Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 27, 2017

Setting boundaries

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

On deck for the School Board tonight are temporary boundaries for elementary schools while the whole Lum closure thing gets sorted out.  Oh, on that note, I meant to write about Ruby Bridges’s new principal who is the old Lum principal but totally spaced.  He was approved at the June 13th meeting and has already been busy getting to know the Ruby Bridges community.  Folks can follow him here on twitter.  That should be the most “official” Ruby Bridges Elementary twitter account out there.


I don’t really have a huge dog in this fight anymore since I don’t have a kid at Ruby Bridges any longer, but I will say it’s weird that the temporary boundaries have zoned for Maya Lin as a home school considering that Maya Lin is a magnet and therefore not supposed to technically have geographical boundaries, but whatevs.

This only applies for new incoming students but still I can see that there might be some issues with some East End shifts of a patch that was in the Edison zone but is now in Otis.

Also on the agenda is the topic of AUSD employee housing.  I had heard about the survey that was going around to AUSD teachers and staff.  This is a topic that should be very non-controversial.  After all, we value our teachers and school support staff, we know they don’t make a lot of money, and we know housing is very expensive.  However, there have been many cases of other Bay Area cities putting the kibosh on housing for teachers so I’m not convinced that this will be without controversy in Alameda.   This agenda item will be the first step by the district to see if this goal is actually feasible.

Here’s a few factoids from the survey results:

  • 45% of respondents do not live in the City of Alameda, with nearly 80% citing cost as the primary reason.
  • Nearly 20% indicated they are considering leaving AUSD within the next five years and relocating because of a dissatisfaction with the cost, availability, and/or proximity of housing.
  • Of renters, nearly 50% spend more than 30% of their household income on rent.

The company that is being recommended is a subsidiary of Alameda Point Partners (APP) .   Probably because they have experience in Alameda and their proposal isn’t suggesting to demolish the Bachelor’s Officers Quarters as one of the options.  As with anything dealing with Alameda Point, I’ll get excited about it when it’s more than just a nebulous concept.



  1. Teachers should not have to live in a ‘ghetto’, they should be paid enough to live in normal housing or get a voucher for housing

    Comment by Retiredteacher — June 27, 2017 @ 6:50 am

    • Uh, just where is the “ghetto” in Alameda?

      Comment by jack — June 27, 2017 @ 7:15 am

      • ghetto: a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure

        Comment by 3288washington — June 27, 2017 @ 7:51 am

        • Thank you dip shit. The entire city of Alameda is a ghetto.

          Comment by jack — June 27, 2017 @ 8:08 am

        • Nice explanation. And, don’t feed the trolls.

          Comment by Retiredteacher — June 27, 2017 @ 9:47 am

  2. The housing in question will actually be in one of the most desirable new neighborhoods in Alameda. Also, subsidized housing is all over Alameda, to the point where you can’t tell which homes are subsidized or not (and let’s not get into the fact that all mortgages are subsidized). Everyone deserves a safe, stable affordable home. Bringing teachers closer to Alameda will make it easier for them to get to work and will result in happier teachers for our children. In our huge housing shortage this should be a no brainier.

    Comment by Angela — June 27, 2017 @ 7:25 am

    • Subsidized housing in an all teacher development is not the same as paying people enough money to be able to buy the non-subsidized housing of their choice.

      Comment by Retiredteacher — June 29, 2017 @ 2:50 pm

  3. It is probably worthwhile to consider what this would mean for AUSD politics and whether, and how, to insulate the District generally from the issues that would arise should AUSD also become a large-scale housing provider. You may be building a constituency very focused on housing issues within AUSD. That’s not to say don’t do it, but rather to be careful how you think about setting it up.

    Comment by MP — June 27, 2017 @ 7:52 am

  4. Guess what? Even without a large-scale housing “nicer euphemism for landlord” you have a constituency very focused on housing issues. Because housing shortage (thanks measure A + NIMBYism)

    Comment by Angela — June 27, 2017 @ 8:34 am

    • Maybe to help this get off the ground more smoothly within the AUSD and between AUSD and union the bylaws should encourage members of the administrative board not to use nicer euphemisms to describe their mission and instead use the not-nicer term.

      Comment by MP — June 27, 2017 @ 9:02 am

  5. Here’s what Oakland is doing for the homeless that have chosen to congregate there. They are buying hotels to put them in. Some sort of spin off program for the teachers in Alameda may be possible.

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — June 27, 2017 @ 12:40 pm

  6. I think you mean that a patch that was in Otis zone is now temporarily in Edison zone, at least if I am reading the map right. Anyway, that patch has moved back and forth between Edison and Otis before, and I don’t remember hearing a huge clamor over it.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — June 27, 2017 @ 10:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at