Last Friday night

Yesterday news broke that the owner of the Action Alameda News blog and local activist, David Howard, was arrested last Friday night under suspicion of domestic violence.   From the daily police activity logs (updated regularly to the City’s website):

Tuesday’s Council is full of Grijalva

On Tuesday night the City Council received the report from Chief Ruben Grijalva about the Memorial Day incident.   Unsurprisingly there were sort of the usual suspects expressing their unhappiness with the report.   Surprisingly one of the commenters with the most vitriolic statements happens to be related to a sitting City Council member.

But before I get into some video and transcripts of what happened during the City Council meeting, apparently there was some drama before the City Council meeting in the guise of a “press conference.”   According to this early report filed by KTVU news there was “big announcement” from Alameda residents before the City Council meeting on Tuesday night.   Turns out it was an announcement that these Alameda residents led by Adam Gillitt and Denise Lai had…wait for it…wait for it…

Fight for your right to party

I figured that if I didn’t talk about the dreadful “Otaez Series” dun dun duuuhhhhh on Action Alameda “News” that someone would accuse me of ignoring the topic.   On the other hand, I hate to give prominence to something that is really a non-issue, but what made it an issue was the disproportionate reaction to it.

Let me back up for those that don’t actually read Action Alameda.  But wait, I might need to back up a bit further than that.   So back after the November election, on  election night  there was  Victory Party at Otaez, honestly I don’t know who hosted the party, but it really is secondary to the story.   At the party there were a lot of familiar faces present in the Alameda politics scene, it probably was the only party hosted at a public place as well.   So at the party someone came with a camera and snapped candid and posed shots during the course of the event.    That person posted the photos on her personal Facebook page.   Someone — let’s just say that person probably didn’t vote for Marie Gilmore for Mayor since his father was running against her — downloaded the photos and posted them on a Facebook page he created and passed the link around to non-Marie Gilmore voters.   The original owner — who had not given permission to the other person — marked the photos as “Private” and requested that the other person remove the photos, which he did.

When did you stop beating your wife?

And other assorted loaded questions courtesy of Action Alameda.   This gem of a post was uploaded to the purported “news” website the other day.  Apparently not content to limit the attacks on Councilmember Lena Tam to her political home life, Action Alameda felt the need to attack her livelihood as well and go after her job.

Truth allergy

No surprise but the Committee Against Measure E seems to be either hesitant to tell the truth about basic issues or like to bend it to their will.   Case in point, the most recent “No on E” mailer.   I didn’t get a copy in the mail, but it often takes me a few days to actually get out to the mailbox unless I’m expecting something.

Anyway, this mailer which attempts to shove every bit of information at you in the most disjointed manner possible, lists all the groups that “oppose” Measure E.   They include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.   Seriously though, has there ever been a tax increase that the Howard Jarvis Taypayer Association has ever supported?   I mean their name is virtually synonymous with a knee jerk “no.”

But I think that the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, West Alameda Business Association, and Alameda Association of Realtors are all surprised to learn that they are actively opposing Measure E.   While it’s true that they are not supporting Measure E, none of those groups actually took a formal position on Measure E (yes, no, or even maybe so)

Stirring the pot

I realize that the narrative painted in the recent Bay Citizen article for the New York Times about Measure E and the poor beleaguered shop keepers makes a much more compelling story than the other narratives out there, but it appeared that Gerry Shih, whose much more in-depth piece about the different levels of fundraising that happens in one school district was excellent, decided that this narrative was oh so more exciting.

Here’s the thing, the article was fairly meh in providing details.   It appears that based on one story and one perspective Mr. Shih decided that this story was a worthwhile portrait to paint.   It’s not, and I’ll tell you why in a bit.

First, this is not to excuse the assholish behavior of the person who told the store owner’s non-English speaking husband that he should “go back to his own country.”   That is simply inexcusable and unnecessary.   Period.   Whoever said this and harassed the store owner should be ashamed for being such a prick.

But, the bad behavior of one or two individuals does not make a story newsworthy.   The article related the experience of one store owner and makes it seem as though the behavior is widespread.

Campaign questions

Tonight, the Alameda League of Women Voters will be hosting a forum on Measure E, the school parcel tax, with both pro and con sides represented.   Should be a fun evening had by all.   Most people have probably already made a decision on how they are going to vote on Measure E, but if you — by some miracle — are still undecided, head down to Mastick Senior Center at 7:30 p.m. to ask whatever remaining  question you still have that will get you off the fence and into the proverbial voting booth.   Which really isn’t a booth since it’s an all-mail in ballot, but you know what I mean.

Alternately, if you have already voted, but yet want to ask some tough questions of the official campaigns for both the pro and the con side, this is the perfect opportunity to do so.

For example, why the Committee Against Measure E (CAME)/Alamedans for Fair Taxation (AFT) insist on their slogan of “Classrooms not Courtrooms” even though the leaders behind CAME/AFT are the ones suing the School District.

It’s not business, it’s personal

Election day!  Remember to vote vote vote!

And speaking of elections and campaign, the Committee Against Measure E (CAME)/Alamedans for Fair Taxation (AFT) has finally filed their campaign expenditure report. Or rather, lack thereof.

Technically, if the report can be at all believed that it is correct, they didn’t actually need to file, since they had less than $1000 in expenditures made.    According to the report, the campaign has only collected $900 from various and sundry sources.   $300 from one individual and $600 from sources all under $100 — $100 is the magic number when contributions have to be itemized.

Of course, it is fairly hard to believe that CAME has no expenditures at all considering all the lawn signs they have been pushing on their Facebook site.  Not to mention the yellow insert that went into the Alameda Sun the other week.

E for everywhere

Yesterday, the Judge in the Measure H lawsuit ruled in favor of the school district saying that Measure H, as written is legal and uniform.   Susan Davis posted the press release from the School District on In Alameda.     This is a huge win for the school district, despite threats from the opposition that they are going to be moving forward with an appeal, Michele Ellson has the quote:

David Brillant, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, said he’s not surprised by the ruling and that he is already working on his appeal.

“I’ve already prepared my notice of appeal and have been preparing to write my opening appellate brief,” Brillant said in a statement. “I am looking forward to presenting my arguments to the First District and continue the fight against split roll taxes.”

It appears that the plaintiff’s lawyer is driving this engine more than anything with a vow to “continue to fight against split roll taxes.”   Nice to be able to do it on someone else’s dime.   At this point, the cost to fight the parcel tax will probably cost the plaintiffs more than paying the parcel tax will actually cost.   But it’s the principle, right?

Right.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

As I posted the other day, the Committee Against Measure E (CAME)/Alamedans for Fair Taxation (AFT) have been using the kitchen sink approach during this campaign.   Not allowing facts or good analysis of data get in the way of their messaging that Measure E is just horrible and awful and will only serve the elitist East End families who — could all probably afford private schools for their children — instead have evil machinations to force all Alameda property owners to pay for THEIR kids in some twisted evil plot to make little old ladies lose their homes and send business to India.

One of the “facts” that came out of CAME/AFT’s campaign was the revelation that Alameda has the 2nd and 3rd highest Administrators and Services Staff per pupil.    Of course when one actually looks at the data, it was pretty clear that CAME/AFT simply read the chart incorrectly.   When eventually confronted with this by commenter Matt Parker, CAME/AFT quickly backpeddled and asked people to look at a different set of data: