Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 27, 2019


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

From City of Alameda social media:

 Early yesterday morning, a truckload of 50 bikes and safety gear was stolen from in front of Maya Lin School, where Cycles for Change was teaching bike safety. Throughout the year, they help hundreds of our kids learn to bike safely to school and in their neighborhoods. We can help them rebuild — here’s how:

DONATE A BIKE: Bicycle donations are being accepted at the following locations:
— Alameda Fire Station 4 on BFI: 2595 Mecartney Road
— Alameda Recreation and Park Department office: 2226 Santa Clara
— Alameda Point Collaborative: 677 W Ranger Ave
— Maya Lin School: 825 Taylor Ave

MONETARY DONATIONS: A truckload of safety gear was also stolen – helmets, bike parts, tools, and more. You can donate online at

Cycles of Change’s tagline is Building Community, One Person, One Bicycle at a time. They are scheduled to be at Edison Elementary School next week and at other schools throughout the fall. We can help them rebuild so they do not have to cancel these programs. Let’s make this happen, Alameda!

And, if you’re in a giving mood, this is a verified fundraiser to pay the legal costs for the whistleblower on the whole Ukraine deal. If millions can be raised for Jill Stein’s recount scam, there should be enough people out there willing to help this patriot.


  1. We can talk about how we treat, and how we should treat, whistleblowers in Alameda some other day.

    If deterring this sad and disheartening type of crime (stealing Cycles for Change bikes) is our priority, perhaps we should avoid: (1) dragging the police chief into political intrigues, (2) disputing the police chief’s true account of those attempts at intrigue during official inquiries, so that he can focus on his job, rather than having to deal with political mischief from City Councilmembers who are supposed to be looking out for the city, not just themselves.

    From pages 18 and 19 of the 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Report:

    “On August 1, 2017 one Alameda councilmember (CM1) accompanied the Alameda police chief to a number of neighborhood gatherings on National Night Out. The nationwide event is intended to strengthen community-police partnerships and bring neighborhoods together to make them safer. The police chief and CM1 had worked with each other for years, and it was common for the chief to partner up with someone on the city council for such events. At the end of the night, CM1 brought up with the police chief the issue of the fire chief hiring process. The conversation led the police chief to acknowledge that the labor candidate had a steep hill to climb, because he lacked a college degree and command experience. CM1 responded that the city manager better “do the right thing”; if not, there were already two councilmembers ready to fire her. The police chief knew the city manager was frustrated with the outside interference but thought her concerns that her job might be in jeopardy were overblown. That was certainly no longer the case after this conversation. Had this statement been made directly to the city manager, it would be difficult to interpret it as anything other than a threat to the city manager’s job and as pressure to select CM1’s candidate, who also happened to be the labor union’s choice. Such pressure would be a direct violation of the city charter’s provision preventing
    councilmembers from trying to influence the city manager during the hiring process.”

    “It is impractical to have expected the police chief to keep these provocative comments private. The police chief reports directly to the city manager and, just like the fire chief, is hired and could be fired by the city manager. By all accounts, the city manager and police chief had a very positive working relationship and city business oftentimes required them to speak several times a day. Everyone on the council knew this. It would also be in the police chief’s best interests to give his boss a heads up that one councilmember appeared to be lobbying other members of the council to fire her if they did not get their way on the fire chief hire. Ultimately, there is evidence that the police chief did report this conversation to the city manager. ”

    “CM1 has repeatedly denied making such statements. After thorough investigation, the Grand Jury does not find these denials credible. The police chief immediately reported the conversation to the city manager and later recounted the same story to a local newspaper. His story was also consistent throughout multiple investigatory interviews. The police chief had no apparent motivetofabricatethisstory. Hehadbeenworkingforthe
    city for 26 years and had been chief for the last four. It
    appears the police chief had no interest in supporting any
    specific fire chief candidate, and that he had no specific
    problems working with CM1. Considering CM1’s strong
    preference for the labor-backed candidate, close
    relationship with the Alameda fire labor leader, and the
    fact that CM1 was supported in reelection efforts by the
    labor group, the police chief’s version of the conversation is more credible.”

    “If the allegation were true, it is unclear whether CM1 made the statement expecting that it would be passed on to the city manager as a threat or he just did not have the capacity or good judgement to withhold his opinion to someone so close to the city manager. If intended to pressure the city manager in the hiring process, it was unethical. If just a spontaneous declaration of CM1’s feelings, it displayed bad judgement and a poor understanding of good governance. An elected official operating in a council-manager form of government should not be criticizing his or her city manager about internal government operations to one of the manager’s subordinates. Criticisms should be made directly to the city manager. Relaying a threat to fire the city manager to one of her subordinates is absolutely inexcusable.”

    Comment by MP — September 27, 2019 @ 7:45 am

  2. This post is another in a number of recent stories of increasing crime around town. The four recent “home invasions”, elderly woman at south shore having her purse snatched, and then home entered 20 minutes later with her key, etc.
    Question for anyone familiar with OPD staffing? How many officers are on duty at any one time? I recall some hires in the budget that had not been filled?
    What I hardly ever see is police driving around town, not waiting to give motorists tickets, but patrolling around. A presence that could serve as a deterent. Harbor Bay security has routine drive arounds all over Harbor Bay.
    Alameda is not that large of an island it seems like someone could be driving around more?

    Comment by DD — September 27, 2019 @ 8:28 am

    • I don’t know about OPD but APD is currently understaffed. AFD is overstaffed and has new gleaming cathedrals for their excess staff to hang their hats. It would be a good move for public safety for Alameda’s police to learn a lesson or two from fire….

      Comment by dave — September 27, 2019 @ 9:05 am

  3. So sorry to hear about the bicycles that were stolen. It’s like we’re becoming sitting ducks! We definately need more cops on patrol.

    Comment by Karen Bey — September 27, 2019 @ 9:55 am

  4. Typo, I meant APD. Yes Karen “on patrol” meaning a certain number of officers just on patrol and not distracted by traffic issues or calls. At least one! I really hardly ever see them just patrolling. Also what about also biking, walking etc.

    Comment by DD — September 27, 2019 @ 11:28 am

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at