Letters to the Editor
I trust that our City Council works to insure that Alameda will have a stellar reputation with regard to being a good steward to our wildlife. Such should become a part of our heritage.
Therefore, Alameda need not be a money-hungry city by sacrificing its priceless wildlife sanctuaries and protected areas to a big business that is trying to save a buck at our long-term expense. City Council, please vote to not allow Nautilus to use Alameda to abuse our unique Bay Area wildlife.
It is so obvious to me, that we need to protect our critters and warming oceans. Isn’t mankind doing enough to screw up the planet? You don’t have to sell out to any business. Tell Nautilus to “hit the road” and leave Alameda alone.
Would district elections, ranked choice voting, new campaign finance rules or term limits strengthen our local democracy? Would city government be more productive if City Councilmembers were paid a salary or took turns serving as Alameda’s mayor?
City leaders are beginning to explore these possibilities, and they’d like to know what you think. The city is partnering with the League of Women Voters of Alameda (LWVA) to host a pair of workshops to solicit public input. Those interested in participating can attend on either Wednesday, June 26, at Mastick Senior Center or Thursday, June 27, at the Main Library. Both workshops will begin at 6:30 p.m. Light refreshments will be served.
At each of the workshops, LWVA will provide information and short presentations about each of these potential local governance changes and will gather participants’ opinions about them. Workshop participants may also provide their own suggestions for improving local governance.
Implementation of any of these changes would require changes to the City Charter. Any change to the City Charter requires a vote of the people.
LWVA primary mission is to make democracy work. We invite you to join us at one of the two workshops and make your voice heard.
The Brauns’ argument in their letter to the City Council (“Open Letter on Rent Rules,” May 16) is simple, and does not really require citing economic theory. The thesis is easy and not hard to understand:
The statement “builders are going to not want to build in rent-controlled cities, therefore housing will remain scarce and hurt renters in the long run” is the sum and substance of it.
As more Bay Area cities add rent control to preserve their communities, which should be recognized as a higher value than making as much money as possible for a small segment of our citizenry. The question to the builders is where are you actually willing to build?
I would suggest Fresno, where there is no rent control. Good luck on getting people to pay unlimited rent there!
Alternatively, you can accept our rent controls and still make a decent — although not unconscionable profit — without destroying the communities who have made you prosperous. They will continue to do so, if you don’t insist on being opportunistic exploiters instead of good members of society who support the idea of profit, but not the idea of taking undue advantage of fellow citizens.