Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 3, 2010

A new day has come

Filed under: Alameda, City Council, Election — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

I can’t say enough how relieved I am that the election has finished. Personally, this felt like the longest, most drawn out campaign ever and I’m glad it’s over. So inevitably we’ll be getting the spin about the effect of the SunCal/Taxpayers Network money and how that clearly made a difference because the voting populace are sheep and clearly can’t think for themselves without getting distracted by glossy mailers and push polls. I’m just going to point out that had the election turned out differently we’d be hearing about how smart the voting populace is and how they weren’t going to be bought off by glossy mailers and push polls.

The spin all depends on how well your candidate did I suppose, but congratulations nonetheless to Mayor Marie Gilmore and newly elected Vice Mayor Rob Bonta.   Beverly Johnson will be rejoining the Council as a Councilmember and Lena Tam held on to third place and should be taking over Marie Gilmore vacated seat when she moved up to the top post.

And Margie Sherratt surprised no one by winning handedly over all others and Mike McMahon also was re-elected to his seat by a fair margin and declared victory early last night on Twitter.

Also after being uncontested for so long, Carole Ward Allen loses her seat as Bart Director to Robert Raburn who ran a terrific campaign.

Technically these tallies aren’t official yet according to Alameda County ROV, the only race that could be at issue is the City Council, but I think the spread is wide enough that a recount  would be a monetary gamble.

But back to the business of what’s going on with the City.   Did I mention how glad I am this is all over?

Tonight there are a few things to note on the City Council agenda, including yet another amendment to a contract for the construction company working on the Willie Stargell avenue extension project. Michele Ellson covered the story about how the promised bike paths didn’t materialize. So apparently because there was a mistake in the first place when putting in the road and improvements, another $110,000 needs to be spent to put in the appropriately sized bike paths. This one is on the consent calendar so it will be interesting to see if anyone pulls this item for discussion.

The Ambulance transport issue is back up under City Manager Communications because two City Council members were ill at the last City Council meeting. That should be a good discussion as well, and will be interesting in light of the results of yesterday’s election.

Also a last minute agenda item was added yesterday at 4:30 p.m. which would essentially have the City take responsibility for the maintenance of all AUSD recreation fields, including the pools (which technically they were supposed to be taking care of anyway).

And in a puzzling move, outgoing Mayor Beverly Johnson has decided to use this “lame duck” City Council session to appoint community members to particular boards and commissions, after sitting on these nominations for a while now. The most important nomination is for the Planning Board.

Advertisements

96 Comments

  1. Yea for MargieSherratt! I hope she will keep a watchful eye on our sneaky Supe!

    Comment by SFB — November 3, 2010 @ 6:15 am

  2. Well, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, but she’s finished her warm-ups so I’ll have to concede that most of my candidates didn’t win but a few of my predictions were accurate and my man Jerry got the big job so I can’t say I’m too upset. If DeHaan and Matarrese hadn’t split the vote, one or the other would clearly have won. I’m not overly worried about Marie Gilmore (I’m pretty sure she’s not Hitler :)), and I certainly don’t envy her as most of the voters didn’t want her to win, she’ll have some hearts and minds to win over. I sincerely wish her luck. Bonta (my most successful prediction), is as yet untried and he certainly has the potential to be very good. Johnson hung in there and she’ll have DeHaan to keep her company at the kids table (hopefully it won’t go down that way but you know how it is). The big question is, is Tam now totally off the hook for the email thing or will that be an issue that refuses to go away? We’ll see. Unfortuantely, Prop 19 was also defeated, so I can’t float away on a cloud of legally sanctioned marihootchie, but thanks to measure F passing, I can at least look forward to the other kind of pot hole being taken care of. Pollyanna signing out.
    “But how the world turns. One day, cock of the walk. Next, a feather duster.” –Auntie Entity “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome”

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 7:03 am

  3. Denise: to say that every vote cast for a candidate other than Marie Gilmore is a vote against her is a over-simplification and a gross generalization of a lot of people’s individual decisions.

    I think most people vote for a candidate and not against another. Had there been only two people on the ticket, that might be a valid take-away. We could also assume that all of Tony Daysog’s votes would have gone to Marie Gilmore had he not been in the race as well, but we’ll really never know.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2010 @ 7:20 am

  4. Lauren: Half-full or half-empty, same difference. Kind of surprised you’re so touchy, though. You should be too busy doing your happy dance to scold little old me.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 7:33 am

  5. Lauren seems to forget that there was much celebration in Irvine last night, as the SunCal Slate, candidates never attacked by that developer, won. And now those of us concerned about such an outcome will be watching closely to see if any of the more dire predictions come true. How will Gilmore, Vonta and Tam deal with those lawsuits? How will they move forward on Alameda Point. I hope fervently that none of our worst fears are realized, but I ain’t optimistic.

    Lauren also forgets that because of the SunCal factor, many of us did indeed vote AGAINST those candidates we thought were favored in Irvine. I voted for a white male I’ve never voted for before, and someone I regard as a doofus, simply because I thought he had a chance of defeating Gilmore.

    I too feel sorry for her, not only because she received a minority of the total votes for Mayor, but because the City faces such unprecedented budget problems, especially with it’s bloated payroll and unfunded pension obligations.

    Finally, I’m concerned that there could well be an ugly backlash against her. Mayor Bev has already shown that female gender is no guarantee of brilliant leadership, but Marie may face the same sort of resentment President Obama does. In her. Ew role, she will receive far more scrutiny than she did on the Council. “Hold on to the edges of your gowns ladies,” as William Carlos Williams wrote in his preface to “Howl,” for “we’re about to go through he’ll!”

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 7:43 am

  6. Denise, you set the bar pretty high for Lauren ( “touchy”). She amazes me with her ability to keep her cool. The silver lining if the outcome had been different would have been perhaps less screaming about SunCal. We shall see. I read a post last night about the how SunCal/Tax Payers Network effort having succeeded. (From you Denise?) Anyway, I just wanted to note that it’s amazing how powerful incumbency seems to be. If the negative campaign had been the factor Johnson would have been third or lost. Rob was obviously a very strong candidate on his own merit. Congratulations Mr. Vise mayor (correct?).

    Comment by M.I. — November 3, 2010 @ 7:43 am

  7. Yes,I’m glad it’s over. Now I’d be willing to join a group that will work at cleaning up all the election signs from public places – fences and utility poles, etc. Any takers?

    Comment by Dorothy Fullerton — November 3, 2010 @ 7:50 am

  8. Lest we forget the new Mayor never took $10,000. from a developer or did robo calls for Sun Cal.
    Marie Gilmore will do just fine as our Mayor, she’s very smart and knows how to get along with others on the council.

    and no the SKY will not fall.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 7:57 am

  9. M.I. – Looks like you’re pretty touchy too if you think “touchy” is some kind of major put down. Get over yourselves! Time alone will tell if SunCal’s investment in our election will pay off. In the meantime, when that case of champagne arrives from Irvine and Marie and company are forced to refuse it, just send it to me. I enjoy a good glass (or six) of bubbly. By the way, glad to see you’re well enough to comment today, Dennis. Hope you find something more positive than politics to keep you going now.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 8:05 am

  10. MI: I don’t know if I would chalk Beverly Johnson’s win to incumbency, I would say her powerful name recognition was key. Of all the current City Council people, she — by far — is the most well known.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2010 @ 8:07 am

  11. Let me also point out that, of all the candidates, Margie Sherratt was indisputably the “crowd” favorite, getting more than 10K votes overall. However, when it’s all compiled, her percentage of the total vote is only 36.64%, Marie Gilmore’s is 36.45%. So if the argument stands that more people wanted someone else to fill the role of Mayor than Marie Gilmore, than the same argument stands for Margie Sherratt.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2010 @ 8:13 am

  12. A doofus voted for a doofus. Perfect!

    Comment by Richard Hausman — November 3, 2010 @ 8:16 am

  13. 10. I guess I was mixing the notion of name recognition with incumbency. I hadn’t heard the term 5th generation Alamedan used this time.

    9. back at you, ha-ha. I was just commenting about your feeling the need to call her touchy, don’t get touchy about it. Seriously, I don’t want to start this game again. Truce. This election sent me right off the rails, and I just wanted to compliment Lauren for being a cool customer. If today is as nice a day as yesterday we should all enjoy it. I get to work outside! later.

    Comment by M.I. — November 3, 2010 @ 8:17 am

  14. Gilmore, Bonta and Tam will have to work very hard to prove they owe SunCal nothing, and as we know, proving a negative is almost impossible. And it will take more than name-calling to move Alameda forward, although that seems to be the best gasp some folks can come up with.

    I’ll be turning my attention away from politics, looking forward to having lunch with a new lesbian friend and enlarging my world view.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 8:22 am

  15. Congratulations to the residents of Alameda for choosing integrity and honesty over innuendo and slander.

    Comment by notadave — November 3, 2010 @ 8:25 am

  16. Actually, it’s almost indisputable that Margie Sherrat got over 50% of the vote. In the School Board race, you could vote for two candidates and the percentage reported is a percentage of total votes received. Assuming everyone exercised their right to vote for 2 then you can just double the 36.64 to get 73%. Since some people only voted for one candidate, you can take the mayor’s race number (where only one vote was allowed) and use that as your numerator in which case Marge got about 59%. Those are your upper and lower bounds.

    Comment by elliott.gorelick — November 3, 2010 @ 8:36 am

  17. that’s denominator; the number of votes Sherrat got is the numerator.

    Comment by elliott.gorelick — November 3, 2010 @ 8:37 am

  18. Correction, 36% of the voters, less than that share of all eligible voters, since as many as half never vote at all, has chosen the SunCal Slate. That puts Lauren, and all the others gloating here in a very small minority of “Alameda residents.”

    But I know the temptation to gloat. I did after we defeated Measure E. And with McMahon given another four years, I suspect I’ll be doing so again in March.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 8:42 am

  19. Now that we have a new Mayor and Vice-Mayor, what do you think will come first?
    1) The Mif closing (given to our developer friends for additional housing)?
    2) the ICM being voted out by the “SunCal Slate?”
    3)Measure A being amended by the Council?
    4) New public safety parcel tax championed by our incoming Vice-Mayor (he saved the hospital with one and he owes a “little” of his free campaign publicity to our men that occasionally fight fires)?

    Comment by patricia smith — November 3, 2010 @ 9:01 am

  20. Instead of us gloating, we’ll just let you and patricia smith tell us that we didn’t really win and the world here in Alameda is coming to an end. Duck and cover the SKY is falling.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 9:10 am

  21. That’s not the sky, pal.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 9:43 am

  22. Re: Stargell and the mystery of the missing bike lanes, hasn’t anyone ever noticed before that street construction is seldom ever completed correctly in this town? If you think I am making this up, just cast your minds back to Park Street being torn up twice. The sidewalk in front of the Theater was done twice.

    Ka-ching, Ka-ching, cost overruns?

    Comment by E T — November 3, 2010 @ 9:44 am

  23. can someone fire the ICM now? PLEASE?

    Comment by E — November 3, 2010 @ 9:48 am

  24. I do hope that all of us will give the new council majority our support. Those who believed that there was a “SunCal Slate” should watch and listen and I believe they will be relieved to find that they were mislead. (Fear mongering and negative campaigning works, but thankfully it did not totally succeed this time.) If their SunCal scenario does not come to pass, they should get over that and try to participate in a design for the Point that incorporates their desires. As in, work for positive results as a community.
    We need not hold hands and sing Cumbiyah, but we do need to find common ground on which we can build positive good. And, we need to refrain from the toxicity of personal slander and use of graphic sexual put-downs, and give civility in public discourse a try.

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 3, 2010 @ 9:51 am

  25. 2, 3 4, 6: “…I certainly don’t envy her as most of the voters didn’t want her to win, she’ll have some hearts and minds to win over…”

    Denise, I disagree with your analysis, too. That doesn’t make me “touchy,” either.

    19: The sky is not falling. Promise.

    1) The Mif will not be closed. If anything, the Alameda Junior Golf Association bid will be more popular with the new CC majority. Look for the CC to adopt the AJGA proposal. Ron Cowan spent $10,000 on Bev Johnson and she may be a minority of one re: closing the Mif.

    2 Look for the CC to move to hire a permanent City Manager and use a competitive process. It will be up to Ann Marie Gallant to apply or not.

    3)Measure A cannot be amended by the Council. With the new density bonus ordinance, amending the 1973 Measure A may no longer be necessary, but the Council may be smarter the next time around if the need to amend Charter section 26 arises. Letting a developer write a charter amendment was a terrible idea, as we all found out.

    4) Gilmore and most of the CC oppose the firefighter’s staffing levels charter amendment. Look for them to oppose it but also to treat the firefighters fairly in more respectful negotiations. I doubt we will see any new city parcel taxes, but we will see mutual respect replace the recent hostility.
    (See #2.)

    With so many candidates in these races no one could have expected to win a majority of all the votes cast, but Gilmore, Tam, Bonta, and Johnson all achieved historically significant vote totals, especially in light of the enormous amount of money that was mis-spent independently by SunCal on this election.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 3, 2010 @ 10:07 am

  26. So let’s see…Gilmore received about 18% of eligible voters confirmation. Less than a fifth of all possible votes. Hardly a mandate to govern.

    Just a few days ago, many writers to this site were saying how SunCal’s election tactics, the push-polls and the glossy mailers attacking their opponents, could not possibly succeed. Lauren said it first, “You CAN fool 18% of the people some of the time.”

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 10:09 am

  27. I am SO happy that we now have truly competent transit-oriented leadership on the BART board in the person of Robert Raburn.

    Watch for him to make a difference soon, even as a member of the progressive minority on the BART board.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 3, 2010 @ 10:10 am

  28. Dennis, your post 14. “I’ll be turning my attention away from politics”. No time like the present.
    Hey you convinced me, Gilmore lost O.K.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 10:35 am

  29. In today’s New York Post, Richard Cohen has a great quote about Sarah Palin but which applies to all those twenty-percenters who tried to engender fear and made baseless charges about Marie, Rob and Lena. To wit: “The mind of the demagogue is a foreign country. It has a strange culture, enemies that only the natives can see, a passion about the ridiculous and a blowtorch kind of sincerity that incinerates logical thinking.”

    Comment by Richard Hausman — November 3, 2010 @ 10:45 am

  30. 22:

    THe “cost overruns” on Willie Stargell were the direct result of City Public Works staff approving changes to the design that they had no authority to approve.

    Had the staff and the contractor followed the guidelines already in place, the design changes would have come back before the Planning Board for review – where they probably would NOT have been okayed.

    A similar SNAFU occurred years ago during the South Shore Center renovations when a then-Planning Director exceeded his authority in approving changes and compromises to the traffic patterns along the northern edge of the SSC parking lot and boundary.

    I am not sure that the current problems with Willie Stargell Way can be laid directly at the feet of the ICM, but she has been nominally in charge of the Planning and Building Department along with Finance while doing the job of the city manager. That is too much to ask of any single person, IMHO.

    At least as important, I think, will be to re-emphasize the importance of the city’s boards and commissions, which means that vacancies should be filled promptly.

    Instead, we have seen two years of foot-dragging by Bev Johnson with the (now 5) Transportation Commission vacancies. (Note that she has still not acted to fill them…)

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 3, 2010 @ 11:07 am

  31. 29:

    Baseless? That’s just scurrilous, Richard. Scurrilous.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 11:53 am

  32. And now a word about the Dennis Greens, the David Howards, and the Adam Gillitts of the world. The fierce stupidity of these people is very hard to comprehend but it is the well from which they draw their political sustenance. It explains why Mr. Gillitt did not pause to wonder about manhandling an elderly woman and the sheer impracticality of screeching about how unfair everything was. It explains why Mr. Howard is content with fabricating stories about people. And it explains why Mr. Green is content with ad hominem attacks without bothering to consider the consequences.

    Many of us might be content with simply brushing them off, thinking they really can’t be serious. A quick look at the history of other demagogues and you’ll see no right-thinking person should take them lightly. While they may be ignorant, they’re just smart enough to be treacherous.

    Comment by Richard Hausman — November 3, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

  33. Well said Richard. Too bad Adam refuses to take a hint from his election tally and disappear (tail behind his legs). Instead he continues to pontificate like a rabid dog.

    His mentor, Howard, appears to be at a loss for words, following the results.

    Action Alameda must be crushed to see their candidates fall short EVERY SINGLE TIME. I’m loving every minute of this smackdown.

    Comment by WJ — November 3, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

  34. And now a word about the Lena Tams, Marie Gilmores, Jeff Mitchells and John Knox Whites of the world. The fierce stupidity of these people is very hard to comprehend but it is the well from which they draw their political sustenance. It explains why Ms. Tam did not pause to wonder about sending blind carbon copies of confidential emails to SunCal and acting in concert with Marie Gilmore and the sheer impracticality of screeching about how unfair everything was when these actions were brought to light. It explains why Jeff Mitchell and John Knox White are content with fabricating stories about people. And it explains why Jeff Mitchell is content with ad hominem attacks without bothering to consider the consequences.

    Many of us might be content with simply brushing them off, thinking they really can’t be serious. A quick look at the history of other demagogues and you’ll see no right-thinking person should take them lightly. While they may be ignorant, they’re just smart enough to be treacherous.

    Comment by bob — November 3, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

  35. 32: Joe McCarthy is alive and well, and by that I mean you, Richard.

    (Many times I’ve wondered if this site is really an ongoing insider joke. The possibility exists…)

    Comment by dlm — November 3, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

  36. 32. “…you’ll see no right-thinking person should take them lightly.”

    As one of the very, very few “right-thinking” persons in a this sea of lefties, I do indeed take them lightly.

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 3, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

  37. Bob (34): What is this, high school? Oh wait … you must be Adam! That explains it. Nevermind.

    Comment by WJ — November 3, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

  38. SO does Tam simply serve out the remainder of Gilmore’s term, or does she get the full four years?

    Comment by dave — November 3, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

  39. Finally … it is over. The website crashing last night was just too dramatic!

    Comment by alameda — November 3, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

  40. re 37

    WJ/Do-bot #32764527:

    Unlike you, I actually have the stones to use my own name and ideas.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

  41. 24.” (Fear mongering and negative campaigning works, but thankfully it did not totally succeed this time.)” You’re absolutely right, Kate. Bev Johnson still got elected.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

  42. If Lena Tam stays in 3rd place she would serve out the remainder of Marie Gilmore’s term, the two years, which would make her eligible to run again in 2012.

    Interestingly enough the Charter says that:

    Sec. 2-14. No person shall be eligible for the office held by that person for two complete consecutive terms immediately prior to the term for which the person seeks election or appointment. This section shall not apply to the office of Auditor or Treasurer or prevent persons in office from completing their terms.

    So because the Gilmore term is not a “complete term”, if “complete” is defined as four years, she could be eligible to run again for a second term in 2016.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

  43. Did anyone notice the election’s over? Time to pick up the torch or pick up the pieces and get on with it.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — November 3, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

  44. Whatever, 2nd to last place finisher! You cease to exist as far as I am concerned.

    Thrilled to hear that you have stones … put them to some use instead of hanging out here. As for your ideas, they were rejected last night! So much for that.

    Comment by WJ — November 3, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

  45. Richard Hausman is the only demagogue and ad hominem attacker I see on today’s blog. His only virtue is that he has the guts to use his real name, so the rest of us can just TP his house for the Day of the Dead, in honor of his thinking!

    And yes, by a quirk of arithmetic, and an overblown slate of candidates, Marie “won”… something…an opportunity to redeem Alameda from it’s tortured politics, this blog from it’s exaggerations, the Point from it’s lack of development by SunCal..? No real ideas in her campaign, so we’ll have to wait and see.

    Will she be any more a leader than Mayor Bev? Will she confront the deficit? Or will she just make nice and coddle the babies who voted for her? And who think they dominate this blog…

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

  46. Nice choice of words, Mike. Any buildings left at the base your buddies need torched and left to burn to make pretty pictures for mailers for the next campaign?

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

  47. 44 (translated)

    Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap. Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap. I r clevar. Do-bot out.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

  48. Post 41. Denise, is that the same Bev. Johnson that took $10,000. from Ron Cowan and made robo calls in favor of SunCal before she was against SunCal.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

  49. Just to clarify 41 — In spite of the fear mongering and negative campaigning by SunCal. Of course we all knew none of that would have any effect on the opinions of the socially conscious, responsible, well-informed populace of our fair city. They wanted Gilmore, Bonta and Tam all along. Boy did SunCal waste its money.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

  50. Adam has been one of the few refreshing voices on this site. Who cares if he lost his bid for a contaminated city council we can’t trust anymore? That new majority will ruin this town, just a prediction, not a hope. Newbies in Alameda, like the Tea Party in America, rule! But what will they do with all that power? Anybody care? Kate Quick? Got any new ideas, or are you still recycling?

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

  51. Oh, I guess it’s okay for some people to change their minds about
    SunCal but not others.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

  52. Adam is NOT refreshing. He is crude, angry and often wrong.

    As to recycling, yes, I will continue to ask for civility in public discourse until those of you for whom this is some sort of strange notion, or at best, not sporting give up on demeaning such a novel idea or actually try it for a big change.

    Comment by Kate Quick — November 3, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

  53. I believe Marie Gilmore, Lena Tam, and Rob Bonta will consider all sides of an issue, work with (and not ostracize) Beverly Johnson and Doug deHaan, and take very seriously their responsibility as public servants to all of Alameda’s citizens. After months of acrimonious squabbling in the blogosphere and SunCal’s campaign of negativity, our community’s reconciliation can begin with Gilmore, Tam, and Bonta’s leadership.

    Comment by charlie — November 3, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

  54. By the way. I have nothing against Ron Cowan. Harbor Bay will always be as rootless and souless as any master planned community will ever be. There’s nothing he can do to make it worse in my opinion. It’s also where I suspect a lot of those people who don’t support Alameda businesses and don’t give a rat’s ass about Alameda politics live, too. I know some of them. They’re nice people but they are not plugged in to the community and they probably never will be. (And spare me if you live in Harbor Bay and you’re the civic equivalent of Mother Teresa. I didn’t say EVERYBODY.)

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

  55. Kate:

    you lost any remaining credibility when I saw you campaigning for Jeff Mitchell.

    You’re as corrupt as any of them. What are you getting out of SunCal being in town?

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

  56. I nominate Adam for the new head of the Sunshine Task Force!

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

  57. I believe charlie is so far up SunCal’s ass their hearts beat as one.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 2:03 pm

  58. So eloquent Adam. Did you make up the bit about burning buildings on the base or did it magically appear before you on your IPad?
    Is this blog moderated? With a few notable exceptions this just appears to be a bunch of angry people tossing around insults. Most people don’t have time for this. I know I don’t. Nice chatting with you all.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — November 3, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

  59. Post 50 Dennis that is without a doubt the most pathetic statement you have made since coming on this site. Please go have lunch with t
    that Lady, you need some down time.
    Denise Post 51 I personnally never liked SunCal, so I have not changed my mind. Post 53. Your dead on Charlie. Adam, I have the same sentement for you and Denise.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

  60. Adam knows a thing or two about being up other people’s ass … all that time he spends on grindr!

    He is a boorish clown.

    Denise, your good friend Dennis worked for Ron Cowan and Beverly was the only candidate to accept money from a developer (Ron).

    Comment by Joan L — November 3, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

  61. Truth Lies Here (The Atlantic)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/truth-lies-here/8246/

    The urge to shape the data to suit the message, to outfit one’s argument with a set of misappropriated, cynically edited, or simply fabricated facts that can be fed into a self-sustaining partisan feedback loop, will no doubt prove irresistible to many.

    It’s easy to welcome a time in which technology unleashes an ongoing town hall on any and all issues of the day, in which the wisdom of crowds holds sway. But the dislodging of fact from the pedestal it had safely occupied for centuries makes the recent disturbances in politics and the media feel like symptoms of a larger epistemological, even civilizational, rot.

    Comment by dlm — November 3, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

  62. #58: “With a few notable exceptions this just appears to be a bunch of angry people tossing around insults.”

    True. This site had intelligent discussions at one point, but it’s precisely because of the “fabricated facts that [are] fed into a partisan feedback loop” that any kind of thoughtful discussion here is now impossible.

    Comment by dlm — November 3, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

  63. Here’s the firefighter’s mailer in case you forgot that, too, Mike:

    What are you doing on Grindr, Joan L / Do-bot #5674893628? Is there a faghag version now?

    I am constantly amused by how many homophobic people worship their iPhones, while ignoring that Jonathan Ive is “that way.” Much like people blindly follow their candidates and ignore that SunCal is pulling their strings.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

  64. #62: I’m reposting with the subtitle, if it wasn’t clear before. It should be clear anyway, to anyone who’s paying attention:

    Truth Lies Here (The Atlantic)

    How can Americans talk to one another—let alone engage in political debate—when the Web allows every side to invent its own facts?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/truth-lies-here/8246/

    The urge to shape the data to suit the message, to outfit one’s argument with a set of misappropriated, cynically edited, or simply fabricated facts that can be fed into a self-sustaining partisan feedback loop, will no doubt prove irresistible to many.

    It’s easy to welcome a time in which technology unleashes an ongoing town hall on any and all issues of the day, in which the wisdom of crowds holds sway. But the dislodging of fact from the pedestal it had safely occupied for centuries makes the recent disturbances in politics and the media feel like symptoms of a larger epistemological, even civilizational, rot.

    Comment by dlm — November 3, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

  65. I’m guessing that everyone feels that everyone that has an opinion that differs from their own feels as though their polar opposite is the one that “invents its own facts” and probably hasn’t reflected on their own looseness with the “facts.”

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2010 @ 2:43 pm

  66. DLM, ADAM ,DENISE. I have a great site for you that is very refined and not at all like this bunch of looneys (myself included). wait, wait, yes “EDGE CITY”. You will love the editor, it is said he has an I.Q. of millions and is a perfect gentelman. Alas he said he is turning away from politics for now. But I think he would make a good fit for you all.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

  67. So, the money spent on this election is a “loose fact” as is Lauren and her Do-bots’ association with SunCal, and Lena’s inability to understand what Confidential means or why sharing emails willy nilly against City interest is bad, or how 75% of Rob’s funding came from outside Alameda, or how 85% of the City is against SunCal, and the state of the hospital is a joke, and the CADC tampered with the endorsement process, and I could go on, but David Byrne said it best:

    Facts are simple and facts are straight
    Facts are lazy and facts are late
    Facts all come with points of view
    Facts don’t do what I want them to
    Facts just twist the truth around
    Facts are living turned inside out
    Facts are getting the best of them
    Facts are nothing on the face of things

    I’m still waiting.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

  68. Adam: I wish you the best of luck with your Alameda Post website and I hope that it becomes the bastion of truth, justice, and honesty that you hope it will be.

    My suggestion is that if my blog is so abhorrent to you that rather than waste your time, you actually work on filling your new venture with content.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  69. You’re sweet, Lauren. Really.

    I wish your site had something worthy of emulating, but for now, it’s cheaper than a WWE ticket.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

  70. 70. Why do you keep posting here if it is that bad?

    Comment by alameda — November 3, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

  71. Ah! The Wisdom of the Madhouse! Kesey said it best, and Lauren is Big Nurse. My favorite fellow inmate is John piziali, who at least knows his math and how to find great blogs where madness doesn’t rule!

    For the time being, I’ll just appreciate the ravings and the chatter going on here. So human. So very primate! Kate Quick, who doesn’t seem to practice it, still preaches civility, while dissing everyone who disagrees with her.

    But isn’t that the first rule of the technology dlm uses so well? Even as he posts such noble sentiments…

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

  72. 71:

    The first rule of Fight Club is that we do not discuss Fight Club.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

  73. You’re right, Lauren. We need to move forward. I copied all today’s posts and I’m saving them to look at in one year’s time. By then we should have a better idea of whose reality has the staying power. I am not anti-development or anti-change. I was in favor of the the library, the theater, and yes (gasp!) the parking garage. I just honestly think that a big housing development on Alameda Point would be a huge mistake. The transportation issues are insurmountable in the near future and I sincerely belive that the site is more toxic than even the most pessimistic of us is willing to accept. While this blog has been a welcome distraction, a source of information, and an opportunity to chew the fat with others who are interested in the direction of our city, I’m going to try very hard not to comment any more for a while and lurk only occasionally as I have a writing project that’s been neglected. It’s been fun getting to know everybody. I urge my fellow contributors who have so far remained nameless to come into the light if you want anyone to listen to what you have to say. It doesn’t hurt that much, really. And remember, transparency is for everybody. Peace out.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

  74. Post #69 Lauren, if this is true it means that Alameda has finally found a replacement for DON ROBERTS.
    Dennis, I read some of your stuff just today and I like it. How come it is so different from what you write here. I’m serious.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

  75. Adam – here is a little hint. You have a life outside of this blog. Your life involves professional activities for which you need clients. Those clients will want to know what kind of person they would be hiring. They may do a google search and come up with these blogs and your posts. They will take their business elsewhere.

    Comment by duedillegence — November 3, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

  76. @76, that’s assuming he has any prospective clients to start with … looks unlikely, given the amount of time he spends here, spewing crap.

    But you bring up a good point, this will be very useful should the grindr loser decide to run again.

    Comment by Joan L — November 3, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

  77. Denise, good luck with your writing project. I would not disagree with anything that you wrote in your last post.

    Comment by John piziali — November 3, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

  78. John, thank you, seriously. I write my own blog in some sort of isolation, send a copy first to a “Chums list” of fellow writers and old friends, my boyz, many Alamedans, and I get lots of push-back which I take seriously.

    Here, I think I just get in the spirit of things. Lauren writes very partisan stuff without any context of Alameda’s history, and that sets me off. And then most of the comments, even those pretending to civility, are so hypocritical that I’m set off another notch or five. I find this thing addictive, like crack cocaine or meth, (never done the former), but it gets the adrenalin going, and that’s all it takes.

    Someone could make a fortune running a rehab clinic for people who get hooked on sites like these. They have nothing to do with calm, intellectual exchange, although I think I could have pleasant, informed exchanges with many people on this site, maybe elsewhere, including dlm, piziali, dave, etc. There is so much truth tot what dlm posts about the technology. I can’t stand Facebook, but I’m hooked on Lauren’s crack, and it’s giving me brain freeze!

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

  79. “Little hints” from anonymous Do-bots are worth about as much as the paper they’re printed on.

    Thanks anyway, you and Do-bot-Jane can go rescue a banana from Cheeta and use it as you see fit.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

  80. Just don’t kick it out of the trailer!

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

  81. 79. I find this thing addictive, like crack cocaine or meth, (never done the former)…

    Now that was a very funny line.

    Comment by John — November 3, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

  82. I had a dear friend, an organimattalic chemist, who invented a way to etch silicone chips with plasma technology. He and his wife split up and he was living with a new girlfriend in an apartment next door to a biker bar. They offered Dick a lifetime supply of crystal meth if he would set up a lab for them in the back of a sixteen wheeler truck, and he caved.

    Just before he died, he gave me a small vial of the shit, a week’s worth, and after four days, I felt like I was losing my mind, as I often do here, so I flushed the rest down the toilet. Very bad Jones! His lifetime supply took only three years to kill him, at the age of 36. So let the blogger beware!

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 3, 2010 @ 7:37 pm

  83. Lauren, what does it take to ban Adam from your blog? A petition drive by the rest of us? The comments are rapidly deteriorating due to his obnoxious rants and the fact that he has nowhere else to go (having been banned from every other site out there, quite an achievement).

    Comment by Francis M — November 3, 2010 @ 9:08 pm

  84. 75, John P., about Dennis and his writing.

    I know Dennis because I sought him out after reading his Sun columns, often entertaining or clever stuff about bar etiquette, being a child in need of glasses gazing at Christmas lights, and others with references to being a local mover shaker (the Chamber etc.). I read one piece which seemed to be pointed at rattling the cage of the old boy network, which prompted me to meet the guy. This was maybe late nineties or early part of 21st century, I can’t recall accurately.

    Anyway, I had been writing letters and op eds through the Journal since moving here in the really 1990s. I was one of three founders of a second Green Party Chapter here, but despite that in some ways I’d never gotten to know much about the inside tract of local politics, and felt an outsider. I emailed the paper to get Dennis’s contact info and it was off to the races.

    Back ground on MY history in this town: I had been coming to Alameda since 1969 when I first visited the flea market with my older brother who was selling junk to make rent on his flat on Potrero Hill. I was 14 and bought my first LSD from a biker at the flea, which I smuggled home to Pennsylvania, but that’s another long and twisted tale. Anyway, as to a sense of Alameda history, at age 17 I hitch-hiked back to the Bay Area to live and continued to visit Alameda, shopping at the flea, working cleaning the hulls of boats at Sven’s, shopping at Japan Woodworker when it was in a store front in central Alameda. In 1979 I moved into an industrial building at 5th Ave Oakland across the estuary where I lived for ten years, in close proximity to Alameda where I came to food shop and do laundry, or ride my bike.

    The point here is that by the time I met Dennis I had spent a lot of years around Alameda and I had a few more living here and delving into local politics and putting two kids into the schools. I’ve now lived here for 20 years.

    After we had been acquainted a bit Dennis inviting me to join a local writers group, which I eventually quit because I’m just an opinionator and anecdote teller not a “writer”. That’s another long story too, but when the “Save Measure A” movement got started Dennis expressed a renewed interest in politics. And here is where our friendship began to tilt.

    As many readers know, Dennis took to writing about development and I found we had diverging views on many things, including the local players. Then as now, I found Dennis to be prone to taking a rhetorical position without necessarily vetting all the particulars. At that time I had gotten to know a relative new comer, John Knox White, through the on line list-serve for Alameda Transit Advocates for discussing transportation issues. Not only were John’s comments all very articulate, I realized that in little over a year as a resident he was up to speed on all the local players, politicians, etc., information it had taken me years to piece together.

    I introduced Dennis to JKW electronically and urged him to think about doing the harder work of studying the issues in depth the way I felt my impressive new pal did and at some later time I also pointed out that there was a new blog hosted by this woman Lauren who also kicked ass when it came to doing the hard work of fact checking, compiling accurate information on various subjects and also critiquing the local scene.

    Dennis was dismissive about my suggesting his opinions or methods were suspect in any way. The down hill slide in our friendship progressed, but when he took to pontificating about AUSD, about which I know many intimate details through my spouse who is employed there, it really began to “set me off”, as Dennis says. My complaints and protestations were never ever met with any sympathy, but worse never even a small bit of curiosity about what my spouses real experiences were. Always more authoritative and dismissive rancor about his experiences teaching in the 70s.

    I’ve wasted more than one late night hour being “set off another notch or five”, hurling venom at Dennis for what I can only term is his willful ignorance on various subjects, specifically the function of AUSD, as evidenced again by his exchange with dave on the AUSD budget two days ago on this blog.

    And that about brings us to the present. Now Dennis can take his turn to tell it any way he wants, which I’m sure he will. Because after all, not even being stalked by the Grim Reaper could stop him.

    The table is set Dennis, you’re on…..

    A foot note: It wasn’t until I move here that I learned my mother’s first cousin was born and raised here. His family moved here after the quake and his dad built two houses, one on Haight and one on Regent. Born in 1912, he died last spring. He was gay which must have been damn “interesting” in that era.

    Comment by M.I. — November 3, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

  85. Back to “a new day”– it is wrong to think that because Marie did not get a majority of the votes that 2/3 were “against” her. One of the difficulties I faced in this election is that there were more good people running for mayor and council than I had votes. Marie definitely was my close second choice for mayor, and I could have easily voted for at least 4 of the council candidates when we were only able to select 2. It will be interesting to see the results of the RCV in Oakland and how the Oaklanders feel about the election results after it is over.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 3, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

  86. re: 84

    Thanks for your support anonymos Do-bot # 6493462630. So far I’ve only been censored by Susan Davis and her cowardly cadre at the SF Gate. But that’s really because of Hearst’s long-standing affection for and endorsement of censorship in the press.

    If you think I am responsible for anything on this blog, that makes me happy! To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, this blog needs an enema.

    *waves hi to Lauren and all her pals at SunCal*

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 3, 2010 @ 9:52 pm

  87. What a melée, lol. A new day, just like any other.

    Comment by Ani Dimusheva — November 3, 2010 @ 11:47 pm

  88. 86, 88:

    I agree with both Kevis and Ani.

    I, too, had too many friends running for too few seats this time around, and Denise’s analysis was incorrect about automatic votes against (see comments 2, 3, 4, 8, etc.).

    And most of today’s comments have been more of the same old….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 4, 2010 @ 1:14 am

  89. 85
    Thanks for the history, Mark. I understand perfectly where you’re coming from.

    I don’t agree with Dennis politically on 95% of his stated positions (or unstated but inferred). However, I doubt that you and he disagree politically on too much other than on how you approach and discuss issues (AUSD excepted since you have personal interests there).

    I do enjoy reading Green (sometimes even on this blog) when he entertains, not when he dismisses.

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 4, 2010 @ 9:10 am

  90. 90. Jack. I am extremely relieved you qualify your comment with “dismisses” because it measure huge in the equation.

    I think I make too much of my personal stake in AUSD. My proximity makes it emotional for me which is a liability because I can get drawn into verbal crimes of passion. But the bottom line is feeling that I have my ear very close to the rail and get a lot of good insight, so it’s hard to take a lot loose talk from abusive know nothings.

    Comment by M.I. — November 4, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

  91. Some of the posts here are interesting, however, Adam and Dennis and a few women hijack this thread with narcisistic prattle. This blog should be a healthy exchange of information and ideas, not a constant barage of slander. Anyone who watches Marie Gilmore at the city council meetings asking probing questions about issues before her cannot help but see a careful and exacting legislator. No bluster or bloviating, just careful examination of the facts. That is why I admire her.

    Comment by anne frey — November 5, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

  92. What this blog is is a constant barrage of what people want to say. To wish it replicate an elected official’s, “probing question” and “careful examination of the facts”, is to wish it into extinction.

    You can participate in any number of political correct blogs in this city. This one may aim towards that end, but the reality that LD’s allowing unfettered, uncensored speech makes this particular blog one that is a true reflection of what people want to say. Why would you change that?

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 5, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

  93. Need some clarification. If Ms. Gilmore had 2 more years on her City Council term, which newly elected Council person gets the 2 year term?
    Didn’t everyone just get elected for 4 years?
    Appreciate someone helping me understand the election process.

    Comment by A Devereaux — November 6, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

  94. #94: The third place finisher gets it.

    Comment by dlm — November 6, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

  95. Well that settles it. So much of what the people have to say here is such nonsense and often mean and self serving. It certainly is a good look into the people of alameda on the other hand.

    Comment by anne frey — November 6, 2010 @ 9:14 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.