Stop, Drop and Roll

09 May 2007 | Alameda City Council, Alameda Community Development Forum | John Knox White

Alameda civic discourse is once again in the crosshairs. Like a circular dream, the issue of measure A and its effect on development in this city is raised, lawn signs and apocalyptic sloganeering ensue, timid civic leaders choose the path of least resistance and quietly ignore the issue all together and the city continues to grow in unsustainable ways.

The latest round of this tragedy began recently when the Alameda Planning board, on a vote of 6-1, decided to form an ad hoc subcommittee in order to discuss having a meeting to discuss Alameda’s “Measure A.” Topics to discuss include how that meeting would be structured, who might be invited to speak, what the end-product of the meetings would be and how those goals might be attained.

These plans of a possible meeting structure would then return to the Planning Board, where the entire board would hold yet another public meeting to discuss how to set up a meeting that would then discuss issues surrounding Measure A. (For those counting at home, that’s two public meetings about holding a public meeting, super secret stuff.)

That was the day the world ended in Alameda.

Councilman Doug deHaan undertook parliamentary procedures worthy of the US Senate (something that’s becoming a trend) to bring the issue of holding-a-meeting-about-planning-a-meeting to a city council meeting. Three outraged former council members and three candidates the voters vetoed at the polls filed an “appeal” of the meeting about a meeting. (A word of warning about the “appeal letter”–it’s completely wrong and full of conjecture, starting with the premise that the planning board subcommittee is “[a]dvocating overturning the City Charter.”)

Next Tuesday (5/15/07), the council will endure another meeting of the same people yelling at them about not talking about a key issue regarding the city’s development. In the bunch will be some former electeds, one of whom lost to Beverly Johnson in her bid to become Mayor and a number of whom ran for the council and lost. In fact, one of the most vocal of all lost badly, after garnering less than a third of the vote in 2006 while the winning two candidates received nearly 60% of the vote and close to 50%. Out of six candidates!

When people step up to talk about Measure A, they get hammered. Helen Sause, Anne Cook, Marilyn Ashcraft, and moi (that’s French for “me”) among others have taken hits for having the audacity to discuss Measure A. On Tuesday, it’s likely that a lot of people who would be interested in speaking up for open public discourse will stay home, expecting the council to stand up for free speech and informed public debate. At the planning board measure A forum in 2002, I was one of those people. I didn’t want to be associated with the issue because of the vitriol and venom tossed at anyone who dared speak publicly about their ideas.

It’s time for the council to take a leadership role on this issue and remember that they are the elected representatives of Alameda. Next Tuesday, the Mayor needs to halt the meeting when speakers get out of hand and disrespectful.

(An aside: all these speakers will be there to protect their beloved small-town values by screaming, yelling and nearly spitting invectives at the council, the planning board and anyone who disagrees with them about the sanctity of Measure A. That’s not to say that all supporters of Measure A speak this way, but I have yet to see anyone who is interested in an open discussion of the issue become belligerent or nasty at a public meeting).

The council needs to stand up for their planning board, which is trying to hold a public discussion on an issue that will have a major impact on the largest development in Alameda to be built in nearly 40 years.

What is so scary about talking about issues of public significance? If the Measure A supporters believe that everyone is on their side, the discussion will be harmonious and consensus will be reached quickly. Given the outright bogus information on the signage that the KeepMeasureA PAC is putting up around town (“less density = less traffic”), I can only imagine that supporters of never, ever talking about Measure A want to monopolize the flow of information. It’s the only way their version of “facts” can avoid being challenged in any meaningful way.

Before Tuesday, Doug deHaan needs to take responsibility for his supporters and tell them to act respectfully at the meeting. This means no more lies about planning board members, no more yelling, none of it.

On Tuesday, the Mayor needs to take firm control of the meeting and halt the meeting for a period if the speakers become unruly and disrespecful.

And finally, the council needs to stand up for informed public discussions on issues of significance to the community.

Measure A – it’s benefits and limitations and how they will affect design at the Point – certainly is one of them.