Rent Increase Survey

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

Vote on a Measure B Campaign Gallery of Rogues

We solicited regular Action Alameda News readers for their nominations for a Measure B campaign “gallery of rogues” – the Measure B proponents that were the most cynical, hypocritical, disingenuous or outright lame during the Measure B campaign. Here they are.

Alameda City Councilmember Lena Tam
“I nominate Lena Tam at the top of the list for her part in the support of the SunCal deal.”

John Knox White (Former Transportation Commissioner and Lena Tam lackey)
“People like JKW who published attacks on the facts and spoke out against the opponents of the measure and who now pretend like they have a position and purpose in the support of the next steps. I think the city is better off without their negativity and empty-minded ‘support’. But free speech is good.”

Doug Linney
“Doug Linney for pushing ‘his’ agenda while being paid by Suncal to actually be pushing their agenda.”

Lauren Do
“Then Lauren Do for her obvious sell-out.”

John Spangler
“Took umbrage over being accused of working for SunCal, then later admitted it.”
“Actually, I nominate him M.V.P. for our side.”

This is NOT a picture of Eve Pearlman

This is NOT a picture of Eve Pearlman. (It's called satire.)

Eve “pom poms” Pearlman
“I resent having to cast a vote on this.”

Michele Ellson (The Island)
“I’m sitting this one out”

Barbara Kahn, Brad Shook, Honora Murphy, Josh Cohen
“who all made references to ‘millions being spent’ and the city spending ‘$400 per taxpayer’ == how did they even come up w. that number? These people should be ashamed for lying like this. ” (City of Alameda Staff provided data that proved false Measure B proponents’ claims about Alameda Point costing the City money.

Christopher Seiwald
“suggested that Measure B opponents – 85% of those who voted – are stupid and ignorant

(Nominate additional rogues in the comments section.)

Vote for your most diabolical Measure B campaign rogue! (Vote for up to 5)

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

24 comments to Vote on a Measure B Campaign Gallery of Rogues

  • vruma

    It’s such a hard choice they would almost all get my vote if that were possible. Acutally, in future days and weeks I think we will all see that bevjo should get our “NO” vote. She was against “B” but you can bet she will hop right back in SunCal’s lap now that the initiative is past.

  • As much as I agree with you that the SunCal plan is awful, I don’t think posting something like this does anyone any good, except for a moment of gratification. The “No” side won big but there is a lot of work ahead and most likely the “No” side is going to have to work with some of those “Yes” people. So I think you should take great joy in that you all did an unbelievable job and move forward. When they get down in the mud…rise above it. There are a lot people in this town, some of them are sitting on the fence and you don’t want to alienate any of them. You know you (and Alameda) won this round (and big) so now it is on to round two.

  • There’s a lot of anger among Alameda residents – anger about the City having to pay $375,000 for the special election, anger over the mendacity of most of the people on this list, anger how these people tried to sell us down the river, anger of people like Doug Linney – in a position of public trust – being party to it, and a desire on the parts of some people to highlight who the culprits are, and their transgressions. It will give them less credibility in the next round.

  • bl

    I love it!

    I disagree with J.E.A. … the best way to defeat these villians is to out them. You cannot work with dishonest, dishonorable folks like this.

  • barb

    I find the spin espoused by Tam and others: The loss for B, is a win and mandate for “re-development at the Point, to be an obscene continuation of the B.S, spouted from day One of the circulation gathering.

    If you are trounced and get less than 15% of the vote, while outspent by 20-30 or more to 1 (we won’t know the totals until much later) that is a TOTAL LOSS OF ALL CREDIBILITY FOR EVERTYHING!!!

    Especially when the same night the Council seriously considers returning some portion to wetlands?

    Please elected officials read between the lines: You gave the voters non-leadership, changes of position midstream, reluctant politiking at the last moment once you saw the lightning about to strike. A loss is not a victory! The people won on this one. The Council tried to foist this one off on us, and DeHaan, staff and many others saved us. It will be a long and difficult process to repair the harm that SUNCAL, TAM and JKW, and LINNEY et al did to our City. It does not begin with grandiose claims that re-development won our hearts and minds.

    Please do it right or don’t do it all. Don’t claim that this is a win for masssive redevelopment and that we need SUNCAL or some other developer to rip us off. The election says otherwise. Much like Pearl Harbor, you have awakened a sleeping giant.

  • The feedback from the street during the campaign was that people don’t want 4,500 new homes at Alameda Point, and the resulting traffic congestion and overcrowding. Amazing that SunCal and friends are still deluded into thinking they can snow the public after such a defeat. And in any event, SunCal always said they can’t do the land deal without the business terms – terms that the City of Alameda and voters have rejected. This is a dead duck.

  • Late nominees:

    Kathy Moehring of the West Alameda Business Association: For signing the ballot application and enabling SunCal to hijack the citizens’ initiative process.

    SunCal spokesman Adam Alberti: “There’s a marginally small group who are dead-set against the plan to revitalize Alameda Point.”
    Quoted in “Protesters Target SunCal Proposal,” Alameda Journal, April 10, 2009

    More dishonorable mentions:

    The not-so-subtle push for SunCal to sue the city that was put forward by John Knox White: “I really think that when the dust settles and the lawsuits begin (those filed by SunCal for breach of contract and not negotiating in good faith) . . . .”

    Kathy Moehring
    “After all, she was the person who eagerly delivered the 8,086 signatures to City Hall!”

    Note that SunCal submitted over 8,000 signatures for the ballot initiative, but garnered only about 2,300 votes at the polls.

  • barb

    SUNCAL’s focus will be to have its standard bearers, TAM, KNOX et al, whip out support to obtain an agreement between SUNCAL and the City before the ENA expires in July 2010. Let’s hope the Council hangs tough on its refusal to extend the ENA. I wouldn’t even talk to SUNCAl without re-imbursement of the costs of the Special Election first. How was it good faith to lie to obtain 8000 signatures to put an agreement that circumvents City and state law for SUNCAL’s sole benefit, and then run a campaign based on more lies?

  • Jon Spangler

    Dear InActive Ones,

    If you are going to “out” me (I was never in the closet, in case you were wondering), you could at least spell my given and legal name correctly:
    it has been Jon (without the “H” you have been giving me) for 57 years.

    That’s J-o-n, the way my name is spelled on my birth certificate, in the voter registration lists, and in the phone book. And (spelled properly) on every piece of SunCal “propaganda” in which it appeared. At least SunCal can spell proper names correctly.

    BTW, all that money I supposedly received from SunCal that you keep lying about? I have never been in SunCal’s employ or received any money whatsoever from them. Period. Nor, for that matter, have I ever derived any financial benefit from any of my efforts to make this community a better place in which to live and work.

    I am honored to call most of the upright, intelligent, talented, and principled members of your “gallery of rogues” my friends and colleagues. And I would never have it any other way.

    I am not worried about any of us losing credibility or sleep over what we have done for this community, either. Including our efforts on behalf of SunCal’s redevelopment plans for Alameda Point. We’re trying to benefit Alameda, not tear it down or hold it back in a mythical and nonexistent past.

  • John – remember you got so uptight when we published that you were “working for” SunCal. And please cite the alleged “lying” about all the money you received. We never wrote that. And “done _to_ this community” would be a better description.

  • barb

    Why would anyone listen to any of the dribble from any of the Measure B proponents? Don’t they get it? 85 % plus already said “Nonsense!”

  • Gretchen Lipow

    This is very funny..I laughed and laughed at the comments. We need
    some comic relief after all the talking and campaigning we did in the community.
    It was a pleasure speaking with Alamedans. They were far savvy than
    I gave them credit. The lousy economy has awakened people to be
    more thoughtful and critical. I received so many thanks from folks
    “for doing what you are doing.” How cool is that?
    We on Main Street took on Wall Street, and beat them! For now, but
    the beat goes on hum…….

  • Blue Collar Kid

    Comments that are on-topic and to the point are welcome. We will delete comments that include profanity, name-calling, personal attacks, racial slurs or threats. Be nice.

  • charlie

    I have to agree with J.E.A. To focus time and effort on going after those who disagree with you discredits the intellectual honesty of your ideas; emotion starts to color reason.

  • Someone else said it best – these people have been dishonorable and dishonest. These aren’t people the rest of Alameda can work with – they will say anything to push their agenda. If they were caught lying about Measure B – and many of them were – shouldn’t the public know?

  • barb

    It is hard enough to get well meaning developers who stick around to fulfill their promises as we saw with HBIA. The economy, interest rates, all the rest of the macro influences alter things beyond our wildest expectations over the decades needed to complete large projects. Marina Village revamped its entire project several times before construction. Why would anyone deal with SUNCAL or the contestants above? (Sorry I didn’t know we could vote for 5, only voted for 1). I wouldn’t hire any of the above to paint my house, let alone do a project like reroofing that would require trust, accurate completion dates and competency.

    If they could only get 2300 votes after “getting” 8000 signatures, that means SUNCAL failed to meet the expectations that it promised when it got those signatures. Who would finance a company with such a dismissal record, excepting TARP funds of course?

  • Christopher Seiwald


    I’d like to kindly ask that you please remove the comment:

    “Christopher Seiwald “suggested that Measure B opponents – 85% of those who voted – are stupid and ignorant”’

    since I never said that.


  • We went back to the tape to refresh our memory…

    It was at the joint City Council / School Board meeting Chris, when you took issue with the Measure B process and urged Council to “end this embarrassing parade of ignorance and stupidity.”

    Here is how The Island reported it:

    I think we were just rounding the bend on hour four when Perforce Software chief and B booster Christopher Seiwald offered the most quotable moment of the night, when he pleaded with the council to “end this embarrassing parade of ignorance and stupidity.”

    It was interpreted by many to refer to Measure B opponents. But if you were referring instead to City Council, SunCal, City Staff or the speakers at that Jan 5th meeting as stupid and ignorant, please confirm and we will run a correction.

  • barb

    Action Alameda – get it in a signed and dated writing before running any correction as to whom the speaker was directing his comments to “end this embarassing parade of ignorance and stupidity”.

  • Blue Collar Kid

    If, as reported, “Christopher Seiwald offered the most quotable moment of the night, when he pleaded with the council to “end this embarrassing parade of ignorance and stupidity,”” this certainly does not imply that: “Christopher Seiwald “suggested that Measure B opponents – 85% of those who voted – are stupid and ignorant.”

    I wasn’t there, but perhaps some of the speakers said stupid or ignorant things. Regardless of whether that’s true or not, you simply can’t conclude from that statement that Mr. Seiwald said that people who voted against B are stupid and ignorant. It’s bad logic. I can believe that certain people arguing for a cause with which I disagree (or with which I agree for that matter) are irrational without believing that all those backing (or opposing) the cause are irrational. It’s pretty basic.

    A question. Do you (and I’m not sure if that’s you singular or plural–is the “we” who refreshed “our” memory many people or the royal we?) ever respectfully disagree with others? It seems from your comments that you have a difficult time disagreeing with people without personally insulting them. The “No Honora Murphy” seems your most gratuitous insult–didn’t Ms. Murphy work to get the new main library built, something that surely deserves a little respect? Is it inconceivable to you that people spoke out in favor of B without being shills or fools? What do you think of those who voted for it?

    Maybe I was brought up and educated differently from you, but I was taught it is neither polite nor intellectually respectable to attack personally those with whom I disagree.

  • It’s the editorial “we.” And we are publishing a correction re: Seiwald tomorrow. As noted, people who were present at the meeting interpreted the statement – from a declared Measure B proponent, and adviser to Suncal, coming as it did during the public speaking period after members of the Council, school board,and other public speakers challenged SunCal – as referring to opponents to the Measure.

    As we wrote earlier – there’s a lot of anger over this election and over the lies and dishonest and dishonorable behavior by SunCal and their supporters. SunCal lied – we documented it – to get the 8000+ signatures to put it on the ballot, then couldn’t garner more than 2,500 votes or so. SunCal, Barbara Kahn and all manner of SunCal proponents were telling the public that the base is losing money each year – a fact proved false by the very document they cited (a spreadsheet that they shared with someone who simply asked for it) and by the the City staff presentation to Council on Jan 26th. And there’s Honora Murphy at the LWV meeting opening the meeting for SunCal. Great – she did well with the library. What’s that got to do with her behavior re: Measure B ?

    Not to mention the hyperbolic scare tactics to try to win – “Failure of this plan has dire consequences for Alameda!” – Helen Sause, Op-ed piece in the Alameda Sun, Jan 7, 2010. The plan/measure has failed, and we haven’t seen the dire consequences yet. The base is still there, the tenants are still there, and there are plenty of options for developing it and putting it to good use for all residents.

    And now many of the same people are actively trying to impugn the character of and discredit the Interim City Manager with more hyperbole and false accusations. Because SunCal has decided she’s an obstacle – i.e. SunCal disagrees with her. Take your complaints over to their blogs.

    No, we’re not taking issue with these people for disagreeing with our position – we’re taking issue with them because they have been dishonest and/or working hand-in-hand with dishonest people.

  • barb

    How much credit has Honora Murphy earned for her efforts on the new library?

    In 1988, after nearly 50 years of controversy in finding an appropriate location, every where from the Portola Triangle to a site adjacent to the Carnegie, Councilmember Hadi Monsef nominated the site of the LinOaks Motel as the site for a new library. The Council took a great deal of disrepect and other attacks for even agreeing with his idea. City Manager Bill Norton saw the feasiblity, and the Council took action to obtain the site where the new library was built.

    Many hundreds, if not thousands, of persons did the leg work for the design and obtaining the funding for the ultimate construction. The then current council took full credit for the construcion. They never even bothered to say Thank you to Hadi Monsef or acknowledging that he made it all possible by ending the decades of conflict. I think if Hadi had not stepped up to the plate, the conflict would still be going on and no new library would be built. How Honora Murhpy is able to claim credit is beyond me. The names that come to mind are Gert Woods, Peg McGowan, and Hadi Monsef as the major players. They are the ones who deserve the thanks of the community.

  • barb

    And of course Bill Norton.

  • Note that we posted this correction (see link below) re: the Christopher Seiwald remarks.

    Mr. Seiwald has asked that we delete the remarks that troubled him from the original article, but we have declined to do so for a number of reasons:

    1) We ran a correction, and Mr. Seiwald noted his objections here in the comments forum.

    2) We were present that night on Jan 5th, and sincerely interpreted his remarks as was written in the original story, as did others.

    3) We run the risk of accusations of revisionism and “covering our tracks” etc. if we edit the original story. The correction, and these comments stand as a record of the exchange.

  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,