Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 7, 2016

Rent review: in tweets

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

In case you missed it the City Council meeting on Tuesday went into early morning Wednesday before the conclusion.  Here are some select tweets from #alamtg tweeters who were doing a yeoman’s job by sitting through nearly nine hours of public comment, presentations, Council hissy fits and discussion.   We owe them a debt of gratitude considering that the video is not yet up.  Enjoy!



  1. Gilmore got vilified if meetings went past midnight but no one seems to care that Spencer’s meetings go until 1, 2, 4 AM. And does anyone believe sound decisions are made at 2AM? No. If I were a tenant or landlord in Alameda I would be pissed that my elected representatives choose to make decisions about my future in the wee hours of the morning. It’s bad government.

    Comment by Eyeroll — January 7, 2016 @ 11:14 am

  2. I would agree with the statement that it is bad government. This council (all five members) need to come to some sort of time limits, such as total hours a meeting can last, or 12:am meetings must end and be continued. Also if the total amount of speaker slips go beyond the set time limits, then each side should be given a block of time to make their case, while I understand the public needs to have its say you still need to conduct the business of the city in a sensible manner. We seem to have gone off the deep end.

    Comment by John P. — January 7, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

  3. 2. You can’t give “each side” time and cut out individuals. It is illegal, and dumb. They could have cut each speaker to one minute, not allowed 40 minutes worth of presentations (20 per side) after the staff report. Both of those would have cut the public comment in half.

    They should also start scheduling meetings to start at 6pm regularly. This one should probably have been done as a special meeting and started at 4 or 5pm.

    We also could have elected a different mayor, that would have sped things up.

    Comment by BMac — January 7, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

  4. 2AM! Not only bad government. That’s bad decision time at the local. All the ones through eight have left with someone else when the foggy mind realizes it’s closing time and it’s either a nine or a ten or going home alone.

    Comment by jack — January 7, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

  5. Jack – I think the nine or tens are the ones you want. It’s the ones and twos you want to avoid. Unless the rating system has changed over time.

    Comment by brock — January 7, 2016 @ 1:21 pm

  6. The craziest part is that they went on to the next agenda item afterward.

    Comment by AK — January 7, 2016 @ 2:41 pm

  7. Yeah, what’s open and transparent about calling an item at 4AM? Any opponents were long gone and fast asleep. Just another example of bad government.

    Comment by Eyeroll — January 7, 2016 @ 4:29 pm

  8. post#3 , BMac, you can’t start meetings at 4 or 5pm. people are still at work, eating dinner and getting ready to go to a council meeting. Also I don’t believe it is illegal or dumb to set aside time for people pro or con to speak on issues, without time limits of some sort a meeting could literally go on forever. I’m all for logic and common sense.

    Comment by John P. — January 7, 2016 @ 4:40 pm

  9. Yeah, brock, but I was going with the Mickey Gilley song which implies that a “1” is at the top of the heap and a 10 is like they say in the PI, “ugh, she a numba10”.

    Comment by jack — January 7, 2016 @ 5:48 pm

  10. 8. It isn’t illegal to set aside time for each side. It is illegal to ONLY set aside a block of time for each side and not let any individuals speak for themselves. It is not the role of a public hearing to decide ahead of time who belongs to each side and tell an arbitrary leader of each “side” that they choose who speaks and how much. They are legally required to let any individual that wants to speak have a turn. They can reduce the amount of time each person has, but they can’t pick and choose who gets to speak. Does that make sense?

    Starting a meeting at 4pm that is going to have over an hour of presentations followed by several hours of public comment would be a more “accessible” meeting than having deliberations at 330am. There are always tradeoffs.

    Our neighboring cities have daytime public meetings during the week, we can also.

    Comment by BMac — January 7, 2016 @ 6:21 pm

  11. What should have happened is a special meeting should have been set to hear the comments, then the meeting should have been continued for 2 days later to give council time to think about the comments and 2 days later the public could have come back or watched the continuation of the meeting to hear councils thoughts. That’s how major items are handled elsewhere.

    Comment by Eyeroll — January 7, 2016 @ 7:04 pm

  12. I don’t think there were any illegalities with the speaking format. The original plan was to have 10 people from each ‘side’ cede time to one person from each side for the 20 minute presentations. The renters asked that the City simply provide 20 minutes at the beginning for presentations by representatives for each side and then open speaking for anyone who wanted to speak. We didn’t think it was proper that people needed to cede their time to one speaker. It seemed to work okay.

    Alternating between sides for the public discussion is something the City wanted and the renters didn’t think it was worth making a fuss over. But, yeah, in hindsight, that meeting shouldn’t have gone that late especially with the atrocious conditions in the room: very cold and poor lighting. The City Attorney suggested continuing the meeting to another day, but the mayor chose to go ahead. Maybe in the future, attendees could pay closer attention and request long meetings be continued.

    I was a bit put of when the mayor made a declaration at the beginning that she would invoke some law allowing her to ‘clear the room’ if there were disturbances during the meeting. They are all still nervous and upset about Nov. 4, lol. I counted at least seven officers, three of whom were plain clothes officers.

    Comment by John K — January 7, 2016 @ 10:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at