So I’d been saving this until after the election was over because I didn’t want to detract from the election. So at the Planning Board meeting last week, former City Council member Doug deHaan (who I am guessing is now seriously contemplating a run in 2016) decided to comment on the Del Monte project issue. Remember this is someone who used to sit on the City Council and would have had plenty of training on conflict of interest and Brown Act laws etc.
He decided to chuck in this tidbit at the end of his public comment period. Oh, by the way, did you know if you are a former City Council person you don’t have to pay attention to the time limit for public comment. Yeah, you just get to keep going on and on and on. True story.
So here’s the straight knowledge that he laid down before the Planning Board:
You have one of your members that is a very strong advocate that works every day for transportation. I would hope that that individual recuses himself from the vote this evening and furthermore, if you have had, any one of you, more than three of you had conversations directly with the developer on this project I think you’re going to bring yourself into a Brown Act situation.
To which you may be saying, huh? Since when do you have to recuse yourself from a voting issue because you are a subject matter expert? I mean, no one tells Lorre Zuppan to recuse herself on voting on a conditional use permit for a business because she owns a business and therefore has subject matter expertise. No one tells Kristoffer Koster or David Burton to recuse themselves on design reviews because they are architects by profession and therefore have subject matter expertise on the topic. It’s a really weird suggestion by someone who should know better.
Plus, Brown Act violation for three people meeting individually with the developer? Nope. Nope. Nope. And if he actually believes that, it just makes me wonder if Doug deHaan has ever understood the Brown Act.
So the City Attorney, after public comment and before Board comment decides that she needs to clarify the misinformation.
Farimah Faiz: There was a suggestion that there was a Brown Act violation, there is absolutely no Brown Act violation. There was no meeting of a quorum of the Planning Board that would constitute a Brown Act violation.
David Burton: All of us can meet with the developer individually…
Farimah Faiz: Yeah
David Burton: It’s just if we get three or more of us together…
Farimah Faiz: Correct. As long as you don’t discuss what was said amongst yourselves via email or you don’t communications in a serial fashion which each other there’s no Brown Act violation.
So that covers the whole “not a serial meeting” thing. Then she adds:
There was also a suggestion that one of the Planning Board members who has expertise in transportation issues has to recuse himself somehow. That is not legally required or relevant just because he has expertise in an area doesn’t mean — the only time that there is a conflict of interest is if there is a financial conflict of interest and that is not present at this juncture.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
I doubt DeHaan just made this rule up. Didn’t Oddie, Gilmore and Chen claim that they (on the device of counsel) couldn’t comment in their campaigns on any issues that might be pending before the Board either currently or in the future? Someone employed by the City is giving out some very poor legal advice or else some politicians are using a convenient excuse to avoid controversy.
Comment by Breathless — November 6, 2014 @ 6:21 am
#1, no, that’s not what anyone ever claimed. What they did say was that on issues where the city council sits in a quasi-judicial manner, like rezoning applications (aka Harbor Bay Club) they cannot take a position before the hearing. California law requires a fair hearing for these matters, and if a person has taken a position (for instance, no housing on the HBC site), it puts the city in a legal bind because the applicant can claim that it was not possible to have a fair hearing with said decision-maker.
No one ever said that they can’t talk about policy, or ideas, or direction. They were asked a specific question about a real and specific issue (housing on HBC site) and two gave definitive answers, three said that they couldn’t comment because it would create problems in the future if the issue were to come forward.
If these election results hold, and HBIA bring their rezoning request to the council. Council members Ezzy-Ashcraft, Oddie and Daysog will be the three deciding votes, as Matarrese owns property nearby (and therefore can have a strong opinion because he won’t be allowed to vote due to an actual conflict of interest) and Spencer has already adamantly determined her position on the issue.
Comment by jkw — November 6, 2014 @ 6:42 am
About DeHaan, he’s a bit confused. Happens when one gets older.
Breathless, do your homework. Seek: Open & public … : a user’s guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act, by Ted Fourkas, at your Alameda Free Library branch. If it hasn’t been stolen again, it will tell you what you need to know.
Comment by Li_ — November 6, 2014 @ 6:42 am
Has anyone ever been convicted of a Brown Act violation? Ever?
Comment by dave — November 6, 2014 @ 6:46 am
An individual cannot violate the brown act, it takes a group.
Yes people have been found to have violate it.
Comment by jkw — November 6, 2014 @ 7:19 am
As much as I don’t like Trish, DeHann would be as bad or worse.
#2 comment is based on the reality of the situation, in that there would be 3 people determining the fate of the project.
Comment by Jake — November 6, 2014 @ 7:25 am
post#1, you still leave me,,, breathless.
Comment by John P. as in John Piziali as always. — November 6, 2014 @ 7:34 am
jwk why did the planning board allow Mike Henneberry to Vote on Target?
Comment by frank m — November 6, 2014 @ 7:39 am
Cuz they were scared he’d deck them?
Comment by dave — November 6, 2014 @ 7:42 am
Brown Act violations are fine if you can prove them or make them stick which is pretty hard to do unless people are very sloppy. Either knowingly or deliberately, I suspect these violations are not as rare as some would like to believe. It’s human nature to want to compare notes with others charged with making the same decisions. The Brown Act flies in the face of the very nature of politics. It’s only useful as a gotcha tool to be used to skewer a political rival. But that’s just my opinion and I’m kind of a cynic. I expect someone else will don their girl scout or cub scout uniform and pipe up to tell me why I’m wrong ;).
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 6, 2014 @ 7:53 am
Frank m. do you know of any reason why he would not be able to vote on that issue?, not just your opinion.
Dave, good one.
Comment by John P. — November 6, 2014 @ 8:30 am
#2 Trish is referenced as having expressed adamant opinion on a project. This is first example of how she is not equipped to be mayor. The other two candidates understood the law but she blundered along. Can her supporters ( who mostly don’t have first hand exposure to her on BOE) wrap their heads around the issue here?
when Doug was on base reuse committees and there was a council race approaching I asked him if he was thinking of running because he seemed pretty knowledgeable. I said I might support him. He had been and he did run and was elected. I’ve told the story of the Green Party endorsement process on this blog a half dozen time, about how Doug first alienated me with reference to having been advised by his election handlers to think about “his base”, i.e. not worry about marginal group who aren’t his people? I continued to ask him for explanations of issues for a couple years but always came away more confused than before I asked and finally gave up. I never had any patience waiting for him to struggle to spit out a coherent idea from the dais and this notion that JKW has a conflict of interests because he is actually en expert in current strategies for mitigating takes the cake. I debate these so called cutting edge strategies with John regularly and must admit I get frustrated because he is smarter than I am or at minimum much better informed with better understanding of the details.
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 8:48 am
Speaking of Brown Act, FYI:
Editorial: Speaking up for the Brown Act
Marin Independent Journal
POSTED: 11/05/2014 10:50:26 AM PST
Comment by Li_ — November 6, 2014 @ 8:50 am
Harbor Bay Neighbors never asked the candidates about HBIA’s application. We only asked for their thoughts on the 30 year Master Plan. We were very, very clear on that.
Comment by Tim Coffey — November 6, 2014 @ 8:52 am
11. As a union agent I’ve never quite figured what expertise Hennenberry is supposed to bring to Planning Board, compared to an architect for example. His day job puts him in a position to have bias with regard to things like the number of square feet of grocery retail at Target which was minimized. I don’t know if that is a conflict of interest. The City Attorney never asked him to recuse.
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 8:52 am
15
His salary is paid by the members of the union that the agreement benefits. That cries out for recusal.
Comment by Ambrose Bierce — November 6, 2014 @ 8:57 am
Conflict of interest only requires recusal if you somehow would financially benefit from the voting on whatever the matter is before you. I guess one could make a six degrees of separation argument that if the floor square footage for grocery items was reduced for Target then Safeway and Lucky’s (union shops) would make more money and be able to hire more employees which would then pay more dues so that Henneberry could get a raise, but that’s sort of straining credibility.
For appearances sake, I think Henneberry should have taken himself out of that vote, but legally, I think he was okay.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 6, 2014 @ 9:15 am
#12 — But Trish is a lawyer? And have you heard that her daughter goes to Harvard? So she MUST know what she’s doing! 😉
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 6, 2014 @ 9:16 am
Hilarious that you all pretend you don’t know what DeHaan was talking about. Are you that stupid, or do you just think the rest of us are? For most of the past decade, John Knox White has been the face of “force people out of their cars any way we can” for TransForm, a non-profit whose business is LOBBYING: influencing how federal and state funds are doled out and spent on Transportation Demand Management.
Since White has moved on from TransForm, and he knows that what he lobbies for is exactly why Alamedans are opposed to the DelMonte parking plan, he has been desperately trying to remove the links to his name on the TransForm website. below is what is left, although most of the links are now “Page Not Found”
“TransForm is also working on influencing how federal funds will be spent at the state level and keeping an eye on the Obama Administration’s proposed $1 billion-a-year high-speed rail state grant program (in addition to the $8 billion provided for high-speed rail in the Economic Recovery Act). We need this funding to quickly get California high-speed rail on track – and create jobs!”
Search results for John Knox White [from the TransForm website}:
March 4, 2009
… For more on what’s happening with the Connector, contact John Knox White . TransForm is also working on influencing how federal funds …
John Knox White Yes, I will support John Knox White with…
September 1, 2010
… Oakland Airport Connector campaign TransForm’s John Knox White will share the insider’s perspective on the our long battle for …
9/17/2010: TransForm Comments on I-680/Sunol Express Lane Opening
PRESS RELEASE Contact John Knox White Background The Bay Area’s very first Express Lane, on …
11/02/2011: Statement of solidarity from the employees of TransForm
… Brownstein Jeff Hobson Jessica Lewis Joel Ramos John Knox White Manolo González-Estay Marta Lindsey Nora Cody Rachel …
20 years later, opponents still battling the Oakland Airport Connector
… in the current design specifications. TransForm’s John Knox White says, for instance, that the OAC was supposed to have a top speed of …
To put it crudely, since he came to Alameda from Colorado, JKW makes his living getting paid to argue in favor of Transit Oriented Development, more multifamily housing, transit hubs at Alameda Point….
And getting rid of Measure A.
JKW’s conflict of interest is arguably greater than any other puny ones that are limited to individuals. He first lobbied Mayor Beverly Johnson unsuccessfully to get on the Planning Board; he was successful lobbying Marie Gilmore. Before he got on the Planning Board officially, he could often be seen & heard in the hall outside Council Chambers lobbying Andrew Thomas {when he was planning director]. Frankly, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone who tried so hard and so unctuously to get on the Planning Board.
Gosh, I found all this, and I’m not even a “City Hall Insider”! Imagine what the real insiders know! Maybe all of you are OK with John Knox White being a professional lobbyist, sitting on a city board that makes crucial decisions about more development in the City of Alameda. At least now you know what DeHaan meant. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t..
John Knox White = Professional Lobbyist for Transit Oriented Development [ie more multifamily dwellings crammed into Alameda with no parking spaces for occupants]
This is the reason I have been lobbying Alameda City Hall, for a long time without success, to put biographies of the persons sitting on the various boards & commissions ON THE CITY WEBSITE, as is done in other cites. so Alamedans will be more informed about their representatives in government.
Comment by vigi — November 6, 2014 @ 9:42 am
The legal analysis from the City Attorney assigned to the Planning Board:
Comment by Lauren Do — November 6, 2014 @ 9:52 am
City Attorneys don’t know everything, and they aren’t always right. If they were, Alameda would never lose any lawsuits, and would never cower in fear before them.
Comment by vigi — November 6, 2014 @ 10:02 am
Between Doug deHaan and Farimah Faiz, I’m going to go with Farimah Faiz on this one.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 6, 2014 @ 10:05 am
BTW, Lauren & I definitely have a different opinion on what is meant by the word “expertise”. To me, if someone is trained [like with a degree or work experience or a professional license] in a field: like architecture, or engineering, or urban planning; or has a real estate license or contractor’ license, that’s “expertise”. Otherwise, expertise is just a Weasel Word.
John Knox White, as nice and as wonderful a person as he is, has a psychology degree from the University of Colorado. Which actually suits his professional lobbyist job, because the job of a lobbyist is to influence & manipulate public opinion in favor of your employer.
I like JKW. But JKW has “expertise” in transportation issues the way a pharmaceutical rep has “expertise” in medicine. And that is why drug reps are not allowed to write prescriptions.
Comment by vigi — November 6, 2014 @ 10:15 am
Lauren ,
I understand Dehaan is not a friend of your pet project , nor are any of the neighbors either , they will have to be the one leaving with the nightmare , no more parking for them plain and simple.
I understand we need more affordable housing , how about cutting down taxes instead of raising them , How about lowering building permit cost instead of aligning them with San Francisco ? check your tax bill …..
Dehaan for one reason or another was the first one who questioned Suncal , He is still the only one who raised question on the Alameda Power and Telecom as millions evaporated into thin air without the knowledge of the City Council; as they did not have to disclose their spending …..This due to elimination of Executive privilege following one of the Mayor some 60 or 70 years ago who thought the City’s fund were His bank account . Worth looking into it , a sad and funny time in Alameda’s History
I met Dehaan several times even shared meal with Him He has some interesting point , would I see Him as a leader , No !
Save your energy for a better time , you will be more effective .
The brown act is a farce , no one has ever been prosecuted under it . I seriously doubt any politician would still be standing if it has been used.
Comment by joel Rambaud — November 6, 2014 @ 10:16 am
So then vigi, you agree with the City Attorney that he has no financial conflict of interest and so should not need to recuse himself. Glad we agree on that.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 6, 2014 @ 10:25 am
# 19
Very good point , you made the perfect definition of a con Artist.
I know a group of peoples which are trying to buy a house next to his and turn it into an1/2 way house , Nothing He will be able to say , it will definitely be an interesting time , Not in my neighborhood ……..
Comment by joel Rambaud — November 6, 2014 @ 10:31 am
He works for a transit outfit which places him in a position of insight not available to others but he probably too wouldn’t call himself an expert.
Comment by curious — November 6, 2014 @ 10:36 am
As an aside: a few of excerpts to the articles vigi posted are JKW and Transform speaking out against a transit project (BART’s Oakland Airport Connector) and the other random one is about toll lanes. So, I’m not clear how that is anything that supports whatever point is trying to be made. Besides while at Transform JKW was the program manager for a specific program that helped individuals get from point A to point B using whatever transportation options they wanted, it did not tell people what form of transportation they should use.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 6, 2014 @ 11:04 am
This is what the Local put out while the matter went before the CC
https://www.facebook.com/events/250965358310002/
Comment by frank m — November 6, 2014 @ 12:20 pm
Why stop with banning anyone with “book learning”? Doug should also call for burning books altogether, and outlaw dancing while he is at it.
Comment by notadave — November 6, 2014 @ 1:24 pm
Hi Frank, I wasn’t on the Planning Board at the time, so I don’t have any personal knowledge of the decision about Henneberry’s. If I was, it still wouldn’t matter, the Board doesn’t make the determination whether someone has a conflict, and has no say in whether they vote. I believe that the City Attorney’s office was engaged on the issue and it was determined that there was no conflict. You’d have to ask that office to get an answer on it.
Comment by jkw — November 6, 2014 @ 1:44 pm
#31, This issue about jkw, and Mike Henneberry is pure bullshit and the people making it know that, otherwise they would be filing complaints with the FPPC. The city attorney generally councils board members on this type of issue before the meetings take place if there is any concern. I have experienced it personally.
Comment by John P. — November 6, 2014 @ 2:26 pm
While I agree with you about JKW, Henneberry’s vote is a conflict and should never been allowed. A vote for the entity that employs him is feathering his own nest.
I’ll add that the city’s policing of conflicts is really lacking across the board and is perhaps the most needed reform at City Hall.
Comment by dave — November 6, 2014 @ 3:25 pm
Wow, I am quite impressed at how quickly this forum has become tolerant of people posting anonymously! Seems like only yesterday that there was so much uproar over my using an alias, and now we have:
Breathless
jkw
Li_
dave
jkw
Jake
Ambrose Bierce
Oh the Irony!
vigi
curious
notadave
All happily playing in the sandbox with no attacks on their choice of handle. Heck, John P., who was practically The Sword of Righteousness on this issue, even gave “dave” a “Good one.”
Group hugs!
Comment by Wedgee — November 6, 2014 @ 3:34 pm
Brown Act violations and conflict of interest allegations flying furiously? What is this, Oakland? Where’s Sanjiv when you need him?
Comment by anonymoustroll — November 6, 2014 @ 4:27 pm
Hey John P I asked a simple question about an event that happened two years ago. I wasn’t even thinking of it until JKW posted how others would have to recluse themselves in the HBIA vote. Geez you been dumping on people for the past two days. I couldn’t care less about Target. I’ve only been there once and walked there from Park St. with my wife the day of the Webster St fair. You should calm down
Comment by frank m — November 6, 2014 @ 4:40 pm
Wedgee what’s wrong had bad food at the food truck?
Give and take everyone know who is posting , if we were at suncal time you would fit perfectly in their mold .
The internet is wide , Lauren Do ,accept all post , do not put the post in moderation like many other do in the City , it take more than guts , something you seem to lack , an open mind.
Talking about playing in the sand box something I haven’t done in well over 60 years , because some were using the content of their wedgee to make their sand castle stronger , here on the average we speak our mind play fair , something which bother all the internet’s throll .
Comment by Joel Rambaud — November 6, 2014 @ 4:40 pm
#34 I am not anonymous…Mike McMahon, Kevis and a few others have been to my house for a get together years ago. I use to go by Joe, then Joel, then Joseph…but the first too were used by someone else who didn’t have the same opinions, so I went by Joseph which I hate that name so I changed it to Jake which is a nick name. I have met Jon Spangler but he didn’t give me the time of day, and I have met Jack, I know Lauren & her husband, Dave S., Karen and a few other. Maybe I should have another get together at my house.
Comment by Jake — November 6, 2014 @ 4:44 pm
“Yet even since those amendments were passed, there has not been one conviction despite numerous examples of potential violations”
http://www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/california-transparency-and-open-government-movement-finds-its-roots-in-bro
So it looks like people have been found to ‘VIOLATE’ but no one has been ‘CONVICTED’
Comment by frank m — November 6, 2014 @ 5:04 pm
34. semi anonymous amybe. People know who JKW, dave, , MI and others are . I for one simply post under initials to keep my comments from popping up under a Google search of my name. I posted full name at one time and a lot of people refer to me by first name, Mark, last name is Irons.
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 5:42 pm
19 Vigi, BC was right, you are a pedantic know it all. Nobody is pretending we don’t know what Doug was talking about we are just saying that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 5:43 pm
Hold the presses. The Mayor race tighten considerably after the first release of vote by mail ballots (VBMs) processed by the Registrar of Voters. Spencer lead of 287 has shrunk to 174 when about 1000 Alameda ballots were counted. Gilmore got 552 votes to Spencer receiving 439. With a win rate of 55% for this release, the Gilmore campaign has room for optimism.
Best estimates of remaining Alameda VBMs is between 5,000 to 6,000 votes. So if Gilmore can win those ballots at a rate of 52% she would pull ahead by 20 to 60 votes. She need continue to win at a rate of 55% if there under 3500 votes left.
For those of you who will question what is going. Here is an explanation. In recent elections, there have been three distinct counts of votes. The initial numbers posted by the ROV around 8:15 on Election night. Those numbers represent the VBMs received, validated and processed by ROV on election day. Typically these VBMs are received the Friday before the Election. Then the second set of numbers are the ballots counted from people who vote at polls Election Day. The third final set of numbers are all of the VBMs received by ROV that have been turned at polls on Election Day. Since they have to signature verification before processing, the ROV takes about a 7 to 10 days to finalize the counting of these ballots.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 6, 2014 @ 5:49 pm
ka-ching. I turned in my absentee ballot election day, one more for Gilmore.
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 5:55 pm
Here is an example from the 2010 election. My column headings are old. I called them absentee but in reality they become vote by mail. Since 2002 the number of vote by mail ballots has increased from the 25% range to over 65%.
Anyway these results show the three columns mentioned in post 42. http://www.mikemcmahon.info/election10.htm#results
For the last two races they have split about 33% for pre election VBMs, 33% for ballot box votes and 33% for post election VBMs.
In the Mayor race this year, 6,353 votes were counted from pre election day VBMs and 6912 voted at the polls on Election day. So it is good assumption that there about 5000 or so Alameda VBMs left to count since today’s release of ROV numbers was about 1000 Alameda ballots.
I am not even going to get into provisional ballots which take a lot more time to count.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 6, 2014 @ 5:57 pm
Ah, I see. If you’re part of a circle of regulars that knows your nickname, then it’s okay to use a nickname?
So I have to know the right people in order to be taken seriously?
No wonder you all liked Gilmore so much….
Comment by Wedgee — November 6, 2014 @ 6:01 pm
45. is Wedgee your nick name because you are from Wedge neighborhood or because your underwear are, wedged in your butt crack rendering you cranky? The circle of regulars who use nick names like vigi but who are known to most folks who care to pay attention, include all comers so it’s not an exclusive club or anything, but we are a lot less anonymous than people like yourself.
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 6:21 pm
Most Brown Act violations that have been lodged against governmental bodies usually involves conduct during a closed session. Most of the time the governmental body is discussing a topic not allowed in closed session or taking an inappropriate action in Closed Session that needs to be done in Open Session. Since the Planning Board typically does not have Closed Session it would take material proof of an email chain or such before a Brown Act violation could be filed. Those Brown Act violations are filed with the District Attorney. If the violation is upheld it would invalidate the vote. In rare cases, violators of Closed Session improper discussion have been required to audio tape their closed sessions. http://www.mikemcmahon.info/brownact.htm
For a vote by body that is considered a conflict of interest, someone would have to file a complaint with Fair Political Practices Commission.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 6, 2014 @ 6:56 pm
46…..so not cool….you all know each other but you all are not an inclusive club…..so come back down to earth…..
Comment by J.E.A. — November 6, 2014 @ 7:07 pm
Back to the Election. I will be posting the ROV updates to my Election page which has the breakdown on pre-election VBMs, ballot box votes, and post election VBMs.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/election14.htm#results
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 6, 2014 @ 9:20 pm
46….. MI,,I think your on to something, wedgee needs to get them drawers out of his or her butt crack. 48, I guess we are not inclusive, we are exclusive. most of us have been calling each other names for many years, so at this point to be snarky to each other is just normal. so sorry if you can’t handle that.
Comment by John P. — November 6, 2014 @ 9:25 pm
50….snarky …..that is a perfect word for what you are…I hope I never grow up to be like you….
Comment by J.E.A. — November 6, 2014 @ 9:52 pm
J.E.A. not cool? I’m fed up with Wedgee being snotty about this anonymity thing, That’s not cool. as if there is anything anybody can do but admit who they are or not. I’m accountable. There is no club. It’s cyber space. You can hang out or not. what’s your beef? it can’t be about the anonymity thing. There are no rules. Since it ain’t a club, how to be inclusive or exclusive? There are people who agree with each other and people who disagree with each other. If there is not parody who is to blame for that? It’s hardly like SFGATE comments around here. what do you want?
Comment by MI — November 6, 2014 @ 11:45 pm
@MikeMcMahonAUSD Thanks for the info about vote sources. What I don’t understand is how 2/3 of the votes can come outside of ballot votes. Can you explain the dynamics that allow that to happen. It is very counter-intuitive.
Comment by jspence — November 7, 2014 @ 12:45 am
#52….I went back and looked at Wedgee comments and unless I missed something he/she just disagreed with the Pro Development Group….Hardly a sin and the next thing that happened people started attacking him/her because you don’t know their name……Why would anyone that wants to do business in this town put their name on a blog….and I guess I think of you as a bit nicer than that….I guess I was wrong..
Comment by J.E.A. — November 7, 2014 @ 4:12 am
So let me explain how the ballot box no longer matters in today’s election. Back in the old days (let’s say 2002) the election cycle was every two years and voters (mainly seniors) could request an absentee ballot so they could vote without having to go to the polls. But starting in 2003, California has series of special elections (Governor recall was the start) in each year so that voters were asked to go the polls every year. Voters began to ask for absentee ballots who were not the typical vote by mail voter. In addition, County registrar of voters were unable to keep up with the cost of all of the elections and began to encourage absentee voting. They rebranded the process and called it vote by mail.
By 2008, the number of Alameda absentee voters had risen from 25% to 50%. In the 2014 election the percentage of vote by mail has risen to 67%.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 7, 2014 @ 7:14 am
Here is chart of voting profile of registered voters in Alameda: http://www.mikemcmahon.info/AlamedaVotingPatterns.pdf
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 7, 2014 @ 7:15 am
54. I’ve done business in this town for over thirty years, and my customers have known exactly who I am. It has never occurred to me to think that I need to give up my free speech rights to do business here. People didn’t hire me because of what I said or didn’t say on this blog. I doubt you will ever grow up to be like me.
Comment by John P. — November 7, 2014 @ 7:31 am
John, is it fair to say that a google search on your name that found a bunch of blog posts has never been a factor in whether or not you got a job?
For people in other positions, it can be.
Comment by dave — November 7, 2014 @ 7:36 am
Now onto the real interesting aspect of the vote by mail process. With three distinct blocks of votes, one can usually discern the direction of the election by following the precincts results on the night of the election. Since the first block of voters turned in their vote by mail ballots before the campaigns are finished, the “early deciders” may not a indicator of who is going to win. Usually the precinct results from the ballot box give an indication if a candidate has done a better job of making their case to be elected.
For example: In the 2008 BOE race, Janet Gibson won the pre-election VBMS but Ron Mooney ballot box votes were strong for him to win the election. In the 2010 City Council race, Lena Tam and Beverly Johnson were within 4 votes in the pre-election VBMs. Beverly Johnson won at the ballot box by 180 votes to take the lead. However Lena Tam won the post election VBMs by 250 votes. It did not matter since Marie Gilmore was elected Mayor and Beverly Johnson took Marie’s remaining two years.
So the real question is what pattern will the 2014 Mayor race have. The second release of post-election number from the ROV will tell. In the 2012 election, the first release of Alameda post-election VBMs had about 1000 votes and so did the 2014 election. In the 2012 election approximately Alameda 3000 votes were tallied in the second release the following day. So if approximately 3000 Alameda post-election votes are released today here what to look for.
Current gap between Spencer and Gilmore is 174. Any increase in Spencer’s lead would indicate that yesterday’s results were not representative and she should win (80% chance). If Spencer’s lead falls to around 50, then this race will be a virtual dead heat and it will take over 10 days to determine the winner. If Spencer leads disappears and Gilmore has lead of anything over a 100 votes then the odds of Gilmore winning are about 80%.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 7, 2014 @ 7:42 am
#57….Please note that 30 years ago they did not have Blogs….and I am not actually worried about myself but my spouse….and I’m thankful I will never grow up to be like you…and my final comment about Alameda…..I find being a Democrat in this town very difficult….I am a true Liberal but to me the Dems here seem more like Republicans…just my observation….
Comment by J.E.A. — November 7, 2014 @ 7:51 am
Dave, for me it never has been, however I and can understand why for you and others it can be a problem. Bye the way I remember us going through all of this argument many years ago. Even though I always go off on this point about being anonymous I’m going to work very hard on trying to argue points rather than argue names. It will be a real challenge.
Comment by John P. — November 7, 2014 @ 7:52 am
I do not expect any concession announcements from either of the Mayor’ camp.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26887572/long-vote-by-mail-tallies-change-art-and
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 7, 2014 @ 8:11 am
Those local media outlets that proclaimed a definitive result in the mayors race have egg on their face. It may well hold, but the history of vote counting is well known and any informed poll watcher who is informing the public should know that less than 300 votes difference in Alameda on election night is not a done deal. We have to start expecting more informed reporting, the amount of misinformation (often through omission of key facts) flowing through our media outlets is depressing and hurts our civic debates.
Comment by jkw — November 7, 2014 @ 10:44 am
Today’s Alameda Journal may end up being correct — or it may end up being the “Dewey defeats Truman” of Alameda politics.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 7, 2014 @ 10:54 am
Gilmore already has her attorney at the Alameda County ROV every day, hovering like a vulture over the vote-counting, looking for an opportunity to challenge the count should it not go her way. At least she has plenty of left-over campaign cash to pay him…
Comment by vigi — November 7, 2014 @ 10:54 am
I hear that Trish is there too. And she’s an attorney with allegedly crack litigation skills, so she can represent herself.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 7, 2014 @ 11:14 am
They should both be there checking, obviously. You can’t fault them for that. I predict many more conspiracy theories should Gilmore win than should Spencer. The Alameda Citizens Taskforce will be in dudgeon.
Comment by BC — November 7, 2014 @ 11:35 am
Word is that yesterday Trish was accompanied to the ROV by Gary Lym and Leland Traiman. Quite a crew. I guess David Howard couldn’t take the day off of work. I can hardly wait for the festivities if Gilmore passes Spencer in the vote count.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 7, 2014 @ 1:30 pm
34. I used to be a lot more interested in who these folks are years ago when I started reading this blog. I have a few well-connected friends in town who were able to decode the aliases for me (some of the folks they ID’d are no longer with us). The easiest is of course John Knox White (jkw). If you go back to the archives, a number of these folks have identified themselves in the past on this blog’s posts, most recently as you see Mark Irons (MI) and John Piziali (John P) have done. At the end of the day, I don’t care anymore. The biggest gripe I have is when people get vicious and personal and still hide behind the alias. That’s just not cricket. Rarely does the issue come up unless the anonymous poster habitually employs the ad hominem attack, although a few of our more delicate flowers can’t even tolerate a hint of snark from anyone who disagrees with them, so be forewarned.
If someone is a school board or City Council member who wants to let his or her hair down, I can certainly see why we’d want to know who they are and I can certainly see why they wouldn’t want us to know. Business owners also are sometimes reluctant to take a stand because there are those in the community who will launch a boycott against them.
When Measure H (a school bond measure at the height of the recession that based commercial property taxes on square footage) was on the ballot, Barbara Mooney (owner of Daisy’s on Park St. and wife of Ron Mooney former AUSD trustee) tried to hurt other business people who objected to it by launching a campaign urging parents to boycott those businesses. She went so far to imply that their owners were greedy and hate children. As it turned out,the California Supreme Court agreed with those who objected to Measure H and AUSD and the supporters of Measure H actually wasted a boatload of taxpayer dollars promoting and defending it only to have the courts order AUSD to pay the money back. Those business owners were in the right and yet, they were criticized for speaking out. No doubt there are still people who believe the lie that those business owners hate children and refuse to patronize those businesses, but probably nobody refuses to shop at Daisy’s in spite of the fact that one of the champions of Measure H, which was far more hurtful than beneficial to our kids, owns it. You also have these folks to thanks for the additional increase in school taxes property owners will now enjoy because their past screw up necessitated asking voters for money that would actually benefit kids for real this time.
There are long term consequences for having the courage of your convictions and some of us have more to lose than others and some are better able to afford to lose it than are others. All voices are welcome as far as I’m concerned. Just try not to use anonymity as a shield for lies. If anything I said above is inaccurate, I will be happy to apologize, because, hey, I have a reputation to consider.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 7, 2014 @ 1:49 pm
Denise: I don’t recall Barbara Mooney ever launching a boycott campaign, can you refresh our collective memories about that?
Comment by Lauren Do — November 7, 2014 @ 2:14 pm
Denise, Measure H was only partially invalidated. Even assuming that businesses have to be paid back (something that has yet to be determined), the residential portion was not invalidated. I don’t know what the cost of defending Measure H was, but I doubt it was greater than the amount that the district collected and will keep. So I think your conclusion that Measure H was more harmful than beneficial is way off base.
And if any business owner takes a public stand on an issue, they will have to live with the consequences. Just because something is legal does not mean it is morally right, and just because something is illegal does not mean that it is morally wrong. The businesses who sued to invalidate Measure H may have been (partially) right legally, but I still believe it was the wrong thing for them to do, and all these years later, I still won’t patronize their businesses. If anyone thinks that what Barbara did was wrong (and I don’t know if what you say about her is correct), they too can talk with their pocketbooks. Barbara’s support of the schools has made it far more likely that I will patronize her business.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 7, 2014 @ 2:17 pm
Denise, I still think you should use the alias, “its the water” or “ba da bing”
Comment by John P. — November 7, 2014 @ 2:17 pm
Denise,
Really? What are you talking about? The lady down the street started a group that was Measure H friendly but I had nothing to do with it. If there is one thing I try and keep my business out of is any politics, whether I believe in the cause or not. I really go shopping to escape all the negative in the universe and I certainly want my business to have that feeling.
In fact I went into the sweet little store on Webster that took all the abuse and told them how sorry I was that this became such a mess.
I have no idea what I have done in the past that no matter what I say on this blog, you don’t like it. I guess I always wondered what made me so offensive to you but now I just know that you are equally offensive to me and we can leave it at that.
So before you go dragging my name and business through the mud, cough up some evidence.
Comment by barbara M — November 7, 2014 @ 3:56 pm
54. Wedgee got into it with John P over anonymity, or vise versa, but the Wedgee kept coming back with snide quips about there being a double standard. I never attacked him/her for a position.
from Wedgee 45 “Ah, I see. If you’re part of a circle of regulars that knows your nickname, then it’s okay to use a nickname? So I have to know the right people in order to be taken seriously? ” That in response to my trying to explain that the list he/she complained of in #34 was in fact not all anonymous or people allied with Lauren, nor did it represent a double standard. To me, 45 was a pissy come back and warranted 55. Before that I was civil.
I don’t know why you were surprised by 55, referring to a junior high prank of yanking kids underwear in the school hallway ( a “wedgie”, get it?), because I’ve said worse before and probably will again. I’ve also written repeatedly, that if protecting or propagating business were my primary concern I wouldn’t comment at all. The commute is nice when working here, but it’s also nice to get the hell off this inbred island too. My referral base has been Berkeley, Albany and Oakland for years. Having moved here in 1991, if I had behaved myself and worked it, I’m certain I could have had all the work I want right here in Alameda, but being politically outspoken has always come first. There are contractors who have moved here more recently who are doing gang busters, but if you dig down a little you also hit an old boy network. In 1991 that network was more apparent, as was the old boy network at City Hall.
Comment by MI — November 7, 2014 @ 5:00 pm
So today’s release from the ROV of post election VBMs totaled 5,015. Spencer was able to hold her lead but it shrank from 174 to 91. Now it comes down to turnout. The Gilmore camp needs at 1000 Alameda ballots (VBM and provisional) to be counted AND and the same win rate for the first 1000 as yesterday of 55%. If that happened Gilmore will pull ahead by 10 votes. Otherwise, Spencer will keep its lead.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 7, 2014 @ 5:11 pm
59. Mike, Spencer’s lead did decrease but only by about 35 votes to 139 from 174. Did they tally more than 2000 today and what do figure are left? At 35 votes per 1000 it doesn’t look like Gilmore can get there does it? It would require another 4000, right?
Comment by MI — November 7, 2014 @ 5:13 pm
76 was being composed while you posted 75. geez, I can’t do math in mt head!
Comment by MI — November 7, 2014 @ 5:18 pm
Wonder which one Mike wants to win.
Comment by jack — November 7, 2014 @ 5:54 pm
Wonder, way down deep, which one dave, LD, JP and the list goes on wants to win.
I hope Trish wins so Mike stays where he’s at.
Comment by jack — November 7, 2014 @ 6:04 pm
Denise,
I too would like to know what my wife did to promote a boycott of Alameda businesses in 2008. I do not believe she did whatsoever. While there were some that wanted to lead a boycott, I have always asked people to stay positive even in the face of those being uncivil and spreading misinformation. I remember Barbara being upset that people were getting vicious about the measure, we always wanted dialog versus yelling.
I have always appreciated the numerous ways so many businesses, especially retail and service, directly support our schools and students. They need to be congratulated and supported. I try to do so every week.
Your inclusion of your perceived history in this post is interesting too. Not sure of the relevance, but I’ll bite on your statement that “…Measure H, which was far more hurtful than beneficial to our kids, owns it. You also have these folks to thanks for the additional increase in school taxes property owners will now enjoy because their past screw up necessitated asking voters for money that would actually benefit kids for real this time.”
In the context of your post, how was Measure H far more hurtful? What additional increase in school taxes are you referring to, as well?
Measure H was an attempt by the then board (I was not on the BOE then) to have a fairer parcel tax. I was proud, and remain proud, of supporting, promoting and defending Measure H for its short life. Obviously at the time we believed it was a legal interpretation of the complicated parcel tax laws. Today we are moving forward, I hope we continue to do so.
Comment by Ron Mooney — November 7, 2014 @ 7:04 pm
76: Mike and all, will the ROV be working over the weekend? Do we get a break from new numbers being released until Monday or should we stay tuned to this blog’s comments and to Michele’s? And how does Trish’s 91-vote lead fit into your analysis in #60?
http://thealamedan.org/news/election-2014-gilmore-edges-closer-mayors-race
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 7, 2014 @ 10:14 pm
In reading the data I will use the Nate Silver method for picking a winner.
Day one after the election approximately 1000 ballots were counted with 991 votes counted in the Mayor race. Gilmore got 552 to Spencer 439 for an impressive win rate of 55.7%.
Day two after the election approximately 5100 ballots were counted with 5015 votes in the Mayor race. Gilmore got 2549 to Spencer 2466 for a win rate of 50.8%.
After two day with 6100 ballots being counted with 6006 votes in the Mayor race. Gilmore got 3101 to Spencer 2905 for a win rate of 51.6%.
Since 5000 Alameda ballots were counted today compared to my estimate of 3000 in comment 59, this changes win probability for the candidates. There are fewer remaining ballots to be counted increasing Spencer chances to keep her lead.
If there are 2000 ballots or less to be counted (VBMs and provisional) I would give Spencer a 70% chance of maintaining her lead.
If there are between 2000 to 2500 ballots to be counted I would give Spencer a 60% chance of maintaining her lead.
If there are over 2500 ballots to be counted, it is 50/50 chance for both candidates.
The one thing that has consistent in this election is expect the unexpected. Gilmore initial lead from pre-election VBMs was a surprise. Then Spencer winning ballot box votes by 52% to 48% was a surprise. The first day post election results with Gilmore get 55% was a real surprise. Then the second day post election results with Gilmore only winning by 50.8% was another surprise. So bottom line regardless for which candidate you are rooting for it will not be over until every last ballot (including provisional) are counted.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 7, 2014 @ 11:59 pm
#74…will you do me a favor and go back to C’mon Son and read the comments….the attacks on Wedgee are all about his anonymity….not his/her ideas…Disagree with him/her is just fine but it all became about who he/she is…..as you stated in your response one can easily lose business in this town and going to Berkeley or Oakland is not option for many…bottom line for me….attack Wedgee for his/her ideas and leave the rest of it alone…
Comment by J.E.A. — November 8, 2014 @ 5:10 am
Barbara, your attacks were verbal so I have no hard evidence but they are well documented in the hearts of those you attempted to discredit, small business owners who could ill afford the thousands of dollars extra Measure H levied against them, a few of whom it helped drive out of business. Ron, your characterization of Measure H as an attempt at fairness is laughable, there was nothing fair about it which is why the courts struck it down. Before they did, however, a victorious school board, who had managed to convince a public beset with job loss, foreclosures, and stagnant wages to pass this measure “for the kids” , wasted no time in using this show of voters’ confidence to bump up the Superintendent’s salary, move her and her staff to new offices on the far side of town, and put up a debris fence around the historic HS building. Look at the wording on the ballot for the recently passed Measure I. It is clearly aimed at convincing voters that THIS time, all the money will benefit the students directly. Selective memory is so convenient.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 8, 2014 @ 5:14 am
So essentially Denise, you have no proof except for secondary information that you heard from someone else. The way you stated it so confidently you made it sound as though Barbara Mooney had coordinated an entire effort and launched a huge campaign to create an unified boycott. From your clarification it now sounds as though Barbara Mooney was simply stating her opinion, publicly and loudly, as others did during that time of disappointment over local business owners and their lack of support of the parcel tax measure, and by extension, much needed funding for schools.
You said:
And then this:
Based on your clarification, I think you do owe Barbara Mooney an apology.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 8, 2014 @ 7:03 am
I say cut out some hearts and let’s read them.
Comment by jack — November 8, 2014 @ 8:18 am
Measure I had 62% voter approval — I think it says Alameda citizens value their schools and want them improved!
Comment by Karen Bey — November 8, 2014 @ 8:19 am
In passing parcel taxes prior to Measure H one the main criticism was the regressive nature of the tax that would assess a fixed amount to a parcel regardless of its size or what was on the parcel. So homeowner of a bungalow on the West End would pay the same as 4 bedroom house in Bay Farm and an apartment building on Shore Line drive. Measure H was an attempt to make the tax more fair by assessing the parcel based on the size of the parcel. This concept was further refined in a subsequent parcel tax that assessed based on the size of building on a property to address inequities of parcels with land and very small structures.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 8, 2014 @ 8:22 am
Denise, the court’s decision invalidating Measure H had nothing to do with “fairness.” It was a strict statutory interpretation issue. “Fairness” was not at issue. And speaking of “fairness,” you’re doing to Barbara exactly what you wrongly accused her of doing to other people. Where’s the fairness in that?
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 8, 2014 @ 10:08 am
83 I don’t want to attack Wedgee, and don’t think I did other than to snark back at his her snark about Gilmore supporters. I actually glossed quickly over the exchange you refer to because it didn’t seem to be about content, but maybe I should have paid better attention because by stepping in on the subject of anonymity at all I seem be getting associated with that “attack”
Comment by MI — November 8, 2014 @ 12:34 pm
86 Jack, read them or eat them?
Comment by MI — November 8, 2014 @ 12:38 pm
91
strike ‘or’ replace with ‘then’
Comment by jack — November 8, 2014 @ 1:11 pm
86, 90: I agree with your comments. Measure H was attacked on very narrow legal grounds and found wanting on that basis. Some of the opponents of Measure H *were* anti-schools in their expressed statements and attitudes–at the very least holding to inaccurate and outdated views of AUSD as being “top-heavy” and wasteful years after that *might* have been true in some small part…
Denise, I think your comments against Barbara Mooney were inaccurate, uncalled for, and unfair. Making accusations based on verbal statements from years ago is an iffy business. At the very least, you overstated your case and exaggerated what happened–something I am more likely to do…
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 8, 2014 @ 2:18 pm
Since people are bringing up old issues like Measure H…
What about the anti-bullying curriculum that Spencer opposed? Any takers?
Comment by googleisyourfriend — November 8, 2014 @ 3:17 pm
Ask your friend.
Comment by jack — November 8, 2014 @ 5:40 pm
OK as I mentioned yesterday, expect the unexpected rings true again. Today the ROV released the count of 225 votes in the Mayor race. In a new shocker, Gilmore got 57% of these 225 votes. Gilmore got 129 and Spencer got 96. As a result Spencer’s lead shrunk from 91 to 58.
For the total three days of post election VBMs, Gilmore has received 3230 and Spencer 3001 for a total of 6231. Gilmore vote margin is 51.8%.
So now the big question number one remains how additional walked in VBMS are there left to count. Big question number two what will be win rate for Gilmore.
With a total 6231+ ballots (some number did not vote in the Mayor race) already counted, the likely range remaining should be from 500 to 1000. Depending on your assumption for the Gilmore win rate and you end with a virtual dead heat tomorrow when the counting of VBMs is done.
Then it will all come down to provisional ballots. I have no info on the potential number of provisional ballots. So those ballots will draw the scrutiny of the two campaign camps next week as the ROV goes through the tedious process of determining if the provisional ballot will be allowed to be counted. Historically, provisional ballots are the most unpredictable in trying to determine how they vote. The drama will continue for days.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 8, 2014 @ 8:12 pm
Denise, You provide no substance to any of your original claims … I have no need to discuss the real facts with someone who just tries to spread misinformation . Selective memory is so convenient. Take Care and good travels.
Comment by Ron Mooney — November 8, 2014 @ 8:15 pm
Well Mike, thanks for the update. Interesting drama, but one thing is clear that neither candidate can legitimately claim to have a mandate. Looking forward to next week.
Comment by Ron Mooney — November 8, 2014 @ 8:22 pm
@98 = or, more precisely, that the community is evenly divided over what it wants. I have lived here too long to buy the horse manure that “we all want what’s best for the city we love…” like the song says: Love is a Battlefield.
What a presciently named blog title this has been, Lauren! When is someone going to open up about the sordid affair between Jeff DelBono [AFD Union] & Grey Harris [the tattooed teachers union rep ?]
Comment by vigi — November 8, 2014 @ 8:58 pm
@99: We all want what’s best for the city we love, we just disagree over what’s best. Some feel growth is good, some feel traffic problems make it a bad idea, and others would like to see the current state of things remain true for decades to come. While I have my own opinions on the matter, I’ve never felt that any of the folks who feel differently are actively seeking to harm Alameda. At best, I think they have different priorities than I do; at worst, I think they’re misguided, short-sighted, and/or naive. Likely some of them think the same of me.
Thinking that “we all want what’s best for the city we love” is horse manure implies that you think some here are actively seeking to harm Alameda. If that’s the case, I’d urge you to look deeper.
Comment by Jim Meyer — November 9, 2014 @ 1:12 am
99, you just did, and its called gossip.
Comment by John P. — November 9, 2014 @ 8:43 am
@100: Nope. When someone says ” we all want what’s best etc…” along with their opinion, they are implying that anyone who disagrees with them DOESN’T want what is best. Or isn’t part of “we all”. Since much of the money behind these candidates & measures comes from outside Alameda entirely, and includes planted op-ed pieces, such judgmental phrases are suspect.
Surely you don’t buy the horse manure that all the money & influence behind Alameda politics is self-contained right here IN Alameda?.
Comment by vigi — November 9, 2014 @ 3:16 pm
vigi, we back up the truck to your back yard and got all the horse manure we needed. Actually I don’t know you but I don’t agree with much of your crap.
Comment by Jake — November 9, 2014 @ 3:24 pm
Never mind. Low Information Voters simply cannot be engaged in meaningful dialogue. The take-home lesson is: Alamedans have never before [in my memory at least] been as evenly divided at the ballot box . No one in Alameda should ever say in the future that their vote doesn’t count.
Comment by vigi — November 9, 2014 @ 3:57 pm
vigi I do agree with your comment #104
Comment by Jake — November 9, 2014 @ 4:23 pm
So in the final twist of the Mayor race, the count of provisional ballots shows Spencer widening her lead from 58 to 127 votes. For the first time in the release of post election ballots Spencer won this round with a 54% of the 863 provisional ballots. The number of provisional ballots seems high and indicates that there were problems with some voting machines that turned ballot box votes into provisional ballots. This would make sense since Spencer won the ballot box votes 52% to 48%.
Some other observations about the 2014 election compared to 2010 election.
In the 2010 election with three main contenders for Mayor (Gilmore, DeHann and Matarrese) and a Governor race the voter turnout was 69%. With 41183 registered voters, 28423 voters turned out and there were 25196 who made a selection for Mayor.
In the 2014 election the complete voter turnout will be released until the statement of vote is published in late November. So far this what we know. There were 44440 registered voters with 20539 voters who made a selection for Mayor. So depending on how many voters did not make a selection in Mayor race the turnout will be between 48% to 50%.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 9, 2014 @ 5:43 pm
I suspect that if almost anyone other than Trish had run on Trish’s platform, this election would have been a complete blowout. I think there are a fair number of people like me who just couldn’t vote for Trish because I think she’s nuts. If anyone else (with a few notable exceptions) had run on her platform s/he probably would have gotten my vote. (But I also know a few people who voted for Trish because they think she’ll do less harm at the city level than she does on the school board.)
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 9, 2014 @ 6:10 pm
Oh Irony, once again you totally nailed it.
Don’t want her as mayor but don’t want her on the SB more. More people pay attn to city politics than the SB and it’s time they figured out what we have been saying all along. Prediction, within 6 months there will be recall talk.
In the end I couldn’t pull the trigger on that theory and I voted for Marie but it crossed my mind more than once. Almost went for it knowing she really didn’t have a chance in hell of winning (LOL). I still didn’t do it as I knew her ego was going to increase by the number of votes and contributing to that is totally feeding the beast. Feeling like I will pay for my evil thoughts. Maybe I need to run down to St. Joe’s, confess and pay for my evil thoughts.
Comment by a parent who pays attn. — November 9, 2014 @ 7:23 pm
I haven’t heard any stories about the genesis of Trish’s campaign. Hard to believe the idea hatched in Trish’s head first, but maybe. 20/20 hindsight, I think that Frank probably thought Marie would be hard to beat and with two seats open, council would be better bet and a good set up for a run at mayor in 2018. Seeing how much apparent concern there is about the issue of development and Frank having been able to be Teflon on some of his own legacy on council in that regard and recasting his image with op-ed pieces over the last two years it is too bad he didn’t announce for mayor before Trish did. Not sure she would have run for council because there is just not the same level of grandiosity as coming out of almost nowhere to run for mayor.
Comment by MI — November 9, 2014 @ 8:33 pm
#107 and #108 When she first announced her Candidacy and LD wrote about it I linked it to the old 60’s movie “Putney Swope”.
Comment by frank m — November 10, 2014 @ 6:54 am
so…. what do people think about the del monte issue? Will it pass?
Comment by austin tam — November 13, 2014 @ 12:05 am