Do over?
Over a year ago, I heard from the Editor at Alameda Magazine about their plan to write an article on the great Measure A debate and as a part of it, include multiple guest pieces on the issue. Over 12 months later, the article is out: (I encourage you to read all the pieces of the Alameda Magazine Measure A article) What a great time, with all the community discussions taking place around this issue.
Unfortunately, in the end the article is missing major voices in the community discussion and represents a big lost opportunity to discuss the issues and look at the history (and the hype of both sides) of the venerable charter amendment. We get the same historical overview that’s been presented over and over again without any new nuance or discussion. We hear loudly from one side of the debate while the opposing side is silent, except in caricature. (Big props for interviewing planning board member Andrew Cunningham, a voice not necessarily associated with the debate on Measure A).
Missing were the actual voices of people working on the change/amend/whatever Measure A side of the debate. It’s unclear from the article whether quotes attributed to HOMES are actually from HOMES members, or just generalizations of perceived HOMES positions. An example:
The main opponent of Measure A, the group HOMES, continues to rail against Alameda’s property owners as elitist and exclusionary. The desire by some to “keep a certain element out” of Alameda is very real, they say, and Measure A helps accomplish that.
Reading Helen Sause’s guest piece in the same issue and perusing the HOMES website, it’s hard to square the railing against property owning elitists with their actually message. In fact a quick Googling of the terms “measure A” and “elitist” digs up four hits, two are from Pro-Measure A websites David Howard’s Action Alameda and Pat Bail’s Keep Measure A.org, one is this Alameda Magazine article and the last is a letter to the Alameda Sun by wallflower Mark Irons who is not calling people elitists.
Honestly, I find myself wondering if the attributed statements weren’t actually straw man arguments offered by HOMES opponents. I have confirmed that aside from Helen S. writing a guest piece for the magazine, nobody from Alameda magazine talked to anyone from HOMES for the article. That’s a big loss and a major problem for this article.
Another big question, who did the writer talk to that brought up the racism issue? There sure is a lot of ink given to the issues of race and Measure A without attribution given to anybody. Again, it reeks of the straw man. (“Some people say that Measure A kills puppies” but that’s an outrageous exaggeration meant to “play the Canine Card” says activist Sum Cityzen.)
Lost was the opportunity to explore how Alameda has or has not changed in the past 35 years compared to other communities. Lost was an opportunity to explore the race issues that are mentioned as a concern (and acknowledged as existing by Action Alameda just not a driving part of the Measure A discussion), but are only rebutted as ridiculous. Lost was the opportunity to continue the discussion begun in February at the City of Alameda Measure A forum.
I may write more about the guest pieces later, either way, I think you’ll find yourself not incredibly surprised by most of them (Mine of course is refreshing and a must read, of course ;-).)
Mark Irons
July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
John,
I read the article and interviews rather briskly and did find the article a little clunky, but I didn’t linger over it. The very line you quote about HOMES “railing” is what clunked for me.
What was really jarring and obvious was the lack of symmetry in layout. David Howard and Barbara Kerr up front, followed by JKW and Helen’s piece was
buried in the back. I initially thought they had included just three opinion pieces. A fairer way would have been to alternate, Howard, JKW, Kerr and then bury Helen in the back. I happen to be acquainted with Judy the editor, though not well, but I think she is sincere and was probably trying hard on this one, so I feel bad about the criticism, but I gotta call it like I see it Judy. I have no idea who the author of the article is.
I wonder how Andy Cunningham feels about being pegged as a critic of Measure A in the article. I have this strong image in my mind of Andy always reassuring the public when talking about related issues, that Measure A is the law and the planning board will make decisions according to the law as it exists. In other words, if he is critical of Measure A he hasn’t made it the hallmark of his service on the planning board, and good for him because it is in fact the law. I just wonder if after this article he will be added to the list of “anti-Measure” villains on the planning board.