Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 19, 2016

Don’t you ever for a second get to thinking you’re irreplaceable

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

Worth a read if you hadn’t caught it yet, from one of the Planning Board members and contains an excoriation of Tony Daysog, one of the three City Council members that voted to undo the recommendation of the Planning Board against a much need senior care facility, highlights:

Last November, my colleagues acted in favor of the project that conformed to the area’s commercial zoning. On June 22, the Planning Board affirmed that the facility meets the zoning and environmental requirements, and city staff recommended approval.

I supposed I shouldn’t have been stunned when the mayor challenged the Planning Board decision and summoned a City Council review. This has happened too many times during her tenure — wasting city time and resources and sending a message to the market that Alameda is closed for business.

More stunning was Councilman Tony Daysog, a long time council member who often touts himself as a voice of the voiceless and defender of the defenseless. Daysog’s performance bordered on the irrational; he misstated facts and used irrelevant data to discredit city staff’s recommendation. It was a clumsy effort at finding a problem when there was none. One was left wondering why?

Let’s not forget, Daysog recently supported building a multistory hotel, less than quarter-mile down the road, in closer proximity to the airport. Why should the needs of hotel owners be prioritized over the needs of those who have lived in and served our community for years?

Why has this council member suddenly turned his back on the Alameda seniors who were instrumental in getting him elected because they thought he would stand up for the needs of the whole community and not just a minor special interest? Typical of too many politicians, he tried to mask his true intentions and profess support for the concept by spouting the classic NIMBY line, “I like the project, just not in this location.” How shameful!

In the end he takes Tony Daysog to task for not being a consistent leader or much of a leader at all.  At this point Tony Daysog votes based on whim and perception of political expediency as opposed to using sound judgment or internal consistency, but we shouldn’t have expected any different from someone who believes that voting both for and against the Alameda Theatre project is something worthy of highlighting.   Someone who believes that wasting time and resources of a project applicant like Alameda Point Partners by initiating a Call for Review in order for the City Council to get the final word is commendable.  Unpredictability is not the sign of a good leader or a good policy maker.




  1. Supposing that people who reside right around this site played a factor in the Council vote against the project (it’s a land use decision so, of course, they did), I am curious as to their longer term strategy towards the site. Is the hope that it will be a park or remain open space? And are you concerned that what is behind door B (the next time the site comes up for approval) might be something you like even less?

    Finally, was the planned facility to have been restricted somehow to people who in health had lived in Alameda or within a certain number of miles?

    Comment by MP — September 19, 2016 @ 7:42 am

  2. MP- nice thought about Alamedans first but even to little old socialist like me that seems like a remote possibility. First priority for the investors is return on their money and that;s O.K. by me.

    I get that Tony is running and Frank is not and it may have diluted the focus of this editorial to mention Frank, but he was the third vote. Maybe just, hey Frank we’re watching you. I’m certain Frank doesn’t need that, but it would have been good shout out to general public.

    Tony is a bit of a poseur and maybe because I’m a little mean, I enjoy seeing some push back against that. Years ago, Tony and I were cordial. I even gave him a ride home from a council meeting when it was raining. He made a point of telling me on that ride he had a copy of one of my letters to the editor pinned above his desk. I had mentioned him as being on the right side of some environmental issue and Tony wanted to remind me. I haven’t run into him in years and don’t dislike him as a person but his second tenure on council has been pretty painful spectacle. Pandering to Trish’s constituency.

    Comment by MI — September 19, 2016 @ 9:22 am

    • I agree with your first point, and my post was scattershot. In the end, I was just reacting to, and perhaps misreading, this from the quoted piece: “Why has this council member suddenly turned his back on the Alameda seniors who were instrumental in getting him elected because they thought he would stand up for the needs of the whole community and not just a minor special interest?” It was the quote that seemed to raise an “Alamedans first” sentiment. Maybe the author meant to suggest, instead, only that there was a group of “Alameda seniors” who, politically, supported the project and were spurned by the vote. As to who would end up being cared for at the facility, previous residency in the City would probably have no bearing, and attempts to impose prior residency conditions – if legal at all — would, as you suggest, likely make it less feasible.

      Comment by MP — September 19, 2016 @ 9:55 am

  3. Clearly David Burton is clueless about the licensing requirements of different types of senior housing. This is disturbing. In fact, this calls into serious question his ability to competently serve on the Planning Board.
    Why isn’t Burton trying to change the zoning for this area, so that what Burton wants would be a legal use? You cannot build senior housing just anywhere. That’s why senior facilities have the special oversight of the Departments of Public Health or Social Services, which David Burton completely ignores.

    Once again, there are 2 types of senior facilities: the residential kind & the nursing kind. One is an allowed use in this Administrative Professional zone, the other is not. The residential kind is NOT allowed, the nursing kind is. The Westmont facility is the residential kind. Westmont facilities are not rest homes or nursing homes.

    The Planning Board must stop using Webster’s Dictionary to justify its decisions. That is so JV team.
    Especially surprising since Jordan Battani was affiliated with the hospital for so long. SHE should certainly know the difference, and should so inform her husband!

    In addition, this remote spot would have a longer ambulance trip to the nearest hospital than any other point on Bay Farm Island. Nobody is even talking about that, and it’s one of the most important considerations for this “vulnerable population”.

    Tony Daysog did the right thing. He’s protecting our seniors from uninformed Planning Board decisions. Thank God we have Council review. By the way, isn’t Tony the only one on either body with an actual degree in Planning?

    Comment by vigi — September 19, 2016 @ 9:56 am

  4. Tony’s decisions and your comments are all just a matter of opinion not fact, just like mine or anyone who comments here. The only thing that I see more clearly now is that Tony has indeed attached himself to the Spencer folks. Council review has been totally abused in my opinion, at this point in time most meetings are taken up with reviews of pet issues rather than doing the business at hand.

    Comment by John P. — September 19, 2016 @ 10:11 am

    • Sorry, John P. You are incorrect. My comments are not mere opinion. It is an incontrovertible FACT that senior living facilities are licensed and regulated by the State of California. When those regulations are not followed, people DIE. Several lawsuits for resident deaths & abuse are always pending.

      As a senior yourself, would you want to live in an unlicensed unregulated facility? Maybe there should be a few informed seniors on the Planning Board.

      Comment by vigi — September 19, 2016 @ 10:46 am

  5. sorry vigi, but yes your comments are mere opinion, the proposed facility would have been licensed and regulated by the State of California. As a senior I live in an unlicensed unregulated facility right now (my home). Which since there is not going to be a new facility out on Harbor Bay means myself and other seniors who would perhaps loved to live in a facility like the proposed can no longer do at this point. Also as a informed senior I would rather have some young intelligent people on the planning board, I’m getting rather tired of seniors and their attitude of entitlement. I’m gonna go get some sun.

    Comment by John P. — September 19, 2016 @ 12:35 pm

    • If one comes along, the Planning Board may approve a skilled nursing facility for the site, since it is zoned for them. Just not RCFEs.
      Wear a hat in the sun, John.

      Comment by vigi — September 19, 2016 @ 1:43 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at