Alameda Governance: Whither the TC?

03 February 2010 | Alameda, Alameda City Council, Transportation, Transportation Commission | John Knox White

This post wouldn’t seem right if I didn’t at least say “Wow!” Voters definitely made the only choice they could and in fine fashion yesterday. If ever there was a mandate to not put Development Agreements on the Ballot, yesterday was it.

Did I miss the memo that the City Council had decided to disband the Transportation Commission last year? There hasn’t been a meeting since the special meeting in Mid-August, which wasn’t really a meeting either. And staff isn’t even bothering to list it on the City Calendar anymore (See January or February). Continue

Popularity: 1% [?]

8 Comments

« Previous Entries

Recent Posts

  • Alameda Point: Yes on B
    To me, Measure B is a choice between moving forward to develop a very good, sustainable (environmentally and economically) vision for Alameda Point. The question before us is, will we (the city) be able to see this vision come to fruition, and after much research and thought, I’ve decided that yes, it does.
  • Oakland Airport Connector vs. local Jobs
  • Alameda Point Leases: The smartest guys in the room
    I wanted to talk about the conversation around the leases, especially with Darcy Morrison running around claiming that Alameda Point has generated $126 million in net income over 12 years. As proof, she points to David “Action Alameda” Howard’s “analysis” of the ARRA’s cash flow analysis (wonky terms, but stick with it for a second). That should have been her first tip off that she should check her math.
  • Alameda Point: All the protections in place
    I really think that when the dust settles and the lawsuits begin (those filed by SunCal for breach of contract and not negotiating in good faith), last Tuesday’s meeting will be included in the list of places where City Staff stepped away from their legally required neutrality and fell head first into advocacy by presenting inaccurate (or more specifically, incomplete) information to the City Council, the School Board and the citizens of Alameda.
  • Alameda Point: Municipal Intent
    At that moment, City Manager Ann Marie Gallant summed up the difference as “the problem is the intent and the initiative language are two different things, and we opted to go with what the initiative language says.”
  • Alameda Point: Benefiting the public
    Two of the things I’m hoping will be discussed at tonight's council meeting are Fiscal Neutrality and Public Benefits. A lot has been made of a supposed “$500 million dollar shortfall” despite the fact that it’s a made up number that doesn’t withstand the smell test.