Because the League of Women Voters: it’s not just for women.

Easily one of my favorite Alameda political organizations is the League of Women Voters. They’re no nonsense and they provide excellent resources for the political and non political folks out there. What they strive to do is to inform voters. And, naturally, they have put out a recommendation on our upcoming special election.

Typically what the League tends to side with is good government. They have come out to every single City Council meeting to support the work of the Open Government Commission when it has come under attack and has urged the hiring of independent counsel for the OGC. In the case of Measures A and B, once again the LWV is endorsing the good government side of things, which just happens to also be the side of a caring and welcoming community that Alameda purportedly claims to be.

Highlights from their Yes on A position:

Construction of the wellness center would increase the availability of appropriate living space and health care for some of Alameda County’s most vulnerable residents by providing assisted living units for medically fragile seniors and respite care for homeless people who are not sick enough to remain in a hospital and may otherwise be turned out into the streets. The center would additionally provide case management and housing placement services for people in the City of Alameda who are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless, potentially reducing the number of homeless people on city streets. The McKay Avenue site provides convenient access to transit service, enabling residents to visit relatives and friends and lead more independent lives as they recover. If constructed as planned, the wellness center would reduce the potential for blight by removing and rehabilitating existing buildings on the site. The LWVA supports policies that meet basic human needs and additionally supports land use policies and general plan revisions that are designed to advance the welfare of Alameda residents in areas including housing and social services.

Highlights from their No on B position:

The LWVA opposes Measure B for the following reasons: The measure provides no funding to acquire the parcel or to build or maintain a park.

No public agency has expressed an interest in building a park at the site.

Approval of the measure could potentially result in negative consequences,

including: Litigation against the city Reduction of funding for existing parks Delay in redeveloping the site, which could cause blight

including: The LWVA opposes land use policies, such as those contained in Measure B, that lack concrete goals and objectives and that fail to adequately reflect cost considerations. Such policies could hinder the implementation of existing conservation and open space elements of the General Plan.