pages: CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-02-16 | 11 | criteria which says new names should broaden the representation of people in the community; direction should not be given to focus on people, values, parks or history and should have an overarching guidepost of broadening how people see themselves within the community; 1,000 signatures is very high for petitions; 500 should suffice; petitions coming in should not automatically start the renaming process; matters can be brought to Council's attention and Council may recommend action; expressed support for the three years deceased provision; stated renaming should be intentional; expressed concern about the professional research provision; stated Council needs to have a vetting provision; the process for renaming and naming should be the same and names should be given with the same interest and intentionality; expressed support for not naming parks after people; stated Council should question whether the HAB should have any guiding role in naming; renaming should not be in the hands of those preserving a specific type of history; questioned whether a streets name list is needed; outlined the current list and naming process developer use; stated the current naming process is not working well; expressed support for a more intentional process when new names are needed; for identifying a Committee structure and a more holistic approach. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for a Brown Act public process with noticed meetings; stated government represents the public and the public has a right to be involved; expressed support for a broad group; stated that she is concerned about the same group of people being involved; expressed support for matters being reviewed by Council at some point with a lower petition threshold of 500 names; stated Council must determine the pacing of renaming; expressed support for having one renaming process at a time, having different people serve on different renaming Committees and the option to randomly draw names to compile Committees; stated park renaming should start with the Recreation and Parks Commission; noted that she does not like staff choosing people for Committees; expressed support for being inclusive and representative of diversity in naming; stated it is important for people of different backgrounds to be represented in the community; outlined concerns for people living on renamed street; expressed support for a fund being developed to help those who incur costs due to deed changes; stated there is rationale behind the 50% plus one stipulation; expressed support for the three years deceased provision, and names which reflect Alameda-specific history and honor people from Alameda; stated the most important part is including as many people as possible in the process. Councilmember Daysog stated the process should be uniform between naming and renaming; expressed support for the inclusion of combating religious bigotry; stated that he prefers to not prescribe criteria; criteria should come out of the Board review process; once a process is in place, said process will make a judicious situation of all information and provide a recommendation based on a broad view of a widely cast net regardless of the amount of signatures, Council has the ultimate say. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a clear scoring system; stated Brown Act bodies are preferable; stated the Chochenyo Park scoring system was not clearly described; expressed support for a process involving the community under the concept of broad based community support and different Committees each time there is a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 February 16, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf |