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 Your phone number will not be published.
As for the other candidates for city council, they are both hard working, caring individuals of great moral character, who have sacrificed many years of their time already to serve our community. Very few in our community can meet their track record as well as their qualifications. Check out their websites: http://www.mcbaincitycouncil.com/ and http://www.margaretforpiedmont.com/ where they both answer many questions that are important to Piedmont. David is correct that their Endorsement lists are very impressive, showing wide support within Piedmont. Their responses to the issues are thoughtful and balanced, and show they understand how to address our town’s needs.
I believe all three candidates for Piedmont City Council have strong qualifications, but will support Bob McBain and Margaret Fujioka, as I agree with their positions and have proven themselves over many years of serving our community already. I took offense with the author's statement: " It’s too bad that another candidate of his [Tim Rood] caliber has not joined the race to take the second open seat." I find that rude and inappropriate and felt obliged to point out that they are more than worthy to be on Piedmont's city council.
My comments have nothing to do with the Swim Club, so I don't know why you bring that up. I supported Tim Rood in his negotiations to ensure continuation of the Piedmont Swim Club even though I am not a member. We exchanged emails at the time, where I expressed my support and explained to him how building Blair Park would be funded. He stated then: "The ability to build a community park without cost to taxpayers is unique and should be embraced now while the opportunity exists”. Finally, I am pleased to see you support Margaret Fujioka as I do. Surely, you do not agree then with David Cohen's statement that " It’s too bad that another candidate of his [Tim Rood] caliber has not joined the race to take the second open seat"?
As for Blair Park opponents, there are indeed those who do not want anything to be done at that location (FOMC) and others who oppose the current plan that may want to do something smaller, such as yourself. I can see that Tim Rood would fall in the latter category, but this means he opposes the current Blair Park plan as approved by the city council. Considering other options would delay the building of any type of field at Blair Park even further and based on FOMC's mission statement still cause them to sue, causing even further delay. It seems futile to go through the entire process again with a similar result.
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.
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.