Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 6, 2014

Underserve and protect

Filed under: Alameda, Public Resources — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

I’m pretty sure that I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m really okay with the idea of corporate branding in exchange for a corporation donating a lot of money to either the City or School District to help renovate aging facilities that typically the City and School District struggle to maintain.  In general I really don’t have a problem with it.  So when I saw the agenda item:

Adoption of Resolution to Authorize the Under Armour Logo and Stephen Curry Signature on the Leydecker Park Outdoor Basketball Court. (Recreation and Parks 5120)

I was largely cool with it.  If it gets a park new pavement and stuff, awesome.

Then I opened up the staff report and read this:

The Under Amour Give Back program, in partnership with Golden State Warriors player Stephen Curry, offered a collaboration with the City of Alameda to refurbish the public outdoor basketball court at Leydecker Park on Bay Farm Island. Under Armour is a US based, sports clothing manufacturer that has created a corporate giving program to provide kids in underserved communities access to sports. The proposal includes $100,000 to complete the work and host a community celebration in late June when the court will reopen.

The project provides much needed renovation for this lighted basketball court that is heavily used by the community.

I mean, I was floored by this part:

Under Armour is a US based, sports clothing manufacturer that has created a corporate giving program to provide kids in underserved communities access to sports.

I guess if you compare Bay Farm to like, oh I don’t know, Piedmont or something it could be considered “underserved” but compared to other parts of Alameda coughwestendcough it is so far from underserved that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  I mean, yay for Stephen Curry and Under Armour for giving back to the community and given the number of Golden State Warriors players that gravitate toward living in Bay Farm Island (easy commute to Oracle Arena) I understand wanting to serve the community they live in.  But whoever wrote that staff report with a straight face needs to have their “underserved” meter checked.

In other, what the hell agenda items, staff has recommended the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations and there are some real shockers on there.   For some reason Staff requested the the Alameda Food Bank drop their request significantly from $31K last year (serving 2200 people) to only $5K this year.   All other programs were nipped and tucked here and there but that is the most egregious cut.   I’ll also add the the SSHRB is not too happy with how the City Staff ranked and eventually allocated dollars for different programs.  Even though the SSHRB asked that the City prioritize safety net services, the Cit instead did the opposite and prioritized housing counseling and other referral services as opposed to direct services.



  1. Well, you know the perils of autocorrect. You type in “undeserved” and the damned thing adds an R.

    Comment by Jack Mingo — May 6, 2014 @ 6:30 am

  2. vast majority of users are not from bay farm if not from Alameda at all , you would only know it if you actually go there , so in essence they fit the definition perfectly’
    This aside it is one way to get back taxes fund owed to the community.

    Comment by Joel Rambaud — May 6, 2014 @ 7:34 am

  3. You would be hard-pressed to find a 401 (c) (3) aimed at kids that does not include “underserved” in its mission statement. This is because you would be hard-pressed to find a grant giving organization that does not target its grants to the “underserved”. The only kids who get served are the underserved, which begs the question, “How can the underserved really be underserved when every kids directed non-profit is falling all over itself to serve them?”

    Comment by Denise Shelton — May 6, 2014 @ 8:53 am

  4. There is an exception to my above statement. Kids “at risk” are also a popular target of grant-funded programs. A child who is “at risk” and “underserved” is especially desirable.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — May 6, 2014 @ 8:56 am

  5. Well, we know that really poor kids nor their parents aren’t likely to ever buy Under Armour (sic) clothes. So, to get the most of their “charity” funding, aiming at the middle class (which is struggling but still has the motivation and income to stay fit) makes the most sense.

    Comment by Jack Mingo — May 6, 2014 @ 11:30 am

  6. And thank goodness for those organizations who fall all over themselves to serve the underserved children of our society. I’ve seen the results of some of their work, and it’s incredible.

    Comment by Karen Bey — May 6, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at