On January 9, the Los Angeles Times covered a breach-of-contract appellate court decision in Mammoth Lakes, California that appears remarkably similar to the Alameda Point lawsuit. In the Mammoth Lakes contract, the developer agreed to make improvements to the airport in exchange for rights to develop a $400 million hotel next to the airport in addition to an option to buy the land. After the developer made the improvements to the airport, the city reneged on the hotel deal because the hotel placement would obstruct the airport’s ability to accommodate Boeing 757 passenger jets.
The small ski-town of only 7,500 residents lost its legal battle with a three-judge panel’s unanimous decision in favor of the developer. What’s more, the 66-page ruling scolded the town for backing out of the deal.
The consequences of this decision are ominous for the town of Mammoth Lakes, which may declare bankruptcy, and bring up potential consequences for the City of Alameda in the Suncal Alameda Point lawsuit. Legal costs are sky-high, and to pay for the lawsuit and a potentially negative court ruling, the city may have to take dire measures which will have a negative economic impact on the city.
So, how can we avoid this in Alameda? What can our councilmembers do to avoid a potential bankruptcy? At this point, Alameda is most likely paying thousands in legal fees that might be avoidable.
Read the Mammoth Lakes story here.
Comments welcome.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
A New Chapter in Alameda Point Redevelopment (Fingers Crossed)
A boisterous crowd cheered in Gilmore, Bonta, Tam and Johnson at Tuesday night’s Alameda City Council meeting. This exciting new chapter also marked the end of another chapter: City Attorney Teresa Highsmith’s tenure as City Attorney. However, John Knox white made an astute observation. Highsmith is transitioning, some might say too quickly, to the City Attorney of Barstow. But surprise, surprise, guess who handles the City of Barstow’s legal issues? Colontuono and Levin, the same firm City Manager Gallant hired to prosecute Lena Tam. Good riddance to closed door meetings and back room deals.
It is refreshing to see Gilmore, Bonta, Tam, Johnson start the year off fresh. There seems to be quite a lot of momentum behind these Alameda city councilmembers, which is a great sign. Doug deHaan continues his term and, in a SF Gate interview, recently addressed Alameda Point redevelopment, which will be the big test for the new council. Interestingly enough he admitted that housing is needed to generate revenue for the city of restore Alameda Point. Thank goodness. Let’s just be out with it and explain to the public WHY this is necessary. Time and time again Alameda has tried to push for parks, open space and commercial space only. Let’s integrate the residential development and create a sustainable, walkable community which can fund its own parks and open space.
The current solution is an “aggressive asset management policy for the leases at the Alameda Point to increase revenue.” Again, we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this strategy. Selling off small pieces for short term leases erodes master planning, sustainable development and transit oriented development opportunities.
Alameda Point needs a big picture, master planned solution, not a short term band aid like “aggressive” short term leases.
It is refreshing to see Gilmore, Bonta, Tam, Johnson start the year off fresh. There seems to be quite a lot of momentum behind these Alameda city councilmembers, which is a great sign. Doug deHaan continues his term and, in a SF Gate interview, recently addressed Alameda Point redevelopment, which will be the big test for the new council. Interestingly enough he admitted that housing is needed to generate revenue for the city of restore Alameda Point. Thank goodness. Let’s just be out with it and explain to the public WHY this is necessary. Time and time again Alameda has tried to push for parks, open space and commercial space only. Let’s integrate the residential development and create a sustainable, walkable community which can fund its own parks and open space.
The current solution is an “aggressive asset management policy for the leases at the Alameda Point to increase revenue.” Again, we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this strategy. Selling off small pieces for short term leases erodes master planning, sustainable development and transit oriented development opportunities.
Alameda Point needs a big picture, master planned solution, not a short term band aid like “aggressive” short term leases.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Will Tramutola Throw Perata Under the Bus After the Oakland Election Loss?
I did a bit of research on political consultant Larry Tramutola after finding out he was campaign manager for Don Perata’s failing 2010 bid for Oakland Mayor.
Interestingly enough, what popped up first was a Bay Citizen article with the headline “Strategist: SunCal Ignored My Advice.” It was a surprisingly candid article with Tramutola where he said, in so many words, that the failure of the Alameda project was due to the client. These days, I don’t know of many consulting firms that would blast their clients like this in the media. I wonder how many more contracts that article got the firm…
I dug a bit further, and Tramutola’s track record didn’t improve. Perata, Tramutola’s client, was quoted on the campaign trail as saying that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.
Well, either Perata was playing dumb because he knew ranked-choice voting would hurt him or his campaign manager Tramutola was sleeping on the job. The East Bay Express covered some of Tramutola’s early campaign mailers for Perata, which were “full of ridiculous errors that raise serious doubts about the intellectual capacity of Perata’s close associates.”
As campaign manager, Tramutola should have been prepared for the new ranked-choice voting system. Even following the campaign peripherally, it was easy to see that ranked-choice voting would be a force to be reckoned with in the Oakland mayoral election… also because it was all over the news. A hard one to miss, especially for someone as involved as a campaign manager.
Now the million dollar question: will Tramutola come out and say that Perata “ignored his advice” and blame Perata?
Interestingly enough, what popped up first was a Bay Citizen article with the headline “Strategist: SunCal Ignored My Advice.” It was a surprisingly candid article with Tramutola where he said, in so many words, that the failure of the Alameda project was due to the client. These days, I don’t know of many consulting firms that would blast their clients like this in the media. I wonder how many more contracts that article got the firm…
I dug a bit further, and Tramutola’s track record didn’t improve. Perata, Tramutola’s client, was quoted on the campaign trail as saying that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.
Well, either Perata was playing dumb because he knew ranked-choice voting would hurt him or his campaign manager Tramutola was sleeping on the job. The East Bay Express covered some of Tramutola’s early campaign mailers for Perata, which were “full of ridiculous errors that raise serious doubts about the intellectual capacity of Perata’s close associates.”
As campaign manager, Tramutola should have been prepared for the new ranked-choice voting system. Even following the campaign peripherally, it was easy to see that ranked-choice voting would be a force to be reckoned with in the Oakland mayoral election… also because it was all over the news. A hard one to miss, especially for someone as involved as a campaign manager.
Now the million dollar question: will Tramutola come out and say that Perata “ignored his advice” and blame Perata?
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Ranked Choice Voting System Rages on in Oakland
I covered Ranked Choice Voting back in April (full article here) speculating that the system could help Oakland mayoral candidate Kaplan.
Well, candidates Kaplan and Quan put their heads together and effectively beat the system. Projected winner former State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata actually won the popular vote, at 35%. But it wasn’t enough. He lost the race to Quan, who understood the in’s and out’s of Ranked Choice Voting and used them to her advantage.
Basically, having a strong support core is not enough to win a ranked choice voting election. To win, candidates must have both a strong support core AND a broad base of support. In highly polarized elections where the vote is divided, it can be anyone’s game.
But Kaplan and Quan saw ahead of the curve and focused on voters that would rank Kaplan and Quan first and second, knocking Perata down a spot or two. He did manage to keep his core support, but Kaplan and Quan knocked out his broad base of support, which cost him the election. Quan racked up 25% of the popular vote, but also won a lot of second place votes. Who says number two is the first loser? Now Quan is the Mayor of Oakland.
Makes me wonder what would happen in other cities like Alameda if Ranked Choice Voting was instituted. Maybe Marie Gilmore wouldn't be mayor after all...
Apparently Perata mentioned on the campaign trail “that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.” I’m betting Perata’s election strategists are feeling a bit sheepish right about now. I’m also betting we’re going to see some more legal action against Ranked Choice Voting.
Well, candidates Kaplan and Quan put their heads together and effectively beat the system. Projected winner former State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata actually won the popular vote, at 35%. But it wasn’t enough. He lost the race to Quan, who understood the in’s and out’s of Ranked Choice Voting and used them to her advantage.
Basically, having a strong support core is not enough to win a ranked choice voting election. To win, candidates must have both a strong support core AND a broad base of support. In highly polarized elections where the vote is divided, it can be anyone’s game.
But Kaplan and Quan saw ahead of the curve and focused on voters that would rank Kaplan and Quan first and second, knocking Perata down a spot or two. He did manage to keep his core support, but Kaplan and Quan knocked out his broad base of support, which cost him the election. Quan racked up 25% of the popular vote, but also won a lot of second place votes. Who says number two is the first loser? Now Quan is the Mayor of Oakland.
Makes me wonder what would happen in other cities like Alameda if Ranked Choice Voting was instituted. Maybe Marie Gilmore wouldn't be mayor after all...
Apparently Perata mentioned on the campaign trail “that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.” I’m betting Perata’s election strategists are feeling a bit sheepish right about now. I’m also betting we’re going to see some more legal action against Ranked Choice Voting.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Finally, A Peek Inside Alameda City Hall
I’ve been waiting for someone to do this, and they did….
While the good people of Alameda are with their families, sleeping in their beds or doing anything else but watching City Council meetings until 1 in the morning, our UNelected city officials are running amok. I think recent headlines are enough to make anyone question “What the heck is going on at City Hall?” but this video will SHOW you...
A quick summary before you view:
It seems it’s not the elected leaders, but rather the appointed Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant who is in control of our tax dollars.
Gallant-hired gun Michael Colantuono is at the stand, pretentious at best, telling the Councilmembers what they do and (mostly) don’t have the power to do. According to Colantuono, it is the unelected city manager who dictates the city budget. Translation: she is not being held accountable for how or how much she is spending.
It’s absolutely maddening to watch this arrogant man try and force the Councilmembers to believe that the City Manager has the authority to DO and SPEND whatever she wants.
No, Gallant, it’s not OK that you dictate the city budget from behind closed doors, and when questioned, hire an outside attorney to say “Don’t ask questions!”
Don't believe me? Take a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxyCfo0vAI
While the good people of Alameda are with their families, sleeping in their beds or doing anything else but watching City Council meetings until 1 in the morning, our UNelected city officials are running amok. I think recent headlines are enough to make anyone question “What the heck is going on at City Hall?” but this video will SHOW you...
A quick summary before you view:
It seems it’s not the elected leaders, but rather the appointed Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant who is in control of our tax dollars.
Gallant-hired gun Michael Colantuono is at the stand, pretentious at best, telling the Councilmembers what they do and (mostly) don’t have the power to do. According to Colantuono, it is the unelected city manager who dictates the city budget. Translation: she is not being held accountable for how or how much she is spending.
It’s absolutely maddening to watch this arrogant man try and force the Councilmembers to believe that the City Manager has the authority to DO and SPEND whatever she wants.
No, Gallant, it’s not OK that you dictate the city budget from behind closed doors, and when questioned, hire an outside attorney to say “Don’t ask questions!”
Don't believe me? Take a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxyCfo0vAI
Monday, October 11, 2010
Alameda DA Calls City-Hired Attorney Racist
In her September 28th letter, Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney, ripped apart the arrogant claims of Michael Colantuono “Special Counsel” hired by the City of Alameda. The letter was received by the Alameda Mayor’s Office on October 6, 2010 and can be viewed here.
O’Malley’s letter is stinging (for Colontuono)… here are a few excerpts:
“I find it offensive that you have singled out Asian-American leaders”
“This sort of racially charged accusation has no place in professional dialogue.”
“Whatever your motives in making these false claims, I remain mindful of our role in this process: to objectively and dispassionately evaluate the facts and the law so that a just decision can be reached.”
“I consider the comments you made…to have been made out of ignorance and disappointment, not out of malice and accordingly plan no additional action against their maker.”
It is absolutely ridiculous that the City of Alameda (or should I say Ann Marie Gallant) is paying Mr. Colantuono taxpayer dollars to play these kinds of legal tricks. To personally attack public servants Nancy O’Malley and Lena Tam is outrageous, and I would hope that our hired and elected officials would have better judgment than to hire a legal representative with such little integrity or tact.
O’Malley’s letter is stinging (for Colontuono)… here are a few excerpts:
“I find it offensive that you have singled out Asian-American leaders”
“This sort of racially charged accusation has no place in professional dialogue.”
“Whatever your motives in making these false claims, I remain mindful of our role in this process: to objectively and dispassionately evaluate the facts and the law so that a just decision can be reached.”
“I consider the comments you made…to have been made out of ignorance and disappointment, not out of malice and accordingly plan no additional action against their maker.”
It is absolutely ridiculous that the City of Alameda (or should I say Ann Marie Gallant) is paying Mr. Colantuono taxpayer dollars to play these kinds of legal tricks. To personally attack public servants Nancy O’Malley and Lena Tam is outrageous, and I would hope that our hired and elected officials would have better judgment than to hire a legal representative with such little integrity or tact.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
California PUC Watchdog
The PG&E September 9th San Bruno pipeline blast, which left eight people dead, finally forced consumer watchdog groups AND the California Public Utilities Commission to open their eyes. Even after the PG&E “smart meter” scandal that had many residents up in arms about the price increases, the PUC didn’t step in to mediate the situation.
The PUC is the committee that should be protecting and serving the people with fair prices and utility regulation, but lately it seems that the committee is favoring the utility Goliaths instead of all the David’s out there paying their gas bills.
The regulatory power of the PUC dictates how much profit companies like PG&E will receive annually, based on PUC regulatory rates. Apparently PG&E is looking for a $4.2 billion increase this year, but in the wake of the pipeline blast, the PUC may not be so lenient with granting their request.
Unnecessary stress on taxpayers and businesses during these tough economic times is the last thing we need. With taxes increasing to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety services, I hardly find it necessary to increase taxpayers’ utility bills, just so PG&E can have a $4.2 billion increase in profits.
Activists such as the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego have come out against the PUC, advocating for tighter, more fair regulation. And this is commission President Michael Peevey’s response:
"To quote Fox News, we're fair and balanced."
Hmmmm… not the most fair and balanced source, but OK.
It will be important for the community to keep an eye on the PUC: two of the five commissioners are to be replaced in 2011. This means our next governor will play a major role in the future composition of the commission; the five commissioners are appointed by the government and confirmed by the state Senate. Stay tuned.
The PUC is the committee that should be protecting and serving the people with fair prices and utility regulation, but lately it seems that the committee is favoring the utility Goliaths instead of all the David’s out there paying their gas bills.
The regulatory power of the PUC dictates how much profit companies like PG&E will receive annually, based on PUC regulatory rates. Apparently PG&E is looking for a $4.2 billion increase this year, but in the wake of the pipeline blast, the PUC may not be so lenient with granting their request.
Unnecessary stress on taxpayers and businesses during these tough economic times is the last thing we need. With taxes increasing to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety services, I hardly find it necessary to increase taxpayers’ utility bills, just so PG&E can have a $4.2 billion increase in profits.
Activists such as the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego have come out against the PUC, advocating for tighter, more fair regulation. And this is commission President Michael Peevey’s response:
"To quote Fox News, we're fair and balanced."
Hmmmm… not the most fair and balanced source, but OK.
It will be important for the community to keep an eye on the PUC: two of the five commissioners are to be replaced in 2011. This means our next governor will play a major role in the future composition of the commission; the five commissioners are appointed by the government and confirmed by the state Senate. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
