Rent Increase Survey

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

City of Alameda Charter Violations

Dear Editor,

You’re kidding, right? Openly advocating violation of our City Charter by elected officials is “Mayor, council acted properly”, “made the right move?”, “strong leadership”?? Have any of you READ the City Charter I: Sec 2-2B or 7-3?

This small-town Mayberry business has gone too far! Alameda is a CITY. Incorporated since 1854. With a charter dated 1937. The charter is to our city as the Constitution is to our state or nation. It is a foundation document that is not often amended & has stood the test of time. Regardless of your personal feelings about the Interim City Manager or the persons who serve on the Council, this document must be respected. It ensures Alameda is a city governed by rules, not personalities. If you don’t agree with the RULES governing the city in which you live, consider relocating to an unincorporated “small town” where there aren’t any rules.

Alameda is more than that.

Back in the 1930’s, Alameda sent a City Manager to San Quentin. In today’s scenario, it appears to be the councilmembers misbehaving. It may not be Grand Jury material under the Penal Code, but if we let our elected officials run roughshod over the City Charter, we deserve to have SUNCAL or any other developer run roughshod over Alameda!

Carol Gottstein
Alameda Planning Board member: 1996-98

5 comments to City of Alameda Charter Violations

  • Anonymous

    Why am I not all that surprised by the actions of our new City Council majority, the Slate? During the campaign leading up to November’s election, Alameda was flooded with mailers and phone surveys pushing reprehensibly against their opponents. Before the campaign, they all supported SunCal, even after Measure B went down to such inglorious defeat. They are out of touch with the people, so why should they have any respect for the City Charter? This, I’m afraid, the “Purge,” will just be the first of many egregious acts by these Three.

    There goes the island!

  • Betty

    After watching the city council meeting (without the mayor) it seems all of Tam’s supports got up and spoke about moving forward and getting beyond Dec. 28th. I think they just wanted ICM gone and didn’t care if they broke the law or not.
    So, whose going to take a job with a city with no manager, no attorney, no police chief and no fire chef and whose getting sued by a developer and probably the ICM, attorney and fire chief? You just have to love this place…

  • After the Tam fiasco, a clear instance of a council member getting away with leaking confidential information to the developer SunCal, the Slate knows that the District Attorney won’t move against them, no matter how serious their violations. Too bad that isn’t true for ordinary citizens, who can’t even have a medical marijuana dispensary on the island. All those overprotective mommies!

  • Ellie

    The only thing going forward will be SUNCAL pulling the strings of its puppets and irrevocably weaving its deceitful threads into our city forever. And for the SUNCAL Puppet Slate: You can not have a just result when the means are unjust.

  • Betty

    Ellie, I think you’re correct. With Saturday’s article in the Chronicle and all the unrest with our city council I think it’s exactly what SunCal planned. They want to disrupt our community so much and have one of their puppets come in and run things. It’s very sad that voters of Alameda didn’t see this coming by voting in Gilmore, Tam & Bonta. With so few people voting in Alameda maybe it’s what we deserve.

  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,