Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 19, 2020

The Gig is up

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

Campaign websites this year are consistent in one respect: quite a few of them seem to be published before they’re ready for prime time. We have cat ipsum from Trish Spencer, Amos White’s website went through font iterations (the new font is better), and now Gig Codiga has launched his website with placeholder text galore:

But there are a few parts of what real text there is on Gig Codiga’s website that is enough to set off alarm bells that rang during Trish Spencer’s campaign for Mayor. It was inexcusable then but today it brings with it the whole spectre of what Trumpism has wrought which makes it ever the more surprising that a candidate in 2020 would think that language and connection was appropriate:

But what was also surprising was that Gig Codiga elected to adopt as his tagline “A Better Alameda.” Of course, there is an active PAC with the same name and was selected either intentionally (not great) or unintentionally (possibly worse because it means he hasn’t been paying attention to past elections and who was funding independent expenditures):

Then there is the blanket accusation that “the current council is rife with scandal and controversy in their zeal to achieve ANY higher office.” Just to clarify: there are only two members of the current City Council who have ever run for a higher office than that of just an ordinary city councilmember: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Tony Daysog. Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, of course, famously trounced Trish Spencer for Mayor two years ago while she still had a two years left on her Councilmember term. Tony Daysog has run for Mayor, Assembly (2006), US House of Reps (2014), and I think there was one other race for higher office but I can’t recall when it was AC Transit Board. So is Gig Codiga referring to Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Tony Daysog when he is referencing individuals with the “zeal to achieve ANY higher office”? Or is he assuming facts not in evidence about the two incumbents he’s running against and making ambition and drive seem like negatives?

And finally, the wall o’ contradictory text from Gig Codiga’s campaign statement complete with random capital letters in the middle of sentences and everything:

I’ve highlighted some of the contradictory gems like “Let’s focus on the future” but noting that the future doesn’t include making any changes because “Progress is Great, Until it Isn’t.”

I forgot to highlight this one, but it’s the first line so you can’t miss it: “I am running to better represent all Alameda communities.” But then the statement later proposes “I will seek to: Institute District Election improving
diversity of expressions/ideas.” So, Gig Codiga wants to represent all Alameda communities but feels as though there’s not enough “diversity of expressions/ideas” on the Council. Is that he does or does not feel as though he can represent all Alameda communities that every community needs a rep to ensure their “expressions/ideas” are heard. It’s all very confusing.

Now I’ll say that a while ago I was a huge proponent of district elections, mostly because it would be easier to have ranked choice voting. Given that this current Council (minus Tony Daysog) represents one of those most progressive Councils that has ever sat on the dais it’s interesting that a Gold Coast (I’m assuming that’s where he lives, based on an article from Patch a while back about “Flat Gig” Google it, it’s sort of an artifact of chummy old Alameda) straight white male doesn’t feel as though his “expressions/ideas” are well represented on the City Council even though two of the last three Mayors in Alameda have lived in the Gold Coast.

The biggest red flag is that Gig Codiga has firmly set himself as against the A/26 repeal and thinks that there are no “plans” that exist on how to manage development except for A/26. His talking points on development are the typical soundbites that we’ve been hearing for as long as I have lived here and they’re tired and without any thing to back it up other than gut feelings and anecdotal stories.

But all in all, the addition of Gig Codiga actually made the job of winning just a little harder for Amos White and maybe even Trish Spencer. He’s a less embarrassing version of Trish Spencer but will come with her same “let’s do nothing!” attitude. Amos White was/is looking to straddle the fence on all the hot topic issues to win votes from both progressives and conservatives in Alameda which may have worked for him had it been a straight two on two election.


  1. Is his name hard G (as in gig economy) or soft G (as in dancing a jig)?

    Comment by dave — August 19, 2020 @ 8:00 am

    • Hard G

      Comment by David Burton — August 19, 2020 @ 8:19 am

    • “G” as in “gif”

      Comment by therealdanwood — August 19, 2020 @ 10:02 am

  2. Agreed, we do need some candidates around here with bigger war chests, better consultants and slicker websites.

    Comment by MP — August 19, 2020 @ 8:06 am

    • Or just more competence, or not launching a site before having a platform, or maybe not running until you have a platform? These are also all alternatives.

      Comment by Lauren Do — August 19, 2020 @ 8:15 am

      • Maybe cleaning up City Hall or achieving campaign funding transparency don’t count as platform because they are unattainable pie in the sky, but by that standard much of what passes for platform fails

        Comment by MP — August 19, 2020 @ 8:56 am

        • Campaign funding is transparent, otherwise how would Gig Codiga know that money from “outside of Alameda” is funding some campaign? Note, he’s not even talking about campaign finance reform or public financing of campaigns. If he’s running to make campaign funding transparent, done and done. Everyone wants to “clean up” a system they feel that they have been left out of, but without specifics (ahem a platform) it’s just words on a page. Like “Alameda First” or “A Better Alameda” or “Progress is Great Until It Isn’t.”

          Comment by Lauren Do — August 19, 2020 @ 9:07 am

        • ….ok, but just remember no one will hold it against you if at some point you walk back the “campaign funding is transparent” assertion a tad

          Comment by MP — August 19, 2020 @ 9:57 am

        • MP – do you rather have candidates self-fund their own candidacy? Gig Codiga could probably do that. Then only the wealthy could get a council seat. Sorry, but union supporters are a good counterbalance to that, whether or not you like it. These supporters ensure that they have candidates that are representative of the working class in Alameda, and that’s the only reason why Old Alameda wants to vilify unions.

          Trish Spencer rode the coattails of out-of-town corporate investors who poured $668,000 into Alameda’s election in 2018, but I bet you didn’t even bat an eye at that.

          Comment by JRB — August 19, 2020 @ 11:17 am

        • This isn’t “villifying unions,” it’s villifying corruption.

          The union in question is not the SEIU working for $15 min. wage or other worker protections. It is the IAFF, whose members have total annual comp of approximately triple the local median income as well as expensive new facilities. They are also the heavyweight in local politics and those two circumstances are very much related.

          This union’s primary function is to siphon tax dollars from all Alamedans for the benefit of a few, most of them not Alamedans.

          By no measure is that good government. It is corruption, period.

          And it is qualitatively very different from Measure K. K was an effort by property owners to preserve their property rights, not to fleece taxpayers. All they wanted was to stem the tide of confiscation. That’s a horse of a very different color.

          Comment by dave — August 19, 2020 @ 11:33 am

        • Dave – that’s a very interesting interpretation of things. IAFF wasn’t a political powerhouse until a former city manager Ann Marie Gallant closed down a fire station and laid off dozens of firefighters, which made Alameda woefully under-prepared for fire risk, putting all our safety at risk. This was based on a terribly flawed ICMA report, commissioned by Gallant (the ICMA report was basically an exact copy of the one for Lake Havasu, but with “Alameda” swapped in for “Lake Havasu” – which made no acknowledgment of Alameda being an island city full of wooden victorians).

          The blowback for that was the IAFF stepping up and making sure that never happens again, by ensuring elected officials take public safety more seriously.

          And what you call “Measure K an effort by property owners to preserve their property rights,” what you’re really saying is property owners have the rights to price-gouge or throw out families. About 2/3rd of the $668,000 funding for these property owners came from out of town.

          Comment by JRB — August 19, 2020 @ 12:27 pm

        • No, saying that property owners have (or rather HAD) the right to do business freely. That can mean raising rents when market supported that (we had approx a decade from 2002-12 in which citywide rents fell) or reducing rents when that is called for, as it is now.

          Workers have the right to change jobs for higher pay without paying off their old boss (or being forced to stay in old job). Landlords were only trying to keep some portion of that freedom. I guess in your world, some are free, some are not.

          Comment by dave — August 19, 2020 @ 1:56 pm

  3. NextDoor is going absolutely nuts for Gig Codiga. The Old Alameda conservatives have found a candidate to rally around, who can have the voting record of a Trish Spencer but with none of her many controversies.

    Comment by JRB — August 19, 2020 @ 9:23 am

    • 5 people making up positive attributes – (“he will make the divide better” what does that even mean?) is going absolute nuts? Let them have their moment. They will forget what they got excited about soon enough.

      Comment by notadave — August 19, 2020 @ 2:57 pm

  4. O/T I remember back in February Lauren posted a Google doc of Vacant Alameda Storefronts. I had to pick something up at the Walgreens on Park St. yesterday (the one next to Alameda Marketplace), and there’s a notice on the door stating the location will be closing at the end of August. The selection there was always awful — empty shelves galore — but I’m worried that Walgreens’ departure will leave a huge vacant space that no business will want to fill.

    Comment by trow125 — August 19, 2020 @ 11:10 am

    • Well trow125 you may be right, but I’ll bet you are not.
      Assuming Walgreen’s is on the hook for rent (which seems reasonable for standard commercial leases) their desire to get some income for the unused property would seem to make an opening for an entrepreneur to use the space.
      BTW they announced a few weeks ago the closing.

      SBA Advisors report that people are working on business plans for 2021/22 when reopening happens and unique demands are waiting to be filled.

      Certainly believe we will be going through some changes as landlords without the ability or vision to forgive rent for 9 – 12 mos will have tenants moving out … will be interesting to see desire to get some income and new ‘market rate’ lease offers.

      Comment by Ron Mooney — August 29, 2020 @ 4:51 pm

  5. the Gold Coast may be going nuts for the old rich white guy, but I can”t find anyone down here in the West End that will vote for the old rich white guy. but let him run and take some of the votes from Trish.

    Comment by trumpisaracist — August 19, 2020 @ 3:14 pm

    • I’ll vote for the old, rich whit guy because you’re an idiot!

      Comment by Gail Fishe — August 28, 2020 @ 5:45 pm

    • Alameda needs the old rich white guy to put values and pride back in the city. What an insult and ignorant person you are!

      Comment by Gail Fisher — August 28, 2020 @ 6:02 pm

      • thank you Gail, I love your reason for voting for Gig, “because I’m an idiot”, good thinking there. sounds like you have some dog whistles going there too.

        Comment by trumpisaracist — August 28, 2020 @ 6:32 pm

  6. Lauren, I’ve heard Gig say that he is open to some future compromise on Article 26, but not wholesale repeal

    Comment by reyla graber — October 8, 2020 @ 2:39 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 )

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