News Alert
CHP: Reckless Driver Arrested Following…

Letter to the Editor: Tim Rood for City Council

David Cohen writes in support of Tim Rood's Candidacy for Piedmont City Council

It’s informative to compare the websites of Margaret Fujioka, Bob McBain, and Tim Rood regarding Piedmont issues that bear on electoral choices, particularly in view of the fact that Blair Park is one of the most contentious issues. (http://www.margaretforpiedmont.com/, http://www.mcbaincitycouncil.com/ , and http://timrood2012.com/ )

Margaret Fujioka’s site shows an impressive resume, and hundreds of endorsements, albeit inflated by duplicate appearances. She has endorsements from all members of the present city council. Clearly, if you like how the Council has handled the Moraga Canyon privatization effort, Ms. Fujioka is your candidate. However, on her website there is scarcely a substantive word on any issue other than being pro public safety and pro civility. Regarding Blair Park, utter silence except, perhaps, for her pledge to continue striving for “public private partnerships.”

Her comments in the recent Piedmonter article are equally gauzy http://tinyurl.com/8xreft7 ). She created a public safety committee and an email alert system. She believes that the Blair Park process was fair and open because she personally (?) read every email sent to her.

Bob McBain’s website provides no specifics on any issue.

Tim Rood’s site, however, has a tab called “issues” (imagine!), where he directly addresses fiscal responsibility, Blair Park, public process, and the environment. In the “environment” section, there’s a link to video where he discusses environmental issues in a local context, in detail.

Tim Rood is clearly the candidate of choice. It’s too bad that another candidate of his caliber has not joined the race to take the second open seat. 

David Cohen
Oakland 94611

Editor's note: Letters to the editor are published at the discretion of Piedmont Patch's editor in accordance with the site's Terms of Use. If you have a letter you would like to be considered for publication, please e-mail dixiemjordan@gmail.com. Letters should be no longer than 600 words and will not be posted anonymously. Please include a daytime phone number with your email in case we need to contact you for verification or questions. Your phone number will not be published.

Mark Landheer January 16, 2012 at 03:48 AM
Margaret, I do believe you are being idealistic, but that is a great quality! Besides FOMC's mission statement not do anything at Blair Park, their President, Semeitekol, is quoted in this week's Post stating: "“Ultimately, we would like to see the [Blair Park] project not done”. I do not recall FOMC supporting the alternative proposals put forth either. As for Alameda Point, I have not heard what is planned for those fields and certainly have not heard about any RFP. We have been explicitly told that our lease will not be renewed as other groups in Alameda want those fields. There have also been rumores of a developer coming in to build homes at Alameda Point, which would be much more lucrative to Alameda than using that space for fields.
Margaret Ovenden January 16, 2012 at 04:03 AM
Mark, initially I had the same reaction, "Yeah, now it'll be easier for my family to go to the pool." (We used to just sometimes go on the days it was open to the public.) But then I realized that this benefit would come at the expense of the City having to subsidize the pool. I think it's better for City funds to be maintaining police, fire, public works, etc. We can't afford $400K a year for the pool. I hope they are able to find a fee structure that will return the pool to being self-sustaining, as it was under the Swim Club. I think that the people who are most interested in swimming (which our family really isn't) should be the ones paying the cost of the pool, not the tax payers.
Lynn Dee January 16, 2012 at 04:46 AM
The POST is hardly the voice to quote! It is filled with hate speech and attempts to smear Tim Rood's campaign. It's a disgrace. At the same time it calls for "more civility". What a joke. FOMC does not want to see the PRFO project- of- the- moment built. Many FOMC supporters would support an alternate project at Coaches and even a small field in Blair. I think you should stop speaking for FOMC.
Mark Landheer January 16, 2012 at 05:09 AM
Lynn, I am just quoting what I read, not only in the Post, but on FOMC's own website. Go to http://www.moragacanyon.org/about/ if you do not believe me. #2 clearly does not include supporting a sports field of any kind, but rather leave Blair Park as is. IF FOMC has changed its mission statement, I hope they will update it soon.
David Cohen January 16, 2012 at 05:55 AM
Re several of what seem to be Mr. Landheer’s main points: 1. There really is nothing sinister or darkly conspiratorial about some correlation between political sentiments that coincidentally resist the Moraga Canyon privatization project and also support a leadership role for Tim Rood. 2. It’s perfectly normal for Oakland residents to weigh in on Piedmont issues, given the close relationship between the cities, such as commercial, environmental, and every-day, day-to-day relationships. 3. Favoring Tim Rood and speaking to his caliber is not an attack on the morality or character of the other candidates. 4. Volunteering on behalf of a cause or a project shows laudable commitment and passion for the project, but it doesn’t really validate the project itself, which needs stand on its own merits, and deal with objective scrutiny.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »