Archive for October, 2008
A quick golf note
We’re making with the Halloween festivities big-time over here, but we wanted to let you know that the election isn’t the only big news for Alameda this week. Next Thursday, the City Council is slated to choose an interim golf manager to run the Chuck Corica Golf Complex for the next year while they work out a more permanent arrangement for an outside manager.
Interesting thing about this manager bit, though, is that it may not end up saving the city all that much money.
City staff is recommending the council choose Kemper Sports based on the company’s size, its buying power and the breadth of its experience running municipal golf courses. Kemper was the top ranked pick of the four finalists for the job, which included Empire Golf, Bellows Golf Management and a group headed by the complex’s current assistant golf pro, Mike Robason.
But the Kemper proposal may only save the city about $32,000, far short of the $700,000 projected budget shortfall facing the golf complex this year (and yes, that amount does include interfund transfers).
The original proposals to the city would have saved between about half a million and a million dollars. But under those proposals, 16 maintenance folks, five administrative and managerial types and an unspecified number of part-timers would have lost their jobs. The union cried foul, saying they were still under contract. So they worked out a deal with the city (which we’ve already laid out here, if you’re interested).
City staff asked the four finalists for the job to submit amended proposals cutting out the maintenance piece; three did. Under Robason’s proposal, the city would save about $191,000; Bellows Golf also responded with three different proposals, including a monthly management fee that would cost the city more money and a lease-type arrangement.
We should note that it’s estimated that as much as half of that $700,000 amount could be recouped through a recent increase in green fees.
We’ll have more on this next week. In the meantime, if you want the full 411, it’s in the city staff report, here.
Measure VV?
AC Transit has a parcel Tax on the Ballot. Vote yes, it needs your support.
Alameda schools’ pesticide policy
Michele Ellson of The Island has a post up about the Alameda Unified School District’s pesticide use policy and what Laura DiDonato, a parent who serves on the committee that created the policy, says is the district’s violation of its own rules.
Apparently, in 2001 AUSD approved a pest management policy in order to accord [...]
Yes on P – it supporters are not hiding
I hadn’t planned on writing a post about the local Measure P, but after seeing the advertisement in today’s Alameda Journal, I had to write something.
The advertisement is a rebuttal to the Yes-on-P ad recently placed by the City of Alameda Democratic Club, one of the few paid Pro-measure-P placements I’ve seen. (I think I’ve seen two Yes on P yard signs in town.)
The Democratic Club’s ad against Measure P talks about how the measure is largely opposed by the realtors and well-funded by their statewide group. So the realtors are acting in their own interest; I’m not surprised. They don’t want another tax that will add a couple of thousand dollars to somebody’s million-dollar investment. (Who cares that property values could end up dropping if city services had to be cut!) Unfortunately, as is the case with many other ballot initiatives, they are a well-funded group that are pouring large amounts of money into the campaign.
This “Yes” rebuttal advertisement attempts to discredit the association between the realtors and the No campaign. However, they did a laughably bad job at it..
My first clue? They way they use the word “realtors”, defined in my computer’s dictionary as “a person who acts as an agent for the sale and purchase of buildings and land; a real estate agent.” Instead of using the word like a normal person would, they write it like this: REALTORS®. (That’s followed by the “registered trademark” symbol in case your computer has trouble with Unicode.) Sorry guys, if you really wanted to disassociate yourself from the realtors, you need to learn to spell the word in plain English. Your funding is showing!
I’m fine with debating the finer points of how beneficial the tax will be, but I find it offensive to have a deep-pocketed group fund an opposition campaign and then try and distract the public as to who is funding the campaign. It’s a shell game that happens over and over again.
I get tired of having new taxes, but the reality is, our state is sucking our city dry, and the city of Alameda needs to fund its essential services. So I am in favor of Measure P. And the other people and organizations who are in favor of it are quite up-front about who they are and why they are in favor of it.
So I”m going to recommend a Yes on Measure P.
Your weekend: The day after
Pretend it’s the day after Halloween. Congratulations, you survived! So, what are you going to do with yourself now? Plenty.
This Saturday brings us a twofer of big performances. First up is Comedy Night for the Kids, featuring “redneck comic” Bob Johnston with Blaze and emcee Molly Burke, at 7 and 9 p.m. at Rhythmix Cultural Works. The shows are a benefit for The Child Unique Montessori. Tickets are $20 in advance, $25 at the door, and are available here. And guess what? The school is providing child care offsite, from 6 to 11 p.m. That’s $10. For more information, call 521-9227 or e-mail thechildunique@yahoo.com. Rhythmix is at 2513 Blanding Avenue.
Next up, Alameda Civic Light Opera brings us “Broadway’s Greatest Moments.” They’ll have an evening of song and dance that spans from classical music theater to today’s Broadway hits, plus a sneak peek at ACLO’s upcoming season. Performers from ACLO’s previous seasons will unite with graduates of the theater company’s summer camp to grace the Kofman Auditorium stage. The show starts at 8 p.m. Tickets are $34, $30 for seniors and kids, and are available here. Kofman’s at 2200 Central Avenue.
A moment of silence
Please spare a thought today for Ichinkhorloo “Iko” Bayarsaikhan. Rest in Peace.
Stay safe this Halloween.
Schools violate policy with pesticide use
Just over a month ago, we told you that Alameda Unified is using pesticides at the schools despite questions about whether they’re safe to use around kids and the availability of less-toxic products. We have since learned that in doing so the district is actually violating its own policy on pesticide use, which essentially bars the district from using pesticides except in emergency situations. And we’re told they may be violating state law around notification and maintenance of records on pesticide use too.
The district’s integrated pest management policy was approved by the school board in 2001 and put into place a year later, according to Laura DiDonato, a parent who sits on the committee that helped to create it. But DiDonato said the district stopped following the policy when new maintenance and facilities managers took the reins last year.
She also said the district isn’t following state rules that require school districts to allow parents to register to be notified when pesticides are going to be sprayed, post warning signs before and after spraying and maintain records of pesticide use for four years for public inspection, and to designate a pest management coordinator to handle the requirements. Only the rule requiring a general notification of pesticides that could be used is being followed, DiDonato and another member of the committee said in a letter to the school board and Superintendent Ardella Dailey last month.
DiDonato said she has met with maintenance and operations head Leland Noll and is hopeful the district will comply with its policy and the law. Neither Noll nor Dailey returned our calls seeking comment.
The district’s policy doesn’t appear to be online anymore, so we’ll include a portion of it here and would be glad to e-mail anyone who wants a copy. Meanwhile, DiDonato said anyone interesting in joining the pest management committee or getting more information can e-mail her, at lbryon@alamedanet.net.
From the policy:
The Alameda School District (AUSD) recognizes that the maintenance of a safe, clean and healthy environment for students and staff is essential to learning. It is the goal of the District to provide for the safest and lowest risk approach to control pest problems, while protecting students, staff, the environment, and District property.
The District recognizes that pesticides pose risks to human health and the environment, with special risks to children. It is recognized that pesticides cause adverse human health effects such as cancer, neurological disruption, birth defects, genetic alteration, reproductive harm, immune system dysfunction, endocrine disruption and acute poisoning.
The Precautionary Principle states:
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
The District hereby adopts the Precautionary Principle as the basis for this Least-Toxic Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The principle recognizes that:
No pesticide product is completely free from risk or threat to human health, and
Industrial producers should be required to prove that their pesticide products demonstrate the absence of these risks, which include cancer, neurological disruption, birth defects, genetic alteration, reproductive harm, immune system dysfunction, endocrine disruption, and acute poisoning, rather than requiring that the government or the public prove that human health is being harmed.
The District hereby adopts a Least-Toxic IPM Policy. Whenever possible, IPM take a preventive approach by identifying and removing, to the degree feasible, the basic causes of the problem rather than merely attacking the symptoms (the pests). The full range of combined strategies, including taking no action, will be considered first, with chemical controls used as a last resort, giving preference to methods that pose the least hazard to people and the environment and excluding use of the most hazardous pesticides. The District’s long-term goal is the eventual elimination of harmful chemicals in schools.
Alameda votes, Measure P and more
Lauren Do over at Blogging Bayport has a comprehensive local election page where you can find out more info about the the candidates/ballot issues and, too, see who has endorsed whom/what.
People keep asking me about Measure P, the item on the city ballot that would raise Alameda’s property transfer tax. I will be [...]
Comment: Us and them
Let me just start off by saying that I am grateful to live here in Alameda. But like most cities in California these days, we’ve got issues.
We are facing an ongoing fiscal crisis of almost Biblical proportions. We have some big choices to make about the development of Alameda Point, which encompasses a third of our little Island city. Our schools are also in desperate need of money. We’re dealing with Measure A, Measure H, Measure P. We are in the midst of a big fat identity crisis.
Each issue draws passionate people with deeply held opinions about how it should be handled. One would hope that all this energy would be directed toward producing the best solutions to our problems that we could possibly get. Instead, we often end up with small groups of people whose opinions are so entrenched that the decision making process disintegrates into slights, accusations, name-calling and worse.
This may be amusing. But it is not helping us, folks.
The problems confronting us are real, and the solutions necessary. But how to reach them if we’re expending all our energy being angry with our erstwhile opponents simply because they don’t see things our way?
Last night, the hubby and I watched the Obamad on TV, in which our possibly next President talked about how there’s just one America. Well, we think the same could be said about Alameda.
We’re a small town, an island, and the person whose opinion you don’t agree with is probably a neighbor. Maybe a friend. Definitely someone you’re going to see at the grocery store, the gym, your kid’s school. Chances are, you’ll be seeing this person around town for the next 20 or 30 or 50 years. How unpleasant do all these little moments of your life really need to be?
We need to put all of this enmity aside and focus on what really matters: Finding solutions to our collective problems, or face the consequences. Give a hug, sing kumbaya, pick up the phone and call all the people who’ll be impacted by or interested in your latest, greatest idea. Then focus. These are not problems that have easy solutions, or that can be solved by one person with one point of view. It’ll take a village, people. Or an entire Island.
No on 8 : Civil Rights and the Semantics of “Marriage”
I had dinner with some very good friends recently, who, though we agree on just about everything political, told me they were voting “Yes” on Proposition 8. I asked why, and we had a productive and enlightening debate/discussion about the issue. It really gave me an understanding of why they would have come up on that side of the issue. And though I am grateful for my dinner guests for offering me their perspective, this conversation also cemented my belief that voting NO on Proposition 8 is the better choice.
Proposition 8 is one of the simplest, shortest ones on the ballot. It merely appends the following language to the California State constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Fourteen words.
To my friends, and I’m sure to millions of other voters out there, the word “marriage” is a sacred, religious word. And in Christianity, marriage is a sacred institution that is part of the Big Picture. It involves Man and Woman, being fruitful and multiplying, and so forth.
So to put those words into our Constitution, at least from my understanding of the matter, would just be a further manifestation of that sacred concept.
Except there’s one thing wrong. What about the Separation of Church and State? The California Constitution, like our national one, is a Civil document. This separation isn’t just a good idea, it’s what’s already in our State Constitution.
I am completely fine with any religion defining “marriage” in whatever way it sees fit. But the fundamental problem is that in our culture, a marriage is both a religious concept and a civil concept — and both use the same word. Unless we can magically come up with a separate word for each, we’re stuck with this ambiguity.
California has recently managed to expand its civil rights to a large percentage of our population, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to take away those rights by the insertion of fourteen words into our state constitution. Doing so would change the fundamental meaning of other sections of the Constitution, as well as all our established systems, into taking away rights.
I’ve heard about (never been invited to) weddings in Mexico and European countries where many people get married twice: once in a civil ceremony, and once in a religious ceremony. We don’t have that in the US, so it’s very easy to get the two concepts mixed up, especially when the word is the same.
Given that we have this muddling of the word and the concept of marriage, we’re going to have to live with the ambiguity, and just pay heed that the Constitution is a document about our government, not our religion. Let’s leave the sacred, religious definition of marriage out of the Constitution, and continue to work on expanding civil rights, not reducing them.
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
–Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
