Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion

Re: “Candidates Vying for Oakland School Board Seats Defined by Positions on Charter Schools

Does Mr. Harris still live in San Leandro and send his kids to Head-Royce? Do Charter Movement affiliated Foundations fund the scholarship programs at Head Royce?

Does the Harris family receive private school scholarship money funded by the Roger's Foundation or their affiliates?

Posted by Ann Nomura on 10/14/2016 at 11:20 PM

Re: “An East Bay Pimp Trafficked Her Daughter. And the Man that She Turned to For Help Exploited Her For Sex.

I can relate completely I was involved with Patrick for 7 years felt safe he was helping me with my daughter that was subjected to prostitution. I truly thought I had meet my soul mate he was loving attentive and caring but initially he told me we could not act on our feelings until 2 years after my daughter had been his client this time went and passed he contacted me we started meeting again he explained he had made someone pregnant during this time as and felt responsible so he explained there was love but he was not in love. We spent many times together over these years then suddenly he did not respond to any of my calls or texts when I saw this story I felt I really needed to respond he had me believe for years we would be one.If any of you ladies out there need more information please email me at evawilov@gmail.com

Posted by Eva-Maria Wilov on 10/14/2016 at 9:50 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

No to all new taxes. Easy peasy!

Posted by Robert Hope on 10/14/2016 at 2:59 PM

Re: “Racial Profiling Via Nextdoor.com

This problem is the same in pacific beach 92109. Thanks to nextdoor. These people are haters with very boring lives that just like to snitch on people. The cops should be called on them for slander. They need to get hobbies r a life. This nextdoor is all bad if you ask me. They have had good people arrested for no reason other than they don't like the way they look,or looked in there store window when they where closed. They are haters. And I'm sorry I every looked at this web site. Good luck oaklanders.

Posted by Angelia Lanning on 10/14/2016 at 12:33 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

rebecca stalzman is a racist BART director

http://www.ebcitizen.com/2015/01/bart-director-rosa-parks-did-not-shut.html

Why is no one talking about the incumbent in District 3 BART who attacked Rosa Parks and BLM...more white people in office being protected by the press.

Posted by Max101010 on 10/13/2016 at 11:17 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

I'm voting no on G1, another $120 OUSD parcel tax. Yes, another, the last one just went into effect last year. OUSD doesn't seem to be able to budget for more than a few months at a time. And the processing of exemptions to the last parcel tax for seniors and low-income people was so badly bungled
they're still working on it. OUSD did not provide adequate notification to eligible homeowners of the application process for exemptions. Finally,
Oakland's parcel taxes are flat, regressive taxes--only city in the area to fail to try to base them on size/value of property.

Posted by bethw on 10/13/2016 at 6:29 PM

Re: “Beverage-Industry Playbook Expands as 'Big Soda' Spends Large to Defeat Oakland and San Francisco Taxes

So, grown folks need to give up some more tax money to keep their kids from drinking too much soda pop....Are we stupid??? If blaming/taxing the manufacturers was the solution,smoking would be over. This reminds me of the mom who sued McDonalds because she could not stop feeding her child fast foods...grow up. This is just more government where it is not needed

Posted by Coastrider711 on 10/13/2016 at 6:39 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Vote No on Oakland School Board $120 per parcel Measure G1. This is the third parcel tax and the worse of all three.

If you read G1 extended text on how Measure G1 funding is allocated between annually between the Board's 37 charter schools with mostly non-union employees, and the District's union employees, you can see the Measure is written to take funding from District employees pay raise and redistribute that pay raise funding to the Board's charter school employees. The language of Measure G1 requires that each year the percentage of G1 funding that funds employees is divided between District and charter employees based on the enrollment of middle school grades 6, 7, 8. Oakland charter friendly School Board keeps approving more and more charter schools. Tomorrow night they will approve a 6 through 8 charter that will reduce the funding that could be offered to District employees in a pay raise if there where the current 20 charter middle schools.

Millions are being released by the Federal government to grow more charters and as the middle school charters grow funding flows to the Board's charter school employees.

In the middle of a teacher shortage it makes no sense to be reducing the pay of Oakland School Teachers and increasing the funding of the Board's charter school employees. But, buried in the text of Measure G1 that is what voters are being asked to vote on by the Oakland School Board.

Posted by Jim Mordecai on 10/12/2016 at 9:18 PM

Re: “Berkeley's City Council Races: A Dozen Progressives and Moderates Vie for Four Seats

"Both Hahn and Murphy support the Downtown Area Plan." Hah! You've got to be kidding. Hahn led the fight AGAINST the Downtown Plan - that's exactly what Measure R was when it got defeated just two years ago. Hahn co-authored it, helped to fund it, and led the fight. Did you vet what these candidates told you?

Posted by Goodkind on 10/12/2016 at 8:42 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

As a member of the Coalition for Police Accountability and the Measure LL campaign, I want to express our gratitude and appreciation for your endorsement. It represents a very thorough understanding of the context and history of the Measure as well as a recognition of the role Measure LL can play in helping to rectify the problems associated with our police department and influence future policy decisions and standards of conduct.

Posted by Rashida Grinage on 10/12/2016 at 6:07 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Hi, this is Nick, the editor at EBX. I want to address a few of the comments:

Re the school board, Richmond, and Contra Costa races, I'm going to paste what I wrote in the introduction of these endorsements: "You’ll notice that there are a few missing endorsements — Oakland school board, Berkeley city council, Richmond city council, BART board. Those will be published online soon and in print next week. (Apologies for the delay; we’re human!)."

Thanks for reading!

Posted by Nick Miller on 10/12/2016 at 4:44 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Why no comment on the Superior Court Judge candidates?
Caroline Kim

Posted by Caroline Kim on 10/12/2016 at 4:28 PM

Re: “Beverage-Industry Playbook Expands as 'Big Soda' Spends Large to Defeat Oakland and San Francisco Taxes

I'm voting no regardless. I can make the decision for myself and my family to drink soda or not. I don't need the City of Oakland to "Look out" for my *best* interest.

Funny that pot is good, soda is bad.

Posted by Robert Hope on 10/12/2016 at 3:25 PM

Re: “Beverage-Industry Playbook Expands as 'Big Soda' Spends Large to Defeat Oakland and San Francisco Taxes

Councilmember Campbell Washington admits the campaign against the grocery tax "is compelling because it appears authentic." She made it a grocery tax and gave it authenticity. The tax would be levied on distributors, who recover increased cost by the prices they charge retailers, who recover increased costs by raising prices on whatever they sell, according to their best judgment of impact on sales. That's how the tax impacts the price of milk, bottled water, diapers, whatever. And Campbell Washington's proposed law sends the tax revenue into the general fund, where, to her delight, it can be spent on anything. No wonder Bernie Sanders opposed this tax when it was proposed in Philadelphia.

Posted by Charlie Pine on 10/12/2016 at 2:37 PM

Re: “Berkeley Mayoral Candidates Debate Who Can Fix the City Council 'Circus'

For the most part I support these progressive candidates and their policy agendas. But the one issue that far-left candidates are totally wrong about—and arguably the most important issue in the Bay Area today—is housing policy.

To please their environmentalist voter bases, progressive politicians generally support heavy restrictions on building, massive levels of environmental review for proposed buildings, etc. Progressive voters love this because it FEELS like they're helping the environment by stopping those big scary construction projects (and evil developers) from trashing the city. But in reality, restricting housing construction in the hub cities only creates more pollution and waste, as people have to move farther away to seek housing, and drive their cars longer distances to their jobs.

Progressive politicians also generally cling to the notion that forcing developers to build affordable housing will lead to them to capitulate and give the city what it needs, rather than just cancelling projects and going somewhere else. Affordable housing is fantastic, but it's such a tiny portion of the overall housing stock that you literally have to win a lottery to get one. It's a band-aid solution, not a real substantive one. What we really need is a streamlining of the planning process and approval of denser buildings throughout the city (and the Bay) so we can start building the 30 years worth of housing we should've built by now, but didn't thanks to 30 years of NIMBYism and obstruction.

We will see if progressive candidates wake up to the fact that their heavily-restricted housing policies are hurting the poor and vulnerable people they're so earnestly trying to help. The data has shown it to be so — now we'll see how long until the ideology catches up.

Posted by Max Chanowitz on 10/12/2016 at 2:19 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Many people in Vallejo are East Bay transplants and still look to your research, thank you. VALLEJO: These 4 candidates will make a difference and MUST WIN our Vallejo CA local elections. Bob for Mayor; Liat, Mina and Robert for City Council.

~~Bob Sampayan has already served as Council Member and so knows the ropes and the city staff. Like me, he is also passionate about access to healthy food for all. He does so much work behind the scenes: Here is a report that Bob contributed to that was just published. http://www.foodispower.org/wp-conte...

***Liat Meitzenheimer has served for 20 years on the GVRD. If you love all the great work our parks and recreation department does---just think what she can do as a council member.

~~ Mina Diaz started the Diaz & Loera Centro Latino on her own time. When I sat down for coffee with her, for 3 hours, I learned of her strong moral compass and years of professional experience. She is “retiring” early to get to work for her City.

***Robert H McConnell is just amazing. His experience on the City Council and his voting record alone are enough for me. His years as a lawyer mean: I want McConnell in the room when our city is talking to corporations that want to do business in Vallejo.

All kinds of organizations are endorsing these four. Their combined range of skills and experience make them a dream team.

Posted by Boudicca Hot-toddy Todi on 10/12/2016 at 1:45 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Hmmm . . . in the description of this article, you claim to give your endorsements for many communities, including Richmond. Yet not one Richmond issue is represented; in fact, the entire Contra Costa County has been completely ignored. East Bay Express? Maybe you should change the name to East Bay Elitists, because that is how you behave.

Posted by Ellen Seskin on 10/12/2016 at 12:29 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Last time I looked, your paper was called the East Bay Express, not the Alameda County Express. I get that endorsements are labor intensive as your editorial board needs to interview all the candidates.

Nonetheless, leaving out Richmond is a serious dereliction of duty. Richmond has the most vibrant progressive electoral organization in the Bay Area, the Richmond Progressive Alliance, which could easily take a clear majority of the City Council if either of their candidates, Ben Choi and Melvin Willis, wins in November. There is also a rent control ordinance on the ballot that could easily win

None of that counts to you all. Shame on you.

Posted by Chris Darling on 10/12/2016 at 12:10 PM

Re: “Beverage-Industry Playbook Expands as 'Big Soda' Spends Large to Defeat Oakland and San Francisco Taxes

What about this so-called regressive tax aspect of Proposition HH?

The Big Soda campaign is pushing the line that the 1 cent/oz distributor tax is a regressive tax that unfairly burdens low income folks. Let’s talk about that.

How deeply has Big Soda really thought about the evils of regressive taxing, and based on these principled concerns, what actions have they taken to alleviate disproportionate burdens placed on low income communities that might speak to their bona fides? I obviously doubt that this is a sincere concern of Big Soda, but others, in good faith, may be giving this argument some weight; so let’s look more closely.

Surely the “regressive tax” concern rests on the theory that lower income communities consume and spend on Big Soda at rates that are higher (proportional to total expenses or to total income) than those of higher income communities. If that’s true, then doesn’t it also follow that the damaging effects on health (of which there is no doubt) would be disproportionately greater than the ill effects visited on higher income communities? Shouldn’t that, actually, be the real concern?

Proposition HH is designed to engage market forces to tamp down Big Soda consumption across the board (not to eliminate it), to use money collected, as channeled through the general fund, to run programs that encourage healthy patterns of food and beverage consumption, and to broadly raise awareness of the harm inflicted by massive Big Soda consumption. As Proposition HH has the intended societal impact, to the extent that the distributor tax is "regressive aspect", it will dissipate.

It’s all good. Vote Yes on HH.

Posted by David Cohen on 10/12/2016 at 12:10 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Bummer! But . . . I do appreciate the line you included: "Councilmember Tony Daysog has served Alameda admirably over the years, but . . ." Of course, we might have our difference over the predicate following the "but" : ) But, regardless, I do appreciate what you wrote. All the best. (Still, I'll always be an avid reader of EBX!)

/s/ Tony Daysog
http://www.daysog.com

Posted by Tony Daysog on 10/12/2016 at 11:50 AM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation