The candidates statements are in which, arguably, probably make the most difference in the election given that for most voters that will be the most information that they will have prior to selecting their next City Councilmember and Mayor.
I know that sounds fairly cynical, but most folks, most voters even, are fairly disconnected to what goes on in their local hood. So therefore, these candidate statements may be the only additional information voter get beside the candidate’s name and occupation before they connect the arrow.
So, with that, the candidates and their statements:
Mayor (in alphabetical order), the titles are the occupations the candidate listed on their candidate statement.
Doug deHaan (Vice Mayor City of Alameda)
Alameda voters have twice elected me to City Council. Additionally, I have chaired various key city committees for 20 years. The next four years are critical for Alameda with budget constraints and Alameda Point’s future. I have numerous accomplishments to be proud of such as a balanced City budget with reserves, renovation of: Park and Webster Streets, Bridgeside, Towne Centre, Alameda Theater, and development of Harbor Bay Business Park. I continue to strive for open and inclusive government. Alameda is facing its own budget crisis with revenue decreases, while maintaining quality services: Fire, Police, Recreation and Parks, Library, Schools and Public Works. My challenge is to meet quality of life needs for present and future generations (fiscal and environmental sustainability). Alameda
continues to be engaged in large developlnent/redevelopment opportunities. Development must move forward with a focus on minimizing traffic impacts. As we continue to develop our city, I am proud to say that I have never, nor will I ever take campaign funds from developers. I ask for your vote once again. Alameda deserves a leader with the experience and integrity required to offer every Alamedan quality of life as we build upon our future during abnormally turbulent times. www.dougdehaanalameda.com
Tony Daysog (Sr. Associate Planner)
VF is a billion dollar company interested in Harbor Bay Business Park for the same reason Peet’s roasting plant was: quality industries with high-paying jobs prefer attractive business parks. Letus plan Alameda Point with Marina Village and Harbor Bay Business Parks in mind: hire the right developer to mix stylish, upscale housing with office/light industrial areas, A reasonable number. of housing is critical to pay for the Point’s quality business park, traffic plan, landscaping, infrastructure, and recreational amenities, The alternative? More of the same: low-rent uses with few career-track jobs. An urban planner and former Councilmember(1996-2006), I am ready to lead: I reluctantly opposed the movie theater — the rent was too low; voting against the AP&T bail-out in 2003, I presciently warned in public AP&T’s future customer estimates were too optimistic and, to hit targets, argued for more advanced planning, which AP&T resisted with disastrous consequences; though I championed Bayport, we also need stylish townhouses, lofts at the Point — as Mayor, I will make the case for modifying Measure A. I have a Master’s degree in City Planning from UC Berkeley, where I earned my Bachelor’s. Past vice mayor (1998- 2000 and 2002-2004). http://www.daysog.com
Marie Gilmore (Councilmember/Attorney)
Eighteen years ago, I left my job as an attorney to raise my two small children and volunteer to help fix our local parks.
Since then, I’ve been honored to serve on the Recreation and Parks
Commission, Planning Board and as the first African-American woman on the City Council.I am running for Mayor to restore civility and professionalism in Alameda city government. As Mayor, I will insist that City Hall cooperate with residents to make progress on the major challenges still facing our city.
Re-use of Alameda Point can provide an enormous boost to our economy, recreation opportunities and environmental quality. As Mayor, I will help implement a plan that reflects the preferences that residents have expressed at years of public meetings and at the ballot.
I believe our city needs to run more efficiently so we can enhance road
improvements, park facilities and library services.I will work with firefighters, police officers and all city employees to make fair sacrifices to help balance the city budget so we can avoid layoffs and resolve conflicts.
I humbly ask for your vote and for your help in bringing Alameda back
together.Please join me at http://www.gilmoreforalameda.com.
Frank Matarrese (Alameda City Council Member/Business Owner)
I am privileged to have served as your Councilman for the past eight years and I want to continue using my experience and expertise in keeping Alameda the great city we all enjoy. I believe in getting things done. I co-chaired the campaign for the new library, built during my time on the Council. I fought to restore the Alameda Theater. I supported renewing Bridgeside, Towne Centre and Webster Street. With the City facing serious challenges, l insisted that we deliver quality public safety and other essential city services within a frugal, balanced budget.
In all these efforts, open government is essential. I am the , only Councilmember to hold monthly town hall meetings to listen and to keep you informed. Your participation helped me launch initiatives seeking, traffic solutions, working with our schools, growing business and addressing the City’s long term financial stability.
As Mayor, keeping Alameda safe, clean and thriving will continue to be my top priorities. I will be innovative in promoting local and green businesses and working for sensible re-development of Alameda Point.
I will continue to lead vigorously, always making myself available to the community. Your vote is truly appreciated. Please visit http://www.frankformayor.org
Only Mayor for today, I’ll post the City Council ones tomorrow otherwise this post would be too unwieldy.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
I have always appreciated the dedication and intelligent contributions made by all of this year’s mayoral candidates. (I have also disagreed with all of them on more than one occasion. 🙂
Given the heated discussions and emotional decisions we have been through recently and will face over the next decade, I believe that Marie Gilmore is best qualified to be our next mayor.
Marie Gilmore has the experience, the vision, and the temperament to help us forge a common vision for Alameda Point and reach a consensus on other difficult issues.
We need a mayor with a comprehensive view of the issues who is smart, compassionate, experienced, dedicated to openness and transparency, and not beholden to special interests. Marie Gilmore fits that bill the best.
Comment by Jon Spangler — August 11, 2010 @ 10:10 am
Hmm, spelling errors in Daysog’s statement. Gilmore seems interesting, but it doesn’t seem like she is really running with the lack of her website being kept up as well as little to zero fundraising or community appearances to profile her run. Does she want it?
Comment by DRM — August 11, 2010 @ 10:17 am
Some of the spelling errors might be due to the OCR conversion software on Adobe Acrobat.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 11, 2010 @ 10:27 am
Thanks, Lauren, for posting these. And, thanks for your comment number 3: public, rest assured, there are periods after “light industrial areas” and “recreational amenities”, not commas. Also, in the official version, there is no period after “A reasonable number”. I just checked with the City Clerk’s office who confirmed this. So, it should read:
VF is a billion dollar company interested in Harbor Bay Business Park for the same reason Peet’s roasting plant was: quality industries with high-paying jobs prefer attractive business parks. Let us plan Alameda Point with Marina Village and Harbor Bay Business Parks in mind: hire the right developer to mix stylish, upscale housing with office/light industrial areas. A reasonable number of housing is critical to pay for the Point’s quality business park, traffic plan, landscaping, infrastructure, and recreational amenities. The alternative? More of the same: low-rent uses with few career-track jobs. An urban planner and former Councilmember(1996-2006), I am ready to lead: I reluctantly opposed the movie theater — the rent was too low; voting against the AP&T bail-out in 2003, I presciently warned in public AP&T’s future customer estimates were too optimistic and, to hit targets, argued for more advanced planning, which AP&T resisted with disastrous consequences; though I championed Bayport, we also need stylish townhouses, lofts at the Point — as Mayor, I will make the case for modifying Measure A. I have a Master’s degree in City Planning from UC Berkeley, where I earned my Bachelor’s. Past vice mayor (1998- 2000 and 2002-2004). http://www.daysog.com
Comment by Tony Daysog — August 11, 2010 @ 11:45 am
2: DRM,
Marie Gilmore is far more interested in governing than in running for office. Those of us who have supported her for many years have struggled with this issue, but I would rather have her in the mayor’s office than anyone else, no matter how long s/he has been running for mayor.
Gilmore is not by nature an ambitious politician, nor has she been running for mayor for almost four years like some current candidates. Both of these are pluses in my opinion, and they would make her a better, less-distracted-by-higher-office mayor for Alameda.
I am still bothered by Frank Matarrese’s brief attempt to run against Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker when he had not even completed his first term on the City Council. I do not doubt his ability, but I did not like what seemed to be his overreaching and premature ambition in wanting to unseat a terrific Supervisor who had served us well.
Comment by Jon Spangler — August 11, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
3.4:
I’m glad to see that Tony’s attention to detail–including punctuation and spacing–has not slipped
since he left office in 2006. (And I am similarly disappointed that Adobe OCR software still makes hash of well-constructed English.)
If Marie Gilmore were not in the race, I would give Tony a very close look…
Comment by Jon Spangler — August 11, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
#2
Quite a bit of overlap between Gilmore’s supporters and the supporters of Measure B.
I didn’t know that she had, “Helped build a brand new public library.” What is her trade?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 11, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
“…most voters even, are fairly disconnected to what goes on in their local hood.”
Maybe their city but not their “hood”. I’d say there are quite a few “hoods” in this city and I’ve lived in a few (not Wallmark of course) but I’ve never found the residents “disconnected” with their neighborhood
Aside from that, Marie Gilmore’s statement surprised me. I really thought she could do better than cite, by far, the most banal reasons of the group, to vote for her. So what that she quit her job as an attorney eighteen years ago. Mentioning that she happens to have been born a women and an African-American has no signification to it when one notes that Al DeWitt proceeded her in the latter category and several females preceded her in the first.
Really disappointed.
Tony Daysog’s looking better all the time.
Comment by Jayare — August 11, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
we have to pick one? urgh. hey what about Kenny the Clown?
Comment by E — August 11, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
At least Kenny has enough sense not to write something stupid. He lists his talents and even gives rates — now that’s transparency!
http://www.kennytheclown.com/rates.php
Kenny has some great magic tricks; all the other politicians can do is make your tax dollars disappear.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 11, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
I’m tempted to vote for Kenny just because I would love to be able to say, “Our mayor is a real clown; really.”
Comment by Susan — August 11, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
I’m definitely voting for Kenny.
Comment by E — August 11, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Kenny is risky, though. We could have balloons in the budget. But he would be good at juggling things.
Comment by Richard Bangert — August 11, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Kenny the Clown had a YouTube video that was yanked because it was so vulgar. He has never supported himself because he can’t hold a job so his father gives him a place to live at 44 years old. On top of that, he sold his own mother out for a buck. It isn’t funny it is sad. He is running for attention and what we should do is ignore him.
Comment by Barbara M — August 12, 2010 @ 5:27 am
Jayare: by “hood” I meant local government, not the immediate neighborhood someone lives in. I think we’ve disagreed on the percentage before, but I would guess that most Alameda voters would struggle to answer correctly the name of one City Councilperson, let alone all five.
How are people going to vote? The majority will probably make a gut level decision based on these candidate statements when they are actually faced with making their decision. Which is why someone’s title, their educational background, and a glimmer of the personal are fairly important to include. Marie Gilmore pointing out that she is both Black and a woman is no more surprising than voters coming to the conclusion that Lena Tam is an Asian female.
For those seeking more substance, you aren’t going to get it in a candidate statement.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 12, 2010 @ 7:14 am
Kennny Khan is one of the kindest, happiest people I know. He lives with his father who is blind–or verrrry seriously sight impaired. You may see them around town, arm in arm.
There are not many grown men who would be as kind and patient with their father.
Comment by RM — August 12, 2010 @ 8:18 am
You might want to update your slang dic.
Hood
A ganster slang word derrived from neighborhood, usually talking about the ghetto or where all the gangsters and thugs live.
Guy: I am from the trailer park, where are you from?
Thug: Da hood!
Tam’s an asian? Wish she’d a put that on her statement. All this time I thought she was bohemiam. And she had my vote locked up ’till you spilled the beans. Way to go Do.
Comment by jayare — August 12, 2010 @ 10:43 am
#7. guilt by association, that’s real classy ANT. I voted no on B and I endorse Marie whole heartedly. As big an issue as Alameda Point is proving to be, there is more to keeping this City solvent than focusing on that one issue.
Reading the statements, I think Frank does the best job in saying the right things in the right way, but reading between the lines and knowing the all the candidates, I have no hesitation is choosing Marie. I hope nobody like ANT holds that against her.
Comment by M.I. — August 12, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
11. I’m sorry, but I think we can say that now. She has juggled conflicting opinions on SunCal among other things.
When Wavy Garvy ran against Shirley Dean for Mayor of Berkeley his slogan was in fact, “Wavy Gravy: Elect a Real Clown for Mayor”.
Comment by M.I. — August 12, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
#18. So, you have no problem with the fact that Ms. Gilmore also voted to give the Boys and Girls Club two million that should have gone to parks?
#14. I agree that Kenny should not be Mayor but to say he sold his mother out for a buck is nasty and not true. Don’t go in that direction….Two sides to every story.
Comment by J.E.A. — August 12, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
JEA, I know the family very well and more than aware of both sides.
Comment by Barbara M — August 13, 2010 @ 5:24 am
Barbara is right. Kenny has abandoned his mother and she has been the victim of a crazy man and a crazier judge. Much unfairness there toward a woman who has given much of herself to the community and to her family for the thirty some years my family has known hers. There are two sides to the story, but Kenny’s mom has been ill served by her, unfortunately.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 15, 2010 @ 8:48 am
14, 22: I find the statements here about Kenneth Kahn’s private life to be in the poorest taste possible, when the discussion should be about the mayoral candidates and the future of Alameda. Mudslinging about family issues has no place in a public forum and should be kept private.
Barbara M and Kate Quick, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Kenny the Clown is not the one who comes off looking badly in your statements.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 15, 2010 @ 9:31 am
23.
I agree 100% Adam. The comments in #14 are beneath contempt and, whoever “barbara” is, hiding in anonymity, should be ashamed. And you too Kate Quick. These kinds of comments reflect the character of those who write them much more than those who they attack.
Comment by jayare — August 15, 2010 @ 10:20 am
Mr. Gillitt, where/how did you manage “multi-million dollar” contracts?
Still hoping to hear a straight answer from you. For once.
Comment by Mr. Sunshine — August 15, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
I mean “budgets.” Apologies.
Comment by Mr. Sunshine — August 15, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
26. Perhaps when he was open7days?
Comment by David N — August 15, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
I do apologise for my posting. I hate injustice and was reacting emotionally. I am sorry for posting it-it was out of character for me to do that.
Comment by Kate Quick — August 16, 2010 @ 2:15 am
Mr. Sunshine et al (including me)
You can say what you want about Adam Gillitt, but he was the only person running for council (out of the two that comment on this blog) that had the common decency to right the write in his #23. And he did it with brevity and directness. That means something to me.
Comment by jayare — August 16, 2010 @ 8:52 am
jayare, wake me up when Adam Gillitt is willing to answer any questions about his qualifications or lack thereof.
Comment by Mr. Sunshine — August 16, 2010 @ 9:20 am
Hey “Mr. Sunshine,”
Now you know why most candidates or city leaders do not weigh-in on this blog. They don’t want to be cornered or marginalized by people like you.
Comment by look in the mirror — August 16, 2010 @ 10:20 am
“… and have managed multi-million dollar annual budgets.” Adam Gillitt
If, asking for a little bit more info about the above item in Mr. Gillitt’s campaign statement is being “marginalized”, than what question isn’t?
Mr. Gillitt could put this to bed with one statement.
Comment by jayare — August 16, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Mr Gillitt already did.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 16, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Brevity, in this case, left many tired people awake. How about expanding a little more to put this to bed…or maybe to futon.
Comment by jayare — August 16, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
https://laurendo.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/and-theyre-off-the-city-council-version/#comment-86010
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 16, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
Mr. Gillitt, that fact that you still won’t answer the question but claim you did (far from it) tells us all we really need to know, doesn’t it?
Gee, what a great representative you will be. You are better qualified for the Senate!
Comment by Mr. Sunshine — August 16, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
#35: Your scrutiny would hold more weight if you applied it equally to all candidates.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 16, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Pardon me, that should be #36.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 16, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
winning hearts and minds, one voter at a time….
Comment by notadave — August 16, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
Re. Gillitt Experience
Be nice to have a council member who can figure out a way to save email for over thirty days.
Comment by jayare — August 16, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
#37: One very basic type of scrutiny that I apply equally to all candidates concerns qualifications.
I have looked at your bio several times and your primary work experience appears to be in the design field. Can you explain how that qualifies you for a City Council seat in a community currently beset with some very serious political, legal, and financial difficulties?
Moreover, like others in Alameda’s blogscape, I’m concerned about the number of questions posed to you that you have not yet answered — especially over at The Island. One person, for instance, asked if you had supported Measure E. Another person questioned, as I do, your community service experience. Is there a reason you don’t respond to such questions?
Comment by Susan Davis — August 17, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
Re #41: I’m too busy being dazzled by Rob’s supremely qualified teeth like you instructed us to be on your soapbox over at the SF Gate, sorry.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 17, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
#42 — In the post to which you refer, I actually suggested that people *shouldn’t* be dazzled by Mr. Bonta’s smile:
“I’m pretty sure Rob Bonta could get elected on the basis of his wonderful smile alone, by the way, but don’t let that fool you. He’s also got the requisite experience (deputy city attorney in SF, director of the Alameda Health Care District) and smarts (he went to Yale School of Law and Oxford University) to make a great council member in these turbulent times. More on that another time.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inalameda/index?o=20#ixzz0wtuyPtwo
Comment by Susan Davis — August 17, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Oops — the specific URL for the post in question should be:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inalameda/detail?entry_id=68663
Comment by Susan Davis — August 17, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Hey Adam,
I’d like you to answer the questions too. You seem to demand answers from other posters but refuse to answer questions yourself. I don’t think that bodes well for someone whose platform is based on “transparency.” It looks very much like you’re demanding transparency from everyone else but are refusing to be transparent yourself.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — August 17, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
As I have suggested before, I encourage you all to follow my website at http://www.adamforalameda.com. I update the site regularly with new posts and information about my campaign, positions, Alameda news, and other topics of interest. You can also follow my campaign on Facebook, Twitter, FourSquare and by email if you’d like! In the coming weeks, I will be addressing many topics of concern to Alameda’s citizens.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 17, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
But your bio doesn’t answer the questions posed. So much for transparency. You’re acting like a politician before you’ve even gained a toehold in politics.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — August 17, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Mr. Oh the irony!, Sunshine, Charlie etc., (whatever name you’re using this hour), you need to go for a walk and get a life.
Adam, I’d ignore the guy as all he is interested in doing is discrediting and cornering people. Don’t be a victim.
Comment by Nancy — August 17, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
Nancy,
For the record, I’m Oh the Irony, not Mr. Sunshine or Charlie or anybody else. Unlike Mr. Gillitt, who has a record of posting under multiple names on a single thread on this site, I only post under one name. Lauren can verify that I am not Mr. Sunshine or Charlie or anyone else on this thread. Perhaps you, Nancy, are Mr. Gillitt?
If you don’t care about the qualifications of candidates for City Council, that’s certainly your prerogative. I care and would like answers to some simple questions about Mr. Gillitt’s qualifications that he has flatly refused to answer. It appears that I am not alone in seeking these answers. He is running on a platform promoting transparency but is refusing to be transparent himself. I don’t need to discredit Mr. Gillitt. He has done a fine job of doing that himself.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — August 17, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Those running for unpaid public office should be treated with respect. Regardless of how one feels about a particular candidate or elected official the service or willingness to serve should be honored. Instead, those who step forward seem to become targets for anyone in the community with an axe to grind. Even their personal family life is dragged into the spotlight.
No one who is stupid enough to run for public office should ever be elected. Democracy may well yet prove to be a failed experiment.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 17, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
50
“Democracy may well yet prove to be a failed experiment.”
Definetely…except all the other experiments are worse.
I say anarchy for each!
Comment by jayare — August 18, 2010 @ 9:02 am
@42-44
This is hilarious. open7days can’t even read straight.
Dude, I noticed you haven’t replied to many of the very pertinent questions. Are you pulling a Palin on us? You know, just because you can see City Hall from your house …
Comment by David N — August 18, 2010 @ 11:59 am
I, for one, welcome our new clown overlord with open arms.
Kenny is the antidote to all that ails our formerly fair island city.
He will block corruption, steal our hearts, and assist this town’s rebound. It’s a slam dunk.
Vote Kahn!
PS: Those of you haters who dragged the man through the mud in this forum for your opinions of his private life have shown your true colors.
Comment by John Shasky — August 20, 2010 @ 9:57 am
All,
In response to a question about the Sierra Club’s endorsement process on The Island, I submitted the following description of the Sierra Club endorsement process. Readers of this blog who are students of the political process may be interested as well.
Bill
To Those Interested in the Sierra Club Endorsement Process:
I concur with Jon’s characterization of the Sierra Club endorsement process – it does apply different criteria than most individuals. More on that for students of politcial process below.
I would like to clarify one of Jon’s comments – every member of the Sierra Club is encouraged to publicize and explain OFFICIAL Club policies in appropriate fora. Only authorized Club officials may speak on behalf of the Club to insure that those so identifying themselves are familiar with the nuances of Club policy and communicate it accurately.
Generally members who regularly attend the Club’s monthly conservation committee meetings, become familiar with the nuances of a range of issues, and become known to elected Club officials can become authorized to speak on behalf of the Club. I am often authorized to speak on Alameda Point Issues, especially development issues, and am sometimes asked to speak on other issues as well. Members of the Club, including officers, are encouraged to make inquiries into issues into which the Club is considering taking a position, but no one can speak for the Club on an issue upon which the Club has taken no official position.
===================================================================
Sierra Club Interview Committees – Membership and Process
Typically the Sierra Club endorsement process involves three committees, one advisory and two independent governing committees. Both governing committees must endorse a candidate by a 2/3 margin or greater. In the case of elections totally within the City of Almameda’s boundaries the local committee is the Alameda Interview Committee. The two governing committees are the Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee, whose 9 members are elected by the members with mid-term vacancies filled by appointment, and the San Francisco Bay Chapter Political Committee.
The San Francisco Bay Chapter includes the Counties of Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa and Alameda. As you might expect from this membership, the Chapter committee gives strong weight to regional issues. The Northern Alameda County Group committee weights transit oriented development heavily. The Alameda advisory committee weights parks and open space, the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, cleanup of toxics at Alameda Point and resource efficiency (the 3 Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle)and energy efficiency heavily.
The Alameda Interview committee consisted of Ruth Abbe, Dale Smith, Jon Spangler and Bill Smith. This advisory committee’s recommendations were passed to the 8 members of the Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee (1 vacancy), of which I, Bill Smith, am the Alameda representative, along with representatives, primarily from Berkeley and Oakland, elected by the membership.
As the convener of the Alameda Interview committee, it was my responsibility to insure that Jon Spangler’s publicly announced positions supporing Lena Tam and Rob Bonta were known to the other members of the Alameda interview and NACG executive committees. It is my practice, and those of others in the Club, time permitting, to invite all serious candidates to an interview, even if their positions on Club policies or their slim chances of winning make them unendorsable. The interview then is an opportunity to explore for common ground upon which we can work together – and maybe we’ll get unendorsable to slightly modify their positions and endorse our policies – or they convince us that we misunderstand their positions!
Although I had not publicly announced a preference prior to the interviews, nor in fact had I actually made up my mind on which candiates to support, I did disclose my analysis of candidates positions on a single issue, housing, at a private strategy meeting of regional housing advocates shortly before the interview. At that meeting I stated that Lena Tam and Rob Bonta were the candidates most likely to be supportive of cost and resource efficient housing (both market and below market cost) that enabled residents to use less energy for heating and travel and water for landscaping.
As all members of the interview committee agreed that the written questionnaires and the personal interviews did confirm Jon’s early public endorsements, there was no need for me or other Club leaders to ask Jon to recuse himself from the vote on the Council candidates. As there was substantial support from other members of the interview committee for Marie Gilmore, the mayoral candidate that Jon has publicly endorsed, neither I nor other Club leaders have found it necessary to ask Jon to recuse himself.
Here are the Club criteria for endorsement of candidates, some of which I agree with Jon are different from those an individual might use:
1) Commitment to Club goals and policies,
2) Heavily favors previously endorsed incumbent with acceptable committment to Club goals, even if challenger is more committed to those goals,
3) Viability as a candidate – endorsing acceptable winners yields more results than endorsing policy soulmates with little chance of winning.
Although I could not possibly explain all of the complex ins and outs of the Club endorsement process, the above gives students of political process an overview of our goals and procedures.
As many readers of these blogs know, I am a strong advocate for transparency, and that includes providing those impacted by Club actions with insights into our, at times, messy processes. My insistence on transparency at times makes my own Club’s leaders uneasy, just as transparency often annoys City and other government leaders. Although unavoidably stressful in complex and conflicted environments within which decisions are not readily explained with a single sound bite suitable for the evening news, transparency does empower both employees, citizens and managers and owners!
If you have further questions on the Club’s endorsement process, I’ll answer them if I can. Like many processes in the real world such as biology, chemistry (my profession) and politics (my avocation), there often is not a simple answer as complex processes are often poorly characterized or understood.
Bill
Comment by William Smith — September 11, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
In the interest of transparency, here are all the Sierra Club questions with their listed authors, as sent to all the candidates. (I declined to participate for obvious reasons)
Regional Development
1. Do you think it is important that Alameda consider regional issues when developing Alameda Point, such as regional jobs housing balance, housing for those who cannot afford to pay market rate rents, water supply and regional transportation systems? What would you or your major supporters like to see developed at Alameda Point? (Bill Smith)
2. Alameda has an outstanding solid waste recycling program and has worked well with CASA to implement it. What do you think can be done to improve our solid waste recycling program and do you think the City will meet the County’s landfill waste reduction goal (Ruth Abbe)
3. A number of citizens and civic groups, most notably the League of Women Voters, are concerned about a number of actions taken or proposed very recently either by the City staff alone, or by Council members. Do you share some of these concerns, and whether or not you share them, how do you think they could be best addressed? (Jon Spangler)
4. The US Fish and Wildlife Service refused to accept the runway area from the Navy to create a Wildlife Refuge. The Veterans Administration has, however, at least preliminarily, expressed a willingness to accept responsibility for this land, including remediation of the toxics. Do you have a preference as to which federal agency accepts the runway area and an adjacent dump site from the Navy? Do you support the establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge for the runway area and dump site? (Arthur Feinstein)
5. Alameda Point Environmental Restoration (Dale Smith)
Alameda Point is a Superfund site and the Navy plans to leave some contaminated materials in place and impose deed restrictions, some in perpetuity, on the land when it is transferred. Based on what you’ve heard:
– What percentage of the base has been transferred or is ready for transfer?
– What percentage still requires remediation or is in remediation?
– Are residential standards the same as unrestricted use?
The toxics at Alameda Point pose potential hazards to both people and other living things. Do you think existing cleanup standards are adequate? Do they protect other living things as well as humans? (Dale Smith)
6. Alameda energy policy (Al Weinrub)
– What would be your plan for dealing with the impact of Oakland Airport being under water in a few decades, as shown in San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission maps (http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/maps/16/cbay_east.pdf)?
How would you create major transportation hubs with high-density housing, especially low-income housing?
What are the biggest barriers to green job development in low-income communities and how would you overcome these barriers?
What characteristics must a business development project have for you to consider it sustainable economic development that would benefit the local community?
What roles will alternative energy sources such as hydropower, geothermal power and solar power play in Alameda’s future? What is the City doing and what more could it do to conserve energy?
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
a. Please identify pro-environmental actions you have taken either as a private individual
and/or public official in your career and any environmental or civic organizations active
on environmental or environmental justice matters in which you have been active.
b. Please attach any written environmental campaign material or platform plank.
c. Why should the Sierra Club support your candidacy?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 11, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
The Sierra Club brand isn’t worth as much as it used to be.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 12, 2010 @ 7:45 am
thanks for posting the questionnaire Adam. Why is it obvious why you would not participate? Do you have no position on any of these issues? Even if you feel there are agendas behind some of the questions asked, wouldn’t it be an opportunity to differentiate yourself from the rest of the field or make critical statements about the relevance of the questions?
As it stands all I know about you is that you seem to be a petulant snark who enjoys attacking people on blogs.
Comment by M.I. — September 12, 2010 @ 9:54 am
56.
And it wasn’t worth anything when it used to be.
Comment by Jayare — September 12, 2010 @ 10:05 am
#57:
The outcome was predetermined, the questions were mostly about issues with no relevance to Alameda or Municipal politics, and the whole questionnaire, but Jon Spangler’s question (#3) in particular, was so poorly written and unanswerable as to make the whole exercise moot.
You’re ahead of me in the restraining order count, so I know who look to you for counsel on attacking people, but until then I will keep right on making the best decisions for my campaign, thanks 🙂
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 12, 2010 @ 10:22 am
54.
Bill, didn’t we go through all the bureaucratic nonsense the Sierra Club goes through to pretend it makes reasonable and open decisions, before during the Measure B run up?
Why don’t you just admit that the final decisions by the CLUB are made by a ideological hierarchy that wields the CLUB and has nothing to do with a democratic process?
Using “transparency” and the CLUB in the same sentence is about as oximoronish as the idea that Dzhugashvili spoke to Yezhov though Trotsky.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 12, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
Jack,
#60. Your comments were right on the mark.
Regarding SunCal’s Measure B, if you recall, the Club stayed neutral on that measure and I actively opposed it. Measure B is one example where local members like myself and Gretchen Lipow, although for very different reasons, moderated the enthusiasm of the transit advocates on Club governing committees for Measure B.
The Measure B experience was an eye opener for me – previously I hadn’t realized how difficult some zealous transit advocates are to reason with regarding practical concerns – including some of my good transit friends in Alameda.
What is it about management and politics that turns on the herd response and turns off the reason faculties in otherwise rational individuals? (herding people in the same direction may be part of the answer)
In the case of Measure B, the Club’s representative democratic process worked to counter what you termed the “ideological hierarchy” – and the Club remained neutral. Actually, Gretchen and I came very close to getting the supermajority of votes needed for the Club to actively oppose Measure B. If you get involved in the Club, you’ll be amazed at what an energetic volunteer can accomplish.
Your comment implying that the Club could make improvements in transparency is valid – and exactly what I am trying to do. Some comments indicate that I have made progress on that goal. Whether that progress toward transparency will benefit the Club more than slick opaque marketing remains to be seen.
Insightful comments like your 60 do help make the process more transparent. Thanks.
Comment by William Smith — September 12, 2010 @ 7:58 pm
59. the restraining order crack proves my point about you being a snarky twit Adam who has no clue about being a serious candidate. The judge found Howard’s request for a restraining order without merit by the way, though I know it is really scary to be confronted in a well lit room full of witnesses and asked to back one’s specious written claims by repeating them verbally. In terms of attacks, though it can’t easily be proven, it seems some How2ard fan found it appropriate to commit malicious mischief at my home the day after each court appearance. Seems like your style Adam. You own dog? Maybe we should match DNA with the shit left in my truck.
Comment by M.I. — September 12, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
re #62: Nope, I have three wonderful cats. Your tinfoil hat is very fetching!
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 12, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
91.
Bill, be careful. With comments like 91, you’ll make me detemper my steel.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 13, 2010 @ 9:22 am
61. >>> previously I hadn’t realized how difficult some zealous transit advocates are to reason with regarding practical concerns….
This bears repeating!
Comment by Jack B. — September 13, 2010 @ 9:29 am
I know some people on this thread have been asking if Adam Gillitt is a real person because you have not seen him. Well I finally did get to meet him this weekend at the Webster Street JAM. As a volunteer at the Jam, myself and two other people were called over to a voter registration table because of a disturbance. When we got there we had to kind of stand between this guy who was arguing with a little old lady in a wheel chair who was working at the table. We stayed there until the police came to handle the situation. Eventually they took care of it, but had to call our city Para medics to take a look at her because she was so upset.
So guess who the six footer was standing over the table arguing with the little old lady in a wheel chair You got it, Adam Gillitt.
He wins my “Worst Person in the World” award for the entire weekend, and I must have seen about 35,000 people this weekend.
I would never want to elect anyone to our city council who in my opinion would pick on little old ladies in wheel chairs.
I’m sure he will have a different view to express, but I found him to be a bully and quite obnoxious.
Comment by John Piziali — September 13, 2010 @ 10:02 am
Another attempt at spin without including all the facts:
The senior, as a representative of the City of Alameda Democratic Club removed my campaign information from the voter registration table in violation of my First Amendment Rights and then lied about it.
The police were called to restore order because she became hysterical when she was unable to come up with a valid explanation for why my campaign literature was removed, and other candidates’ literature was allowed to stay.
For your edification:
This is just another example of the corruption of the City of Alameda Democratic Club, of which Lauren Do is an officer, and why their endorsement process is completely invalid and fraudulent.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 13, 2010 @ 11:05 am
Ah, I can’t link photos directly.
Photo of Campaign literature removed from table
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 13, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Adam,
Even if you had an issue with the removal of the literature, you shouldn’t be yelling at old ladies in wheelchairs. You’re basically saying she deserved it. No one deserves that kind of treatment — especially a 90 year old in a wheelchair. There’s just no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Comment by Hello, Pot? It's Kettle. — September 13, 2010 @ 11:11 am
And you’re saying it’s okay for her to violate my First Amendment rights and to advance the corrupt goals of the City of Alameda “Democratic” Club to promote their own candidates, not Democracy. You’re basically saying I deserved it. No one deserves that kind of treatment — especially a 40 year old running for office. There’s just no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 13, 2010 @ 11:15 am
The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law infringing on freedom of speech. That means the government can’t interfere with your right to free speech. The little old lady in the wheelchair was not a government entity (and neither is the City of Alameda Democratic Club), so your First Amendment rights are not being infringed.
You have other forums to express your views and campaign. Leaflet in the streets. Post on this blog. Start your own club. The old lady is not obligated to give you a forum to express your views. She has free speech rights too, including the right not to promote candidates as she chooses. (And so does the Demoncratic Club.) She also has a right not to be assaulted by someone half her age.
Should be an interesting evening on Sep. 15. I hope the police are on call.
Comment by Hello, Pot? It's Kettle. — September 13, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Hello POT, Thanks for putting that out there, it is a very valid point and one which I explained to Mr. Gillitt while we were waiting for the Police to come.
I’m going to stay with my opinion of him being a bully and quite obnoxious. Forty years old and doesn’t even know how to treat others old or young with respect.
To quote Mr. Gillitt in his post #70 “THERE’S JUST NO EXcUSE FOR THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR”
Comment by John Piziali — September 13, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Speaking as Past President of the City of Alameda Democratic Club, I believe the way it works is that only candidates endorsed by either the Democratic Party (for which the Alameda Democratic Central Committee is legal and official body in this county) or by the local Democratic Club are allowed to place their literature on the Democratic Club table or in the Democratic Club campaign office. Those are the rules and, speaking frankly, as I see it, there’s nothing wrong with these rules.
Comment by Tony Daysog — September 13, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Tony: as you can see in my photo, Frank Matarese’s and Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft’s literature is on the table, among others. Neither are endorsed.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — September 13, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Gillitt is turning out to be quite a train wreck …
Comment by alameda — September 13, 2010 @ 11:50 am
AG – Sometimes basic civility is more important than “winning.” And making personal attacks on or verbally threatening people – even if you are provoked – is not particularly civil.
The City of Alameda Democratic Club has not yet made any endorsements – that happens Wednesday night. Until then, the CADC is probably following appropriate and fair policies. For example, are you even a member of the City of Alameda Democratic Club? I’m sure that the other candidates whose literature was on the table are current members.
Even if the CADC volunteer(s) made a mistake, you could simply accept an honest apology once the literature event has been discussed and reviewed, which it surely will be now.
How you expect threatening a CADC volunteer to garner you any additional support is beyond me.
It truly saddens me to know you will most likely take the opportunity to respond to my post in ways that will neither advance a thoughtful discourse or your campaign.
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 13, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Saddened in advance, Jon? Not me, I love lauging at Adam’s posts and gleefully await each & every one.
Comment by dave — September 13, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
If only there was one feed where we could follow all of Adam’s marvelous comments!
Comment by Mr. Sunshine — September 13, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
Adam,
I take it your reference in #59 to Howard’s pathetic restraining order stunt was prior to your terrorizing this elderly woman ( #66). How timely! Obviously you need no counsel when it comes to attacking other people, and you may even get experience with restraining orders sooner than later. Keep up the good work!
Comment by M.I. — September 13, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
76
Were you there Jon when this episode took place? Do your hyperbolic comments advance a thoughtful discourse on anything except the nature of your method of discourse? Why don’t you apologize to Adam for lying about what happened, unless you were there and witnessed the altercation. In fact, were you even at the Webster Street Jam, at all, Jon?
Comment by Jayare — September 13, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
Re: Comment 67
It was not Flo Hoffman -“the little old lady” who removed your material. It was me. I did not know we had to display your literature. After the way you screamed at me and called me a liar at headquarters the previous day scaring me into calling Jim Oddie
for help, I thought you did not deserve having your material displayed. By the way, everything I told you was true. Once the Alameda Central Committee endorsed Lena Tam and Rob Bonta we were legally allowed to put their signs in the window.
Comment by Karen Green — October 7, 2010 @ 11:36 am
Thank you, Karen, for owning up to manipulating the political process. You are exactly the reason why I am running for City Council.
Your signage in your windows has never indicated anything other than being the City of Alameda Democratic Club, so displaying endorsements for anyone else has no logic to it unless you displayed it under their auspices.
Ignorance is no defense for your actions, of course, as an officer of the CADC, you should be informed as to your actions, and if not, Jim Oddie certainly is.
People like you making unilateral decisions behind the scenes in the name of the Democratic Party and Alameda do a disservice to both, and make your club look like the joke it is.
When I first moved to Alameda, I looked to the CADC for guidance as to how to interpret the political lay of the land in Alameda, thinking you spoke in the best interest of the City andDemocratic voters.
Now, the Citizens and I see that your focus is being on a Club only, and supporting your benefactors and pushing your candidates, no matter how flawed and unethical they are, how beholden they are to outside of Alameda interests, and how badly your buddies at SunCal want back on the island via any means necessary.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 7, 2010 @ 11:56 am
So, Adam, are you going to apologize to Ms. Hoffman? It would be good to see a humble side to your puffed up public persona.
Comment by BC — October 7, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
83. Adam/open7days indeed has a puffed up persona, much like his mentor David Howard. No wonder the two get along well.
I look forward to voting this turd polisher off the ballot come Nov 2.
Comment by David N — October 7, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
I am not an officer of the CADC
Comment by Karen Green — October 7, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Re #83
In the days following the Jam, I made repeated attempts via the City of Alameda Democratic Club to contact Mrs. Hoffman to offer a personal apology but unfortunately, none was successful. I am truly sorry the situation got out of hand, and sincerely regret that Mrs. Hoffman was in any way frightened or upset by the incident.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 7, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
[…] Jam on September 11, 2010.Karen Green, a worker at the CADC’s offices the weekend of the Jam, posted:“It was not Flo Hoffman -’the little old lady’ who removed your material. It was […]
Pingback by CADC Admits Manipulating Election Process | Adam For Alameda — October 8, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
87. You still don’t get it, do you?
btw, your “press releases” are hysterical … they remind me of me Jimmy!
Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 5:08 pm