Webster is the Way

Editor:

City officials recently announced plans to improve the downtown even more by unveiling a new vision for the civic core portion of the Park Street area. Judging by comments on a number of local blogs, the vision is being warmly received by the public.

As a life-long Alamedan, I love seeing our downtown and civic center areas continue to improve. This is a plus for everyone. But as a former city councilmember and a candidate for the mayor's office, I feel compelled to say something that may perhaps be viewed as unpopular in light of the excitement surrounding the plans to further improve our historic downtown.

We need to focus on Webster Street, too. There, I said it. We need to take the same amount of enthusiasm and, as important, city-dollars to produce a road map that takes Webster Street from "Point A" to "Point B."

To be sure, what works for Park Street is not necessarily a formula for Webster Street.

While Alamedans should see in Park Street a future retail destination that attracts local and East Bay shoppers alike and, in so doing, transforms Park Street into an area that compares with if not surpasses upscale Fourth Street or downtown Walnut Creek, with Webster Street, let's build on the local-serving multicultural retail already there.

As a West End homeowner residing near Webster and Haight Avenue, I love the fact that I get the Farmers' Market literally on my doorstep, as much as I love being able to walk around the corner to Wes Cafe or the Aria Supermarket that's Bosnian-owned. The ethnic restaurants there such as East Ocean are as numerous as they are award-winning.

But when we plan Webster's future, let's get beyond the indirect "trickle-down" approach that has thus far permeated our approach -- an approach that posits Webster will get better: when we improve the sidewalks and streetscape (which we did); when the Point gets going; when Alameda Landing gets going; or when the Willie Stargell Boulevard comes on line (soon.)

While on the city council, I am proud to have voted for measures like the Downtown Strategic Plan that resulted in immense investment of public funds to revitalize the downtown and civic core areas. The emergence of Park Street didn't happen in a vacuum: it began with the Downtown Strategic Plan.

Like what we did for Park Street, now let's work with residents and West End businesses to find out what direct support City Hall can provide to jump-start Webster Street. Let's bring forward a Webster-specific strategy similar to the detailed Park Street downtown strategy I voted for when on City Council — with specific actions, goals, timetable, and funding. It worked for Park Street — why not for Webster Street?

So, let's continue to make big plans for Park Street, but before we start with the Park Street's next big plan (i.e. the civic core vision), let's implement a big plan for Webster Street.

— Tony Daysog

Stop hiring consultants

Editor:

It was great to read Kirsten Vital's commentary in your paper. I hope all Alameda taxpayers understand just how lucky we are to have her as superintendent of our school district. How many superintendents would have the courage and leadership to spend what we are told are inadequate and dwindling financial resources on an outside consultant to find half a million dollars worth of inefficiency in the department they oversee?

Well, these days I guess just about any superintendent is more than willing to turn real work over to consultants, but how many have the courage to brag about it in the local paper?

It's outrageous that we have to pay outside consultants to correct the mismanagement of our schools. Not only do we pay repeatedly for the consultants, we must also continually overpay the top-level administrators who not only allow, but also create new inefficiencies and waste between consultant contracts.

Surely we need an exorbitant new parcel tax to maintain this excellence. After all, it's for the kids.

— Mike Fennelly

Health care woes

Editor:

Some citizens facing rising health care costs or loss of coverage believe that it is due to the unions, undeserving sick people or some other nefarious scheme. Wendell Potter, a former Cigna executive, turned health care reformer describes the facts more simply.

Much of the insurance industry is "for profit" whose goal is to maximize shareholder profits. It is not in their interest to cover people who will cost them money. Therefore, they deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and revoke coverage for people who get sick.

In order to keep profits up they also increase the premiums and the amount of co-pays for their customers, thereby "pricing people out of the market." If your health insurance went up 20-30 percent this is what is happening to you. The current health care proposal prohibits companies from continuing those practices.

However, in order to get the GOP on board, the bill's supporters had to promise to create mandates, giving thousands of new customers to the insurance industry.

The insurance industry has never been regulated. This bill will make some changes in that direction. This is government oversight, often sold as "government take over of the health care industry" by the lobbyists and corporate interests.

Another fact to chew on is that CEO's of the top health insurers, as Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross and others make as much as 24 million dollars a year in salary. In addition, the industry leaders have posted a 66 percent increase in profits in 2009 over the profits of 2008. The industry collectively made 12.2 billion dollars in 2009; this in spite of spending close to 300 million on lobbyists.

Doctors, too, have a financial incentive to oversubscribe. Some may be defensive medicine, but much of it is income related. It is human nature. Clearly, the incentives are wrong and that is why the costs continue to soar.

The public option, called "government takeover" offered some semblance of competition by giving people who couldn't or wouldn't pay the insurance company for questionable coverage. Unfortunately the "for-profit" companies saw the potential for driving down their profits and have used every tool in their arsenal to fight it.

Some very profitable companies might have lost out, but many non profits, like Kaiser would have functioned quite comfortably in the market and provided patient centered care rather than corporate centered care.

Most importantly, health care does not follow the rules of the market place. Delivering health care is not like producing cars or toasters. But don't believe me. Spend a few hours on Google looking up facts before deciding what to believe. Turn off the TV sound bites. They mislead.

— Anne Frey

Scapegoat central

Editor:

Everyone is looking for someone to blame for the school funding crisis and the forthcoming parcel tax. Proposition 13 is a favorite target, as is the Sacramento legislature.

But let's not forget California's redevelopment machine, which spirits away over $5 billion in property taxes across the state each year for developer subsidies. This is the same "machine" that recently brought you Measure B and a $200 million taxpayer subsidy for SunCal.

The state legislature has tried to address the problem, re-allocating $2 billion worth of local developer subsidies for California's K-12 schools, but the California Redevelopment Association has sued the State of California to block the money from going to schools. (Superior Court for Sacramento County, California Redevelopment Association et al. v. Genest et al.) In Alameda County, 13 cents of every property tax dollar goes to redevelopment agencies instead of our schools.

And be careful what you wish for regarding Proposition 13. If Prop. 13 were repealed, much of the new property taxes generated wouldn't go to schools and cities, but instead into the giant maw of redevelopment to subsidize private land development companies like SunCal.

Over $674 billion worth of land in California is subject to redevelopment agencies that silently grab incremental property tax revenue. (Look closely at who is behind the calls for the repeal of Prop. 13)

Keep this in mind as you come to a position about the forthcoming parcel tax. There's lots of money around, it's just in the wrong hands.

— David Howard

Basketball kudos

Editor:

On behalf of the Alameda Education Foundation (AEF), I'd like to thank all of those who helped make this year's AEF middle school sports basketball season a success.

The district no longer funds middle school sports due to budget shortfalls, but students at Chipman, Lincoln and Wood Middle Schools compete in volleyball, basketball, and track and field because of AEF and the support of the community.

Thank you to local Alameda businesses who provided discounts and services, particularly Dave McCarver of Alameda Advertising and Recognition and Al Wright of Raintree Studios.

Thank you to the volunteers who stepped up to help at the games and to the Alameda Parks and Recreation Department that was able to find us last-minute gym space for our championships. Of course, we are happy that local media ran coverage of the games.

AEF's Middle School Sports program is about much more than sports — participating students adhere to academic and conduct standards that support essential life skills for success. This year's team coaches and site administrators, teachers and staff did a great job of supporting these valuable objectives.

Most of all, thank you to the student-athletes who set goals, trained diligently and exhibited excellent sportsmanship throughout the season.

AEF's Middle School Sports program is just one example of how our community can come together to provide the programs needed round out and enhance our students' educational experiences and keep our schools — and our community— strong. AEF is counting on the community for continued support of this vital program. Donations may be made at www.alamedaeducationfoundation.org.

AEF looks forward to Track and Field, which begins in April.

— Vicki Sedlack, AEF Athletic Director