Login

Spread the word

Editor:

(Re: "Breaking Down Bullying Barriers," Jan. 19). More should be shared about this program. It needs to reach a larger audience. Great job, Mr. Hansen, Mrs. Williams Browning and students at Lincoln Middle School. Keep up the great work!

— Tere Hanson

An open letter to the city manager's office

The Alameda Sun received a copy of this letter addressed to Deputy City Manager Alex Nguyen.

Editor:

The Alameda Police Department has inadequately responded to my public records request for records pertaining to a takeover robbery of the Dec. 1, 2011, armed robbery at La Penca Azul Restaurant, 1440 Park St.

A letter I received today, on APD stationery from APD Chief Michael Noonan and signed by Police Records Supervisor Yvonne Cropp, states that certain records will not be provided, but does not cite the appropriate exemptions under the California Public Records Act.

The California Public Records Act clearly states that if an exemption from producing records is claimed, a citation to the applicable legal exemption must be provided. The letter that APD sent does not cite any statutory law for the exemption.

Please produce the records requested while I examine my options for a lawsuit against the city of Alameda to produce the records.

Thank you

— David Howard

Dangerous school crossing raises concerns

Editor:

Here's what occurred on the morning of Jan. 9: My children and I were waiting at the intersection of Paru Street and Encinal Avenue for the crossing guard to signal that it was safe to cross. The crossing guard was on the other side of the street, triggered the signals to alert drivers, held up his stop sign, blew his whistle and entered the intersection.

When he was about one-third the way across the road he signaled to my children that it was safe to enter the crosswalk. My instincts had me look to the left before entering and I quickly determined that the driver of a white pickup truck was traveling at about 40 miles per was not paying attention and not making any indication of stopping.

My children only had their eyes on the crossing guard and had begun to enter the street. I yelled and luckily they both stopped in time, but the truck blew past them and missed hitting the front tire of my son's bike by about 4 inches. The truck driver eventually came to a stop, past the crosswalk, and then drove off. Unfortunately no one thought to get the license plate number.

I made a formal complaint to the Alameda Police Department. I spoke to an offi cer who came out to my home and also spoke with Offi cer Ron Simmons from the Traffi c Division. Since this incident there has been a strong police presence, and multiple vehicles have been pulled over for violating the traffi c laws at this intersection.

I want to emphasize that had I not been there that morning, one, if not both, of my children would have been seriously injured or dead. My family has just recently moved back to Alameda after having been away for fi ve years.

It has been my experience that there has been a serious decline in driver awareness, particularly with respect to street crossings and stopping for those in crosswalks/intersections.

When we fi rst lived here, I used to comment how cars would begin stopping far back from the intersection to indicate safe passage. This is no longer the case, particularly on busy streets like Encinal and Lincoln avenues, Grand Street and Broadway.

— Heather Little

Kudos to Sun Reporter

Editor:

My Alameda High School student son attended last Tuesday's city council meeting as part of his government class so I decided to tag along.

I have to admit that the long session on Alameda's redevelopment agency and the council's plans for its transition and demise was a little vague for me. So many thanks to the Alameda Sun's Ekene Ikeme for his short but comprehensive summary of the state's plan to dissolve redevelopment agencies and how that will affect Alameda.

His article ("Local Projects Still Slated for Completion," Jan. 19) is the kind of informative journalism that is really benefi cial to Alameda's residents.

— James Reicher

Too close for comfort

Editor:

The Alameda Sun recently reported on the application to the city of Oakland for a permit to operate a medical marijuana dispensary at 4709 Tidewater Ave. ("Dispensary Questioned," Jan. 12).

This location is on property adjacent to the Tidewater Boat Center owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. At a hearing at the Oakland city hall, I spoke to opposition of this application on behalf of the regional park district.

The city of Oakland's ordinance states that such facilities shall not be located within 600 feet of a school, youth center, park or recreation facilities. Any study would show the boundary property line of the proposed location is opposite the Martin Luther King Jr. Shoreline, the location of our youth programs at the boat center.

Oakland Strokes, a youth rowing program that includes youth and coaches from Alameda, have their boathouse at the Tidewater Boat Center. They would be impacted negatively if such a dispensary would be permitted adjacent to their location.

East Bay Regional Park District will vigorously oppose the granting of a proposed permit for the marijuana dispensary.

— Doug Siden

Director Ward 4 East Bay Regional Park District

Not jumping up and down

Editor:

(Re: "Why Do I Need to Get A Permit?, Jan. 19) Does "the connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles" mean what it sounds like: plugging something into an outlet? If so, then no, I am not particularly "happy to know" that I do not need a permit to do it. Do you expect me to be jumping up and down to know that I don't need a permit to change a light bulb either?

— Name withheld

Enough, already

Editor:

Thank you for printing my letter to the editor ("Lack of performance on Christmas Eve alarm" Jan. 12) about the non-stop fi re alarm on Christmas Eve at Bright Horizons School on North Loop Road. The problem with the Protection One Alarm Company and Bright Horizons at Garner Learning Center continues as the alarm went off again one recent morning at 5:30 a.m. The fi re department came, saw there was no fi re, reset the alarm and left.

The alarm went off again at about 6:20 a.m., once again bringing the fi re department to discover no fi re. They reset the alarm (again) and left. The alarm started a third time around 7 a.m.

I spoke to a teacher who was opening the preschool. She was very apologetic. I didn't expect to see the fi refi ghters waste their time and my tax dollars by returning a third time. The teacher who was opening took my name and phone number and said the school's director Theresa Magabo would be in touch with me.

I called Protection One's 800 number and spoke with a dispatcher in Wichita, Kan. She said the closest Bay Area offi ce to Alameda was in Pleasanton. I asked about the alarm ringing for 33 hours on Christmas Eve and why no one checked it out.

She said, "our response time is 45 seconds." I explained that that wasn't the case on Dec 24. Her response was that no one was in the Pleasanton offi ce yet for me to speak with. It was 7:15 a.m. our time. She also said there was no direct line for me to call the Pleasanton offi ce; that they had an internal line for their communications.

I'm sure you understand my anger and frustration with the situation. Does Alameda have a policy concerning false alarms and wasting taxpayer dollars? In these times of bankrupt cities, I see this as a huge waste of money and think the alarm company should pay for this.

Four times the fi re department has responded to false alarms within three weeks at this single location. How many other false alarms do they respond to that our tax dollars are wasted on?

Our cities are broke and this is one reason why. Money is wasted unnecessarily and no one is held accountable. I think the alarm company should pay.

— Michael Manushaw

Disappointing, not fatal

Editor:

Phooey! The Lawrence Livermore Lab scorned fi ve great proposals and chose Richmond where they already owned land. I wonder why they bothered us? High praise for Alameda — we all saw a great opportunity and with fi ne staff work, went after it fl at out!

Well done, everyone! And we can take great pride in what has been accomplished that will accelerate our readiness as the market turns and fi nancing becomes more available. The continuation of the Going Forward Plan, acceleration of the Housing Element preparation and, last but certainly not least, the fantastic accomplishment of the no-cost conveyance.

All these accomplishments make Alameda Point a more marketable location than it has ever been. So. Disappointing? Yes. Fatal? No. We are almost ready for the next great opportunity — so don't be disheartened.

We will achieve a tax-paying use, fi ne job-producing uses, with community amenities, and a desirable place for persons of all incomes to live. Stick together, Alameda, and let's get on with the job!

— Helen Sause

Eighth Street trash

Editor:

It may be cute when the Burbank and Eighth Street neighborhood decorates the public palm trees along Washington Park during the holidays. But they can never be bothered to clean up in January. So for the rest of the year, the rest of us have to watch as these "cute" decorations deteriorate. Everyone loves reindeer.

Nobody likes litter. These leftover decorations are litter. Please clean up those red ribbons and palmleaves, neighbors, or don't bother to put them up at all.

— Faith MacDonald