Delmundo's Isle of Style Blog - Stay Classy Alameda

Bring it on down to Burger-ville!

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:24:00 +0000

Yay! Another burger joint!

Is Alameda the NFL of Bay Area Cities - NFL often being called the copycat league.

An overabundance of Chinese Restaurants, nail salons, yogurt bars and now...here come the burger-meisters.

Diversity is needed in ALL forms.

I Can't Agree More

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:55:00 +0000

From The Island Blog (paraphrased):

Alameda Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Melody Marr said her board would prefer that SunCal negotiate its development agreement with the city. She said the developer should work something out with the City Council instead of trying to make a deal with voters at the ballot box.

And that is why we'll be waiting another 10 years for any progress on the Point. After this debacle, nobody in their right mind would want to attempt a development project of this scale here.

Snarkily yours,
(XOXO)

Del

Didn't Carly Simon have a song about us?

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:06:00 +0000

Jared Huffman and Ethan Elkin's op-ed piece in Sunday's SF Chron literally hit close to home. Yeah, I know I cancelled my Chronicle suscription; how I came to be in possession of the Insight section is another story.

The main thesis of the piece is that developers have oversupplied the market with single-family homes leaving anyone desiring a home within walking distance of jobs, services, schools, parks and public transit with few options. Their assertion is that local land-use policy is the primary roadblock creating the phenomenon of suburban sprawl, yet trends show demand is increasing for "walkable communities."

The statement that really hit close to Island home? "Even with major transit stops in place, local restrictions stymie growth out of fear of increased traffic and a desire to preserve the 'character of the neighborhood.'" Sounds familiar to me.

The writers go on to suggest 3 ways to address the issue. You can read the piece yourself for details.

I know, this is old hash. I thought this song was about me.

My Messed Up Relationship with my Tree

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:06:00 +0000

In the August 6 Alameda Sun there were some cryptic letters to the editor titled "Save the Trees" and "Alameda a Misnomer". Given my love-hate relationship with the city owned liquidambar in front of my house, my curiosity was piqued.

"Save the Trees" refers to a City Staff report calling for "removal of all the tree in the Fernside, Gibbons and Versailles area." "Alameda A Misnomer" accuses the City of wanting to "hack down our venerable stock of trees" in the same areas.

I went to the City Council minutes to locate the staff reports. None found. I did find the Tanaka Group's Master Tree Plan update from January 09 which is a slide presentation and summary of a lot of items we already know.

I love my tree: it's tall and majestic, it provides a lot of shade, it looks awesome lined up on the street with the other urban canopy, sometimes a Cooper's Hawk takes a break on one of its branches.
I hate my tree: it rips up the sidewalk in front of my house, it's snapped my water main twice, it attracts crows that squawk at sunrise and crap all over the place.

All reasonable neighbors agree that some sort of 30 year phased swap out plan is needed to address the infrastructure problems these trees create. I know, it's not the trees' fault they were planted there...

So what gives? Where's this Staff Report? Even the Alameda Lorax is strangely silent about this one.

Opting Out of Decent Behavior?

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:59:00 +0000

Hello Islanders,

It's been awhile since my last post. I guess summer got the best of me this year.

I see now a recall petition to remove AUSD School Board Members who supported the recently approved Anti-Bullying Curriculum. I understand the critical issue in the petition is that the Board did not give parents the ability to opt their kids out of the program.

The program is not a sex-ed curriculum. It's focused on getting along. The LBGT community won't go away just because you don't agree with their lifestyle - for religious or ANY reason. We need to learn to live with each other. That's called tolerance.

Way to step in the bucket of your own stereotype, Alameda.

Right of Way

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:52:00 +0000

I've been on the reading end of a raging neighborhood forum debate over more crosswalks on Fernside Blvd between High and Blanding.

This is a major thoroughfare in a residential district. By law, the speed limit (posted) is 25MPH. This particular section of Fernside is one lane each way with a 2-way left turn lane down the center. There are many small connecting side streets creating LOTS of intersections and potential areas to cross.

It is true - cars are gunning down Fernside at speeds much higher than 25mph. During rush hour the traffic is pretty impressive. Work on the bridges creates a temporary spike in congestion.

So we have our customary "residents ask for crosswalk, City ignores and stalls, residents ask louder for crosswalk, throw rocks at each other" scenario building over an additional pedestrian crossway midway between Blanding and High at (roughly) Harvard. How much does that paint cost?

The interesting aspect of this debate is the discussion of pedestrian right of way. Now it is true that pedestrians have right of way at all intersections, marked and un-marked. But what is "RIGHT OF WAY" really? The first rule of right-of-way (California Driver's Handbook) is NEVER ASSUME THE RIGHT OF WAY. For intersections and pedestrians, what right-of-way establishes is WHO GETS TO GO FIRST in the event that two entities arrive AT THE SAME TIME. So for example:

At a CONTROLLED intersection - a pedestrian would have right-of-way to proceed first THROUGH the intersection, then the motorist would proceed after it is safe
In a BIKE LANE - a runner would move to the right to yield right of way to a faster cyclist using the marked bike lane

Does right of way mean that you can simply walk into the intersection unaware of what is either already there, or what is ABOUT to be there? Let's not delude ourselves into believing that a couple of painted lines is going to cause cars to stop. Does it really make sense to claim your right of way in front of some jerk doing 50 in a residential zone? Pedestrians still need to look both ways and be sure you can safely cross the street BEFORE you enter the roadway.

Rule of the road is that CAR is BIGGER and FASTER than UNPROTECTED PEDESTRIAN. USE CAUTION (and some good sense) WHEN ENTERING ROADWAY.

The return of traffic aggravation

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:45:00 +0000

It's been so long since I've had a traffic rant and I had two this week.

Here's the first one. Look familiar?

Glad you spent so much on your hot ride that you feel you can take up as many parking spots as required.

Tool...

This is a common maneuver at the Park St. BofA Versateller too.

At least this ride is big and expensive. It's the WORST when it's a tricked out Honda Civic.

Here's number 2.

This is the intersection of Blanding/Fernside at Tilden leaving the Bridgeside Shopping Center.

I spent 5 cycles of this light trying to get across Tilden watching as 1 car made it through each cycle because they were all going left.

Meanwhile you watch double-cycles of left hand turns off of Tilden.

This light needs to be reprogrammed.

Aggro out.
Have a great weekend.

Previously on "Alameda Point"

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:03:00 +0000

I've decided to use "Lost" imagery in my further discussions about Alameda Point because
1. This Island is unstuck and skipping through time/space or something equally mind-bending
2. With so many players and agenda, we have our own Beach-dwellers, Others, Dharma Initiative, Hostiles and what have you. Plus we can't tell who the good guys are. We even have our own Smokey in the form of The Alameda Daily News.
3. Why not? Maybe this will help me figure out the plot of my favorite show.

On the subject of time, JUNE 15 is the deadline for SunCal to submit its signatures to the City who then gets to hand it to the County for validation of signatures. According to the ALAMEDA POINT BALLOT INITIATIVE TIMELINE, SunCal has requested that the random sampling method of validation with a "high degree of accuracy" be used. I can't wait for the Y2000 National Election flashbacks to begin once that process starts.

What remains a mystery today is HOW MANY SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED? Does the proposal have a chance to make it on the ballot in November? Will the numbers 4 8 15 16 23 42 have any meaning in the process?

The County has 30 days to complete their verification.

AUGUST 3 is the next big date - if the signatures are verified then the City will take "ministerial" action to place the initiative on the ballot AND call for an election. Ministerial ...sounds spooky and Dharma like.

AUGUST 17 - this is the great part - "arguments for and against the measure must be submitted by this date." YAY! We get to do this ALL OVER AGAIN!

What the Island wants, the Island gets.
We're not supposed to leave and nobody new is supposed to come (but we'd like your retail dollars, just pick up your merchandise at the foot of the Fruitvale Bridge).
Live together, die alone.
Where's the magic box? Is that near the Burrito Tunnel? (and how did THAT get by SOCA!?)

Alameda Soccer PSA

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:59:00 +0000

Registration for fall soccer season is now open for boys and girls ages 6-19.

Please register on on line at www.alamedasoccer.org and follow the instructions from the confirmation email to complete the process.

In-person registration will also be held, dates and times to be posted on the Alameda Soccer Club website.

Stimulus Spending

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:56:00 +0000

Just received this interesting link and thought I would pass it along -

http://www.recovery.org/home.aspx

Lets you see stimulus projects submitted, approved, awarded, etc.

Chicken Little, Goosey Loosey and Foxy Loxy Get a Latte

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Wow, I woke up this morning and the sun was rising in the east. The sky was still up and the Isle of Style was still above sea level.

Quite the day yesterday with our State Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 and our School Board moving forward with the SAFE Schools curriculum. Time for Del to reflect now that another round of cards have been dealt...

SAFE Schools -

I guess we should applaud the District for listening to its teachers and providing them with the tools they requested to deal with LGBT-targeted bullying. I'm still trying to figure that one out, but I guess when a bully calls another kid "fag" or "queer" it is confusing for a teacher - as opposed to "tubby" or "dork" or "N-word" which I must assume they know how to deal with.

I'm NOT for bullying and I'm FOR equal rights for all, but I'm personally so skeptical of the method's effectiveness. The entire exercise seemed like such a distraction from the real issues that we are facing in our school district today. Based on many of the articles, blog posts and letters written about this topic, I'm convinced that the road to respect starts at and stays at home. So many people wrote about how at HOME they teach their kids respect, love their neighbors and invite them in.

My last thought on SAFE Schools is whether, when the AUSD comes looking for another parcel tax, that these programs are considered discretionary or not. When the budget ax has a choice between SAFE Schools and say, library services, will the choice be obvious to us?

Prop 8 -

A friend of mine wondered yesterday how Iowa became more progressive than California. This entire battle ground over marriage is just wrong on so many levels.

My first question: Why is the State in the marriage business at all? We know the answer - the State gets $80 for every marriage license filed. In 2006 there were nearly 216,000 weddings in California, representing a revenue stream of $17.28M. I chose 2006 because that was before the Gavin Newsom rush, but the 2 years prior were around 225,000 each year.

So it seems to me that if you're FOR equal marriage rights regardless of sexual preference, then maybe the tactic ought to be to sue the State on the grounds that some people get extra benefits over others just because they are heterosexual and married. Basically take away all of the benefits afforded by the State for getting married at all and take it out of the wedding business.

Then watch the Prop 8 supporters' position change when:
1. Traditional married couples scramble to maintain those benefits
2. Sacramento does a collective clench when it sees that revenue stream threatened

An approach like this would remove all of the rhetoric concerning "values" out of the discussion. If a questionable "will of the people" dictates that a marriage is defined as only one man and one woman, then so be it. The point is that there should be no State provided benefit ascribed to that status as long as its not available to the entire population.

Blame Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:09:00 +0000

Has the Isle of Style morphed into a live version of South Park?

I don't promote bullies and, yes, children should be taught how to get along and respect others. But when I read the "red hot rhetoric" surrounding the Anti-Bullying Curriculum, I have visions of South Park characters floating in my head.

South Park - Bigger, Longer and Uncut
Southpark is a quiet and peaceful place until the latest Terrance and Philip movie comes out. Once all the kids see it, all hell breaks loose, as the parents try to find a way to stop their kids from saying all the naughty words coming out of their mouths. The parents blame Terrance and Philip, place them under Citizen's Arrest, and declare war on Canada. It is up to the kids to save the world from Satan and keep Terrance and Philip from being executed.

Anti-bullying campaigns seem to bubble to the top of the agenda every few years. Seems to me that a school-based curriculum hasn't really been the answer, has it?

As I posted elsewhere in the blogsphere, KIDS ARE BRUTAL. They will find a way to establish a pecking order and will find a way to pick on anybody who is different. Do we really think the kids who have a bullying personality are paying attention? Why does that bullying kid have that attitude anyway? Maybe the answers are at home, not at school.

Now I'm not suggesting that the law of the jungle rule the playground. That's what detention and suspension is all about. Whatever happened to "YOU, kid, are a troublemaker and these are the consequences..." What about a little trash pickup after school? Maybe help the janitor clean up some classrooms for a few days. Work the lunch line. Serve the very kids you're bullying. Ever noticed that in all of the "bully literature" the only way the bully learns a lesson is to get a comeuppance?

My opinion (and I'm entitled to it) is that we kid ourselves that the indoctrination approach actually works. We justify this with abstract concepts like "civil liberties" and "individual rights." Seriously? You think your average grade school kid understands this? Their daily focus is "When do I get snack?"

Maybe, just maybe, if we let them, kids can figure this stuff out. They certainly can figure out how to get around whatever controls their parents want to put in place at any given time. And if South Park is any example, the kids usually wind up saving the place from their parents' hysteria.

For Whom the Blog Trolls

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:51:00 +0000

I'm as guilty of it as the next guy. According to Wikipedia:

A troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response^[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

We also have a definition for "Crank"

"Crank" is a pejorative term for a person who either holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false, or is simply just bad-tempered.^[1] The term implies that a "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with some commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous, and arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict his unconventional belief.

The rise of the Internet has given another outlet to people well outside the mainstream who may get labeled cranks through internet postings or websites promoting particular beliefs. There are a number of websites devoted to listing people as cranks. Community-edited websites like Wikipedia have been described as vulnerable to cranks.

^{Alameda's crankiness is taking a troll on me (ha ha, I made another funny!).

I suppose it's just easy to log on to a blog and snark with abandon. Why not? You can't see me, you don't even know my real name (and now you know why! :) ). I'm putting my personal thoughts and op-eds out for the world to see, so I will accept a fair amount of blowback as a cost of doing business.

But let's take another view of this phenomenon. Pretend for a minute you're an outsider, considering a move to Alameda. Or maybe an entrepreneur considering Alameda as a location for a new business. When you read the piss and vinegar comments does it make Alameda feel like a welcoming place? Like a place that's easy to do business in?

Let's be careful, Islanders. I have heard first hand comments that our fair Isle is NOT the place to be. An acquaintance of mine who operates a chain of gourmet grocery outlets reports that in his Oakland locations, a significant number of checks and debit purchases come from the 94501-94502. "Why not open on the Isle?" I ask. "There's plenty of prime, vacant retail frontage." And the answer is "NOPE." The reason? Alameda is not a good place to do business. We're neither as upscale as we like to believe we are, nor do we generate the traffic (people traffic) required for profitability. On top of that, the Island has a reputation for analysis paralysis - we can't seem to get anything done and if we do, the City and the landlords are difficult to do business with.

If our outward conversations are any indication, do you find this hard to believe?}

Oh, my guilty pleasure

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Mon, 04 May 2009 05:46:00 +0000

I was catching up with my guilty pleasure recently and I was tickled at the rants against the MEGAPLEX (gads!) followed by postings with the movie times.

How do you simultaneously bash a business yet give it free advertising?

Blowin' Some Alameda Sun Up My..

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:10:00 +0000

Catchy headline wasn't it?

Another well written analysis from Dennis Evanosky in today's "Sun." Thank you for highlighting the FACTS and debunking the "red-hot rhetoric" that are clouding our ability to rationally think through the decision that is put before us.

To Summarize - Measure A says two things:

There shall be no dwelling units built in the City of Alameda
The maximum density for any residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land

The proposed measure (it's not even a ballot initiative yet) will NOT repeal Measure A. It exempts the Alameda Point development only.
The proposed measure adds a new chapter to the General Plan to establish policies at Alameda Point. These policies require any developer to provide certain amenities. It doesn't mention SunCal explicitly because there is no rock hard, closed deal with SunCal at this time. You don't want to lock a specific contractor into City law.
Signing the initiative does not pass the proposed measure - it ONLY gets it on the November ballot.

The rhetoric that citizens who do not live on Alameda Point will be asked to finance the "amenities" with tax dollars is also debunked:

The redevelopment agency directs all tax increment legally allowed to the property
It will form a Mello-Roos district that allows the sale of bonds and collection of a special property tax paid solely by Alameda Point property owners and ONLY to finance the improvements

He then goes on to explain what Mello-Roos is - essentially a mechanism that allows special property taxes above and beyond what is allowable by Prop 13. This has been a successful program that has allowed communities to finance improvements and services required by new communities.

Mr. Evanosky's analysis is the kind of journalism that is sorely needed at this time. Straight, simple, no editorial. It helps us stay focused on what matters in the discussion, and it would seem that what matters to Alameda are the two items I've raised on several occasions in this blog:

Toxic clean up - more than we think, more expensive than all the estimates. What is the contingency plan?
4,000-5,000 dwelling units (NOT individual houses) plus numerous business with limited access and a flawed assumption that the people who live on the Point will automagically work on the point will create a traffic nightmare (for Alameda, 880 AND Oakland China Town). Regardless of the density statistics, this still feels like way too much housing. What are the economics of the project if the housing inventory is cut in 1/2?

Thanks, Alameda Sun. I'm feeling you.

An Alameda Point Timeline - Just the Facts

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:24:00 +0000

An excellent reference from Mike McMahon.

http://www.mikemcmahon.info/construction/alamedapoint.htm#e

Thank you.

I Took a Breath and Now I Feel Better

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:17:00 +0000

Last week I slammed the Alameda Sun and editor Dennis Evanosky over their front page stori-torial concerning the Alameda Point - Measure A Exception signature gathering.

I want to thank Mr. Evanosky for his plain language analysis in this week's "Sun" regarding Point Clean Up. The analysis was well written, easy to follow and (I believe) lays a nice foundation to ask the right questions to our leaders about the risks involved in Point toxics removal. (If you recall I've stated on several occasions on this blog that I assume there are more toxics in the ground than the Navy thinks and it will cost a lot more to clean it up than they've stated.) The gist as I understand the analysis:

The Navy cleans up everything that's in or under the ground.
The Developer (Sun-Cal for now) cleans up everything that's in a structure or infrastructure

Seems simple enough.

The tricky parts are the timing as it feels like there's a bit of a Catch-22 scenario in when things actually start happening.

The Navy doesn't start it's clean up until the land is conveyed to the City.
The Developer doesn't start it's work until the Navy's work is completed AND the City has conveyed the land to the Developer.

So the questions are:

What are the criteria for the Navy to convey the land to the City? I believe these are published somewhere, if I recall correctly the Navy doesn't convey the land until the City has an approved re-development plan?
What are the City's options once the Navy announces it has completed it's clean up? If there is more work to be done is there risk and contingency built into the Navy's budget to cover it?
Likewise, what are the checks and balances on the Developer's clean up and what is the risk and contingency factor in their plan?
What if there are areas discovered to be so toxic that they become show stoppers for phases of the project or the entire project itself? What are the assurances that the City has in order to prevent it from losing it's entire wardrobe? (I'm thinking seaplane lagoon here - covered in another article by Dennis also on the front page of Wednesday's Sun.)

An analysis answering these questions in similar straightforward fashion would be a great next step. I might actually allow the Sun to keep throwing their paper on my front yard

SOCA - OK, I'm starting to get your vision

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:52:00 +0000

Save our City released a new video this week

Thank you for starting to articulate an actual vision, but I'm still not quite clear on the plan:

SunCal = Traffic. OK, I'm a bit concerned about their traffic and transit assumptions as well and I'm willing to probe on this one, but I don't buy that their entire objective here is profit and to create an absolute mess for the City.

Your "Plan" =
Green Collar Jobs - how many? who is going to provide them? how much traffic will those jobs generate on and off the island every day? who is the developer who will re-hab, update and build new facilities for the companies (for profit, by the way) who will be providing green collar jobs?
Sustainable Energy Research - from whom? what types? how many people will work there? how much traffic will they generate? who is the developer who will re-hab, update and build new facilities for the research institutions (some for-profit and some non-profit) who will be moving in?
Expanded Solar Energy Generation - from whom? has AMP signed off on this? who is the developer who is going to build it?
Education and Internships for our Youth - I have no idea what real estate development has to do with this, unless the implication is that there are a number of corporate and public sector entities standing up to manage and run these programs on our behalf in the companies that host the green collar jobs and sustainable energy research institutions? how many students? how much traffic?
Parks and Open Space - we have that already, has East Bay Regional Parks endorsed your vision?

This vision and the derivative benefits can be obtained by everything that SunCal is currently proposing, except that THEIR plan calls for housing and THIS one doesn't. Seriously, is housing and the completely obfuscated issue of the infrastructure funding the main issue? If so, probe and question on the issues, push for a compromise, but don't fog the message - that's our process.

Both this vision and the SunCal plan have "if you build it they will come" assumptions right from the start.

For Example - This plan assumes that if a research and light industrial park is built, it will magically fill up with green-tech and environmentally friendly companies. I bet Rockin Ron Cowan had the same visions dancing in his head when he built the Harbor Bay Business Park. Not exactly a bustling hub of commerce.

The SunCal plan assumes much of the same, but there are mitigating aspects to the plan in the form of a MIX of retail, housing, recreation and commercial development. Classic diversification strategy.

The SunCal plan assumes that people who live on the Point will work on the point and therefore there will be minimal traffic impact. I honestly think that is a huge IF and not a likely outcome. But don't think for a minute if you get 50 or so commercial operators out there their activities won't have an impact on traffic either - they'll have employees, visitors, deliveries, etc. all creating a traffic impact.

And lastly - WHO is going to build the SOCA dream? A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPER is going to have to come in, create a plan and take the financial risk. They will be required to negotiate with the city to take on some of the costs of common infrastructure and they will negotiate hard to get the city to take on as much as they possibly can get away with - JUST LIKE SUNCAL.

Let's take another quick step back from the brink. The SunCal plan is a PROPOSED MASTER PLAN that will take 15 years to implement. It is what I like to call the unconstrained budget plan; it has everything I wish to be in it with no regard to actual costs (direct, indirect, real or social). That plan is going to change 10 times before the first shovel goes into the ground. It will change annually over its 20-year development life cycle (yep, the schedule will slip too).

Rather than beat it into the ground, why not use it as a starting point and let's reasonably critique elements where there is real concern? Are we really ready to throw them out? Can SOCA tell us the cost to the City if we dismiss SunCal before their exclusivity runs out? That'll cost us - believe me - it will cost us a WHOLE LOT.

We've got a model to push around. It's A MODEL! It's not real, it's on paper.

I Still Don't Understand

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:57:00 +0000

I was never accused of being my mother's smartest kid, but I still don't see what SOCA's "plan" for the point is? How does leaving it the way it is create jobs or save buildings?

Look, I have two major issues with the current plan for development at the Point:
1. I believe that whatever the Navy says is in the ground you can triple it, and whatever the Navy says it will cost to get it out you can 5X it
2. I believe that 4,000 DWELLING UNITS is too many. It's not 4,000 separate houses (that's why Sun Cal seeks a Measure A exception); they want to build a mix of houses, apartments over retail, work-live space etc. We can argue that all you want, we'll probably agree that 4,000 is a lot for that space.

So - in a nutshell - that's my position. You can kick me for it if you want.

I don't blame the mayor for supporting the SunCal plan; what is she supposed to do? "Oh well, the City I run granted this company exclusive rights to develop a plan, now I'm going to come out against it in public?" "Gee, this is the single-most important item on the City of Alameda's agenda for the NEXT 30 YEARS, I vote for decay and nothingness!" ANY Mayor has to support the plan.

I don't buy the notion that just because SunCal is a "developer" they are evil and have no social conscience. Yes, I believe they have a right to make a profit - they're taking a huge financial risk.

I don't believe you can have a public land trust and NOT have a developer develop the property.

I don't believe Alameda can afford to let this prime property sit idle for decades while our tax base erodes to the point of nothingness.

I do believe everyone has the right to critique the plan, but seriously? Are we just down to mudslinging with vague yet pithy marketing pieces?

Nice to Meet you Donald R. White

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:10:00 +0000

As the April 10 deadline for our 2nd 2008/09 property tax installment looms, I decided to find out exactly who is Donald R. White. I always thought it interesting that we make out out checks directly to a person and not an entity (like Alameda County?).

The Tax Collector/Treasurer IS an elected official. Next time I'm voting for the guy who
1. Makes me feel comfortable that if I used online bill pay they would actually credit my account
2. Changes the payment deadlines so I don't have to experience the twice annual double agita of paying taxes during Christmas shopping season and tax season (OK I know the deadlines are actually 60 days earlier OR I could take the money out with my mortgage payment, but what's the fun of that?)

According to his bio on the Alameda County Website:

Donald R. White is currently serving his sixth four-year term as County Treasurer-Tax Collector of Alameda County, California. He was the first African American elected to this position. As Alameda County's chief financial officer, he is directly responsible for the investment and custody of $3.2 billion dollars of County funds, managing two departments on a budget of $10.5 million, and supervising a staff of 62 that collects all secured and unsecured County property taxes. As Treasurer he is an ex-officio member of the Alameda County Employee Retirement Association, which has assets of approximately $5 billion dollars. He also serves as the plan administrator for Alameda County's Deferred Compensation Plans, which have over 6,000 participating member-employees. The Plans have approximately $350 million in assets.

Prior to this appointment as Treasurer of Alameda County, Mr. White worked in Public Accounting for the multinational accountancy firm of Ernst & Young and subsequently, as a partner in the minority owned accountancy firm of Adams, Grant, White and Company.

Mr. White is associated with numerous national and local professional and community service organizations. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors of the East Oakland Youth Development Center Foundation, Board and the City of Oakland's Budget Advisory Committee, and the Board of Directors of the Episcopal Diocese of California. He is finance chair for the USA/NSA Athletics Foundation and treasurer of Black Elected Officials of the East Bay. He is an active member of the National Association of Black Accountants and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Mr. White graduated from California State East Bay with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. He is a Certified Public Accountant, a member of the American Institute of CPAs, and a member of the California Society of CPAs.

Nice to meet you, Donald R.

42-cents for a postcard?

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:37:00 +0000

Quick snark on the run...

You would think they could have put a pre-paid return post card on that Alameda Point mailer, don't you?

And a post card certainly isn't a 42-cent stamp.

sniff..

Staying CLASSY?

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:00 +0000

I read Eve Pearlman's post about helicopters over the Isle during wee morning hours. They bug the crap out of me too.

Eve seems to feel that we're at the mercy of the local TV stations for "Eagle Eye" coverage 24/7.

There is an Oakland Airport noise hotline at 510-577-4194.

There is also something called the Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS). Established in 1989, CLASS was formed by Bay Farm Island residents to closely monitor the activities of the Oakland Airport and assess its impact on the local community. Ultimately, this monitoring led to the filing of a lawsuit against the Port of Oakland resulting in a settlement agreement which gives CLASS and the City of Alameda direct input on airport planning and more open communication on issues which could affect the airport’s neighbors.

Love them or hate them, they seem to be an effective watchdog group. Contact CLASS with your noise concerns at (510) 433-7949.

More Fox in SOX

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:36:00 +0000

Interesting editorial from the National Post regarding AIG and SOX. (OK, I'm on a horse/soap box, let me preach the end of the world for a bit...).

This was written back in September of last year. Kind of chilling given what unfolded over the next 6 months.

Sarbanes may even have made things worse if, as seems possible, its bureaucratic fix-it kits gave all players a false sense that there was no need to pay much attention to details.

In a wave of corporate head-hunting under Eliott Spitzer, AIG was dragged through a public flogging, its illustrious CEO, Hank Greenberg, driven from office. The old AIG-style of board governance was branded one of the weakest in Corporate America. Seven of its directors were considered insiders.

The world’s largest insurance company took on all the corporate governance fads imaginable and every clause of Sarbanes. One might assume its risk management regimes would therefore be under the constant eye of scores of independent directors and top-flight accounting firms equipped with new powers and rules. Wrong, it turns out.

The AIG board has a surprising number of people who would know little about AIG’s multifaceted and often risky enterprises. There’s the head of Hilton Hotels. There’s James Orr III, chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation. There’s the head of a media company. And there’s Martin Feldstein, the economist. All but two of the directors are Sarbanes-certified outsiders, as are the directors on the audit committee.

Exactly what the rating firms learned to change their view of AIG isn’t clear, but the focus was on AIG’s financial services division, a small part of AIG’s operations. It provided what are defined on AIG’s financial statements to include “super senior credit default swaps” valued at US$441-billion. But those swaps were losing value. How much value is a matter of mind-boggling risk assessment calculations, since there is no market value for the swaps.

...under new accounting rules, AIG was forced to make judgments and write assets down, even if there was no real market on which to base values. The effect of the writedowns was a deteriorating balance sheet that had to be boosted with new injections of capital. When the agencies knocked AIG’s ratings down, the company’s ability to raise money on the markets declined to the point that it could not replenish its capital.

AIG, in other words, was scrambling to fulfill a series of regulatory and new accounting rules that had the effect of forcing it into a tailspin.

So it turns out that perhaps SOX compliance not only failed to raise the red flag 6 months ago, but was in all likelihood one of the critical causes for the events that unfolded. Dump that regulatory framework in with the TSA airport screening process and how many billions of dollars are thrown down a rat hole?

For further reading, here is the Wikipedia entry on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

What of SOX?

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:17:00 +0000

As the large banks and financial institutions (Lehman was not a bank, nor is AIG) unravel before our eyes and their managers steal off into the night with bonuses for failure, I wonder why there has been no discussion of the effectiveness of the Sarbannes-Oxley legislation.

For those of you who care to remember, Sarbannes-Oxley (SOX) was signed into law in the wake of the harbinger of this round of doom and gloom: Enron. The objective of the legislation was to clean up corporate accounting and reporting practices to provide visibility and clarity into operations.

So far all SOX seems to have accomplished is to create extremely large and profitable practices at companies like KPMG and Accenture. This extremely onerous regulatory framework has accomplished nothing to prevent the type of shenanigans (an Isle of Style word if I ever wrote one) we're seeing today. All of this stuff should have been visible if SOX were effective.

Just more proof that executive compensation and corporate performance are mutually exclusive. I bet if you go look at the metrics, all of those AIG managers hit their numbers. Why weren't their goals tied to corporate performance? SOX should have told us.

Random Thoughts in Delmundo's Brain

noreply@blogger.com (Edmundo Delmundo) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:33:00 +0000

You know the great thing about blogs is that they're like little diaries. You can just write random stuff on them to rid your brain of clutter. Of course you run the risk of being pilloried, but, as they say, "No Risk, No Reward!"

So I present a couple of random thoughts. I'm not saying I'm right, just saying..

Stimuli - I've been trying to do the math on this one, but if we took the $1T stimulus and gave $50,000 to 50M households, wouldn't people pay off their credit card debt and the money wind up in the hands of the banks anyway? Seems better than the $500 here, $13 there stimulus we get as individuals.

Mortgages - how about the Fed guarantee an additional 15 years on every mortgage, then fix them at reduced interest, thereby lowering all payments and making them affordable. So what - the banks don't get their money - they gambled and lost. At least this way they get a few nickles and dimes on the dollar. Why is 30 years a sacred number?

Prop 8 - Seems to me the approach to the "No on 8" argument is all wrong. Why take the stance that you're a victim? Assume you have equal rights under the law first and foremost. So, shouldn't the arguments be:

1. Sue the State to take it out of the marriage business. Why does the State need to grant anyone a license to marry? If you don't recognize a (fully equal) homosexual's right to marry, then the State should not recognize anyone's right to marry.

Once the State sees that hefty revenue stream threatened, a lot of action will start taking place
Put the argument about marrying the dog away. The dog cannot willingly consent to the contract. Plus the dog isn't guaranteed civil liberties under the constitution last I checked.

2. Some smart attorney ought to make a list of all the benefits that a married couple receive solely as a result of their union. Then sue the State to take those benefits away from married couples since they are institutionally denied to a qualified segment of the population. All tax benefits, etc. All private sector policies that recognize "immediate family" are unenforceable, etc. Start taking away the benefits and people will change their position quickly.

I'm sure there are many pitfalls in my musings - and really, before you flambe me, please realize these are just musing I share publicly. But at least tell me if you've ever seen these perspectives in another forum.