Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 25, 2018

Buyers remorse

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

Here’s a piece from the East Bay Express about the recall of Malia Vella only since it appears that it is too late to even consider a recall for Jim Oddie.  From the EBX:

The recall effort against Vella is still in its early stages, and a similar recall effort against Oddie was recently flubbed by the same group of proponents. Following service of the intent to recall, its backers have seven days to deliver the intent and an affidavit of service to the city clerk’s office. This kickstarts a somewhat onerous process of getting the recall question on the November ballot.

Oddie was served during the June 5 council meeting, but the attempt by proponents to file the paperwork with the city clerk came two days late. Further complicating their effort is a provision in the election code that prohibits a recall within six months of the end of an elected official’s term. Oddie is up for reelection in November and his term is due to end on Dec. 18, meaning the last possible date to begin the recall process was June 18, said Alameda City Clerk Lara Weisiger.


Provided at least 20 of the 33 signatures included on Vella’s notice of intent are deemed valid by the city clerk, Vella will have 10 days to offer a response to the recall petition, Weisiger added. Next, proponents are required to publish the notice of recall, and the format of the resulting petition must be approved by Weisiger. The latter step can sometimes be time-consuming, Weisiger noted, with slight changes — for example, an incorrect font size — setting back the approval process up to 10 days for each request for modifications.

Now it appears that at least one of the 33 signatories is now not supportive of the of recall.  In fact in some of the public messages made about this very topic it was stated that the recall effort was put together before the independent report was released and the City negotiated a settlement with Jill Keimach.

The really gross part of this recall effort has been the number of birther like behavior and allegations that have arisen around Malia Vella.  From the Twitter feed of Rasheed Shabazz:

And apparently the only person who did say something, eventually, was…Rasheed Shabazz and not the numerous other “real Alamedans” that are supposed to be the pillars of our community.

Add to that the allegations that Malia Vella doesn’t really live in Alameda and the cries that she actually prove her residency and we have everything we need for the full treatment given to our national level Democratic leaders who are (1) not white and/or (2) female.

Advertisements

100 Comments »

  1. Wow — sounds like next they will want her to prove her citizenship; not surprising in the era of Trump. Let’s focus on issues and not fall victim to name calling and disrespect.

    Comment by Karen — June 25, 2018 @ 6:50 am

  2. This popcorn is delicious.

    Comment by Angela — June 25, 2018 @ 7:08 am

  3. Are the recallers claiming to “drain the swamp” here in Alameda? If they are modeling their campaign on the current president, they have chosen a lousy role model.

    It appears that those wanting to recall Oddie and Vella are capable of making just as many mistakes in judgment as they accuse our sitting Councilmembers of making…and they fall quite a bit further in the civility and decency department than their targeted officials, too.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — June 25, 2018 @ 7:41 am

  4. The statement made against Malia Vella was wrong and she deserves an apology. During the last election, a lot of money was spent (I think without attribution) on pretty vicious mailers against Tony Daysog (“he’s against seniors”, or something like that). You might say they had the intended effect. It is hard to say if the person who made the vicious comments against Malia was influenced by the spew coming out of the White House or if it is product of Alameda’s homegrown divisiveness, if either. Here’s to hoping that such attacks are rewarded by (a) being ignored and (b) serving as encouragement for people to do their own research.

    Comment by MP — June 25, 2018 @ 7:52 am

  5. The recall attempt is ridiculous waste of city resources and people’s time. I hope it gets stopped in its tracks.
    Luckily there was one person at the meeting that reported out the actions.

    The person who signed the petition and now is withdrawing his support, has also publically apologized to Ms Vella for his inactions at the meeting in a very heartfelt way. My hope is that more and more will apologize and the recall effort be dropped.

    Hopefully we can political dialog with simple truths and opinions, not twisted yelling arguments.

    Comment by Ron Mooney — June 25, 2018 @ 8:00 am

    • Yeah, that person has been involved in other very divisive petition drives. I recall him saying a lot of “good people on both sides of the issue” Trump-speak during that time. I don’t buy his sincerity for a second. He’s just covering his ass. Which at least makes him smarter than the Lindseys who are not afraid to appear awful.

      Comment by Rod — June 25, 2018 @ 1:43 pm

  6. If you want the full report of the meeting by Rasheed you can read it here:

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1009638862220492800.html

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 25, 2018 @ 8:31 am

    • Whoa:

      “As i mentioned earlier, the room was REALLY white. Besides me, a Filipina woman whose nephew i used to mention, and the bricks and the hardwood floors, it was like a new millennial White Citizens Council up in there.”

      That, I assume, is a reference to the notorious White Citizens Councils most active in Mississippi about 60 years ago. They fought to maintain apartheid/segregation in Miss. and targeted those who struggled for integration.

      Are you simply “re-tweeting” the entire thread without endorsing that particular view/impression, or is it your view that it was properly included in a “full report of the meeting” and an accurate reflection of those in attendance?

      Comment by MP — June 25, 2018 @ 9:21 am

  7. Mr. R. Shabazz must apologize immediately to the Alameda Citizens Task Force. For him to call the ACTF gathering of last week “a new millennial White Citizens Council” is absolutely disgusting. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1009638862220492800.html Maybe the members of ACTF don’t see what’s going on in Alameda the same way Mr. Shabazz does, but that doesn’t make them racists. And in calling ACTF a “White Citizens Council” that what Mr. Shabazz does. And Mr.Shabazz knows exactly what he was saying in referring ACTF to a “White Citizens Council.” That is simply over the top and a sure harbinger of things to come this election from the side of Alameda that wants to keep the fire union in charge of City Hall. Calling ACT the same thing as a “White Citizens Council” makes my blood boil. These folks are definitely not racists. They love this city just as much as he does I am sure.

    Comment by let's play fair — June 25, 2018 @ 9:21 am

    • Maybe if you’re looking to be representative of a diverse city maybe reach out to people of color and maybe not launch out with statements like:

      I asked, “How will this majority white group include the perspective of the rest of Alameda, if its intention is for the ‘public good’ of ‘the ENTIRE community.”? #alamtg

      After a brief fracas with random people answering (all essentially saying Rasheed would need to do their outreach for them), Foreman responded.
      “I noticed we have very few dark skin faces” in the room, “Do we need to plant them”? he said, sarcastically.

      But whataboutism is always fun too right?

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 9:37 am

    • you have your opinion and people such as myself have our opinions. Mr. Shabazz has no reason to apologize. I think the folks calling the Vice Mayor a union “Whore”. and saying that she isn’t really from Alameda are the ones who need to apologize. that makes my blood boil.

      Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — June 25, 2018 @ 10:12 am

    • Yeah, but he’s kind of right. Alamedans First: fascist sounding before it was fashionable.

      Comment by BC — June 25, 2018 @ 10:13 am

    • Thank You!

      Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 1:37 pm

  8. I wish it made your blood boil to the point where you could be self reflective enough to understand why some folks would agree with Mr. Shabazz… but that would involve checking your own privilege.

    Comment by Angela — June 25, 2018 @ 9:32 am

  9. Mr. Shabazz has made important contributions to our local discussion of Alameda’s racial history and has every right to make his observations about the meeting he attended, but I also think it is distracting from the main issue. I do recall that previous landlord groups who lobbied in Sacramento were attacked as being “too Asian.” Now this group is “too White.” The tiki torch comment was inflammatory (no pun intended).

    Union money and PAC money from outside Alameda is overwhelming local politics and it appears elected officials no longer do what’s best for Alameda (keeping costs and taxes low while providing more services) but instead do what’s best for the union. The embarrassing Fire Chief controversy is just the tip of the iceberg. Vella, Oddie, and Bonta must represent all of us, not just the unions. The formation of this group is simply the logical pushback allowed by our political process.

    Comment by Nowyouknow — June 25, 2018 @ 9:54 am

    • The formation of ACTF is basically a bunch of folks who are lucky enough to have the stability in their lives to worry about union influence/developer profits and not whether or not they have a roof over their head, how they’ll afford childcare, or whether the system will actually listen to them. If anything ACTF should be holding a series of listening events where they hear from the overall community what is actually bothering them if they want to become more diverse. Their platform and positions as they stand now are not compelling enough for such folks to become involved… You don’t just become diverse by inviting people and imposing your position on them.

      Comment by Angela — June 25, 2018 @ 10:14 am

    • you and folks like you, like to use the word union in a derogatory manner, unions are made up of many people coming together for thier mutual benefit and protection in the work place, or as in tenant union . however if the landlords come together that seems to be just fine. they are doing the same thing that any other union would do. to quote you, (The formation of this group is simply the logical pushback allowed by our political process). that kinda like what a union does.

      Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — June 25, 2018 @ 10:26 am

  10. I was the Chairman of the proposed PAC meeting. I was extremely upset with is tweets as being is some cases untrue and in other mischaracterizing what happened. I wrote to him about my concerns on Friday. He has not responded. The portion of my email that responded to his tweets follows. I should also add that I wrote to Ms. Vella the day after the meeting advising her that I had cut the speaker off immediately after he made his terrible remark about her and expressing my sorrow that it had happened.

    Rasheed,

    I must disagree with your statement that the group is made up entirely of older white people. Yes, so far, we are mostly white, but there are/were people of color and younger people present and there are others who are active. We understand it would be better to be more diverse. Indeed, that is why I, Lisa Brown and Dorothy Freeman have all separately asked you for your help. We are still asking for your help in bringing more diversity to our group.

    Yes, I did say that our PAC would be the real Alamedans United, but I said it in response to the current group that calls itself Alamedans United, because that group is significantly populated and financed by non-residents, and thus are not Alamedans. If you are going to report one part of a statement I made, you should report all of it. You should explain the meaning and context, not pull one sentence and the meaning of what was said out of context. We are fully aware that we do not represent all of Alameda, and with your help, we’ll do better, but under no circumstances did I say or mean what your Twitter message implied.

    Your comparison of the group to the White Citizens Council is outrageous and, really, defamatory. It is as hurtful a statement that anyone has made about me and any group that I associate with. Many of the people present in that room made many personal sacrifices and commitments in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80, 90, and 2,000’s fighting racism and racial discrimination. It was a cheap shot, and I hope you’re smarter and fairer than that. Plus, I doubt very much if you’d be dealing with us at all if you really believed we are a White Citizen’s Council. Please, if we disagree, let’s do so honestly and fairly.

    In response to your remark at the meeting about our lack of diversity I said was that I was inexperienced in social media and had posted the meeting announcement in every place I could think of. You said that I needed to reach folks by means other than computer or newspaper. I responded that I needed help in learning how to do that and asked for your help. I then related, as an example of my naiveté on this diversity issue, my experience with the Roloff group picture at City Hall where I just asked supporters to participate and did not attempt to “plant” people of color in the group. I was attempting to respond to your statement with an example of my short-sightedness, and that is precisely why I and others have repeatedly asked for your help. You conveniently misplaced that remark and labeled it a sarcastic reply to your diversity criticism It would be disingenuous of you to criticize us and then not offer assistance and guidance when we try to address your concerns.

    With regard to your description of the crowd reaction to the terrible remark about Ms. Vella, I was looking directly at the faces in the room and saw nothing but an uncomfortable silence, except for one voice, mine, when I immediately responded by cutting him off and telling him his remarks were inappropriate. I might have been more forceful, but my intention at that moment was that really lighting into him would magnify his remarks. I decided to just shut him up and move on. You may be correct that “some” may have nodded, but it was in no way represented of the predominant response in the room. This was a public meeting. Everyone in the community was invited. The person who spoke is not a leader or spokesperson or representative of anyone but himself. You didn’t mention that on Twitter either. No one was responsible for the comments but him.

    Your “pitchforks and tiki torch” remark belongs in the same category as your White Citizens Council remark. Are you as an academic and historian comfortable with those remarks? Do you really want to engage in dialogue, as you repeatedly and continually publicly profess, or do you want to name call? You really can’t do both and you can’t expect others to respond in an honorable manner if you don’t. It’s easy to be clever and to sloganeer word play. It’s harder to do the work. We’re trying to do some good work, and we would like your assistance and guidance in doing so. If you’re interested, great. If you’re not, just let us know and we’ll stop asking you.

    Your tweets lead me to think that you are opposed to our critique of the current majority on City Council, but instead of entering into an honest debate on our policy differences, you prefer to defame and discredit us. We have put our platform on the table. Where’s yours? What is it you want? What are your goals for Alameda? Do you see anywhere we can work together?

    I look forward to hearing from you and to continuing this discussion in a positive, helpful way.

    Sincerely,
    Paul Foreman

    Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 10:30 am

    • One has to wonder why that speaker felt as though this ACT meeting was the right place and the right audience for his remarks. Probably because you all may not use the word “whore” and your remarks are cloaked in a shroud of “civility” but making allegations that Council members that you disagree with do not represent the interest of Alamedans or aren’t “real Alamedans” is a big red flag for folks with very different opinions on the state of the city than your own.

      Rather than concentrating on your own feelings and talking about historic “personal sacrifices” made by the largely white crowd perhaps view this meeting at this time from the lens of a young Black man from Alameda whose has seen friends and neighbors pushed out. Who has researched the effects of redlining in the community he grew up in with reverberating effects today. And perhaps understand that the hand wringing for the loss of small town politics may not be so much of a loss for the demographic of people who were not represented that night.

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 10:36 am

      • Lauren, your comments would be more helpful if you actually showed up at one of these meetings, rather than armchair quarterbacking them based on hearsay. I was there– in fact Rasheed sat down right next to me. The fellow that made the ugly outburst came in late and was dressed very strangely [his pants and shirt were the same loud print more suitable for making curtains]. He could very well have been drunk. I think I recognized him as one of our local oddballs. This does not excuse his behavior, but it certainly isn’t representative of the other old white people at the meeting.

        Although this was a public meeting open to all, it was not a city.meeting of any kind. It was directed at, but not limited to, people who have already attended ACTF meetings. ACTF actually started meeting in Gretchen Lipow’s living room in 2011. Yep, been around seven years. Since then, meetings have taken place in church basements but mostly a conference room at Alameda Hospital. The meetings have always been open to all [I think Lauren Do might even have been to one in the dim past]. For unknown reasons, ACTF meetings have not attracted many people of color. Is that ACTF’s fault? I don’t think so. Issues addressed by ACTF are color-blind and of interest to all Alamedans.

        Looking at my old emails, I notice that most of the original ACTF steering committee members, like me, are no longer part of it. New people like Paul Foreman have taken on leadership roles. To me,lumping together all the people who usually attend ACTF meetings and labeling them so you can predict and dismiss their behavior is no different than any other kind of racism you decry.

        Alameda has been rated A+ for Diversity by Niche website https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/z/94501/ But ACTF cannot represent that diversity, if the diversity doesn’t SHOW UP! I hope Rasheed Shabazz will start attending ACTF meetings and encourage anyone else to do so.

        Comment by vigi — June 25, 2018 @ 12:03 pm

        • As Angela stated below, it’s not the responsibility of people of color to show up to these groups and diversify for that group. It’s the responsibility of the group to set policies ans politics to appeal to people of color. Clearly this group’s policies and politics appeal to a very very very small subsection of people of color. But apparently it does appeal to a lot of people unwilling to vocally push back in the face of blatant misogyny.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 12:09 pm

        • When and where’s the next ACT meeting?

          Comment by Gray Harris — June 25, 2018 @ 3:36 pm

        • When and where is the next meeting Vigi?

          Comment by Gray Harris — June 25, 2018 @ 4:55 pm

      • Isn’t this the same group that always says “Oakland types” when they want to warn against African Americans invading our perfect little suburb and use our strip malls and fast food joints?”

        Comment by Rod — June 25, 2018 @ 1:48 pm

      • I never said that any Councilmember was not a real Alamedan. that would be a ridiculous and untrue statement. I do plead guilty to being of the opinion that several of our Councilmembers often do not act in the interest of Alamedans. Wouldn’t it be nice if we debate the issues without name calling or playing identity politics?

        In your second paragraph, without ever having met me you assume that I am insensitive to the historical and current oppression that people of color in America have suffered. Perhaps the portion of my Friday email to Rasheed that I omitted from my previous post will enlighten you. It was at the beginning of my message, responding to his questioning of how I knew him by name, since we had never met.

        “We have never met, but I have seen you speak to City Council and have read your Measure A paper. You may recall that I invited you to speak to our Mastick Current Affairs Group. (unfortunately, we were not able to come up with a date that would work for you). That is a group made up entirely of old white people. However, I felt that that was the very best reason to invite you in order to expose your life experience and point of view to people who may not have ever attempted to understand where the voices of people of color are coming from, or think that they have, but need a lot more exposure to even come close to understanding. I will admit that I am one of the latter group.”

        Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 2:55 pm

        • without … playing identity politics

          Do me a favor. Do a quick Google search of “identity politics” see how it’s used and then tell me again why people of color should be interested in the offerings and politics of ACT.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 3:14 pm

        • Lauren, what I was attempting to say by the use of the term identity politics related to not debating the issues but instead using the “us” vs. “others” argument. In our case discounting us as old white, “others” instead of debating the issues. Before you start accusing me of doing the same thing by referring to unions and developers, I am not discounting them at all. I respect what they are doing, They are supporting their interests. However Councilmembers should be doing the same thing, putting the interests of their constituents first. In my opinion, that is not always happening. I know that you disagree, but that is the staff that political debate is made of.

          People of any color should be interested in the our mission statement below (subject to revision).

          “Our mission is to elect a new majority on City Council who will:

          1. Make decisions based on the public good, not rewarding campaign contributions from public employee unions, developers and other special interest groups.
          2. Make independent decisions based upon a clear understanding of all of the options, rather than rubber stamping staff recommendations.
          3. Respect and encourage the advice of our City Treasurer and Auditor.
          4. Evaluate development proposals based upon their impact on the entire community.

          You would argue that all of the candidates meet the above requirements. We would argue that some of them clearly do not.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 6:30 pm

    • Where do you stand on the recall? Aside from its seeming to be organized by incompetent buffoons, it doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of what you say your, for now old and white and conservative, band is all about.

      Comment by BC — June 25, 2018 @ 11:47 am

      • I have not been asked to participate in the effort and generally oppose recall, except in extreme circumstances. Recalling Mr. Oddie might have been justified if he were not coming up for election in November. Although I think Ms. Vella acted improperly in joining Mr. Oddie in the meeting with Ms. Keimach, I do not think it warrants recall.

        Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 3:03 pm

    • Mr Foreman,

      ACT was built on spreading half truths and false allegations! I find it ironic that you are going to claim an individual that sees things differently than you do must inherently be lying. When you run a meeting you are solely responsible as the chair for what goes on. Therefore people have every right to be upset with your poor performance. The members of your group also went after Marie Gilmore, Lena Tam and Rob Bonta for the same weak allegations you are making now. They even attempted to recall Rob! One would think they had learned their lesson on failed recalls, but apparently not. ACT’s members want “small town politics” which translates to silencing the voice of anyone that doesn’t see things the old Alameda way. ACT is made up of mostly older Caucasians because the positions you take on issues relate only to that group of people. You claim that you want fairness in politics but your group’s definition of fairness is to silence workers, renters, progressives and people of color, and anyone else who disagrees with them. Yes working people spend money on elections but that wouldn’t work if our progressive public safety message didn’t resonate with voters. ACT needs to acknowledge that Alameda’s demographics have and our changing. Please stop trying to turn this around on Rasheed. People see things through different lenses because they have different life experiences. ACT should learn that different types of people and different views are exactly what makes America great!

      Comment by Jeff DelBono — June 25, 2018 @ 3:36 pm

  11. Asking to bring more diversity to your group? Do your own work understanding why your organization might not be appealing to young folks and people of color. Check yourselves. What positions have you and your org held that have been exclusive or insensitive? Do you really have no idea? You can’t just bring someone in and think that suddenly that solves your problems and instantly makes you more diverse? You have to look inside yourselves and see where have you been clueless? Until then, any attempts will be met with skepticism that outside points of view will be welcomed.

    I don’t know how you reconcile the idea that folks feel ok attending your meetings and calling Malia Vella a whore with the idea that young people and people of color will feel welcomed there.

    I get that you have good intentions, but those intentions more often than not read as keep Alameda white and old, especially with the conspiracy theory like focus on unions and developer profits.

    When you want to see change in your group, the first step is understanding how you need to change yourself -not looking to outside people to do that change for you.

    Comment by Angela — June 25, 2018 @ 11:12 am

    • sorry Mr. Foreman, you need to work a little harder at trying to understand just where Rasheed is coming from. Like he said growing up in the B.V.s and basically being run out of town in a larger sense. He walks into a meeting with a bunch of old white folks and hears the dog whistle of she’s a union whore, and the statement about mayor Gilmore. I’m not surprised in the least, and I’m a really old white guy. I have black friends from Encinal high school in the late 50’s early 60’s who we have breakfast with each month, guess where they live, Oakland. they don’t live in Oakland because they love Oakland, they live there now because when they were young thier families were told they could not buy or live in Alameda. we have had this conversation so many times over the years and it always hurts me because these are the finest people you could ever meet. I know this is not all about race, but I can see how he would have made these comments and how you are unable to understand what he is saying.

      Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — June 25, 2018 @ 12:09 pm

      • You make a good point, but I was at the meeting. The remarks that you speak of were made by one person over a space of less than a minute and I cut him off as soon as he mentioned the W word. Everything that occurred before and after that statement took place in a civil and respectful manner. I find it hard to believe that he really was feeling what he tweeted, but then I have not had his life experience. I do know that what he said did absolutely nothing to enhance a constructive conversation about bringing all of us of every color and political persuasion into an understanding of our common humanity.

        Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 3:15 pm

        • Yeah. Someone is unclear on the concept. When someone critiques your organization, instead of addressing the actual concerns with self reflection, action and even changed policy you blame the person who is making the observation and even go so far as to doubt them. That’s not promising in creating an understanding of common humanity.

          Comment by Angela — June 25, 2018 @ 3:24 pm

        • Hey Paul, when and where is the next meeting? You are the chair correct?

          Unfortunately you have a closed group that doesn’t allow one to know when the meetings are unless one is accepted to your email list. So if you truly want more attendance and diversity it seems you should post the next few meeting dates and times.

          Comment by Gray Harris — June 25, 2018 @ 5:18 pm

        • Gray. The meeting was noticed to the public on
          Nextdoor, Facebook, Alameda Sun (front page) and
          Alameda Journal. Also Lauren was kind enough to publish it on her blog. How did we miss you? We don’t expect to meet again until early September. It will be well advertised.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 5:48 pm

        • Among other places, the last meeting date, time and location were published right here: https://laurendo.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/everyone-is-special-interest/

          Comment by MP — June 25, 2018 @ 5:34 pm

        • Thank you for the info about the meeting that already passed. It may not have been so obvious to people back then that more participation and diversity was needed. Will your next meeting be on your FB page or your website? I don’t see any mention of meeting dates or locations on either of those. Seems like an obvious place times and locations could be posted. You can also email me directly or add me to your email list. Gharris@alamedaunified.org

          Comment by Gray Harris — June 25, 2018 @ 5:54 pm

        • Gray, I am not on Facebook. I had someone else do that. I sent them the same copy that was noticed in all the publications I listed and it clearly stated time and place and a lot more. I will monitor things better next time.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 6:04 pm

        • I’m not part of ACT or its PAC, so can’t give you that info. The linked-to piece did mention that the information therein came from various social media posts, so maybe it will again be published in social media posts. I can only speculate. While we are on the topic – and this question is not directed to anyone in particular – will Alamedans United or its successor PAC make the same mistake of holding meetings open to the public and letting anyone speak?

          Comment by MP — June 25, 2018 @ 6:08 pm

    • Angela, your judgmental comments are absurd. Just one question: How many ACTF meetings have YOU been to?

      Comment by vigi — June 25, 2018 @ 12:24 pm

      • I wouldn’t sully my reputation by attending one.

        Comment by Angela — June 25, 2018 @ 1:46 pm

      • Holy meta absurdity!

        Comment by Rod — June 25, 2018 @ 1:50 pm

      • Angela, I can’t wait to see what you are like when you are old. Someday you too will be a smelly old white liberal.

        Comment by vigi — June 25, 2018 @ 7:14 pm

        • Oh Carol, I guarantee Angela will be the coolest old lady ever, who would definitely never even think about trespassing or breaking and entering, let alone supporting fascism!

          Comment by Rod — June 27, 2018 @ 8:18 pm

        • Rod. I would never think of breaking and entering either. And if I worked for the City, I would never leave my office on a Thursday afternoon before a three-day weekend, and leave my office unlocked and my computer on and logged in to my personal business, which I was doing on city time. I wouldn’t come in for unapproved overtime, on a holiday, which I could bill to the city taxpayers, either.

          Comment by vigi — June 28, 2018 @ 9:34 am

        • And if I were the Navy, I probably would not advertise 24 hour / 7 day access to an information repository located in a building the City wants to restrict access to Mon-Thurs, 8 A- 6 P. Fortunately, this situation has been corrected in the new community involvement plan in draft review now.

          Comment by vigi — June 28, 2018 @ 9:52 am

    • Angela, I would ask that you take the advice you just gave me and give back to yourself. You and I both want more affordable housing in Alameda. We both want a fiscally secure Alameda. Our disagreement is with how to get there. I am both white and old, and it is true that , with few exceptions, the people in the room were white, but there were a lot of younger people in the room and I am being approached often by young people with families who support our views.

      I have no conspiracy theories. However I doubt the objectivity of candidates who receive direct or indirect support from public employee unions and developers who they are supposed to keep at arms length, and then consistently support their proposals. This is not an indictment of unions or developers. they are representing their interests, which is what they should do.

      As long as you keep discounting people with our views as old, white, or self satisfied rich people, or having some ulterior motive instead of having a conversation about the real issues any constructive solutions will be hard to find.

      Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 3:37 pm

      • Tell me, which housing developments you and your members have supported?

        It is not my job to work with you, especially when the policies your group had supported have directly contributed to the housing crisis. Why would I waste my time when the simple arguments of this crisis aren’t enough to sway your members? Time is a precious resource and I’m not seeing any proof that my time will be well spent working with your org. Your org needs to do some serious self evaluation on how its policies have affected the people you want so desperately to work with you. The bottom line is that many people do not trust ACTF. ACTF does not ask what can we do for renters or poc, they ask what can they do for ACTF. When you hear people are struggling, you don’t see ACTF dropping everything to support such folks, you see them putting conditions and fears on them. Change your tune. Understand why your org doesn’t actually stand for what’s best for all of Alameda (eyeroll) make some changes and maybe will view ACTF in a different light.

        Comment by Angela — June 26, 2018 @ 7:33 am

        • Angela, I was not part of ACT in 2014-into early 2015. Since then the only project that I recall that we have really actively opposed in concept is Encinal Terminals. However we do oppose the formula used to compute maximum units for the MX projects and believe it is not in conformance with our zoning ordinances and is not mandated by state law. We do not believe that the developer should get credit for acreage not dedicated to residential use, Thus the max units for an MX project that is 10 acres residential and 10 acres commercial with 15% affordable housing should be 360 units (10 X 36), not 720 units (20 X 36). We also believe that all residential developments should be required to have a CFD (Community Financing District) where home owners have a special annual assessment to cover police and fire protection that their standard property taxes do not cover. These CFD’s are required of Bayport, Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. Why are all of the current developers being left off the hook? If this continues our entire city budget will be devoured by police and fire costs. We also think that there needs to be much more traffic planning, based on the assumption, that regardless of how much public transportation is provided, traffic flow is already a problem and could reach the point of strangulation.

          If you have read my article at https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/07/alamedas-housing-development-plans-now-not-states-fault/ you know that I think that the City’s current 15% inclusionary rate is counter-productive in producing affordable housing and needs to increase, even at the cost of allowing more density due to the density bonus increase.

          Is there a project I like? Absolutely! Site A should be the model for all future projects. It has a 25% inclusionary rate and has a CFD provision, so it provides both affordable housing and financial sustainability for the City. Also it is an argument against those who think that such requirements will never be accepted by developers. It has had its problems getting off the ground, not related to these requirements, but to properly sequencing the infrastructure improvements with both market rate and affordable housing.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 26, 2018 @ 9:55 am

        • Which recent developments do not have a CFD requirement? Name them.

          Last I checked, there is a GF neutral requirement for all new developments which is why ALL new developments have CFDs.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 26, 2018 @ 10:33 am

        • Every development between Sherman and Park. Ask Andrew Thomas. I am confident that he will confirm that. Please let me know if I am in error. I have for two years I have been pressing Andrew, Jill and Debbie on this with no explanation that I consider valid.

          The General Plan amendments for these estuary projects give lip service to revenue neutrality, but nothing is being done to assure it.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 26, 2018 @ 11:41 am

        • Lauren, If you look at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1891035&GUID=D5EB90E6-8CB8-4F77-BFBE-5889BE4FF42D&FullText=1 you will see that this an infrastructure CFD, not a police and fire CFD. They are two different animals, both authorized under the same State law. Although the resolution ambiguously refers to services, the services are related to infrastructure.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 26, 2018 @ 1:50 pm

        • Did you read it or just tell me to read it without reading it in detail yourself?

          On page 4 of attachment 2:

          Public safety services, including police and fire protection.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 26, 2018 @ 1:59 pm

        • You got me on that one! I assumed the background statement was accurate. My bad! When I did this research some time ago I just checked the large projects, and obviously missed this one. Thank you for correcting me. I just learned something from you and I hope that you are learning some thing from me.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 26, 2018 @ 2:31 pm

      • Here’s the proposed CFD for Admiral’s Cove too: https://alamedaca.gov/north-housing-admirals-cove

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 26, 2018 @ 12:20 pm

        • Your link does indicate that we are headed for a public safety CFD if this project is approved. I am happy about that, but it is not within the geographic area between Sherman and Park that I delineated.. Also I wonder why they are imposing it on a project designed for the low end of market rate, thus increasing the cost to lower income residents, while not placing it on the Market Rate developments between Sherman and Park.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 26, 2018 @ 2:05 pm

        • well Lauren, at least I know who to believe on these issues now. thanks.

          Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — June 26, 2018 @ 2:59 pm

        • It just occurred to me that Admiral’s Cove is part of Alameda Point, the plan for which has mandated revenue neutrality since its inception. Thus it is not current policy but mandated past policy, same as Site A. It appears to me that the only CFD outside of Alameda Point, Alameda Landing and Bayport is Marina Cove II, a small 52 unit development. Aren’t u upset that you folks at Bayport are paying it, while, Del Mionte, 2100 Clement, Marina Shores, Boatworks, Alameda Marina and Encinal Terminals are not?

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 26, 2018 @ 9:20 pm

        • Admiral’s Cove is not part of Alameda Point the same way that Bayport is not part of Alameda Point. Admiral’s Cove was part of a separate disposal process of North Housing by the GSA after it was deemed to be surplus.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 27, 2018 @ 5:20 am

        • I stand corrected. Have u found any exceptions other than Marina Cove II to my claim that there are no
          public safety CFDs in place or pending for any housing development between Sherman and Park?

          Comment by Paul Foreman — June 27, 2018 @ 9:56 am

        • How about you do your own research? I pointed out two non Alameda Point specific developments with CFDs. You said Marina Cove was only an infrastructure one. I excerpted the part from the documents you posted which showed you were incorrect. Maybe post your correspondence with Jill Keimach, Debbie Potter, and Andrew Thomas with regard to this topic and while their explanations may be not “valid” to you, perhaps they will be for the rest of us.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 27, 2018 @ 10:03 am

        • Lauren, I took your advice and had a long conversation with Andrew Thomas. I must take back my previous agreement with your assertion that Admiral’s Cove is not subject to the Naval Base Reuse Plan. Andrew told me that it was added to the Plan in 2009 and is subject to the revenue neutrality provision of the plan that would require a CFD if necessary to reach revenue neutrality, the same as Site A. Sure enough the very document that you referred me too at the 6th bullet point confirms that. https://alamedaca.gov/north-housing-admirals-cove Therefore, this does not represent a new policy by Council , but a mandate of the Reuse Plan.

          Andrew also confirmed that no approved housing development between Sherman and Park carries a public safety CFD, other than Marina Cove II. We also had a good discussion as to whether public safety CFD’s would be warranted for estuary projects not yet approved and I have a better understanding of the pros and cons of the issue.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 28, 2018 @ 9:19 am

  12. For me, speaking o my for myself, the premise of the group to form a PAC to raise money and seek like-minded candidates, is flawed. If the objection is to PAC money being raised by special interest groups to promote candidates that will play out their desired outcomes, how is this proposed PAC different than labor union Packs? The point of a PAC is “Dark money”, i.e. money raised and spent on behalf of candidates without their control of the source, the expenditures, or, the candidates approval of the messaging. Since this group already has people so nasty and emboldened that they can get up in a public meeting and feel free to call their adversary a who’re, I hate to think what ki d of incivility and hit pieces will follow,
    .

    Comment by Kate Quick — June 25, 2018 @ 3:07 pm

    • Kate, the difference is that our PAC will be a broad based group of Alameda Residents, not a group of special interests, many of whom are not Alameda residents. If you want to paint our group by the nasty remark of one person at a public meeting, I really have nothing to say in response.

      Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 3:42 pm

      • A. C. T. is. a. special. interest.

        You can say you’re not, but as soon as you PAC up, you are.

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 3:46 pm

      • Paul, I’m sorry to say that your group in no way will be broad based, and it will truly be a small group of special interests. to be broad based it will have to have people in it that don’t always agree with you and are in lock step with you. also how are you going to guarantee that there will not be outside money coming into your so called broad based PAC. if it hasn’t even been formed yet how do you propose to keep money from outside of Alameda from coming in to your PAC.?

        Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — June 25, 2018 @ 4:01 pm

        • Here is our mission statement (subject to revision)

          “Our mission is to elect a new majority on City Council who will:

          1. Make decisions based on the public good, not rewarding campaign contributions from public employee unions, developers and other special interest groups.
          2. Make independent decisions based upon a clear understanding of all of the options, rather than rubber stamping staff recommendations.
          3. Respect and encourage the advice of our City Treasurer and Auditor.
          4. Evaluate development proposals based upon their impact on the entire community.

          The mission statement is very broad in order to attract the broadest spectrum of support in the community.”

          Lock step? Hardly!

          I am only one person but I would suggest that we not knowingly accept money from non-residents. If someone wants to commit fraud and contribute in false name, I can’t avoid that.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 4:35 pm

      • You cannot claim that ACT is “a broad based group” when its main goal appears to be to remove or undermine 3 members of the city council who tend to be progressives. These members were democratically elected by a majority of Alamedan voters, so how can you claim to be ‘broad based?” The reason why you have no diversity is because you are asking people to work against the very representatives who are currently the best advocates for minorities on the island.

        Comment by JRB — June 26, 2018 @ 9:13 am

  13. It’s worth repeating: inclusion and diversity are not the responsibility of people of color. Here’s one reason why Mr. Shabazz has not spent time responding to ACTF:

    “Indeed, that is why I, Lisa Brown and Dorothy Freeman have all separately asked you for your help. We are still asking for your help in bringing more diversity to our group.”

    And that wasn’t the last time in the message you tried to put your work on Mr. Shabazz’ task list. He is showing restraint in not responding. It’s entitled and presumptuous to demand he help you.

    Best of luck to you.

    Comment by Gaylon — June 25, 2018 @ 4:11 pm

    • *should say “one possible reason” I am not speaking for Mr. Shabazz

      Comment by Gaylon — June 25, 2018 @ 4:13 pm

    • You need to reread the email I posted. Nobody demanded anything. Rasheed stated at the meeting that we had to go beyond social media, emails and newspapers to get diversity and we were admitting our naiveté on alternatives and asking for suggestions on how to extend our invitation. We were not asking him to recruit people for us.

      Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 25, 2018 @ 4:39 pm

      • This is literally what gaslighting is. You wrote:

        We are still asking for your help in bringing more diversity to our group

        Gaylon’s comment still stands. It IS entitled and presumptuous to request that Rasheed Shabazz diversify your group for you rather than ACT do the work of understanding what is important to the people who were not represented at your public meeting.

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 4:48 pm

      • You need to not put work on my task list either, Mr. Foreman. I read your email. It was simple.

        Comment by Gaylon — June 25, 2018 @ 4:52 pm

      • I did not stare at the meeting that you needed “to go beyond social media, emails and newspapers to get diversity.”

        Others in attendance did have those suggestions, however.

        And, multiple people in attendance (i counted six) told me i would need to do that recruitment, both immediately after my question and before your response, and after the event.

        There was one woman that asked for my suggestions, but i was so disturbed by how she interupted a conversation and touched me without permission, i did not response.

        Now, if you did hear me state that, i would love to gear the recording!

        Comment by Rasheed — June 30, 2018 @ 10:10 am

        • I share with you the wish that the meeting had been recorded. My recollection is that when you brought up the question of diversity I responded by stating that I had published invitations with detailed information on all local written and internet media along with mass emails and could not control who responded. At that point I heard the remarks suggesting that I go beyond those media outlets which I attributed to you. I was in the front of the room with a microphone and there was no mike for questioners, so I very well could have been in error in attributing that remark to you. In fact I may not have accurately heard your original question, but now that you have put it in writing, I hope to be able to post a response. However, we now have a Committee in place that did not exist on the evening of the meeting, so I need to consult with them. I am only the temporary Chairperson. A permanent Chairperson will be elected soon.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 30, 2018 @ 11:05 am

  14. Don’t kid yourself, Mr. Paul. ACT has a definite agenda. Not new. It’s main actors are tough and not opposed to engaging in all kinds of in civil behavior. I’ve been the target of some pretty nasty stuff, just for supporting the wrong people, speaking my mind, and refusing to be bullied. A PAC is a PAC. It represents a point of view and wants to be able to raise anonymous money to elect candidates who will do what they want them to do. They love hit pieces (see the word “anonymous “). In general, they like dirty tricks, rumor and innuendo. I do not like dark money. I worry about tribalism and the erosion of civility, which are made easy by PACs.

    I also am made angry by statements about “those people from Oakland”, “losing our Island way of life”, and “We are so unique”. The guy who made the remark may have been the only one to speak ugly, but he felt free to do it there, in that group, and what does that say about who the group is percieved to be? Just because you believe your ideas to be more just than the other PACs you deplore and suggest are corrupt, it doesn’t make this effort any different than other PACs.

    Comment by Kate Quick — June 25, 2018 @ 4:17 pm

  15. Did they ever find out who was behind the hit piece mailer$ against Tony Daysog last election?

    Comment by MP — June 25, 2018 @ 4:49 pm

    • Nah, that went into the same black hole where the hit piece mailers against Mike McMahon went during his last school board election.

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2018 @ 5:10 pm

      • The “same” black hole, or a different black hole? That’s a question. I don’t know the answer.

        Comment by MP — June 25, 2018 @ 6:11 pm

    • I still have one of my anti-Daysog mailers. At the bottom it says: Vote for Stewart Chen for City Council.

      Comment by vigi — June 25, 2018 @ 7:17 pm

  16. A few hours later, and there are 60 comments! Now the popcorn tastes even better–especially when I’m watching Angela!

    Comment by vigi — June 25, 2018 @ 7:21 pm

  17. Rasheed knows exactly what to do to get a rise out of “Mayberry”.

    Comment by vigi — June 25, 2018 @ 7:28 pm

  18. A couple of thoughts – interesting that Mr. Foreman refuses to acknowledge the insensitivity, if not the outright racism of his remark about “dark skinned people”. It also might be worth looking at the words of Lisa Brown, one of his co-organizers. She posts often on Nextdoor, and has over the last few months attacked creation of housing for homeless seniors, attacked the investigation of Oddie and Vela as a waste of taxpayer money, and labeled them both criminals, complains about the pick up time of ACI. Can you get more entitled and NIMBY than that? If she is the face and belief system of ACTF, then no thanks!

    Comment by notadave — June 27, 2018 @ 10:38 am

    • That is not exactly what I said, but it is close enough. I am really not responding to you because nothing I say to you is going to be received well, I am informing the readers of this Blog as to the context of my remark. I was responding to Mr. Shabazz’s comment concerning the absence of people of color in the room. I don’t know if he used that exact term, but that was the jist of what he was saying. He was essentially making the same observation contained in my reply which was simply agreeing with him. It is revealing that you are troubled by my remark but express no concern about Mr. Shabazz’s tweets.

      As to Ms. Brown, I have never heard her say those things and I am not trusting your quotations, but I will look into it.

      Comment by Paul S Foreman — June 27, 2018 @ 12:28 pm

      • As long as you’re logged into NextDoor you should be able to see what your one of your co-organizers are publicly saying and taking positions on:

        Moratorium on housing: https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=72687442
        Stirring up negative feelings about Wellness and Respite Center: https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=66944942
        Alleging sitting City Councilmembers involved in criminal conspiracy: https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=81474362
        Again alleging City Councilmembers are criminals: https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=77998617

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 27, 2018 @ 1:31 pm

      • The very definition of white entitlement (speaking as a white person myself) is not being able to see any difference between referring to someone as a person of color, or as “darked skinned”

        Comment by notadave — June 29, 2018 @ 11:27 am

      • Paul,

        Perhaps it sounded like editorializing when I asked, but this was/is my question:

        How will a group (room of 60 people–57 of them white) select a new-majority City Council slate that acts for the “public good” of the “entire community,” when it does not appear to include younger people, people of color, people with disabilities?

        Your response was that you “noticed we have very few dark skin faces.”

        Comment by Rasheed — June 29, 2018 @ 7:59 pm

        • Paul Foreman,

          Out of all of the questions on here, this is the most important one to respond to.

          Comment by Angela — June 30, 2018 @ 7:08 am

        • Rasheed, you sat down right next to me and my quad cane was between us. It could not have escaped your notice. Please do not include PWDs in your rant, since you have no way of counting us in such a meeting.

          Comment by vigi — July 2, 2018 @ 10:10 am

        • Rasheed, Below is my response to your question:

          I know enough of the people in the room to be able to state that the group did include people with disabilities and younger people. Nevertheless, we heartily agree that it would have been better if there had been more diversity in the mix of people that came to our public meeting on June 20. However we are very pleased and thankful for the 60 people that voluntarily took the time to come to a well-advertised open public meeting.

          The core of your question is whether our Committee, if it does not achieve all of the diversity it desires, can select a slate that will promote the public good. To answer that question, I refer you to our draft mission statement contained in our invitation to the June 20 meeting (subject to amendment by the Committee). We are seeking candidates who will:

          “1. Make decisions based on the public good, not rewarding campaign contributions from public employee unions, developers and other special interest groups.
          2. Make independent decisions based upon a clear understanding of all of the options, rather than rubber stamping staff recommendations.
          3. Respect and encourage the advice of our City Treasurer and Auditor. (This refers to our looming budget deficits and unfunded pension liability)
          4. Evaluate development proposals based upon their impact on the entire community.”

          (Italics mine)

          As we stated in our announcement, “The mission statement is very broad in order to attract the broadest spectrum of support in the community.” We are of the opinion that the current majority on Council do not consistently meet these standards. There are people of all ethnic, cultural, religious and racial elements of our community who agree with us, as well as many who do not. I can only hope that their support or opposition will be based on that broad issue, and not on the diversity or lack thereof of our Committee or supporters.

          Comment by Paul S Foreman — July 2, 2018 @ 10:27 am

        • Did anyone else get the memo that reported the vigi speaks for all people with disabilities? Can anyone forward it to me. k thanks!

          Comment by Lauren Do — July 2, 2018 @ 2:38 pm

        • Wow, an incredibly tone deaf response form Paul to Rasheed. You still have no clue how insensitive your comments were, and just assume that your interests, and the interests of a predominately white older group are the best interests of the city.

          Comment by notadave — July 2, 2018 @ 3:50 pm

        • Lauren: After being hit by a car, I developed progressive multilevel kyphoscoliosis. I’ve had five spine surgeries since the 1990’s, and will no doubt be having more in the future. Before then, I had a satisfying career providing health care to patients with a wide range of disabilities, from autism to amputees. I may not be able to speak for “all” PWD, but I don’t see anyone else writing on this blog with a comparable background and experience. So, yes, I can speak up on behalf of disabilities I have experience with.

          Given the predominantly older age of the ACTF members, it is reasonable to assume some of them have hip, knee, or other joint replacements. I know some have had spine surgery. Don’t judge what you cannot see. Unless you are a member of a protected class, you have little business pretending to be outraged on its behalf.

          Comment by vigi — July 3, 2018 @ 11:17 am

  19. Vigi,

    Two things: First of all, i do not know you. I would not recognize you. You did not speak to me. Next time, introduce yourself like human’s often do. Don’t just comment on this blog. Second, a question is not a rant; although, your point about (in)visible disabilities.

    If you go back and listen to your recording, you will find that my addition of “people with disabilities” (didn’t know there was an acronym) was not about appearance.

    Comment by Rasheed — July 2, 2018 @ 11:26 am

  20. You don’t have to know me to notice I use a quad cane. You don’t have to know anyone to note they are using a visible mobility aid. Since your statement was that the ACTF group APPEARED to lack youthful people, people of color, and PWD; I am just surprised you failed to notice the obvious PWD right next to you.

    I considered introducing myself, but you were so intent on your Tweeting, I was afraid to disturb you. After reading what you posted above about being “touched inappropriately”, it’s a good thing I didn’t, b/c I would have tapped you on the arm to get your attention.

    Comment by vigi — July 2, 2018 @ 1:51 pm

    • Vigi,

      after i asked my question, i did not see your cane but i saw a “boot”/footwalker.

      and if you look back at my tweets’ time signature, you’ll notice that i did not tweet until after the meeting. i was however taking copious notes.

      yeah, all the people there touching me was a bit overwhelming.

      if you would like to get my attention in public, just say, “Excuse me” “Permiso,” “Samahani.” Or, since you’re comfortable writing my name, you can also say it: rah-shee-d.

      since i’m a bit more conspicuous in a crowd like that, just say Hi!

      Comment by Rasheed — July 2, 2018 @ 2:37 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.