Going into the November 3 election, there seemed to be no way that Measure Z, the ballot measure to repeal the City Charter provision prohibiting multi-family housing and limiting residential density, could lose:
- Virtually every self-identified “progressive” Democratic politician, from the “Gang of Four” members of the Alameda City Council up to Congresswoman Barbara Lee, lent their names to the “Yes on Z” campaign. (Even the County Assessor, for goodness sake, jumped on board.)
- Every left-leaning political organization in the City, new (e.g., the “Alameda Justice Alliance”) and old (e.g., the City of Alameda Democratic Club), endorsed Measure Z. Even advocacy groups from off the island (e.g., the Silicon Valley Leadership Group) voiced their support.
- Not only the usual online polemicists but the editorial boards of the San Francisco Chronicle and the East Bay Times urged Alameda voters to approve Measure Z. When John Diaz and Daniel Borenstein agree on something, it must be worth voting for.
- Buoyed by contributions from developers, architects, engineers, and construction trade unions, the “Yes on Z” campaign raised (and presumably spent) more than $100,000 to promote Measure Z. This paid for a four-sided fold-over mailer, three two-sided full-size mailers, and one half-size two‑sided card. (The “No on Z” campaign raised all of $18,530.75 and sent out one mailer.)
- This was the right time and place for “transformational” change. Millions of voters across the country were expected to flock to the polls for the express purpose of evicting Donald Trump from the White House. Why wouldn’t thousands of voters in Alameda, an overwhelmingly Democratic city (60.8% of registered voters are Democrats), likewise rally to tear down a target of local “progressive” scorn?
And yet . . .
Measure Z was resoundingly defeated. According to the latest election results, nearly 60 percent of Alameda voters cast ballots against the measure, and it lost, with 16,728 votes in favor and 25,053 votes opposed.
So what went wrong?
That’s the question on the table for the Merry-Go-Round today.
Two caveats before we begin. First, we intend to ignore the most tendentious explanations: The sponsors and proponents of Measure Z may believe that their adversaries are liars of Trumpian proportions and that 60 percent of Alamedans are fools or scofflaws. As far as we’re concerned, they can tweet or post away to their heart’s content – or submit Council referrals – but we’re not going to be swayed. By the same token, we’re going to tune out any explanation that attributes the result to the superior insight of those who voted against Measure Z.
Second, we ordinarily try to avoid making statements of fact that we can’t prove. (That’s why we always include sources at the end of the column.) But in this case no evidence is available to us about why Alamedans voted the way they did. Using exit polls, the pundits may able to break down the vote for a presidential candidate by race, gender, and age and, based on that breakdown, tell you where his support came from. But if any of the political consulting firms who worked on the “Yes on Z” campaign – it appears there were three different ones – conducted exit polls in Alameda, they haven’t made them public.
So what we’re left with is a series of hypotheses – plausible, we hope, but unprovable, we admit. We’ve come up with five of them.
Let’s start with the most general:
Hypothesis One: Measure Z got lost in the shuffle in a tumultuous election year.
Those of us who typically spend part of an evening flipping between CNN and MSNBC occasionally need to be reminded that not everyone finds politics as fascinating as we do. If the ordinary citizen pays attention to political issues at all, her attention span is likely to be limited, and only the most high-profile matters may catch her eye.
This year, of course, one topic by itself was sufficient to suck all the air out of the space in one’s brain reserved for politics: whether Donald Trump would retain the presidency. And for Californians, statewide issues might have occupied any remaining room. There were 12 propositions on the ballot, and at least a couple of them raised pretty weighty policy questions. Amid this cacophony, could anyone even hear the debate over Measure Z?
Some “Yes on Z” supporters we talked to think that the voters’ preoccupation with national and (perhaps) statewide issues may have hurt their campaign. We’ve been told that it was difficult to recruit volunteers to make phone calls on behalf of the ballot measure – local activists would rather be calling undecided voters in swing states on behalf of Joe Biden instead. Likewise, an unusually large number of Alameda voters who picked up the phone admitted they hadn’t heard of Measure Z at all. It’s difficult to have a conversation with a voter about something she knows nothing about.
(We should hasten to add that, if true, this lack of knowledge among the electorate would pose an equivalent problem for the “No on Z” campaign – unless one believes that if a voter knows nothing about a ballot measure, it’s easier for her to vote no than yes.)
Hypothesis Two: The Alameda electorate isn’t as “progressive” as the Measure Z supporters thought it was.
This hypothesis seeks to fit Alameda into a larger narrative.
Take a look at what happened in California. Despite the Biden landslide, the Democrats lost four House seats they’d flipped two years ago. Even more significantly, the state propositions to reinstate affirmative action, expand cities’ authority to pass rent-control laws, and raise revenue for schools and local governments by increasing property taxes on commercial property owners – quintessential “progressive” causes – all failed. And the proposition exempting gig workers from being classified as employees succeeded despite vigorous opposition from organized labor.
Maybe, the pundits have suggested, these results show that California voters just aren’t as “progressive” as the left wing of the Democratic party thought they were.
Can the same be said of Alameda voters?
Remember, the last ballot measure before Measure Z to fail so abysmally at the polls was also one pushed very hard by “progressives”: Measure M‑1, the initiative crafted by the Alameda Renters Coalition to impose rent control and ban “no cause” evictions, which was defeated, 66 percent to 34 percent, in 2016.
Or consider this year’s Council race. There were 70,474 votes cast for Council (each voter could vote for two candidates). Of this total, 41 percent went to the two “progressive” contenders (Council members Jim Oddie and Malia Vella) versus 59 percent to the center-right candidates (former Mayor Trish Spencer and newcomers Amos White and Gig Codiga). It doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the breakdown between “Yes on Z” and “No on Z” votes matched this split pretty closely.
Indeed, even Councilman Oddie (or his handlers) appeared to realize that he was fighting against the tide. At the very end, Mr. Oddie made a desperate attempt to retain his Council seat by sending out a mailer explicitly warning that “Alameda’s progressive City Council majority is in danger,” and urging a vote for Mr. Oddie in order to “Preserve the Progressive City Council Majority.” (It also smeared two of his opponents – not by name, of course – but that’s a story for another day.) But the appeal didn’t work; he came in fourth out of five.
Both of the foregoing hypotheses do not depend on any critique of the way in which Measure Z was marketed to the electorate. The next two focus on the “Yes for Z” campaign itself. Upon reflection, it can be argued that the pitch made in support of the ballot measure not only demonized the current Charter provision unnecessarily, but it also hyped the benefits of repeal unjustifiably. This approach may have delighted single-minded partisans – but it also may have turned off fair-minded citizens who, after all, still constitute a majority of Alameda voters. As much as they’d like to, the Right Thinkers do not rule the roost.
Hypothesis Three: Alameda voters didn’t buy the idea that Article XXVI was a blot on the local escutcheon.
From the beginning, one of the themes of the “Yes on Z” campaign was that Article XXVI was a symbol of a reprehensible past that Alameda voters had a moral duty to repudiate. If “progressive” activists elsewhere could take down statues of Jefferson Davis in public parks and take names of slave-owning politicians off public schools, Alamedans could strike their own blow for racial justice by removing Article XXVI from the Charter.
The pro-Measure Z ballot argument drafted by Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor John Knox White sounded this theme, denouncing the Charter provision as a “relic of racist land-use policies and discriminatory housing policies that have denied the dream of home ownership to families who deserved better from our City.” And the campaign literature reiterated the message. As one mailer put it, Article XXVI “enshrines into law redlining, exclusion, and discrimination” and thus constitutes a “stain on our City’s character and reputation.”
Now there surely was a subset of voters to whom this kind of attack appealed. To them, what Article XXVI symbolized was just as (or more) important as what it actually did. But the appeal of the vilification strategy wasn’t universal. Some voters equally committed to the cause of racial justice would focus more on practical impact than on symbolic import. They’d want to know, for example, whether repealing Article XXVI in fact would induce private developers to build housing that was more affordable by Blacks or other people of color (as opposed to more profitable for themselves). If it wouldn’t, they might see no reason to vote for Measure Z just to make a symbolic gesture.
In fact, this strategy ran the risk of becoming counter-productive. Some Alameda voters might have taken offense at the insinuation that they lived in a racist city. Others might have balked at the suggestion that they should be held responsible for sins they hadn’t personally committed. The Mayor and Vice Mayor may have thought they could guilt-trip voters into supporting Measure Z; instead, their “anti-racist” argument may have driven some of the electorate into the other camp.
Hypothesis Four: Alameda voters weren’t convinced that Measure Z was all it was cracked it up to be.
Whether for lack of funds or for some other reason, the “No on Z” campaign sent out only one mailer, which focused on an argument that virtually everyone in Alameda could understand: Eliminating Article XXVI would mean more housing and thus more traffic. By contrast, the five mailers distributed by the “Yes on Z” campaign made a welter of claims in support of the ballot measure, many of which the ordinary voter would be required to accept on faith.
Read together, the pro-Z ballot arguments and mailers portrayed the measure as offering something for almost everybody. The beneficiaries included retirees, whom Measure Z would “allow . . . to downsize and stay in Alameda”; young families, for whom Measure Z would create homes that were “smaller in scale”; local high-school graduates, whom Measure Z would “help . . . to stay in Alameda (and not just with their parents)”; and local workers, whom Measure Z would “allow . . . to find housing near where they work.”
And these were just the benefits for specific groups. There were community-wide benefits as well: Measure Z would “enhance” and “strengthen” Alameda’s commercial corridors, “rejuvenate” our neighborhoods, and “improve” the City’s “access to state funds.” What’s more, not only would Measure Z enable Alameda to “avoid the sprawl and traffic congestion that plagues other Bay Area cities” but it would also give the City “our chance at safer streets and traffic reduction.” And it would “reduce” greenhouse gas emissions, to boot.
Sound too good to be true? To some Alameda voters, it may well have. Even to those willing to trust campaign promises, the suggestion that Measure Z was some sort of magic potion that would turn Alameda into an earthly utopia may have been just a bit too hard to swallow.
And it didn’t go down any easier when the arguments were inconsistent or confusing. Suppose one took at face value the claim that passing Measure Z would increase the supply of affordable housing. In what world does more housing lead to less traffic? Or to lower greenhouse gases? Not many Alamedans would be able to reconcile these assertions – even if John Knox White himself proclaimed all of them to be true.
Perhaps the most puzzling mailer was the one that depicted the effects of sea-level rise: most of Bay Farm Island and Alameda Point, and all of the land along the shoreline, is under water. The caption says, “If you believe in CLIMATE CHANGE, then believe in MEASURE Z.” But Measure Z doesn’t prohibit residential development in any of the areas projected to become submerged. Did its proponents really expect voters to believe that it would somehow prevent climate change, or reverse its effects, anyway?
In fact, the mailer actually may have alienated some potential voters. It shows that, as the result of sea-level rise, only the area in the middle of the main island would be developable. If Measure Z indeed would increase the supply of housing in the city, this is the only place it could go. Did its proponents really expect the residents of central Alameda to be pleased by the prospect of more housing in an area that already is almost fully built out?
Our final hypothesis focuses not so much on what Measure Z would (or would not) do but on who would implement it.
Hypothesis Five: Alameda voters don’t trust the current or future Council to make fundamental land-use decisions.
The most objective analysis of Measure Z we read before the election was published by the Alameda League of Women Voters. The piece posed a series of questions about Article XXVI and the effect of its repeal and laid out the relevant facts. Most praiseworthy (to us) was that where the evidence was absent or equivocal, it said so.
The analysis concluded this way:
Summary on Measure Z. Regardless of the rhetoric on both sides, it essentially boils down to this: should the current and future City Councils be given the ability to decide whether multi-family projects provide a net benefit to the community. If you trust their judgment, a “yes” vote would give them that flexibility. If you don’t, then a “no” vote would maintain the status quo.
This summary got us thinking about another way to explain the election results.
If Measure Z passed, the key decisions about whether, or how much, multi-family housing would be built in Alameda would be left, as the LWV piece explains, to the discretion of City Council, unhampered by Article XXVI. The Council majority would be able to re-write the General Plan and the zoning laws to authorize whatever type of housing they wanted wherever they wanted to put it, and nothing in the Charter would stand in their way.
Some voters may not have trusted Council to exercise this discretion wisely. They see decisions now being made to curry favor with interest groups who fund campaigns or ideologues who insist upon orthodoxy. And they might have feared that, unrestrained, Council members would make land-use decisions for similar reasons: They’d seek to please the construction trades unions by approving more apartment buildings all over town; they’d endeavor to gratify the “transit-oriented development” visionaries by putting high rises near bus stops. And future Councils might be no better: voting one stooge out of office doesn’t mean that his replacement won’t bring her own set of biases.
To these voters, if the choice is between a hard-and-fast rule and unfettered discretion, they’d pick the former. And maybe that’s what they did on November 3.
So there you go. We suspect that neither the “Yes on Z” crowd nor its opponents will agree with all (or maybe any) of our hypotheses. So be it. At least no one’s claiming that Paul Foreman and the Alameda Citizens Taskforce stole the election. Yet.
Text and ballot arguments: Measure Z ballot measure
Alameda League of Women Voters analyses: LWV, Background of Measure Z; LWV, Pros & cons for Measure Z
ACT was indeed the springboard for the No on Z campaign. However, the issue brought many, many volunteers to the fore, many people not normally involved with ACT. All these folks, some younger some older, coming together with many talents and experiences, worked extremely hard– to defeat Z.
If you’re happy with the outcome, please remember to send a mental “Thanks”
to these volunteers.
Thank you, ACT! Xoxo
Nice. This was such a most pleasant surprise. Thank the good Lord the majority of people had some good sense! Quality of life, people! Wasn’t it the Dali Lama who said “all politicians lie.”?
Who won the council seats, anyway?
A thank you to those who helped fight an effort that chose to help Alameda vs. being held hostage to a group of wanna-bees. Our current Council Members (not all) are far too focused on the path to Sacramento vs Park Street, Webster Street, Central Avenue, Grand Street and all streets within Alameda. We do not need more traffic. More parking problems. More noise. NOTE TO COUNCIL: You do not own Alameda.
Thanks for the analysis.
Measure Z suffered a resounding defeat, because a 60% majority voters felt they could not trust this city council or mayor with land use decisions and did not buy the “bridge too far” argument that previous generations were racist in imposing Measure A, or that building more houses would “reduce” traffic. Why should they? These arguments defy all logic.
One pro Z argument you did not address was that Measure A was “illegal” because it violated annual state housing mandates requiring Alameda to build more and more housing until the island bursts or lose state funds. Proponents of Z, such as JKW, Andrew Thomas, and Mayor Ashcraft are currently pushing this agenda in order to circumvent the will of the people. Their argument is simple: “what could we do? The state made us approve more housing units, “. ignoring the fact that 95% of all California cities and counties do not meet their housing goals and no city or county has been penalized at all.
This council has an agenda, and no vote by the people will stop them until they are reconstituted.
“Those who know don’t tell, those who tell don’t know.”
You’re missing Hypothesis Six: The disinformation and fearmongering campaign from “No Z” was pretty strong. Wild claims of “traffic!” “neighborhoods will be torn down!” “they want to build in flood zones!” “nothing to do with systemic racism!” “We’re diverse enough!” “Skyscrapers!” “South Shore will look like Miami Beach!” “More of our victorians will be gone!” “Nothing else protects our victorians!”
Measure Z would have done none of those things. If we’re being forced to build more by the state and ABAG, Measure Z would have simply allowed us to choose between large single family homes (and density bonus overlays) or smaller multifamily units, instead of only the former option. It would not have added a single additional unit.
5 years ago, we could not even talk about Article 26 in this town. Today, Alameda only needed 4,200 more voters to change history. The final chapter has not been written yet – remember that the now-popular library ballot failed the first time.
Alameda needs to reconcile something here: over a week ago, the whole town celebrated the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. A core part of Joe Biden’s presidential platform on housing says specifically this: “Eliminate local and state housing regulations that perpetuate discrimination. Exclusionary zoning has for decades been strategically used to keep people of color and low-income families out of certain communities.” Article 26, the incoming 46th President of the United States is talking about you.
The irony is that the current dialogue on the proposed 2040 General Plan gave Measure Z proponents an excellent opportunity to show exactly what couldn’t be done with A26 in place. This would have made the choice more concrete and perhaps shown voters how the city would exercise its post-A26 latitude.
There is another group that played a role that has not been considered: real progressives. Real progressives–like AOC and Moms 4 Homes in Oakland–oppose gentrification, luxury building, and Measures like Z that displace affordable housing and living-wage jobs, as is happening all along the estuary. Real progressives opposed Z for the above reasons, recognizing that market-rate, trickle-down development will not and cannot meet the affordable housing needs of the people currently living in Alameda.
You’re basically illustrating why Z failed – but not for the reason you stated. Z is to simply remove Article 26 language from the charter. That’s it. That’s step one. Steps 2, 3, 4, etc would be to implement policies to improve housing affordability. The fact that some voters like you expected Z to be this panacea that would solve the entire housing crisis in one tidy package was the problem – the ballot language had to be succinct and clear enough that it was only remedying a charter language, and the real housing solutions need to happen outside of the city charter. Real progressives endorsed Measure Z, and you don’t speak for them.
Real progressives understand that if one wants below market rate homes for diverse populations, one doesn’t remove a restriction that prompts that.
Real progressives understand that if one wants below market rate homes, one doesn’t pass a measure that opens the door to for-profit developers building only market-rate homes.
Great comment! “Measures like Z that displace affordable housing and living-wage jobs…” Most Alameda renters currently rent housing that would be more likely to have been demolished and replaced with high-end apartments that many could not afford (i.e., gentrification) if Z had passed. I believe some of the Yes on Z want this. Check out the new housing at the Base if you’re curious what developers build.
Trish Spencer – you’re making a very dishonest transference statement, coopting the strengths of Measure Z to use against it. As a soon-to-be elected official, we expect to hold you to higher standards, such as being able to explain the nuances of a complex issue to your constituents rather than cheerleading and gaslighting things that are demonstrably false. Homes cannot be demolished due to many protections that are already in place, including Article 28. The new homes on the base allow for 25% below market units – homes like the brand new Corsairs Flats and the senior complex across from Littlejohn are affordable senior complexes that were only built in spite of Article 26, not because of, due to clever workarounds by the city that were technically done in violation of Article 26. The North Housing project will also add nearly 300 new affordable units that will be streamlined using SB35 – designed to bypass NIMBY laws like Article 26 to help replace the segregated civilian housing development that were lost and put many African American families out of a home. I’m just thanking God that it will not be you representing the city at ABAG meetings anymore, we just don’t need that embarrassment in front of other regional leaders.
Robert, thanks for your usual witty and compelling analysis. I probably fall into the third hypothesis. I was simply turned off by the argument that the voters who originally passed Measure A were all motivated by racism and desire to keep minorities and lower incomes out of Alameda. (While I absolutely agree that Alameda ought to be replacing Article 26 with a more flexible approach to zoning and density, Z was not the right solution.) Virtually all attempts to ask fair and reasonable questions in every Facebook group were responded to with vitriol, belligerence, and harangue. Most memorably, when I joined a conversation regarding the question of what “affordability” means as a consequence of passing Measure Z, I was told by a developer-proponent, who was driving this particular online conversation, that he didn’t have time to Google it for me and that I should “Google” affordability. (Snap snap.)
When this question appears again (and it most certainly will) the proponents should take the precaution of vetting their public spokespeople for an appropriate disposition to avoid antagonizing the people whose support they need. They need a calm, friendly face, not an in-your-face, hostile, condescending, confrontational type to avoid sounding like the Committee of Public Safety, circa Paris, 1793.
“Virtually all attempts to ask fair and reasonable questions in every Facebook group were responded to with vitriol, belligerence, and harangue. ”
Sadly this has long been the case in Alameda with that community of policy advocates. Cyberbulling, abuse, name-calling, vitriol. It’s nothing new.
“Most memorably, when I joined a conversation regarding the question of what “affordability” means as a consequence of passing Measure Z, I was told by a developer-proponent, who was driving this particular online conversation, that he didn’t have time to Google it for me and that I should “Google” affordability.”
What they really want is market-rate housing for the benefit of for-profit developers.
Can’t edit, and hit ‘send’ too soon…
HUD has a clear meaning of “affordable” –
Affordable Housing: Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the
occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including
This gets translated into income limits which are set by the intersection of geographic median income, # of people in the household, and the low, very low, extremely-very low income buckets:
Click to access HUD%20FY%202020%20Income%20Limits.pdf
The combination of Article 26 and the Density Bonus Law means that for-profit developers can build more market rate units when they build affordable units.
For-profit developers really don’t want to build affordable units – they really don’t want them in their projects. Hence, Measure Z.
Reality – Aka Jason Biggs stop hiding behind bs names and stop harassing people. Stop being a sore loser like JKW. If so many voters are dumb in Alameda then maybe it’s time for you two to move to a smarter community. And Trish won a seat back back on Council and had no union money backing her and spent far lass then MV & JO – what’s that tell you?
Who is that “Reality” person( above). What a nasty person. A really sore, sore loser.
I would like to thank all the No on Measure Z workers who worked hard to show the simple logic anyone could understand. With all the building that has occurred in Alameda just this past decade, rush hour traffic has become horrific. Driving around Alameda anyone can see all the new housing that will coming on the market soon. Tony Daysog did a good job of listing all the buildings being built now and scheduled to be built in the near future in his Ad in the Alameda Sun. With each new unit there will be one to two more cars added to the already congested tunnels and bridges. I’m tired of it taking me one to three hours to get on and off our island. Parking is already ridiculous in some neighborhoods. Tired of asking people not to block my drive way when they can’t find parking on the street. With the pandemic upon us, we’ve enjoyed having space between homes so that we could shelter in place comfortably. Imagine having to go through doors and down hallways that hundreds of people have touched to get to your residence. Having space is good for your health. The choice was easy for most of us residents of the City of Alameda. It’s an island!! Getting on and off is already difficult and going to get worse, especially if planning does not include: a change in how we get on and off the island, where we and our non resident visitors can park our cars and have enough space to keep safe and healthy.
Thank you, Camille, for the compliment. But…the real authors and designers of that wonderful ad were Dorothy Freeman, Paul Foreman, Joe Woodard, and Gretchen Lipow!
But I do want to say this much: it was a honor serving as the No on Z campaign manager.
Working with the members of the Steering Committee, we put together a campaign plan that was executed to a “T” by the countless volunteers who came out to do various tasks. While our money budget was limited, that was more than made up by the work of volunteers. Please read below for more information.
/s/ Tony Daysog, No on Z Campaign Manager
—– Forwarded Message —–
Sent: Wed., November 11, 2020 12:06 am
UPDATE2: Thank you “No on Z” volunteers!!!
One week has now passed and the vote tally is at roughly 60% (No on Measure Z) to 40% (Yes on Measure Z): the People of Alameda have clearly spoken: they are saying “Keep Measure A (Article 26).”
In previous emails (see below), I acknowledged No on Z Steering Committee members, persons who signed our ballot statement, and persons who were on our political mailers.
With this email, I’d like to officially thank all the volunteers who were literally foot-soldiers on behalf of the No on Z Campaign. While many volunteered their time, energy, and sweat, several people really stood out in terms of their contributions to the campaign:
– First off, we owe Peter Conn a great round of applause for delivering almost 500 lawn signs to Alamedans across Alameda!
– Second, while there were many persons who distributed flyers . . . Margaret Hall, [name removed by request], Dan McDonald, and Erich Stiger need to be singled out for their tireless, repeat efforts in distributing flyers across Alameda.
– Third, we also need to acknowledge and thank the No on Measure Z “social media precinct” captain . . [name removed by request].
The following is a list of persons who volunteered their time and energy in various ways: all were critical to the success of the No on Z campaign. (If I forget to include someone, please do not hesitate to let me know . . and we will update this list soon afterward).
/s/ Tony Daysog, No on Z Campaign Manager
Neighborhood Flyer Distributors (in no particular order):email@example.com@email.com
[name removed by request]
Misao T. Brown
[name removed by request]
Vote Count Oversight
LawnSign Waving Committee
[name removed by request]
Social Media Precinct
[name removed by request]
[name removed by request]
[name removed by request]
Alameda Sun Advertisement Design Committee
Ballot Statement\Rebuttal Statement
Grocery Store\Farmers Market Flyer Distribution
[name removed by request]
Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi
Reuben Tilos and baby Tilos
Mr. Ben and Mrs. Floralyn Tilos
Dodi Kelleher and Mike Brown
Janet Gibson, and Sylvia Gibson and son
—– Forwarded Message —–
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 08:43:34 AM PST
Subject: UPDATE1: Alameda is speaking, saying that Article 26 (“Measure A”) is here to say
It’s 8:30 am on Wednesday 11/4: there have been a few more votes counted, but the latest tally still has the vote at 59% “No on Measure Z” and 41% “Yes on Measure Z”.
Also: at this point, let me also make sure to thank the tireless work of the No On Measure Z Steering Committee members. Since July, we’ve been meeting every Saturday morning, attending to the tid-bits that keep the campaign going.
Joyce Boyd (Campaign Treasurer)
Make sure to say “thank you” to each of the Steering Committee members above.
—– Forwarded Message —–
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020, 10:18:29 PM PST
Subject: Alameda is speaking, saying that Article 26 (“Measure A”) is here to say
It’s a little after 10:00 pm and the polls right now have “No On Measure Z” 59% to “Yes on Measure Z” 41%. But, bear in mind that, at 18,000 votes, there’s still plenty more votes to be counted.
So, please sit tight.
. . . . But early indications are that our fellow residents are saying, in no uncertain terms, that an island city like Alameda needs the growth control tool called Article 26 (“Measure A”).
Before closing out this brief message for now, I want to make sure to say this much: there have been many people who came out to provide incredible support — and we will make sure to publicly acknowledge their work. But, for now, let me make sure to say a special “thank you” to the following persons, who were on our political mailers and our ballot statements\rebuttal:
Beverly Johnson, fmr Mayor of Alameda
Trish Spencer, fmr Mayor of Alameda
Ballot Statement\Rebuttal Signatores
Beverly Johnson, fmr Mayor of Alameda
Again, it is still early: but early indications are that all of your hard-fought efforts are paying off.
/s/ Tony Daysog, Alameda City Councilmember and No on Z Campaign Chair