The Navy’s preferred Alternative BA-1 plan for The Point . . .

. . . isn’t a solution at all. Read on:

Residents and RAB Respond to the Navy’s Proposed Change of Plan

Guest post by Susan Galleymore

More than two dozen residents attended the Navy’s public comment meeting held in the City of Alameda’s main library  on April 9th. The presentation addressed the Navy’s reversal of an earlier decision to remove contamination from the “Burn Area” of the former waste dump on the north western tip of Alameda Point.  Their new plan, Alternative BA-1, leaves contaminants in place topped with a soil cover and installs a Waste Isolation Bulkhead (“WIB”) to reduce the flow of contaminants into the bay.  (Read the Navy’s “Proposed Plan for Modified Remedy at IR Site 1 Burn Area.”)

Residents’ comments indicate uniform disapproval of the change:  

Got radium-226, uranium-238, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, Pesticides, Metals, and Dioxins/Furans?

We sure do.  At The Point. Moreover the Navy has a nifty (not) plan to save themselves millions in soil remediation which will place an ongoing/forever and multi-million dollar burden on our fair city to protect our environmental and public health. How do you spell #FAIL?

Guest post by Francis McIlveen

“The Navy’s proposed (solutions to provide) steel bulkheads would have to be inspected every year for corrosion, and then tested every 5 years ($25K each test), and then cost another $50K every 10 years to replace the sacrificial zinc or aluminum anodes .  (see FFS, the section on the details of the WIB, and the estimated future maintenacnce requirements/costs). in the splash zone (where waves splash the steel) the steel is expected to wear away at the rate of 7 to 8 millimeters per year. (also in the FFS).

So, that means . . .

Be advised:

LAST WEEK our city argued in court last week the our public safety services (police and fire) did not have a duty to rescue Mr. Raymond Zack (who did not know how to swim) when he was despondent and standing in 4 to 5 feet of extremely calm water at Crown Beach while his elderly mother stood on the shore begging for action.

TODAY the judge ruled for immunity of firefighters over duty. And the judge finds further that: ”under the circumstances presented there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of responding officers and firefighters.”

I have been told that this ruling impacts all cities in the state of California, not just the City of Alameda.

I’m wondering why our fire and police are some of the highest paid in the SF Bay Area . . .    I’ve argued for years that because the fire procedures and protocols are so exceedingly substandard for the industry of firefighting (and I’ve shown this), that the fire staff cannot be held to any performance standards. Hell, our city has worked multiple times, year after year, to cover up fire failures . . .

City killing our urban forest, one tree at a time

Below are my recent emails to the city about the very real long-term damage to the street-trees in my neighborhood from not just careless but completely inimical tree pruning done by the contracted workforce hired by the city.  I cannot republish the city’s email responses because their emails contain the following:

“CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmittal is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this transmittal is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.”

WHICH IS SO WRONG.  And for the record?  I have not heard back from anyone on city council or the city manager.  Pretty significant issue that one would think the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and other city council members would care about. Guess not.  (!)

Here are my emails to the city:

Date: November 7, 2012 7:57:36 AM PST

Subject: Re: flowering pears being destroyed by contracted tree trimmers/1000 block of Pacific 

From: Denise Lai

To: Matthew Naclerio <MNACLERI@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Cc: Todd Williams <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Alex Nguyen <ANguyen@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Gail Carlson <GCARLSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Jesse Barajas <JBarajas@ci.alameda.ca.us>, John Russo <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Lisa Goldman <LGoldman@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Matthew,

First, I should not have to be “vigilant”.  Public Works should be allocating money to afford proper tree care—not something akin to hiring day laborers which is what this contractor provides!—and should be providing the human resources to oversee the work done.  Damage to our urban forest like this is long term, and cannot be fixed quickly. Public Works maintenance of our urban forest should not be causing the decline of the urban forest!

Second, this contractor is so cheap and unskilled that they cannot do a proper job unless 100% supervised, and probably not even then!  Firing them for breach of contract is the most effective thing to do here.  Surely the city can find enough money to pay for arborists that actually care about the trees they are pruning and the neighborhoods the trees embellish.  These guys yesterday were hack artists who couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether the fire blight was removed, spread, or the tree put at total risk from a second 30%+ removal of healthy branches within 4 months time.

Please, come by this morning and have a look at what was done.  I am working from home today and am happy to personally show you.

Nothing short of stopping this travesty dead in it’s tracks by rethinking the city’s tree care needs and altering course accordingly will be effective. If you continue to let these hack artists keep this contract, we are in for a steep increase in the rate of decline of our urban forest.

Why is the city not prioritizing this incredible and valuable resource our city owns that provides amazing value for all businesses and home values because it provides attraction and better quality of life?

Denise Lai

========================================

From: Denise Lai

To: Todd Williams <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>

CC: Matthew Naclerio <MNACLERI@ci.alameda.ca.us>

John Russo <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Creation Date: 11/6 9:36 pm

Subject: flowering pears being destroyed by contracted tree trimmers/1000 block of Pacific

Hi Todd,

Thank you for being so responsive today, and for being so responsible. I appreciate your work and your efforts to do the best job here.

When I arrived home today around 2:30p, the tree trimmers were clear cutting the larger and lower branches of a flowering pear. They were using a chain saw to take off ALL the lower limbs, reducing a tree that has been deliberately over-pruned just a few months ago by the prior tree-trimmers to about 1/2 it’s original size earlier this year; the only part of the tree left is the top of the canopy!  For this same tree, they removed fire blight branches with their hands, simply ripping them off the tree, and left one batch of fire blight in the top of the tree, i.e., they were not being thorough, not removing the fire blight completely.  And they were not removing the fire blight safely without spreading it to healthy branches: they were using the chainsaw to cut clearly infected areas then to cut healthy branches off without cleaning the chainsaw between cuts.

The neighbor across the street said they spent a lot of time on a tree that he pointed to next to his house, that has also just been over-pruned a few months ago, and that tree is not a flowering pear!

The flowering pear across the street was pruned just before I arrived home, all the bright green healthy branches were on the street and being put into the chipper.  I’ve taken photos of that tree for you: the entire top of the tree is still full of fire blight!

This contractor needs to be fired for breach of contract, damage to our urban forest, and clear incompetence or choosing to fail to perform deliberately (whichever!).  The city NEEDS to allocate more money to tree trimming: the harm being done to our quality of life, our air quality, and our wild life habitat is unnecessary and unacceptable.

See photos below my signature here.  And please keep me informed about what can and will be done to ensure the fireblight is properly removed, treated, and healthy branches are retained.

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

=====================================

From: Denise Lai

Subject: Re: Flower Pear Trees

Date: October 2, 2012 11:28:10 AM PDT

To: Matthew Naclerio <mnacleri@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Cc: “Bonta, Robert” <robbonta@comcast.net>, “DeHaan, Doug” <DDeHaan@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Gilmore, Marie” <MGilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Johnson, Beverly” <BJOHNSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Tam, Lena” <LTam@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Barajas, Jesse” <JBarajas@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Carlson, Gail” <GCARLSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Goldman, Lisa” <LGoldman@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Nguyen, Alex” <ANguyen@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Russo, John” <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Williams, Todd” <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Hello Matthew,

Thank you for your email.  I did not know we had a certified arborist on staff. Perhaps something can be done to save these trees.  Although, at this point, some of them are beyond saving I think—they will be so deformed from pruning diseased branches off.

I have a question: there have been a number of times within the last 2 months, whole days in one case in which electric lines were involved, when Public Works, contracted tree trimmers, and AMP have been on Chapin Street and on Pacific Avenue dealing with Liquidambar branches that dropped shortly after the extreme pruning.  When out in the field, shouldn’t city employees be observing and reporting significant problems? How has this obvious (even to the untrained eye) and rapidly growing disease gone unnoticed or reported by staff?

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

=====================================

>>> Denise Lai , 9/30/2012 4:23 PM >>>

Hello Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and Public Works Director,

Please be advised that the following is taking place on your watch:

1) harm to trees from over-pruning (suboptimal) of trees because your budget only allows for pruning every 5 years

2) every flower pear on 900 – 1100 blocks of Pacific Avenue (and beyond?) suddenly came down with fire blight within a month of the recent pruning that took place this summer.  The fire blight began with a single branch on each tree and has nearly taken over some trees in under 2 months.

3) Public Works is unable to be responsive in a timely manner that would remediate the disease and save these trees

Why? Because you have allowed our city contract with an arborist to lapse

Todd told me that the soonest an arborist could get out and treat these trees would be in mid-winter, after the leaves are dropped—which mean the soonest an arborist can actually treat these trees is springtime when they have leafed out again if any are still alive.  Todd, to his credit, said he’d try to schedule these trees first thing once the new contract with an arborist is approved, but that could be late October; he was skeptical that it would be in time, i.e., before the leaves fall or the disease progresses too far.

Please see the attached photograph of the tree—90% of the tree is diseased. This tree is not turning from the fall! Those are all diseased branches! Please note: these trees have been completely HEALTHY and without any disease whatsoever until the pruning took place this summer! Every flowering pear in my neighborhood, every single one of them, started getting this disease at the same time, immediately after the recent pruning. Clearly the contracted arborist did not clean their tools between trees!

WHAT is our neighborhood going to look like when these trees treated and pruned, or lost?!

This is completely unacceptable. The City is overspending on numerous projects whilst our urban forest declines right before our very eyes from substandard, deleterious (clearly the arborist this summer did NOT clean their tools between trees!), or absent tree care.

Our urban forest is valuable and irreplaceable!  WHY isn’t our city prioritizing it?!

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO SAVE THESE FLOWERING PEARS?  If we wait, we will lose them or if saved, they will be deformed from the extensive pruning.  These trees need to be treated (antibiotics) and pruned IMMEDIATELY.

I look forward to hearing from you as to whether you will be moved to protect this corner or our urban forest and hire someone immediately to take care of these trees. Or will be we force to watch them all die from mismanagement?

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

Redundant and unnecessary

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 • The Alameda Sun

Redundant and unnecessary

Editor,

Charles Fasso’s op-ed (“Closing Fire Station No. 3,” Sept. 13) can only be politically motivated as it could not be further from the truth! There are no reports that contradict the 2009 ICMA report.

Moreover, the ICMA report based its findings on national fire industry standards: each fire station needs to provide a 1.5-mile radius of coverage.

What the heck does that mean for us exactly? It means that out of all of the fire stations we have in Alameda, Fire Station No. 3 is the only fire station that we do not need.

Why? Because every other fire station perfectly and slightly overlaps to provide service for the entire city. That’s right: the coverage provided by Fire Station No. 3 is redundant and unnecessary.

So why is our city leadership and management hell bent on spending millions on the redesign and expansion of the Fire Station No. 3 facility and staff and exacerbating the annual multi-million dollar overspend on overstaffing of fire services? One needs only look at the political donations made by the firefighters’ union, IAFF Local 689, to figure this one out: the local fire union has been averaging $50,000 in donations per election to local candidates and measures.

Our city’s citizen legislature is anything but.

— Denise Lai

This November, remember…

Please see the recent blog post from Elliott Gorelick (AHD Board Member) addressing a recent and highly misguided letter in the Alameda Sun praising Alameda Hospital.

In case you’re uncertain as to whether to trust Mr. Gorelick’s opinion, please consider his CV:

• Doctor of Pharmacy, UCSF (in progress or awarded, I’m not sure what stage he’s at)
• Continued studies in Health Economics, UC Berkeley
• M.S., Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University
• B.A., Economics, Stanford University

His CV is impressive. Even if he didn’t have that CV, I’d agree with Mr. Gorelick: he’s the first, and often the only, voice of reason on the hospital board and publicly here in Alameda. But having that CV, well, maybe we should all wake up a little bit and pay attention to what he’s been saying and continues to say at Alameda Healthcare District board meetings and on his blog here.

Furthermore and in my opinion:

What we all need to understand is that today’s medical standards provide the following: diagnostics and treatment in specialized cardiac and stroke medical systems that begin in the field with the paramedics and continue uninterrupted on through to the readied (when you’re wheeled in, they are standing there ready to pounce) specialized cardiac or stroke team  that includes leading-edge imaging diagnostics, expert physicians and surgeons and highly-trained event-specific (cardiac or stroke) support teams.

Key here is the term ‘uninterrupted’ which correlates to improved outcomes, e.g., stroke victims with no damage or residual symptoms.  Any detour to Alameda Hospital, by definition, is an interruption that cannot help but correlate to worse outcomes.

The biggest risk to a healthy longevity while residing or visiting Alameda is due to the Emergency Medical System protocols (what the paramedics follow) that require these detours to Alameda Hospital. The fact that Alameda Hospital continues to provide low-capability but emergency and stroke cardiac care, that extracts patients out of the specialized cardiac and stroke care systems only to re-insert them back into it (i.e., sending them to the hospital a victim should have originally gone to), is a not only disservice to everyone but poses an enormous and unnecessary hazard for worse outcomes for those experiencing a heart attack or stroke.

We have a right to contemporary standards in our medical care.

Alameda Healthcare District Board Members Battani, McCormick, Chen, and Deutsch, Vice Mayor Bonta, and City Council Member Tam, have all been a part of the hospital business strategies that ensure substandard emergency medical care for Alamedans. Please remember this when you cast your vote in November.  

Understandably ill-informed

Elliott Gorelick, Alameda Healthcare District Board Member,

Posted on September 3, 2012

The following letter appeared in the Alameda Journal:

“Don’t skimp on funds for Alameda Hospital

On Aug. 2 with no pain — just shortness of breath — I left work at 8 a.m. and drove myself to the Alameda Hospital emergency room. I thought it was my asthma. I was in increasing distress.

The emergency staff immediately took me in, did an EKG, chest X-rays, started IVs and determined I was having a heart attack. This was a shock. I have no history in my family and never experienced chest pains.

The emergency room staff, with extraordinary professionalism, summoned Alameda Fire Department paramedics, who transported me with red lights and siren to Summit Cardiac Center Cath Lab for an emergency angioplasty and stent — all this before noon. Having my own HMO with its facilities in Oakland, I was one who hesitated to support the bond measure that would fund Alameda Hospital. I didn’t think I would be able to use it.

In my shortsightedness, I failed to grasp the fact that each citizen on Alameda island could have a life-threatening event at any moment, and the Alameda Hospital emergency room and fire department paramedics are all we have between life and, yes, death itself.

I am again, so grateful to live on Alameda.”

The letter writer displays an amazing ignorance.  I am certainly happy that this turned out well for him/her but driving themself to the ER, thinking that their time in the Alameda Hospital ER was anything but dangerous delay and concluding that they are safer because Alameda Hospital 1. delayed their treatment 2. charged them for that privilege  3. Did nothing really except summoned help is ignorant.

I understand that this person feels good about what happened, but they couldn’t be more wrong.  And this is why it is almost impossible to rid ourselves of the costly, health-destroying institution.  The ignorant fed by the politically ambitious (Rob Bonta, Mary Ezzy-Ashcraft, Lena Tam, Stewart Chen) and the dishonestly self-interested (Rob Deutsch and Debit Stebbins) have just so much more social capital. (Lauren Do, Jordan Battani,  and John Knox White when given a choice of standing with their friends or for the truth will choose their friends because that’s the civil way to go and, they are, just like this letter writer too ignorant to see the truth.)

I am still waiting for a knowledgeable person to articulate an argument for the Hospital that doesn’t distill down to the “voters approved it many years ago and you don’t have any smoking gun* that it kills people.”
*Actually, there is a smoking gun and the State fined the Hospital $50,000 for the inappropriate use of fentanyl patches.  The Hospital is appealing that fine (an appeal that I will be astonished if they win).

Vote NO on Measure C.

Republishing my opinion piece because that’s what I really want people to read; not the garbage dealing with the no/c shenanigans.  Also, if you missed Jeffrey Smith’s opinion on Measure A in the May 31 Alameda Sun, you really should read it; we can expect more of the exact same irresponsible spending patterns with any new tax revenue, particularly because Measure C has zero accountabilities built in:  MEASURE A EXPECTATIONS DON’T MEET REALITY

Vote NO on Measure C. Here’s why:

In 2009, the City tasked the ICMA (International City/County Management Association) with providing a professional assessment of Alameda’s fire service needs. Their report stated 75% of calls are medical and the Alameda Fire Department (AFD) should focus on medical responses and fire prevention.  ICMA advised, per industry standards, 78 personnel, two fire stations, and five captains are sufficient to retain response time and safety.

National firefighting industry standards call for one fire station for every 1.5 mile radius, and one ladder truck for every 2 mile radius. Alameda is 4 miles long; we need two stations and 1 ladder truck.

If our city did just three things—-reduce four fire stations to two, mothballed two of our three ladder trucks, and cut 15 of our 20 fire captains (who earn on average $217/K/year [$3.25M/year alone!])-—it would make Measure C’s relatively paltry $1.8m tax revenue per year irrelevant. 

Instead, the City has acted in opposition to that independent evaluation.Today, we have 92 station personnel, four open fire stations, 20 captains, and plans for six new facilities requiring additional staffing. The AFD’s overstaffing currently costs Alameda Citizens $4M+ annually. Measure C’s projected $11M cost for fire facilities will actually be doubled by the bond costs. We are being asked for $22M for fire facilities we don’t need.

According to the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Committee, actual City debt was almost $12M in 2009, despite the passing of the Measure P property tax in 2008.

In 2011, debt spiked 250% to $4.4M, and another 24% since then, to $5.1M, making actual debt today north of $15M. It was deceptive or shockingly uninformed of Vice Mayor Bonta to tell people that the City’s debt is decreasing each year and soon the City will be debt-free.

2011 city worker earnings skyrocketed $4.8M above 2010. 30% of fire and police earn $200K – $400K. 88% take home over $150K. Additionally, there are 66 retired workers drawing annual pensions over $100k.

Measure C does three things:

1) Suggests, but does not guarantee, city improvements (Carnegie Library, 50m pool, lighted fields)

2) Allocates 50% of the tax revenue to offload 90% of our annual city-vehicle costs from the General Fund, to offset continued overstaffing and exorbitant worker pay, and

3) Allocates the other 50% to pay for bonds to build fire stations we don’t need, to prioritize firefighting when only 25% of AFD calls are for fire responses. These costs will only continue to spike as we hire new staff .

Why are firefighters going house to house to campaign for Measure C? Why does the firefighters’ union pump nearly $50K each year into our local elections? Is it because they can afford to? Six fire staff earn over $240/K per year, 34 earn over $200K, and the rest mostly earn over $150K. Is it because the AFD’s high staff-to-call ratio makes it so easy?  Are firefighters campaigning for their own security or the security of the Citizens of Alameda?  The ICMA found the AFD lacked performance management and measurements. Despite our talented personnel, the AFD is responsible for a string of failures in recent years: they didn’t protect our public and environmental health from toxic and regulated substances (friable asbestos and crude oil), they didn’t  rescue Raymond Zack one year ago, and they have engaged in other behavior that has incurred several lawsuits against the City.

In the future, a well-written sales tax measure could be a great idea. But today, there is no justification to impose a 30-year sales tax to fund an excess of fire facilities.

Alameda needs fiscal responsibility focused on necessary services. We demand that the City stop wasting our hard-earned money and get to work for the Citizens of Alameda.

Get informed, read the facts (www.AlamedaNoOnC.com) and join me—June 5^th—vote NO on Measure C.

Speak Truth to Power

Written May 28, 2012 by Janet Gibson, Alameda resident & retired teacher

I feel that most people want to believe that firemen, as well as policemen, are “our friends”.   It is, therefore, quite alarming to hear a number of Alamedans express fear and concern when it comes to our local Fire Department.

When residents. . .  .

*  know about the callous act of our firefighters “not lifting a hand” while a despondent Raymond Zack waded to his drowning;

*  learn that the Fire Fighters Union has contributed almost $70,000 in the past several years to our City Council members;

*  observe Alameda Fire Fighters and their Union being the major supporters and contributors to the passage of Measure C:     assertively knocking at voter’s doors,  running telephone banks,  distributing campaign signs; sending $12,000 mailers

*  experience engine and ladder trucks with lights and blaring sirens driving past the homes of known opposition bloggers,     without an observable emergency response event;

.  .  .  .it is not hard to understand the intimidation being felt by a number of people.

As the June 5th Vote  nears, people who oppose Measure C feel particularly vulnerable.   Scores of “No on C” signs are being taken from the lawns of private homes.  One homeowner reports that four consecutive signs have been stolen from her yard.    Another neighbor expressed the fear that fire fighters might not be as diligent in responding to an emergency call, if they saw a “No Sign” in front of her home.

What a sad state of affairs. . for community members to lose confidence in their public servants!  The perception exists that our fire fighters’ powerful union has taken over City Hall.  The public is not against unions who bargain collectively for members.  The public is against the excessive use of that power. The public is not against our civil servants having good salaries and benefits.  They are against excessively high salaries/benefits and employees who work only for their own self-interest.

We must not be afraid to “Speak Truth to Power”.    VOTE NO on C   Inform yourself: www.AlamedaNoOnC.com

Janet Gibson

Pointing out the obvious . . .

I’ve written a fact-based well-researched blogpost (see below or here) about Measure C on the June 5th ballot. Curiously, the firefighters are suddenly driving past my house, driving on my block alone (zig-zagging over from the main nearby throughfare streets) on a daily basis now. Is this meant to threaten and silence me?

They did this in 2011 when my op-eds online and in the local papers addressed the several significant failures we’ve suffered from at the hands of the Alameda Fire Department, and when I had my cameo in the SF Chronicle’s scathing article about city management. So this is  a pattern, not just a happenstance.

Are they trying to bully me? Doesn’t it seem ridiculous in the 21st century? That we cannot have open dialogs about the facts without being threatened? Kind of proves the point I make in my op-ed if the ff’s feel they have to act out in this way, doesn’t it?

The fire services needs some serious downsizing in staff and facilities, per national firefighting industry standards. Pointing the obvious out—when everyone who runs the city is ignoring this basic point—is apparently not acceptable to those benefiting from the largess of pay and the high staff-to-call ratio in our city.

Tell me, just what is so wrong with demanding the city streamline fire services since streamlining services is also optimizing them?! AND saving a minimum of $5 million dollars per year?! It’s in everyone’s best interests. Including the firefighters who, as employees, will be happier if their buildings, vehicles, equipments and work better fits our needs!

And if you haven’t seen KTVU Channel 2′s report last night on the anniversary of Mr. Zack’s wrongful death, you really should. It’s here.

November 2012

I haven’t written in a while. Why? Because when CM Russo made the decision to offer the permanent fire chief position to D’Orazi, I realized that none of my research, my writings, or my civic participation matter. No amount of critical thinking, evidence, or fact-based discussions matter. If a city manager can place an unqualified retired firefighter at the helm of fire services for a city of 74,000 people without nary a recruitment process, and everyone in this city lets him i.e., no one is alarmed at the outrageous level of risk this puts all of us at or the corruption that it indicates, then this blog is nothing but a total waste of time. As is, apparently, most civic engagement in this city. Thanks goes out (facetiously) to the GilBonTamJo Four and CM Russo for making the residents of Alameda plus our priority and our safety as well as the normative standards in the fire services industry wholly irrelevant.

Moreover, few residents and none of the city leadership/management are alarmed at the financial risk the fire services contracts put us at, or the abnormally high number of fire fighters per capita we have, or the low number of police officers per capita that we have. I don’t have the numbers, but haven’t you noticed? I could be wrong but I used to see them regularly whenever I went out, but I rarely see an APD cruiser anymore, do you?

City leadership is intent on making bad decisions on significant, way too significant, issues and the majority of residents prefer having their heads in the sand and heavily resent having it pulled out even momentarily. Many are rightfully up in arms about the landswap, but seriously?  That’s more important than the risks to our individual, public and environmental safety and health? I think not! Like the hospital and the healthcare district, people would prefer to believe everything is copacetic. I assure you, it is not. The facts are glaring.

I’m tapping out, folks. Why? Because the city leadership and management are entrenched, haughty, deaf, and worse.

That and I actually have productive things that I can do with my time. You  know, the type of activities that actually accomplish something because the people you’re working with make sense and give a damn for all the right reasons? Yeah, that. Actually, anything could be categorized as more productive than being civically engaged in Alameda in 2011.

No amount of civic engagement and dialog is going to do a damn thing here. The only thing that is going to fix Alameda, and I quote another Alamedan here, is to “vote the bastards out”. He was talking about the mayor and city council.

In November 2012, remember: vote the sitting mayor and city council members out. Until then…

PEACE OUT.