Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Demonstrators at Alameda City Hall Today Demand Answers from Mayor

Addendum: Updated on March 30th at 3:30pm to include video and additional text…

Roughly 60 people, and two dogs, marched in front of Alameda City Hall today under the name “Coalition for a Better Alameda” to protest Mayor Beverly Johnson’s flip-flopping of election campaign promises to “Protect Measure A.”

Holding Mayor Beverly Johnson’s campaign signs from 2006 which contain the slogan “Protect Measure A,” marchers shouted “BevJo, Pinocchio” and “BevJo Must Go!” They also re-counted tales of witnessing Mayor Johnson voicing support for Measure A – even for Alameda Point – during the 2006 election campaign. The protest came on the heels of last week’s “robotic” telephone calls to Alameda residents carrying a pre-recorded message from the Mayor. Residents also received a glossy brochure in the mail from SunCal, with the Mayor’s picture on the back, touting SunCal’s Alameda Point proposal. Protesters stapled this to a sign that read “SunCal Fairy Tales.”

Demonstrators demanded that Mayor Johnson withdraw her support of SunCal’s current proposal for Alameda Point, and to disclose who paid for the “robotic” telephone call campaign and the glossy brochure mailer, and how much it cost.

Here are some pictures and video from the demonstration:

"Johnson For Mayor - Hey, I'm Just a Puppet" "I'm Just a Puppet - Close-up"
Demonstrators on Steps of Alameda City Hall

Demonstrators on Steps of Alameda City Hall

"Mayor Sells Out!We're Not Supporting Mayor Beverly Johnson

"Mayor Johnson - Liar" "Mayor Bev Pinocchio-Jo"

3 comments to Demonstrators at Alameda City Hall Today Demand Answers from Mayor

  • Stan

    The people drove them out of Anaheim and New Mexico! They will lie, cheat and buy politicians to get what they want. Only the people can stop them. Vote out of office politicians that support them. Better yet impeach them!

  • Vani

    Remember all the protestations by SunCal Companies that their Alameda project is totally divorced, economically, from their disastrous relationship with Lehman Brothers and its subsidiaries?

    Well, it turns out that isn’t so. There is a lawsuit against those Lehman Brothers subsidiaries called SCC Acquisition Inc. v. Lehman Ali Inc. et al, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Adversary Proceeding Case No. 8:09-ap-01005-ES. The lawsuit was filed as part of the multiple SunCal entity voluntary bankruptcy cases consolidated in the bankruptcy court as In re Palmdale Hills Property LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 8:08-bk-17206-ES. It turns out that the initials “SCC” means SunCal Companies. SCC shows up in the name of many of the SunCal entities. In SCC Acquisition Inc. v. Lehman Ali, the lawyer for plaintiffs Bruce Elieff, SCC Acquisition, Inc. and the other SunCal entity plaintiffs alleges that various SunCal parent companies issued guarantees to the insurance companies which issued completion bonds in connection with a large number of Lehman related projects. The lawyer for the SunCal plaintiffs also alleges that because the Lehman entities stiffed the Lehman/SunCal ventures, in terms of funding construction related obligations, the SunCal parent companies are at risk of having to make payment on those guarantees to the insurance companies who issued the completion bonds. Those same allegations are made by SunCal’s General Counsel, a Mr. Cook, in several declarations he signed, under penalty of perjury, and filed with the Bankruptcy Court in the Palmdale Hills, LLC bankruptcy case.

    The upshot of SunCal’s in-court allegations that the financial stability of the SunCal parent companies, and thereby all of their projects, are put at severe risk of economic loss because of Lehman’s actions.

    In plain English, Lehman stiffs the completion bond holders, the completion bond holders make demand on the insurance companies which issued the completion bonds, the insurance companies pay the completion bond holders, and as a result the SunCal entities or their human principals either have to reimburse the insurance companies for their multi-million dollar pay outs, or get sued ruining their insurability and creditworthiness.

    In short, SunCal’s lawyers have repeatedly alleged that their whole empire could come crashing down because SunCal’s parent companies and principals are on the hook, financially, to pay the insurance companies who issued the completion bonds on the Lehman/SunCal projects.

    As a result, the key question: Who is telling the truth about the SunCal empire’s economic stability and ability going forward? The lawyers filing testimony under penalty of perjury in the bankruptcy court, or the public relations flaks manipulating public officials and public opinion?

  • Jean Sweeney

    The Sun Cal Initiative submitted and placed on line yesterday on April Fool Day by Kathy Moehring cuts out all discussion about any solutions to the traffic problem that 5000 houses would bring by saying that their project may increase traffic on Alameda streets but that problem is for the regional governments not the developers.
    They delete all the pages about historic buildings and refer all such questions to their new Chapter 11 (appropriately named) of the general plan which says they don’t have to save any of them.
    The solution to possible flooding is to increase the capacity of the storm drains and have a permiable landscape to prevent runoff.
    They now include the entire former naval station except the bird sanctuary and that means they will control the development of the northwest territories.
    The whole thing will allow them to clear everything out and build what they want.
    It is a travisty.