Wild and Crazy!
Steve Martin had this routine, back when he was packing arenas, in which with all expected cockiness, he bragged about books he had written, one of which was “How I turned a million in real estate into $25 in cash.” I still laugh when I hear it.
It reminds me of Action Alameda, a group that came out of the last election with a swagger about large mailing lists, executive board’s that will change every six-months, subcommittees and 2 co-presidents! And now, it’s a one-man band, with a couple of hangers on that occasionally pop up to shout “me too.” So the question is why?
Yet another example is the ridiculousness that is going on over at an news-themed internet site. Accusations (always with the accusations!) of malfeasance and stupidity are flying again. Honestly, Christopher Guest couldn’t write this stuff any better or more ironic.
The ongoing issue is a continuation of trying to salvage some pride in the wake of the massive meltdown which was the “redevelopment is destroying our schools” campaign. Remember the big community meeting on the issue? Of course not, it was debunked before it ever got rolling. So now, in the midst of a massive, actual crisis—one not of the creation of AUSD or it’s Board—the district is having to waste time answering spurious accusations of ineptitude around a fund that was created over 10-years ago for affordable housing.
Here’s what Action Alameda’s member has to say:
According to a 1991 Agreement between the CIC and Alameda Unified School District, the school district is required to file a report annually with the CIC (Community Improvement Commission) on the District Housing Fund, an account set up to build low-income housing primarily for district employees, and funded by pass-through money from the redevelopment agency (the CIC.)
However, a response from the school district on the reports shows that AUSD is mis-interpreting the 1991 CIC-AUSD agreement to mean that no annual reports are required, even though a very plain language reading of the document indicates there are.
First thing folks, if you have to diminish the people you’re criticizing by trying to reduce them to mental midgets who can’t even understand your own “plain language reading,” you should at least make sure that your own website doesn’t plainly contradict your “plain” arguments.
Here’s what the District sent to Mr. Action Alameda (taken from his own documents):
“The agreement dated November 12, 1991 between the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) stipulates that the AUSD will prepare an annual report on the District Housing Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section VII. Section VII further stipulates that within five months after the end of each fiscal year in which monies have been disbursed, the AUSD shall provide the CIC with a report on the status and use of the District Housing funds.
As of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, the CIC has not disbursed monies from the District Housing Fund to the AUSD. “
The issue isn’t the “incorrect interpretation” that Action Alamedaman decries. It has nothing to do with whether or not the agreement that requires the report is the one between the city and AUSD or the one between the City and Clayton Guyton. In fact, the documents presented in support of this supposed outrage have a big arrow—one that has been added by the staff of Action Alameda—pointing at the following:
g. Within five (5) months after the end of each fiscal year in which monies have been disbursed from the District Housing Fund to the District, the District shall provide the DC with a report on the status and use of the District Housing Fund monies disbursed to the District in compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 33080.4 of the Community Redevelopment Law. This will enable the CIC to include this informa~on wi.thin its annual report to be filed with the Controller within six (6) months after the end of the CIC’s fiscal year pursuant to Section 33080 of the Community Redevelopment Law.
As reported directly from AUSD, the city hasn’t disbursed any money (because AUSD hasn’t requested it, though they have been looking at projects which might use the money.) Therefore, the contract specifically says that no reports are needed.
The city is required to report annually on the affordable housing settlement it made with Clayton Guyton. To quote Leslie Little, director of the City of Alameda Development Services:
Specifically, the City must annually report to the plaintiffs of the Guyton law suit about certain housing fund revenues and expenditures, as well as new unit production. The City prepares and submits the Guyton Annual Report every year. The Guyton Annual Report already includes information about revenues received by the CIC which are deposited in the District Housing Fund. Since there have been no disbursements to the District from the District Housing Fund, there has been no information about expenditures and unit production for AUSD to report. Therefore, the requirement that the District prepare a report in accordance with the provisions of Section VII of the Settlement Agreement has not been applicable so far.
So one could spend their time working on issues that are actually affecting education in Alameda. But a better idea is to grandstand, and demand a public hearing (as Action David Howard is currently doing) on an issue that doesn’t exist, unless of course one’s very plain reading of the necessary documents skips the plainly written and truly meaningful sections so as to not disrupt a perfectly constructed narrative that casts oneself as a heroic slayer of bureaucratic dragons.
Jeff Mitchell
April 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hey John: My, what interesting times we Alamedans are living in. After reading your post (and Lauren’s, too) this morning I was struck by a number of thoughts regarding “Action Alameda” (David Howard) and this organization’s impacts or lack thereof on our city’s political and governing landscape. One thought was that it is a shame Mr. Howard doesn’t do more thorough research on the issues he wades into. When he throws a dart and it fails to even make it to the board, he leaves himself vulnerable to attack from all sides and from the local blogosphere. In our little corner of the American marketplace of ideas, this is the way it should be.
And, the more times he keeps failing to hit that proverbial dart board, the more Mr. Howard marginalizes himself. He’s quickly getting to the point where he will be joining the ranks of a certain gadfly we all know and love who apparently suffers a compulsion to speak on almost every agenda item at our City Council meetings — regardless of what he says has anything to do with the agenda item. If Mr. Howard finds good company there, great — that’s his choice. More power to him.
However, if you’ve ever carefully watched the pained, stoney expressions on the faces of the council as they endure this gentleman’s 3-minute periods of disconnected thoughts, you’d know it’s really not where you want to go if you want to actually be heard by our council members.
And, like you John, I too have suffered through Mr. Howard’s often mean spirited nonsense and barbs. I definitely don’t like his “blame first and ask questions later” approach. It’s counterproductive.
But here’s the thing — as a journalist who has spent a lot of time covering and writing about local governance in California, I think Mr. Howard’s instincts aren’t necessarily as off-base as they’ve been painted in this blog and others.
Just during my short tenure here in Alameda as editor of the AJ we were able uncover and shed light on City Hall’s lack of transparency in many areas. The largest payout on a lawsuit filed against the city in its history, the ARRA board’s (mis)handling of rental tenants at Alameda Point and, of course, the financial debacle at AP&T are just a few things that come to mind.
In other words, while we are free to chuckle and maybe even smirk at some of these folks, we should always keep at least one ear on what they’re saying and not be so quick to dismiss them just because they keep lamely missing that dart board.
john piziali
April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Jeff I tend to agree with your point about Mr.Howard not always hitting the dart board, but sometimes maybe making a good point. However as someone who he has thrown darts at I have to say he is very mean spirited and I get the feeling that he would rather get the attention no matter how he does it.
To tell the truth I think he enjoys being underhanded and trying to get away with smearing folks, more than he enjoys trying to uncover anything of relavance.
Lauren Do
April 14th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hey Jeff:
I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I think there is an important distinction between uncovering a truly newsworthy item, doing the requisite research around the issue to make sure that what you found out is actually true and has the evidence to support it, or any evidence to support it , and what David Howard does.
If you aren’t going to read through the documents that you are citing to make your point thoroughly enough to catch that your theory has already been shot down or if you are going to deliberately misinterpret something to fit your point of view there comes a time when your credibility starts going down the toilet and quickly.
How much benefit of the doubt can we keep giving someone that consistently gets it wrong almost every single time?
And I totally enjoy the Council Chamber gadfly a whole hell of a lot more than I enjoy listening to David H. because at the very least I know I’m going to be entertained