Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Remember Oaklands BAD Garbage Contract
I oppose the City of Oaklands $600 million Bond Measure KK because Oakland is not capable of administering a contract wisely. The Alameda County Grand Jury found that Oakland totally mismanaged the recent $50 million garbage contract resulting in a 50% increase of our monthly garbage bill. [See 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report @ acgov.org/grandjury on p.39] The Oakland Administrative Office botched the garbage contract so badly that at the last minute it assigned the contract to California Waste Solutions, which was not capable of performing the service. Next, Oakland renegotiated the garbage contract to give back most of the collection services to the ongoing collection company, WMI. The new garbage contract costs property owners 50% more because Oakland would not accept a cheaper package deal from WMI.
Now Oakland wants $600 million of taxpayer money to dole out and manage in contracts. Oakland has proven that it cannot manage money wisely and should not be trusted with large budget until it has proven ability to manage small budgets.
Oakland leadership routinely ignores its own Ordinance, which requires competitive bids on all contracts. The leadership merely passes a Resolution to bypass the Ordinance requirement as it did with the ESA Coal Study contract. A month ago, the Oakland Mayor waived the competitive bidding process to hire a part time $300,000/ yr transportation consultant. With the funds from this KK bond the contract spending abuse would be infinite.
Oaklands infrastructure improvements need to be done incrementally. The taxpayer must evaluate the value received before additional tax money is supplied. Marcus Crawley firstname.lastname@example.org
No on 64
Survivors of police shootings say NO on measure LL- Yes we need change but not this change and we are uniquely qualified to understand the process and provide the best possible solutions for human rights-we say NO on measure LL because the same people who work for the alleged civil rights attorneys and impotent organization alternatives have not produced a positive result, have endangered and maligned victims and should not be granted more power money and control. Yes we need growth but not regression as is offered with measure LL- SEE MORE ON WHAT VICTIMS ENDURE AT www.karmawon.wordpress.com
The conflict of interest of a DA having the charge and prosecute the police is on stunning display here. Unreal.
No!!! I can't afford to pay more taxes in the middle of switching jobs. Are they trying to tax us out of our homes and add to the growing number of people on the street that can neither rent nor own? Use what millions of homeowners have given you already and stop letting people who do not own property vote on what property owners should spend. The logic is backwards. I hardly use my vehicle compared to the number of renters. Probably there are other property owners that do very little impact on the road. It should not be up to renters. Just because taxes go up does not mean property owner's income goes up in order to pay those taxes. Vote No!!! What Paul Merr said and pretty much everyone else on this thread.
I have been trying to get help for my son for 4 years we have had 3 suicide threats and attempts in less than 6mo. They have been no help getting my so help through them has been impossible..
Peterson failed the public though lack of diligence in observing the letter and the spirit of the law. Does this man know the meaning of the word exploitation or know right from wrong? CoCo County voters- send the DA a message when he is up for re-election.
Not charging them because of what?they all suck mr .petersons what?
Would love to have someone contact me in regards to more issues dealing with the CA Army National Guard. My email is email@example.com. I am a whistle blower and issues with the medical department
look at the fuckin' face on that guy
Jody the charter school Appeaser London is the progressive choice of the East Bay Times? Time for a change in the East Bay Oakland School Board District 1 when Wednesday night Jody London is arguing that buried in Measure J pasted by the voters to specifically rehabilitate the following specific sites Washington Elementary (name changed to Sankofa), Roosevelt, McClymonds, Glenview (being rebuilt with student temporary relocated to Santa Fe Elementary), Skyline, Webster CDC replacement, Whittier, Sobrante Park, Madison and Madison "sports complex", the Broad has the right to take funding from these schools, many over 70 years old to fund the renovation of 2nd Avenue buildings Administrative Building and Dewey High School.
Members of the Measure J oversight appeared and said that the Measure J money could not be used for funding 2nd Avenue projects.
I had another Board member beside Jody the charter Appeaser provide the following language that gives the Board the power to change the site specific buildings that Measure J money can be spent on:
o redeveloping administrative sites and inactive school sites,
o reconfiguring inactive school sites for alternative uses such as teacher housing, alternative academics, and training,
o reconfiguration of sites or parts of sites to house administrative functions, and
o optimizing active school sites to host community partners.
This language is not in the extended text or the summary statement of the purpose of Measure J.
I am still looking to find reference Jody made to Measure J language that allows the Board to switch site-specific priority list for Measure J that Jody the charter Appeaser mentioned at Wednesday night's Special Board meeting regarding plans for Second Avenue facilities.
Jody the charter Appeaser shouldn't be trying to divert money that the public authorized to be spent on listed projects to funding 2nd Avenue project.
Second Avenue is an important project to address but not at the expense of promises made to the voters and property owners that pay the bill.
Whistle blower part.. yessss.. A contractor one of many abused by personal friends of General Baldwin's, was set up and let go while friends found to have mishandled funds but are still promoted and new positions found for them or they retain jobs they never even had to apply for hmmmm Toss that in this bucket right now
I'm personally dissapointed that you endorsed Jody. I was certainly not interviewed and I have no idea why you endorsed this GO candidate, but not the others.
Some reason would be nice.
I found nothing in the write up.
Tony I'm still waiting?
At the meeting, Dewey Academy folks came out in force to urge board to go ahead and relocate the administration at a refurbished 1025, resurrect the Moore Building next door, build a new multipurpose facility for Dewey, and strongly urged board not to build any type of housing whatsoever near Dewey. Board asked questions and plans to put it back on agenda sometime after the next scheduled meeting. Superintendent wasn't there, but is expected to present a staff recommendation. No mention of further "community engagement" meetings. A couple of boardmembers questioned wisdom of leasing space rather than owning their own facility over the long term, even though costs presented as approx. the same. Board asked for more detail on costs. Nick Orton spoke briefly, said he understood the "no housing" points being made and that that part was separate from proposal to lease at auditorium. Videotape is posted on ousd website if anyone wants to look at it.
I'm voting for Zakhary Mallet precisely because he was not afraid to expose the political motives that dictated the route of BART's proposed San Jose extension. Bad transportation. I also want a BART director who will rein in the overblown salaries and benefits of BART employees, who get free or almost free family health coverage no matter ther family size. When BART personnel were finally required to pay into their pensions, they got a wage increase of exactly that amount, defeating the purpose. This wage stuff needs to be addressed, and Lateefah Simon is establishment politics as usual, based on her endorsements.
Tony, I've spoken with you before and I'm surprised what a fraud you are coming off as...this the issue you're planting you pole on? Sad.
I live just off Buena Vista and Webster...please answer me a quick little litmus test question...what is the single biggest issue facing people living on the west end? There is one clear answer.
When the 470 Central evictions happened days after council issued a moratorium on no-fault evictions (the eviction notices using the loophole-ridden language that the city put into the moratorium), council was outraged and rushed to close the loopholes they had opened. Months later, they drafted their rent ordinance that now will allow mass evictions just as long as it's only 25% per year. There are no rent caps. It puts the burden on already burdened tenants to appeal to a mayor-appointed mediation body and air all of their financial hardships into the public record. That is what Tony Daysog is championing here. He happens to also be up for reelection next week.
Once again the fish have been fermenting.
Jody London at last night's meeting regarding Board's plans for new administration building and upgrading Dewey High School facility--both located at 1025 Second Avenue-- referenced language in Measure J giving the District the right to spend Measure J money for rehabilitating the water damaged District Administrative building.
I am not sure, but I think she was referring to the part of the language below that gives the Board the right to make changes in the Measure J listing of projects the public voted on.
Board Member London's assertion that the Board could make change in the listing ignores that the changes have a context having to do with possible adjustments that have be made because the funding is insufficient to fund all of the projects listed.
Its a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation not diverting large portions of Measure J to pay for reconstructing damaged 2nd Avenue Administration building and upgrading Dewey. and negatively impacting the projects the public was promised would be funded.
Finally, the Board's changes would have to be supported by the Measure J civilian oversight committee and the Measure J Civilian Oversight Committee opposes the use of Measure J funding for 2nd Avenue upgrade.
Measure J extended text:
"Completion of some projects may be subject to further government approvals by State officials and boards, to local environmental review, and to input from the public. For these reasons, inclusion of a project on the Bond Project List is not a guarantee that the project will be funded or completed. The Board of Education may make changes to the Bond Project List in the future consistent with the projects specified in the proposition."
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation