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.