Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 4, 2016

If you were to ask me who I’d promote

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

Someone asked if I was going to do an election guide, I actually had not planned on it this year, but thought, why not.  This space was going to be filled by how much ad money has been raked in by the Alameda Sun this election cycle:

But that can wait till after the election.

A few weeks ago I had hand written election recommendations for someone, but I’ll just reproduce some of it here with additions, I’m doing this largely from memory. I figure that if I remember it then it’s important enough for me to tell you why.  If I have to look something up then clearly not something I’ve spent enough time researching that I have any confidence to tell anyone else how to vote on that office/issue.

For City Council: Malia Vella and Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft, I’ve outlined the reasons here.

For School Board: Gray Harris, Jennifer Williams, and Anne McKereghan.

Gray Harris because she has been so supportive of Ruby Bridges Elementary School.

Jennifer Williams because she has been involved and brings an interesting perspective based on her day job.

And Anne McKereghan because she’s always been around and always supportive of Alameda schools.

But honestly, unlike the City Council where there are clearly candidates that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the dais… This batch of School Board members seems pretty great.

For Auditor: Mike McMahon. Because seriously, do we really need an auditor?  I’d like to know and I feel like the only way that we’ll get any meaningful examination of the position is by having someone in the position who says that he will do an audit of the Auditor job.

For Treasurer: I voted for Jeff Bratzler, but honestly Kevin Kennedy, when he stays in his lane, is great.

For Alameda County Judge: Scott Jackson.  Please people.  Please.

A few assorted local measures and stuff.

Measure B1, School Parcel Tax: yes. I was torn people.  I was torn on this one.  Typically I am pretty gung ho about supporting school through parcel taxes, yadda yadda.  This year I was slightly peeved at the School District for the enrollment shenanigans.  I felt as though, once again, Ruby Bridges was unsupported by the District who has made such a big deal about equity, but had real issues putting it into practice.  In an ideal world it should not have taken mobilization over a weekend to be heard and the aftermath left a really negative flavor.  But, it’s not about me, it’s about we so knowing how important the parcel tax is for the good of the entire district, I voted yes.

Measure K1, Utility Modernization Act: yes.  This is a no brainer.  If you want the City to be able to fund extra goodies like FAAS, you have to vote yes to capture money that should be captured anyway by the City.

Measure L1, City’s Rent Stabilization: no.  Send a message to the City Council that they shouldn’t have placed this on the ballot in the first place.  If the City Council believed that their rent stabilization measure was fair and equitable to all parties then they wouldn’t need to have their stabilization measure go head to head against the renters voters initiative.  I don’t think the City’s ordinance was great in the first place, but they definitely should be given a strong message that their ordinance was substandard and opened the door to the next ballot measure.

Measure M1, Renter’s Rent Stabilization: this is a tough one that I’ve been really torn about.  I will tell you that I have already voted and I voted no on this one.  But I’m not going to tell you to vote no.  In fact, in some ways, I hope that it passes because it will send a strong message that renters are mobilized and not to be ignored in influencing City policy.  However, I’m not a fan of extreme measures and I do think that M1 tips the scale a little bit too much in one direction.  I don’t believe in a complete balance either as I understand that tenants are in an inferior bargaining position to start, but if you’re looking at L1 and M1 on a continuum, I would go for something closer to M1, but doesn’t go as far as M1 seeks to change the law.  So I guess I would say that I’m pretty neutral on this, even though I did cast a vote against.

Anyway, those are all the local ones I can think of, so there you have it, my local election recommendations.  And don’t forget Mike McMahon’s election day quiz.  Earn bragging rights if you get the predictions right!



  1. M1 was written because the City Council refused to provide genuine protections to renters against egregious rent increases. L1 gives landlords a free pass to raise rents 5% per year on tenants who are on fixed incomes or who are working at jobs where they do NOT get annual raises above 1 or 2% per year. Landlords originally insisted on a 10% cap on annual rent increases–and LANDLORDS WOULD NOT EVEN TALK TO RENTERS about stabilizing rents in Alameda when renters asked for a community discussion. (They walked away when we asked them to sit down with us 1-2 years ago…) Please VOTE YES on M1 and NO on L1.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 4, 2016 @ 7:12 am

    • L1 has the ability to be easily modified to address concerns on both sides. L1 does not give landlords a ‘free pass’. Any rent increase over 5% must be justified and reviewed by a board. Yes, landlords can still disregard the decision but they would be foolish to do so. It’s not a walk in the park. For the vast majority of landlords, this is not an issue. As for 5% increases, many landlords are not even approaching that level. But, as cost of living goes up, along with expenses, landlords should be able to fairly pass that on which M1 does not afford. Many duplex owners are on fixed incomes too, and I can’t recall an annual raise exceeding 2% a year! As for ‘landlords would not talk to renters’, that is simply not true. SOME landlords may not have been willing to talk to tenants. But, many others have. I talk regularly with my tenants and I have concern for them. I charge well below market rate, their increases typically are around 1-2% a year depending on expenses, election initiatives, and other factors. I am barely breaking even overall, and if M passes, it will only be a few years before I am running at a loss as my expenses will most definitely go up more than the ‘67% of cost of living’.

      M1 takes away my ability to screen out problematic tenants as I would have no say in subleasing. That is unfair to my tenants who expect to have neighbors who are also respectful, law abiding, well behaved and properly screened. Prop M will result in needing to reduce all spending, maintenance and care for the building to minimal levels permissible, because there simply would be no way to REALISTICALLY pass that on to tenants. I am too close to the margins now; major capital improvement projects are a non-starter. The end game for me if M passes is that I’ll eventually be forced to revert the home back to a single family property and sell it. That is what M will result in- less properties on the rental market and those that remain will see a decrease in maintenance. You’ll see two classes of apartments shaking out if M passes, those that are substantially below market rate (held by existing renters) which new renters will not have access to, and the others that are even higher than the current market rate as decreased supply will result in their increased prices. This pattern has been proven repeatedly in other cities that enact rent control. Prop M is bad for Alameda renters and bad for Alameda in general.

      I sacrificed for years and worked hard to save and buy a duplex to help support my retirement. As much as I would love to, I can’t afford to subsidize rent for others. A solution is needed for renters, but that should not be placed unfairly on the backs of landlords who don’t have the means, themselves.

      Please VOTE NO on M1 and YES on L1 – and then work to improve it for all parties.

      Comment by Brian K — November 5, 2016 @ 7:48 pm

      • Brian, a major, minor correction. You are understating in a very important way the binding power of the existing City rent ordinance/L1.

        A landlord CANNOT ignore the decision of the RRAC as to a proposed rent increase in excess of 5%. If the landlord has not justified that rent increase over 5%, the decision of the RRAC is LEGALLY BINDING, unless appealed. If appealed, the decision on the appeal is LEGALLY BINDING.

        RRAC recommendations are non-binding only as to proposed rent increases under 5% for which review is sought AND as to units exempt under state law from any rent control, i.e., single family houses, condos, townhouses and post-1995 construction apartments. Renters of those exempt units will not be covered by M1 rent control (unless the landlord makes an error to which an exception to the state law exemptions apply). If M1 passes, renters of those exempt units will not only have no rent control, but they also lose the benefits of the non-binding rent review/mediation process, which is the most this City or any California city can do to address rent increases on exempt units.

        Comment by MP — November 5, 2016 @ 8:23 pm

  2. Please VOTE YES on Regional Measure RR and County Measure C1.

    BART needs the $3.5 billion in infrastructure improvements to increase its reliability, safety, and service, and AC Transit needs the funds to maintain and improve bus service. Both transit agencies are well managed and dedicated to sustainability, despite what some opponents say while grinding their (mis-informed) axes… I have represented Alameda County cyclists on the BART Bicycle Advisory Task Force since 2011 and have seen the BART Board’s change in focus first-hand from irresponsible expansionism towards maintaining and renovating the original system. Our own District 4 Director, Robert Raburn, has helped lead this change.

    If you or your friends live outside of Alameda and can vote for Gail Murray, Rebecca Saltzman, or Lateefah Simon for the BART Board, please support them and/or vote for them along with Measure RR for a Better BART. The more progressive, responsible BART directors are on the board, the better our service will be.

    Voting for Measure C1 and At-large Director Chris Peeples will help AC Transit improve its service, too.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 4, 2016 @ 7:28 am

  3. There should be a single box on the ballot labeled “Whatever The Firefighters’ Union Wants.” Then you can skip all that tedious voting and let them keep their $200K+ salaries. And it would effectively be the same ticket that Lauren advocates here.

    Comment by West Side Jim — November 4, 2016 @ 8:13 am

  4. Just an FYI on how local election results are release based on my tracking of the last eight election cycles. The ROV will be release the results of those early Vote by Mail voters who mailed their ballots by November 4th between 8:15 and 8:30pm.  Historically about 33% of the entire local voter total is in these results. Then we wait for ballot box votes to be released by precinct. Historically the first results for Alameda are released around 10pm. This final precinct results typically come in around 1am. The number of ballot day votes is usually equal to the early Vote by Mail voters. The remaining Vote by Mail ballots that are dropped off at the polling places are the only votes that need to be counted. 10 to 12 days later the remaining Vote by Mail ballots results are released.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — November 4, 2016 @ 8:26 am

  5. You can also use this guide to vote in exactly the opposite direction from Clueless Do. Ah, if she only knew why Auditors are important to California cities. But then, she never reads the papers or any other West Coast news sources. Lauren Do has never heard of Bell or Vernon, CA.

    Comment by vigi — November 4, 2016 @ 9:28 am

    • And yet our auditor doesn’t actually do any auditing nor does he award the contract with the auditing firm. Other than to say once a year, “I approve this message” it’s unclear what Alameda’s City Auditor actually does other than wave in a car in the Fourth of July parade.

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

      • And of course, we can always completely trust those private firms paid to audit cities. They would never damage a city thru incompetence or negligence. Oh, wait…

        “[Hired Firm] Auditor negligence

        “In connection with an accusation (AC2012-17) that the audit firm Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM) of Irvine, California “committed repeated acts of negligence on more than one occasion in the 2009 audit of the City of Bell (Bell) and the Bell Community Redevelopment Agency (Bell CRA) that departed from professional standards” and “insufficiently documented its audit for Bell and the Bell CRA for the year ending June 30, 2009″ the California Board of Accountancy suspended MHM’s CPA Corporation License for six months stayed, with two years’ probation, and imposed on it an administrative penalty of $300,000, among other enforcement actions, effective June 2012.[119]”

        That is why we will always need an Elected Auditor, who does not have a fat lucrative city contract, in order to watchdog those who do. If nothing bad happens, all you will see our auditor doing is waving from that car. A sign that things are OK. I do not begrudge our City Auditor what he is paid for the vital function he serves.

        Comment by vigi — November 4, 2016 @ 9:48 am

        • Jake, vigi is extremely jealous of Laurens brilliance, she is attracted to this blog like a moth to a light.

          Comment by John Piziali — November 4, 2016 @ 10:17 am

        • Has our elected City Auditor ever found anything untoward in the City’s paid audits? When he could have actually provided some oversight, where was he?

          Comment by Lauren Do — November 4, 2016 @ 10:24 am

        • The first comment under that link — from someone who knows WTF he’s talking about — puts that “argument” against Kearney away.

          Comment by dave — November 4, 2016 @ 10:39 am

        • And in that link you never even mentioned him, its was just another swipe at your bete noire Gallant. But now you say it’s on him…

          Comment by dave — November 4, 2016 @ 10:50 am

      • Lauren, as our auditor, Kevin has spent time with Alamedans explaining how the city budget works and has attended city council meetings to address the council when he thought they are making mistakes in creating budgets. While it has been a few years since I have attended any meetings where he has spoken, I appreciated his efforts and the efforts of Kevin Kennedy who usually was also explaining. These sessions happened more when the city pension issues came to light and our financial future was really looking pretty dim. All any group has to do is ask them to attend and speak and I am sure they still would.

        Comment by Nancy Hird — November 4, 2016 @ 9:30 pm

        • This is what I don’t get. All these great things they do to warn of our impending financial collapse seem to be outside of their legal function as elected officials. Every time budget issues get discussed, there are no shortage of smart Alamedans ready to tell City Council that we are going broke. And we don’t have to spend $50K/per year and waste to two best parking spots at City Hall on this stuff.

          Comment by BMac — November 5, 2016 @ 10:57 am

        • Indeed they do much more than their bare minimum legal duties per the charter, but so does the mayor. The mayor’s explicit duties per the charter are little more than to preside over meetings but mayors do much more than just run through Roberts’ Rules of Order and we expect that of them. We expect the mayor, and the rest of council, to forward an agenda, such as development or another cause even though their job as written doesn’t require that.

          The Kevins have far surpassed their job descriptions, to our benefit and — more importantly — at the request of and in concert with council. That is a positive good for the city and we’d be fools to spurn that. To imply that their efforts are so much Chicken Littling betrays your ignorance of exactly what they have done. Have you read the reports of the FSC (on which I served) or the pension committee? Take a look, there’s a whole lot more there than “we’re going broke.”

          But let’s not sink into semantics and wordsmithing their job descriptions. There is 1 (one) single, sole, solitary reason they have challengers this year: They dared question the wisdom and sustainability of public safety contracts. The fox is angry that the hen house is guarded.

          Comment by dave — November 5, 2016 @ 3:49 pm

        • No one is going to argue with dave’s last point?

          Comment by MP — November 7, 2016 @ 9:00 am

    • vigi, since you seem so anti everything on this site why do you spend so much time and energy on it? You have contempt everything posted her…start your own blog since you are so informed. Or maybe you tried and no one listens.

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

    • As an elected School Board member (applies to City Council members) we have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure financial reporting is accurate. One of the tools we relied on was confirmation from an outside auditor that financial reporting done by staff was prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. We did not need another elected official to tell us that the audit was done properly. An audit is limited and an auditing firm can only do so much. As School Board member we relied on the community to keep us informed about the proper use of taxpayer’s monies and the community relied on us to make sure we were asking to right questions to ensure proper fiscal reporting. City Council members are fully capable of doing the same.

      So let’s look at Bell CA and what happened. This happened because theresidents of Bell were not paying attention.

      After 2005 Bell CA became charter city and meant that city officials were exempt from state salary caps. Subsequently, Bell city officials began receiving unusually large salaries, perhaps the highest in the United States. The salaries came into the public eye after the newspaper’s investigation, showed that the city payroll was swollen with six- to seven-figure salaries. Robert Rizzo, the City manager, received $787,637 a year. Including benefits, he had received $1.5 million in the last year. Rizzo’s assistant, Angela Spaccia, was earning $376,288 a year, more than the top administrator for Los Angeles County. All but one of the members of the city council were receiving $100,000 for their part-time work, salaries which were authorized by the city “Charter” status. So a bunch of corrupt elected officials hired an audit firm that would look the other way.

      As a result of the scandal, the State Legislature required the creation of a website of salaries of public employees.

      Comment by Mike McMahon — November 4, 2016 @ 7:07 pm

      • Not sure why you bolded the words: “residents of Bell were not paying attention”. Maybe you have never lived in the LA basin. Wikipedia is a better source about Bell than Mike McMahon.

        “Bell is a small town, covering 2.5 square miles (6.5 km2) near Los Angeles, with a population of approximately 38,000.[6] Bell is one of the poorest cities in Los Angeles County,[7] almost one in six residents lives below the poverty line.[8] The per capita income in 2009 was about $24,800. Roughly 90% of residents are Hispanic or Latino; many do not have a high school education. Small businesses, auto shops, markets, carnicerias (butcher shops), and panaderias (bakeries) dominate the streets of the small town.[9] Bell’s unemployment level is 16%.[10]”…

        “The salaries and pensions scandal that led to City of Bell officials being expelled, also brought into question the issue of voter fraud. In the 2005 election fewer than 400 votes were cast in a special election that cleared the way for City Council members to dramatically boost their own salaries. In that election, more than half the votes cast were absentee ballots, the most vulnerable method to manipulate fraudulent votes. One resident of Bell, on condition of anonymity, told The Times he was assigned the chore of retrieving absentee ballots. “Our objective was to collect absentee ballots, and if they were not filled out, instruct them how to fill it out, and if not, fill it out for them”, he said. It is estimated that less than 1% of registered voters actually showed up to cast their ballot.[2] It has been reported that some residents went to the polling place, only to find that their votes had already been cast.[13]”

        Suffice it to say, the barely-scraping-by residents of Bell were easily manipulated by their “strong City Manager” form of government. And they are not out of the woods yet.

        You should check out the city of Vernon, too. It has more city employees than residents.

        Eternal VIGIlance is the price of good government.

        Comment by vigi — November 5, 2016 @ 2:43 pm

        • Thank heavens we have you, vigi.

          Comment by BC — November 5, 2016 @ 2:50 pm

  6. I voted no on everything. None of them were compelling enough to vote yes on. I do support the schools but the parcel tax is unfair because it is based on how big your house is not how much it is worth or your income or ability to pay. Why should someone get an exemption because they are 65 years old, I don’t have any kids? Should their hospital parcel tax be larger because they are more and likely to need it? I don’t like L and M is even worse. I did vote yes on a lot of the state measures although I was unsure of the marijuana one, I don’t partake but those that do will probably get it one way or another so we might as well tax it. The death penalty ones I have a personal interest in after one of my best friends she was raped and murdered by a serial killer, before that happened I was against it but that changed me. The plastic bags one is a no brainer. Any tobacco one is a yes because my mom died of lung cancer and only quit smoking two years prior when the price kept going up to a point where she didn’t feel she could afford it. Firearms for me is a no brainer either…no one needs a ooze for hunting and I know 4 people how died accidently because of guns. Most people at this point have already made up their minds on the people and issues they support so I am sure nothing I say will change anyone’s mind.

    Comment by Jake — November 4, 2016 @ 9:33 am

    • Oh that is rich, Jake. You start your post with “I voted no on everything”. and then you accuse ME of being “anti-everything”. ????. ROTFLOL..

      Comment by vigi — November 4, 2016 @ 9:51 am

      • vigi, I said I voted no on everything but that wasn’t true if you read the rest of my post. Just curious what did you vote yes on? The reason I picked on you is you said “You can also use this guide to vote in exactly the opposite direction from Clueless Do”. That is how I use to vote. I was gay and didn’t want to accept it so I use to go to gay bars and get the gay paper and see what they recommended and vote for everything the opposite direction they said because I couldn’t accept something in myself. Why are you anti Do? You seem like a bitter old lady who is holding on to something…let it go.

        When I was talking anti – it not this post it is every post you post. I don’t always agree with Lauren but it is her blog and I respect her opinion. I don’t expect my opinion will change peoples minds as it is just my opinion at the current time. I do change my opinion as I grow hopefully and I hope I learn to accept others as they are. I would love to have coffee with you sometime because my opinion of you is just in my mind and you are probably totally different than that picture. Jack on the other hand is exactly how I pictured him. What can you say about Jack, “He is the devil women”…but he is real…opinionated, stubborn, old, cranky but intelligent, has a heart for his friends and is forthright…I respect Jack although I disagree with most things he says.

        Comment by Jake — November 4, 2016 @ 11:22 am

  7. “Seriously”…Why “do we really need an auditor?” Maybe you will listen to the LA Times, as cited in Wikipedia:

    “The L.A. Times reported that in a review of state and local records it was discovered that independent audits of public agencies in California frequently failed to recognize and note cases of questionable mismanagement and obvious fraud. The report cites San Diego, Compton and South Gate as other cities plagued by public corruption that received dubiously clean audits”.

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

    • Reposted from my last comment:

      And yet our auditor doesn’t actually do any auditing nor does he award the contract with the auditing firm. Other than to say once a year, “I approve this message” it’s unclear what Alameda’s City Auditor actually does other than wave in a car in the Fourth of July parade.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 4, 2016 @ 9:39 am

  8. Lauren didn’t mention any of the state propositions, and those are some of the most confusing on the ballot, e.g. the crazy pair of plastic bag initiatives. I had made a spreadsheet showing the endorsements of various political and activist groups just to make it easy to see what the experts out there are saying. (I include the Republicans because it’s interesting to see where they diverge and occasionally coincide with the Democrats.)

    Courage Campaign has an awesome chart that is similar, and prettier:

    I’d like to echo Jon’s endorsement of RR!

    It drives me crazy when people vote no on everything like #6. What a shame. This is our process, like it or not, and we have the chance to make the world a better place starting in our city, region, or state.

    P.S. If you have any friends in Oakland (gasp!) please help them vote YES on Measure HH, the soda tax. I would like to see that win there, and then come to Alameda next…

    Comment by therealdanwood — November 4, 2016 @ 9:52 am

  9. I’m selling my house in Alameda which I’ve been renting out in large part because of the proposed changes. Truly a Mom and Pop operation, we have the one rental which we lived in for 29 years until we had to move out of state for work. In our case, keeping the home is costing too much because it has a large mortgage which the rent doesn’t cover and we’re paying rent where we live. (We refinanced to pay off debts accrued during long term unemployment.) We opted not to renew the tenant’s lease up at the end of December because we’d be on the hook for relocation costs. We chose to give our tenants notice of what was going on several months in advance so they have more time to find something else. We only had to give them 30 days but that seemed like too much of hardship, especially to get the news right before Christmas. They asked to be let out of the lease early so they could move at the end of November and we agreed. So, the result of the new rental restrictions in our case is that we’re taking another rental property off the mmarket, our tenants are moving sooner than they or we would have liked, and we’re losing our beloved home in Alameda. Others are following suit. I never raised the rent and didn’t plan to. Luckily, our tenants were single young men so they didn’t have the issues that families or elderly people have when being forced to move and it’s all been fairly positive considering. We feel bring a landlord in Alameda is becoming too much of a liability. I also suspect that seniors and families with children will have a harder time finding rentals because the added protections make them less desirable tenants from a landlord’s point of view. A lot of people look at all landlords as if they are greedy fat cats living large when the fact is, many of us are barely scraping by. I think reasonable rent controls are a good idea but nothing on the ballot meets my definition of reasonable. Go back to the drawing board. Sit down with both groups and hammer out something that works for everyone. Compromise. The unintended consequences of these proposals are going to cause a lot of grief. And also, if ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Vote for the Kevins!

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 4, 2016 @ 12:04 pm

  10. # 9 Thank you for explaining one example of how rental options will decrease if M1 passes. There will be fewer places for renters and rents will increase.

    In the long run, rent control has backfired wherever it has been instituted.

    Consequently, vote I will vote Yes on L1, No on M1. Then let the city council hear how L1 should be amended.

    Comment by A Neighbor — November 4, 2016 @ 12:35 pm

  11. As I have said before, I no longer live in Alameda so I’m sure my opinions will be discounted by some (Vigi). But I lived in Alameda for 22 years before and I plan to move back in the next couple of years. I love Alameda and I closely follow what is happening in Alameda. What is baffling to me is how much outrage there is for the outside money driving L1 but no one cares about the outside money driving K1. And Mayor Spencer has a hand in bringing the outside money into Alameda to defeat K1. Additionally,no one is talking about the UUT lawsuit. As I recall voting against K1 will effect Alameda’s defense of the lawsuit. Which means defeating K1 increases the risk of a multi million dollar verdict against Alameda. That will bankrupt the City. And that is exactly what Trish Spencer wants. The people of Alameda are the big losers if K1 fails.

    Comment by Eyeroll — November 4, 2016 @ 1:16 pm

  12. Eyeroll, I only get basic…very basic cable and I looked at he bill last month because I am getting paperless billing that I am getting a $5 a month charge for something due to some charges I can do with out. Why would I vote for K? The most hated company in US…Comcast or you might as well call them by there new name Wxfinity which is worse.

    Comment by Jake — November 4, 2016 @ 4:06 pm

    • Jake, I could be less diplomatic by a long shot, but if You hate Comcast then cancel your basic cable. I’m certain that there is more to the Utility Modernization Act ( sounds benign doesn’t it?) than meets the eye, but as I understand it, it will make the tax burden on cell phones equal for all of us because some folks are getting a pass. I don’t think any of us like taxes, but the services they pay for can be kind of convenient..

      Comment by MI — November 4, 2016 @ 7:39 pm

  13. I’m voting for M1 because it will mean higher rents, fewer rental units as landlords sell them off, more homeownership and a wealthier, more genteel population here in Alameda.

    Comment by Marty Antoinette — November 4, 2016 @ 6:01 pm

    • I am voting no on Proposition 66. So we can continue the French tradition in California of using death by guillotine for people with the last name Antoinette.

      In “genteel” Alameda homeownership is about putting up a sign that says “get of my lawn.” My dog doesn’t even understand the signs, because she only speaks French.

      So Marty with a capital A, no cake for you to eat today. Manger de la merde de chien.

      Comment by Gerard L. — November 4, 2016 @ 6:57 pm

      • It was satire, mon ami. The point is, M1 will have the opposite effect than what’s intended.

        Comment by Marty Antoinette — November 4, 2016 @ 7:06 pm

        • N’est c’est pas?

          Comment by Gerard L. — November 4, 2016 @ 7:31 pm

  14. #12 K1 will evenly apply the UUT to cell phone use, not Comcast. If your cell phone company is Comcast then you MAY see an increase in your Comcast bill. But the UUT applies to cell phone service, not your cable.

    Comment by Eyeroll — November 4, 2016 @ 9:02 pm

  15. Lauren, just got my giant red mailer urging me to vote NO on B-1, naturally its from crazy Dave of action Alameda. It is endorsed by none other than our Mayor Trish Spencer. I wonder if the teachers who helped get her to this point still love her.??

    Comment by John Piziali — November 5, 2016 @ 4:52 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at