Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Last 30 Days

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

KKE: you are happy to pay my share of those millions you consider to be just "reality TV." Censuring is a waste of time. She should give us all an early Valentine and resign.

Posted by GK on 01/18/2018 at 4:14 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

I agree. Ms. Brooks is part of the new wave of leaders across the country, like Trump, who behave rudely, unprofessionally and without regard for decency and responsibility. I have watched city council meetings and been so embarrassed by the way she bullies and is abusive to citizens and her fellow council members. She, like Donald Trump, makes accusations and point fingers when concern is raised about her mishandling of funds, brawling in the chambers, etc. Now her bad behavior is going to hurt all of us even more.
We need to demand higher standards from our leaders, starting now, here, at home. Grass roots promotion of a better nation and government.

Posted by TBGunther on 01/18/2018 at 1:55 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Mr. Gammon,

Sorry, you never called on Brooks to be censured, you made a case for the logic behind censuring - and was extremely cautious in your wording:

"A vote for censure by the council would not result in Brooks or Reid being removed from office, but it would be a public rebuke of their actions. It also would serve as a strong and valuable lesson to other councilmembers who may be tempted to interfere with the work of city staffers and order them around.

I know EBX likes to blur lines, but its a big distinction. Outright calling on the city council to censure Brooks would have most likely elicited accusations of racism, the same accusations that were made against Ruby.

You were much more loose with your language on reporting on Lynette McElhaney - using terms like "involved in house flipping scheme", "McElhaney's house-flipping deals " which tried to blue the lines with what actually happened - McElhaney did not personally profit from house flipping, rather her nonprofit loaned money to someone involved in house flipping. Another distinction, but one you were happy to blur the lines on. And why? Maybe because McElhaney was disinterested in all of EBX's fear mongering over their favorite ivory tower progressive bogeyman at the time, the Domain Awareness Center.

Has there ever been any attempt to follow the money on Brooks as with McElhaney? Of course not. Brook will play the race card, and McElhaney won't. Of course in the end, Brooks used the trumped up "house flipping" reporting by EBX to gain the moral high ground on the other African American female on the city council.

Way to go EBX. Instead of now calling out Brooks for whom she is, maybe be honest in your own role in enabling her behavior.

Posted by Clarence C. Johnson on 01/18/2018 at 1:29 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Oakland, the real Oakland, needs her fire, but at the cost of $$$$ to the city, there are other firebrands who would not exact such a blow to the city's coffers - and dignity! And I like her too! BTW, any money Elaine Brown gets should be directly fed back into the community, like sponsoring (tutors, counselors, mentors, cultural exchanges) a few kids from elementary through high school would be a good start.
These white folks, who not so long ago despised Oakland, who now find themselves injected into an Oakland of their own minds-eye, will only criticize, smirk and post their subtle and coded messages of derision, like, "white guilt, not me!"
As Oakland hastily gentrifies, these two black women allowed their disagreements to overshadow the work that needs to be done to insure Oakland does not fall a victim to the blandness that not-white-guilt covets. When personal emotions overwhelm intelligent dialogue - especially from two key persons in positions to lead and shape policy; then the forces that seek promote and seek our nullification from this fine city, is able to squeeze another toe in the door.

Posted by Deau Hickey on 01/18/2018 at 11:09 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Clarence C. Johnson:

Your assertion that "EBX has long given Brooks a pass" is false.

In 2013, I also called on the city council to censure Brooks:…

And in 2014, the Express endorsed her council opponent, writing that Brooks "attacks her colleagues unnecessarily, thus hindering both the council's effectiveness and her ability to get things done for her constituents."…

Posted by Robert Gammon on 01/18/2018 at 11:07 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

If I callously injured someone while acting as an employee I would be fired.
Why is she not being released from public service?

Posted by Ned on 01/18/2018 at 10:23 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

I ran for City Council against Kaplan last time around because I was so angry that the rest of the council wouldnt stand up to her. I was bullied as a child. I find those who alow the bully to exist in some ways more disgusting than the bully itself.

Posted by F Matt Hummel on 01/18/2018 at 10:13 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

"many progressive city activists have consistently given Brooks a pass because she's tough on police" That and white guilt.

Posted by Mike Elwin on 01/18/2018 at 9:06 AM

Re: “Too Many Rapes Dismissed

Oakland's handling of the Celeste Guap disgusted me. I see a policeman and I wonder what kind of person s/he is. Why does s/he still work for OPD? Does s/he trust anyone there? How could s/he? If the commanders will undermine and mistreat one person, what's to stop them from undermining and mistreating another? Even another cop?

What a cesspool.

Posted by Mike Elwin on 01/18/2018 at 9:03 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Piled higher and deeper

Posted by Ernest Montague on 01/18/2018 at 8:06 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

EBX has long given Brooks a pass, for the same reason she is able to bully other city council members - they know Brooks will play the race card, play it well, and play it at the drop of a hat. For EBX, and their almost entirely white staff (all white staff?), this is not a fight they want to have. It would require putting at risk all the credibility theyve built portraying themselves as woke journos. The fact that Brooks is keeping silent on this mess (for legal reasons), and Brown is an elderly ex-Black panther, provides just enough cover for EBX to finally come out against Brooks - though they never actually called her out at the time this incident or any of the other incidents mentioned in the article.

Posted by Clarence C. Johnson on 01/17/2018 at 11:25 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

There are plenty of Oakland community activists who could 'push the most difficult and anti-racist policies' without being an abusive bully (which Brooks has been as long as she's been in the limelight) who attacks small, elderly people (even tough, fiery ones like Elaine Brown).

Brooks is very smart - and has used her intellect to ride roughshod over some of the less bright bulbs on the City Council - but she has gone too far this time. Hopefully the voters of her district have seen enough.

Posted by John Seal on 01/17/2018 at 3:15 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

K. Epstein: "Desley...effectively pushes the most difficult and anti-racist policies...the Department of Race and Equity is just one example."

The problems with this perspective are that institutional racism is deeply embedded in Oakland social and government structures. Oakland may adopt well-intended policies but good intentions do not compensate for
all the failures to perform. That's the reality, TV or whatever.

Longtime residents of Oakland's city hall, citizens and staffers like Epstein as well as electeds, may be full of good intentions but remain incapable of thinking outside the box, of being transparent, of being proactive rather than reactive and, fundamentally, of actually producing results. Outside the box means insight into the destructiveness of capitalism and finance, rather than the embrace of neoliberalism.

Whatever Brooks' intentions, she has deep personal problems and her performance as a public servant is thus compromised.

Posted by Hobart Johnson on 01/17/2018 at 2:06 PM

Re: “Oakland May Welcome Hoteliers Who Violated Labor Law

When will somebody in the City of Oakland provide some actual leadership that allows the city to move forward in constructive ways? Leadership means that sometimes the City Council needs to be told no and redirected in a different way that may achieve their objective in a legal and appropriate way.The Planning Director and City Attorney both need to tell the City Council that the Planning Department is not the convenient repository for all things. The legal purview of the Planning Department and Planning Commission is based on the powers granted in State law to regulate land use. The wages of workers employed in a hotel may be an interesting conversation, but it is not a land use issue. The Planning Commission cannot use this discussion as a basis to approve or deny a project. Moreover, conditions of approval with requirements related to wages of future employees are legally questionable, unless there is an agreement of some kind that includes public financing. If the project require an EIR or a more detailed environmental review, a more detailed discussion of economic impacts is normally included. However, developing thresholds of significance for wages of future employees would be conceptually problematic and extremely subjective. The Planning Commission does not review of the incomes of future buyers when they approve development of new housing. If the City Council wants to control wages of future workers in hotels, they need to write an ordinance that requires a special process or permit for transient habitation (hotels) and require detailed review of wages of future employees. If that is what they want, they can get there that way, but don't try make it a land use issue when it is clearly is not.

Posted by Gary Patton on 01/17/2018 at 1:56 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Oh lordy...gotta put that pretentious PhD after your name so it sounds like you know what you're talking about...but you don't.

Posted by Vincent Blafard on 01/17/2018 at 12:00 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

To address Kitty Kelly Epstein, PhD:

Desley Brooks routinely talks up racial disparity in Oakland when she, herself, is under attack. Very little has improved during her 16 year tenure. In fact, the overwhelming increase of the newly homeless are African-American amongst continued discriminatory city policies, SRO shortages and school closures.

Above all, she has no interest in Oakland other than what can be bartered to her benefit and her office reflects that. No policy or legislative analyst-Just Desley.

We will be better served with anyone else in office. BYE DESLEY!

Posted by Mari jones on 01/17/2018 at 10:25 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Oy vey. Listen to Kitty Kelly Epstein, PhD, goyim. We gotta solve this racism problem at all costs, up to and including the millions of dollars in settlements for the conduct of criminal council members. Expectations are racist, goyim.

Posted by Arthur Weinstein on 01/17/2018 at 8:23 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

OK, I have to respond to this "everything else is just Oakland's version of reality TV comment by Kitty Kelly Epstein above:
1. People who produce "reality TV" get PAID for it - what Brooks did - if the verdict is just - may COST THE CITY $3M. This not just a case of someone acting like they are on Jerry Springer - this is real taxpayer money.
But besides just blowing off that loss, Epstein promotes the idea that Brooks is actually doing something about wealth disparity in the US with local city policies - I question that claim. The main thing the city to effect incomes is pay people salaries -and the city is notorious for paying sky high salaries to administrators and upper management police - like around $300K counting benefits for police captains - besides draining the city financially, doesn't that further the wealth gap?

Posted by boatbrain85fb on 01/17/2018 at 8:11 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Riiiiight!!!! Being unable to contain ones self to the point that it costs the city over 3 million tax payer dollars (real fiduciary harm to the tax payers and to the office) should be simply overlooked in the name of "effective(?) policies".

That's MY definition of reality TV... Tammany Hall style!

Posted by Bruce Ferrell on 01/17/2018 at 1:23 AM

Re: “Oakland City Council Should Censure Desley Brooks

Desley Brooks is the only council person who consistently and effectively pushes the most difficult and anti-racist policies - the department of Race and Equity is just one example.

We need to pay more attention to the few people who actually produce on policies that can to any extent reduce the 13 to 1 racial wealth gap. All the other stuff is just Oaklands version of reality TV

Kitty Kelly Epstein, PhD

Posted by Kitty Kelly Epstein 1 on 01/16/2018 at 8:59 PM

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation