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 of Alameda: Villainous

Our city took a position in court yesterday that our public safety services did not have a duty to rescue Raymond Zack.  Our elected officials and city manager should be ashamed of themselves.

See the story on last night’s ABC news here; excellent reporting by Alan Wang.

Mr. Wang, however, was provided false information. He reported that our fire department did not have funding for water rescue training. To do that, Mr. Wang had to have believed what he was told, which means that disinformation had to have come from a source he believed to be credible. So who gave him the disinformation? Was it our city? Our fire department? The firefighter’s union, IAFF Local 689?

The City of Alameda funded water rescue training and re-certifications to be completed in 2009 (source document is here).

The City of Alameda budgeted for the AFD to perform 8 to 10 water rescues per year for 2009 -2012 (source document is here).

Every resident and visitor to the City of Alameda has a right to expect to be rescued by our public safety services.

Given the information in the source documents noted above: Without a doubt (it is incontrovertible that) we all—

Mr. Zack, his family, and all residents and visitors to the City of Alameda—

had a right to expect Mr. Zack to be rescued by our public safety services.

Our city is arguing that they had no duty to perform. How perverse. It is unconscionable that our city should argue this. And it is villainous . . .

Are you applying for the vacant seat on the Alameda Heathcare District Board? If so, your app is due on January 3rd.

The information about the Alameda Healthcare District Board vacancy is here.

Also, AHD Board Member Gorelick’s first post of 2013 is here.  His post contains 3 points. I’ve taken the liberty of republishing his third point:

3.  The application process for the Board seat vacated by Stewart Chen is ongoing.  Thursday, January 3 is the last day to apply so, if you were considering it, you may have to scramble.  Unfortunately, there is little chance that the Board majority would allow someone with the idea of closing the Hospital on, but perhaps you enjoy quixotic efforts.   Several times I have referred to the previous application process where the odious Williams was chosen where it was ridiculously obvious that she was the designated choice.   Unless you have been solicited to apply by one of the Board majority, don’t count on having a chance of actually serving.  - Elliott Gorelick, January 1, 2013

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).

Walker’s 3 Criteria

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s three criteria upon which the relationship between public workers and taxpayers should be evaluated, adapted for our city:

1. Equity in employment benefits and burdens between public and private workers
2. The preservation of core government services for all Alamedans
3. Linked to both these goals: the improvement of the City of Alameda’s economic competitiveness.

Like Scott Walker, our city government needs to stop hiding from our budget plight, begin managing our general fund properly and that means first and foremost a.) reduce fire overstaffing b.) reduce top-paid city worker salaries across the board, and c.) negotiate in earnest with our fire and police unions for real concessions (not the meaningless kind you can splash across pricey mailers for sounds bites).

If the city laid off the 15 excess/unnecessary fire captains, we’d save nearly $4M just in salaries/benefits alone.  That’d be an immediate solution to our short-tem budget woes, would be a first step toward optimizing fire services, and give us time to map out a responsible long-term budget. It’s a win-win. There is no good reason for not doing this; so why isn’t our city leadership and management considering this?!