Last night at the School Board meeting there was a brief section acknowledging that the DECA class/club at Encinal would be going to Orlando Florida for a conference. DECA, for those that don’t know, is some business/marketing thing. Think Model UN but for business.
Now these kids have been working hard and totally deserve to go to this conference but given all that is going on in Florida right now around education and now most recently this:
I wonder if it is time for our schools to take a stand on ALL THIS not being right and, you know, not throw district authorized travel for kids dollars at a state that bans Ruby Bridges documentaries and cancels whole classes on Civil Rights.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
You know I think you are right …
Obvious reason they pick Orlando, but the SB should hold a policy discussion and make a decision for the coming school year.
Comment by Ron Mooney — March 29, 2023 @ 7:43 am
This is a big country, surely there has to be a non-Florida alternative conference, no?
And if not, can the EHS group start a Bay Area version? There are 9 million people in this region, plenty of talent to come up with a gathering of our own, one assumes.
Comment by dave — March 29, 2023 @ 8:08 am
I think the DECA kids just went to a conference in LA. Probably this one: https://californiadeca.org/conferences/wrlc/, but according to the National DECA page the Orlando conference is the biggie this year and it looks like the big conference bounces around between Orlando, Anaheim, and Atlanta https://oregondeca.org/conferences/icdc/:
Comment by Lauren Do — March 29, 2023 @ 8:16 am
This story doesn’t seem to add up. The “discomfort” language it cites appeared in an early draft bill but is not in the law. And the law has been enjoined on free-speech grounds thanks to a lawsuit brought by the (excellent) Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-lawsuit-court-halts-enforcement-key-provisions-stop-woke-act-limiting-how. Were the student and teacher in the story both just badly mistaken? Unclear. But there seems to be a bit of a moral-panic element to how these odd, local stories are being reported out and received on social media. Wrapping the kids up in it all – while depriving them of opportunities – would seem to be a mistake.
Comment by Moral Panic? — March 29, 2023 @ 8:50 am
Yeah but a lot of teachers who make shit amounts of money are too afraid to stand up to parents (and apparently students) and say “it’s not the law yet…..”
Comment by Lauren Do — March 29, 2023 @ 9:07 am
California bans state travel to 22 states. The bans are the ultimate virtue signaling – as the list of banned states is growing and ignored by public officials. Governor Newsom recently vacationed in Montana (banned state) with his family and a 10 man Highway Patrol security team paid for by California taxpayers and Newsom also spent $100,000 in buying TV ads on local Florida television (Florida on banned list).
DECA students who take Marketing at EHS work the entire year for these competitions which require much more detailed preparation than say-Model UN. In addition, students engage in intense fundraising to afford this trip.
No way this highly educational trip should be cancelled.
Comment by DECA fan — March 29, 2023 @ 9:57 am
No one is saying that the kids shouldn’t attend this year but, quite possibly, if we’re trying to teach kids to be principled adults we shouldn’t be allowing them to go to a state that is actively stripping rights from marginalized groups and making a mockery of education in general simply because they want to go to Disneyworld in addition to spending a few hours at a conference.
Students at Encinal who are in Model UN also spend a large portion of the year prepping for their conferences as well. It’s not a competition between which kids are more worthy to go to a conference out of state, it’s about policy and what we should be modelling for our young people.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 29, 2023 @ 11:33 am
This guy lectures on government of all things. He purportedly cancelled a class because a lone student complained on grounds that aren’t even in a law that has in any event been found unconstitutional. He’s working with his supervisors on doing better next time. That’s the entire bizarre story. AUSD surely has better things to do than worry about it, let alone use it to adopt a travel ban.
Comment by Moral Panic? — March 29, 2023 @ 1:48 pm
No dollars should be spent in Florida. DECA needs to be educated as well, and they should NOT choose to schedule events in states that don’t foster true education. Keeping people ignorant of actual history does not help “business”. Being mindful when we spend dollars is a good lesson for kids to learn. I feel bad for the kids involved that DECA made such a stupid decision.
Comment by Amy Rumberger — March 29, 2023 @ 9:49 am
Personally, I agree about boycotting FL, but the kids should decide this one.
It would be appropriate for an adult/leader/teacher/district representative to bring up current events related to education/politics in Florida and let them choose what to do. It’s a great learning experience either way. It our society where and how you spend your money is arguably the highest power we hold as individuals. They could go and use the opportunity to draw attention. They could decide they don’t give a crap about FL politics or FL education and they want this for themselves. All seem fine to me if they have some choice in the matter.
Comment by bjsvec — March 29, 2023 @ 11:36 am
Wow. Talk about falling off the clown car. This defeatist talk only goes to hurt the denizens of Alameda. What’s that saying about the road of good intentions? Just as Alameda rental housing has dramatically decreased due to all the hostility inflicted on landlords, this is another example of cutting off the kid’s noses, to spite their faces. Like housing, the surest way to get less of a product is to hurt those providing the product (Economics 101). Those that failed to learn from others are destined for greater failure. Rent Control results in less housing. Boycotting states for stupid reasons, hurts our kids. Read all about it, courtesy of the SF Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-boycott-conservative-states-contracts-business-17781894.php
Comment by Alameda Landlord — March 29, 2023 @ 12:16 pm
“Alameda rental housing has dramatically decreased”
Citation needed, because when I checked with AHA on this a year ago that is absolutely NOT what happened. Given that most homeowners bought their homes years ago and refinanced during super cheap interest rates and don’t want to lose those rates if they ever sell, now is an incredibly good time to be a landlord. I would not be surprised to see the number of rentals actually increasing. So I call bullshit.
Comment by JRB — March 29, 2023 @ 12:25 pm
First report of the Alameda rent board, 2016-17: 14.899 units
Click to access 2016-17rentprogramannualreport.pdf
Most recent report for calendar 2022: 14,196 units
Click to access 2022-rent-program-annual-report.pdf
Comment by JRB is a fucking idiot — March 29, 2023 @ 2:08 pm
Although your numbers support my point of rentals decreasing, my numbers from a city 2016 City presentation show an even more precipitous decline. The AHA was citing approximately 16,800 rental properties in 2016 compared to today’s 14,196. This is also matched by the city’s percentage of rental households vs home owners. When the crazy rent control restrictions were voted on in 2016, the rental households were a distinct majority, ie around 60% renters vs 40% home owners. That statistic has flip-flopped now with homeowners now in the majority on Alameda. This is an embarrassing turnaround that the anti-landlord city doesn’t like to publicize.
So now that homeowners are in the majority, let’s have a revote. Thousands of homeowners (ie mom and pops) that were renting, sold their properties in 2016 after landlord restrictions were put in place. It just became too onerous to be a landlord. And that was before COVID. Now in Alameda County, we have crazy eviction prohibitions that have resulted in scofflaws that haven’t paid rent in over 2 years, and landlords helpless to evict them. I predict another tsunami of rental units converting to homeowner properties as soon as this gets sorted out. I say again, “the best way to get less of a good, is to punish the provider of that good”. Just common sense JRB.
We will never know precisely how many rentals were lost, because the city didn’t have a register of landlords in 2016. Alameda’s official best guess was about 16,800. I can’t speak to whether that was too high or not. As a landlord, I can with authority tell you there was a mass exodus from the rental business starting in 2016. Ask any realtor that was around then, and they will confirm.
Comment by Alameda Landlord — March 29, 2023 @ 2:41 pm
Or, possibly people decided to sell their rentals when interest rates were on the floor and the astronomical prices homes were being sold for meant that the units were going to be occupied rather than being rented.
Anyway Census still reports owner occupied housing as lower than rental at 47.5% for 2017-2021: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/alamedacitycalifornia,alamedacountycalifornia/HSG445221
Comment by Lauren Do — March 29, 2023 @ 3:21 pm
Same link shows a 6% increase in the number of units from 2021 to 2022. Way to invalidate yourself.
Comment by NIMBYs Gonna NIMBY — March 29, 2023 @ 3:25 pm
Comment by Rod — March 29, 2023 @ 3:26 pm
the 6% increase was units at alameda point being released to market
gross number continued to fall after that blip because of rent control
the trend is down and will stay that way
downtrend even stronger with single family rentals, they are easier to sell to owner occupier and get out of dodge
Comment by even with blips JRB is a moron — March 29, 2023 @ 3:32 pm
Check out the number of rentals right now on Harbor Bay Isle using Zillow. Wow, there is practically nothing for rent there. So you are right JRB, it’s a great time to be a landlord there right now, as you can name your price. I’m conflicted about whether we’ll see the number of rentals actually increase over there in the short term, now that the rental market has been devastated since 2016. You are correct, in that now is not a great time to sell. I think you vastly underestimate what a PIA it is to be an Alameda Landlord right now, due to the city’s hostile rental policies. I do think you might see a minuscule increase in rental units on Bay Farm Isle until the current regime is ousted and our economy has a positive correction. Then as a result of the Alameda County COVID eviction rules, I predict another steep decline in the number of rental properties in Alameda
Comment by Alameda Landlord — March 29, 2023 @ 2:56 pm
Oh cry us a river, you fucking leech! You provide housing like a scalper provides concert tickets. Nobody wants to hear your whining and both sides-ing on any subject here.
Comment by Rod — March 29, 2023 @ 1:14 pm
Weak argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. If you can’t make it in the landlord business, guess what? You have an easy out. Sell the property or live in it. No one cares about your amateur economic analysis. Landlords provide no value to the economy (Economics 101). I guess you took that class since you referenced it, right?
Comment by bjsvec — March 29, 2023 @ 2:49 pm
bjsvec- I completely agree that those that can’t make it in the landlord business should get out. I strongly believe that property in Alameda is grossly undervalued. I own property for appreciation purposes only and Alameda has not been as good an investment as Silicon Valley properties have been. Homes in Silicon Valley double in value every 10 years. That’s a very sweet investment prospect. Alameda not so much. I’m probably barely breaking even with the rental investments and repairs for the Alameda house and we’ve been landlords there for over two decades. We are looking forward to selling the Alameda asset as soon as the market right sides, and thus removing another rental unit from the Island.
Comment by Alameda Landlord — March 29, 2023 @ 3:17 pm
I don’t get it. Are you trying to get people to hate landlords more here or what?
Comment by Rod — March 29, 2023 @ 3:21 pm
“Rent Control results in less housing.”
True, in a capitalist free market economy in terms of both supply and demand. Unfortunately, local governments across California have artificially constrained supply for decades. Government constrained supply reduces competition and provides landlords the opportunity to raise rents above free market prices.
The right way to fix this is to remove the supply constraints. That process has recently started, hopefully. Even if successful, it will take decades for supply to meet demand. Changes in how people work, like WFH, might help reduce demand, as well.
I listened to the council discussions on rent control and they (a majority) understood this supply-demand conundrum, particularly in terms of ongoing costs and inflation. They recognized the rule-of-thumb that the mix of costs that are sunk and fixed (like the asset cost and monthly mortgage) versus variable costs (maintenance, management, taxes) runs in the 40%-60% range. Assuming 50% means inflation of 6% increases landlord costs by 3%. That logic was the essential goal. (Actually, basing the 50% on the total rent including profit made an error in the landlords’ favor.)
You use your personal microeconomics 101 supply-demand point of view to reach an incorrect macroeconomics 101 conclusion. Government constrained supply is fantastic for existing landlords like you. But macroeconomics 101 sees policy that is “friendly to landlords” as making it easy landlords to add units and for new landlords to enter the market. Absent that option, it allows for policy that enhances the common good via reasonable, non-punitive rent control.
Comment by Econ prof — March 30, 2023 @ 9:00 pm
What a load of gibberish. Tell it to this guy and all the mom and pop landlords leaving the fold. The best way to get less of a good, is to attack those providers of the good. Mom and pop landlords are a thing of the past in Alameda. Renters, good luck with your corporate overlords.
https://www-cbsnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/small-oakland-landlord-stands-to-lose-everything-tenant-fails-to-pay-rent-for-3-years/?amp_js_v=0.1#webview=1&cap=swipe
Comment by Alameda Landlord — April 18, 2023 @ 7:31 pm
At this point, I think that the kids should go. Part of this trip has got to be Disneyworld or other theme parks in Orlando.
That being said, this increasingly racist/antigay/antitrans direction that Florida and other states are going could in the future represent a fairly direct threat to some of our students. Just as it would not make sense to take Black students to the Deep South under Jim Crow laws, we may have to weigh similar concerns in the future. I don’t think that we are there yet, but this “anti-woke” excuse to pass increasingly discriminatory legislation could make it dangerous (legally and physically ) to travel to areas with particularly draconian discriminatory laws that teenagers could violate.
Comment by JohnB — March 29, 2023 @ 5:50 pm
I’m curious what laws you’re seeing there in this regard. I can understand how some would disagree with some of what they’re doing. But I have a hard time seeing anything that would be a direct threat to, or potentially violated by, visitors.
Comment by RJS — March 30, 2023 @ 5:33 am
Reuben, why does the devil need an advocate and why the fuck is it ALWAYS you? Has the thought ever once occurred to you that you really don’t add any value to the vast majority of online conversations you crowbar yourself into?
Comment by Rod — March 30, 2023 @ 6:35 am
There’s a call for a possible travel ban. The case for one is way stronger if there’s a direct threat. I don’t think there is one but maybe there is so asking makes sense. Not really devil’s advocate, just figuring stuff out.
Comment by RJS — March 30, 2023 @ 5:00 pm