Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 3, 2016

No soul to squeeze

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

I don’t think I’ve ever been as enraged as I was when I finally listened to Tuesday night’s City Council meeting.  It was one thing to read the #alamtg tweets but a whole other thing to actually hear them.  On the agenda was the Specific Plan for Main Street Neighborhoods which includes the Alameda Point Collaborative and the Big Whites.

Back in December of 2015 the City Council unanimously voted to approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative (formerly homeless families), Operation Dignity (formerly homeless veterans), and Building Futures for Women and Children (formerly homeless families escaping domestic violence)  to start the process for new facilities for what is now APC to better serve the residents. (Video here)

I’ll let the minutes speak for themselves:

Councilmember Daysog stated that the relationship with the Alameda Point Collaborative makes Alameda a greater city and makes everyone proud.

Councilmember Oddie stated if the community cannot come to a consensus on the Main Street neighborhood, it is important to keep the process going because the area houses some of the most vulnerable population.

Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City is trying to sync the project with the larger mainstream neighborhood in order to use the financial mechanism generated to fund the project.

The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded the zoning creates subdistricts and requires that no one develop the neighborhood without a specific plan; stated the land needs infrastructure and the market rate development may be needed to finance the development.

Mayor Spencer inquired whether the ENA is what Mr. Biggs wants, to which Mr. Biggs responded the ENA is what the residents want.

Mayor Spencer stated inquired whether the proposal is based on the needs of the residents, to which Mr. Biggs responded in the affirmative.

The coalition of APC, Operation Dignity, and BFWC are asking for an improved pad with infrastructure to it which will need to be paid by someone other than the coalition.  The coalition has indicated that if the City can provide that they could finance 67 more units, above the 200 like for like swap which would  provide individual living spaces for formerly homeless veterans who are currently bunking up in shared space because of the larger units existing Navy units.

But Tony Daysog doesn’t want to make any commitments to the coalition and doesn’t want that to reflect in the Specific plan, despite the vote in December which committed the City in an ENA with the coalition.  And you don’t even have to take my word on the interpretation of Tony Daysog’s lack of support for APC, Operation Dignity, and BFWC, here are the contemporaneous tweets from Tuesday night:

The 67 units in question are important because while the 200 APC units don’t count against the Navy’s housing unit cap, the 67 additional units that APC is seeking and willing to fund, would.  The 67 units would be permanently affordable.  Tony Daysog wants those 67 units to go to whoever can pay the most for them.

And finally I’ll leave you with this quote, from Tony Daysog, who was so eager to support APC less than a year ago, but now wants the City to renege on its commitment to some of the most vulnerable community members in this town.

“This is a relationship we’ve had with the Alameda Point Collaborative going on 22 years, since 1993 or 1994,” Daysog said. “It’s not just a legal relationship, but a relationship that has made Alameda a great city.”

Now, he claims the plan has “no soul.”  Well I can think of something else that is missing a soul as well.   Unfortunately these “public interests” — formerly homeless families, domestic violence survivors, and veterans with PTSD —  can’t afford to write a check to Tony Daysog’s campaign, so their interests are not special enough.



  1. I’m all for supporting APC and the 200 units. That’s what the ENA is about. The issue is the “67” units. The APC has not made a case as to why the City of Alameda should simply give those units via this specific planning process to APC it and it’s partner, Mid Peninsula. So, to be clear, my beef is over the 67 units. Those are not part of the 67 units.

    One way or another, those 67 units would be built as affordable. APC, in effect, is saying “give us those 67 units, and our partner, Mid Pen will build them, and those 67 units would be credited as the affordable contribution for some future developer at the Main Street Neighborhood.”

    My point is straightforward: I simply am NOT going to give away those 67 units without greater due diligence and without further consideration into the big picture as I see fit as a Council member for the Main Street Neighborhood. This is about planning, and setting aside the lord’a work that we as a city and the homeless collaborative have done in moving us toward the campus for the 200 hones, the 67 units is another matter altogether.

    Why city staff allowed the matter of the 67 units to be injected into the Specific Plan process as if those 67 units are to be slated for the Collaborative and Mid Peninsula Hsg is beyond me.

    Think about it this way: We have limited few number of housing units to play with, after Site A (800 units), APC (200 units) are netted out of the overall 1400 residential units slated for Alameda Point west if Main Street.

    With the remaining units, the 67 units would have gone toward the 25% affordable requirement. But given that there’s so limited number of units, and given the need for various kinds of housing, ie workforce housing for persons above moderate but below 150 area median (who are not counted toward the 25%), or need for first time homeownership, I simply cannot and will not give over 67 units without first addressing the big picture. Example: what if, instead of (as many appear to want to) giving the 67 units to Mid Peninsula, which (as I argued Tuesday night), would build housing in the fashion they typically do, we instead slated the 67 units as small cottages dedicated as affordable homeownership for moderate income or low income first time home buyers? Maybe even these 67 (and other units) could be part of a larger affordable housing co-operative, or larger co-housing strategy. This is where my point about the Main Street Neighborhood’s “soulessness” comes in. In the face of the massive housing crisis we are in, there’s nada (not even a dang vision statement) about the context in which this planning us occurring and the vision toward which we seek to strive. NADA. By way of comparison, take a look at the well thought out SOM waterfront town plan that was the precursor to zoning that area with hopes of getting the type of developer who could fulfill the SOM vision for the area. SOM plan was clear and soulful and, as a result, we got a developer for Site A who readily understood what we wanted there and represented and convinced us of his her capabilities. The Main Street plan, sadly, is lacking, and to worsen this, for whatever reason that escapes me, staff has insisted on using this soulessness plan to give away the 67 units to APC Mid Peninsula.

    To further exacerbate the lack of vision in the Main Street Specific Plan in addressing the various housing needs (I personally seek to focus on first time home buyer opportunities) and the 67 set aside for Collaborative Mid Peninsula Housing, staff insists this is all about market rate housing. This is a separate matter from the first (ie desire for various housing types) in this regard: basically staff is saying, we’re setting ourselves up to do Bayport all over again. And that’s why, my readers, you hear my surliness to staff last Tues night. Like I said directly to staff in a surly manner when staff repeated it’s emphasis on market rate housing: “maybe we don’t do that.”

    My readers…as proud as I am of Bayport (and you know Bayport is my baby), we are not going to do Bayport all over again. If we have to throw out this souless Main Street Specific Plan, then so be it.

    So, to summarize:

    1. We are not going to simply give away 67 units to Mid Peninsula/Collaborative under the guise of this Specific Plan process. As thankful and committed as we are to their 200 units, we are not going to give away an additional 67 without due diligence and big picture planning as to how the 67 fit into the remaining units.
    2. We are not going to sign off on the Main Street Specific Plan unless and until it is further revised with a soulful Ness on the order found in SOM plan for another part of the Point. If need be, we’ll throw it out.
    3. We are not setting ourselves up to do Bayport all over again.

    Thank you.

    Comment by tony daysog — November 3, 2016 @ 7:52 am

  2. Correction: “Those are not part of the 67 units”…I meant “Those are not part of the 200 units.”

    Comment by tony daysog — November 3, 2016 @ 7:54 am

  3. The case for the 67 units is that, currently, there are formerly homeless veterans with PTSD that are bunking up in shared quarters. The 67 units would allow for smaller sized units to house people who need privacy to have their own space.

    Additionally, the 67 units would be permanently affordable for the most vulnerable in our community. This would allow the City of Alameda to meet a portion of its affordable housing requirement at Alameda Point without any additional subsidy.

    If that isn’t compelling enough for you then perhaps you need to reconsider what is actually missing a soul around these parts.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 7:59 am

  4. Thank you for responding Tony, as always with careful considered intelligence. You put everything you have into your council duty and many of us so appreciate your independence and care. Not an easy unpaid job you have!
    I am so embarrassed for this campaign against you. Such dirty politics in town. Fueled by developer and fire union money.
    The post on this blog of the council meeting was such a distortion, and made absolutely no sense. Thank you Tony for clarifying your true position.
    This blog used to be biased, but informative still. It has reached the level of supermarket tabloid with the level of distorted posts. I do not think I can stomach it any longer, peace out.

    Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 8:25 am

  5. I’d encourage the council member to listen and ask questions more if he truly doesn’t understand the 67 issue. The “why” has been explained, if Tony wants to argue against building more compassionate housing for the same number of people instead of half-million dollar homes, that’s his prerogative, but I’d say it’s out of step with what Alamedans as a whole would want.

    At the same time, maybe he can look at the SOM plan again and see that it proposes the same exact “soulless” building envelope as this plan, nothing more, nothing less. There are many issues to be concerned about the plan, it’s a work in progress. “Lack of soul” is hardly one, that’s just classic Tony. He seems to get confused about types of plans, planning processes and what gets decided where in the process. Luckily, a majority of the council has chosen not to follow him down his latest rabbit-hole and seem to want to ensure that Operation Dignity is able to serve the formerly homeless vets that they serve more successfully and compassionately.

    Comment by jkw — November 3, 2016 @ 8:59 am

  6. I am also sure Alameda wants its elected officials to be part of the development process and not slammed for their involvement by planning board members who are not elected and often have direct ties to developers.

    Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 9:08 am

    • Alamedans also want their elected officials to understand how the City actually functions and understand their roles as City Councilmembers (policy makers) and allow the Boards and Commissions (nominated by the mayor, confirmed by the City Council) to do their jobs without micromanagement.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 9:18 am

  7. Tony Daysog was a councilmember before you ever moved to Alameda, Lauren. You have never held or even run for, elective least not that you’ve shared. You sit in Bayport and never come out to city functions.
    What makes you think you know what “Alamedans”–or anyone besides your own self-want?

    Comment by vigi — November 3, 2016 @ 9:25 am

    • And yet despite Tony Daysog having SO much experience on the City Council he seems relatively ignorant about how it actually works and can’t seem to comprehend basic functions of the job nor does he understand staff’s explanations about the justification for the 67 units that everyone else on the dais and watching that meeting seemed to understand.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 9:30 am

    • She raises a good point. To not attend meetings and make the time to do change and rely just on writing stuff on the web is like grandstanding.

      Comment by nony.mouse — November 3, 2016 @ 9:39 pm

  8. So disturbed at the democratic process, that elected have a voice. Big money developers run city hall in most places. The considerate input from electeds and citizens that Alameda is known for, is valued by some, and infuriates others.

    Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 9:36 am

    • But if you’re Tony Daysog, only people who finance his campaign influence his decisions. Those interests that cannot cut a big check: formerly homeless veterans with PTSD, formerly homeless families, and formerly homeless survivors of domestic violence have no voice in Tony Daysog’s decision making process. Disturbing indeed.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 9:43 am

      • Room, meet elephant.

        Comment by dave — November 3, 2016 @ 9:57 am

        • Mr. Elephant is a little bashful, he’s over there in the Twitter feed Diddle Dee:

          “Breaking: area newspaper uncovers public campaign disclosure records, focus on campaigns that didn’t buy ad space.… 1 hour ago”

          Comment by MP — November 3, 2016 @ 3:22 pm

        • Yeah, remember when someone was super agitated about John Russo making campaign contributions but now when it’s Pat Gannon, Reyla Graber, and a bunch of folks in the 94502 zip code making similarly sized contributions it’s nbd.

          Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 4:35 pm

        • Right here I comment that Daysog’s actions are less than proper:

          But there is a marked difference between de minimis amounts to candidates one supports (and $500 a year after allegedly “saving” $800 is certainly that) and large contributions for the express purpose of siphoning public funds (a la the IAFF) and dropping checks on people who then hire you for a job for which you are not experienced (and when you’re already an elected official elsewhere). Those are pay to play by any definition and both are corrupt by any definition. To use a crude analogy, what Daysog has done is, at worst, a parking ticket, while what Russo and the IAFF have engaged in is grand theft.

          It is curious that after YEARS of turning a blind eye and even defending the latter, you are now so exercised about some very minor-to-nothing items. People who value principles above politics see right through that.

          Comment by dave — November 3, 2016 @ 6:23 pm

        • Second thought, not even a parking ticket. None of the people on that list cashed city checks. It’s nothing more than supporting a pol whose policies you like and for whom you can vote (that’s a very important distinction). Worlds away from buying a vote to line one’s own pockets.

          Comment by dave — November 3, 2016 @ 6:49 pm

        • As I stated before, all interests are “special” and I don’t really have a problem with interests being special or otherwise. We all have special interests, some of us choose to make our special interests known by writing blog posts, others choose to whisper quietly in someone’s ear and write fat checks.

          I don’t really care who is funding Tony Daysog’s campaign and probably wouldn’t have mentioned it if he hadn’t decided to ride the “special interests” vs “public interests” train. That is what is particularly gross about Tony Daysog’s campaign. His distinction of “special interests” vs “public interests” only differs in who is giving him money as opposed to who is giving someone else money.

          Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 7:00 pm

        • I get my mail in 94501. Should I be worried about those 94502 checks?

          Comment by MP — November 3, 2016 @ 8:24 pm

        • Would that all special interests – especially those that “pay” far more than $500 — “whispered” their desires in the very same manner as the subject of yesterday’s “Pay to Play, Part 2” post. By that I mean by way of an open and public letter to the Mayor and Council, such as the November 2015 letter attached to the post.

          Comment by MP — November 3, 2016 @ 8:44 pm

        • Just received a No on K1 mailer. It appears all of sudden “out of town” interests are supporting Mayor Spencer’s stance. I am wondering how long before her supporters rise up to protest about “out of towners” are attempting influencing our local election.

          Comment by Mike McMahon — November 3, 2016 @ 8:53 pm

        • Hopefully people exercise their own judgment on K1. I’d guess that the out of town interests have reasons for opposing K1 (don’t make the bills we send to customers in a competitive market go up) wholly separate from Spencer’s. So do a lot of the home grown opponents (those who say don’t make my bills go up, don’t charge me for using the internet….). It’s not the easiest sell and it hasn’t been sold all that well.

          The mailers this year (all measures and candidates) remind me of a professor I had who said, while disparaging someone’s work, that the paper it was written on was too smooth to be of any use.

          Comment by MP — November 3, 2016 @ 11:43 pm

        • *most* mailers on *most* measures. No complaints about the yes-B1 mailers.

          Comment by MP — November 3, 2016 @ 11:53 pm

  9. So if you read the facts about who has campaign contributions Tony has a negligible amount, the least by far. Clearly he is not concerned with that.
    Whereas the candidates others prefer are very well funded by developers. Easy to see Tony clearly supports the APC housing as does I am sure everyone. He just will not do bidding from well funded developers unless he feels it is beneficial.
    This desperate attempt to smear him is laughable. So Trump like, and only will works on the feeble minded.

    Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 9:56 am

    • And yet his words and actions, even in his pathetic excuse in the comment above shows that he does not support APC. Who are we to believe, Tony Daysog or someone attempting to rationalize his non support of APC as support.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 10:05 am

  10. Please believe Tony, he is clear, not those attempting to smear him off city council to be replaced by the most well funded union attorney in Alameda history.

    Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 10:21 am

    • Nah Tony just wants to give the 67 units, not for formerly homeless veterans with PTSD, but rather to people making ABOVE the HUD definition of moderate income and therefore do not qualify for the affordable housing per HUD rules.

      He wants to build cottages like the ones across from Paden Elementary school for “first time homebuyers” but what he doesn’t realize or isn’t being forthright about is that those units (1) cannot be built under current Measure A rules and (2) the most recent example of one of those affordable by design units sold for $450K for less than 600 sq ft of space. That means that that unit cost $865 per square feet. Who is Tony Daysog actually looking out for?

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 10:33 am

  11. One can speculate who are any of the electeds looking out for? So I can look at the extraordinary funding of one (the one hoped to unseat Tony), combined with no track record, and see it is the least needy, developers and fire union that candidate will look out for.
    The clear work in progress of the 67 units aside, I can look at Tony’s track record of concern and responsiveness to the entire community to choose, he has my vote.

    Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 10:44 am

  12. Rob-I’m gonna be very blunt. You criticize Lauren for her blogs, but how productive are you by being so negative? Do you partake in any philanthropic activities in the community? Have you made any attempts to better this island? Or do you just cyber-bully those that differently and play body guard to Tony? My point is, Lauren makes valid factual points! She is engaged and stays informed and wants other to be informed as well! Have a good day, or you can just keep trolling.

    Comment by Rich Gozynya — November 3, 2016 @ 10:59 am

  13. Post #1, the biggest housing development in the City of Alameda is his “baby.”

    Followed by six posts in two hours by a guy with a bad stomach, saying the father of the biggest housing development is not beholden to big money developers.

    Thanks for convincing me not to vote for Daysog, Rob. Hope your stomach feels better.

    Comment by Gerard L. — November 3, 2016 @ 11:06 am

    • It was the other way around: we, the then City Council, with Barbara Kerr and myself leading, directed that the former military housing called East Housing would become Bayport. Developers did not seek this out — it was us. (PS: come on, who are we kidding G.L. [“Thanks for convinving me not to vote for Daysog”], you weren’t going to vote for me anyways).

      Comment by tony daysog — November 3, 2016 @ 11:15 am

      • Was it 175 housing units set aside for APC that were demolished in the creation of your and Kerr’s progeny, Bayport?

        Comment by Gerard L. — November 3, 2016 @ 12:45 pm

  14. We, the City of Alameda, have done the lord’s work with regard to APC, in supporting them through these years and standing with them, and voting for them when times were at its darkest. The forthcoming 200 units will be perhaps the brightest light in a sea of bright lights already at the Point (ie Spirits Alley, etc) and forthcoming (ie Site A). I supported and voted for the collaborative in 1995 and will do so if given the chance. The matter of the 67 units is separate from all the work and years toward the 200 unit campus. Completely separate.

    Even if the 67 units are for homeless vets recovering from PTSD, non-veterans with other forms of disabilities, the middle-class, or even market rate homes for billionaires, those 67 units must be evaluated within the context of multi-layered and larger housing needs of Alameda, and, sadly, the Main Street Plan utterly fails to do this. In short, the Main Street plan is, “via this Specific Plan process, let’s give the 67 units to Mid Peninsula Housing, and via this plan, let’s build market rate housing for the rest.” The discussion for alternative forms of housing for all of Main Street need to happen now and be incorporated into the Plan, and, from there, we can determine if and how the 67 units as envisioned by APC fits, or not: we must not carve out a special place for the 67 ahead of and outside of the larger discussion for all Main Street.

    BTW: on the topic of the soulless Main Street Specific Plan, there was a time not too long ago when, in discussing housing, including for the Main Street area, we actually talked about vibrant neighborhoods, such as planning-in small retail shops on the corners of neighborhood blocks. Coffee shops, too. Something like SANTORO’s at 5th and Santa Clara in my West End. But, think about it: what do you see in the dang, sterile, soul-less Main Street neighborhood plan? You see a park in the middle a la Bayport: my point: the designers behind this Main Street are literally re-creating Bayport. So, if you do NOT plan-in element now that give a place soul and life (spots where people congregate like a corner neighborhood coffee shop or bakery), in the future, the developer will say, “I dont have to do this — it’s not in the Main Street Specific Plan which I, developer Jane, was asked to respond to.”

    Create a CRAPPY specific plan — get a CRAPPY developer\builders.

    Create a thoughtful, soulful plan (a la SOM for Site A) — get a good developer like Ernst (fingers crossed).

    So, for me, there are two broad overarching issues: (1) I’m not about to just give away 67 units to APC\Mid Peninsula without figuring out what’s the appropriate types of housing I want to see out there (2) the visual of the plan (ie the drawings with the park in the middle) and discussion on market rate, market rate, market rate housing leaves me to believe that staff’s intent is to simply re-do Bayport and that, my friend, is not what we are going to do.

    If I had to put in a nutshell what I want to do, it’d be something like the nearby Woodstock Housing Co-operative, which looking at the web-site indicates that it was formerly military housing created in response to the war effort and, at the encouragement of resident there, was preserved for civilian housing in a co-operative form in an effort to maintain affordability. It’s not that I want to re-create Woodstock per se; rather, I want to replicate that imagination that was involved in taking formerly military property to serve larger noble ends. Take Main Street and convert to another Bayport? Nah, we did that already.

    Comment by tony daysog — November 3, 2016 @ 11:12 am

  15. Even if the 67 units are for homeless vets recovering from PTSD, non-veterans with other forms of disabilities, the middle-class, or even market rate homes for billionaires, those 67 units must be evaluated within the context of multi-layered and larger housing needs of Alameda, and, sadly, the Main Street Plan utterly fails to do this.

    The 67 units are for homeless vets with PTSD and should be evaluated thus. APC and friends are able to make those additional 67 units work at that 10 acre site because they are part of a larger multi-family housing development. Remove it from the discussion about the APC development — you think by calling it Mid-Pen it divorces it from the fact that the housing will be used for families and individuals being served by APC, Operation Dignity, and Building Futures for Women and Children? — and then the 67 additional units becomes non viable for APC and friends to finance.

    The reality is — and honestly you should know this — the infrastructure will have to be funded by building market rate housing. That area has already been earmarked largely residential between APC and the Big Whites. You have no financing plan for the millions of dollars worth of infrastructure that is required for the Main Street area and yet you want to talk about co-operative housing?

    Your sponsors want to you to be the next NIMBY wonder on the Council, let’s not pretend that your suggestions of all these other housing examples we should look at are out of any concern for anyone’s affordability as opposed to naked obstructionism. The worst part of your obstructionism is that you didn’t have the balls to do it in areas where the developers could afford a fight with PR firms and public campaigns. Instead you decide to fight against veterans, domestic violence survivors, and formerly homeless families. Good job.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 1:40 pm

    • That last paragraph will be Tony’s legacy.

      Comment by BMac — November 3, 2016 @ 1:58 pm

  16. This is why people give you a funny look when you say you’re a Daysog supporter. And no, Tony you can’t buy the support of middle income families by deserting the most vulnerable in our community. We don’t need more class wars. Maybe instead we should raise the limits on the housing in our town and build housing for veterans AND the working classes? We could build both, but God forbid we actually commit to the reality that the bay area is no longer a quaint suburbia.

    Comment by Angela — November 3, 2016 @ 1:52 pm

    • That is why everyone talking about affordable housing gets funny looks because Alameda just gets million dollar plus townhouses upon townhouses, and nothing from developers, thanks to developers influencing our elections.

      Comment by Rob — November 3, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

  17. It looks like theres something at Alameda Point for veterans already . Another 67 wouldn’t hurt but its not like the city hasn’t done things for veterans.

    Comment by anony.mous — November 3, 2016 @ 2:12 pm

    • Sigh, from my original post:

      The coalition of APC, Operation Dignity, and BFWC are asking for an improved pad with infrastructure to it which will need to be paid by someone other than the coalition. The coalition has indicated that if the City can provide that they could finance 67 more units, above the 200 like for like swap which would provide individual living spaces for formerly homeless veterans who are currently bunking up in shared space because of the larger units existing Navy units.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 2:15 pm

  18. Let’s check and see how much the housing developers have given to Alameda’s elections before making that blind assertion, Rob.

    Comment by Laura Thomas — November 3, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

  19. From the above it sounds like the question of the 67 units came up after the December agreement. That’s not at all to imply that the 67 additional (?) units are a bad idea, but I was wondering when that issue or possibility first came up.

    Comment by MP — November 3, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

  20. Someone reminded me and I forgot in all my righteous indignation that Tony Daysog’s “support” of APC also includes him suggesting that APC pay for the infrastructure costs themselves. Interesting that Tony Daysog didn’t immediately swoop in to defend himself in that post. But, of course, it’s difficult to defend the indefensible.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 4:00 pm

  21. PTSD is a modern day scam designed to make bullshit artists rich.

    Comment by jack — November 3, 2016 @ 6:25 pm

    • It’s a good thing that the stigma around PTSD has started to lessen and that the Veterans Administration doesn’t have such backward thinking in treating their members with a PTSD diagnosis.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2016 @ 7:04 pm

      • I’d wager every human being born on this planet could claim and be diagnosed with PTSD symptoms. “(PTSD) is a debilitating anxiety disorder that occurs after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event.” It’s been closely associated with X-military personnel only because psychologists know a rich picking field when they see one.

        Comment by jack — November 4, 2016 @ 9:37 am

        • You win the contest for biggest asshole. Luckily they make plugs for your condition.

          Comment by baby daddy — November 4, 2016 @ 5:28 pm

    • A friend of mine who raised her family in Maine worked for thirty years as a psychologist for a Portland school district. When she and her school teacher husband returned to CA she got a job with the V.A. . She works with veterans with head injuries which are VERY real. She does not make $200 an hour like a lot of private therapists.

      “(PTSD) is a debilitating anxiety disorder that occurs after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event.” That’s one sentence, the tip of the iceberg.

      I had a severely alcoholic father who, for a period of time, beat my mother. I was five. It was very traumatizing. For a number of years I tried to simply pull myself up by my boot straps, and have tried therapy, but will probably never really recover. Definitely caused me to drink beyond excess in my teens and twenties, and the LSD at 14 certainly didn’t help. Chalk it up to compounded poor life choices for lack of a decent roll model. But when I think about soldiers who not only spent 11 months in Vietnam, but have done repeated tours to Afghanistan and Iraq ( 3,4,5….6), it chills me to the bone knowing how much worse I could have had it.

      An average of 22 active service and vetarans end their own lives DAILY.

      BTW Jack, you failed to answer my question about combat. Were you in combat which makes this a touchy subject ? Is that why you are such a an unrepentant and belligerent A-hole? It’s never too late to get help, even if you haven’t seen combat.

      Comment by MI — November 7, 2016 @ 10:47 am

      • Two combat tours, first (1964-66) in Hostile Fire Zone in Gulf of Tonkin lost two out of 9 Aircraft 15 out of 90 crew members. Awarded Air Medal from LBJ. Second combat tour at Cal Berkeley 1970-72 awarded BA from Ronald Reagan.

        U & B A-hole, because the field here on this blog is so ripe for the picking.

        Comment by jack — November 7, 2016 @ 12:19 pm

        • Jack, you are most definitely a chain puller, which tour was the toughest.??

          Comment by John Piziali — November 7, 2016 @ 1:06 pm

        • Were you a combat pilot or doing support ?

          Comment by MI — November 9, 2016 @ 8:25 am

        • according to Wiki for the Air Medal you had to have gotten in a plane and flown for other than transport. Presumably facing risk to life and limb. I’ve heard vets say they hate hearing this because civilians don’t understand what they’ve been through, but “thanks you for your service”.

          Didn’t get to Berkeley until late 1972, but I never spit on a veteran.

          Include yourself in the easy pickings on this blog.

          Comment by MI — November 9, 2016 @ 11:29 am

        • There is a show on KQED tonight on PTSD .

          “Humankind” 8 pm.

          Comment by MI — November 10, 2016 @ 2:58 pm

        • By 8 pm I’ll be solidly under PTSD medication and thus unable to understand humankind.

          Comment by jack — November 10, 2016 @ 3:54 pm

  22. Jack, have you seen combat ? Even if you have, that’s a disgusting claim. Good for you if you’ve weathered having you’re buddy’s brains splattered across your face and can make light of it, but it’s shows little empathy to hold every vet to those standards. But empathy is for pussies, right ?

    Comment by MI — November 3, 2016 @ 6:58 pm

  23. PTSD is often associated with head injuries in our currently conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, it is not just the sight of the horror of war that causes PTSD. I think that we are learning more about his condition from the current conflicts than we ever have before.

    We (the United States) send these service members into battle. They make extreme sacrifices while those of us back home don’t make any. We don’t even raise taxes to finance the wars that we wage anymore. We wouldn’t want the general population to be forced to make any sacrifices, even financial.

    Then, when our service members come home, we thank them for their service, but don’t adequately fund the treatment and support that many of these service members need. That might require actually supporting members of the military, rather than paying lip service to “supporting our troops”, while just supporting hawkish military positions.

    Comment by JohnB — November 3, 2016 @ 7:51 pm

  24. #21 is a complete Jack-Ass. I can see him being the first person to lock his doors when coming out of the tunnel to Oakland. Likely wears a diaper so when he wets himself it’s contained.

    Comment by Loser Patrol — November 3, 2016 @ 9:34 pm

  25. bottom line for me is simple, Tony is a “soulless politician” with 14 years already in office. Now takes his marching orders from old folks with money who live in that terrible “soulless” place called Harbor Bay. (94502).

    Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2016 @ 10:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at