Moving Forward
On Monday, the Planning Board unanimously adopted a meeting format for the Measure A forum, yes you read that appropriately, unanimously. (Patrick Lynch was absent).
The meeting was extraordinary as there were no speakers in opposition to the forum, the Measure A Ad Hoc Committee Appellant Members (MAAHCAM) did not even show up, much to the confusion of many boardmembers. It was a pretty impressive display of disrespect and the subject of much discussion between board President Cook and Member Mariani. Mariani seemed to take a few stabs at insinuating that the planning board had purposefully kept the MAAHCAM in the dark about things.
First, it was that the MAAHCAM hadn’t come to the meeting (and were they aware it was happening), then it was that the Planning Board members had submitted a proposed meeting format and the MAAHCAM hadn’t (they sent grouchy letters instead), next came confusion over the fact that MAAHCAM didn’t appear to have sent many names for speakers for the forum (just their own really) and why were there so many other names. And finally it was back to MAAHCAM not being there. Cook chimed in that she was flummoxed by their lack of appearance, and pointed out that the meeting date had been moved to accommodate them, so they (MAAHCAM) were clearly aware of it.
Despite the MAAHCAM’s disrespectful showing, the entire planning board continued their attempts to include them in the process. Although during the subcommittee process all members of the subcommittee had agreed to have names submitted from the public and then chosen by subcommittee, and although MAAHCAM submitted two names (Pat Bail and Diane Coler-Dark), the planning board decided to ask the MAAHCAM if they would like to resubmit additional names to staff to include in the pool of speakers.
Which brings us back to the forum, which will be held in January 2008 and planned by the city’s Housing Element consultant. Although I was in agreement with boardmember Mariani that it seemed a foregone conclusion that an appeal of this decision would be swift and forthcoming. I was wrong.
The Alameda Sun, yesterday, reported (it’snot online) that Pat Bail announced “I’m not planning on appealing it. What would be the point?” One could have asked what the point of the original appeal was, but one didn’t (or if one did, they didn’t print it in the paper). The article continues later:
“…’we are in exactly the same place in our town as we were in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s when we had all these developmers in town raping us.’ Bail said. Bail went on to accuse Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson of being too close to developers…”
During Monday’s meeting there was a lot of discussion about whether to provide a lunch to attendees of the forum or not and Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft mentioned that she thought it a good idea, but that she wasn’t suggesting “chateaubriand, just sandwiches or something like that.” I chuckled and mentioned to the person next to me that a certain daily news blog would probably be running a headline announcing “Let them eat deli! ’Ezzy’ Ashcraft feels Alamedans not good enough for chateaubriand!”
Needless to say, we chuckled. At various points further into the meeting, other options, surfaced: Perhaps an appeal of the lunch choice to the council. Would it be chicken? Or pastrami? Would a subcommittee of pro-chicken and anti-chicken Alamedans be formed? Etc.
Leave a Reply