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: “Kaplan, Quan, and Tuman for Oakland Mayor

See How Far We Can Go! Vote JOE!
Even a Thoroughbred Racehorse can't perform if there isn't a Qualified Jockey matched up to it, understands it and KNOWS how to make it a winner.
Oakland has been an abused thoroughbred for decades! (see movie:"Black Stallion"). We’ve forever had world class & obvious attributes. For example few know downtown Oakland has been wired for DECADES with Fiber Optics…mostly all ‘dark’ (unused).
In spite of dismal leadership entrepreneurs are making Oakland’s downtown burst in first class entertainment. Oakland has BEEN raring to go and WILL go if we get some eager competence to help at the other end..

JoeTuman is a Scholar, Professional Communicator, Teacher, Understands Business, has a PLAN and is Personable enough of a guy that people will listen. No other candidate for mayor comes close to these qualifications to lead, pitch vision & teach the steps.

To reverse decades of downhill sliding Finances, Integrity, Crime Rate & Public Perception fresh intelligence is essential. The current revenue generation ‘plan’ of fees, taxes & parking tickets does not encourage euphoria in citizenry. The opinion of many is Joe Tuman is the person to create an environment of trust, accountability & logical solutions.

Posted by weegee on 10/14/2010 at 10:48 AM

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

You left out one thing from #14: the man's propensity to dress like a gangster. Perata loves that black suit, white tie combo.

Posted by John Seal on 10/14/2010 at 9:19 AM

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

To be clear I as well think Tuman is actually a strong candidate who can lift this city up, and not a lesser of evils choice. My reference to lesser of two evils is if this race comes down to Quan and Perata, as it might. While I have a lot of problems with Kaplan's record, I think she is well intentioned, and better than what we have now, so while not a big leap forward, hopefully not a step back. So while my number 1 vote is for Tuman, I agree with the idea that the key to making sure we DON'T get stuck with Perata is Tuman, Kaplan and Quan in whatever order you want, but no Perata, no matta what! Heck, I almost feel like I put that idea out there prior to this endorsement...! mfraser

Posted by Modestexpert on 10/14/2010 at 12:24 AM

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

Jean Quan may have done a great job in helping to clean up MacArthur, but I'd no more vote for her to be mayor than I'd hire my handyman to build a house. Rebecca Kaplan has some good ideas, but I'm concerned she'd get too sidetracked with non-essential issues (really, Rebecca? we need community gardens right now? really?). Tuman, however, is a solid candidate.....and I'm NOT implying he is merely the lesser of evils. He has articulated solid,thoughtful and innovative approaches to complex problems, and brings a fresh perspective developed over years of studying Oakland politics and governmental structures in general. I truly think he offers the best chance for a city that is clearly on the brink.

Posted by Roobin on 10/14/2010 at 12:06 AM

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

While in sentiment I agree with you, the problem is that Perata is going to show up here and there as 2nd and 3rd on random ballots from voters who don't follow what is going on, and recognize his name from prior press coverage and $1M in spend. So if Tuman doesn't come from behind, as I think he might and have been saying could happen for 6 weeks now with lots of 2's and 3's on people's ballots - the problem is, if he DOESN'T get enough votes, would we rather have Kaplan / Quan, or Perata? The other candidates can't at this point win; by figuring out who you want to LOSE, and ranking the other three, you ballot can be decisive at the end, when the counting is down to the top two. And while I'll have to hold my nose, politics includes often accepting the lesser of 2 evils. Perata is the worst by far, and having done a fair amount of research now, I have to admit that Gammon's claims against Perata seem by and large true. So, anybody but Perata for me, so I'll probably vote Tuman, then Kaplan, then Quan. I'd rather have ineffectual than totally corrupt, and I hate to tell you, but that may end up being the choice we have to live with. mfraser

Posted by Modestexpert on 10/14/2010 at 12:04 AM

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


Kaplan and Quan's ludicrous "I was here FIRST, step off BI-YATCH" behavior while preventing the police from stopping the Oscar Grant riots was comical and totally unleaderly. This is about what we'd expect from Quan after her pissing match with Desley Brooks over who got the parking space with the shortest waddle-distance to City Hall. Kaplan was an unknown...but no more. She's a Quan in the making! And throw in Quan's history of abject failure, first in the schools, then on the city council, and its clear what a voter should do: rank em both DEAD LAST.

Posted by eastbay_jose on 10/13/2010 at 11:53 PM

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

overhearing people argue the merits of local politicians, it always stuns me how simple people are. the whole bs of perata getting things done as long as he's our crook is a farce, just a way to lessen the blow that he is undeniably a crook.

read all the info people. watch all the debates. if perata showed up at more than a couple, everyone would see how detached he is from our issues. he couldn't even describe oakland correctly, blathering on about how the different freeway corridors he would focus on as if that was the way the neighborhoods / districts were divided.

perata if you're stupid.

Posted by feralstate on 10/13/2010 at 11:30 PM

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

My objections to Kaplan are not her work on marijuana issues, as I repeatedly state and in fact I acknowledge she's done some good on that particular issue. Pot clubs and growing policies, while important to you obviously, do not alone for wise city policy make. It is a puff of smoke into the face of a frontal attack by budget woes, absurdly rich city worker contracts, and ongoin mismanagement.
Dealing with crime, finding a way to cut back on huge salaries and retirement plans for city workers that are bankrupting the city, finding a way to deal with truancy and thus increase real funding for the schools, cutting back on the citys revenue grab with its aggressive parking policies, to name a few; these are the issues that I believe most Oaklanders are effected by and care about most. Kaplan and Quan are on the wrong side of almost all of these issue.

Kaplan in particular while on the transit board helped negotiate and approved the same kind of egregious contracts that are choking Oakland to death right now; Kaplan has in my view no credible plan to improve policing; Kaplan's 9% proposal on retirement is too little too late in my view and I also think she lacks the gravitas to get it done; and she four-square promoted the kinds of policies on parking that the Grandlake owner, for example, credits with cutting his business by a good 50%; she's been on the Council two years and has done a big fat nothing on Tuman's proposal to increase money to our schools by tackling truancy. THOSE are the facts I'm talking about have been from the start; so why don't YOU get it straight what others are saying before you attack them for not having the facts straight when YOU are the one who is seriously off target? You see only the pot issue when that has never been the reason why anyone who feels she isn't up to this job points out the problems of her record. I never see credible responses to why these points I make aren't true. The record is there for those who will look.

Am I wrong on any of these? Did she not vote for Van Hool buses time and again while on the transit board, sending jobs oversees and saddling us with crap buses and huge repair bills for many years to come? Similarly, was she not in a fact a lead / the lead on negotiating the transit worker contracts that are so rich we now have dramatic cuts in service? Did she not vote for the parking fines in an oppressive and regressive tax to help pay for her poor administrative oversight and overspending with an unsustainable city budget while acting as our rep on the Council? So, am I wrong? Prove it. Nut up with facts or shut up, as they say. All you Kaplan nuts ignore that facts on the most important issues, where she had actually contributed to these problems rather than alleviated them, and blather on ad nausium about pot policy and marginal fixes. If she wins you will see just how ineffectual she will be, but given her record, don't pretend it wasn't predictable and that you weren't told. I've told you and many other posters have as well, although the press seems to have the memory of a mouse and confirms how great she is with her 'vision' and 'enthusiasm'. Spare me.

She likes lists instead of arguments; ok, disprove that little laundry list. You can't because it is all fact.

But yes, Rebecca, you aren't bad on pot policy. Congrat-u-freakin-lations. mfraser

Posted by Modestexpert on 10/13/2010 at 11:23 PM

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

@Mr.Nice

Kaplan negotiated a commitment that the City create rules for small growers to allow them to stay afloat, and a commitment that dispensaries could still buy from small growers, and a commitment that small growers would not be shut down.

In short, she saved the small growers butts by making accommodations for them that were being resisted by other councilmembers. Larry Reid, for instance, wanted the city to immediately start cracking down on small grows. Kaplan talked him out of it. Get your facts straight. She's not the enemy you're looking for.

I'm voting Kaplan #1, Tuman #2. If you like Joe a lot, I suggest flipping that order.

Posted by Max Allstadt on 10/13/2010 at 10:24 PM

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

I've known Don Perata for forty years from my days in Alameda. He is a good, honest, ethical person, who truly cares about Oakland. The consultant who the Coliseum Commission hired was the reason for the Raiders debacle, as fans bought multiple lottery tickets in order to buy season tickets, but the fine print said they'd have to buy all the tickets if more than one of their lottery tickets was chosen. The best part is Perata will ban guns in Oakland.

Posted by OakRaidFan on 10/13/2010 at 9:56 PM

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

Haha - Great idea Mr Gammon! Something like, "vote for the NPT - non-Perata-three!"? So this just came up spontaneously after interviewing the candidates? Amazing!

I continue to maintain that if you followed professional journalistic expectations, such as objectivity in reporting (see my prior comments about you conflicting statements as to who had the 'loudest' applause at the Kaiser forum), or in this case, honest attribution of ideas. I just think adhereing to those ideals would increase your credibility, and in the longer run, make your pieces and your endorsements more impactful. Really, would it have killed you to acknowledge "one of our readers proposed this exact idea in our comments section a week ago..."? How your publication let's you get away with your practices is a bit mystifying.

Specifically, what I'm referencing is that it might have been nice had you noted these two comments in just the prior article where this exact idea is proposed... I guess you COULD say you never noticed these posts, except, err, YOU responded to me in the same series of comments!

Here are the posts from Oct 6 on the article Fresh Face or Old Guard where one of your readers proposed this exact idea:

ABP for the NPT! ANYBODY BUT PERATA for the NON PERATA THREE!

I hear rumors that Kaplan and Quan are intimating to their voters that they should not list any of the other 3 major candidates on their ballot. If this is true it is stupid beyond belief and plays into Perata's hands. Time is running out for the NPT to band together, and urge their constituents to vote for Tuman, Quan and Kaplan in whatever order they choose, but to boycott Perata for his groups' outrageous and anti-democratic efforts to rig the election. Worst among these, if true, is that his backers are supporting Marcie Hodge not because she can win, but to get the minority voters of the flatlands to vote for 'one of their own' so that this will help push the alternatives of Quan, Kaplan and Tuman off those ballots. This is cynical and racist if there is any shred of truth, and based on the mass of billboards for Hodge it does seem like the worst is true on this front. Evil, evil, evil.

This election will come down to the top two, and who gets the most reapportioned ballots. So if Kaplan, Quan or Tuman do anything to convince their supporters to not list each other, they are missing the target. I think all three of them must at this point feel Perata, with his revolving door with Prison Guards' Union, Police and Fire (getting $400k in the last year just from the Prison Guards' Union for consulting even though they aren't running any campaigns!), is the worst possible outcome of the four. So all Kaplan, Quan and Tuman supporters who don't want Perata should vote Tuman / Kaplan / Quan in whatever way their conscience and judgment tells them, but just be sure to not list Perata. In this way, democracy can overcome this flood of tainted cash - Perata after moving toward $1M in spend, is rising not a smitch in the polls, and even seems like he may be falling... An organized effort among these three to have the NPT on as many ballots as possible will de facto push Perata off in the same cynical way he's trying to use Hodge, who can't win, to get flatlands voters to waste their ballots on a non-viable candidate.

You are wasting your ballot if you agree that Perata is the worst case outcome, and you do anything but list Tuman, Quan and Kaplan in the order you most want them.

Oakland politics are wretched, and I say that as someone who just moved here from Richmond, so I have some experience with nasty, sell out local politicians. M Fraser
.Posted by Modestexpert on October 6, 2010 at 7:39 PM

I stopped by the Quan headquarters and asked them basically what Joe proposes as the key question; if she is really about change given her long public office service, why are we performing among the worst of any east bay city? The staffers has no coherent answer, and just ended up that maybe I consider voting for her 2nd or 3rd on my ballot!

These candidates are by and large hard to get enthused about. While vie been postin for awhile that Tuman, Quan and Kaplan voters should list each other 1, 2 and 3 and exclude Perata, is that really a fair thing for this writer to advocate? Tuman is clearly the best hope for a representative that would be a classy face to the city, and at this point he seems the strongest of the NPT- the NON PERATA THREE. Hey I should copyright that! M Fraser
.Posted by Modestexpert on October 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Posted by Modestexpert on 10/13/2010 at 7:53 PM

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

Confused Voter,
Actually, it's correct. But let's explain it a bit differently and more fully, and maybe that will help you understand. Using the same example as above, you mark your ballot:
1. Joe Tuman
2. Rebecca Kaplan
3. Jean Quan

Now, let's say, just for argument, that there are only four candidates in the race -- Tuman, Kaplan, Quan, and Perata. In the first round of vote tabulations, only your first choice will count -- the one for Tuman.

But if none of the candidates reaches a 50 percent majority plus one after all the first choices are counted, then the person with the fewest first place votes is eliminated. For simplicity, let's say that person is Tuman.

At this point, Tuman is out of the race, and your second-place vote for Kaplan becomes a first-place vote for her. Likewise, the second-place choices for everyone who selected Tuman first will be distributed to Kaplan, Quan, and Perata, depending on whom they picked.

However, if none of the remaining three candidates -- Kaplan, Quan, and Perata -- reaches the 50 percent, plus one, then the process repeats itself. Let's say that at this point in the race that Perata is first, Quan is second, and Kaplan is third. Kaplan, in this scenario, is then eliminated.

Since both your first and second choices -- Tuman and Kaplan -- are now out, your third choice for Quan, becomes a first place for her. Similarly, the second place choices for all people who picked Kaplan first will be distributed to either Quan or Perata, depending on whom they picked. After this happens, either Perata or Quan presumably will have reached the 50 percent, plus one threshhold and will be declared the winner.

Hope that helps. If not, check out the Alameda County Registrar of Voters website for some easy-to-understand videos.

Posted by robert.gammon on 10/13/2010 at 5:32 PM

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

How exactly does the ballot counting work?

Let's say you pick Tuman first, Kaplan second, and Quan third. If Tuman has the fewest first-place votes of those three candidates when the ballots are initially counted, then he's eliminated and your second-place vote for Kaplan becomes a first-place vote for her. But if Quan is leading Kaplan, then your third-place vote for Quan becomes a first-place vote for her.

This is an incorrect description of how the vote counting works. If you can't figure out how the counting works, how about the average citizen?

Posted by confused voter on 10/13/2010 at 4:28 PM

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

I like Bob Gammon. So you can leave out Reason #25.

And I don't like the gratuitous and unfounded critique on Mayor Dellums. Oakland's crime rate is way-down. His administration has created jobs, opened city hall to regular people, and created policies that oakland has needed for years, like industrial land use and zoning the city. It seems like you guys have all read too much Chip Johnson and not really looked at Dellums actual tenure. So Dellums doesn't spend a lot of time schmoozing and hand-shaking. Who cares?

Otherwise, I like the article and think you have done a good thing to put all of Perata's issues in one place.

Posted by M. Ortega on 10/13/2010 at 11:14 AM

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

Anyone who actually considers Perata for Oakland's next mayor has serious self-esteem issues. I understand you have been in a four-year abusive relationship (the Ron and Cindy show), but there is NO REASON that you should bounce from a bad situation into a worse one. Repeat after me, "I am worthy and I DESERVE good leadership." One word -- Tuman.

Posted by Lawngun on 10/13/2010 at 10:44 AM

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

stanyan...what the f are you talking about? Don Perata has been a horrible politician for oakland and california. Its time for fresh blood, and at least 3 of the other candidates offer far more specific ideas and display far more passion than perata ever has, and have shown themselves to be intelligent, thoughtful, and creative. We are lucky this election cycle with 3 great reform candidates and a handful of lesser known candidates that at least have passion and knowledge about the citizens of oakland. Perata is only good for College Ave and Montclair (im from Rockridge by the way)...We need someone who is smart and not a completely selfish narcissist in office, and also someone that isn't proud of being a political thug

Posted by masterM Nso on 10/13/2010 at 10:42 AM

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

Charles, given your long history of ranting and raving about the incompetence, corruption and lack of transparency in City Hall, when I see you suggesting Perata as a viable candidate, it can only be one of two things. Just as late night talk show hosts latched on to Veep Dan Quayle, you're hoping that Perata wins so that you'll have a constant flow of new "material" for your website. It's either that or aliens have taken over control of your brain. You worry me.

Posted by Lawngun on 10/13/2010 at 10:36 AM

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

Although I have supported Kaplan in the past, her recent decision to expand the Oakland tax base by encouraging the licensing of large, industrial sized marijuana "grow warehouses" is appalling. I am not at all opposed to medical marijuana, and I fully support it's purpose and use. However Kaplan has demonstrated her complete lack of understanding of the medical marijuana culture by pushing to create a climate wherein those who have spent years of work and dedication bringing sane, safe, and carefully crafted herb to those who use it respectfully are going to be pushed out of the business by large, money driven interests who could care less about the actual medical or spiritual value of pot. Here come the "Walmarts" of the pot business..disgusting and completely out of touch with what it really is.
I'm voting for Tuman. Kaplan will get nothing from me.

Posted by Mr. Nice on 10/13/2010 at 10:25 AM

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

Jean Quan is the female version of Ron Dellums - I've had enough of that nightmare. I appreciate Kaplan's enthusiasm and education, but she is as naive as a newborn doe. Tuman is the clear choice!

Posted by westoaklandresident on 10/13/2010 at 9:30 AM

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

Oakbusiness,

I contacted Quan office once, and will never again. I made the call after receiving an email response from Quan, I decided a dialog was the best way to communicate about the issue. Quan's aide could not have been ruder, he was controlling and hostile, at one point saying "listen lady". Many of us have learned first hand the dismissive arrogance of Quan and her staff, which has nothing to do with gender bias.

Posted by free2think on 10/13/2010 at 9:09 AM

Most Popular Stories

  • The Real Brooklyn by the Bay

    Oakland is often compared to Brooklyn, New York. But did you know that much of East Oakland actually used to be called Brooklyn?
  • When Landlords Lie

    Last year, Charles Oshinuga’s landlord lied in court while trying to evict him and his neighbors. Yet despite winning a jury trial, Oshinuga still lost his Oakland home.
  • Proposed Dam Sparks Government Fight

    Two federal agencies are at odds over a controversial proposal to build a giant dam on the San Joaquin River — as residents who would be displaced by the dam gird for battle.
  • Cap and Clear-Cut

    California's cap-and-trade system, which has been touted as a model for reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, allows timber companies to clear-cut forests.
  • The Gunrunner and the Peacemakers

    Oakland's gun violence epidemic seems impossible to stop. But the story of a local firearms trafficker illustrates how laws that make it tougher to buy guns can help reduce violence.

© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation