Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 30, 2020

The seeker

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

The other day, true to form, Councilmember Tony Daysog lobbed a topical grenade into various Alameda groups and then refuse to engage in a debate about what he posted which included two letters to the editor hugging tight to the need for A/26 to protect Victorian homes.

Of course, we all know that there are many other, stronger, policies in place that currently protect old “vintage” homes.  City staff put together a handy-dandy guide earlier this year but the main protection in Alameda is the Historic Preservation Ordinance which also created the Historic Advisory Board which created a first wall of protection over any structure built before 1942 and further protections for any structure designated a historic monument.

Then in response to a blast from the past capture I posted on Twitter, Tony Daysog posted this:

Completely ignoring the words that this warm, thoughtful woman had to say which scolded Alameda in 1966 for not doing enough for displaced Black Alamedans and calling out racial prejudice at the highest levels of Alameda’s City government.  This occurred only seven years prior to the passage of A/26 but we’re expected to believe that in seven years, even as the spectre of the displaced families from the Estuary Housing Projects still loomed over Alameda, there existed no more racial issues in Alameda and that it was completely a non-issue in the majority vote.

But, as with any communication with or from Tony Daysog, it’s always going to be superficial and, to be honest, a little puzzling.  Take for example the current landing page for Tony Daysog’s let’s keep A/26 campaign website:

Capture

First, apparently the two background photos aren’t even of Alameda families.  Yeah, an Alamedan sleuth figured out they were stock photos.  So he couldn’t even find three Alameda families willing to put their faces out there as supporting A/26.  And then there was this:

Capture2

He quoted “Article 26 history” as the source from A/26 protecting “neighborhoods so that everyone can seek to flourish.”

Can “seek to flourish” is an interesting qualifier.  It’s not “protect neighborhoods so that everyone can flourish.”  It’s “seek to” flourish.  See, you have to want to flourish and seek it out. It’s in the same vein as “pulling yourself up from your bootstraps” or “work harder” or “don’t buy so much avocado toast” admonishments.

In the end is this language any different than this language from 1963: “The opinion was also expressed that the City was not obligated to find housing for these people — they should act for themselves just as anyone else would.”

15 Comments »

  1. Don’t look for too many lawn signs this election season….

    Here’s a newsflash…

    Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share. Over 30% think political opponents should be fired from their jobs….only liberals still feel safe sharing views.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share

    And by the way, regarding your comment on “seek to flourish’” our founding document, the Declaration of Independence doesn’t “guarantee” happiness, only the pursuit of happiness.

    Comment by Nowyouknow — July 30, 2020 @ 7:44 am

  2. From the City’s handy-dandy guide (BTW, will the city spend money to guide voters on this ballot measure? I remember a very professional-looking glossy mailer commissioned by the city re the utility tax measure in a recent prior election):

    “Preserving the Character of Alameda Neighborhoods:

    Article 26 does not “preserve the character of residential
    neighborhoods”.

    In fact, Article 26 does not allow new residential buildings
    similar to the many multifamily buildings that are such an
    important part of the character of Alameda’s
    neighborhoods. Many of these buildings are listed as City
    of Alameda Architectural and Historical Resources (the
    “Study List”), including 1438 Lafayette (41 units/acre),
    2301 San Antonio (68 units/acre), and 916 Union (109
    units/acre).”

    Those two things may be separately true, but I’m not immediately grasping the connection between the latter and the former.

    If you want to “keep” Alameda this way or that in terms of development, traffic, neighborhoods, community life, and choose to convey that idea with portraits – as opposed to, say, images of overdevelopment or traffic woes – pick images that do a better job capturing the city’s present diversity than the stock photos.

    Maybe the campaign will do that – and stop borrowing phrases from Eric Swalwell [“The next president of the United States must understand how Americans live, struggle and seek to flourish”] – if it revises its landing page.

    Comment by MP — July 30, 2020 @ 9:56 am

  3. Didn’t Trump weigh in in favor of Article 26 yesterday? Perhaps his name could be added to a future flyer.

    Comment by BC — July 30, 2020 @ 10:02 am

    • Remember, BC, President Trump is a real estate developer – he would find A/26 as local nonsense and hassle that just gets in the way.

      Comment by Bart — July 30, 2020 @ 4:32 pm

      • Given that Trump went bankrupt numerous times over his real estate holdings he is hardly a expert.

        Comment by john doe — July 31, 2020 @ 8:41 am

        • Joe Biden is declining. Is that who you offer in an alternative? The decline is obvious, and the historians will note this.

          How do you mock Trump when your alternative is Biden? His choice of VP is specifically excluding Hispanics and other IPOC because of visuals – He will pick Kamala Harris for visuals; theatrically putting the B in BIPOC.

          You want more? Or is Biden good enough?

          Comment by Bart — August 2, 2020 @ 7:33 am

  4. Hispanics aren’t being excluded by Biden. Are you suggesting that Trump is the better choice — the president that put hispanic children in cages and separated them from their mothers?

    Comment by Karen B — August 2, 2020 @ 3:49 pm

    • Bart lives in a world where s/he/they think it’s clever to attempt to pit BIPOC against one another and think that’s a winning strategy. As anyone who is actually a Democrat knows, Black women have been the one consistent majority demographic for the Democratic Party. It’s high time that we have that recognized through, at least to start, with a VP pick. Given the wealth of Black female candidates out there, we’d be fortunate to get any of the women in the VP slot who have been floated in the past month or so.

      Comment by Lauren Do — August 3, 2020 @ 5:48 am

      • Agreed. I think this may be the week that we find out Biden’s VP pick. I have my favorite, but anyone of them on his short list will do us proud!

        Comment by Karen Bey — August 3, 2020 @ 6:22 am


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

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

Blog at WordPress.com.