Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 9, 2016

Political winds you’re blowing me no good

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

Also on Tuesday night before the lack of leadership from two City Councilmembers so concerned with lack of civility in public discourse when it’s directed at them but not when it’s directed at someone else, there was an agenda item about extending the Exclusive Negotiating 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).

Remember, this was the collective that outgoing City Councilmember Tony Daysog was adamant about not carving out additional units from the Alameda Point allocation that would specifically be earmarked for formerly homeless veterans with PTSD.

He even wrote two lengthy comments defending his position with such definitive statements like:

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


We are not going to simply give away 67 units to Mid Peninsula/Collaborative under the guise of this Specific Plan process.

Then on Tuesday night something amazing happened, which I tweeted here:

In typical Tony Daysog fashion he voted for AND against something in order to say that he was both for AND against a particular issue.

Not a whole lot happened between the November 1 City Council meeting and the December 6 City Council — well except a little thing like not being re-elected on to the City Council — that would have made someone go from “no additional units until I’m satisfied with this larger plan this group won’t even be writing” and  “sure let’s go ahead with this and let’s make sure those Veterans with PTSD get their additional units too, mkay?”

I’ll point out that during the November 1 meeting Tony Daysog was keen on calling the consortium “Mid Pen” as though somehow the lack of Alameda-ness of the name was disqualifying.  On December 6 he wanted to make sure we all knew he was supporting this housing for “Veterans with PTSD” and dropped the “Mid Pen” labeling on Tuesday night.

Perhaps Tony Daysog really did want to give those units to the coalition after all but felt as though the base he was courting would rather see him obstruct.  But we’ll never know who the real Tony Daysog is because he never held any politically consistent positions other than to hold his finger in the air and attempt to discern which way the political winds were blowing.  That’s not leadership.  Just like his silence in the face of the odiousness he was decrying on Tuesday night was not leadership either.


  1. Item 1 – Damned if you don’t and damned if you do, I guess.

    Item 2 – Since we are still on yesterday’s topic, we should point out that although we have for some reason not yet singled out Councilmember Oddie, who I believe supported Malia Vella and who was at the Council meeting on the 6th, he too failed to heroically and courageously speak Truth to (or fact check) the speaker who made rude and erroneous statements about member-elect Vella. But he should not share in the rebuke. I say that not because he is on the approved-of team as a Malia Vella endorser (I think). Instead, I am going to assume that member Oddie made a judgment and a decision, no less heroic or courageous, that the post-election comments in question were negligible or did not carry sufficient weight to compel him to deviate from his normal policy of not engaging or arguing with speakers during public comment in order, among other reasons, to not promote dragging out Council meetings deep into a weeknight so that people like me can turn off the live online stream of the meeting at a reasonable hour. I think the Mayor was doing the same when she cut off the speaker who attempted to return to the podium to directly address member Oddie after he abstained from voting on whether or not to file a FPPC complaint as a body (giving the reasonable explanation that, on the one hand, it seemed like a waste because a separate complaint had been filed, and on the other, not wanting to vote against filing an FPPC complaint because he was not opposed to sending a message on the issue).

    Comment by MP — December 9, 2016 @ 9:01 am

    • It was a missed opportunity for Oddie. But he, and even Trish who was focused on the specific apparent violations of rules for claiming responsibility for these mailers, did not spend his time wringing his hands. Frank and Tony were so concerned about stopping people from being mean on the internet and in their mailboxes that they made themselves hypocrites and hilariously selective in their concern when they let such statements stand by their political allies.

      Comment by BMac — December 9, 2016 @ 11:49 am

      • Frank and Tony were personally attacked in prior elections, and took this personally. If Oddie was personally attacked in the next election, he may feel differently.

        Comment by Alan — December 9, 2016 @ 2:16 pm

      • You probably don’t mean to suggest that Jim Oddie is any less against negativity or being mean than Frank Mataresse. Maybe you do. If we are going to examine statements on the general subject of civility – as opposed to the narrow issue of non-disclosure on the specific offending mailer — for purposes of gauging hypocrisy, I guess we also have to look at Mr. Oddie’s statements.

        At the Dec. 6 meeting, Mr. Oddie appeared to go beyond even what Mr. Mataresse’s was suggesting in the Facebook post referenced yesterday, by recommending that the Council take official action and consider adopting a “Resolution” that “condemns” this type of “negative campaigning”. Maybe he even condemned publicly or privately – prior to election day — some of the sleazy mailers against Tony Daysog. Or maybe he didn’t and instead quietly cheered them on despite his general condemnation of negativity. Or maybe it was some mixture of the two.

        Despite his apparent readiness to take official action condemning negative campaigning generally, I don’t think that Mr. Oddie’s, or the others’, missed opportunity to engage, argue with, or put in a retort to angry dude during public comment signals any significant hypocrisy. He and the others probably decided that, at least during the meeting itself, in one ear and out the other was the better way to handle, or not handle, this one.

        Has anyone noticed that we seem to be jump starting 2018? I guess that is because 2016 was so much fun. Not.

        Comment by MP — December 9, 2016 @ 3:05 pm

  2. Missed opportunity on the title–should have gone with “We Got It from Here..Thank You for Your Service”.

    Comment by Linden Boulevard — December 9, 2016 @ 11:22 am

  3. I don’t recall where Mr. Folsom’s comments came during the meeting. If they were in public comment, not for or against a particular agenda item, then members of Council should not be engaging with the speakers, should they? It happens occasionally, and occasionally speakers will be told that Members cannot respond to questions or engage in dialogue on non-agenda items. So, not to defend Mayor Trish and Members of Council, but perhaps that’s why they were silent?

    Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — December 9, 2016 @ 2:41 pm

    • The comments came during Trish’s referral, not during non-agenda public comment. I don’t expect them to get in a shouting match, but I will continue to object to selective outrage syndrome.

      Comment by BMac — December 9, 2016 @ 4:07 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at