Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 9, 2016

We’ll be prepared. For what?

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

At the Democratic Club endorsement meeting the other night there was a question about police brutality, what the City Council candidate would do to ensure that type of incident doesn’t happen in Alameda, about the type of equipment that has been purchased/exists in Alameda, and what programs should be in place for protection and not harassment by Alameda’s law enforcement.

In fact, disregard the recap, let me transcribe the exact question:

Police brutality against African Americans has erupted around the last year or two.  What measures will you fight for to ensure that such atrocities do not occur to our Island. Do we know what military equipment Alameda has purchased, what program should Alameda and its police department enact to help citizens feel that the police are there for protection  and not harassment.

Fairly straightforward yes?  It asks about specifically about police brutality against Blacks and essentially what can be done to ensure, on a policy level, that will guard against that sort of action happening in Alameda.  Simplified even further, what will she do if elected on the City Council to protect Blacks against police brutality.

There are any number of good answers to this including education programs, bringing diversity into the police work force, even body cameras would have been an acceptable, but  squishy, answer.

The answer given by the darling of the Alameda preservation and not much progress set, Jennifer Roloff, is pretty indicative of her overall political leanings and lack of readiness to hold a public policy making position.   This tweet sort of encapsulates the problem:

Her answer can be heard in the video above, but I’ll transcribe it here for those that want to read it quickly:

It’s very relevant to what is going on today in neighboring cities.  I think we’re fortunate enough not to have an exacerbated similar situation, but I think that we do absolutely need to partner with our neighboring communities to make sure that we’re cognizant of the risks that could come to the city and being prepared for such issues.

I don’t think that Alamedans have to feel the protection of police yet but what’s going on out there I think that we need to start being prepared.  We should work with out public safety to get better prepared for what could happen.

As to the equipment that is out there I do know that we have Navy equipment that we can rely on and Alameda does have some of its own equipment and I do know we end up loaning it out to other nearby cities, but I think we should work with those nearby cities so that we can capitalize on the equipment that they have to have as much preparedness as possible.

So let’s unpack what happened here.  The question was about how to protect Black citizens from police misconduct.  But the way that Jennifer Roloff answered the question was to protect Alamedans from “risks” from “neighboring communities.”   And that we need to “start being prepared” to avoid what “going on out there.”  Because we may not need the “protection of police yet” but again, we need to be prepared with all the Navy equipment that exists and borrowing other cities equipment to protect from…what precisely?

The reason I transcribed the whole question was to show that it wasn’t a confusing question.  It wasn’t about emergency preparedness or what happens in the case of a zombie apocalypse.  This was a question on what we can do, as a community, to demonstrate that we are cognizant that there is an issue that exists in our world where a disproportionate number of Black Americans are treated differently in situations with public safety.

Instead of talking about training programs, diversity in the workforce, or even those body cameras instead Jennifer Roloff spoke about working with neighbors to borrow their military grade equipment and other Alamedans needing the protection of police.

Preservation indeed.



  1. I forget. When was the last time African- Americans demonstrating for their rights were harassed by the police in Alameda? They should have asked her about “Aleppo…”

    Comment by Captain Obvious — September 9, 2016 @ 6:25 am

    • I believe the question was posed around Blacks in normal situations yielding atypical results with run-ins from public safety. Not police response to protests.

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 6:48 am

      • I don’t like her answer either, but it was NOT posed around normal situations yielding atypical results with run-ins from public safety. The question was framed like this: as “Police brutality against African Americans has erupted around the last year or two. What measures will you fight for to ensure that such atrocities do not occur to our Island?” There is a huge difference between being pulled over or scrutinized because of police prejudice (how one appears, skin color), and “police brutality” and “atrocities”. The question was framed in a dire way toward the latter situation, so as to partly get the response that was received. Not only that, but the question also REFERENCED DIRECTLY THE MILITARY EQUIPMENT. She was asked to comment on military equipment. It wasn’t brought up out of the blue. She responded to that question. That said, the answer was uninformed and insensitive to real problems.

        Comment by AJ — September 9, 2016 @ 10:19 am

  2. Lauren. It appears that you are on a crusade against Jennifer Roloff. I can appreciate you feeling uncomfortable with her lack of political experience, but she is doing something that moat people don’t. She feels that improvements are needed in our city government and wants to help make those improvements happen. You can certainly pick various topics that she has yet to get her arms around, but it does none of us any good for you to insult and to degrade her efforts. We have people in city government now who have a great deal of experience, and still we seem be arguing and bickering amongst ourselves. Progress is the difference between the way things are and the way things should be. Jennifer is simply one individual who trying to move things to the way things should be. It’s not an easy task, but she has taken it on, unlike most citizens. Jennifer will get better. Help her get better. It would be a better use of your time.

    Comment by Bill2 — September 9, 2016 @ 6:35 am

    • She is a candidate for public office, she deserves scrutiny for her own words. Should we just judge her on her happy smiling photos and say “oh she looks like a nice lady so she’ll do all right as a City Council member even if she argues for a need to militarize police to protect Alamedans from some unknown threat.” If providing the scrutiny to those words equals a “crusade” then just don’t call me “Junior.”

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 6:43 am

    • It’s just a term, true, however I don’t think it’s a crusade; you’re framing Lauren inappropriately. Let’s look and listen objectively at what is laid before us, share our honest opinions, not attack messengers….understandably difficult to do but, like critical thinking, we MUST do it if we’re to move forward as a community and in a fashion best for our kids…it’s their future.

      Comment by Gabrielle "Gaby" Dolphin — September 9, 2016 @ 3:04 pm

  3. #2, that’s what people said about the mayor. Maybe she’ll grow into the job, and surprise us!

    This issue touches all of personally, and Ms. Roloff flubbed the response. In 2016. That tells me, as a voter without a lot of time, soemthing worth knowing about her priorities and way of thinking.

    As I decide who will get my second vote for council I will keep it in mind. One of my votes is easy to cast, given that I agree with the Bloomberg Rule: elect sane and competent people.

    Comment by gaylon — September 9, 2016 @ 6:53 am

    • Gaylon. I understand your position, and I’m not saying that you should vote for Roloff. I am saying though that Roloff seems to be doing something others won’t and that even with limited knowledge about a lot of topics, she is out there doing something. The mayor certainly could use more experience, but I am not overly impressed with the people in place now that have years of experience. Time will tell I guess, and I may not vote for Roloff, but I’m giving all candidate a chance to impress me.

      Comment by Bill2 — September 9, 2016 @ 7:02 am

      • “she is out there doing something”
        — yeah, and given what she has shown publicly on her website and in these forums, we should say “thank you for your time, but no thanks.” Which is basically what this post does, but with evidence. God forbid we have an informed candidate, much less and informed electorate.

        Comment by BMac — September 9, 2016 @ 7:24 am

      • even with limited knowledge about a lot of topics, she is out there doing something

        This is literally the same attitude that leaves the Republican party saddled with Donald Trump as its standard bearer. “Oh he doesn’t really understand anything but at least he’s out there doing something.” FFS.

        Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 7:30 am

  4. Her answer throws up all sorts of red flags for me, in that’s it’s exactly the opposite of what was required for the occasion. The subject required at the very least a reassuring platitude about making sure that all are treated fairly by police, regardless of skin pigmentation. Instead she dog-whistled, whether intentionally or not, to the tune of the ancient racist trope I’ve been hearing since I moved here about the coming day we’ll have to “raise the bridges against the marauding hordes” of [black] Oaklanders coming to kill good [white] Alamedans.

    Comment by Jack Mingo — September 9, 2016 @ 7:28 am

  5. That answer creeps me the heck out. The militarization part is one thing, but the answer to protecting a vulnerable population subject to systemic racism is to make sure we are ready to “deal with” anyone that speaks out against that oppression? Double-u. Tee. Eff?

    Comment by BMac — September 9, 2016 @ 7:29 am

  6. I am sure glad you are not running for anything. Nothing would get done. You are critical and unkind. A big part of a job can be how well you get along with people, how you inspire people to work together, and by bringing out the best in others. Does that sound like you? What will they write on your grave stone?? “She brought forth the epitome of negativity.”

    Comment by Hugo — September 9, 2016 @ 7:30 am

    • Yeah, I know, I could be remarking instead about people parking in front of my house and being intimidated by unknown children to bring forth the positive vibes in Alameda.

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 7:32 am

      • OK. You win. I close my account due to your rudeness. I volunteer my time. I do not get paid for blogging. I initially joined your blog to learn about Alameda. You have an answer for everything. All I am asking is for you to be kind. Let’s make the world a better place. I would appreciate you leaving my girlfriend out of this.

        Comment by Hugo — September 9, 2016 @ 4:06 pm

  7. I was already dismayed by her poorly-worded campaign ad in yesterday’s Sun, but reading this I am alarmed. With all the issues facing this city, we don’t need another person who needs to “grow into the job” once elected; we need candidates who are aware of all kinds of issues, not just their pet issue that got them into the race in the first place.

    Comment by Kristen — September 9, 2016 @ 7:58 am

  8. I kinda think the question was not all that clear and was trying to pack a lot of things into one question. It started by talking about police violence erupting over the last two years, then it veered off into “military equipment”. I don’t think the shooting incidents that gave rise to protests over the last two years had much to do with “military equipment”. I think they pretty much all involved regular service side arms and a combination of factors in each case such as good or poor training, over-perceiving a threat from an African American subject, panic, over perception of any threat at all, mental illness and how to respond to someone in crisis, and many other things. But not use of military equipment. Military equipment would seem to me to be more about protecting all residents (of all races) in the event of rioting which is not a good thing. The answer should have involved more discussion about how to have an effective police force while avoiding incidents that might end up with a call for such equipment, which I am sure the candidate is for. But the question was not a model of clarity.

    Comment by MP — September 9, 2016 @ 8:04 am

    • If you keep listening, the next speaker is Tony Daysog, who — even with all of his faults — understood the question and answered with some level of insight and understanding by discussing a change in culture. Blaming the question for being unclear is to absolve Jennifer Roloff for not understanding what other candidates understood.

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 10:46 am

      • Not trying to absolve Jennifer Roloff and hers was not the answer I would have given (especially, imagining myself a good public speaker). And I agree that Daysog’s answer was insightful. Some people are bitterly opposed to local police having “military equipment” and I think that clouded up the question somewhat with that issue. As I pointed out, the decision to procure the City’s armored police vehicle was a unanimous decision of the City Council in 2012.

        Comment by MP — September 9, 2016 @ 11:15 am

  9. Well it looks like we have our own local candidate who is about as informed as Donald Trump. Hopefully we won’t have turnout like the midterm elections.

    Comment by Angela — September 9, 2016 @ 8:16 am

  10. some excuses for her terrible answer.

    Comment by John P. — September 9, 2016 @ 8:16 am

  11. Since we came here in 1973 I have heard about “those people from Oakland” and the threat they pose to “our island way of life”. It has been a sub text for opposition to the theater project “if you build it, THEY will come”, development, etc. I am not surprised that a candidate would respond this way. It is so ingrained . And any mention of a racist subtext will bring vehement denials and personal attacks. I am not voting for Ms. Rolloff because I know who backs her and what their agenda is. This is the I don’t care what it is, I’m agin’ it” crowd.

    Comment by Kate Quick — September 9, 2016 @ 8:38 am

    • Boy, Kate you sure hang around the wrong people! Or maybe you just antagonize them. Although I was born & raised here starting 60 years ago, I have never heard anyone complain first hand about “an Oakland threat to our island way of life”. I have only read second-hand accounts, such as yours, Kate, in blogs and such. Maybe those kind of racist comments are only heard at Democratic Club and LWV meetings.

      Your comment against Jennifer Roloff is one of the most bigoted & prejudiced i have ever heard! “because I know who backs her & what their agenda is”??? Exactly which powerful moneyed organizations are backing Roloff?? Name ONE.

      One could say that about Malia Vella, given her Teamster & IAFF backing. But Roloff? Please. If you are going to criticize Ms. Roloff, at least make it believable.

      Comment by vigi — September 9, 2016 @ 10:21 am

      • Since I am white, I have always enjoyed the opportunity to ask Alamedans who complain about “those people from Oakland,” you mean people like me?

        This very unsubtle racist subtext of (black) people coming into to Alameda from Oakland causing problems has been around at least since the time I started riding my bike over into Alameda from Oakland in the 1970s. Pretending it doesn’t exist is just plain dishonest.

        Interestingly, Frank Mattarese and I grew up a couple of blocks away from each other in the same East Oakland neighborhood. So despite the efforts of some in Alameda, some of the lowly riff raft from East Oakland have managed to buy homes in Alameda and even get onto the Alameda City Council. The nerve!

        Comment by JohnB — September 9, 2016 @ 4:14 pm

    • My family used to own a popular club here on the island and I can say for certain that what Kate says is super true. Some of the stuff that I overheard there would curl the hair of any real progressive. Smirks, sidewinks, “them” vrs “us” attitudes- the usual pull up the bridges junk- all you have to do is spend some time on various Alameda Facebook groups even now to know that not much has really changed. Roloff’s comments are a testament to how ingrained some attitudes still are. sad but more true than some will ever admit.
      For the record- anyone who is paying attention – knows who is backing Roloff (old money, nimbys, anti- renter, only certain types welcome here, )- I am also in the no vote for her group.

      Comment by librarycat — September 9, 2016 @ 11:01 am

  12. Rest easy Alameda, One of our stellar city leaders notes that the police do have an armored vehicle and it’s fully plated so if the west end gets too fidgety the pOlice will run that baby out and voila, system normal.


    Comment by jack — September 9, 2016 @ 10:17 am

  13. I would really love to hear candidates talk about Alameda-Oakland relations directly; I hope we have a forum about that. Meanwhile, Did CADC really ask a question that combines police brutality with military equipment? And then call it a “straightforward” question? Given a few seconds to think about it, I can come up with only two interpretations: “How can our military help the police brutalize Alamedans?” or “What mass public safety issues does police brutality pose?”

    Then to make it worse, there’s something about helping citizens FEEL unharassed instead of actually BEING unharassed. It’s all sort of a mess, prefaced with the context that police brutality against blacks has only been a big problem for the last couple of years.

    Roloff’s response to that question was as bad as the question itself. Clearly she should have been a slicker politician and only focused on the part of the question that was easy to answer. No part of the Election 2016 show has felt good yet. I hope everyone steps up their game a little bit.

    Comment by West End — September 9, 2016 @ 10:21 am

  14. The unanimous vote in favor of purchasing the armored police vehicle in 2012 was: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore.

    Comment by MP — September 9, 2016 @ 10:37 am

    • By the way, the new 2016 Yellow Pages (Government Offices) still lists them as currently in office.

      Comment by JimmyP — September 9, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

  15. I do not dispute that there is a national problem with the way African-Americans have been treated by law enforcement. But why is the Democratic Club so unaware of the real victims of police misconduct in Alameda? Raymond Zack was not Black. The disabled man whose arms were both broken by police when he ran away from them (and he was not charged with any crime) is not Black, either.

    I do not recall ever hearing any comments or questions from the LWV or Democratic Club stemming from those and other such misconduct events, which really happened in Alameda.

    Comment by vigi — September 9, 2016 @ 11:01 am

  16. Roloff’s answer:

    Comment by jack — September 9, 2016 @ 12:19 pm

  17. Wow. Some good trash talking. LD might be better at it than Draymond Green. Is that something to be proud of? I think Roloff’s real mistake at that Democratic Club meeting was attempting to answer that 3-4 part question in 60 seconds. The complete “question” in general was a head shaker…. I think most took it as “what is available to the police in Alameda” as several other candidates then went on to cry about how understaffed the police dept was (positioning for more hiring I’ll bet). And while we’re on head shakers… LD’s BFF Dan Wood’s attempt to associate any of this to “white privilege” would be comical If it wasn’t just a moronic statement from someone trying to fan flames and who is white and privileged?

    Comment by Casper — September 9, 2016 @ 2:00 pm

  18. I asked the question to a couple people and did not get a clear answer. I beleive the question could have been more clearly defined. I have not heard anyone here express an understanding of the militry equipment part. In the context of the question, I believe it is asking for the candidates opinion on the ongoing militarization of police departments. It is illegal for the US military to be used against citizens, except in certain circumstances. Both the far left and right have increasingly become concerned with the militarization, equipment wise, of police departments. Whose actions against ordinary citizens are not so controversial as the official military.
    Many believe this militarization of our police forces will be used, and is being used, to supress political and social change, such as Black Lives Matter and other movements.
    In the context of a question about police brutality toward African Americans, I believe that was the intent of that portion of the question.
    Roloff was the first to answer the question, I don’t think Tony got it either.

    Comment by MM — September 9, 2016 @ 2:10 pm

  19. It’s a blurry line that runs between the newly awakening progressive movement on the island and the “movement” of Roloff and the Alameda Citizen’s Task Force. The blur exists because both sides express similar hopes and dreams: love of family, the good Island life and a cautious view of the rapacious 1% – – in our case developers, who might easily have their way with the island were we without citizen watch-dogs and a responsive City government team. Hence, it’s not surprising to find Roloff signs popping up on Bernie lawns. However, there is important information not getting through, To distill it: Roloff and ACT are Republican foxes in a Democratic hen house clucking the language progressives want to hear. Hence: Roloff on Bernie lawns. The philosophical and psychological differences however run deep and are profound and it’s critical to understand what these fundamental differences mean as we move towards November.

    Roloff’s response to the question on militarization of police let the cat out of the bag. This blurred line I refer to between Alameda progressives and Roloff/ACT is the unspoken fear of people of color. Hence, Roloff’s “mis-hearing” of the question and a response that exposed to the light her deepest held attitudes when she spoke to militarization of our police should “it” happen here. Like the story, “The Emporer has No Clothes” we’re afraid to speak truth to racism but it’s time we call it when we see it. Even racists know it’s politically incorrect to speak that attitude in public, and that the attitude itself is morally wrong.

    The mindsets of both Malia Vella and Marilyn Ashcraft are transparent in contrast – wide open, inclusive, embracing the diversity of the Island i.e. free of that fear.

    A mind set creates emotional responses, structures thoughts, thoughts lead to ideas, ideas lead to decisions, and decisions lead to public policy. We have a lot of work to do to create this world we wish to see here in Alameda. What future do you want to co-create (and even DISCUSS!) with your kids? Armored tanks in our streets, or cops on bikes? Let’s get to work. This coming election we must be very discerning as to the mind-set behind the words of the candidates. Heads up Alameda, heads up.

    Comment by Gabrielle "Gaby" Dolphin — September 9, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

    • You didn’t mention Tony Daysog or Lena Tam. On which side of the unspoken divide to they sit?

      Comment by MP — September 9, 2016 @ 2:48 pm

      • I have not studied TD or LT. There are other factors in play with them that inform my decision re: November.

        Comment by Gabrielle "Gaby" Dolphin — September 9, 2016 @ 2:59 pm

  20. Well, the 3 others all said the Alameda Police Dept is “great” and were understaffed by 10 officers! So, more police on the way folks, that’ll help stop all the rioting we’re having.

    Comment by Casper — September 9, 2016 @ 2:32 pm

    • Apparently you, like Jennifer Roloff, still misunderstand the intent of first part of the question which is to discuss how we prevent Black people in Alameda from getting shot during a routine traffic stop or playing in a park with a disabled charge. Instead you want to focus on rioting, guess you’ll be voting for preservation and kinda-sorta-progress.

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 2:50 pm

  21. I actually haven’t decided how I’m voting yet but I’ll consider your recommendation. But I just rewatched the video, not sure how this turned into militarizing the police? seems like the response was more towards what was in-house and available to the APD. But speaking of the same meeting (video) Ms. Vella says she is absolutely for rent control and for the ARC… Yet recent (different meetings) video she now says she is “neutral” on rent control? Gets the endorsement of the Dem club then has now changed her tune (to maybe try to secure some landlord/owner votes)? Is this a form of the transparency you desire gaby? Wonder how ARC feels about his directional switch. Just saying…..

    Comment by Casper — September 9, 2016 @ 3:22 pm

    • Hi. My experience: I’ve always heard her sympathetic to the renters cause…not “endorsing”. That’s subtle but very real. Wishing you a beautiful weekend!

      Comment by Gabrielle "Gaby" Dolphin — September 9, 2016 @ 3:42 pm

    • “Yet recent (different meetings) video she now says she is “neutral” on rent control?” What video, what meeting?

      Comment by MP — September 9, 2016 @ 3:49 pm

      • Advise you both 1st get up to speed and watch her response about rent control issue and ARC at the Dem meeting where she recieved their endorsement.

        Comment by Casper — September 9, 2016 @ 4:22 pm

        • Could you link to that video response please.

          Comment by jkw — September 9, 2016 @ 11:40 pm

    • Come on John aka jkw you need help finding that portion of the meeting? Anyway – you were there, tweeting on how well Ms. Vella was doing, so selective memory loss?

      Comment by Casper — September 10, 2016 @ 3:14 pm

      • You’re totally right!

        And because I was there, I know that your comments about what Vella said related to M1 are flat out wrong.

        Also, I have video of that part of the meeting, because I wasn’t just tweeting, I was trying to record it as well, and having rewatched it after your post, I can say with 100% certainty that she never once said she endorsed M1 at the CADC forum and furthermore that your attempts to claim that there are videos that support your uninformed BS are also lies.

        Clearly you’re working hard to try and sound like your points are valid and supported by evidence. But you’re flat out making crap up. Just another anonymous internet troll.

        You mention videos of Vella like Trump mentions celebrating 9/11 muslims in NJ. You claim there are many, reality shows there are none.

        Comment by jkw — September 10, 2016 @ 4:18 pm

        • Working hard, hardly. Calling it as it is, yes. Your poor attitude and conduct is unbecoming of someone appointed to a board for this City. Not just here, but ongoing, in-general, everyday. All the more reason why this will more than likely be your last term. Anyway, if you are actually reviewing the correct tape/portion and now say that she didn’t say she supported rent control/ARC then you are more clueless than you act. Or just oblivious to the facts. Although your Trump and Troll reference(s) could make one laugh.

          Comment by Casper — September 10, 2016 @ 5:19 pm

  22. I see it as the questioner intending to connect the issue of police brutality with the militarization of the police force. The question was not well framed and was obviously interpreted by Ms. Roloff as a separate question. Your “unpacking” of her statement completely misrepresents what she said. Now, many of your commenters are reacting to your unjustified interpretation of her position. You state that “…the way that Jennifer Roloff answered the question was to protect Alamedans from “risks” from “neighboring communities.” You put “risks” and “neighboring communities” in quotes, but cleverly insert a word between them (from) which she did not say and completely changes what she did say!

    Let me “unpack” what she clearly did say. She said that Alameda has not had a serious problem with police brutality, but we should not think that we are immune from local police brutality incidents or reactions of Alamedans to police brutality which has occurred in neighboring communities. Thus, we should work with those communities to develop appropriate protocols to respond to the problem. Her answer on military equipment was not connected the police brutality issue.

    One may or may not like her answer, but it is far from your interpretation that brands her as insensitive and naïve, if not a closet racist. It is obvious that you oppose her candidacy. Let’s debate the issues, not mischaracterize and insult the candidates, all five of which are intelligent people with differing ideas as to what is best for Alameda. You have a legitimate issue in her lack of experience as she has not served on Alameda commissions or boards. However with all that has transpired in Council decisions of late, is the City Council really listening to the people of Alameda? This is where Ms. Roloff stands out – not encumbered by special interest, and clearly not part of a Council that has done WHAT for us the past few years? Increase traffic? Approve development projects that are then voted down at the ballot box by the same people that Ms. Roloff wants to represent (remember SunCal? How about Crab Cove? ).

    Comment by Paul S Foreman — September 9, 2016 @ 3:32 pm

    • Everyone represents some “special interest.” Simply because the “special interests” that Jennifer Roloff represents falls in line with your interests doesn’t make them any less “special.”

      Nice try at adding context to Jennifer Roloff’s statements, but you forgot to spin “I don’t think that Alamedans have to feel the protection of police yet but what’s going on out there I think that we need to start being prepared” into something that is positive other than the dog whistle that is it.

      Comment by Lauren Do — September 9, 2016 @ 3:56 pm

      • And the “special interest” you represent is…what?

        Comment by jack — September 9, 2016 @ 8:18 pm

        • I haven’t given any money to local candidates in this election, I’m not a special interest.

          Comment by Lauren Do — September 10, 2016 @ 6:42 am

        • Giving money to a special interest is one thing, using your own blog to support or denigrate a candidate with whom you disagree and who doesn’t fall in line with your interests doesn’t make your interests less “special”. So I ask again what are your interests in this election?

          Comment by jack — September 10, 2016 @ 9:40 am

    • Wow, Paul, speaking of inserting words…. you are bailing her out by inserting “police brutality” in every portion of your unpacking. She uses only vague language at first and then frames it in terms of “Alamedans needing the protection of police” in case “those problems” visit our shores.

      It was an absolutely troubling answer to the issue of our time. Either she doesn’t understand the problem, or thinks the problem is that people get unruly when reacting to police misconduct. Either way, it is disqualifying.

      Comment by BMac — September 9, 2016 @ 4:02 pm

  23. The questioner was asserting that, while police brutality was not happening in Alameda, what could be done to prevent it. Ms Roloff’s answer was a proper response to that question.. And, yes community reactions to police brutality are part of the overall problem. The police shootings in Dallas are part of the problem.

    For her or any other candidates to go into specifics on how to deal with this complex problem without knowing what is being done right now by our police department and having extended discussions abou it with police officials would be irresponsible. To suggest that we partner with those who have experience with it is an adult responsible answer. .

    Comment by Paul S Foreman — September 9, 2016 @ 4:38 pm

  24. I believe running for Office has become such a challenge in many ways. At times, no matter what a candidate says in 60 seconds, s/he is blasted by “someone” and words are dissected. In this case, I don’t think Jennifer Roloff deserves the write-up she got. As someone said, other candidates have made “goofed” statements, but not noted as such. Also…personally, I’m not totally convinced nowadays if the “experienced, professional” politicians with polished responses are truly thinking about Alameda or more interested in gaining votes or more interested in what’s good on their resume so they can move on to bigger and better position. It’s a career. We’ve had these seasoned council for the last 4-6 years. Are we happy with the way things are today in Alameda? How’s that city budget issue coming along? Are we given a vision on who Alameda is today and where we’re going? But hey…it’s easy for me to sit here with my computer and complain about things. But Ms. Roloff who is married and a professional working mom with couple kids is doing something about it. Again, a lot more than what I can say about myself. I commend her and any other “new and fresh” candidates who feel passionate about their town and its future. All this doesn’t mean I agree with Ms. Roloff’s position or that I’ll vote for her. But, I will certainly support her effort and be open-minded between now and November.

    Comment by P&C510 — September 10, 2016 @ 9:39 am

  25. This blog post & its responses has become a case study in Liberal Conspiracy Theory. I thought it was the conservatives who saw a threatening message behind every tree. Jennifer Roloff, having not run for office before and not backed by any identifiable organized special interests, does not appear to have a secret agenda to me. Her answers to questions cannot be slick & polished…she is too inexperienced. But that does not equate to “incompetent”. She is earnest & naive: what you see is what you get. I don’t think she is crafty or sleazy enough to be capable of doing any “dog whistling”. Who would she be “whistling” to anyway? Advocating the preservation of Alameda’s existing quality of life is hardly a subliminal message with a limited audience.

    I don’t think you know much about Roloff other than who her mother is, Lauren. If that is reason enough for you to tear everything she says to pieces, well then who is the real paranoid bigot ?

    Comment by vigi — September 10, 2016 @ 3:17 pm

  26. Well put vigi, I think that you qualify to enter into Lauren’s basket of deplorables.

    Comment by jack — September 10, 2016 @ 6:07 pm

  27. Just wondering what the offical slates of demo club candidates, that “Gaby” says are the real progressives have EVER said to Alameda police about racial predjudice and excessive force? Anyone remotely tuned in of course knows it does and has existed forever in our little city as well as every other police dept. Hmmm never once have heard any of those past and present endorsed candidates EVER raise the issue. Just, what more can we do for you, is the typical attitude.

    Comment by MM — September 10, 2016 @ 6:51 pm

  28. Two things: Jennifer Roloff is supported by a well organized, well defined group, and Trish Spencer did a terrific job thanking our first responders at the 9/11 Memorial Mass this morning at St. Philip Neri Church.

    Comment by Kate Quick — September 11, 2016 @ 5:19 pm

  29. Uh, Kate does this mean you’re supporting two obviously unqualified candidates for any office in this city?

    Comment by jack — September 11, 2016 @ 7:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at