Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 25, 2022

Checking it twice, part 7 (page 6)

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

On Friday this was sent to Alameda’a Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft:

I’m going to still keep going with these bibliography though just to show you the extent of the ridiculousness of the nomination.

I’m going to start with the newspaper articles first before the other references.

“Miss Edna Fisher and Harry Bruno Will Wed Feb. 21,” Feb. 13, 1943. p. 4.

Probably just this part, feels like strange to cite someone’s wedding announcement to prove where they went to school.

Can’t find this one and have no idea if it’s referencing Harry Bruno or some other non connected architect: Bakersfield Californian, Bakersfield, CA. “Architects to Display New Designs,” May 5, 1955.

“Paradise Cove Man Named to Reed Board”, May 23, 1951.

The “Paradise Cove Man” is one Harold Onstad who will come up again and again and you’ll be wondering why. You’ll also be wondering why this article is in the references, it shouldn’t be. There’s nothing relevant here and Onstad himself is very very tangentially related to the school as well.

Nomination references:

“Modifications” are typically not significant enough to pass Criterion C and there is no indication in this article that Onstad and Harry Bruno had any connection. This is a highly speculative suggestion and the inclusion of Onstad in this nomination is name dropping for the sake of padding the text to hope people (and by “people” I mean staff at SHPO) get snowed by all the names.

“Candidates Sign Up for California Varsity Eleven,” Sept. 3, 1930, p. 32.

Did we need to know Harry Bruno was a halfback?

I think it’s irrelevant but it added a line in the bibliography and has nothing to do with the nomination at all so in it goes. But you know what doesn’t get added in by the nominating party? A whole article about how the Maritime School in Alameda was designed by Coast Guard engineers.

“Oakland Gets Marine School,” Sept. 1, 1938.

“Proposed Development of Government Island,” March 12, 1939.

“Coast Guard To Expand Alameda Base,” April 2, 1941.

Three articles about Government Island not the Maritime School, shouldn’t necessarily be in the list of citations, adds little relevance to the Maritime School nomination. But it’s quantity, not quality. The nominating party clearly believed that the reader would be so overwhelmed and intimidated by the number of citations that they wouldn’t bother reading to see if they were connected to the nomination itself.

“Many Visitors View Lafayette Oaks Home,” Sept. 21, 1941, p. 27.

This is, essentially, an advert for tract housing in Lafayette. It would be, like, if someone in 81 years used an advert of Bayport to put into a nomination and said it’s historic because it was in the paper somewhere. But again, just shows that Harry Bruno was a prolific designer of residential homes and not military installations.

“New Maritime Office To Be Opened Here By May 1,” April 17, 1942.

I had a tough time finding this one because the title of the article didn’t match but this was the only article in April 17, 1942’s paper that was on the general topic. If this is the article it has zero to do with the nomination because it’s about an office headquarter and not the school.

“Ship Training School To Be Dedicated,” July 7, 1943.

“Maritime School Is Dedicated,” July 11, 1943.

Probably this part is the reference in the nomination and there, I guess, needed to be two whole articles to support one sentence of text in the nomination.

“Alameda’s…Maritime School To Be Continued After War,” Aug. 19, 1943.

Even though this is a, surprisingly, on point citation after the ridiculousness of football rosters and model home advertisements, it’s not referenced in the nomination itself.

8 Comments »

  1. It’s startling how close this fraudulent application came to getting nominated. So much padding, fillers, and pure BS. I’m surprised the SHRC staff did not catch any of this. You’re doing amazing investigative research, Lauren.

    Comment by A Compassionate Alamedan — July 25, 2022 @ 8:42 am

  2. Thank you for your exhaustive research on this! So now that this is all but over, I wonder who might be in a good legal position to sue Carmen for all the time and money she has wasted with her quixotic and neverending attacks on this project? There must be some kind of consequences for being such a horrible human being.

    Comment by Rod — July 25, 2022 @ 9:38 am

    • Usually, shame and becoming a community pariah would be the consequences for behaving the way Carmen Reid has. I just don’t think she’s capable of feeling shame or having that kind of situational awareness about how she is being perceived by others. Or maybe she has a small echo chamber of people cheering her on instead of giving her a reality check, which certainly isn’t healthy. The wellness center people should look into indemnification actions against Ms. Reid. It does make me sad to see how AAPS has decimated its reputation over this episode because now they are seen as a spineless front for Nimbyism.

      Comment by Common Sense — July 25, 2022 @ 10:00 am

      • Silly comment.

        The cancellation of a hearing on the issue and personal attacks on the applicant is just another version of cancel culture. Deny any opposition the opportunity to speak because you disagree with them and you think only you are right. Make sure to eliminate dissenting voices. Only run candidates from one party. Use the courts to deny hearings and trials. Don’t allow cross examination or any evidence to be presented.

        Ironically, this is just the type of behavior that has been identified as toxic when used against people of color.

        Comment by Mirror — July 25, 2022 @ 11:53 am

        • Cool story, bro!

          Comment by Rod — July 25, 2022 @ 12:09 pm

        • Really? You’re using people of color as a cover for Carmen Reid? Karl Rove would be impressed by this projection. The opposition managed to force over 25 different city meetings AND a $900,000 special election on this. Your “eliminate dissenting voices” comment is laughable.

          Comment by Common Sense — July 25, 2022 @ 12:28 pm

  3. The SHPO letter appears to be undated. Since this triggers a 30 day limit on appeals it seems to be a flaw.

    Comment by Dennis — July 25, 2022 @ 10:42 am

    • It says sent by email which will be dated and relevant parties including the applicant were on the CC list so they were notified.

      Comment by date — July 25, 2022 @ 12:39 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.

%d bloggers like this: