, the construction at Alameda Point of the first new market-rate condos, apartments and townhomes anywhere in the City of over 70,000 in nearly 40 years.
Passage of the Initiative would also set a bad precedent. The Initiative would enable an end run around CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) by the City of Alameda and a development team (SunCal and D.E. Shaw), with whom the City has had a multi-year and exclusive negotiating agreement. The precedent could encourage other cities and development teams to jointly flush out a development, and then have a citizen place an initiative on the ballot to evade the CEQA requirement to conduct an environmental impact analysis before a major legislative action is placed on a ballot.
The Executive Committee of the Northern Alameda County Group is expected to choose between the competing resolutions at its meeting on Monday, November 23rd.
Comments or position papers on the issues identified in the two competing resolutions will be considered if received before Nov. 13th by either the chair of the Club’s ad hoc Alameda Initiative Committee, Helen Burke (helenburke@earthlink.net), or any other member of the committee which includes Dale Smith (dale2smith@yahoo.com), Kitty McClean (hmclean@berkeley.edu) and Alameda resident William Smith (SmithWJA@gmail.com). Comments on the relationship of the Initiative to the CEQA process are especially desired.
The elected members of the Sierra Club’s Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee include
Kent Lewandowski, Chair kentlewan@yahoo.com
Helen Burke, Vice-Chair helenburke@earthlink.net
Juliet Lamont jlamont@creekcats.com
Kitty McClean, hmclean@berkeley.edu
Ron Bishop rbishop747@aol.com
Len Conly lconly@lmi.net
The two members of the subcommittee who are not also members of the Executive Board are
Dale Smith dale2smith@yahoo.com
William Smith WJASmith@AOL.com
Dale is also community co-chair of the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board and Bill is also Vice President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Based largely on concerns explained in recent correspondence from the City of Oakland to the City of Alameda regarding the City’s noncompliance with both past CEQA agreements and the City’s attempt to avoid the preparation of an EIR prior to a vote on the Initiative, I have tentatively and reluctantly decided to recommend that the Club oppose the Initiative. The resolution opposing the Initiative summarizes my objections to the Initiative.
See posts immediately following for the two attachments listed here:
1. DRAFT Resolution Recommending the Sierra Club Oppose the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative
2. DRAFT Resolution Recommending the Sierra Club Take an Actively Neutral Position on the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative
Comment by William Smith — November 7, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Attachment 1 of 2 to Message 19
DRAFT Resolution Recommending the Sierra Club Oppose the
Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative
This is one of two competing resolutions to be considered for adoption by the Sierra Club.
The other resolution would be to take an actively neutral position on the Initiative.
Comments Received by November 13th Will Be Considered for
Selection and Preparation of the Final Resolution to Be Approved at the
NACG Executive Committee Meeting on Monday, November 23rd
Whereas the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative, an initiative prepared by a developer (SunCal Companies Alameda Point LLC) having had for several years an ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement) with the City of Alameda, submitted by citizens to change the Charter of the City of Alameda to allow the construction of private market-rate multi-family homes only within the boundaries of Alameda Point, will be on the ballot in the City of Alameda on February 2, 2010,
Whereas the Initiative also contains related ordinances that amend the general plan and the zoning plan and adopt a specific plan and a development agreement,
Whereas the Sierra Club has supported and continues to support a charter amendment, such as that proposed in this Initiative, that would enable the redevelopment of Alameda Point as a sustainable transit and ecologically friendly community requiring fewer material and energy resources to construct and maintain,
Whereas the citizens of Alameda will be better informed of the possible environmental impacts of the Initiative and in a better position to require environmental mitigations before they vote whether or not to vest an unknowable series of developers with the right to develop up to 4,485 housing units and 3,792,000 square feet of non-residential development if an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) is prepared prior to the election,
Whereas the Sierra Club concurs with the contention of the City of Oakland, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and Asian Health Services that the City of Alameda helped draft the Initiative, at least in part, and therefore the Initiative is subject to CEQA requirements and the City must analyze the impacts of the project on the environment and provide a formal EIR (Environmental Impact Report) prior to the election,
Whereas Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society both found that mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental impacts identified in EIRs certified by the City Council after the election would be restricted from reducing developer entitlements, even if such reductions were to be found necessary to minimize adverse environmental impacts, such as reducing the maximum number of units to promote better flow of buses and other traffic, zoning adjustments to protect historical resources, or zoning adjustments to prevent the construction of small residential developments in toxic areas,
Whereas members of the Council of the City of Alameda, the City Treasurer and the City Auditor, the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and Renewed Hope Housing Advocates have found that the developer team which wrote the Initiative, SunCal Companies Alameda Point LLC (the largest private development company in California) and its financial partner, D.E. Shaw & Co. (one of the world’s largest hedge fund managers), have failed to identify sufficient funding for both promised public benefits and likely necessary environmental mitigations, thereby calling into question the ability of any team of developers and financiers to voluntarily fund necessary environmental mitigations identified after the Initiative has resulted in the transfer of land with vested development rights that cannot be revoked by the CEQA process,
Therefore be it resolved that the Sierra Club opposes the Initiative,
Furthermore, be it resolved that the Sierra Club encourages the City and the development community to address the concerns with the development approval process that required the Club to oppose the Initiative and urges members to both actively campaign against the Initiative and to publicize the Club’s support for a separate ballot measure to adopt a Charter amendment similar to the one included in the Initiative that would lead to the construction of the first new, market-rate multi-family residential housing within the City of Alameda since the mid-1970s.
Comment by William Smith — November 7, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Attachment 2 of 2 To Message 19
DRAFT Resolution Recommending the Sierra Club Take an Actively Neutral Position on the
Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative
This is one of two competing resolutions to be considered for adoption by the Sierra Club.
The other resolution would be to oppose the Initiative.
Comments Received by November 13th Will Be Considered for
Selection and Preparation of the Final Resolution to be Considered for Adoption at the
NACG Executive Committee Meeting on Monday, November 23rd.
Whereas the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative, an initiative prepared by a developer (SunCal Companies Alameda Point LLC) with an ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement) with the City of Alameda and submitted by citizens to change the Charter of the City of Alameda to allow the construction of private market-rate multi-family homes only within the boundaries of Alameda Point, will be on the ballot in the City of Alameda on February 2, 2010,
Whereas the Initiative also contains ordinances that amend the general plan and the zoning plan and adopt a specific plan and a development agreement,
Whereas the Sierra Club has supported and continues to support a charter amendment, such as that proposed in this Initiative, that would enable the redevelopment of Alameda Point as a sustainable transit and ecologically friendly community requiring fewer material and energy resources to construct and maintain,
Whereas such a compact development of 4,485 housing units and 3,792,000 square feet of non-residential development that preserves significant open space is inherently more ecologically friendly than any development possible with the existing ban on market-rate condos, apartments and townhomes in the City Charter,
Whereas the citizens of Alameda and surrounding communities will be informed of environmental impacts projects enabled by the Initiative in subsequent EIRs (Environmental Impact Reports) prepared after the Initiative,
Whereas mitigation measures identified in these subsequent EIRs are expected to be adequate to mitigate the most significant environmental concerns that arise from this Initiative,
Whereas a host of community leaders and organizations have expressed reservations about whether or not the development team and the City and regional government agencies can actually implement necessary mitigations, including three City Council members, the city Treasurer and City Auditor, the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
Whereas the Initiative would, in practice, vest an unknowable sequence of developers with very flexible development rights at Alameda Point for 25 or more years and reduce both the range of environmental mitigations available for the City to require in subsequent EIRs and the City’s ability to control the phasing and sequence of environmental mitigations,
Therefore be it resolved that the Sierra Club take an actively neutral position on the Initiative,
Furthermore, be it resolved to encourage Sierra Club members to choose a position on the Initiative and to actively participate in the campaign and cite the appropriate Club policies, such as those identified above, to support their personal positions, and
Furthermore, be it resolved that members campaigning for the Initiative encourage the City and development community to address the concerns that prevented the Club from endorsing the Initiative, and
Finally, be it resolved that members campaigning against the Initiative encourage their campaigns to publicize the Club’s support for a separate ballot measure to adopt a Charter amendment similar to the one included in the Initiative.
Comment by William Smith — November 7, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Personally, we can hardly wait to vote yes…hope Feb it is.
The base closure has been going on for more than 10 years, and the infrastructure is falling apart and bleeding the city…another bay bridge mess.
Comment by Joel — November 8, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Please go to http://www.TheIslandofAlameda.com and read the post of Nov.4: “SunCal Gets a Date”
The response posts of Nov.6 by Jenna and DJM are enough to convince everyone to vote NO on SunCal’s initiative.
Comment by RM — November 8, 2009 @ 5:31 pm