Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 3, 2020

Law and Order: Special Alameda Unit

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Looks like whoever is writing the text over on Gig Codiga’s website is either going rogue or Gig Codiga is fully embracing the Trumpian strategy of LAW AND ORDER to win himself a seat on the City Council trying to appeal to the Suburban housewives and all.

It’s a pretty bold statement to make that the current Council has not made safety a priority. Given the lack of supporting receipts as well it’s probably the first major ugliness to come out of any official campaign so far. Also alleging that the Council has “looked the other way when your safety, the safety of your kids and grandkids has come up” should be challenged at wherever the next Council forum is.


September 2, 2020

Gross over-estimation

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

Here’s something that has come up on NextDoor and, I’m assured, that the person who produced this will be speaking publicly as the face for the No on Z movement. And no, it’s not Tony Daysog.

The thing about this particular part of this argument is that it sounds pretty smart if you’re not aware of what RHNA is and what State laws currently exist that are forcing Alameda to fully supersede A/26. Here’s the argument:

3. State law supersedes Art. 26 to the extent needed for Alameda to reach its state mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The allocation for 2015-2023 was 1723 dwellings broken down into the income categories of very-low, low, moderate, and market rate. Because of State law mandates we have already approved or constructed 3800 new dwellings in less than six years, with at least 3000 thereof multi-family. (a very conservative estimate). Most of these units are still under construction, so we have no clear idea as to how they will impact the City.

With all of the above in play, this is not the time to expand housing production beyond the State mandated numbers, especially since the State has already published the housing need for the Bay Area from 2023-2031 at more than two times the current numbers, thus, making it certain that the numbers allocated to Alameda will be very high.

First of all, the RHNA asks not for “approved or constructed” units it asks that Alameda identify housing sites that would accommodate the number of RHNA units allocated to Alameda. This is an important distinction since this person is co-mingling “approved” and “constructed” units. “Approved” units could be, in this person’s vocabulary, anything from a unit which has been permitted and/or designated via a development agreement. That is not a helpful metric to use since we all don’t have a shared understanding of what “approved” means.


September 1, 2020

From A to Z, part 2

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

To provide a contrast to the signatories to the no on Measure Z side of the aisle, the Yes on Z side was able to pull together a much more diverse set of Alamedans and civic leaders from across the spectrum. This is what we should be seeing and supporting rather than an insular group of people who are interested in keeping everything the same in light of the years of discussion on the topic of A/26.

Mayor, City of Alameda
California State Assemblymember
Former Senior Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church
CEO, Penumbra, Inc.
Transportation Planner/Transportation Commissioner

The pleasant surprise is the addition of the CEO of Penumbra who, for those who may not know, is a pretty huge employer in Alameda in Harbor Bay. The fact that large scale employers are getting behind the effort to undo Alameda’s exclusionary housing charter amendment is notable.


August 31, 2020

Average “Joe”

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

One of my favorite election season past-times is trolling campaign websites to uncover hidden gems.

Gig Codiga’s website has undergone several iterations. Improving, slightly, on each new release. I feel like — at this point — I should be getting a kick back from the Codiga campaign for proofing the website and pointing out errors before undecided supporters mosey on over there. I can be paid in pints of Cookiebar ice cream if the campaign was looking for a way to thank me for my service.

Anyway, the most recent oopsie was found on Friday:

Shortly after I posted that, that section was quickly removed from the website. Based on some back and forth with some other Twitter users it’s unclear what help Gig Codiga requires from “Joe.” Is it that he needs help hearing all voices equally? Or how to lower the cost of entry to run (psst, matching funds or public funding, these are all things that exist)? Or is it how to do district elections? I mean it could be any of these things Gig Codiga requires “Joe’s” help on.


August 28, 2020

Three’s a crowd

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

The super stars over at Alameda Citizens Taskforce/A Better Alameda (here, here, here, here, and here, just for funsies*) have decided, after watching the Alameda Democratic Club endorsement meeting for the City Council to not endorse Malia Vella or Jim Oddie.


Rather they decided, in the most savvy political move ever, to endorse all three of the remaining candidates.

For two open seats.


August 27, 2020

Lightning round

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

Last week at Alameda’s Democratic Club hosted a candidates forum. One of the fun things they did was a lightning round of questions where the answers could only be “Support,” “Do/did not support”, or “No Position. So I created a spreadsheet of the answers from the candidates which required me to listen to that portion an additional time. You’re welcome.

What was great about this format was that there was no room for a particularly skilled bullshitter to get away with throwing a lot of words at a question without answering it fully and clearly. At one point there was some waffling around the edges but then I just started categorizing those as “No Answer” or NA to keep with the easy to track grid.

And here it is, your quick and dirty guide on how an individual candidate stands on any issue.


August 26, 2020

“They should not be overlooked”

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

Clearly the passage of A/26 did not happen in a complete vacuum. There were a few things happening that led up to the A/26 vote. The biggest driver was probably the spectre of the Bay Farm development which, while not approved, was projecting 10,000 to 11,000 units being built there.

But what was happening during the months of campaigning before the vote in March of 1973. There were a few things that stood out as I was going through the newspaper microfiche. The first was an article about Navy families and their complaints about not feeling a sense of belonging from the community at large.

There was a great deal of othering of outsiders, in this case, Navy families who were called “those people” and accused of not paying taxes and therefore unworthy of the attention of the School Board. If this is how the community of Alameda was treating active military families in a town where the largest employers was probably the military then I can only imagine how they would treat other new residents or prospective residents.


August 25, 2020

White man’s ways

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

Remember how people kept telling us year after year that A/26 was there to save the Victorians. And now we have people telling us that there was absolutely no racial animus in the passage of A/26. Well there are two things that I want to present today. The first is a video (required viewing, it’s only 18 minutes, I made my kid watch too) that was produced in 1971. A brief aside, it’s interesting to see the word “white” pronounced with a hard w. It reminds me of the dude from House of Cards.

Anyway this video is about San Leandro and how, despite being next door to Oakland remained deeply segregated in the 1970s. Though a combination of realtors simply not showing units to Black families, or Black families being so isolated and targeted they moved, or Black families being told that a unit was sold minutes after placing an offer San Leandro had the distinction of being like 99.99% white. At that same time Alameda was around 90.3% white. If we don’t think that Alameda could have easily swapped out for San Leandro here, then we’re deluding ourselves.


August 24, 2020

The benefit of hindsight

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

In case you thought that city leaders in 1973 were simply refuting the argument for A/26 with “Victorians will be okay”, think again. Much like Assemblymember Robert Crown was urging people to vote against A/26 because it (1) was bad planning, (2) would exacerbate traffic issues, (3) would discriminate against low income families, and (4) would push low income and elderly people out of Alameda. Folks were warning about the possible repercussions of A/26 if it were to pass. And since we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, turns out they were largely correct.

Former Mayor Terry LaCroix, Jr appeared to be the face of the no on A/26 movement, he said:

Right of the bat the Terry LaCroix Jr. addressed the possible shortage in revenue to the City, which we now see in the form of deferred maintenance and budget shortfalls. But what was interesting is one of the main arguments was that A/26 was “discriminatory against the senior citizen and the low income”. The appeal to preserving a variety of housing types to accommodate the families in all socio-economic classes was front and center. We also see the repercussions of that in Alameda today with our housing crisis and the overall lack of affordability.

Terry LaCroix Jr. doubled down on those two arguments literally at every forum that he went to and every piece of literature:


August 21, 2020

Keeping your Crown

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

File this one under: “hey not everyone is bringing shame to their named public space.”  In revisiting some of my research on A/26 I found this article which I don’t think I’ve posted before.  For those that didn’t know the Robert W. Crown of the Robert W. Crown Memorial Beach was an actual real life person.  He was the Assemblymember representing Alameda during the the time of A/26.

There was a correction in a later article that Robert Crown was not a homeowner, but his position on A/26 was correct in that he was opposed to the charter amendment.



« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at