On Tuesday night, Frank Matarrese told me that he’s now a supporter of the Alameda Point Ballot measure (and that his acknowledging this to some people has already lead to being accused of being paid by SunCal…see Ash Jones latest ridiculous letter to the editor about the Mayor, he should be embarrassed.)
From Matarrese’s website:
We have studied Base re-use for almost 12 years now. I reviewed and evaluated the pluses and minuses of this plan as submitted for voter approval and concluded it provided the best benefit for Alameda.
So that’s two councilmembers out in support of the measure. Mataresse has been a vigorous watchdog of this process, pushing some of the hard issues, working to make it better. It’s great to see him come out with a strong, clear recommendation on the ballot.
updated: 4:31 to fix broken link
The link (above) to the ridiculous letter appears to be broken. It is here for those might be interested:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/alameda/ci_12210215
This is an example of McCarthyism at its best – and amazing it still happens in such a tangible way.
Elected official takes a position. Those against cry “Communist!”, “Socialist!” or in the case of Alameda…
“(S)He’s in the pocket of “!”
Light the torches, villagers! We need to get that monster!
The mayor did not simply “take a position.” She didn’t just opine, she has actively worked in the interests of a private entity that is seeking to execute a near billion dollar venture with the city, all while effecting a major change to the city’s charter. If that is not a conflict, or not inappropriate behavior, then what is?
As for what she might be receiving, we have no evidence that she has gotten a dime, but to wonder if she has is not ridiculous at all. It’s rather common behavior in politics.
Two way street, Edmundo — advocate for the status quo & risk being called a NIMBY or a racist.
Dave,
Opposition is one thing. Skepticism is fine, too.
But the emotional tone–often bordering on hysteria– used by Action Alameda regarding the SunCal plan, Alameda’s budgetary woes (but not “impending bankruptcy”) is inappropriate and distorts the truth. Just like infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy did. (He used ad hominem attacks, too, which are another AA characteristic.)
These tactics are unproductive because they distort reality and mislead the community, which deserves better than an emotional claims of impending doom that do not match the facts.
The techniques one uses to make one’s points–whatever they are–can and do make a real difference. It is important for the health of Alameda’s body politic to be responsible and ethical in making political claims and arguments, especially re: truthfulness.
If ad hominems so offend you, why are you so blase about JKW’s frequent ones against Don Roberts,et al? If “the techniques one uses…make a real difference” where is your outrage over SunCal’s dishonesty?
I’m continually amazed by the ethical gymnastsics practiced by the pro-develeopment side. They hold themselves out as virtuous but enegage in the very same tactics they proscribe in others.
That’s a stretch.
A hand has been dealt. We’re all trying to figure out if the hand is playable or if we need to fold.
In this case the ante is extremely high – better make sure it’s a really bad hand before folding.
I haven’t seen the “pro development” or middle-ground group take direct, personal shots at individuals – outwardly alleging impropriety with no facts to back up the claim.
It’s easy to claim “He’s in the pocket of the developer!”. It’s easy to shout “NIMBY” – and believe me I’m a NIMBY too.
The point is – the assertions are so far over the top, they have no credibility.
Which assertions? List them and I’ll tell you whether I know of any basis for them or not, and you can confirm it for yourself.
And no personal shots? Except for endlessly demonizing a few people, and making derisive comments about others — including people who got up to speak at City Council meetings.
It is no mistake that all of these local blogs are very coy about the double standards they apply to their commentary.
Not to mention that the blogs also are coy about asserting that the commentary is fact, when it suits their purpose. Take, for example, all the redevelopment “facts” that have been detailed in this blog.
The ad hominem attacks are blatant acts of intimidation. [And, by the way, to link to other threads across our blogosphere, not much different than the taunting and bullying that the AUSD is trying to counteract with the controversial teaching curriculum.] But one could question whether these tactics are effective among those people who are keeping up with what is going on and educating themselves beyond these blogs. It could very well be that the tide is turning; the uglier the bullies get, the easier it is to see how false their arguments are, and the more visible the deceptions in the eyes of the public.
Civil behavior is learned by children at home–that is to say, children model what their elders do.
Teach your children well.
I guess I’ll have to do the research, but the assertion that either the Mayor or Frank Mattarese are “in the pocket” of SunCal is a serious allegation that should not be thrown about carelessly.
I also recall a breathless email/post charging Christopher Seiwald of “selling out” the Alameda Soccer Club when he expressed gratitude to SunCal for listening to the Club’s comments and modifying the master plan to increase the number of playing facilities.
Local blogs are about as coy as the letters to the editor page, because, well THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE!
There was a post/email about Christopher Seiwald?
Yes – there was an email to the ASC and Jack London Youth Soccer Boards for the most part.
It was not publicly distributed so that is all I should say about it.
Don’t look to me like Frank is for the plan.
Looks like he updated his web site since y’all reported this.
But then, everyone is entitled to a few Hummers.