- On June 27, 2006 The League of Women Voters Alameda voted at its annual meeting to send a letter to the Alameda City Council encouraging it to place on the November ballot whether voters would like to change Measure A. So far, the council has taken no action on the request. The letter follows:
Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members:
The League of Women Voters of Alameda urges the Council to place on the ballot for November 2006, a measure amending the City Charter to exempt Alameda Point from the provisions of Article XXVI .-"Measure A". In order to allow the voice of all Alameda citizens to be heard on this vital matter, the rules governing the development of Alameda Point should be put to a vote.
As we move closer to finalizing the development plans for the Point, the community has become increasingly anxious and polarized about what it will mean to restrict or allow certain types of housing and development. Some feel that the current provisions of Measure A should be preserved at all costs; others contend that the current issues and electorate are not the same now as when Measure A was passed in 1973.
During the many public meetings and workshops there was considerable interest in changing Measure A to allow a greater mix of housing types. Putting the matter to a vote will allow the community to move beyond contentious dialogue to a constructive and thoughtful implementation stage. It may avoid costly lawsuits and further delays.
We commend the Council for its admirable effort to include the public in the planning process for the Point. The League of Women Voters holds as one of its most fundamental principles that democratic government depends on the informed and active participation of its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration of this request to put a measure changing the City Charter to exempt Alameda Point from Article XXVI on the ballot.
Sincerely
Karen Butter
League of Women Voters Alameda
- This is what Carole Levenson, our State Management Training Advisor, who was present at the Annual meeting wrote in response to complaints, specifically one League member, to the LWVC that we have violated League policies and procedures.
Dear Gretchen,
I have reviewed the materials you sent me as well as the Voters and Annual Meeting Kit and By-laws of the Alameda League. While I understand your concerns about the procedures and voting that occurred at the Annual Meeting, I believe you are misinterpreting what happened and taking certain issues out of context.
In 2005, the LWV of Alameda held several meetings discussing Alameda Point, housing and transportation issues and Measure A. The League has held discussions on Measure A on a long term basis over the years.
Specifically, on September 29, 2005 the League held a meeting entitled "Issues and Challenges at Alameda Point", and on November 16, 2005 the League addressed the issues of historic preservation, housing choices, financial trade-offs, recreation and transportation at Alameda Point.
As a result of these meetings, and after discussion and consensus, the Alameda League adopted a position on housing and transportation in 2005.
This position was re-adopted without comment or amendment at the Annual Meeting last week.
In addition, the League has vertical positions which can be used by Local Leagues in taking action in regard to government issues under certain specified circumstances.
Once a position has been adopted, the Board is authorized to take action on the position, whether or not the action taken is presented to the general membership. The LWV Alameda Board, as a courtesy, brought this action to the general membership at the Annual Meeting to allow for further discussion.
Prior to the Annual Meeting, the proposed letter was disseminated by e-mail to those members who have made their email addresses available to the email distribution list. That letter went out on May 30th, more than three weeks before the Annual Meeting. This gave most members ample time to read the letter and suggest changes or submit
other comments.
I understand that when the Annual Meeting Kit was prepared, the placement of the letter on the agenda was overlooked. The letter was then included as Non-recommended Program instead of as an item for Action, which caused confusion. It was described as an Action Item at the meeting, and as such needed only a simple majority vote of the members in attendance to pass.
If the proposed letter is considered
Program instead of Action, which I believe to be an inaccurate categorization, then as Non-recommended Program, the vote necessary for passage is 2/3. My understanding is that the vote taken showed the results to be 18 votes in favor and 10 votes opposed.
However, one of the votes in opposition to the letter was made by a person who had only
joined the LWV Alameda that morning, and so under Section 6 of the By-laws, this person was not a voting member, as she had not received 10 days prior notice as a member about the matters under discussion. This results in a vote of 18 for the Action Item and 9 opposed to the Action Item, which is exactly a 2/3 vote.
I believe that the actions taken by the Board at the LWV Alameda Annual Meeting were appropriate and proper. I cannot see any evidence of a hidden agenda or an attempt to dupe the membership or rig the outcome.
I understand that the outcome was not what you desired, but I do not think the players had any ulterior motives. I think their goal is to have a full and open discussion on what will happen at Alameda Point, and that includes considering how the land will look both with and without the effects of Measure A.
In conclusion, I have reviewed the conduct of the LWV Alameda Board in bringing this matter to the general membership. It met League guidelines for taking action. The letter was written with input from the Board. It was distributed in advance to most of the membership, with notice that it would be considered at the Annual Meeting. Finally, after much discussion, it was adopted by a majority vote.
I have requested that the LWV Alameda Board, in the future, include "Rules of the Day", specifying the parliamentary procedures and voting requirements to be followed, in the Annual Meeting Kit.
I have also suggested that the Board consider placing "Items for Action" in a separate category on the Annual Meeting agenda.
Sincerely,
Carole Levenson, MTA, LWV California
- In response to community concern regarding the League's reasons for the council request, Karen Butter of the Action Committe wrote this letter to newspaper editor, approved by the League:
Alameda Journal, Alameda Times Star, Alameda Sun
"Dear Editor:
On July 5th the League of Women Voters of Alameda spoke before the City Council and presented the request that follows. Since our letter generated a great deal of community interest, we wish to share our letter to the City Council.
"The League of Women Voters of Alameda urges the Council to place on the ballot for November 2006, a measure amending the City Charter to exempt Alameda Point from the provisions of Article XXVI + "Measure A." In order to allow the voice of all Alameda citizens to be heard on this vital matter, the rules governing the development of Alameda Point should be put to a vote. We, the League, do not endorse or oppose the possible exemption of Measure A for Alameda Point development. Placing this issue on the ballot will allow the community to move beyond contentious dialogue to a constructive and thoughtful implementation stage and may avoid costly lawsuits and further delays."
While there is still considerable work remaining to complete the transfer of the property to the City, planning for the area is moving forward. Development of a parcel the size of Alameda Point will have major impact on our community. We commend the City Council and Planning Board for public meetings held to date. However, there are critical issues related to the development of Alameda Point that still should be considered. For example, the public should have an opportunity to discuss the two Preliminary Development Concepts for Alameda Point, one with Measure A in place and one where development at Alameda Point would be exempt from Measure A.
In order to consider all options the public should have an opportunity to discuss and vote on this issue before 2008. We have asked the City Council to place the issue on the ballot instead of an initiative due to the amount of time required to gather signatures and so that the development plans reflect the vote of the community. If this were a simple matter of zoning we would still encourage open meetings to rationally discuss the issue.
I want to emphasize that the League of Women Voters is not supporting or opposing the possible exemption of Measure A for Alameda Point. Our motive is to urge the City Council to give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to discuss and vote on this matter.
Karen Butter,
League of Women Voters of Alameda,
Action Committee
- Here in .pdf format is a copy of Measure A from the City of Alameda:
Measure A Text.
The work of the League of Women Voters is going on every day, and we are eager to use this column to let the public know about our activities to promote and encourage good government in Alameda.
First, a bit about the League as an organization:
Established in 1920, the League of Women Voters is a national, grassroots, nonpartisan, political organization. Its members -- men and women -- are committed to making democracy work.
The League of Women Voters of Alameda is a member of The League of Women Voters (LWV) of the United States. Like its sister leagues throughout the nation, its mission is to encourage the informed and active participation of citizens in government and to influence public policy through education and advocacy. Our advocacy reflects the consensus of our members reached after engaging in thorough study and discussion of selected issues.
The LWV of Alameda meets regularly and organizes community events throughout the year. We conduct meetings on issues of interest to Alameda. The public is invited to attend our meetings.
Recently, we've had a lot of questions, and we would like to take the time to answer them as best we can.
Q.Why did the Alameda League take action in asking City Council to put exemptions to Measure A on the ballot?
A.Last year the membership completed a study on housing and transportation in Alameda and adopted a new position on this topic. We have been attending the community meetings on the proposals for new development at the old Naval Air Station (Alameda Point) and have noted the struggles with designing the new space with the constraints of Measure A, as well as some interesting alternatives which would only be possible with amendments to Measure A.
We feel that the public should be able to discuss and choose whether they want the design to be 100% in conformance to Measure A, or amend Measure A to allow for other alternatives.
Q. Where can I find the League's position?
A. On our web site at http://www.alameda.ca.lwvnet.org.
Q. So, if the League wants Measure A amended, why didn't it go out and get signatures for the ballot measure instead of taking the lazy way of asking the City Council to put it on the ballot?
A. The City Charter can be amended by the people by voting on measures proposed by a citizen initiative or by the Council. The issue appeared to be urgent as the planning for Alameda Point is moving rapidly to a place where decisions have to be made and the League believes the citizens should have direct input into those decisions. The Council put a Measure A amendment before the voters in 1991.
Q. Why isn't the League being specific about the amendments it wants to propose or support?
A. The League is not supporting or opposing any specific amendment at this time; it just wants the Council to allow the citizens to vote on amendments the Council would feel are appropriate to insure a good planning process.
Once the City Attorney, at the direction of the Council, has ballot language finalized, the League would review it, compare it to our position, and decide if we could support it.
Q. Measure A has protected our community from over development, why does the League want to let the developers in to wreck Alameda, as we know it?
A. The League has never proposed consideration of amendments to Measure A other than for Alameda Point, which is undeveloped land. We would like to see the development proceed in ways that reflect our position, arrived at through study and consensus. We recognize, from comments made in many public meetings, the constraints of Measure A might limit the options available, since they pretty much allow only single or two-family homes which may result in little or no open space, lack of community amenities for children, families and the elderly. We want the Point to look and feel like the rest of Alameda; and for all the alternatives to be discussed in public so the public can decide what they want this important asset to be like."
Q. Won't amendments to Measure A result in high rises, such as are proposed for the Oak to Ninth project in Oakland?
A. The Council has the right and obligation to set height limits for anything included in the plan. If the Council were to set height limits and densities similar to existing Alameda, no high rises would be built. The City cannot be forced to accept height limits set by a developer.
Q. Measure A has protected us well, opening it up to amendment, even for just the Point, is dangerous. We should not be even talking about it, as discussing amendments means it might be compromised, and we don't want that!
A. The League believes that in a democracy, all matters of public policy should be open to discussion in public.
There can be no "forbidden topics." Public dialogue may lead us to a positive and "safe" resolution of this planning dilemma.
Not talking about it just promotes the existing tensions and inability to move forward as a community. It is only in dictatorships that public issues are forbidden to be discussed and resolved; we are encouraging openness and full citizen participation in the decision making process and trust the voters to decide.
© Copyright
League of Women Voters of Alameda, California. All rights reserved.
![[LWV]](images/lwv60.gif)
League of Women Voters®