Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Endorsements

Re: “25 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Don Perata

"no more stories.. from Express reporter Robert Gammon." - Bob, you'll have nothing to write about if Perata is gone. You're only skill is slinging mud at Don... but we all knew that because, as always, you're a joke.

Handing Oakland over to someone with less than half a brain would ALMOST be worth it. But then I'd have to move and I still like it here.

Posted by Stanyan on 10/13/2010 at 8:59 AM

Re: “Kaplan, Quan, and Tuman for Oakland Mayor

Kaplan or Tuman I could be happy with but if Quan wins I'm moving out of Oakland.

Posted by Stanyan on 10/13/2010 at 8:51 AM

Re: “Kaplan, Quan, and Tuman for Oakland Mayor

I've been filling out my absentee ballot. Joe Tuman is my number one. I can't bring myself to fill in the number two and three spots with any of the other candidates, especially Perata.

Posted by PaulG64 on 10/13/2010 at 7:36 AM

Re: “Kaplan, Quan, and Tuman for Oakland Mayor

Charles Pine, you just can't vote for a woman, eh?

Posted by oakbusiness on 10/12/2010 at 10:48 PM

Re: “Kaplan, Quan, and Tuman for Oakland Mayor

Quan is just as dishonest and scheming as Perata, but more petty. She is not as focused on personal material gain as Perata, but she is equally dedicated to the private interest of her choice over the public good. She lets her stubborn ignorance produce disaster - witness the school district when she was board prez and then the city budget in 2008 when she was council finance chair.

Kaplan is a bright puffball.

Tuman is more impressive every day. It comes down to whether Tuman can win. The fallback has to be Perata - proof that sometimes it is necessary to act in an imperfect world.

Posted by chpine24469 on 10/12/2010 at 9:34 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

Your Measure C endorsement.

I'm happy that you endorsed Measure C, but this is is really confusing! The YES endorsement in the May 26 issue is very clear, BUT .......

I got my East Bay Express "Elert" email yesterday (June 1), and there is a short blurb that says "Vote No on Measure C". WHAT? If you look carefully at the bottom of the paragraph, you learn that this is "Paid for by This is a somewhat conservative Political Action Committee (PAC) that is distinctly to the right of Berkeley's progressive majority.

You should NOT be including paid political ads in your "Elerts", even with the "paid for" disclosure, unless you make it much more evident that this is an ad, not an article. Please to something to explain this -- this was very sloppy journalism, and it is on the verge of a violation of journalistic ethics. You need to explain carefully that the "NO" endorsement is not yours, and that someone paid to put this in the "Elert".

Posted by mickeyten on 06/02/2010 at 6:20 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

Prop 14 takes away the California citizen's democratic right to vote outside the 2 major parties. Currently, after a June primary election, the winners in all parties in the different categories go on to the general election held in November. Up until that time, all the parties candidates campaign and debate the issues in newspapers and forums. If Prop 14 passes, only the "top two" candidates go on to the general election; only two candidates will debate; which could potentially be only two Republicans or two Democrats. This takes away choice and representation. Only the people who voted for the top two will be represented. Anyone outside the top party will have no voice because they will not be represented. Eventually third party candidates won't be allowed to debate the issues even in the Primaries because rules state they must win 2% of the vote in the general election to have ballot status - almost impossible with Prop 14. This is anti-democratic and will/should be challenged in court because it is unconstitutional. The only winners, if Prop 14 passes, will be the corporations who finance their favorite candidate because they won't have to pay as much to spin the truths that outside parties might be saying.

Posted by sherry borg on 05/29/2010 at 2:26 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

If you think the issue is democracy, vote no on prop. 14. Everyone can vote for whomever they want in the November general election. We get to nominate the candidate for the party that we choose in the primary election. If we don't like our party, we can re-register into a different one up to 15 days before the election.
If you want more spontaneity, you could advocate for same day registration, enabling people to pick a party on election day.But if prop. 14 passes, only the top-two candidates, regardless of party, proceeds to the general election. This will eliminate peoples' ability to vote for candidates other than those from the two big-money parties. Prop. 14 ensures that power remains with those who presently hold all of the power.

Posted by Marsha Feinland on 05/29/2010 at 12:46 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

NO on Measure C

Students & renters come and go, but the homeowner owners carry the burden of special tax assessments for decades after they move away & buy a home in another city with lower taxes.

I wonder how would students and renters vote if landlords were permitted to pass on the direct cost for the tax measures this group of people votes for? Would they vote for every special tax assessment or would they show fiscal restraint and careful judgment that they do for their personal finances?

The city is millions of dollars in debt and believes home owners are an endless fountain of cash, despite being in the midst of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Berkeley City government is bloated and fiscal mismanagement is rife – one example is the multimillion bond measure passed to build a new city animal shelter. Construction has been delayed so many times that costs have risen by millions & there aren’t funds to pay for it – but we still get to pay interest on those bonds!

Furthermore, city salaries & benefits are out of alignment with reality. You can make more working for Berkeley than you can as a seasoned international marketing consultant in the IT sector that helps Fortune 500 companies with global business strategy! I have a BA in Psychology, an International MBA, I'm bilingual & work in a FOR PROFIT company, but many city employees salary & benefits far exceed what I make.

The point I’m making is that fiscal responsibility isn’t the core competency of the city and letting them take out additional loans is not a responsible decision.

I learned to swim in a public pool, so I do appreciate what they offer the community, but voting yes on a property tax assessment if you are not a property owner yourself is tantamount to participating in a system of taxation without representation. If we are to increase taxes to support public pools everyone should pay a special assessment -- renters in houses and apartments, students in dorms, and home owners and commercial property owners.

This is a difficult concept for many students and renters to wrap their minds around because you are not yet home owners. I was in your position for 18 years myself, but just because a person owns property does not make them a millionaire with an endless fountain of cash to pay for every tax assessment supporting every cause that seems worthy. These tax assessments are a burden, not because this one is 50-70 dollars a year, but because there are so many of them that are piled on top of each other that were voted in over the past several years! We are being taxed out of our homes.

Think long and hard before you vote yes on this measure. There are other ways for the city to support the pools and make paying for them much more fair for everyone.

Posted by Jarad on 05/28/2010 at 1:28 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

Everyone looks at how Prop 14 changes the primary election. But it also changes the general election by restricting voters choices. General elections are more important, they are much more important, than primary elections because general elections are where the final determinations are made as to who gets elected. So why would you support Prop 14 which may or may not improve the less significant, much smaller primary elections when you know Prop 14 would reduces voters choices in the much larger, much more important general elections. No longer would independent candidates be able to qualify for the general election ballots. Put smaller parties and their messages in the trash can because Prop 14 would effectly squeeze the life out of them. And to top it off, write-in votes would no longer be counted. Prop 14 would not give most voters more choices. Prop 14 would reduce voters choices to the two choices of big business. Please vote No on Prop 14.

C. T. Weber
Peace and Freedom Party candidate
Lieutenant Governor

Posted by C.T. Weber on 05/28/2010 at 12:14 AM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

The reasons cited by other writers here are why the Green Party opposes Prop 14, as do the Democratic and Republican parties. It would ROB voters of choice, including the choice to vote for a Green in November ever again, except in VERY rare circumstances, as Green gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells of Oakland ( points out. Moreover, in states that have tried this approach, almost every single incumbent has been re-elected (one who lost had a sex scandal). Prop 14 is the Incumbent Protection Act.

Posted by Progressive_Portal on 05/27/2010 at 8:05 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

The editors of the Express obviously decided to endorse Prop 14 on a whim. Had they spent even five minutes on the subject, they would have realized that it affects liberty to vote for the candidate of your choice in exactly the opposite way from what they appear to think. Two candidates to choose from? Who will sometimes represent the same party? Who would almost never include an independent or representative of a minor party? With no possibility of voting for a write-in candidate? The Express has a very odd notion of voter liberty.

Posted by rrichard63 on 05/27/2010 at 6:50 PM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

The Express rightly rejects the major Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates, but in stopping there shows the same ignorance as it does in endorsing the dreadful Proposition 14.

If Proposition 14 were in effect, the only choices on the ballot in November for Governor would be two of the three the Express rejects, Brown, Poizner and Whitman, and if you write-in someone else your vote wouldn't be counted (that's part of the implementing legislation for Prop 14 that will automatically take effect if it passes).

This June, in addition to the 6 "minor" Democratic and 6 "minor" Republican gubernatorial candidates that the Express ignores, there are 2 American Independent Party, 2 Green Party, 1 Libertarian Party and 3 Peace and Freedom Party candidates for Governor. In November, one candidate from each "third party" will be on the ballot in addition to two of the three major party candidates you've already rejected and possibly one or more independent candidates (who wouldn't need to file until after the June primary). Why no endorsements in any of the third parties' contested gubernatorial primaries?

Proposition 14 doesn't call for an open primary, but for a blanket primary leading to a closed general election. It was put on the ballot as part of the February 2009 budget deal. Abel Maldonado's price for his vote was a middle of the night vote to put Prop 14 on the ballot with a biased title and summary and to enact its lengthy implementing legislation without hearings. The Express endorsed the May 2009 special election ballot measures from the deal, and now it endorses Proposition 14 and Maldonado for Lieutenant Governor.

Common wisdom says the press is in favor of open government and against backroom deals. But not the East Bay Express.

Posted by Dave Kadlecek on 05/27/2010 at 10:43 AM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

Wow, I can't believe this great little paper would endorse the Proposition (14) which is designed to destroy small parties in the state -- they literally will never be able to run on a November ballot. I can only assume you haven't looked into it very closely. Why would we want zero challenges to the corporate-owned parties? Why would we want to eliminate the only parties which refuse corporate money, stand for Peace and Justice, and are grassroots?

From Mike Feinstien:
"In California there are only two ways that parties stay on the ballot. One is to receive at least 2% in a general election every four years for a statewide office like Governor or Secretary of State. But under Prop 14, minor parties won’t be on the general election ballot for statewide office, so they can’t retain party status that way.

The other method is to have a certain threshold number of voter registrations. But if this were the only method today, both the Libertarians and the Peace & Freedom Party would already be off the ballot and the Greens would be threatened with the same.

***Had Prop 14’s authors intended to honor California’s political diversity, they would’ve reduced the registration threshold so these kinds of parties could reasonably stay on the ballot.*** By leaving the threshold where it is and eliminating their ability to qualify on the general election ballot, Prop 14’s sponsors are going for the jugular to entirely eliminate minor parties in the state."

I urge you to reconsider your endorsement of this Prop and look more closely at the info. See:

East Bay Express will join Prop. 14 backers -- the LA Times, The Sacramento Bee, The SF Chron, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Police Chiefs Association, and the California chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).

Opponents include: SF Bay Guardian, California NAACP, California League of Conservation Voters, the ACLU (Southern and Northern CA), Libertarian, Green and Peace and Freedom Parties, Marin Peace and Justice Coalition, Sandre Swanson, Mark Leno, Lori Hancock, Cindy Sheehan . . .

Which side are you on?

Posted by Victronix on 05/27/2010 at 9:39 AM

Re: “East Bay Express Endorsements on June 8

I'd like to hear more about why you're endorsing Prop 14.

I agree that independents should be able to vote for whomever they'd like in the primary and in the runoff, but with this proposition what will happen is that voters will only have a choice of only two candidates in the runoff. Doesn't sound like liberty to me. Then we can all say goodbye to third party candidates having any real chances at office.

Parties exist and are still strongly represented. I think that gnoring them only exacerbates the partisan problem. This might be a good idea one day, but not now.

Posted by RenaR on 05/26/2010 at 4:24 PM

Re: “No on Measure B

I think if there was anything "racist" about the racial shape of Alameda and Oakland today, it was the history of slavery in racisim in this country.

Blacks from the south came to Oakland to work in the shipyard in WWII. The US military was segregated, with little black representation - as Alameda built up around the Navy base, it was largely white folks in Navy families that came to Alameda.

That's not to say that all of that was acceptable, or proper, but it certainly isn't Measure A's fault.

Shame on the East Bay Express for repeating in their editorial a tired trollop without doing any real investigation. Usually EBE is more thoughtful. It, in fact, does a dis-service to real issues of racism in our communities.

Posted by mowster48ba on 02/03/2010 at 6:49 PM

Re: “No on Measure B

From a person who was there.
Measure A was a reaction to:
A: Ron Cowen's plans for Harbor Bay Isle which initially would have brought in in 25,000 people for the density that was proposed. The sentiment was that on our small island with only the tube and the 3 bridges, the town could not handle the impact.
B: Smaller developers who were tearing down Vics and old homes replacing them with unpleasant looking 6-20 unit apartments, or multi-family places. They were not cheap to rent.
At no time was there any discussion regarding keeping people of color out of Alameda.
What you should also know is the the backers/writers of Measure A were among the most liberal in our community and were preservationists. It was inevitable at the time that Harbor Bay Isle would be formed by infill. Money talked. Never a thought was had to keep Bay Farm Island with it's rich soil and abundant crops because politically Alameda had been taken over. A vote swept out the old council and installed 3 new council members who were not racist and just wanted to keep the town's character and lower density.
Now, Alameda had few blacks and the town was so unique that some folks who grew up in the east end never traveled to the west end. Yes, there were people who spoke of anyone who was not someone who was born in Alameda as an 'outsider' no matter what the color. Yes, a local teacher helped organize a sit-in in Franklin Park with tents and all that went with it. Yes, people camped and picketed the Mayor's home. That WAS a turbulent time.
Measure A came a few years after that. I grew up in Oakland and had to work my way into Alameda culture. I was in the mix during the Measure A time and I can say honestly we never thought of it as a racist event.

Posted by Tanney on 01/28/2010 at 9:48 AM

Re: “No on Measure B

Neither SunCal, nor anyone else, needs to change Measure A to build mixed-use, transit-oriented high density housing in Alameda. So long as affordable housing is built - and by virtue of a lawsuit, 25% of housing at Alameda Point is supposed to be affordable housing - developers can use the state-mandated density bonus law to sidestep Measure A restrictions against multi-family housing. Measure A is not a barrier to mixed-use projects so long as affordable housing is included.

The State law - on the books since 1979 - has always enabled this - the developer need only submit plans to request the density bonus. However, in December of last year, Alameda City Council passed a local ordinance that specifies just how the density bonus is to be implemented and what concessions granted to the developer.…

Posted by mowster48ba on 01/26/2010 at 7:48 PM

Re: “Vote Yes on C, D, F, and H

Why does the Oakland Convention and Visitors Bureau get a 50% cut, leaving only 12.5% for each of the zoo, science center, cultural arts and museum? What does the bureau do that's worth three times each of these four other institutions?

Posted by Chevy Van on 07/07/2009 at 9:12 PM

Re: “Vote Yes on Props 1A to 1F

What happened to informed political view points? You are driven by fear and lack of info in these mostly poorly written propositions. I will no longer look to you as a source for political guidance.

Posted by QUATHY on 05/19/2009 at 6:46 PM

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation