Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Recall of Alameda Mayor? City Council Ignores Hundreds Opposing Megaplex
This was an amazing meeting . . . the description below is well done. When we walked in the to beautiful City Hall building and toward the table with speakers sheets I was surprised to see that there were fliers for an upcoming talk by Norman Solomon against war, fliers for a Cindy Sheehan vigil, cards for Green Design, etc. It was as though the peave movement had taken over . . . We had to go to an overflow room in a building next door to see the meeting on TV. Person after person after person came up to speak to oppose the project and only a handful of business types were supporting it. All people really wanted was for the beautiful old theater to get renovated and the effort got hijacked. The mayor apparently is spearheading this and that's why people are starting to talk about a Recall effort. I wouldn't be surprised if residents go and lay their bodies on the ground to stop the construction of this thing. A whole new movement has been formed in Alameda!
For those of you who have to go to bed before 2:30 a.m., here's what
happened at the hearing last night:
The council chambers AND an adjacent overflow room were jammed by
7:30. Additional overflow seating with remote viewing on city cable
was set up in the basement of the Elk's building next door to City
hall. Several speaker names were called at a time to allow speakers
in other rooms time to return to the council chambers.
Councilmember Matarrese refused to recuse himself, as requested by
residents who felt his public advocacy of the project in the media
and to community groups compromised his ability to respond fairly to
issues presented at the hearing.
Mayor Johnson announced at the beginning of the meeting that all
speakers would be heard that night. Speaking time was limited to 3
minutes, an expected economization. The mayor also emphasized the
point that no one would be permitted to speak overtime (at an earlier
meeting Ms. Johnson rudely terminated no-megaplexer Ani Dimusheva's
comments, then allowed pro-megaplexer Rob Ratto to speak past the
limit, evoking outcry from the room).
When citizens applauded after the comments of an early no-cineplex
speaker, Ms. Johnson rebuked them sharply for cutting into the time
of later speakers, a theme she returned to repeatedly between
speakers, using up valuable time herself. Reactions of any kind were
prohibited in the council chambers, but viewers clapped, cheered and
occasionally hissed in the overflow rooms.
For about 5 hours, speaker after speaker supported the appeal, and
criticized the cineplex project. Only a handful of speakers supported
the project. There were also sign-up sheets for those who preferred
to weigh in on the matter without speaking. Page after page filled
with cineplex opponent names, while the sheet for cineplex supporters
remained empty.
All speakers supported restoration of the historic theater. Reasons
for opposing the cineplex were many, but the most common objection
was the mismatch between the project size and character, and the
unique personality of Alameda, highly valued by residents. Many
speakers were concerned about increased traffic and parking issues
generated by the project, and doubted the project's economic
viability. Frustration with lack of council response to residents'
opposition was also a common theme.
It was well after midnight when all speakers had been heard, and
deliberations on the appeal finally began. Council members Daysog and
deHaan asked numerous questions of city staff.
Tony Daysog was concerned with the financing of the proposed project,
which would result in a net loss for the city. He questioned the sub-
standard rent the developer will pay for the historic theater, and
was concerned that project finances were designed starting with the
developer's need and working backwards, rather than starting with the
city's goals and requiring the developer to meet them.
Doug deHaan expressed grave doubts about the future financial
viability of the cineplex industry, and panned the design, calling
repeatedly for a scaled-down version. DeHaan suggested developing the
two potential balcony theaters in the historic theater, and reducing
the cineplex size accordingly, allowing for set-backs from the
sidewalk line, or a one-story project. He considered the project to
be "butt-ugly" and vastly oversized for the lot.
City staff defended the project, but were frequently unable to answer
council questions, hedging, and offering an apparent stock answer -
"we can't give that as simple an answer as you would probably like."
Residents attending the meeting and familiar with the project
documents provided answers city staff could not on several occasions.
The developer said he would rather build a 12-plex. City staff
admitted the parking and traffic study had not taken into account
frequent high attendance events at nearby Koffman Auditorium and the
Elks Club during peak movie times.
The mayor desceneded into a lengthy emotional rant about the
ingratitude of citizens who didn't understand the work involved in
reviewing project documents. One of the appellants and several other
cineplex opponents who were clearly more familiar with the documents
than anyone on the council rose and objected. The mayor insisted this
project was good for Alameda, and was the only way to finance theater
rehabilitation, though in fact theater rehabilitation is being paid
for by the city, not the developer.
Johnson yes-woman, Marie Gilmore, had little to say, as usual.
When council discussion petered out, the Mayor called for a motion.
Councilmember Daysog moved to approve the appeal, and further review
the project before going forward. Councilmember deHaan seconded, but
the two were outvoted by the other three councilmembers. As the
Johnson/Matarrese/Gilmore block had clearly planned from the
beginning, a motion to deny the appeal was then voted on, and passed,
3-2, with minor design revisions, including the exploration of more
vertical elements for the parking garage, a "less modern" look to the
second-story cineplex windows, and the restoration of the original
ticket booth or a facsimile (not necessarily to be used as such) to
the historic theater entryway.
It remains to be seen how the hundreds of residents who attended the
hearing last night and sat patiently for hours awaiting their turn to
speak will feel about the council's decision in opposition to the
overwhelming majority of speakers. Though Mayor Johnson's position on
the project was never in doubt, it was clear she felt uneasy about
the ramifications of such large scale opposition.
As well she might - as the meeting broke up, the word "recall" was in
the air...
----------------------------------------
Alamedans Organize to Stop Megaplex in Their City
http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=3470&category_id=22
Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com
happened at the hearing last night:
The council chambers AND an adjacent overflow room were jammed by
7:30. Additional overflow seating with remote viewing on city cable
was set up in the basement of the Elk's building next door to City
hall. Several speaker names were called at a time to allow speakers
in other rooms time to return to the council chambers.
Councilmember Matarrese refused to recuse himself, as requested by
residents who felt his public advocacy of the project in the media
and to community groups compromised his ability to respond fairly to
issues presented at the hearing.
Mayor Johnson announced at the beginning of the meeting that all
speakers would be heard that night. Speaking time was limited to 3
minutes, an expected economization. The mayor also emphasized the
point that no one would be permitted to speak overtime (at an earlier
meeting Ms. Johnson rudely terminated no-megaplexer Ani Dimusheva's
comments, then allowed pro-megaplexer Rob Ratto to speak past the
limit, evoking outcry from the room).
When citizens applauded after the comments of an early no-cineplex
speaker, Ms. Johnson rebuked them sharply for cutting into the time
of later speakers, a theme she returned to repeatedly between
speakers, using up valuable time herself. Reactions of any kind were
prohibited in the council chambers, but viewers clapped, cheered and
occasionally hissed in the overflow rooms.
For about 5 hours, speaker after speaker supported the appeal, and
criticized the cineplex project. Only a handful of speakers supported
the project. There were also sign-up sheets for those who preferred
to weigh in on the matter without speaking. Page after page filled
with cineplex opponent names, while the sheet for cineplex supporters
remained empty.
All speakers supported restoration of the historic theater. Reasons
for opposing the cineplex were many, but the most common objection
was the mismatch between the project size and character, and the
unique personality of Alameda, highly valued by residents. Many
speakers were concerned about increased traffic and parking issues
generated by the project, and doubted the project's economic
viability. Frustration with lack of council response to residents'
opposition was also a common theme.
It was well after midnight when all speakers had been heard, and
deliberations on the appeal finally began. Council members Daysog and
deHaan asked numerous questions of city staff.
Tony Daysog was concerned with the financing of the proposed project,
which would result in a net loss for the city. He questioned the sub-
standard rent the developer will pay for the historic theater, and
was concerned that project finances were designed starting with the
developer's need and working backwards, rather than starting with the
city's goals and requiring the developer to meet them.
Doug deHaan expressed grave doubts about the future financial
viability of the cineplex industry, and panned the design, calling
repeatedly for a scaled-down version. DeHaan suggested developing the
two potential balcony theaters in the historic theater, and reducing
the cineplex size accordingly, allowing for set-backs from the
sidewalk line, or a one-story project. He considered the project to
be "butt-ugly" and vastly oversized for the lot.
City staff defended the project, but were frequently unable to answer
council questions, hedging, and offering an apparent stock answer -
"we can't give that as simple an answer as you would probably like."
Residents attending the meeting and familiar with the project
documents provided answers city staff could not on several occasions.
The developer said he would rather build a 12-plex. City staff
admitted the parking and traffic study had not taken into account
frequent high attendance events at nearby Koffman Auditorium and the
Elks Club during peak movie times.
The mayor desceneded into a lengthy emotional rant about the
ingratitude of citizens who didn't understand the work involved in
reviewing project documents. One of the appellants and several other
cineplex opponents who were clearly more familiar with the documents
than anyone on the council rose and objected. The mayor insisted this
project was good for Alameda, and was the only way to finance theater
rehabilitation, though in fact theater rehabilitation is being paid
for by the city, not the developer.
Johnson yes-woman, Marie Gilmore, had little to say, as usual.
When council discussion petered out, the Mayor called for a motion.
Councilmember Daysog moved to approve the appeal, and further review
the project before going forward. Councilmember deHaan seconded, but
the two were outvoted by the other three councilmembers. As the
Johnson/Matarrese/Gilmore block had clearly planned from the
beginning, a motion to deny the appeal was then voted on, and passed,
3-2, with minor design revisions, including the exploration of more
vertical elements for the parking garage, a "less modern" look to the
second-story cineplex windows, and the restoration of the original
ticket booth or a facsimile (not necessarily to be used as such) to
the historic theater entryway.
It remains to be seen how the hundreds of residents who attended the
hearing last night and sat patiently for hours awaiting their turn to
speak will feel about the council's decision in opposition to the
overwhelming majority of speakers. Though Mayor Johnson's position on
the project was never in doubt, it was clear she felt uneasy about
the ramifications of such large scale opposition.
As well she might - as the meeting broke up, the word "recall" was in
the air...
----------------------------------------
Alamedans Organize to Stop Megaplex in Their City
http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=3470&category_id=22
Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
9:12 a.m.: Send More Letters Like This!
Don,
You are the best!!! We so appreciate your candor and honesty and ability to report "spot on" with what is really happening with our wacky City Council.
Denise and Scott Brady
8:59 a.m.: Open Letter to Council Majority
I am in total shock! How could you possibly have done what you did last night? I have completely lost complete faith in our city leadership and, frankly, think you should all be recalled!
I don't normally write in a vitriolic manner, but this is absolutely the last straw. Had I the time and money, I would personally spearhead the recall process for all of you. You have betrayed the majority of Alameda citizens by your inattention and dishonorable behavior in doing what you did last night. Despite the myriad of speakers against the megaplex plan, you pertinaciously rejected the appeal and, thus, agreed to that abominable megaplex-parking garage plan. In so doing, you, in my view, violated all ethical standards of good city government. Shame on you.
Not respectfully,
Margie Joyce
8:47 a.m.: Tom Pavletic, "you would think the voters would be more careful about who they put in power."
Don,
Alamedans get only one chance to effectively influence the Mayor and Councilmembers – on the day they vote for or against that person. With all the past, present and future controversial growth and development issues that face Alameda you would think the voters would be more careful about who they put in power.
All the warning signs were there about Mayor Johnson. Her past voting record indicates a willingness to have the City play an active role in private development and a general disdain for letting the private sector assume the full risk for development. Mayor Johnson provided the swing vote in favor of placing Gilmore on the Council in 2003. Also, Mayor Johnson has been heavily funded in her political campaigns by developers.
Ask yourself this question, “How do you think Barbara Kerr or Pat Bail would have voted on this issue?” Kerr ran against Johnson (and others) for Mayor in 2002. Bail ran against Matarrese (and others) for Council in 2004.
And I will make a prediction…Johnson, Gilmore and/or Matarrese will get reelected to public office with heavy support from developers, Don Perata and the voters!
Tom Pavletic
Candidate for Council in 2002, Candidate for the Health Care District in 2004
4:34 a.m.: Open Letter to Mayor Johnson
Mayor Johnson,
How could you sit in the council chambers last night listening to all of those people (so many that they had to be put into overflow rooms) speak out against the proposed theater/parking structure project and ignore what they were saying? It was clear that you weren't even slightly interested in anything any of them had to say. It was clear that you were biased from the beginning. You apparently had made up your mind long ago. What are you thinking? This is a really big deal. Going through with this project as it stands will mean a huge change for Alameda. It will not be a good change. This is a massive mistake. Come out publicly and admit that you did not listen to the people and now you regret it. People are not "mad" as usual because they didn't get their way. This is way bigger than that. Are you so small/narrow minded that you can't see that?
You are a disappointment.
Deborah Overfield
What's Really Going On?
Editor,
It is 2:58 a.m. I just arrived home from the city council meeting (I live 5 minutes away). The hearing of the appeal to the theater/garage project was heard tonight (or shall I say last night). There were so many people there to speak against the project/in favor of the appeal, they had to be put into "overflow" rooms as the Council Chamber was too crowded. Most of the people got up and spoke. After hearing all of the people (me included) only Tony Daysog and Doug deHaan voted to uphold the appeal. The mayor, Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese voted not to uphold the appeal. How does that happen? It would seem that what the people want for Alameda doesn't matter. Curiously, the mayor went on a rather emotional (a bit much) rant and rave about how they were not making decisions for big developers...very interesting. Well, if that is the case, why did she not listen to the people? What drove her? I would like to know, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?
Deborah Overfield
Councilmember deHaan Calls Megaplex Design "Butt Ugly", but Council Approves it Anyway
Early this morning, after listening to hours of testimony from members of the public, most of whom supported approving the appeal to reverse the Planning Board's approval of the Megaplex design, the Council voted 3-2 to not approve the appeal. Not unexpectedly, Mayor Beverly Johnson, Vice-mayor Marie Gilmore and Councilmember Frank Matarrese voted against approving the appeal. Councilmember Tony Daysog, the maker of the motion, and Councilmember Doug deHaan, who seconded the motion, voted in favor of the appeal.
During the Council's discussion of the appeal, Councilmember deHaan called the Megaplex design "butt ugly".
Mayor Johnson said, "These insinuations that we are in some developer's pocket - that's pretty outrageous . . . To say that we are doing this because we are in some developer's pocket, that's pretty insulting to each of us up here and to all the time that we take out of our personal time . . . Why don't you stand up and put in the time that we put into this community?" Several angry members of the audience responded to Johnson's question by identifying the amount of time that they had devoted to the community in their opposition efforts to stop the Megaplex.
With over 3,000 Alamedans signing a petition against the Megaplex, it appears that Johnson, Gilmore and Matarrese will have an uphill struggle in any future attempts to be elected to office in Alameda.
9:12 a.m.: Send More Letters Like This!
Don,
You are the best!!! We so appreciate your candor and honesty and ability to report "spot on" with what is really happening with our wacky City Council.
Denise and Scott Brady
8:59 a.m.: Open Letter to Council Majority
I am in total shock! How could you possibly have done what you did last night? I have completely lost complete faith in our city leadership and, frankly, think you should all be recalled!
I don't normally write in a vitriolic manner, but this is absolutely the last straw. Had I the time and money, I would personally spearhead the recall process for all of you. You have betrayed the majority of Alameda citizens by your inattention and dishonorable behavior in doing what you did last night. Despite the myriad of speakers against the megaplex plan, you pertinaciously rejected the appeal and, thus, agreed to that abominable megaplex-parking garage plan. In so doing, you, in my view, violated all ethical standards of good city government. Shame on you.
Not respectfully,
Margie Joyce
8:47 a.m.: Tom Pavletic, "you would think the voters would be more careful about who they put in power."
Don,
Alamedans get only one chance to effectively influence the Mayor and Councilmembers – on the day they vote for or against that person. With all the past, present and future controversial growth and development issues that face Alameda you would think the voters would be more careful about who they put in power.
All the warning signs were there about Mayor Johnson. Her past voting record indicates a willingness to have the City play an active role in private development and a general disdain for letting the private sector assume the full risk for development. Mayor Johnson provided the swing vote in favor of placing Gilmore on the Council in 2003. Also, Mayor Johnson has been heavily funded in her political campaigns by developers.
Ask yourself this question, “How do you think Barbara Kerr or Pat Bail would have voted on this issue?” Kerr ran against Johnson (and others) for Mayor in 2002. Bail ran against Matarrese (and others) for Council in 2004.
And I will make a prediction…Johnson, Gilmore and/or Matarrese will get reelected to public office with heavy support from developers, Don Perata and the voters!
Tom Pavletic
Candidate for Council in 2002, Candidate for the Health Care District in 2004
4:34 a.m.: Open Letter to Mayor Johnson
Mayor Johnson,
How could you sit in the council chambers last night listening to all of those people (so many that they had to be put into overflow rooms) speak out against the proposed theater/parking structure project and ignore what they were saying? It was clear that you weren't even slightly interested in anything any of them had to say. It was clear that you were biased from the beginning. You apparently had made up your mind long ago. What are you thinking? This is a really big deal. Going through with this project as it stands will mean a huge change for Alameda. It will not be a good change. This is a massive mistake. Come out publicly and admit that you did not listen to the people and now you regret it. People are not "mad" as usual because they didn't get their way. This is way bigger than that. Are you so small/narrow minded that you can't see that?
You are a disappointment.
Deborah Overfield
What's Really Going On?
Editor,
It is 2:58 a.m. I just arrived home from the city council meeting (I live 5 minutes away). The hearing of the appeal to the theater/garage project was heard tonight (or shall I say last night). There were so many people there to speak against the project/in favor of the appeal, they had to be put into "overflow" rooms as the Council Chamber was too crowded. Most of the people got up and spoke. After hearing all of the people (me included) only Tony Daysog and Doug deHaan voted to uphold the appeal. The mayor, Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese voted not to uphold the appeal. How does that happen? It would seem that what the people want for Alameda doesn't matter. Curiously, the mayor went on a rather emotional (a bit much) rant and rave about how they were not making decisions for big developers...very interesting. Well, if that is the case, why did she not listen to the people? What drove her? I would like to know, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?
Deborah Overfield
Councilmember deHaan Calls Megaplex Design "Butt Ugly", but Council Approves it Anyway
Early this morning, after listening to hours of testimony from members of the public, most of whom supported approving the appeal to reverse the Planning Board's approval of the Megaplex design, the Council voted 3-2 to not approve the appeal. Not unexpectedly, Mayor Beverly Johnson, Vice-mayor Marie Gilmore and Councilmember Frank Matarrese voted against approving the appeal. Councilmember Tony Daysog, the maker of the motion, and Councilmember Doug deHaan, who seconded the motion, voted in favor of the appeal.
During the Council's discussion of the appeal, Councilmember deHaan called the Megaplex design "butt ugly".
Mayor Johnson said, "These insinuations that we are in some developer's pocket - that's pretty outrageous . . . To say that we are doing this because we are in some developer's pocket, that's pretty insulting to each of us up here and to all the time that we take out of our personal time . . . Why don't you stand up and put in the time that we put into this community?" Several angry members of the audience responded to Johnson's question by identifying the amount of time that they had devoted to the community in their opposition efforts to stop the Megaplex.
With over 3,000 Alamedans signing a petition against the Megaplex, it appears that Johnson, Gilmore and Matarrese will have an uphill struggle in any future attempts to be elected to office in Alameda.
For more information:
http://www.alamedadailynews.com/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network