Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 8, 2010

Endorsement rush: the City Council edition

Filed under: Alameda, City Council, Election — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

Typically during election season I post profiles of all the candidates with as much information as I can find and then make my endorsements.   However, I just received my absentee ballot in the mail yesterday and realized that I am running out of time and want to make my endorsement (in the case that anyone cared) before people started mailing back their absentee ballots.   This is just for the City Council and Mayoral races, I’ll be writing my endorsements for School Board and Bart Board in a different post.

So here is goes…

Mayor: Marie Gilmore

For a long time I had always thought of Marie Gilmore as “the quiet one.”  She never talked as much as the other City Councilpeople, but when she did speak, it always made an impact because what she did say was well thought out.   I have come to appreciate her deliberative and careful style and definitely her thoughtfulness on issues — even when I have disagreed with her position.    More recently, probably because of the contentiousness on the City Council of late, she has become much more present, but what she says and the questions she asks goes toward making an informed decision as opposed to grandstanding for the audience or pandering to a base.     While I would prefer her to be more definitive on her vision for Alameda Point in the way that Mayoral candidate Tony Daysog has been straightforward about his vision for Alameda Point, I know that Marie Gilmore understands the issues that are facing Alameda today and that the problems of Alameda are more than just Alameda Point.  Marie Gilmore is forward thinking and focused and  I know that Marie Gilmore will provide the right kind of collaborative leadership to guide Alameda for the next four years.

City Council: Rob Bonta and Lena Tam

For these largely volunteer political positions, there is always the lament that because of the number of hours people have to put in and the lack of pay, you don’t always get the best candidate for the position.  Alameda right now has the opportunity to do so by electing Rob Bonta.   His educational pedigree is beyond reproach: Yale for undergraduate, studied at Oxford, and a law degree from Yale he is, on paper, perfect.   But, he’s also one heck of a nice guy as well.    He is the sort of candidate that you can only dream about and that he is willing to take on the task of Alameda City Councilmember is a boon for Alameda.  He is well informed and smart and has a good understanding of the economic issues facing Alameda today as a member of the City’s Economic Development Commission.   Which — by the way — have the most fascinating discussions and it’s unfortunate that they aren’t saved on-line and you can only catch them live, which I forget to do.    Rob Bonta is, as I stated before, the type of political leader that everyone says that they want — smart, capable, earnest, open-minded and honest — and I hope that the voters will give him a chance to prove his worth.

Lena Tam deserves your vote because she has always been one of the most, if not the most, prepared Councilmembers on the current Council.   Never one to shirk her duty or shy away from making tough decisions, she is the Councilmember that I respect the most.   While she may have endorsed unpopular positions, the fact that she has taken positions at all is what sets her apart from other politicians who dance around uncomfortable subjects so as to offend the least amount of people possible.   Lena Tam brings a wealth of practical experience to the job and is not one to pander to the shrillest voice in the room.   Throughout this difficult time Lena Tam has shown Alameda what true statesmanship (stateswomanship?) looks like in the face of a barrage of negativity, innuendo, and attacks — staying cool and collected under the scrutiny of a million eyes and opinions.  Lena Tam is also the type of political leader that every one claims that they want — willing to listen to all sides, but in the end make the tough choices that she believes is in the best interest of Alameda.   And right now, what Alameda needs more than anything else is a City Councilperson willing to make difficult decisions, but weigh those decisions against its benefit to the community and not simply a limited base of voters.

City Council Honorable Mention: Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft

When I heard that Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft was throwing her hat in the ring I was both excited and bummed out.   Under normal circumstances — those normal circumstances being rather ho-hum selections for City Council — I would be number one cheerleader for a candidate like Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft. Unfortunately in this race, you can only pick two and while she is an ideal candidate: smart, collaborative, well-informed, prepared, and eloquently states her case, she was edged out only slightly by Lena Tam and Rob Bonta as my picks for City Council.   However, she is definitely a solid choice for City Council and would be a welcome third place finisher to fill the vacated slot if Marie Gilmore is elected Mayor.

123 Comments

  1. Great choices, all of them. I too wish there were a way we could vote for three people on the ballot for City Council.

    Naturally, the Paranoid Peanut Gallery (PPG™) will be following up now with a barrage of comments about how Gilmore, Tam, and Bonta are bought and paid for by SunCal, or they are having an illicit affair with SunCal, or they are the outside children (i.e. “love-children”) of SunCal. And of course, since you have agreed with just about every other well-informed citizen out there on these choices, that you too are lying next to SunCal in bed, smoking a cigarette, counting your cash.

    Somebody needs to tell the PPG that SunCal, while they are trying to buy and sue their way into our hearts and minds, are history, and there is not a single person running for City Council or Mayor who would give them any leeway. SunCal has been run out of town, but the PPG still thinks they are the boogey-man.

    Comment by Dan W. — October 8, 2010 @ 9:28 am

  2. Dan, I agree with you. And, the more SunCal tries to influence our election, the greater the distance between the City of Alameda and them. All the candidates are dismayed at this, especially the ones who are being blamed for it as part of the “big lie” and scare tactics. Too many people feel that the electorate needs a boogyman and will vote from fear, more against than for candidates.
    I think the people of Alameda just want to hear what the candidates stand for; their platform, ideals, and vision and to Hell with all these monkeyshines. Waste of our time and intellect. Thanks, Lauren for a good run-down of why you support your picks. Whether people agree or disagree with you, at least they know why you chose the way you did.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 8, 2010 @ 9:36 am

  3. Lauren, I’m glad we agree on our choices.

    IF Marilyn garners the third-highest vote total – not a certainty with this crowded field of 8 candidates – she could, indeed, make it t the City Council.

    Under City Charter Article II, Section 2-7A:

    “Vacancies caused by the election of a Councilmember to the office of Mayor shall be filled by the candidate not elected for a contested Council seat who received the highest number of votes, provided said candidate received votes from at least 10 percent (10%) of the total number of voters.
    Vacancies occurring within six (6) months of any election shall be filled in the same manner provided by (A).

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/gov/city_charter.html?article=2

    I hope we all get our wish with the election of this “dream team.” Gilmore, Tam, Bonta – and an appointed Ezzy Ashcraft – would brighten Alameda’s future and help restore civility to our community.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 8, 2010 @ 9:46 am

  4. Ah! The SunCal Slate! But of course. I just received that scurrilous mailer from the Alameda Fire Department Union dissing Doug, and a very similar mailer endorsing and promoting Izzy Ashcroft, all designed and laid out by the same people who designed the Measure B and Measure E campaign mailers. As an ad agency owner and creative director, I know layout and design! I’m sure the big oversized cards for Gilmore, Tam and Bonta are at the printers even now.

    But I’m sure all the SunCal partisans who frequent this blog will vote accordingly. Just look at all the praise for Loren’s picks already piling up! The fix is in, but nobody is fooled. We can see through all that smoke.

    Spangler has been outed as a SunCal “advisor,” and so his endorsement simply confirms what the rest of us already know. ONLY one-third of the island is at stake, after all.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 8, 2010 @ 9:54 am

  5. If we go past the smoke and mirrors, one of the defining differences among the candidates is their position on how or if the base is to be developed. Does the city take on the role of master developer, finding the money in some unknown source, or do we do the best job we can in finding an experienced developer to partner with, carefully negotiating the agreement? Some of the candidates essentially want no development just keep the old buildings and somehow find someone to occupy them and pay us for the privilege of renting a run down facility at above market rates. Others think, in spite of our abysmal record with APT that we can do it ourselves.

    We need to elect people who have more than a wish list for 1/3 of our island.

    Comment by Barbara Kahn — October 8, 2010 @ 10:07 am

  6. I would be inclined to vote for Rob Bonta, but I recently was informed by several sources that he sends at least one of his kids to private school (outside of Alameda). Assuming this is true, I find it disingenuous that he touts his involvement in Robles-Wong (which I admire) but doesn’t mention that his short term solution is for his family to leave Alameda public schools. Our school crisis will affect all aspects of Alameda life and our community, and bailing out on our schools is not leadership.

    Comment by toast — October 8, 2010 @ 10:22 am

  7. Great picks, Loren. As you point out, we’re fortunate to have such qualified (and nice!) folks willing to tackle city hall. And enough of the conspiracy theories. Credit where credit is due. No one forced Doug to protest in front of the fire department. He did that all by himself.

    Comment by Francine S. — October 8, 2010 @ 10:25 am

  8. This morning I had an interesting conversation with one of the candidates for mayor. The candidate posed an interesting question: “So, if those campaigning on the pretty much sole platform of SunCal will never darken our door again so you will not have to be afraid, get elected, what is it that they are going to do? SunCal is gone (so say all the candidates); we still have to resolve the issues of pension reform, transparency, development at the Point and elsewhere, traffic, City funding sustainability and so on. What is it they want to do about all of those? Are they just one trick ponies “I am the MOST against SunCal!” or do they have plans on how they will attack these issues? Now, I thought that that was an excellent question!

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 8, 2010 @ 11:05 am

  9. Rob Bonta went door to door in my boring little townhouse complex in bay farm, where it’s really easy to get lost. He’s such a nice guy.

    and @ toast, Bev Johnson sent her kids to private school, why was that never brought up?


    Also, no school board choices LD?

    Comment by E — October 8, 2010 @ 11:08 am

  10. Hi E: School Board on Monday, didn’t want them to get buried.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 8, 2010 @ 11:09 am

  11. toast is probably an Action Alameda troll … like joel!

    Anybody know what happened to Kirwin??? Haven’t seen him here in a while.

    Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 11:35 am

  12. Don’t you just love it how the PPGs love to misspell or make fun of the names of candidates they don’t like?

    It’s so “Fourth Grade”, isn’t it?

    Comment by Dan W. — October 8, 2010 @ 11:52 am

  13. 12. Yup … also typical of what the Republicans do all the time. PPGs think they are being funny/cute, but they end up looking rather juvenile.

    Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

  14. 9. I will not be voting for Beverly Johnson for a long list of reasons, but I do think it’s a reasonable question for all candidates.

    Comment by toast — October 8, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

  15. I don’t think it’s fair to slam any candidate for where they send their kids to school. It’s a private decision each family has to make and a good match between child and school can be a life or death decision. There are other considerations such as special needs, the desire for religious instruction, enrichment (sending an artistically gifted kid where they can get the best training for example), and sometimes just because the child will be miserable if sent someplace other than where their friends are going. A parent’s first responsibility is to the well-being of their child, period. As Michael Moore said when criticized for sending his child to a private school, “My child is not a social experiment.” I will concede it’s somewhat appropriate to expect school board candidates to have experience as parents in the school district but city council members and mayoral candidates? No way.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 8, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

  16. David N. He no longer lives in Alameda, but probably reads this blog, so lets not disturb him. We are already full up on Trolls, because Dennis Green counts as three.

    Comment by John piziali — October 8, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

  17. check out the house on the corner of Sta Clara and Sherman for the ultimate statement on the Alameda election (no, it’s not mine…)

    Comment by nemo — October 8, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

  18. Check out the house on the corner of 9th and Taylor. I have my campaign signs up, as do my neighbors on either side. There is now a u-tube posting of my house with an alarming message that Kate Quick of the League of Women Voters is supporting Tam, Gilmore and Bonta. Damned straight I am. When I was League president I never endorsed candidates. I spoke out on measures only if the League had taken a formal position on them. I am no longer League president, but I am still an active member. As such, I can do what I please in the way of clean campaigning. It also said I voted for Measure B. Since I never told anyone publicly how I was voting, how do they know how I voted. They just make stuff up. The picture of my house was posted to intimidate me – sorry folks, it just made me angry and sad. Angry because you can’t get it about positive campaigning, and sad, because you are dragging Alameda down into a sewer of paranoia, meanness and negativity.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 8, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  19. 15. agreed, and I don’t think toast deserves to be slammed for the question.

    I am die hard public school supporter. Cumulatively we will have completed 26 years of child year education in this household in June (K-12 X 2) and three in private (6-8 for one child). There mom teaches in the AUSD system. We still debate the merits, our son often saying he doesn’t think it made any difference. But we did it because we were fortunate enough to have the means when we thought it was critical.

    I think Michael Moore’s social experiment comment is a bit demeaning to public schools, but if he still lives in the worst part of Flint I guess I get it. This is all incredibly complex stuff.

    4. It just dawned on me, you remind me of one of the flying monkies from the Wizard of Oz, but without wings. But they probably didn’t have rabies.

    Comment by M.I. — October 8, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

  20. 18. Here we go again, despicable gutter tactics by Action Alameda aimed at intimidation.

    btw, I am still waiting for Gregg to “digitize” the letter. Anybody know what is taking him this long?

    Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

  21. There are lots of great public schools, but if yours doesn’t meet your child’s needs, and you can manage an alternative, it’s nobody’s business but your own. I hate the insinuation that there’s something morally wrong with someone who’s kid is in a private school. A lot of these kids are from working class families who give up a lot to send them. I sincerely hope this isn’t anti-religious sentiment masquerading as social conscience, as most of our private schools in this area have a religious affiliation. Michael Moore now lives in NYC but he drew the line at passing his 6-year old through a metal detector. And MI, I was not slamming toast, although the name does suggest a sensitivity to getting burned!

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 8, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

  22. BTW, I have just had e-mail conversations with Mr. Howard who admits that he is the author of the u-tube piece and is most unrepentant about it. I’m glad he admitted it, as it does lead me to suspect that he may be the author of the other little nasties going around on u-tube that are being blamed on others. Frankly, I am worried about him as he lives so close. He seems to not be in full control of his faculties, and might do someone he dislikes politically physical harm. Good thing I have a protective husband and dog.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 8, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

  23. 22. Yeah, the man appears to have lost it. He and Adam Gillit make a good pair! 🙂

    Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

  24. Wow, I really do not think I was “slamming” anyone. For me, when someone runs on a platform indicating support for public schools and fails to mention that his own child does not attend public schools it appears to be a calculated omission, causing me to wonder if he’s thinking “my child is not a social experiment but it’s ok if yours is.” What happens with our schools in the near future will affect traffic, home values, etc. etc. etc., and I do believe it is relevant to the city council race. That’s all from me. I find the attacks on this blog to be completely bizarre.

    Comment by toast — October 8, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

  25. Hi Toast:

    Just a note, I believe Rob Bonta only sends one of this three children to private school. The reason he does so is a personal decision that I’m not necessarily interested in. I believe one is not of school age yet, and one child does attend Alameda public schools.

    While I understand how that might be an important factor to you, as mentioned previously, there are many different reasons why families opt to send their children to private schools. And, one can still support schools without having sent a kid through the school system.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 8, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

  26. Nice of David Howard to blame SunCal for the world’s ills when he is in fact behind all of this email YouTube crap.

    Comment by Dave L. — October 8, 2010 @ 4:32 pm

  27. Is there a link to these youtube videos?

    Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

  28. Yeah, I’m done too. When you can’t disagree with someone without being accused of attacking them, it’s just weird. Lighten up folks. In six months you won’t even remember what this was all about.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 8, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

  29. Denise, one can certainly disagree and be strong about it, but there is a way to do that that is civil and respectful. I have said and will say again, politics should not be a blood sport; if anyone feels strongly about their candidate, say so and tell others why you believe they are the right person for the office. Mud slinging, lying about and intimidation of those who support their opponents are not appropriate, ever.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 8, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

  30. 19. M.I. – you have a teacher in the family and you still don’t know the difference between “there” and “their”??

    Comment by LindaonOtisSt — October 8, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

  31. Mark is light years ahead of Jason, who is almost illiterate. ‘Sides, I prefer his reasoning.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 8, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

  32. Did anyone catch the end of the CIC/ARRA meeting Wednesday night? Frank stated that SunCal approached him prior the vote to see if he would alter his vote in favor of SunCal? Interesting…

    Comment by Patricia Smith — October 8, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

  33. Gawd. Matarresse will say anything at this point. According to Michelle Ellison, he has the biggest war chest and he’s in last place.

    Comment by Dave L. — October 8, 2010 @ 8:29 pm

  34. Frank is desperately seeking attention.

    Comment by David N — October 8, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

  35. Waving Hi from Bay Farm. Side point- when we moved here 3 years ago I stumbled upon your blog when I was researching where to live. For whatever it’s worth, you’re one of the reason’s we moved here, but to be candid, also a reason we decided against Bayport (were afraid of the infrastructure issues with the schools). Don’t hate me…

    Anyway, thanks for your comments on election. I’m still trying to decide and feel your comments were pure and helpful. Are Alameda’s elections always this fraught with controversy? What’s up with all the hate mail and phone messages?

    Bonta also came to my little hood in Bay Farm right as I was getting back from an unfortunate incident that sent husband to hospital for the night. He preliminarily sold me by stating he was part of the Hospital Board that brought Alameda Hospital out from under red ink. Our time at the Hospital was just great so if he was anyway responsible for how well it’s run (albeit empty), awesome. But I’m still deciding…

    Comment by Marisa — October 8, 2010 @ 9:00 pm

  36. Why is it that B. Johnson is pushing F. Matarresse? Could it be… if he gets in, she will still really be the mayor for a third term and he will just be the puppet?

    Comment by patricia smith — October 9, 2010 @ 7:54 am

  37. Sorry, Ms. Quick, but you haven’t been crowned Queen yet! Politics is and always has been a blood sport. I’ve worked on dozens of campaigns in my life, and the sharpest knives always win. No politician is above reproach, so the best we can do is work and vote against the worst of the slate of rascals. Human nature. As for “constructive ideas,” unfunded pensions alone will kill the next Mayor, no matter who he is, and police and fire are the biggest hogs at THAT trough. That’s why AFD’s endorsement of Gilmore and Tam will snap back and work against them. If you’re so troubled by attack ads, then the new TV spot slamming the ICM must really turn your stomach. Or is yours a one-way street? And if you’re going to demote me to the fourth grade for my lousy spelling skills, I won’t be alone there!

    Three Trolls and A Unicorn

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 9, 2010 @ 8:50 am

  38. I agree with Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam. I also agree that Daysong has the best vision for the Alameda Point.

    By the why I am the first Joel on this blog not to be confused with the other.

    Comment by Joel — October 9, 2010 @ 9:07 am

  39. I do not want to be queen of anything. I want civility for all, AMG included and have said so. I am angry that Lena has been excoriated and proud of Lena for holding her head up and continuing to be the professional, gracious, hard working council member she is despite false accusations and continuing harassment. We do not, as a society have to accept personal attacks, stalkers, and nastiness toward others as a way of life. We can disagree civily and argue for the qualities of the candidates we support. We can stop acting like playground bullies and put on our big boy and girl panties and grow up and act like the adults we are. Immature acts are a hallmark of a paucity of ideas and rational thinking. If we act like babies, we must be thinking like babies. No reason, no intellectual rigor, no doing our homework, just whining and lashing out when our little selves get upset and we aren’t getting our way.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 9, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

  40. 22. I was saying you should not be slammed for asking the question about Rob’s kids.

    30. tiff, tiff, Linda. It appears I also misspelled Monkeys as “monkies”, but I would never stoop to accuse anybody of resembling a flying monkey, even Dennis Green. Somebody hijacked my email!

    Comment by M.I. — October 9, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

  41. god I hope lena tam wins just to shove it in the faces of the NIMBY slate.

    Comment by E — October 9, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

  42. Disclosure: I am on dialysis and dying of renal failure. I make this disclosure in hope that you will all better comprehend why I don’t share your perspective of Alameda politics and Alameda Point. Your impatience about seeing the Point developed is understandable, but not commendable. You almost gave one-third of our beloved island over to a posse of crooks.

    Change is inevitable, but progress is not. When you find yourself, my fellow mortals, on the banks of the River Styx, all of your accomplishments, all of your mistakes, will assume a perspective in high relief. But until then, it’s easy to take things lightly. Some of you take delight in putting me, and many others, down with the most snarky attitudes, comparing one to a wingless monkey with rabies, me to three trolls, or a baby.

    So much for “civil disagreements.”

    To someone who will almost certainly not live to see the development of Alameda Point, you sound like a tiny band of outsiders talking to yourselves, ignorant of Alameda history, society, customs and traditions. It’s easy to look down on preservationists as “Nimbys” and ignore the fact that “Transit-oriented development” depends on failing public transit systems, clogged freeways, and — on this little island — tubes and bridges maintained by a county government going broke.

    You latch onto the “Newby” position, no matter how bereft it is. If SunCal hates Anne Marie Gallant and Theresa Highsmith, so do you. If they run a scurrilous TV attack ad on the ICM, you applaud. You have no idea how shortsighted your partisan positions are, because you have no idea what your own mortality means.

    It means this: You will not live to see the changes you propose. Your children will have to deal with the world, the mess, the ugly human landscape, the tangled traffic, you leave behind. Will Alameda Point 50 years from now resemble the most lovely and delightful parts of the main island now, or just more tickey-tack and Stepford Bayport Drives?

    So…mutter on. I’ve seen Measures B and E, and all the vitriol around this current election, tear this island apart. I’ve seen the respect of former friends turn into the most vicious insults — and all of it visible here, roiling here, on this blog. Nice goin’ Lauren! If you’re the future of Alameda, I’ll be making my departure just in time.

    Dennis “Three Trolls & A Unicorn” Green

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 10, 2010 @ 6:33 am

  43. Dennis,

    You should seriously look in the mirror before writing such things.

    Your referring to female Council Members as “Bitches,” etc. kind of dulls the impact of your statement.

    The tenor of political discourse in this town has been highly charged for decades. Up until about 4 years ago, it was one sided. Lauren’s rollicking (and sometimes over the top) comments section, where anyone can post their thoughts no matter their perspective, is hardly the cause.

    Your closest allies file bogus lawsuits, threaten more, create videos that attack people, not ideas, and write spurious rumors accusing mayors of being drunk at public functions, people they disagree with of taking money for their ideas, etc.

    I get it. It feels to you like the snark and nastiness you write and encourage is meaningful and deserved. The derisive nicknames you toss around, you probably think are “clever” and “just for fun, not mocking.”

    They aren’t. Own it, or stop writing it. But seriously, trying to claim that Lauren’s site has caused your own bad behavior (and that of others) is ridiculous.

    Comment by John Knox White — October 10, 2010 @ 7:49 am

  44. Dennis Green: the difference is that no one has applauded the videos or the mailers against Ann Marie Gallant. I’m fairly sure the majority of people think they are ridiculous and not helpful to the conversation. The existence of these mailers and videos makes it more difficult to criticize her, not easier.

    I would point out that your comments have devolved into the insults that you now decry and that it’s not the medium that has turned the discussion ugly in Alameda, that it has just served to amplify what had always existed.

    And in light of your medical condition, I’ll just leave my comments at those two points.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 10, 2010 @ 8:22 am

  45. The problem with David Howard and Dennis Greeen is that they are unable to discuss any issue rationally.

    Kate Quick has incredible patience to deal with the attacks against her on this blog; she is an example of how everyone should be using this forum to discuss the issues. And what does she get in return? A slam against her by David Howard in some dumb-ass video because she has a different opinion.

    Howard/Joel, your videos are very helpful in a way you’ll never understand.

    Comment by Dave L. — October 10, 2010 @ 9:08 am

  46. I would much rather have the point be DEVELOPED in the next 50 years than having people bitch and moan about suncal and the EEEVILL TRAFFIC for another 50 years.

    Comment by E — October 10, 2010 @ 10:18 am

  47. Dennis Green, I do not understand what the disclosure that you’re dying has to do with the sharing of your perspectives with the phantom “you” addressed in your self-written epitaph.

    Why couldn’t your disclosure be something more colloquially appropriate, like say Winston Churchill’s, “I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.”? I mean, who here now or ever on this blog, has been prepared for the great ordeal of reading you?

    Better yet, you could purloined the always succinctly appropriate Mel Blanc’s, “That’s all folks.”. But, no, you got carried away with your own loquaciousness and muddle what could have been something worthwhile into just another self-centered put-down of all those who are way-way-to dumb to appreciate the wisdom of your words.

    Just in case you get a chance to look out the window instead of in the mirror, while you’re leaving, this Island is surrounded by the River Styx and we are all in the same rowboat paddling upstream.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 10, 2010 @ 10:24 am

  48. Wow, I’m in the big leagues now, the subject of an Action Alameda “attack video.” Neither I nor UFCW Local 5 make any apology whatsoever for suppporting SunCal through the city council meeting where you may all recall they were voted off the island.
    UFCW Local 5 signed an agreement with SunCal whereby retail on the base would be subject to card check neutrality, giving the workers in those businesses a fair shot at being union. I agreed during negotiations to back SunCal at the council meeting and did so. I’ve always considered it a positive character trait to follow through on promises made. The meeting is on video so it’s not like it’s some big secret. To repeat, SunCal was voted off the island by the council with not one dissenting vote, but Action Alameda would have you believe they are poised to start building houses tomorrow.
    Come on Action Alameda, quit hiding behind the SunCal bogeyman. Your group seems to have become so wrapped up in conspiracy theories that the original liberal nature of the organization has disappeared. This confirms my opinion that if you go far enough to the left you eventually end up on the right. Attacking workers an their unions? real progressive.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — October 10, 2010 @ 10:37 am

  49. Reyla Graber, David Howard and their fellow-travellers have continued their themes of the evil Lena Tam and the evil “SunCal Slate”. Their lies and misrepresentations aside, they could be taking a more positive direction by telling us what their preferred candidates will do. I mean, think about it, if their candidates get elected there will be no SunCal. If the other candidates get elected, they have said there will be no SunCal. Whomever gets elected, what have they said they plan to do once in office (oh, other than get rid of SunCal, I have heard no concrete platform from Mr. deHaan or Ms. Sweeney.) Give me some reason to support them, folks!
    As for Dennis Green, I lit a candle for him at church this morning, asking the good Lord to grant him peace and a loving heart as he deals with his illness. I am sorry for his troubles, but I believe it is never too late to become a person of love and peace.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 10, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

  50. “Poor Judd is dead/put a candle by his head!” None of you get it, but have to distort my sentiments. I’m not seeking your condolences or your pity or your prayers. I’m quite okay with the Lord, thank you very much. I’m simply asking you all to pause in your reckless comments to consider that possibly you’re not any wiser than I am. I’ve lived in Alameda now for 22+ years, was a wise ass Newby when I got here, thought I was superior to all those old Navy Town NIMBYS, part of some progressive, development company, Ron Cowan’s, and gradually, as I worked with the Chamber and the Boys & Girls Club and other civic organizations, gained just a touch of humility.

    That’s all I’m encouraging here. And as a Jesus Freak and Lapsed Catholic, my heart is very much at peace with my terminal illness. It has taught me much about how fleeting these “terribly important” issues are that get obsessed on by this site. A little perspective is in order, and you won’t get it by attacking me. Or with your condescending comments about my spiritual needs.

    If I’m looking in the mirror instead of out the window, the reflections here do not bode well for the city I love. And Ms. Quick’s self-righteous comments are in the forefront of that reflection.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 10, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

  51. BTW, if you don’t think this site has contributed mightily to the toxic nature of all the debates going on in Alameda, you haven’t been paying attention. Not that you need to…

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 10, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

  52. Come on Dennis, this site is no more toxic to any debate than is the First Amendment. Would you rather have all this vile vitriol lock up in our wee brains?

    Quit picking on poor Quick. She sits comfortably in her own disillusions comfortably paddling downstream.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 10, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

  53. The responses here to Dennis Green are really pretty heartless. Is your animosity really that important?

    Dennis is right — this blog has contributed mightily to the toxic debates here. YOu have latched on to one minor issue after another and blown it up out of proportion, and you have also carried on a virtual hate campaign against city staff members. By campaign, I mean, day after day, week after week. All in service of what is clearly a very self-interested agenda that has nothing to do with the city’s well-being.

    This site had some intelligent conversations at one time. Now it’s largely a chorus of “you’ve got cooties”, as in Linda Hudson’s response to RM.

    (RM: “Did you get the hit piece postcard against Ann Marie Gallant today? It validates that SunCal is stilllll in the picture here in Alameda.”

    Linda Hudson: “No we didn’t and no it doesn’t.”)

    Nobody tries to make sense, you just insult people. It’s become a site devoted to distortion of the truth and an attack dog mentality.

    Comment by dlm — October 10, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

  54. Kate: Let’s have an honest, factual discussion, and we’ll go thru the “lies and misrepresentations” one at a time. Where would you like to start?

    How about admitting that no one opposing SunCal has ever referred to them as “evil”, not at all. It sounds like you’re trying to distort the truth.

    Maybe we could go over the bankruptcy issues involving SunCal, so you understand fully what’s at stake here. We could do an overview of the Lehman bankruptcies, or of the recent foreclosure and sale in Albuquerque. SunCal’s property is now ni the hands of Barclays Capital, awaiting who knows what fate.

    I don’t know why you’re so dedicated to minimizing and dismissing the legitimate concerns about SunCal.

    Comment by dlm — October 10, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

  55. dlm: What is your opinion of the behavior of David Howard? And of his contributions to the tone of discussion? I believe he’s one of the major contributors to the toxicity of so much of the debate in this little town, with his nasty (if laughably amateurish) youtube hit-pieces and his perpetual rumor-mongering. (By the way, I never liked SunCal. My enemy’s enemy is not my friend.)

    Comment by BC — October 10, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

  56. “this blog has contributed mightily to the toxic debates here.”

    HAHAH
    curse you, Do, for daring to post your opinions online! *shakes fist*

    /sarc

    Comment by E — October 10, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

  57. 53
    Wah, wah, wah. Time to call for the wahmbulance.

    I stand by my statement. And fyi, the comma goes inside the quote mark in your “… cooties” remark. Take a deep breath and chill, dlm. I disagree with you, that’s all.

    Comment by Linda Hudson — October 10, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

  58. The lies? That there exists a “SunCal Slate”. The people you are saying continually are going to bring SunCal back have all said that they had no interest or desire to do so, so why perpetuate the boogyman? SunCal has been acting the ass for some time; I do not minimize their “bad actor” status in trying to influence our local election. I have said it is inappropriate and wrong. However, since they are not coming back, no matter WHO gets elected, why do you keep harping on the untruth that there are candidates who are hell bent on doing that? Because it is easier than telling us what you believe is right about your own choices. Fear is what you are trying for. I do believe with all my heart that the demonization of Lena is immoral and mean and also has no place in respectful, civil politics. I don’t like the way Frank or Bev have been treated either. We can and should do better.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 10, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

  59. Kate: I’ll repeat here some of what I’ve said on The Island.

    Lena Tam has not been “demonized”. She did something she shouldn’t have, and got caught. If Beverly Johnson or Ann Marie Gallant had been caught leaking confidential information to SunCal, then they’d deserve to get investigated, just as Lena Tam did. There’s no double standard here.

    As for Lena Tam’s support for SunCal: For starters, I’d look at the comments on this site, where Tam enjoys virtually cult-like support. Why has this site been pushing SunCal’s “trash the city manager” agenda for so long, and so relentlessly? It’s not just vengeance for Tam – in fact, the attacks on Gallant started earlier. This site has been entirely devoted to following SunCal’s PR direction, and when they started trashing Gallant, this site followed — and developed an elaborate set of issues, which were repeated over and over by a contingent of ditto-heads, here, on The Island, and on InAlameda.

    SunCal is running ads to dig up dirt on Gallant, and you’re diligently at work trashing her here, so it looks like you’re working together. Right?

    Then there’s the matter of the anonymous polls, which are presumed to be funded by SunCal –if you can think of someone else, then say so. These polls are repeating the rhetoric developed around the Sunshine TF (and repeated by Jon Spangler, Jeff Mitchell, and others), such as the city’s email retention policy.

    Why is this language winding up on SunCal’s anonymous push-poll? Most likely because somebody is passing those issues along to SunCal, in a ham handed effort to influence public opinion.

    So how do you explain that?

    Finally, Kate, where your credibility is concerned: You have seen all the nasty BS going on here, and you never said a word, not once. Now you’re suddenly for fair discourse and doing better. Why not sooner? As for “immoral and mean”: Lena Tam could easily have put a stop to the immoral and mean personal attacks here and she didn’t. She’s lost her right to complain.

    E: You have cooties too.
    Linda: You so have cooties too.

    Comment by dlm — October 10, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

  60. Lena was found to have done nothing wrong. That is another lie. What was sent to the DA was a bunch of stuff that was already out and about and made to look as if it were confidential. It was a political hit job and the DA refused to entertain it.
    I have never had any dealings directly with SunCal. I do not like the fact that they are attempting to interefere in our election. I attended their informational meetings and had some interest in the plan, but never publicly supported Measure B. Lena has never taken money, directly or indirectly from SunCal, so stop the implications that she is somehow in their pay. It is simply not true.
    Once again, tell us about your candidates and leave the SunCal thing aside. Campaign positively. Your campaign is beginning to sound like a “one trick pony” – give us more solid information and we will start listening.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 10, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

  61. Not to put too fine a point on it but I was at the council meeting when they voted, without dissent, to not extend SunCal’s Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). That means SunCal is no longer the developer at the base, oh I mean Alameda Point for those of you who haven’t been around long enough to know it used to be a Naval Air Station. SunCal no longer drives the bus at the base and is gone not withstanding the lawsuit. Is it a surprise to anyone that a company might be a bit miffed after dunping a bunch of cash on a project that they might try to get some back?
    For purposes of this discussion there is no SunCal slate, all candidates on all sides of the issue have said it’s time to move on, why not let them and maybe something substantive worth talking about might come up.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — October 10, 2010 @ 9:07 pm

  62. 59
    Cooties! LMAO. So childish, dlm, so childish.

    Comment by Linda Hudson — October 10, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

  63. Drama Queen Kate Quick piously describes praying for me, that “peace and love” might come into my barren, empty heart. Just another wicked personal put down in disguise. I pray that sincerity might come into Queen Kate’s heart. She instructs us to defend our candidates by describing all the positive things they would do if elected, but I don’t see any such explanation coming from her. All she can say is how poor Lena Tam was wronged. But what will Lena, or Marie, or Rob, so if elected?

    How will they deal with unfunded pensions, money being diverted from the schools for redevelopment, deferred maintenance, or any of the other challenges facing Alameda? Lena and Marie have already had time on the dais without addressing any of these “minor” issues, they’ve been so busy defending SunCal and dissing Gallant and Highsmith. Why would SunCal be interfering in the campaign if they don’t have their own favorites and perceived enemies? Their influence is obvious and targeted. They don’t have to pay anyone directly.

    Now, let’s hear some rational counter-argument instead of the usual invective.

    Three Trolls Green (Beat you to it!)

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 10, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

  64. 63
    More childishness, but meaner. “Just another wicked put-down,” but no disguise. Bye, Dennis.

    Comment by Linda Hudson — October 10, 2010 @ 9:45 pm

  65. DLM,

    If you are going to talk cults, why not the SunCal Dooms Day cult of which you seem to be a charter member?

    I still wonder about why building #7 at Ground Zero came down, but when it comes to the 911 Truthers, I have to move on. Your thing about the the polls repeating rhetoric from Sunshine task Force is similar to me. So how do I explain that? Why bother? who cares? Well, you do obviously, but cares that you care? Not me.

    Comment by M.I. — October 10, 2010 @ 9:50 pm

  66. I am SO tired of all the “SunCal slate” hyperbole. (Sigh)…

    I am really glad that I do not believe Dennis Green’s (or Gregg deHaan’s or dlm’s or David Howard’s) attempts to define who I am or what I believe.

    I actually had a life before Peter Calthorpe made me into a Suncal supporter. And I have a life outside of AP and SunCal now that SunCal is gone from our island. (Well, almost gone, except for nasty and stupid campaign ads and a lawsuit or two.)

    I have always supported plans like Peter Calthorpe’s for AP – even before Peter Calthorpe was hired by SunCal. And I have always supported such sustainable plans with transit-oriented development IF the developer is a good one and IF the developer pays the costs of implementing sound transportation strategies to eliminate the potential traffic problems.

    Dennis Green and dlm seem to have missed my previous comments – and Kate Quick’s, too – that denounced SunCal for the mailer and ad targeting Ann Marie Gallant. The anti-AMG postcard was enough to remove completely any remaining loyalty I had for corporate SunCal, despite my continuing respect for some of the local SunCal crew.

    Like Kate Quick, I am aware of many other issues other than AP and its redevelopment that will demand the attention of our new mayor and new City Council: openness in government, the Brown Act. censorship and our July 4 parade, the city’s unfunded pension obligations, the fate of our public schools and our kids, and far more…

    And I pray every day that we may find the courage, wisdom, patience, and good ideas to solve our problems in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 10, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

  67. 63. Dennis Green calling Kate Quick a drama queen, that’s rich as they say. Dennis who just as a matter of “disclosure” tells us he is posting comments from his death bed.

    Dennis, I probably have a longer history with you in person and on the internet than most any of the players on this little stage. I know your situation is serious and acute, and I don’t mean to seem completely heartless because I’m not, but none of us get out of here alive.

    If you want to spend your last days or hours swapping insults on some blog, more power to you man, but don’t expect us to buy into you doing it for the city you love, blah, blah, because we just aren’t that stupid. You do it for you.

    All of you, including ANT, who complain about this site being too “dirty” or somehow beneath you, should get a grip.

    You all know this one: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise?

    If a blog is posted and nobody reads it because it’s a “joke” as Mr. Green has asserted over and over, then what impact could it have, either positive or negative?

    You folks who come back here time and time again to piss and moan and tear down the blog hostess are as responsible as anybody for “toxicity”, and you wield truck loads of bad information and innuendo.

    I think there is a lot of frustration and jealously that this blog gets serious traction while our local Glen Beck over at Action Alameda continues to trail in the ratings.

    Comment by M.I. — October 10, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

  68. I’m going to be suncal for halloween and scare the shit out of all the cranky old NIMBYs with doug dehaan signs.

    Comment by E — October 10, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

  69. I think a lot of the people who comment on this site are sincere and well-meaning, have nothing personal to gain from any of the politics in Alameda. My former friend Mark Irons is one, and so am I. But we also get carried away from time to time, and get out the long knives. Human nature.

    My health gives me a certain distance I didn’t have even a year ago. I’m fascinated by the perspective this gives me, and I’m enjoying every minute. But I won’t be bullied, by Mark or Ms. Quick or anyone else. I don’t subscribe to the SunCal conspiracy theory, just find their tactics distasteful in the extreme. But I don’t buy the “ParadeGate” or “TamGate” conspiracy theories either.

    Most of the energy on this site goes into making a BFD out of trivia, and that’s a shame, because I suspect that behind all Ms. Do’s bloviation lurks a very fine mind.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 11, 2010 @ 4:10 am

  70. Oh yes the Sun Cal slate and the slate pushed by the firefighter’s UNION.

    Let me think who’s interest do you think a UNION has. It’s members or the safety of the City? I support the Firefighters and the Teachers, I do not support their UNIONs because they do not have my best interests at heart.

    Just how do you think they will vote when pensions and pay raises come up? Which way do you think they will lean when SunCal tries to get their hooks in Alameda Point again.

    Avoid a costly recall election now, vote for anyone but the SunCal Three.

    Comment by SL — October 11, 2010 @ 8:55 am

  71. SL – I assume by the Suncal slate you mean Doug DeHaan – who was the deciding vote in favor of selecting Suncal, and Beverly Johnson, the only candidate who has ever made phone calls promoting Suncal? Who is the third?

    Comment by notadave — October 11, 2010 @ 9:32 am

  72. 71. Cute. Snarky, but cute. And a big part of the nonsense that goes on here. All five of our council members went along with SunCal until Measure B, and then all but one wised up. Well, Gilmore, sort of. I think it’s pretty obvious SunCal isn’t putting any of it’s wager on Doug. And it’s sad how the unions have become such a part of the Establishment. Not so “Wobbly” anymore!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 11, 2010 @ 9:59 am

  73. Dennis, I don’t know of too many people who would spend their last days using derogatory terms to insult women and then lie (“my account was hacked”) to cover up.

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 10:16 am

  74. GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT
    Don’t Let SunCal Buy The Election

    FACT: SunCal did get my vote as master developer.

    FACT: The next morning, SunCal called to offer tickets to a Warriors playoff game, courtside seats, which I refused. I immediately began to question the integrity of SunCal. Soon thereafter, I became deeply engaged in the NO on Measure B campaign to defeat SunCal.

    FACT: I wrote the NO on Measure B Rebuttal and Argument Against SunCal’s Measure B Ballot Initiative. When asked, two mayoral candidates refused to sign either the Voter Information Guide Rebuttal or the Argument Against SunCal.

    FACT: I was the only councilmember actively working with the people to defeat SunCal. No other councilmember walked the neighborhoods, contributed financially, obtained or contributed endorsement names, or contributed to sign placement.

    FACT: One mayoral candidate was running a campaign for mayor while I was actively working with the people to fight SunCal. Another mayoral candidate “reluctantly” supported NO on Measure B two weeks before the vote.

    FACT: You must elect a Mayor with INTEGRITY, knowledge and experience! You must elect a Mayor you can trust! You must elect a Mayor who works with the people, and for the people!

    Doug deHaan
    Mayoral Candidate

    Comment by RM — October 11, 2010 @ 10:23 am

  75. Doug, did you vote in support of the Alameda Theater?

    Comment by Dave L. — October 11, 2010 @ 11:52 am

  76. Rosemary, fact is that deHaan was for most things, before he was against them. He is probably better off running for mayor of Waffletown, USA.

    Perhaps as his spokesperson, you can answer why his son is yet to digitize the “letter” and share it with us?

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 11:53 am

  77. Rosemary, please see Lauren’s most excellent writeup:

    https://laurendo.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/firefighter-fact-check-part-one-of-two/

    And save us the trouble of having to re-educate you and your campaign.

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 11:55 am

  78. 60

    You plainly state that Suncal is attempting to interfere with our election. Given that there are only candidates on the ballot — no measures — is it fair to say that some candidate(s) benefit from their actions? Fair to say that Suncal favors some over others?

    If not, how exactly are they interfering?

    Comment by dave — October 11, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

  79. Why is Rob Bonta included in the phrase “SunCal three?” Rob was not on the council and had no influence yay or nay.

    Comment by Karen Green — October 11, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

  80. Continuing on w/ evidence re SunCal: How about that staunch supporter of transparency in government, the anonymous attack site, East Bay Open Government?

    It’s interesting that Jeff Mitchell posted a link to this site on the Sunshine Task Force agenda (not to mention a bit unclear on the concept). Many folks have speculated that Jeff Mitchell writes the site, but of course, it’s ANONYMOUS so we don’t know. Time to come out of the closet, Sunshin-istas.

    This site claims to cover all the Sunshine-ista issues and — as with Blogging Bayport — it strongly supports Lena Tam (even comparing her on one occasion to the late Oscar Grant), and frequently attacks Ann Marie Gallant.

    It also — here’s the good part — is very sympathetic to SunCal’s plight. In an interview posted 8/3/10, it gave Dave Soyka of SunCal an opportunity to vent his grievances and to complain in general about the unfairness of it all. (see post below.)

    So, this all happened as recently as two months ago, yet we’re supposed to believe that “no one” supports SunCal — well, somebody associated w/ Lena Tam did in fact support SunCal and not that long ago.

    So tell me, what was the turning point for Tam? I listend to her statements at the Candidates Forum, and I didn’t hear any commitment to avoid SunCal at all costs.

    The reality is this: her campaign was happy to accept support from SunCal, so long as it was under the table, in the form of the polls. Now that their presence is blatant, tho, Tam is trying to back away, and she shouldn’t be allowed to.

    Comment by dlm — October 11, 2010 @ 1:52 pm

  81. It’s a sad, sad story:

    Wednesday, August 4, 2010

    Suncal Tells Its Story: An Interview with David Soyka, SVP of Public Affairs

    The New York Times, San Francisco Gate and a slew of local blogs have all focused their media scrutiny on the quaint island of Alameda and Alameda Point redevelopment, which left the city and its officials without answers, stunned like a deer in headlights.

    After all this intense media attention, one can only hope the light at the end of the tunnel will be an honest post mortem analysis of the project, with a few key learnings that will help us move forward. I tip my investigative hat to reporters Zusha Elinson, Michele Ellson, LaurenDo and John Knox White for moving this process along. As for city officials, I see more of the same insane politicking that yields the same insane results.

    It’s interesting to see developer after developer be turned away from the real estate gem of the Bay Area. With all its potential, why does this keep happening on Alameda Point?

    Who is the scapegoat this time around? Is it the developer Suncal, Lena Tam or is it Ann Marie Gallant and the City of Alameda? East Bay for Open Government gave Suncal SVP of Public Affairs David Soyka a call to ask a few of our questions. Following is an excerpt from our question and answer session:

    First off, how is Suncal dealing with the loss of the 4-0 city council vote?
    All of the Suncal team has put blood, sweat and tears into the Alameda Point project. Some of us have relocated our families and dedicated the last three years of our life into creating a viable, sustainable, transit-oriented development that would benefit the City of Alameda and its residents. The Peter Calthorpe plan is visionary and environmental groups, affordable housing advocates and residents support the plan. We all think it’s a shame to see it dissipate.

    Nick Kosla, Suncal Forward Planner, claimed that the weekly meetings between Alameda City Staff and Suncal were “an abyss.” Do you agree?
    Unfortunately yes. It was a frustrating experience to be negotiating in good faith and believe we were making progress with the City Staff, only to realize it was just a show. None of the hard work done on either side was communicated to the decision makers at the city council.

    What was Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s role in the development process?
    For a project that is of top priority to her community and is one-third of the island of Alameda, she was alarmingly uninvolved. She delegated most duties to an inexperienced junior member of her team, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, who I believe once worked for the Economic and Planning Systems group (Economic and Planning Systems created the staff reports highly critical of SunCal’s plan). Our planning team had never come across this irregular process, especially in a project of this size.

    Did it appear to you that the ICM had an alternate plan during negotiations with Suncal?
    It was so unexpected that we did not believe it was happening, but as it drew closer and closer to the date of the vote, it was hard to deny. She publicly announced a Plan B to the Chamber in 2009, was minimally involved in plan negotiations. We constantly heard rumors that she was sabotaging the project behind closed doors. It seemed she did not want the project to succeed.

    When City attorney Terry Highsmith stated, “we’re starting to think we’d be better off without a developer,” it should have been a sign something was going on. In retrospect we should have known, but when you are sitting across from your development partner (the City) it’s hard to imagine that they’re doing everything in their power to work against you. I guess we hoped for too much.

    Is there anything else?
    We still believe in the plan to revitalize Alameda Point. We’ve invested in the community and the East Bay region and would like to find a way to work in good faith with the city. This plan will bring the East Bay valuable regional benefits and positive economic impact.

    East Bay for Open Government contacted Ann Marie Gallant and she was not available for comment.
    Posted by Alameda Watchdog at 4:11 PM

    Comment by dlm — October 11, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

  82. dlm, another a few weeks and you and your fellow conspiracy theorists can go hide under a rock until the next elections. Don’t you folks have a life? Or is this it???

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

  83. DaveN: You so have cooties too.

    Comment by dlm — October 11, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

  84. dlm, I rest my case.

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

  85. btw … why is Action Alameda sending out its loyal band of lemmings to post their drivel on every blog in town? I think these folks are so off the map, they might as well be called Alameda’s Taliban ala American Taliban:

    http://www.amazon.com/American-Taliban-Power-Jihadists-Radical/dp/1936227029/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286835356&sr=8-1

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

  86. In response to #70 as far as I know the Fire Fighters union took no position one way or the other on SunCal.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — October 11, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

  87. dlm, do you want to say publicly why you are so angry with Lena Tam? Or are you waiting to drop a bomb? Another manufactured, untrue bomb meant to destroy her? What say you, dlm?

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 11, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

  88. The unfair advantage about having a terminal illness, which I glory in, and don’t apologize for, is that bullshit like David N’s is so obvious, and I don’t have to buy it for a hot second! May you all enjoy such freedom someday, and obviously some of you will get to Heaven’s Door before I do! Lovin’ it…

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 11, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

  89. And for David N’s accusation that I lie about my email being hacked…now that I have done the investigation, I know how it was done, and can easily pose as David N or M.I. or anyone else! What fun. So…if you think you can be sure whose sentiments you are really reading on this site, think again!

    The Man With Nine Lives,
    And Even More New Identities

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 11, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

  90. Sorry to see Ms. Quick re-emerge from her burrow. Once again, she asks someone, this time dlm, to justify his dislike of Lena Tam, without, of course, offering specifics about her own dislikes, Doug or anyone else unfavored by SunCal. I’m still praying that sincerity and consistency will come into her heart!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 11, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

  91. MUAHAHAHAH I’M HERE TO EAT ALL OF YOUR CHILDREN, RAPE YOUR MOTHERS, EAT YOUR MOTHERS, AND RAPE YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!

    Comment by SUNCAL — October 11, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

  92. You know, O SunCal, what you can eat. And it’s not Halloween candy! Boooo!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 11, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

  93. Okay. Nobody here has anything substantive to say in response to me. Why am I not surprised?

    Comment by dlm — October 11, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

  94. 93. Dlm, perhaps that might be because trolls are best ignored. I think you might find Action Alameda to be more receptive of your rantings. Wait … isn’t that where you come from! Never mind.

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

  95. David N: You still have cooties. (That’s the equivalent of your comments, if it needs to be spelled out.)

    Comment by dlm — October 11, 2010 @ 9:32 pm

  96. 95. Is that all you’ve got?

    Answer my question (in #82 if the deHaan campaign has any cojones). If not, grow a pair … and quit being a troll for AAN.

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

  97. Question was in #76 (for the other deHaan lemming aka troll, but since dlm knows everything, perhaps she can answer on behalf of her fellow troll)

    Comment by David N — October 11, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

  98. Let me take a moment and break into the discussion about SunCal. Put simply, let’s all get off of that and begin to focus on our respective visions for Alameda, including the Point.

    As it is, everyone has said we’re not going to let SunCal in town, which I take it to mean, if elected, we will all fight tooth and nail any litigation SunCal pursues against us, not simply fold at the slightest hint of push back from SunCal and their attorney Skip Miller.

    . . . And I might add one more thing: all of the sitting Councilmembers vying for Mayor voted for SunCal, so if folks persist in pushing this as an issue, that suggests all are therefore guilty, if you will, of hoisting this negative force onto our island.

    Have we forgotten the vote of October 7, 2008 (http://daysog.com/2008_10_07_CC.pdf), when, given the choice of ending the deal outright with SunCal once and for all, given its financial situation, all unanimously voted to continue on with SunCal, even if this meant its financial partner was now the hedgefund called DE Shaw? Talk about scurrilous behavior by SunCal: just two days after the 10/7 decision, on October 9, SunCal **then** announces it was putting on hold its Oak Knoll project, making me wonder if Council would have voted the way it did had the Oak Knoll decision occurred on Oct 5th or 6th.

    The Oak Knoll surprise notwithstanding, Council soon again unanimously endorsed SunCal in March 2009 (http://daysog.com/2009_03_04_ARRA.pdf), when everyone in effect acceeded to SunCal’s Master Redevelopment Plan by voting in a Council sub-committee to further pursue SunCal redevelopment plan matters with the Navy.

    Everybody remember Colin Powell’s “pottery barn” saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule): you break it, you own it. Well, the fact of the matter is that all sitting Councilmembers vying for Mayor are equally at fault per SunCal. While he touts that he is the sole person to vote ‘gainst SunCal in 2007, I argue that with his vote of Oct 2008 and March 2009, Frank, too, became a co-owner of the SunCal project.

    My point is not to say my opponents are **bad** because they voted for SunCal **several times** at key junctures early on in SunCal process. Rather, my point is simply to say, let’s get off that poisonous subject and start focusing on (a) our vision for Alameda Point and (b) the specific means we will pursue to achieve our respective visions. And let’s specify for the voters as to how much housing (and the mix of housing) we are contemplating for the Point. Let’s have residents judge us on our vision and our strategies (up or down), so we can move forward as one community after November 2.

    SunCal is behind us, even as it sends us nasty phone calls and even worse political mail; let use this November vote as an opportunity to rally our great city around an approach touted by any one of us candidates for mayor. Thank you.

    /s/ Tony Daysog

    Comment by Tony Daysog — October 11, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

  99. I may disagree with some of you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler. Rally to Restore Sanity!

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 11, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

  100. Hey Lauren:

    I’m just curious- why do your suggestions as to who to vote for hold especial weight?

    What is it about you that makes you super special important enough that you alone, out of 72K+ residents of Alameda, are more worthy to have a more valid opinion as to who is electable to office than anyone else?

    Do you have any special credentials? Were you appointed to a particular office? Elected? Did you perform a certain amount of community service to make your voice more important than anyone else’s?

    Like I said, I was just wondering… I personally believe in the Democratic process where one person gets one vote.

    Please feel free to explain, or have one of your attack dogs deflect, as you see fit.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 11, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

  101. Gillitt- absolutely nothing qualifies her to do this. She is a resident of Alameda, like many of us, and has the right to publish a blog where she can have her own “endorsements”. She could also call them “suggestions” or “picks”. I don’t think she believes she’s any more “worthy” than any other shmuck with an internet connection. I could make endorsements, you could make endorsements, etc.

    the venom you have spread throughout this blog is pretty immature for someone who wants votes.

    Me on the other hand, I’m a tard who finds so much humor in the NIMBY, close-minded, viewpoints found in Alameda that I argue with people like you online… although, everyone here must remember

    [b]arguing online is like winning the special olympic, even if you win, you’re still retarded [/b]

    Comment by E — October 12, 2010 @ 12:32 am

  102. 98, 78:

    Tony & Ms. Quick:

    I accept that none of the candidates are trying to bring back Suncal. Even if they wanted to — and I’m not saying any do — it would be political suicide as well as a practical impossibility.

    At the same time, if Suncal IS interfering with the election, as Ms. Quick posits in #60, to what end? It’s no surprise that Suncal is pissed and is suing in revenge, as Mr Henneberry states above. No surprise at all.

    But since the election has no ballot measures that relate to Suncal, only candidates, why is Suncal interfering? And if they are interfering, is it not logical to say that some candiates are benefitting from these actions, whether they seek it or not?

    Comment by dave — October 12, 2010 @ 5:55 am

  103. Interesting question #102. Having spoken to those who are supposedly benefitting, they all tell me they really, really want SunCal to not do what they are doing as it makes it no better for them – as a matter of fact it is feeding the conspiracy theorists.
    So here is one for the consipiracy folks – if SunCal is so omnipotent, how do they account for the big, huge loss on Measure B? I think SunCal is mad and getting what they think is a toe-hold on public sentiment for their upcoming law suit. However, what they are doing is not only unwelcome, but none too smart (stupid, actually).
    Just in case you didn’t get it before, there is NO “SunCal Slate”. Listen to what the candidates are saying – every one of them is telling us they will not entertain the return of SunCal. Then, listen to what they have to say about their vision, plan for governing, solutions to our budget and sustainability (like public pensions, etc.) problems.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 12, 2010 @ 7:25 am

  104. What is the difference btw a “Suncal Slate” and the various candidates with whom they seek influence or advantage?

    Comment by dave — October 12, 2010 @ 7:40 am

  105. And if Suncal is doing what the “conspiracy theorists” say they are doing, as you indicate in 103, does that upgrade the conspiracy theorists to “observer” status?

    Comment by dave — October 12, 2010 @ 7:44 am

  106. dave: considering that everyone has the same message regarding SunCal (e.g. no SunCal no way) how is it being determined that (1) the mailer regarding AMG is meant to benefit specific candidates, (2) if the mailer was supposed to benefit certain candidates, which candidates they were supposed to benefit, (3) which candidates are susceptible to influence by SunCal and how are they susceptible to that influence?

    Six degrees of Kevin Bacon isn’t compelling evidence, nor is being “Friends” with someone on Facebook or MySpace or Twitter compelling either. And truthiness, while an Alameda tradition, doesn’t pass muster either.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 12, 2010 @ 7:50 am

  107. Ms. Quick said they are doing what “conspiracy theorists” accuse them of doing. I’m just asking for clarification.

    Even Suncal, tone-deaf to Alameda issues as it is, knows that candidates don’t abjudicate lawsuits. Is it unreasonable to ask why they seek to influence candidates, as Ms. Quick says they do?

    Comment by dave — October 12, 2010 @ 7:56 am

  108. I got another automated poll last night, all of it dedicated to trashing Ann Marie Gallant. Now that I check the flyer SunCal sent out, I see that the poll had essentially the same content, tho not quite verbatim.

    In particular, there was the question: “Did you know that AMG spent a $100,000 carrying out a vendetta against a councilmember?”, similar to a statement on the flyer.

    This is what raises questions, especially given that the “non-automated” poll made specific reference to Lena Tam has having been exonerated — doesn’t that sound like a statement on her behalf? As I said above, that same poll sounded very much like it could have been lifted verbatim from this site — somebody associated with the pro-Tam crowd had a handing in writing that poll.

    Plus there’s the “Open Government” site — trashing AMG and lending sympathy to SunCal. So no, I don’t see that SunCal is long gone and that no one supports them anymore. What I see is that SunCal has made its presence far too blatantly obvious and lots of people are backing off.

    I do wonder, tho, why SunCal doesn’t get the hint and cool it. I will agree that they’re dumb.

    Comment by dlm — October 12, 2010 @ 11:19 am

  109. The DA said that Lena did nothing wrong, ergo, she was exonerated.
    SunCal is acting foolishly, and their activities are not welcomed by Lena, Marie or Rob, supposedly their “Slate”. All of those candidates have said they have nothing to do with what SunCal is doing and want them to stop it. How could it possibly benefit them?

    I would like the telephone calls saying “If you hate x, press 1; if you REALLY hate x, press 2” etc. to stop. I have gotten about six of them now. What does that contribute to anything? Nothing!
    I would also like David Howard’s stupid and malicious postings of misinformation and dis-information on face book, Action Alameda and elsewhere to stop. Some people support people whom they find to be smart, able and have a history of real contributions to the community. They support them, as I do, not because they are in somebody’s pocket, but because they have seen them do good things and they like the depth of understanding they have about the many complex issues our city is facing. Gee whiz! Is that worth attacking someone for?

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 12, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

  110. Blogging Bayport Community!

    After recently reading “Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired” by Benson Bobrick, I’m more understanding of the role of boorish behavior in our elections and government.

    The quality of civic discourse is better now than in the Middle Ages, when a beheading or burning at the stake settled many a heated discussion of whether or not the bible should be translated and whose translation would be the authentic one.

    I agree with many on this blog that our discourse would be more enlightening if it were more civil. Still, law suits,videos, and insults are less destructive than gallows and burnings at the stake!

    After reading the gruesome history of the English bible, I now appreciate why it is so necessary to separate church and state to advance the common good. Maybe in another 5 centuries, information technologies will allow us to at least expect our civic discourse to base the insults and boorish behaviour on accurate facts. To expect more would require revolutionary advances in the ability of our educational and social systems to empower unarmed rational discourse to stand up to powerful interests.

    Comment by William Smith — October 17, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

  111. It’s all perspective, Bill. Those who don’t read history have no perception of what “proper” discourse is, except what they absorb in the present.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 17, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

  112. Bill, I was at Council the night that the “forces of darkness” had Mr. C, the hired lawyer get up for the cameras and excoriate Lena, calling her every name in the book, after the DA had found no merit in the accusations he so forcefully reiterated. (That video is going the rounds via e-mail thanks to Reyla Graber and David Howard and that was the intent of Mr. C’s performance all along.)
    I had seen a rather disturbing video of a woman, accused of adultery, in a burka, being stoned to death in a middle eastern country. The men throwing the stones at her had the most evil, menacing looks and appeared to be enjoying every moment.
    I watched Lena up on the podium while Mr. C. cast the stones one by one. She had no attorney present; no one to act in her defense. It was a stoning by words; intended to kill her spirit, get her to be mortally wounded in her race for re-election and was as close to the burka woman as we get in our “civilized society.” It was WRONG. It was immoral and un-American. Yes, I speak strongly about it, because no matter what she was accused and found not guilty of, she did not deserve such treatment. And, other than Marie who spoke up for her, the others on the podium sat silent. All it would have taken was a third vote to put a stop to this egregious display of meanness and political chicanery.
    I admire Lena for holding up her head and continuing to campaign in spite of these attacks, and I have lost admiration for people I thought had better moral compasses than they appear to have now.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 17, 2010 @ 7:10 pm

  113. Now if we could just come up with a really good video game and combine it with this blog we could have some fun. You know like each one of us could have some sort of great weapon and when someone gets us mad we could blow them up and get points for it. At the end of the thread who ever is left standing wins.

    Comment by John piziali — October 17, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

  114. Kate, I agree with you 100%. No one should be allowed to excoriate another in a public forum. I’ve been against public stoning for longer than Mr. C has been alive. And THAT video should not be allowed to make the rounds.

    Throwing verbal stones at a defenseless woman is much worse than throwing real stones because the living must continue enduring the pain and suffering that those stones inflict while those women being stoned in that un-named middle eastern country can rest in peace never having to worry again. It’s just WRONG, that Lena should have to put up with that chicanery without closure and must resort to hiding under a metaphorical burka for the rest of her political life.

    But, we must remember the poor woman in the middle eastern country, was found guilty under the laws of that middle eastern country and we must respect those laws even though we may not consider them civilized. Must we not? Lena, on the other hand, was exonerated under our system of justice, yet must continue the suffering of being stoned, metaphorically speaking of course. Now I ask you, which system has the “forces of darkness”?

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 17, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

  115. Hey, piziali, second thoughts on Thurs, don’t need blowing up. Maybe, Kate would be a better drinking buddy.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 17, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

  116. Will the drinks be free? I am sure the conversation would be lively.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 18, 2010 @ 8:23 am

  117. Ha ha, I like that attitude! Thurs eve is all the wine you can drink from here to there for ten bucks. No free rides, just consider it a parcel tax in support of your education.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 18, 2010 @ 8:52 am

  118. 107, 108:

    I have always been amazed at the contrast between some of Suncal’s extremely smart decisions (like hiring Peter Calthorpe to design their plan for AP and their ability to even find another financial backer in 2008) and their utter lack of political sensitivity, social awareness, and complete misreading of Alameda’s political and social culture (2007-present).

    The gulf between their recent intentions (probably to undercut Ann Marie Gallant and the anti-Suncal “slate” of Johnson, deHaan, Sweeney, and Gilitt) and their total ineffectiveness in doing so is astoundingly wide.They do not know when to shut up…

    They should have kept their hands off of this election – or at least not weighed in in their heavy-handed, stupid way – and fought their battles in the courts. Their every political effort has backfired – predictably, given their nasty tactics – and helped only their opponents.

    Everything that Suncal has done so far has hurt their supposed allies or favored candidates. I thought they might have tired of fatally wounding their own company, their supporters (myself included at one time) and their cause by now, but their desire and capacity for revenge and/or corporate political suicide seems endless…

    Suncal completely lost my support with the anti-Gallant postcard. It was proof that revenge and terminal political ignorance/stupidity are running Suncal/Argent, and I cannot be a party to either one.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 18, 2010 @ 9:25 am

  119. Does anyone know why Jean Sweeney is the only candidate not to have filed a disclosure form with the City Clerks office? Has she dropped out of the running, or is it a case of the paperwork getting misplaced by someone?

    Comment by notadave — October 18, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

  120. 119. Interesting … maybe she couldn’t be bothered with such trivialities? Much like Beverly who doesn’t respond to campaign questions (does she even have a website)?

    Comment by David N — October 18, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

  121. Jack and John, unfortunately Thursday night is League Board, so I will be hangin’ with my cronies and talkin’ lots of smack about good government opposers. But I surely would like to hang with y’all over drinks to pick your brains about our local brand of AlaTalaTics (Alameda Taliban Politics).Maybe next Thursday?

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 18, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

  122. Yeah, I figured the wine parcel tax would be too much for y’all. So much for you gitten ejukaded.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 19, 2010 @ 9:03 am

  123. […] lamented SunCal’s non-payment for his services, is still waffling about whether or not he supports SunCal coming back to Alameda and developing the […]

    Pingback by Your Uppance Has Come | The Alameda Post — November 18, 2010 @ 12:05 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.