Let the games….end
So there are four candidates running for two seats on the council: Marie Gilmore, Doug deHaan, Tracy Jensen and Justin Harrison. This is surprising to me, mostly because of the ridiculous rhetoric leading up to the filings by deHaan supporters like David “Action Alameda” Howard and Dennis Green. Surprising, because the council race is a “Vote for two” contest. Meaning that if someone wanted to replace Gilmore on the council, they would have to find a new candidate to run, voting just for deHaan, who’s past campaign is the only financial support for Howard’s one-man Action Alameda (July ‘08 financial filings show zero contributions or memberships in the past 6 months (which means none), deHaan/Bail/Thomson’s nearly $1000 in campaign money remains the only non-Howard money ever going to Action Alameda).
So one would expect that if folks were going to start trying to highlight Gilmore’s negatives and calling for her ouster, they would have a candidate to support for replacing her. But no.
On July 23rd, Howard decided to take the air to proclaim that Tray Jensen is “a part of the crowd, the gang….voting for [her] would be like perpetuating the projects that we’ve had….perpetuating this nonsense.” [Among the nonsense is the highly popular Theater project.] And given all the polls that have been conducted that show over 2/3 of Alamedans happy with the direction of the city, one would have to think that peretuating a good thing is not a negative in voters minds.
So when Howard and friends write letters (examples Here, here and here) to regional newspapers blaming Gilmore for voting along with deHaan and the rest of the council on issues like AP&T, one has to assume that they have a new horse to run. When one looks at the votes on the AP&T issues, they see that deHaan and Gilmore have voted identically.
When one reads Councilmember deHaan’s 2008 candidate statement that includes in his list of accomplishments The Theatre, Park and Webster renovations, and the development of Harbor Bay Business Park, this being the “nonsense” that Jensen would perpetuate (and yet deHaan’s crowing about it warrants not a comment) and which Howard writes:
Under the current redevelopment agenda in Alameda, demands for city services will increase without commensurate contributions to the city’s general fund - exactly what happened in Vallejo [ed. Note, this is not exactly what happened in Vallejo which by all accounts was caused by overly generous public safety benefits that the city couldn't maintain]. Hopefully, Alameda residents will wake up by November and realize the City of Alameda Councilmember Marie Gilmore - who is up for re-election - has been a chief contributor to the problem.
Again, I’m not surprised about the vitriol against Gilmore, though in classic ActionAlameda fashion, it’s all statement, no back up. It was only time before the blame for everything shifted from Johnson, Matarrese, and Tam (remember when Tam was supposedly running as a rubber stamp third vote with Johnson and Matarrese? The “silent slate!” “Look out!”) What’s surprising is the energy being spent on attacking Gilmore without an alternative….why bother?
At the same time that he’s talking about the “cozy relationship” between the school board and the council (wouldn’t it be great if they were like suing each other? And fighting over everything!?), he admits to knowing nothing about Harrison. Which leaves one candidate: deHaan.
One has to ask oneself if these attacks are an attempt to elevate deHaan’s chances in November. Chances which I personally think are very good, just like Gilmore’s. DeHaan’s relationship with Action Alameda should be explained at some point (If I were deHaan, I’d be looking at creating distance). But more than that, whether it’s orchestrated or not, the attempts to tear down a single member of the council with no goal other than to tear her down, is really sad. You want to replace someone, get a candidate first.
By the way, the Alameda Democratic Club will be holding it’s SChool Board endorsement meeting tonight at Alameda Hospital. In order to vote, you must be current in your dues and have attended at least two meetings in the past year.
Mark Irons
August 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Early endorsement: bullet vote for Gilmore. If Doug wins, fine by me, though it would take LOTS of distance from Mr. H. to get my vote.
I don’t know what one might read into Tracy’s early endorsements from the mayor and Perata. But I figure she sees herself running against Doug. Whatever. Sorry Tracy, some of us would prefer you finish what you started.
john piziali
August 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Marie Gilmore…….
One of the most competent, always ready members ever to sit on the council.
Also she does not spend to much time talking.
They cannot beat her, they are not as studied or intelligent as her.
J.A. Boyer
August 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Wouldn’t it be an interesting Council if Ms. Jensen and Ms. Gilmore are elected?
Just thinking out loud
AD
August 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
John,
Don’t mean to distract you from sneering, but didn’t someone ask you on a different blog about your role in re-defining the LOS levels for traffic in Alameda? This is of more practical consequence in my opinion and right in your purview to answer. Some folks are still waiting for your answer…
John Knox White
August 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
AD,
They sure did! And the question was answered at midnight last night. it was also covered in a much longer discussion on Lauren’s site with the same inquisitor, so I don’t see that re-responding is either necessary or a good use of my time.
AD
August 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Please point to the discussion. It does not appear to be on the thread where the question was asked.
John Knox White
August 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ad, I have no better way of tracking it down than you do. I’m working on other things and don’t have time to look up things I don’t need.
AD
August 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
John, this is not an acceptable answer. You are a Transportation commissioner, and the issue of LOS levels is something you are apparently involved in. I am absolutely sure you know both where the discussion is, and any related documents. Moreover, you seem to have plenty of time for sneering screeds like the one above that have nothing to do with your duties as an appointed commissioner for you to assume the “I’m a busy man” pose. The whole thing seems like evading the issue, and destroys whatever trust anyone might have in you. It also proves the very point your teammate Lauren Do got so touchy about in the Sun last Friday, that blogs are a great way for politicians like you to avoid responsibility.
Of course I can find out about the LOS levels. In the least, I’ll ask David Kirwin—he seems to be on top of these things. I can also predict with fair amount of certainty that anything he states you would come out after with great indignation and a pile of numbers that may or may not pencil out. Why don’t you just say upfront what it is people shouldn’t be asking about?
Lauren Do
August 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Here’s an idea…how about AD points to the part in the Transportation Plan that has him/her confused/concerned and then asks John to further explain what it means. Here, let me get you started. The EIR can be found on the City website here.
I am assuming that whatever David Kirwin was talking about is somewhere in this document. If there is a section or portion that is of concern, then by all means reveal it. But to anticipate that a volunteer commissioner bend over backward over a nebulous statement made without providing evidence attributing the statement and goal to him/her is really quite presumptous.
John Knox White
August 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
AD, I invite you to come to the next TC meeting on Monday, 8/25 at 7pm to share your opinions at a public hearing at which I will be fulfilling my actual duties of TC member. until then, thanks for reading.
BC
August 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
AD
In order to get differing viewpoints on island affairs, I read various Alameda blogs and papers from time to time (this, the AJ, the AS, Don Roberts’ and Lauren Do’s blogs), and I find that the sour tone of your contributions, regardless of the issue or forum, leave me feeling a little depressed about the state of public discourse. You might be more persuasive in making your case (if that is really what you’re trying to do) if you managed to appear less bitter. E.g., “destroys whatever trust anyone might have in you.” Come on; isn’t that a little rhetorically overblown? I’m presumably covered by “anyone” and I didn’t have that reaction, and I don’t think that necessarily because I don’t share your point of view on this particular issue. Anyway, just what I leaned when I was a young debate-team member…
AD
August 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
BC, how does the tone of JKW’s blog post today (and certain previous posts) leave you—exalted? I find it quite remarkable that he thinks he can maintain two public personas—the “objective” meeting commissioner and the self-involved, derisive blogger. That’s hard for me to reconcile. I can argue issues all day, sourly or sweetly as I choose, but when someone avoids the issues he is qualified to talk about while making a special effort to sneer at people he personally dislikes, I think that person will encounter some problems with public perception.
Lauren Do
August 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
AD:
I think you know as well as anyone else that it is the way that you posed the question that is questionable here. You asked:
I wonder how many of the other Transportation Commissioners you have asked that question in such a manner in addition to JKW. That question you asked is an entirely different one if you were actually interested in why the LOS levels were redefined, if they really were. If you did have an interest in the issue you would pull out the policy statement from the EIR and ask questions as to why the decision was made to do whatever was done. Rather you asked what role JKW had in crafting the policy and so I would throw back to you, what would it matter what role he had, if he had any, if there was a reasonable explanation for the decision.
As to the main post above, personally I found the topic meaningful because of the lack of action on the part of Action Alameda and friends to run a candidate against Marie Gilmore considering that the weeks leading up to the filing deadline they have been blaming her for every problem in the City possible (ignoring the fact that Doug deHaan made the exact same votes on the same issues) but without a tangible outcome or candidate to support.
alameda
August 20th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Now, another AD is ranting about the apparent “non-availability” of the EIR. If he/she finds it cumbersome to selective print only the pages of interest , I fail to see how the said person doesn’t find it cumbersome to carry the entire report (all 876 pages of it) on “BART or waiting for a class to finish”.
Only in bizarro world …