She turned a blind eye to the Lake Merritt tree masacre and the loss of the meadow on Lakeside. That cost her Adams Point and Lakeside near Masonic temple. That and jerking their chain about a dog park.

Hodges: nice guy, well spoken and affable enough — bothersome that he has only showed up for only some of the candidate forms.

Those are job interviews, dude.

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I really enjoyed your endorsements blog. It’s funny – writing about this election has really crystalized for me what my issues actually are. If you had asked me in January how I would evaluate my choices for City Council candidates, I would have answered without hesitation that I would look for people who shared my positions on planning and development. It surprised me to realize that those factors weren’t that important to me after all. Maybe that’s not the right way to put it – they’re still important, but I’m willing to overlook different positions on those issues in favor of things that are more, I don’t know, abstract? More than anything else, I’m looking for people who are detail-oriented and pragmatic. There are no incumbents on the City Council that meet the bar I would like to see in this respect (although some come closer than others), and that’s why I can’t muster the same enthusiasm as you do in your endorsements of incumbents like Reid and De La Fuente.

I assure you that the line about parroting talking points was not in reference to any of my regular commenters, whose contributions I do value.

masb and ralph -

I’m going to try to respond to your comments about being critical of Nadel on the post about her this afternoon, since the issue came up there as well. Here, I’ll just say that I think the case against Nancy Nadel and the case for Sean Sullivan are equally relevant points to make in the election, and that’s why I wrote about both of them in separate posts.

scottpark –

From someone who’s often critical of my work, that means a lot. Thank you.

Kent –

First, I’m not sure what you’re referring to in reference to the Cypress Freeway. I have never made any comments about Nadel’s involvement on that issue either way, and regular readers should know I never make claims about anyone’s record without citing evidence to support it.

“Enamored by” isn’t the word I would pick to describe my thoughts on Sean Sullivan, but it’s a fair enough characterization, and I tried to use this post to explain the process by which I arrived at that opinion. And since this blog is like one giant, daily editorial column, I don’t really understand the criticism about “tak[ing] sides.”

And for your more specific points – I think Nancy Nadel has failed her constituents on both a citywide and district level. Food access and crime issues are certainly citywide problems, but on the District level, we’ve seen more action in other areas. Other low-income neighborhoods, like Fruitvale and East Oakland, have grocery stores. Yet West Oakland continues to suffer without one. Teenagers in District 3 have little access to recreation opportunities, while other parts of the City see movement on this front. On a citywide level, I feel that Nancy has again failed to advocate for effective or responsible solutions as well. I find Nadel’s divisive and hostile approach to governance disturbing, and I really think it is holding us back from progress in a major way.

And I’d like to echo Beck’s sentiment that the comment that nothing will change “as long as do-nothing Dellums is still the mayor” is incredibly depressing. The Council is tasked with crafting policy, and no matter who is Mayor, then can and should be doing in a way that will move the City forward. Sitting around waiting for Dellums to take action is precisely what’s wrong with the current Council, and I look forward to seeing someone with Sean’s level of energy bring new ideas and initiatives to the table.

I have come to that conclusion, and here’s why. I commend Greg for the admirable work he’s done in the community and specifically for youth, but I don’t see him as someone who is going to bring what I’m looking for to the City Council. In a City where money is always tight, we need someone who considers budgetary issues with an eagle eye, and I just don’t see that coming from Greg. The School District fell into a multimillion dollar deficit on his watch, and since them, he hasn’t demonstrated that he’s learned the lessons and come around to a more fiscally responsible approach. Less than a year ago, upon discovering that the School District was facing a $4.7 million deficit in their budget, Hodge shrugged it off as no big deal because it was such a small percentage of the total budget. When you’re dealing with taxpayer money and trying to provide service to citizens, every penny is important. This is something Hodge doesn’t seem to get, and we’ve already witnessed the consequences of that attitude.

Hodge, while an excellent speaker with the right overall attitude, and again, a very caring and community-minded person, has also been short on specifics during the campaign, and unlike Sean, has really failed to propose anything in the way of specific new policy initiatives, which is something we are in dire need of. So although I’ve watched him at multiple candidate forums, I’m still having a hard time understanding what exactly he intends to do as Councilmember. He statements on some issues, such as education (among other things), are well thought out and I agree with them. But on other issues that are very important with the City Council, like planning or economic development, he hasn’t demonstrated for me the same nuanced understanding that Sean Sullivan has.

I am also concerned with the fact that it doesn’t appear that Hodge intends to work full-time as a Councilmember. I have not been able to confirm this, in spite of three separate attempts to contact his campaign about the issue, because I have never received any response to my question. But from what he’s said at forums and in written statements, I get the idea that he intends to continue his work on the Equal Voice for America’s Families Campaign. This is no doubt a wonderful initiative and he should be lauded for his work on it, but I think that if this City is ever going to make any real progress, we need someone who will have no other professional commitments and focus their energies exclusively on City Council issues.

I do think that Greg Hodge would be a preferable alternative to Nancy Nadel, and if they were the only two candidates in the race, I would be voting for him and probably volunteering for him as well. But I wouldn’t be nearly so excited about my vote, because I’m not confident in his ability to deliver tangible results, and I don’t find him inspiring enough to devote anywhere near the amount of time I’ve been giving to Sean.

Nadel has convinced a lot of people that problems aren’t her fault, but this election is about demanding accountability from our representative. Where does the buck stop?

If you think Sean Sullivan cares about money enough to be bought, think again. Take a look at Sean’s car, and think again. If Sean Sullivan cared about money enough to be bought, he wouldn’t be caught dead in a late 90′s Honda with a cracked windshield. It’s a piece of crap. And so are any allegations that Sean Sullivan can be bought.

He’s also the only candidate who is a renter, and who has promised to work solely as a Councilman, with no outside work. This is not the profile of a fat cat. It just isn’t.

I completely agree that we are incredibly lucky to have several really great options to choose from here in District 3.

I will just say one thing in regards to the Sierra Club having worked with Joyce Roy on many issues over the last six years. Her issue is Oak to 9th and Sean’s relationship with Signature Properties. Whether it will affect decisions made in the future, who knows? But that is her concern. Personally, I would hope that whether it’s Sean or Greg, that either one would be willing to have a true conversation with their constituents and not already have their mind made up as to how to proceed. Based on preconceptions or relationships. An open mind and a willingness to listen and not just give the deer in the headlight stare.