After recent accusations of being an “avowed socialist” and “Marxist” by running mate Forest Baker and his infamous sarcastic comment “who are you going to kill today?” about federal border security to Minuteman Steve Kemp, California’s 13th District Representative Pete Stark is not, shall we say, on the best of terms with his constituents.
His recent Tour De Town Halls in Hayward, Freemont and San Leandro is an excellent thermometer for voter sentiment. They have turned from outright hostility following the border security remark to a nice mix of harsh comments and Thank You signs. Still, not exactly where you want to be before an election.
I’d like to think the politician in him would innately try to smooth out the rough edges during these pre-election times. Not surprisingly, Stark was bombarded by a line of questioning on the failing economy and resulting deficits. Stark is focusing on cutting defense spending, the removal of the Bush-era tax cuts, and short term Social Security cuts.
As for starting at the root of the problem and reworking the budget, The Bay Area Citizen reports that Stark is hands off:
“I don’t want to touch that!” he says.
He seems to be focusing on cuts rather than incentives. What are his plans to stimulate the flailing economy? What are his plans for economic development? Although I appreciate his time and attention to health care reform, what about our jobs??
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Decision 2010: Alameda Mayoral and City Council Candidates
There are some true open government hopefuls in the Alameda Mayoral and City Council race. It’s a refreshing thought to know that the community can de-rail the stale train of thought of our current representatives by voting in the upcoming election. Although some politicians paint a pretty picture of the current state of affairs in Alameda, one doesn’t have to look past the Alameda housing slump, the hurting budgets of the schools, fire fighters and police (to name a few) to realize it’s a farce. It’s vital that the community is informed and casts their vote come November 2.
The race has attracted five candidates for Mayor and eight candidates for the two open City Council seats which are listed below followed by a brief commentary:
Mayoral Candidates:
Frank Matarrese, Councilmember
Marie Gilmore, Councilmember
Doug deHaan, Vice Mayor
Tony Daysog, former City Councilman
Kenneth Kahn, a professional clown who ran in 2006
Matarrese has been actively campaigning for the past 6 months at least, so most likely has a financial leg up on the competition. During their terms, Matarrese and deHaan have promised transparency, efficiency and public improvement. However, they seem to get caught up in the system and are not able to work with their fellow Councilmembers to make real improvements in Alameda. Matarrese followed the notoriously wishy-washy Beverly Johnson in her reverse decision on Alameda Point, stopping a deal that would have provided Alameda with new economic opportunities. DeHaan is old-fashioned and resistant to positive change on the island, once quoted as saying the architectural design for the now celebrated renovation of the Alameda Theatre was “butt ugly.” He’s not an agent of change, to say the least.
This leaves Gilmore and Daysog (sorry, Kenneth Kahn) as my open government hopefuls. Gilmore is a fresh-faced current Councilmember, with an impressive list of endorsements to date. In action, Gilmore is also impressive, frequently pushing forward visionary projects – sometimes in the face of strong opposition - that will benefit the city such as the Alameda Theatre, Towne Center, public library and Harbor Bay Business Park. Daysog is a fair-minded business man who knows the reality of the situation at Alameda. He sees the situation clearly through all the politicking in City Hall with an eye on a high quality of life for Alameda. It is refreshing to have his new ideas in this race. He can identify the small - but important - steps that will lead to larger positive change, such as the beginning of Park Street downtown renovation with a Peet’s Coffee lease.
City Council Candidates:
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Jean Sweeney, a local park and open space advocate, she sits on the Restoration Advisory Board
Lena Tam, incumbent Councilwoman
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board president
Rob Bonta, Health Care District Board member
Tracy Jensen, Board of Education trustee
Jeff Mitchell, former Alameda Journal editor
Adam Gillitt, local businessman
These candidates fall in two groups in my eyes: candidates who are willing to challenge the status quo and candidates who want politics as usual. Based on my research, Tam, Ashcraft and Bonta are the former, and will stand up for an open, honest, responsible government for Alameda. The latter “politics as usual” group, in my opinion, includes Johnson and Sweeney. Johnson refuses to take a stance on most issues, and if she does, may detract it a few months later (i.e. Alameda Point). Sweeney doesn’t seem to understand the bigger picture and lacks the know-how to make the big changes Alameda needs in today’s City Council. For example, she is a fierce advocate of parks, open space, more community amenities, but does not define sources of funding. How will she add more parks when we’re seeing severe slashes to our school budgets? As of now, Gillitt and Jensen seem to fall towards the “politics as usual” camp, but I’ll be watching those two candidates closely as their campaigns continue.
Now, most importantly, what do you think?
The race has attracted five candidates for Mayor and eight candidates for the two open City Council seats which are listed below followed by a brief commentary:
Mayoral Candidates:
Frank Matarrese, Councilmember
Marie Gilmore, Councilmember
Doug deHaan, Vice Mayor
Tony Daysog, former City Councilman
Kenneth Kahn, a professional clown who ran in 2006
Matarrese has been actively campaigning for the past 6 months at least, so most likely has a financial leg up on the competition. During their terms, Matarrese and deHaan have promised transparency, efficiency and public improvement. However, they seem to get caught up in the system and are not able to work with their fellow Councilmembers to make real improvements in Alameda. Matarrese followed the notoriously wishy-washy Beverly Johnson in her reverse decision on Alameda Point, stopping a deal that would have provided Alameda with new economic opportunities. DeHaan is old-fashioned and resistant to positive change on the island, once quoted as saying the architectural design for the now celebrated renovation of the Alameda Theatre was “butt ugly.” He’s not an agent of change, to say the least.
This leaves Gilmore and Daysog (sorry, Kenneth Kahn) as my open government hopefuls. Gilmore is a fresh-faced current Councilmember, with an impressive list of endorsements to date. In action, Gilmore is also impressive, frequently pushing forward visionary projects – sometimes in the face of strong opposition - that will benefit the city such as the Alameda Theatre, Towne Center, public library and Harbor Bay Business Park. Daysog is a fair-minded business man who knows the reality of the situation at Alameda. He sees the situation clearly through all the politicking in City Hall with an eye on a high quality of life for Alameda. It is refreshing to have his new ideas in this race. He can identify the small - but important - steps that will lead to larger positive change, such as the beginning of Park Street downtown renovation with a Peet’s Coffee lease.
City Council Candidates:
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Jean Sweeney, a local park and open space advocate, she sits on the Restoration Advisory Board
Lena Tam, incumbent Councilwoman
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board president
Rob Bonta, Health Care District Board member
Tracy Jensen, Board of Education trustee
Jeff Mitchell, former Alameda Journal editor
Adam Gillitt, local businessman
These candidates fall in two groups in my eyes: candidates who are willing to challenge the status quo and candidates who want politics as usual. Based on my research, Tam, Ashcraft and Bonta are the former, and will stand up for an open, honest, responsible government for Alameda. The latter “politics as usual” group, in my opinion, includes Johnson and Sweeney. Johnson refuses to take a stance on most issues, and if she does, may detract it a few months later (i.e. Alameda Point). Sweeney doesn’t seem to understand the bigger picture and lacks the know-how to make the big changes Alameda needs in today’s City Council. For example, she is a fierce advocate of parks, open space, more community amenities, but does not define sources of funding. How will she add more parks when we’re seeing severe slashes to our school budgets? As of now, Gillitt and Jensen seem to fall towards the “politics as usual” camp, but I’ll be watching those two candidates closely as their campaigns continue.
Now, most importantly, what do you think?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Suncal Tells Its Story: An Interview with David Soyka, SVP of Public Affairs
The New York Times, San Francisco Gate and a slew of local blogs have all focused their media scrutiny on the quaint island of Alameda and Alameda Point redevelopment, which left the city and its officials without answers, stunned like a deer in headlights.
After all this intense media attention, one can only hope the light at the end of the tunnel will be an honest post mortem analysis of the project, with a few key learnings that will help us move forward. I tip my investigative hat to reporters Zusha Elinson, Michele Ellson, LaurenDo and John Knox White for moving this process along. As for city officials, I see more of the same insane politicking that yields the same insane results.
It’s interesting to see developer after developer be turned away from the real estate gem of the Bay Area. With all its potential, why does this keep happening on Alameda Point?
Who is the scapegoat this time around? Is it the developer Suncal, Lena Tam or is it Ann Marie Gallant and the City of Alameda? East Bay for Open Government gave Suncal SVP of Public Affairs David Soyka a call to ask a few of our questions. Following is an excerpt from our question and answer session:
First off, how is Suncal dealing with the loss of the 4-0 city council vote?
All of the Suncal team has put blood, sweat and tears into the Alameda Point project. Some of us have relocated our families and dedicated the last three years of our life into creating a viable, sustainable, transit-oriented development that would benefit the City of Alameda and its residents. The Peter Calthorpe plan is visionary and environmental groups, affordable housing advocates and residents support the plan. We all think it’s a shame to see it dissipate.
Nick Kosla, Suncal Forward Planner, claimed that the weekly meetings between Alameda City Staff and Suncal were “an abyss.” Do you agree?
Unfortunately yes. It was a frustrating experience to be negotiating in good faith and believe we were making progress with the City Staff, only to realize it was just a show. None of the hard work done on either side was communicated to the decision makers at the city council.
What was Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s role in the development process?
For a project that is of top priority to her community and is one-third of the island of Alameda, she was alarmingly uninvolved. She delegated most duties to an inexperienced junior member of her team, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, who I believe once worked for the Economic and Planning Systems group (Economic and Planning Systems created the staff reports highly critical of SunCal’s plan). Our planning team had never come across this irregular process, especially in a project of this size.
Did it appear to you that the ICM had an alternate plan during negotiations with Suncal?
It was so unexpected that we did not believe it was happening, but as it drew closer and closer to the date of the vote, it was hard to deny. She publicly announced a Plan B to the Chamber in 2009, was minimally involved in plan negotiations. We constantly heard rumors that she was sabotaging the project behind closed doors. It seemed she did not want the project to succeed.
When City attorney Terry Highsmith stated, “we’re starting to think we’d be better off without a developer,” it should have been a sign something was going on. In retrospect we should have known, but when you are sitting across from your development partner (the City) it’s hard to imagine that they’re doing everything in their power to work against you. I guess we hoped for too much.
Is there anything else?
We still believe in the plan to revitalize Alameda Point. We’ve invested in the community and the East Bay region and would like to find a way to work in good faith with the city. This plan will bring the East Bay valuable regional benefits and positive economic impact.
East Bay for Open Government contacted Ann Marie Gallant and she was not available for comment.
After all this intense media attention, one can only hope the light at the end of the tunnel will be an honest post mortem analysis of the project, with a few key learnings that will help us move forward. I tip my investigative hat to reporters Zusha Elinson, Michele Ellson, LaurenDo and John Knox White for moving this process along. As for city officials, I see more of the same insane politicking that yields the same insane results.
It’s interesting to see developer after developer be turned away from the real estate gem of the Bay Area. With all its potential, why does this keep happening on Alameda Point?
Who is the scapegoat this time around? Is it the developer Suncal, Lena Tam or is it Ann Marie Gallant and the City of Alameda? East Bay for Open Government gave Suncal SVP of Public Affairs David Soyka a call to ask a few of our questions. Following is an excerpt from our question and answer session:
First off, how is Suncal dealing with the loss of the 4-0 city council vote?
All of the Suncal team has put blood, sweat and tears into the Alameda Point project. Some of us have relocated our families and dedicated the last three years of our life into creating a viable, sustainable, transit-oriented development that would benefit the City of Alameda and its residents. The Peter Calthorpe plan is visionary and environmental groups, affordable housing advocates and residents support the plan. We all think it’s a shame to see it dissipate.
Nick Kosla, Suncal Forward Planner, claimed that the weekly meetings between Alameda City Staff and Suncal were “an abyss.” Do you agree?
Unfortunately yes. It was a frustrating experience to be negotiating in good faith and believe we were making progress with the City Staff, only to realize it was just a show. None of the hard work done on either side was communicated to the decision makers at the city council.
What was Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s role in the development process?
For a project that is of top priority to her community and is one-third of the island of Alameda, she was alarmingly uninvolved. She delegated most duties to an inexperienced junior member of her team, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, who I believe once worked for the Economic and Planning Systems group (Economic and Planning Systems created the staff reports highly critical of SunCal’s plan). Our planning team had never come across this irregular process, especially in a project of this size.
Did it appear to you that the ICM had an alternate plan during negotiations with Suncal?
It was so unexpected that we did not believe it was happening, but as it drew closer and closer to the date of the vote, it was hard to deny. She publicly announced a Plan B to the Chamber in 2009, was minimally involved in plan negotiations. We constantly heard rumors that she was sabotaging the project behind closed doors. It seemed she did not want the project to succeed.
When City attorney Terry Highsmith stated, “we’re starting to think we’d be better off without a developer,” it should have been a sign something was going on. In retrospect we should have known, but when you are sitting across from your development partner (the City) it’s hard to imagine that they’re doing everything in their power to work against you. I guess we hoped for too much.
Is there anything else?
We still believe in the plan to revitalize Alameda Point. We’ve invested in the community and the East Bay region and would like to find a way to work in good faith with the city. This plan will bring the East Bay valuable regional benefits and positive economic impact.
East Bay for Open Government contacted Ann Marie Gallant and she was not available for comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
