Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 26, 2022

Checking it twice, part 8 (page 6)

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

It looks like the e-ink wasn’t even dry on the letter sent to the Mayor from the SHPO before the nominating party filed their appeal:

So it’s back on the agenda for next week because the nominating party really really really really wants to tank the Wellness Center project. I don’t think that the process being followed here is 100% correct but I need to do a bit more research because, at one point, I had looked into the appeal process and I feel as though I read something about it going to the “Secretary” which I then went through another rabbit hole of finding out who that was in reference to. Stay tuned, but keep sending those letters in.

U.S. Maritime Service. Officer’s Handbook. War Shipping Administration Training Organization, [1944]. On file at the Alameda Museum.

This is another instance of seeding the internet with facts, this was apparently scanned by the nominating party and then given to someone who has helped them with this nomination. It’s not quite clear what the relevance to the nomination is other than it was used by students in the school.

U.S. Maritime Service. Personnel Procedures Unit. General information Manual. June 1945. On file at the Alameda Museum: this one is not scanned but I imagine it’s fairly similar to the significance of the officer’s handbook above.

Weinstein, Dave. “Against the Grain/ Architect bucked Bay Area’s take on modernism by staying true to the Bauhaus”. San Francisco Chronicle. Jan. 26, 2012.

This article is about Donald Olsen and contains zero reference to Harry Bruno or to the Alameda Maritime School.

This is the only reference to Donald Olsen in the nomination:

I’ll note that Kaiser Shipyards was a private project even though they did receive wartime production contracts. So lumping it into “contracts for war housing and mobilization” is playing fast and loose with the characterization. Also, given the likelihood of anyone clicking through to read the article, it’s a bit disingenuous and relying on people to assume the title of the article was about Harry Bruno rather than a completely different person altogether.

University of California, Berkeley. 1931-1932 Register, Vol II Parts XIV-XVIII. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. (Received B.A. Architecture, 1932). p. 24.: I didn’t bother to source this out because it’s probably just proof Harry Bruno received a degree but the nominating party also used a marriage announcement for Harry Bruno to prove that as well but literally could have used one of many other citations to bolster that factoid but yet chose to put, at least, two extraneous citations to puff up the bibliography.

American Merchant Marine at War — —

This is just someone who OCRed (I hope) or typed out articles from MAST magazine which is cited earlier in the bibliography.… William Morris Thomas, Jr. US Merchant Marine from Alameda, cover of the Heed their Call/ War Bonds Ad.

It’s this image:

Relevance to the nomination? None.

Alameda Times Star “Final Day of Sea School”, November 27, 1953.

“Memorial to Blackie-Maritime School’s Dog,” August 15, 1974.

I haven’t had a chance to get to the microfilm to clip these but we’ve seen plenty of article about the closure of the Maritime School so the first is probably duplicative. And the memorial to the school dog should be self explanatory. It’s not referenced anywhere in the narrative but the nomination was expanded to encompass the land which contained this memorial.


  1. I’m not typically for capital punishment, but I think I’d support it in the case of losing this specific appeal! Psycho NIMBY Karen really needs to fuck all the way off.

    Comment by Rod — July 26, 2022 @ 8:08 am

    • Jason Buckley, you’re in the right place for this kind of sentiment! All of social media no longer tolerates wishing death upon someone. But not Lauren Do’s blog!

      Comment by Lisa Schaeffer — July 28, 2022 @ 12:21 am

  2. I wonder how much hand-holding the appellate got from the ‘impartial’ staffers on this filing? This process is so broken.

    Comment by Denyse — July 26, 2022 @ 9:09 am

  3. As only a decent citizen, and not an exemplary citizen, can you please provide again the name and address of the person I should address my letter OPPOSING this appeal to? I know it is here in these long threads, but I would just love to have it spelled out for me. The stupidity and waste of this frivolous drivel is infuriating. I appreciate all you do, marvel at how you do it, and apologize sincerely for being a sideliner. –Amy

    Comment by Amy Rumberger — July 26, 2022 @ 10:17 am

    • I addressed my letter like this. It’s important to cc by email, cal shop.oh. See below

      California State Parks
      Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816

      Re: United States Maritime Service Officers School in Alameda, California- nomination for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places

      To Whom It May Concern:


      James Cummons

      California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation,

      Comment by Jim Cummons — July 26, 2022 @ 2:13 pm

      • Correction
        The email address in my comment above is wrong. The information below is from the commission website:

        The SHRC invites comments on the nominations from the public either in writing or at the August 5, 2022 meeting. Written comments can be sent to State Historical Resources Commission, 1725 23rd St, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 or to and must be submitted by 9:00 AM on Wednesday, August 3, 2022.

        Comment by Jim Cummons — August 2, 2022 @ 1:36 am

  4. The USC law is very clear on this. If the city’s top elected leader wanted to pull the nomination, the SHPO has no choice but to oblige. An appeal cannot by-step this, it’s very ironclad. An appeal can be made on the grounds that SHRC or SHPO or whoever did not follow the USC chapter on this when they made their decision (either failing to nominate, or nominating when they shouldn’t have). This appeal has no merits. WTF are they doing? The commission can approve, but then the property owners can appeal on the grounds that SHPO did not follow the law. This is an absolute bureaucratic circus.

    Comment by WTF SHRC — July 26, 2022 @ 5:22 pm

    • You don’t know what you’re talking about. The law clearly states that if a local government claims it has met the requirements of historical review, the state can accept that instead of holding a hearing, but if an appeal is made, then the state hearing is to be held. The basis for the appeal need only be that a hearing is wanted. That’s it. Pretty simple. And, per the abuse, bullying, and pressure, that was inflicted by this crew on multiple state public servants, we can presume they now understand that the local historical review board was probably similarly pressured and that their findings cannot be trusted. This hearing is necessary to undo the LOCAL corruption and “circus”.

      Comment by Read the Law — July 27, 2022 @ 11:30 pm

  5. Seems to me like a government agency trying to save face, when what they need to do is admit they were wrong and keep it moving.

    Comment by Gaylon — July 26, 2022 @ 9:19 pm

    • I agree, Gaylon. It totally sounds like that.

      (A vision of brightly striped leggings just leapt into my head, LOL)

      Comment by Jennie VH — August 4, 2022 @ 1:23 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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: