Jean Quan: out to lunch in San Ramon

12 Responses to “Jean Quan: out to lunch in San Ramon”

1. 1
   Californio Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

   You’re right, this is exactly the sort of clueless leadership we need to get rid of. It’s also extremely insensitive to any crime victim in Oakland. On the other hand, I have a feeling that the leaders themselves, including, of course, Dellums, are scared too, because they don’t see any real solution to the problem. Anti violence programs, after school programs for at-risk kids, more cops walking beats, private rent-a-cops: these are all fine, but they cannot possibly stop all the crimes that are being committed. And now we find out from the Tribune that there’s a huge traffic in underage prostitution in Oakland. These leaders are captain and crew of a ship which is filling with water faster than it can be bailed out, and they don’t know what to do. This is how I read Jean Quan’s comment, which she probably, at this point, regrets ever having said.

2. 2
   Surfways Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

   Jake Gyllenhaal once bemoaned, “it’s a sad time when actors are politicians and politicians are actors”.
   At least Jean Quan isn’t acting or lying. However, her comments disregards what her constituents rightfully need and deserve. It is clear that she needs to be scooped up with the rest of the poop infesting the city council. Please, let there be a competent person who will run to represent District four.

3. 3
   Max Allstadt Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

   In a month where we’ve seen Obama and Clinton hatchet eachother senseless over gaffes, and completely ignore substance, I really don’t care if Jean Quan made one lousy remark that can be construed as silly. Maybe it was silly. Maybe she’s wrong about crime issues. I don’t know her history that well. Maybe it would be better to give us a little more context over the course of her career instead of just lambasting a single remark.

   Theres a lot that George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson taught us last week – by counterexample. More meat please.

4. 4
   Deckin Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

   Max, my suggestion is that you go to a meeting and witness Jean Quan in action to appreciate the full measure of her fatuousness. This kind of comment would only rate about a 5 on her innanity scale. But what’s truly special about Ms. Quan, is that she backs up her utter imbecility with a truckload of conceit, patronization and utter disrespect for anyone else. Her standard form of communication is the monologue liberally dabbled with references to her own ‘accomplishments’. She then tops it off with snide complaints about her constituents (apparently we’re ‘so negative’) and condescension (we really should read more, according to her). Soon, you too will learn your place, if you are willing to listen.

5. 5
   Max Allstadt Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

   That’s a big tough steak to chew on, Deckin. I’ll watch.
   Maybe it’s because their politicians and they know how to put on a good face, but frankly, at council meetings, I’m most often bothered by certain members of the audience.

6. 6
   V Smoothe Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

   Max –

   Quan’s remark about San Ramon is pretty representative of her attitude about crime in general. She says stuff like this all the time, she happily acknowledges that she knew when she wrote Measure Y that it wouldn’t actually cover the cost of the officers it promised to hire, and she has shown little to no interest in taking any initiative to fully staff the police department to authorized and funded levels, instead saying repeatedly that we’re just going to have to wait and grow our own. In any case, I’m on pseudo-blogging vacation this week – everything’s short.

7. 7
   Charles Pine Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

   For more on Quan’s disdain for public safety and constituents, browse the archives at http://www.orpn.org especially the reports on the Dimond area in her district.

   Earlier this week I went to hand out my campaign leaflet as people arrived at a meeting of a neighborhood crime prevention council, something I’ve done for months now all over Oakland with no problem. Quan’s chief of staff tried to stop me, calling the school where the meeting was held “our building.” Okay, I said, I’ll hand them out on the sidewalk. He even objected to that. Unfortunately, he did not try to call OPD. That would have been rich.

8. 8
   oaklandhappenings Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

   Hey, V– in relation to Quan’s comment, which shows that her IQ seems no higher than her district number, can the next blog reflect the stupidity of Deputy Kozicki’s comment about not arresting people? I guess that his officers didn’t pay attention; as they arrested one of the takeover robbers.
   That SFgate proved how hopeless that certain Oakland “leaders” can be.

9. 9
   Max Allstadt Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

   Wow. Two candidates commenting in one night. Who wins the election? V smoothe does.

10. 10
    Jonathan C. Breault Says:
    April 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am

    Jean Quan’s ridiculous, condescending dismissiveness is ordinarily just annoying and odd. Her manner is so peculiar and her shockingly inarticulate ramblings generally are so confounding that it is difficult to comprehend precisely what in the heck she is trying to convey. However, because it doesn’t conform to her narrow, strange and delusional view of how Oakland is to proceed she feels entitled to cavalierly pronounce that Oakland’s citizens mortification and fear about crime is overblown as San Ramon, a metaphor for anywhere USA, suffers from crime also. This is just insulting to everyone and is a sad reminder of just how dysfunctional Oakland has become. Strange people who are hopelessly egotistical and incapable of adapting to the real world problems normal citizens face run Oakland. It is sad that Oakland’s precipitous demise is unrecognized by Quan and the future reinvigoration of the town will in large part be managed by fools.

11. 11
    abetteroak Says:
    April 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am

    Agree w/ commenter labelling JQ as patronizing. That’s JQ. She’s not able to solve problems and rather than look for solutions, challenges constituents who raise issues to the problems they are facing in the district she nominally represents.

    Here’s Jean “solving” a never-ending constituent problem on traffic accidents/fatalities on the 35th/Redwood Road curve:

    http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_9037673?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com

    “People just need to slow down,” Quan said of drivers in her district. “We have more and more commuters with bigger cars.”

    “Kids are getting hit at crosswalks, there are more and more accidents, and we have more speeders than ever. And it takes forever to get funding for stoplights and signs.”

    Obviously, people haven’t/won’t slow down & people continue to die at the curve, and residents sustain property damage on an ongoing basis. Something needs to be done to solve the problem structurally so that no one else need be injured or killed because of failure of local government to engineer a solution to a physical hazard.

    Residents have been waiting forever for a solution to an obvious public safety hazard; if Jean had been on the ball 5-6 years ago when the hazard was already well known and people were dying even then, perhaps she could have applied for & secured funding then rather than leaving it at the excuse that it “takes forever to get funding” as a reason for non-action.

    JQ’s “representation” is part of Oakland’s myriad problems and will be as long as she sits on the council, taking up space and failing to address and respond to the obvious needs and requirements of the citizens of Oakland. From the ebonics advocacy, to the Measure Y non-measure, to the plastic bag initiave, to her attitude towards rampant & unchecked crime in her district & throughout oakland, she should go.

12. 12
    James H. Robinson Says:
    April 25th, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Why is this person still on the council? Why haven’t citizens voted her out?