pages: CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-06-02 | 21 | was put into place; African Americans were 2.6% of Alameda in 1970, 4.2% in 1980, 6.7% in 1990, 6.2% in 2000 due to the closure of the Base; 6.4% in 2010, and 7.1% in 2020; the amount of African Americans has increased since Measure A; Measure A has not stopped the increase of racial and ethnic minorities; noted Alameda has a higher percentage of African American population than San Francisco; stated apartments are still being built with Measure A; the Housing Element had finally been approved by the State; expressed support for keeping Sections 26-1 and 26-3 as an effort to preserve Alameda history and to build wisely in the future; stated the matter is not simple; previous effort by the people put Section 26-1 on the ballot; any changes to either Section should be processed at the same level of effort and not as an abuse of power by the Council; even with Measure A, the City has become a stronger and more diverse place than before; there is no reason to undo Measure A; Alameda has limited space and inadequate street infrastructure; the discussion is valuable. Councilmember Oddie stated it is important to not impugn motives; it is impossible to circulate petitions at this time; preserving heritage is the battle cry of the confederacy; expressed concern about meeting noticing due to COVID; stated the matter was placed on a regular meeting in order to have adequate notice; he has learned to empathize and discovered a lack of trust; the proposal allows Council to build more trust; noted a long planning process would be needed if Council could be allowed to repeal Section 26-3; expressed support for going through the planning process, building Council trust, resulting in an item placed on the ballot that passes; stated there is still time; the current meeting allows Council to request staff bring back ballot language; expressed support for hearing arguments for repealing Section 26-1; stated there is a fundamental unfairness for properties purchased before and after Measure A; the affordable housing percentage will increase without Section 26-1; expressed support for guidelines with the planning process; stated the matter has had a disparate racial impact and the intent was to reduce economic diversity; economic diversity has been lost with the rent crisis; expressed support for discussing the item in an open, fair and civil way to engender trust and reduce division. (20-377) Due to technical difficulties, the meeting was recessed at 11:01 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. *** Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to know the plan for meaningful community engagement; there have been a number of difficulties with technology and a number of residents are part of the digital divide and do not receive information; many community members do not know when meetings occur; she does not think Section 26- 1 is controversial; there are many people on both sides of the matter that see no issue with Section 26-1; a lot of work needs to be done on Section 26-3; expressed support for any work being done in a manner that is engaging, welcoming and informational; many people of color do not know about meetings and their voices are not being heard; expressed support for having a process for meetings and conversations about an EIR and any legal challenges which may arise; stated that she would like to understand the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 June 2, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf |