Letters to the Editor for July 17, 2026

^[1]

• Slow street barricades prevent street sweeping ^[2]
• The bond measure needs transparency ^[3]
• Emergency evacuation concerns are not sufficient reasons to block new housing ^[4]

Slow street barricades prevent street sweeping

To the Editor:

I live on the corner of St. Charles and Pacific. Pacific is a bike/walk street. Why are the barricades still up? The pandemic has been over for six years! They are very cumbersome to maneuver and are no longer needed. People completely ignore them. Because of these barricades, I have not had my corner swept by the City in six years—I do it myself, at 71 years old. The street sweepers do not get out of their vehicle to move the barricade that the City put in place; ACI simply goes around it, so my corner does not get swept.

I’ve called the City so many times that they know my name. They also sent me a letter stating that they have lodged my complaint so please do not call again.

One time the leaves piled up so much that I called the fire department. They called the “back line” and the City was out there cleaning up before the end of the day. Do I have to call the fire department to get the City to do its job? It’s the City’s tree that rains leaves on my yard. I also sent an email to Councilmember Tony Daysog. No response. I’ve asked the city many times how we can resolve this problem, but they simply say, “We’ve lodged your complaint,” but they’ve done nothing about it.

I am paying for City services, a gardener $90 a month, and now I have to buy special ACI bags in order for them to collect extra leaves that don’t fit into my green bin. The City is not doing its job. Sweep my street every other week as the sign says and I won’t have to buy extra bags, or the City should provide them. We move our cars every other Monday so the street-sweeping vehicles can sweep, but the job doesn’t get done. But we’ll still get a ticket if our car is parked on street sweeping days, even though they don’t sweep them.

These barricades need to be removed. I received a letter several months ago stating that the City is in the process of turning these streets into greenways. What has that got to do with these barricades? It has been six years! And nothing has been done. On my corner I watch cars run the stop signs on all four corners—cars and bicyclists. Families on their phones who just step out into the intersection without looking, I presume because they think they’re “safe.” So these barricades create a false sense of security. This is an accident waiting to happen. Very dangerous. We need to take the barricades down.

Lenore Walker,
Alameda
This letter was also sent to Mayor Ashcraft.

The bond measure needs transparency

To the Editor:

Over the past several months our City Staff has been bombarding us with marketing materials intended to sell Alameda voters on the notion that the city’s infrastructure is in such dire need of repair and upgrading that the only solution would be to immediately issue general obligation bonds funded by an additional ad valorem tax on all taxable private and business-owned property in the city.

Unfortunately, while some of our infrastructure would certainly benefit from such repairs and upgrades, the plan put forward by Staff and accepted by our City Council is woefully lacking in specific details regarding the examples of proposed projects, as to their extent and magnitude and to exactly how their priority would be established.

At its July 7 meeting ^[5], the Council adopted an ordinance that would put Staff’s $300 million bond measure on the November ballot. And since ordinances require a second reading for the purpose of allowing reconsideration and possibly making changes before they become effective, the ordinance appears as Item 7C on the Council’s regular agenda for its July 21st meeting.

So, while we will, at least in theory, have the opportunity to publicly request more specific details and possibly recommend that more detail be added to the proposed bond measure on July 21, the unfortunate reality is that our current mayor has never allowed for citizen discussion and possible improvement of ordinances that have already received a first vote of approval, notwithstanding the logical purpose of the requirement for a second reading.

Whether you favor or oppose the bond measure in its present form, don’t miss the opportunity to at least try to express your opinion on this very significant issue. In addition to addressing the Council in person or via Zoom, we can also send letters of concern to our City Clerk for inclusion in the Item 7C’s correspondence file.

Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda

Emergency evacuation concerns are not sufficient reasons to block new housing

To the Editor:

Regarding Alameda NIMBY pretext to block new housing: emergency evacuation.

1. Never-ending push for growth?

Alameda’s population was 64,430 in 1950 and 63,852 in 1980, including resident Navy personnel. Also, around 5,000+ navy civilian workers jammed the tubes daily.

Bay Farm (not an) Island had 250 residents 1950, 6,000 around 1980, and 14,000 today. Census data says Alameda declined from 78,281 in 2020 to 76,876 in 2025.  Subtract Bay Farm Island and the main island population is virtually unchanged over 75 years.

2. Our Disaster Preparedness ^[6] and Emergency Operations Plan ^[7].

Teamed with the county, our City’s approach is to identify the risks and plan accordingly. You can sign up for AC Alert ^[8] and check the “Are You Ready” links.  If you require evacuation assistance, complete the survey page.

The links show traffic factors go far beyond lane count, like bridge seismic upgrades, and how traffic is only part of emergency planning. You’ll learn when not to drive, or if you should, which direction for a specific emergency.

Our street improvements, especially for children and elderly, deliver safety benefits every day. Given the number of speeders flying by me on our remaining four-lane roads, we need more traffic throttling.

3. Our Housing Element ^[9] and Transportation Plan ^[10] reflect what Alamedans asked for.

Our City staff consistently seek our input via email, city web site, online meetings and neighborhood sessions. They are professional, competent and listen well. The process and results are a model of good local government.  Listening to our City Council over the years, I have been impressed with all but two.  Past elections suggest the results reflect what most Alamedans want.

4. New housing benefits.

Starting with painful Harbor Bay Isle, Alameda has a terrific record of achieving City-developer win‑win solutions. Developer projects have funded roads, utilities, sea‑level protection, shoreline levees, ferry terminals, fire department facilities, transit shuttles, parks, shoreline access, trails, etc. Also, new residents and businesses pay sales and property taxes.

NIMBY beneficiaries are homeowners with high home value appreciation paying low property taxes; landlords who think free-market capitalism means government supply control is good but rent control is bad; and politicians who cater to them. Everyone else loses.

Frank Tiesma,
Alameda