Since the non-agenda public comment item at the September 17 City Council meeting was so overwhelmed, I reached out to the three newcomer candidates for City Council and asked them each if they would like the chance to share some written comments about the Alameda Food Bank via this blog. The parameters were up to 300 words, received by Sunday evening.

Michele Pryor

Here's what candidate Michele Pryor shared:

Like the dozens of people who showed up last Tuesday in support of the Alameda Food Bank, I am livid. Our neighbors who use the food bank deserve dignity and respect, but instead they are being targeted by vigilant bullies. A litigant even ridiculously claimed that the lawsuit was in service of the Food Bank, and that it would also protect a “historical parking lot.” These litigants are clearly not acting in good faith. 

What I also find abhorrent is that we have a sitting councilperson who is closely aligned with the two litigants. Who does this councilperson serve, the selfish few or the common good? Perhaps the candidates who held their campaign kick-offs at said litigant's business can enlighten us.

It is a comfort that so many Alamedans stood up to defend our neighbors. We take care of each other. But our sympathy will not put food on the table. 

Perhaps though, public outrage will sway these bad actors to drop their frivolous lawsuit.

Thushan Amarasiriwardena

After this blog post went out, candidate Thushan Amarasiriwardena shared the following by email:

Seeing the Alameda Food Bank pulled away from their critical mission by a less-than-meritorious lawsuit is beyond frustrating. This project was long underway and any reasonable concerns could have been raised earlier. While it’s encouraging to see the community quickly rally and the City Attorney's office take action against the suit, two more concerns deserve attention.

Nearly 9% of Alamedans use the Food Bank's services according to the bank, which focuses on those who live and work in Alameda. This comes at a time when the stock market is soaring, yet those most in need here are struggling. Half of Alamedans rent, and 44% of them are rent-burdened, spending 30% of income or more on rent. When people are stretched to pay for housing, food is often the first thing cut. We must solve the root problems by building housing and reducing costs.

Let’s talk about CEQA. While it’s an important tool, it’s often misused in ways that don’t benefit people or the environment. When Governor Ronald Reagan signed CEQA, California needed to defend its water, air, and land from pollution, smog, and habitat destruction. Today, it’s used to block and delay progress. Our biggest challenges—building housing, adapting to climate change, shifting to green energy, and expanding public transit—require swift and transformative action. Good policy is iterative, after 50 years, CEQA needs updating and we need to re-articulate its goals to drive bold environmental progress and prevent its misuse as a legal weapon.

Blocking projects like this distracts the Food Bank and diverts dollars from feeding Alamedans. Is this "historic parking lot" worth saving? (No.) Many of us care deeply about Alameda's rich history, but last week’s City Council turnout showed that our community believes the people with the greatest need should come first—these people need our support today.

Next up...

The next City Council meeting is scheduled for October 1. Thanks to the three volunteers who are helping me with this, we'll be ready to listen and clip out any public comments made by council candidates (or any emails submitted into the correspondence packets).