Narrow Search

Comment Archives: Stories: Last 7 Days

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

@miles Monroe I'll name one, how about donating cannabis to a disabled veteran that can't grow his own medicine?

Posted by Leif Bierer on 10/23/2016 at 11:09 PM

Re: “Cop Facing Felony Charges in Oakland PD Sex-Abuse Case Says He 'Never Met' Celeste Guap

The "scandal" consists of the actions of perhaps five OPD police, tried in the media, on a force of 700-some officers. Activists who hate OPD so much that they do not care about the public safety of 400,000 city residents are the core supporters of measure LL. They want City positions, on a new political platform, with staff paid at our expense. No on LL.

Posted by Charlie Pine on 10/23/2016 at 9:24 PM

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

@DankDave the Deceiver

lol - It's so easy to debunk your lies. - You should take your own advice. From BallotPedia:

>>>"Revenue from the two taxes would be deposited in a new California Marijuana Tax Fund. First, the revenue would be used to cover costs of administrating and enforcing the measure. Next, it would be distributed to drug research, treatment, and enforcement, including:[1]

$2 million per year to the UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study medical marijuana.
$10 million per year for 11 years for public California universities to research and evaluate the implementation and impact of Proposition 64. Researchers would make policy-change recommendations to the California Legislature and California Governor.
$3 million annually for five years to the Department of the California Highway Patrol for developing protocols to determine whether a vehicle driver is impaired due to marijuana consumption.
$10 million, increasing each year by $10 million until settling at $50 million in 2022, for grants to local health departments and community-based nonprofits supporting "job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, system navigation services, legal services to address barriers to reentry, and linkages to medical care for communities disproportionately affected by past federal and state drug policies."
The remaining revenue would be distributed as follows:[1]

60 percent to youth programs, including drug education, prevention, and treatment.
20 percent to prevent and alleviate environmental damage from illegal marijuana producers.
20 percent to programs designed to reduce driving under the influence of marijuana and a grant program designed to reduce negative impacts on health or safety resulting from the proposition.

Posted by John Thomas on 10/23/2016 at 5:51 PM

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

@Deborah Tharp: Name one offense--just *one*--that's a felony or misdemeanor under Prop 64 that isn't already now, because we can name *several* offenses that are felonies or misdemeanors now that are completely legal under 64!

Posted by Miles Monroe on 10/23/2016 at 4:33 PM

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

@Dave Armstrong: Your "most federally conforming law in the nation" didn't prevent over 15,000 people, disproportionally black and brown--which you're *not*, right Dave?--from being arrested for weed related felonies and misdemeanors in California last year; Prop 64 will cut that number in *at least* half, based on the experience of the other legal states and DC, not to mention that the mere *claim* "I smell marijuana" by a cop will no longer give him carte blanche to detain, search, seize suspected drug money, etc, etc.

Its where the people go--not to jail anymore--that matters; where the money goes--not *your* pockets anymore, right Dave?--is a distant second, at best.

Posted by Miles Monroe on 10/23/2016 at 4:20 PM

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

Stop calling prop 64 legalization. It's criminalization, fees and fines

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 10/23/2016 at 4:14 PM

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

I usually rely on the Express for guidance with difficult decisions in election seasons. However, this year your credibility is cast into a gray area with your recommended support of prop 64. In other words, "I do not think this bill means what you think it means." Prop. 64 was written not to decriminalize cannabis, but to legalize a recreational commercial cannabis industry. Two very different things. For example, the tax revenue will not go into a general fund to benefit all Californians but instead to the California Marijuana Tax Fund an enormous slush fund designated solely to financing the massive bureaucracy that Prop. 64 would create. There are multiple other reasons as well if you do your reading. I grew up in Humboldt, I know the local growers who are farming sustainably and protecting the woods and watersheds. Every single one of them is for legalization but against prop 64. Please do your homework so I can continue to rely on your assistance. I'm sure there are many out there who feel the same.

Posted by Robert Martien on 10/23/2016 at 3:49 PM

Re: “Popular Fremont Hiking Spot for Selfies Prompts Parking Lot on Sacred Land

Does anyone know when the next meeting is when we can help support the preservation of the site?

Posted by Stephania Widger on 10/23/2016 at 12:43 PM

Re: “Badge of Dishonor: Top Oakland Police Department Officials Looked Away as East Bay Cops Sexually Exploited and Trafficked a Teenager

Great article! I agree mistressmax that there is so much more corruption to be exposed. They also decriminalized prostitution in Australia because the police corruption had finally reached an unacceptable level.Coincidentally , people need to fill out a Parkchester Condominium Employment App , my business partner filled a template version here "".

Posted by Florine Watcher on 10/23/2016 at 6:31 AM

Re: “How the Oakland Police Department Worked to Cover-Up Sex Crimes and a Home Invasion Committed by Cops

my friend was wanting GA Form 3907 a few weeks ago and learned about a company that hosts lots of form templates . If others require GA Form 3907 also , here's a link "".

Posted by Moises Williams on 10/23/2016 at 3:31 AM

Re: “Cop Facing Felony Charges in Oakland PD Sex-Abuse Case Says He 'Never Met' Celeste Guap

OPD has been a mess for years. Even though it is improving, without structural improvement in the oversight of OPD, it could easily slide backwards once the Federal monitors leave sometime in the next year or two.

Measure LL was crafted to make sure OPD gets better and stays better.

LL moves the current civilian police review board out from under the control of the City Administrator and renames it the Police Commission. Under the current system, the same City Administrator who oversees OPD, also oversees the current civilian review board.

LL gives the new Commission and its investigatory arm, the authority to investigate and discipline police officers, participate in the hiring and firing of police chiefs, and make recommendations to improve OPD policies and procedures.

The Commission members are selected by a combination of methods. But all will get tenure and have staggered terms so they will be insulated from political influence. Similar to the new City Ethics Commission.

Over the years and many different mayors, the City Administrators have often rejected the decisions of the civilian review board. They get too close to the police they oversee and they take civilian review board decisions as criticisms of their own oversight of OPD. The current system also allows the Oakland police union, OPOA, to exert their political influence over the City Administrator. Measure LL eliminates the inherent conflict of interest having the same City Administrator both run OPD and have veto power over the civilian review board. It removes much of the opportunity for OPOA to influence discipline decisions.

The only organized opposition to LL has been the Oakland Police Officers Association PAC paid for attacks on two early sponsors of LL: Council Members Dan Kalb and Noel Gallo.

There is no opposing argument in the election booklet.

LL is endorsed by a broad spectrum of elected officials and former officials including Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Mayor Libby Schaaf, State Assemblyman Rob Bonta, and former State Assembly members Nancy Skinner and Sandre Swanson, 6 out of 8 Oakland City Council Members.

Organizations supporting LL include the League of Women's Voters, the Democratic Party of Alameda County, California Nurses Association, MOBN, ACLU, NAACP, SEIU 1021, and the Oakland Teachers Association

On Sunday Oct 230 930am to noon at the Temescal Farmers Market come by for a free balloon and ask your questions about LL .

Len Raphael

Posted by Len Raphael on 10/23/2016 at 2:21 AM

Re: “Day of Wrath Leads to The Birth of a Nation

Lovely article - one of the best things I've recently read, and by far the most useful. Cool to read such a well-considered article! I've found some decent tutorials on how to fill a form out online here

Posted by Tamala Hagedorn on 10/23/2016 at 1:59 AM

Re: “Popular Fremont Hiking Spot for Selfies Prompts Parking Lot on Sacred Land

Dear Cat Wilder -- Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment.

I know the Obama administration did that, and I won't be surprised if our state Assembly and the city of Berkeley did something similar, as you state.

However, none of those actions carries with it the force of law as regards EBRPD or the city of Fremont. They're simply expressions of sentiments, like letters to the editor of a newspaper.

At the federal level, first the U.S. would have had to sign the treaty (we didn't) and the Senate would have to ratify it (but it can't take any action, since there's no treaty to ratify). The Obama administration's endorsing UNDRIP has no legal effect by itself. It might have some practical effect of dubious legal legitimacy, since President Obama lately has taken it on himself to decree laws on the ground that Congress won't do as he wishes, an attitude I think George III would have admired. Naturally, the courts keep finding his decree-laws unconstitutional, but I imagine he and President Clinton will keep trying.

At the state level, the Legislature would have to enact and the governor sign a bill putting UNDRIP into effect. An Assembly joint resolution wouldn't be enough.

As for Berkeley, I don't know if the city action carries the force of law, but if so, it can't apply to either EBRPD or Fremont.

Posted by imtnbke on 10/22/2016 at 8:39 PM

Re: “Cinco TacoBar in San Leandro Redefines the Strip Mall Taqueria

Maybe you mean the food is actually "bad"? Because Chipotle (despite its teething problems) is known for it's food being actually "good" - organic etc.

Posted by PJ Lenny on 10/22/2016 at 3:32 PM

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

Borrowing money to buy a house, which you can live in and will likely appreciate, can make sense, as does borrowing money to buy an expensive tool to increase your income. But to borrow money for maintenance is like borrowing money to pay for your utilities. Not only will you have to continue paying ongoing utilities, but you will also have to pay on the loan, plus interest, Meanwhile, wealthy people who buy those bonds not only get good interest on a fairly safe bet, but that income is usually exempt from taxation, depriving communities of more income. If BART management is too incompetent to keep up with maintenance (and cleanliness), get rid of them and get new ones, and DO NOT even talk about another transbay tunnel until the current mess is cleaned up. Finally, borrowing billions makes the decision makers careless with money (prime example: the East Span, where they spent 10 times what a much more rational southern crossing should have cost. The quake damage should have been quickly and easily repaired as only one section was damaged, protecting the whole bridge, as it was designed to do.

Posted by Steve Juniper on 10/22/2016 at 11:43 AM

Re: “Popular Fremont Hiking Spot for Selfies Prompts Parking Lot on Sacred Land

Ohlone college has an entrance why can't the city and school do something to stop the building of a parking lot and use there's. Dam I've been living in the east bay for a long time haven't gone to mission peak in awhile. I didn't know it's becoming that popular.

Posted by Adolfo Hernandez on 10/22/2016 at 10:19 AM

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

I think you need to read it. Tax revenue will go to important state needs, not to "corrupt corporate cannabis cronies", but I like that alliteration.

Posted by Dan Viets on 10/22/2016 at 9:33 AM

Re: “Mid-Week Menu: Oakland Restaurants Once Again Snubbed By Michelin Inspectors

Michelin ignores so many good dining cities, Hopefully Oakland will get its time soon

Posted by Bryant H. Wong on 10/22/2016 at 8:30 AM

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

The law we have now (Prop. 215) is the most federally conforming law in the nation. If we we're following it properly there would not be the problems we have today. Blame this on our own state and local governments for misleading and misguiding us to form unlawful entities just so they can "Cash in on our Use"! Prop. 64 does NOT put money into the much needed and necessary infrastructure it puts the money into the hands of the corrupt corporate cannabis cronies and their shills! Maybe the spokesman should read all 62 pages of the measure and find out for himself rather than just collecting a paycheck for once again misleading and misguiding the people!

Posted by Dave Armstrong on 10/22/2016 at 7:53 AM

Re: “Town Business: Police Union Attacks Kalb and Gallo; Oakland Claims Garbage Contracts No Problem

Re: Measure KK
I oppose the City of Oaklands $600 million Bond Measure KK because the property tax that pays for it will be twice the stated cost of the bond. The bond is for $600 million but the property tax is $1,179,640,700 [approximately $1.2 billion]. [See Measure KK TAX RATE STATEMENT 4] This doubling of the cost is due to the fact the bond omits the financing costs. Oaklands presentation of Measure KK is deceptive because the only mention of the true property tax cost [$1,179,640,700] of the $600 million bond is buried on the last page of the measure hidden among many other numbers such as parcel property tax rates. Nowhere in Measure KK does Oakland state the finance cost of the bond, as law requires.
I oppose this $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 @ on p.39] 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.
I oppose this $600 million Bond Measure KK because the taxpayers were not consulted either as to the importance of the projects or the costs of them. The Bond Measure and the supporting documents refer to budget items such as Streets and Roads Projects, in the amount of $350 million for repaving repairs. Oakland refuses to release documents that show the existing repaving budget, the existing funds for the repaving or the why more funds are needed.
Congress Representative Barbara Lee has done a fantastic job of bringing home Federal funds to repave Oakland streets. City Administration Office has made no attempt to inform the property owners why Oakland needs more money for paving than the Federal funds and the Oakland ongoing paving budget already provides. Oakland has failed to explain the $350 million shortfall in the paving budget. The Bond documents merely states the problem without informing the taxpayers the existing resources that solve the problem.
Oaklands infrastructure improvements need to be done incrementally. The taxpayer must evaluate the value received before additional tax money is supplied. All new property taxes should be spent on Oaklands infrastructure; not 50% given to Wall Street financiers.
Vote NO on Oaklands waste of our tax dollars! Vote NO on Measure KK!
Marcus Crawley

Posted by Marcus Crawley on 10/22/2016 at 7:26 AM

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation