Did I miss the memo that the City Council had decided to disband the Transportation Commission last year? There hasn’t been a meeting since the special meeting in Mid-August, which wasn’t really a meeting either. And staff isn’t even bothering to list it on the City Calendar anymore.
I really think that when the dust settles and the lawsuits begin (those filed by SunCal for breach of contract and not negotiating in good faith), last Tuesday’s meeting will be included in the list of places where City Staff stepped away from their legally required neutrality and fell head first into advocacy by presenting inaccurate (or more specifically, incomplete) information to the City Council, the School Board and the citizens of Alameda.
At that moment, City Manager Ann Marie Gallant summed up the difference as “the problem is the intent and the initiative language are two different things, and we opted to go with what the initiative language says.”
Two of the things I’m hoping will be discussed at tonight’s council meeting are Fiscal Neutrality and Public Benefits. A lot has been made of a supposed “$500 million dollar shortfall” despite the fact that it’s a made up number that doesn’t withstand the smell test.
At the Chamber of Commerce breakfast, which I have to admit I didn’t attend so I’m relying on feedback from a number of people here, the Mayor let slip that she thought the city should remove the “interim” from Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s title.
Tuesday night, the City Council took up the issue of holding a presentation on the City’s two election reports. The referral was brought by the Mayor, and if you watch the full meeting the City Manager. (Interpretive video of the discussion below)
Mayor Johnson’s waffling on the Alameda Point issue was hardly a big secret. Just about everybody in town was talking about it weeks before last Tuesday’s press release. What was surprising, and strange, and possibly worrisome, is how it rolled out.
I was glad to see someone else picked up on the interesting comment in SunCal’s response to the mayor last week. Michele at The Island not only noted that SunCal let drop that they have been negotiating an amended Development Agreement (DA) with the City, in response to some of their concerns, but also got Deputy City Manger Lisa Goldman (DCMLG) to confirm and to indicate that there are legal ways for the city to lock in changes pre-ballot.
Someone has hired a lawyer to threaten the City Council with a lawsuit over Alameda Point. They should hire someone to read things for them first.
Almost from the get-go, some folks have tried to claim it was untrue (I guess that I was making it up, despite linking to his statement), and then again at the end of last week, the ever-correct Jane Smythe claimed that Matarrese had changed his mind because his statement was no longer on the web. At the same time, Don Roberts celebrated 20 years of talking about things without knowing what he’s talking about with special guest Pat Bail! Pat repeated the canard that Frank Matarrese had seen the light about Alameda Point because of “All” the opposition to the project (part of the “one-person, one-community-group” strategy to defeat the Point). The ironic proof? Matarrese’s website no longer presents his announcement of his support.
Alameda news and opinion
Mindfulness in the face of challenge.
