City Council
Only Vote for Doug deHaan
Doug deHaan is well-informed, he has a public service background, and he is diligent and informed on
issues before the Council. He’s the most independent
member of the Council—he’s independent of developers and the local political machine, and is deeply concerned
about Alameda, where he has lived all of his life. He has a critical stance on the theater/parking structure complex,
on which the Council, sitting as the redevelopment board, spent over $35 million, thereby adding to our bonded
indebtedness of nearly $300 million, which the city must
pay back, reducing the tax base of our city. We strongly recommend deHaan, for the good of Alameda.
For the second open seat, we do not support any of the other candidates, so only vote for Doug deHaan, which
also increases his chances of winning re-election.
School Board
Janet Gibson, Niel Tam
Ron Mooney, with reservations
Janet Gibson is a retired special education teacher. She is an incumbent member of the Board and is accessible to both parents and teachers. She is a long-time resident
of the community, with deep concern about our schools. She is an advocate for students and teachers, and stands for quality education in Alameda. She supports improved Board procedures to increase parent and citizen access and
enhance open governance. We strongly recommend her for re-election.
Niel Tam is a retired teacher and principal with a fine reputation in the community. He will hold town-hall meetings on education, which will improve parent access
to educational policy making. He is deeply rooted in the under-represented west side community. He is committed
to improving education in Alameda. We strongly recommend him.
Ron Mooney is a local businessman who is involved in schools, and who volunteers time and money. We
recommend him less strongly than Janet Gibson or Niel Tam, but we prefer him over the remaining candidates.
Therefore we are endorsing him with reservations.

Healthcare District
(Uncontested: Not on the Ballot)
There are four seats open on the HealthcarCity Council
Only Vote for Doug deHaan
Doug deHaan is well-informed, he has a public
service background, and he is diligent and informed on
issues before the Council. He’s the most independent
member of the Council—he’s independent of developers
and the local political machine, and is deeply concerned
about Alameda, where he has lived all of his life. He has
a critical stance on the theater/parking structure complex,
on which the Council, sitting as the redevelopment board,
spent over $35 million, thereby adding to our bonded
indebtedness of nearly $300 million, which the city must
pay back, reducing the tax base of our city. We strongly
recommend deHaan, for the good of Alameda.
For the second open seat, we do not support any of
the other candidates, so only vote for Doug deHaan, which also increases his chances of winning re-election.
School Board
Janet Gibson, Niel Tam
Ron Mooney, with reservations
Janet Gibson is a retired special education teacher.
She is an incumbent member of the Board and is accessible
to both parents and teachers. She is a long-time resident
of the community, with deep concern about our schools.
She is an advocate for students and teachers, and stands
for quality education in Alameda. She supports improved
Board procedures to increase parent and citizen access and
enhance open governance. We strongly recommend her
for re-election.
Niel Tam is a retired teacher and principal with a
fine reputation in the community. He will hold town-hall
meetings on education, which will improve parent access
to educational policy making. He is deeply rooted in the
under-represented west side community. He is committed
to improving education in Alameda. We strongly recom-
mend him.
Ron Mooney is a local businessman who is involved
in schools, and who volunteers time and money. We
recommend him less strongly than Janet Gibson or Niel
Tam, but we prefer him over the remaining candidates.
Therefore we are endorsing him with reservations.

Healthcare District
(Uncontested: Not on the Ballot)
There are four seats open on the Healthcare District
Board (two of which are four-year seats, and two of which
are two-year seats) and there are four candidates running
for those four seats (two each for the two different term
lengths). Therefore, these seats are considered to be
“uncontested”, and this office will not appear on your
ballot; with all four candidates now being “automatically
elected”. However, we did want to inform you that one
of those candidates, Dr. Robert Deutsch, is a Green Party
member (who of course now becomes the first Green in
Alameda County to win a seat in this November’s elec-
tion).
Dr. Deutsch has pledged to help make the financially
shaky Alameda Hospital viable and seek, when necessary,
strategic alliances, to maintain all needed hospital services
to best serve the community of Alameda. He has been a
primary care physician in Alameda for many years. We
congratulate him on winning this election and hope he will
succeed with the difficult task ahead of ensuring financial
stability for the Hospital.
Measure P—NO
Raising Real Estate Transfer Tax
The City Attorney’s analysis of Measure P states:
“Real property located within the City of Alameda has
been subject to the real estate transfer tax since 1967.
This tax applies only when real property is sold and is
paid into the City’s general fund, which is allocated by
the City Council through the annual budget for general
city services.”
Unlike some other areas of the Bay Area, Alameda has
widespread home-ownership and its citizens have worked
to keep it a livable place for families, which means they
even vote to raise taxes on themselves, when necessary.
Because of this, coming to Alameda is like entering a small
town in the Midwest—the streets are lined with sidewalks
and shady trees, the speed limit is 25 mph on the entire
island, the Victorians are well maintained, and the small
downtown is full of life.
Unfortunately, in recent years, developers have suc-
ceeded in courting local officials and the voice of residents
has increasingly been silenced. With this shift has come
increasing mismanagement and debt.
Rather then being deeply in debt for bonds for rede-
velopment, the City of Alameda ought to have a surplus
of income from Alameda Point—instead, $10 million
dollars goes to the coffers of the Redevelopment Agency
where it is spent at the sole discretion of that agency, un-
available to the general fund. Alameda Power, although
well-intentioned and a genuine city asset, also ought to
produce a large surplus for the city and the schools, but
does not, and instead, has cost the taxpayers millions.
And of course, the proposed transfer tax (raising the
existing tax of $5.40 to $12.00, per $1000 of real estate
value) will primarily only make the already unaffordable
homes of Alameda even further out of the reach for aver-
age Bay Area residents, and is an unreliable source of
funds, given the fluctuations in the real estate market.
Debt and development run amok are symptoms of
serious and costly mismanagement by city officials. Given
the current battles going on around development and
taxation already, rather than try to solve our problems by
raising taxes again, maybe the City should examine what
went wrong so far to get us where we are.
We recommend you vote NO of Measure P.
Measure Q—NO
Removal of “Obsolescent”
Charter Language
Measure Q claims to justify “cleaning up” (eliminat-
ing) language in the City Charter because it is “obsolete”
and “unclear”, but like Measure S, it provides no inde-
pendent analysis of the changes, much less even any op-
posing arguments, meaning that this is another measure
amounting to “just trust us,” and little more.
Some of the changes seem straightforward. For
example, deleting an outdated sentence that refers to a
term of office “as of June 2 1992” that shall be shortened
“approximately four to five months to 8:00 o clock pm
. . . following the November 3, 1992, general municipal
election”, would appear reasonable. But there are many
changes, not just a few, and they are varied changes, not
just one type.
Importantly, the Charter is a legal document and the
changes involve legal language, and most of us are not
lawyers. Without an independent citizens hearing regard-
ing the use of this justification, the potential consequences
of removing parts of the Charter will remain largely
unknown apart from what the City Attorney and staff tell
us. This is a concern. We note that one of the changes,
for example, would appear to open the door to banning
citizen votes on redevelopment.
Frankly, those of us in Alameda who have sat at
City Council meetings until the early morning hours
(with participants spread into overflow rooms to watch
proceedings on video until they are called), only to have
our voices repeatedly ignored in favor of developers,
don’t have a high level of confidence in the ability of city
officials to be impartial. A recent letter to the editor in
the local paper suggested eliminating the City Planning
Department since they function as only a mouthpiece for
the developers anyway. Indeed, the pressure to develop
the Island appears to be so strong that elected officials are
willing to risk their careers here for the sake of developing
properties.
Thus, until we know what the consequences would
be of this removal of all of the “obsolescent” language,
we urge you to vote NO.
Measure R—YES
All Contracts To Be In Writing
Running a city by verbal agreement and having unauthor-
ized people signing contracts makes for a lot of confusion
and disputes. Measure R is a solid step towards eliminat-
ing these bad practices and will most likely save the city a
lot of time and money disputing those sorts of contracts.
Yes on Measure R.
Measure S—NO
Removal of Competitive Bidding
in Emergencies
The City Attorney’s analysis of Measure S states:
“This measure would amend the City of Alameda City
Charter to allow City staff to hire contractors and pur-
chase materials immediately in emergencies, with Coun-
cil approval after the fact. The Charter now requires a
competitive bidding process for public projects when
the cost is likely to be more than an amount that is set by
state law [$75,000]. The Charter now allows City staff
to construct a project without competitive bidding if the
Council meets first and at least four of the five Council
members agree there is a great necessity or emergency.
The measure [S] would allow staff to start activities for
the protection of the public and property, before a Council
meeting is conducted.”
Unfortunately, City staff are not elected officials.
Measure S effectively allows un-elected officials to brush
aside state limits on costs for public projects—costs that
would then be passed on to taxpayers—before taxpayer
representatives can even convene. Thus, the measure calls
for a significant curtailment of basic democratic rights of
Alameda residents.
The argument in favor of Measure S describes a
sample emergency as a burst water pipe that cannot wait
for a Council meeting to be fixed. But no actual figures
are provided to show that these changes are necessary, or
that these changes have a history to suggest they are justi-
fied. We agree that emergencies should be handled right
away. But without an examination of real life examples
of real costs from the apparent delay of the Council to
meet—most elected bodies are capable of meeting for
emergency sessions—this type of change can encourage
excessive spending with little or no basis.
What’s worse, these types of changes open the door
to “emergency rule government,” which is as bad at the
municipal level as it is at the Presidential level. As we all
have had to learn, many of the most basic components of
a democracy are eroded under the guise of “security” and
“emergency” and that erosion must be constantly guarded
against. The Green Party supports democratic decision-
making over the concentration of decision-making powers
into the hands of the few.
We urge you to vote NO on Measure S.

Measure T—YES
Business Hours of City Offices
This measure gives the City Council broader powers
to modify city business hours. The current law only allows
them to increase hours from the standard 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM. It makes sense in many circumstances to be able to
vary these guidelines and in tough economic times, there
may be a need to shrink regular business hours. There is
some concern that this power could be abused. For ex-
ample, some city employees may have radical cuts in hours
and pay, or the hours to pay a parking ticket might become
too constricted. Overall, assuming the City Council acts
judiciously, it makes sense to grant this authority.
Vote Yes on Measure T.
Measures U, V, & W—No
Endorsement
(Auditor Requirements,
Treasurer Requirements, and
Public Utilities Board)
Because we felt that Meaures U, V, & W were less
critical than the other City of Alameda measures, we took
a position of “No endorsement” on them. Normally, we
include descriptions of the effects of a measure, regardless
of our position on it, but because we did not have enough
volunteers to review these measures, we were not able to
include more detailed information in this case. We encour-
age you to consider volunteering with the Voter Guide effort
to help bridge these gaps and keep voters as informed as
possible – just send us an email or drop us a line.
Measure X—NO
Removal of Historical Advisory
Board Members
The Historical Advisory Board (HAB) makes decisions
that affect what houses can be demolished and what needs
to be preserved. These decisions can have big conse-
quences for developers who want to build in areas that
have historical buildings in their way. It is important that
HAB remain free from political pressures. The members
of the board only serve 4-year terms as it is, and they are
already subject to removal “for termination of residency,
malfeasance, or moral turpitude.” This measure seeks
to remove the former quote from the existing law so that
the City Council may remove a HAB Board Member at
their own discretion. Developers wield a lot of power
and influence. The current criteria is a sufficient law and
it is best left alone to keep the HAB as independent from
political pressure as possible.
Vote No on Measure X.
City of Alamedastate law [$75,000]. The Charter now allows City staff
to construct a project without competitive bidding if the
Council meets first and at least four of the five Council
members agree there is a great necessity or emergency.
The measure [S] would allow staff to start activities for
the protection of the public and property, before a Council
meeting is conducted.”
Unfortunately, City staff are not elected officials.
Measure S effectively allows un-elected officials to brush
aside state limits on costs for public projects—costs that
would then be passed on to taxpayers—before taxpayer
representatives can even convene. Thus, the measure calls
for a significant curtailment of basic democratic rights of
Alameda residents.
The argument in favor of Measure S describes a
sample emergency as a burst water pipe that cannot wait
for a Council meeting to be fixed. But no actual figures
are provided to show that these changes are necessary, or
that these changes have a history to suggest they are justi-
fied. We agree that emergencies should be handled right
away. But without an examination of real life examples
of real costs from the apparent delay of the Council to
meet—most elected bodies are capable of meeting for
emergency sessions—this type of change can encourage
excessive spending with little or no basis.
What’s worse, these types of changes open the door
to “emergency rule government,” which is as bad at the
municipal level as it is at the Presidential level. As we all
have had to learn, many of the most basic components of
a democracy are eroded under the guise of “security” and
“emergency” and that erosion must be constantly guarded
against. The Green Party supports democratic decision-
making over the concentration of decision-making powers
into the hands of the few.
We urge you to vote NO on Measure S.