It is really fortuitous that Libby Schaaf was next in line for me to write about, because I attended a "meet the candidate" meeting for her held by a colleague on Saturday, and had an opportunity to hear her speak for an hour and meet her afterwards. Here's Libby Schaaf's website.
I was very impressed by Ms. Schaaf. She reminded me of Leslie Knope from Parks & Recreation, and I mean that in the best possible way. She had an incredible grasp of the details of every issue people raised, and her ideas were good. She could also speak to concrete things she has done as a City Council member that related to these issues, and very gently informed people when their perceptions of city issues were wrong. An example: one gentleman complained that there was only one inspector for the fire department on overgrowth abatement (This is an issue for Hills homeowners). Ms. Schaaf told him that there is one full-time, 3 part-time, and the new budget calls for two additional full-time, plus a civilian fire marshal, and that a real issue is that the city is not collecting the fines assessed against property owners who don't abate their fire hazardous overgrowth, something she has raised to the fire chief. She was that thorough on every issue. She also was very inclusive in mentioning which of her colleagues she worked with on which issue, demonstrating her ability to work with the council members on difficult issues.
I asked her about the Ruby Report, and whether her close relationships with other council members would prevent her from holding them accountable. She asked me for an example. I said, things like insisting that family members be hired, and meddling in the city departments. She was a little flustered and said that she would have voted for a motion to sanction one of her colleagues if one had been made that night. I am not sure what she was referring to, and didn't ask her why she didn't make that motion, because it seemed a little controversial for what was an otherwise pleasant and genteel meeting.
Which gets to my other concern. Libby Schaaf is doing a great job making connections with voters in the more affluent neighborhoods but I don't know how much she is campaigning in other neighborhoods. As one person there said, "The Mayor is going to all the churches. Are you going to the churches?" Libby's response was basically, "I would love to go to services anywhere you invite me." I don't really know how much exposure she has gotten.
Some other things I learned from her: The field will probably be winnowed a bit on August 8, which is the filing deadline for candidates to submit signatures. They only need 50 signatures, but that might shake some candidates out of the race. Neither Libby Schaaf nor Courtney Ruby can run for their current position because both seats are on the November ballot. That's disappointing; we will lose one or both of them regardless of the outcome of the election. Finally, there is a debate at city hall on August 21 for all candidates who have garnered more than 5% in an independent poll. I cannot attend that but it will make clear who the "real contenders" are.
Showing posts with label 2014 Oakland mayor's race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 Oakland mayor's race. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2014
Tuesday, July 08, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Courtney Ruby
Having vented about our current mayor, I feel calm, relaxed and ready to return to the task at hand. Courtney Ruby is the City Auditor, and she decided in February 2014 to run for Mayor because of public safety concerns. Ms. Ruby's website (www.CourtneyRuby.com) does not seem to have a platform listed, although she is very critical of the current administration and city council. Not that I blame her.
In lieu of specifics in her mayoral campaign, I decided to check out her work as the City Auditor. In some ways, her work as auditor has been very strong. She has called out wrongdoing by some entrenched city councilmembers in the Ruby Report, and was very frank in her assessment of the pension liabilities and its impact on governance. She has been recognized nationally for her auditor performance in Oakland, and now that I've read her reports, I wish she had more exposure in Oakland. That said, her proposed solutions are a little weak. We have a $1.5 billion pension liability in Oakland, and her recommendation is to convene a Pension Advisory Committee, and maybe a coalition of similarly situated cities to lobby Sacramento on the issue. This is unsettling to me; when I was advising public pensions, we were telling them to expect the hammer to fall back in 2005. If Oakland doesn't have a committee of this kind, or hasn't been in this kind of dialogue already, we are in deep trouble. Trouble deeper than a Pension Advisory Group will solve.
The suggestions in the Ruby Report are much more specific and actionable. They start at page 37 of the Ruby Report, and indicate that our elected officials are engaged in an unbelievable amount of meddling, self-dealing and inappropriate conduct. Knowing that there's this level of dysfunction; why would she want to be Mayor? The job sounds like Chief Cat Herder.
I am interested in hearing more from Ms. Ruby, but I also wonder whether she wouldn't be an excellent partner in transparency and accountability to a different Mayor. She seems like an awesome Auditor, and might be a good Mayor. But wouldn't it be better to have a great auditor and a great mayor?
In lieu of specifics in her mayoral campaign, I decided to check out her work as the City Auditor. In some ways, her work as auditor has been very strong. She has called out wrongdoing by some entrenched city councilmembers in the Ruby Report, and was very frank in her assessment of the pension liabilities and its impact on governance. She has been recognized nationally for her auditor performance in Oakland, and now that I've read her reports, I wish she had more exposure in Oakland. That said, her proposed solutions are a little weak. We have a $1.5 billion pension liability in Oakland, and her recommendation is to convene a Pension Advisory Committee, and maybe a coalition of similarly situated cities to lobby Sacramento on the issue. This is unsettling to me; when I was advising public pensions, we were telling them to expect the hammer to fall back in 2005. If Oakland doesn't have a committee of this kind, or hasn't been in this kind of dialogue already, we are in deep trouble. Trouble deeper than a Pension Advisory Group will solve.
The suggestions in the Ruby Report are much more specific and actionable. They start at page 37 of the Ruby Report, and indicate that our elected officials are engaged in an unbelievable amount of meddling, self-dealing and inappropriate conduct. Knowing that there's this level of dysfunction; why would she want to be Mayor? The job sounds like Chief Cat Herder.
I am interested in hearing more from Ms. Ruby, but I also wonder whether she wouldn't be an excellent partner in transparency and accountability to a different Mayor. She seems like an awesome Auditor, and might be a good Mayor. But wouldn't it be better to have a great auditor and a great mayor?
Monday, July 07, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Jean Quan
I can keep this post short but sweet. I am not going to research or summarize Jean Quan's positions of alleged accomplishments, because there is no way that I can imagine voting for her. I did not vote for her last time, I think she's done a poor job, and I think she needs to be replaced. It's why I am paying close attention to her challengers. She has to go.
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Bryan Parker
We are now entering the realm of what I will call "The Serious Candidates." I know that Rebecca Kaplan is considered a serious contender, and that the other candidates are also serious about their candidacies. It's just that, alphabetically, the next few candidates are mainstream and likely to receive some media attention as well. Bryan Parker is a current Port Commissioner, appointed by Mayor Jean Quan, who announced his candidacy back in May 2013.
That seems like a long time ago. But for fundraising purposes, Mr. Parker no doubt wanted to get the ball rolling, and it certainly was clear earlier than last year that Jean Quan needed to be challenged (if not recalled). And Mr. Parker has successfully raised money. He is the top fundraiser in this crowded field, with $140,699 raised. That's compared with Mayor Quan's $120,205. Two issues have given Oaklanders' pause about this. First, a lot of that money was raised via Crowdtilt, an online fundraising program that may not meet campaign finance requirements. Second, a lot of that money was donated by folks who do not live in Oakland. Anecdotally, I have heard that he reached out to many of his law school classmates. I don't know whether there's anything wrong with that (disclosure: When I ran for political office on a much smaller scale, I certainly reached out to my college and law school classmates, as well as friends in SF, many of whom gave to my campaign). But it does raise a question about what level of local involvement Mr. Parker will seek out to develop his policies and staff his administration.
Mr. Parker's platform is A Safe Oakland, An Employed Oakland, An Educated Oakland. Mr. Parker pairs public safety ideas like more police with educational goals, like increasing graduation and job placement rates for kids. He wants equitable growth and job opportunities for all Oakland residents, and aims to bring his background as a healthcare executive with DaVita and as a port commissioner to job creation efforts. Finally, he wants to increase technology in the schools to improve public education.
I don't have any beef with ANY of that. I would like to hear a debate where Mr. Parker discusses his ideas with the other candidates, and I would like to meet him personally. But there are a few other things that have turned me off Mr. Parker so far, and they are all highly subjective. First of all, the picture he selected for his campaign posters is not a very good picture. Second, a friend who would be inclined to support the campaign financially and who is, in the parlance of our times "a job creater", told me that he invited Mr. Parker to talk and Mr. Parker has never reached out. Finally, I stood next to him at an event for an organization that teaches law in high schools, and he was on his Blackberry almost the entire time the speaker was speaking. Otherwise, he was working the room like it was his own fundraiser. I thought that was rude, and disrespectful to the organization hosting the event and to the speaker. Maybe it's unfair to base my judgments on those events, but those kinds of impressions are the kind that help voters decide.
That seems like a long time ago. But for fundraising purposes, Mr. Parker no doubt wanted to get the ball rolling, and it certainly was clear earlier than last year that Jean Quan needed to be challenged (if not recalled). And Mr. Parker has successfully raised money. He is the top fundraiser in this crowded field, with $140,699 raised. That's compared with Mayor Quan's $120,205. Two issues have given Oaklanders' pause about this. First, a lot of that money was raised via Crowdtilt, an online fundraising program that may not meet campaign finance requirements. Second, a lot of that money was donated by folks who do not live in Oakland. Anecdotally, I have heard that he reached out to many of his law school classmates. I don't know whether there's anything wrong with that (disclosure: When I ran for political office on a much smaller scale, I certainly reached out to my college and law school classmates, as well as friends in SF, many of whom gave to my campaign). But it does raise a question about what level of local involvement Mr. Parker will seek out to develop his policies and staff his administration.
Mr. Parker's platform is A Safe Oakland, An Employed Oakland, An Educated Oakland. Mr. Parker pairs public safety ideas like more police with educational goals, like increasing graduation and job placement rates for kids. He wants equitable growth and job opportunities for all Oakland residents, and aims to bring his background as a healthcare executive with DaVita and as a port commissioner to job creation efforts. Finally, he wants to increase technology in the schools to improve public education.
I don't have any beef with ANY of that. I would like to hear a debate where Mr. Parker discusses his ideas with the other candidates, and I would like to meet him personally. But there are a few other things that have turned me off Mr. Parker so far, and they are all highly subjective. First of all, the picture he selected for his campaign posters is not a very good picture. Second, a friend who would be inclined to support the campaign financially and who is, in the parlance of our times "a job creater", told me that he invited Mr. Parker to talk and Mr. Parker has never reached out. Finally, I stood next to him at an event for an organization that teaches law in high schools, and he was on his Blackberry almost the entire time the speaker was speaking. Otherwise, he was working the room like it was his own fundraiser. I thought that was rude, and disrespectful to the organization hosting the event and to the speaker. Maybe it's unfair to base my judgments on those events, but those kinds of impressions are the kind that help voters decide.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidates: Patrick McCullough
Let me just cut to the chase on Patrick McCullough, whose interview-serving-as-campaign-video I am too lazy* to watch. Mr. McCullough is the guy who shot a drug dealer (or kid, or both) who he claimed was making trouble on his corner. As I recall, Mr. McCullough was frustrated with police response times to his calls and the OPD failure to adequately dealing that was occurring on his street, near Bushrod Park. After a confrontation with the dealer and others, Mr. McCullough shot him. He was never charged with anything. Here's the NPR story about it.
It's too bad that this happened, because overall, Mr. McCullough is not the craziest person in this race by a long shot. And he has a platform that probably mirrors the Oakland general population's pretty closely. Less city bureaucrats, more cops. Better technology for public safety, not more. Keep DAC limited to the port. Deal with the remnants of Occupy Oakland that undermine public safety and city development. Better use of city resources coordinated with Oakland schools, including volunteers and better input from school community.
I am summarizing all this from an article I read about Mr. McCullough. Just as when he ran for city council (he lost to Jane Brunner), I think he is more thoughtful than his vigilantism suggests. Unfortunately, I think the grayness of his confrontation with Milton McHenry make his candidacy difficult to support.
*Maybe lazy is the wrong word. Maybe "I value my time too much to spend it watching a grainy phone-video for 37 minutes" is a better word.
It's too bad that this happened, because overall, Mr. McCullough is not the craziest person in this race by a long shot. And he has a platform that probably mirrors the Oakland general population's pretty closely. Less city bureaucrats, more cops. Better technology for public safety, not more. Keep DAC limited to the port. Deal with the remnants of Occupy Oakland that undermine public safety and city development. Better use of city resources coordinated with Oakland schools, including volunteers and better input from school community.
I am summarizing all this from an article I read about Mr. McCullough. Just as when he ran for city council (he lost to Jane Brunner), I think he is more thoughtful than his vigilantism suggests. Unfortunately, I think the grayness of his confrontation with Milton McHenry make his candidacy difficult to support.
*Maybe lazy is the wrong word. Maybe "I value my time too much to spend it watching a grainy phone-video for 37 minutes" is a better word.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Peter Y. Liu
It looks like our next candidate up to bat is Peter Y. Liu. Mr. Liu is a graduate of Oakland public schools as well as the University of California at Santa Cruz. Mr. Liu also served in the Army, where he met Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think they were just visiting, not serving with him. Mr. Liu has become wealthy in real estate, and is motivated by two things to serve Oakland as mayor: God and his child.
Here's what he has to say about why his son motivates him to run for mayor:
I am sure his spouse is just thrilled to have been called out in this way. But his son is hella cute, and would almost inspire me too. Here's what he has to say about God:
God asked me to lead people to a world of peace and prosperity in 2003. I was a low ranking soldier on the battlefield in the Middle-East with bloods on hand, a sinner. Peace.pdf At the time I didn’t comprehend the task and God has put me through trials and now the understanding is complete. World peace and prosperity can be achieved with “Community Empowered Safety Plan”.
CESP is his platform. It involves concealed carry permits (and fees, to underwrite the rest of program), heavy surveillance, community policing, and a business center to develop and support new businesses.
The first element is no-go for me, and without researching CA gun law and public opinion polls, probably no-go for a lot of other people. It would be easy to mock his heavy surveillance program if our whole city council hadn't spent the past 2 years supporting and then frantically unsupporting one of the most comprehensive surveillance programs in the country. This is also no-go for me. Community policing, I give it a thumb's up generally, but I am not sure it should be as heavily militarized as his program sounds, being mobilized "when" an emergency is declared, especially since a lot of those folks might have concealed carry weapons and tons of personal information collected by the city. And that business center? We have a Business Assistance Center, and I found them to be very helpful when I started my business.
Here's what he has to say about why his son motivates him to run for mayor:
If I am mayor, I have 4 years to make the Oakland public schools safer and raise the education standards. Spouse always nagging me to buy a house in Alameda, Castro Valley, etc., but I don’t want to. I want my child to be able to go to the same public schools I went to and be proud of it. I am not going to escape from the problem.
I am sure his spouse is just thrilled to have been called out in this way. But his son is hella cute, and would almost inspire me too. Here's what he has to say about God:
God asked me to lead people to a world of peace and prosperity in 2003. I was a low ranking soldier on the battlefield in the Middle-East with bloods on hand, a sinner. Peace.pdf At the time I didn’t comprehend the task and God has put me through trials and now the understanding is complete. World peace and prosperity can be achieved with “Community Empowered Safety Plan”.
CESP is his platform. It involves concealed carry permits (and fees, to underwrite the rest of program), heavy surveillance, community policing, and a business center to develop and support new businesses.
The first element is no-go for me, and without researching CA gun law and public opinion polls, probably no-go for a lot of other people. It would be easy to mock his heavy surveillance program if our whole city council hadn't spent the past 2 years supporting and then frantically unsupporting one of the most comprehensive surveillance programs in the country. This is also no-go for me. Community policing, I give it a thumb's up generally, but I am not sure it should be as heavily militarized as his program sounds, being mobilized "when" an emergency is declared, especially since a lot of those folks might have concealed carry weapons and tons of personal information collected by the city. And that business center? We have a Business Assistance Center, and I found them to be very helpful when I started my business.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Saied Karamooz
Saied Karamooz is a very interesting candidate. He is a nonpartisan candidate who is treating his candidacy less as a campaign and more of a movement.
His website is http://oaklandmayormovement.org, and he has published a manifesto, rather than position statements. At least that's what he calls it; it seems more like a list of really creative ideas than a manifesto. His ideas are focused on services for the homeless, reducing blight, increasing voluntarism, public mourning for all crime-related losses of life and more fruits and vegetables in food desert areas. Also, and I endorse this completely, he thinks we should be doing more to keep our teams in Oakland.
I am serious when I say that there are some good ideas which are low-cost and mainstream in his list. In a sense, however, they seem too simplistic. Oakland is a real city with complex problems that are not solved by more fruit and veggie stands or lowering the flag to half-mast when a kid gets shot.
Mr. Karamooz saves his real idealism for his campaign principles. His donation page refuses to accept donations from anyone. He won't do any canvassing, house parties, or analyze voter demographics. The problem for Mr. Karamooz is, those are not dirty politics; they are the cornerstone of movement politics and organizing. A come-from-behind candidate with fresh ideas and not a lot of money needs to be knocking on doors, talking to people in intimate settings like their friends' homes, and really selling those ideas to everyone he meets.
It's an interesting thought experiment: what if all candidates swore off campaigning, and agreed to limit their exposure to voters to a single webpage or printed brochure. Voters would be expected to review all the positions and candidates but would be basing it on ideas alone. In theory, this would result in a better informed electorate and a cleaner election. But candidates would never be forced to answer questions on issues they didn't know about or didn't like. Voters would never know how candidates might clear up a particular issue of interest to them. Candidates would never be tested by their opponents or forced to answer to their previous actions.
Sorry, Mr. Karamooz. I hope that another candidate gleans some good ideas from your manifesto. Otherwise, I don't think this candidacy is going anywhere.
His website is http://oaklandmayormovement.org, and he has published a manifesto, rather than position statements. At least that's what he calls it; it seems more like a list of really creative ideas than a manifesto. His ideas are focused on services for the homeless, reducing blight, increasing voluntarism, public mourning for all crime-related losses of life and more fruits and vegetables in food desert areas. Also, and I endorse this completely, he thinks we should be doing more to keep our teams in Oakland.
I am serious when I say that there are some good ideas which are low-cost and mainstream in his list. In a sense, however, they seem too simplistic. Oakland is a real city with complex problems that are not solved by more fruit and veggie stands or lowering the flag to half-mast when a kid gets shot.
Mr. Karamooz saves his real idealism for his campaign principles. His donation page refuses to accept donations from anyone. He won't do any canvassing, house parties, or analyze voter demographics. The problem for Mr. Karamooz is, those are not dirty politics; they are the cornerstone of movement politics and organizing. A come-from-behind candidate with fresh ideas and not a lot of money needs to be knocking on doors, talking to people in intimate settings like their friends' homes, and really selling those ideas to everyone he meets.
It's an interesting thought experiment: what if all candidates swore off campaigning, and agreed to limit their exposure to voters to a single webpage or printed brochure. Voters would be expected to review all the positions and candidates but would be basing it on ideas alone. In theory, this would result in a better informed electorate and a cleaner election. But candidates would never be forced to answer questions on issues they didn't know about or didn't like. Voters would never know how candidates might clear up a particular issue of interest to them. Candidates would never be tested by their opponents or forced to answer to their previous actions.
Sorry, Mr. Karamooz. I hope that another candidate gleans some good ideas from your manifesto. Otherwise, I don't think this candidacy is going anywhere.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Rebecca Kaplan
Until Ken Houston formally announces his candidacy, Rebecca Kaplan is the next in line, alphabetically. Ms. Kaplan is currently the At-Large City Councilmember in Oakland. She first ran for that seat in 2000 as the Green Party candidate, narrowly losing to Henry Chang. She switched parties and won the seat in 2008. I supported her in 2008, donating to her campaign. In 2012, she was reelected, beating Ignacio de la Fuente, who has run for mayor himself a few times.
Ms. Kaplan's platform, summarized on her website, is "Safe neighborhoods, local jobs, and a fresh start for our city." It's a nice mantra, but when you click on the icons to see what they mean, they don't go anywhere. I understand that she just announced her candidacy, but she's been a candidate often enough, and governing long enough, that she should have some substance to her platform. Another issue I see is that Oakland doesn't really need a "fresh start" at this point. We're in the midst of a fresh start! There are hundreds of new businesses that have opened, new festivals that are immensely popular (First Friday/Art Murmur, Off the Grid) and the sense that Oakland is "the new Brooklyn", long enough for that to seem trite.
Ms. Kaplan's experience in the city council, and as the at-large member who represents the whole city, has given her many opportunities to demonstrate leadership, particularly in contrast to Mayor Jean Quan. The fact that she can't muster a fresh campaign slogan that suggests how Oakland's newfound success could be stread, or even any platform ideas to support "public safety" and "local jobs" makes me worry that she got into this race because she heard poll numbers put her ahead of Quan and Libby Schaaf, which is pretty flattering. I will need to see more from Rebecca Kaplan to support her this time around. I recommend Chip Johnson's June 9 column for more on her thin record.
Ms. Kaplan's platform, summarized on her website, is "Safe neighborhoods, local jobs, and a fresh start for our city." It's a nice mantra, but when you click on the icons to see what they mean, they don't go anywhere. I understand that she just announced her candidacy, but she's been a candidate often enough, and governing long enough, that she should have some substance to her platform. Another issue I see is that Oakland doesn't really need a "fresh start" at this point. We're in the midst of a fresh start! There are hundreds of new businesses that have opened, new festivals that are immensely popular (First Friday/Art Murmur, Off the Grid) and the sense that Oakland is "the new Brooklyn", long enough for that to seem trite.
Ms. Kaplan's experience in the city council, and as the at-large member who represents the whole city, has given her many opportunities to demonstrate leadership, particularly in contrast to Mayor Jean Quan. The fact that she can't muster a fresh campaign slogan that suggests how Oakland's newfound success could be stread, or even any platform ideas to support "public safety" and "local jobs" makes me worry that she got into this race because she heard poll numbers put her ahead of Quan and Libby Schaaf, which is pretty flattering. I will need to see more from Rebecca Kaplan to support her this time around. I recommend Chip Johnson's June 9 column for more on her thin record.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Oakland Mayoral Candidate: Jason "Shake" Anderson
Most of this information is gleaned from the Oakland Wiki page about Mr. Anderson, the Green Party candidate for Oakland Mayor. I actually saw him staffing the Green Party table at the Grand Lake farmers' market last weekend. I didn't notice if he had any campaign literature, but I did overhear a Courtney Ruby volunteer a few feet away tell a passerby that he didn't actually live in Oakland, so that might have distracted me. Mr. Anderson's responsibilities in the Navy including printing promotional materials, so I am going to assume the oversight is mine, and not his.
In addition to his service (and thank you, Mr. Anderson, for your service, should you find yourself reading this), Mr. Anderson has been a state employee for the Department of Motor Vehicles (one of the better run departments I have encountered) and an avid participant in Occupy Oakland and First Friday. He also has some role in Bitcoin. This is my favorite Bitcoin Venn Diagram.
In addition to supporting the Green Party platform, Mr. Anderson promises "20 hours a week garbage pick up. This may be carried out by the mayor or volunteers acting on his behalf. Clean up will occur throughout Oakland in areas blighted with neglect."
I get what he's doing there. He's demonstrating that he intends to be hands' on in a visible way. But I think there's a problem with making this your first promise. Even if you think that the mayor is a figurehead, a figurehead is not going to have 20 free hours to do garbage collection, by hand. Second, having your volunteers do it is just going to anger the unions that represent the parks and streets and sanitation employees. Plus, your volunteers are not recognizable to your constituents as "the mayor", so your visibility is not aided by their actions. Maybe having mayor's volunteer groups that are sponsored to beautify our neighborhoods would be a good idea, but he needs to tighten this up a bit.
Mr. Anderson intends to draw his salary in Bitcoin, and wants to move Oakland to a Bitcoin economy. I don't know what this means, or why we would want to do this.
I will let you find some of his other gems yourself, but I do want to say that there are some good ideas in the platform. Addressing PTSD in the Police Department probably isn't a bad idea, if it isn't happening yet. Expanding First Friday and creatively using city assets to address city issues are both good ideas. So is addressing homelessness in Oakland.
I'm not a Green Party member. Mr. Anderson has not been endorsed by the Green Party. His ideas are not in line with the majority of Oakland residents, or with me. Interesting addition to the campaign though.
(Sorry about the line spacing issue in this post; I can't seem to get it fixed)
In addition to his service (and thank you, Mr. Anderson, for your service, should you find yourself reading this), Mr. Anderson has been a state employee for the Department of Motor Vehicles (one of the better run departments I have encountered) and an avid participant in Occupy Oakland and First Friday. He also has some role in Bitcoin. This is my favorite Bitcoin Venn Diagram.
In addition to supporting the Green Party platform, Mr. Anderson promises "20 hours a week garbage pick up. This may be carried out by the mayor or volunteers acting on his behalf. Clean up will occur throughout Oakland in areas blighted with neglect."
I get what he's doing there. He's demonstrating that he intends to be hands' on in a visible way. But I think there's a problem with making this your first promise. Even if you think that the mayor is a figurehead, a figurehead is not going to have 20 free hours to do garbage collection, by hand. Second, having your volunteers do it is just going to anger the unions that represent the parks and streets and sanitation employees. Plus, your volunteers are not recognizable to your constituents as "the mayor", so your visibility is not aided by their actions. Maybe having mayor's volunteer groups that are sponsored to beautify our neighborhoods would be a good idea, but he needs to tighten this up a bit.
Mr. Anderson intends to draw his salary in Bitcoin, and wants to move Oakland to a Bitcoin economy. I don't know what this means, or why we would want to do this.
I will let you find some of his other gems yourself, but I do want to say that there are some good ideas in the platform. Addressing PTSD in the Police Department probably isn't a bad idea, if it isn't happening yet. Expanding First Friday and creatively using city assets to address city issues are both good ideas. So is addressing homelessness in Oakland.
I'm not a Green Party member. Mr. Anderson has not been endorsed by the Green Party. His ideas are not in line with the majority of Oakland residents, or with me. Interesting addition to the campaign though.
(Sorry about the line spacing issue in this post; I can't seem to get it fixed)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)