Aimee, you ran a great and sprited campaign. Look, you only lost to Councilmember Pat Kernighan by 827 votes. To put this in perspective, that's about the number of people that generally see a first-run movie at the Grand Lake Theater.
You're going to get there. Even your opponents point to your charisma and charm. Don't look down at all. If you're asking "What can I do that I didn't do this time?" the seeds of the full answer may rest in the fact that Councilmember Kernighan's party was -- according to the SFist -- at Pacific Renaissance Plaza in Chinatown, whereas yours was at Maxwells. Your choice was hip; hers was Asian.
If you're asking how you might increase your presence in the Asian community, here's my answer: join the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce and get to know the players like Carl Chan and Judy Chu and others -- and listen. Face time is valuable, but ear time is golden.
Meanwhile, it's time to go about the task of melding what to me is a community divided, and I'm certain the voting numbers for District Two will reflect this. First, congratulations to Councilmember Pat Kernighan. Second, I'm really concerned about Oakland, and perhaps Ron Dellums came along at the right time. But Oakland's never been more racially divided, unsafe, and just plain not fun to be in as it has over the last two years. Heck, that's why I spend so much time in San Francisco -- it's becoming what Oakland used to be socially, plus it has more of a can-do attitude.
These negative developments are new to Oakland but they threaten to tear what I call "The Soul Of Oakland" apart.
This community -- this city -- has got to come together.
Comments
In a local election, 827 votes is significant, especially with her people saying that the election was so close that it would be decided by "dozens of votes." Yeah, 68 dozen!
What I would suggest Aimee do is actually do something other then run for office in Oakland. She and her supporters could very well start a group or policy initiative or something to make Oakland a better place. Just good ideas has been shown three times now to not be enough.
Second, Aimee has star quality; it's just a matter of the proper branding. So I think you're way wrong.
Also, why not identify yourself? What do you fear?
On another note, my observation about Oakland is opposite of yours. After six years of living in Oakland (Adams Point) I finally spend more time here than in SF. There are a lot of new restaurants, bars, music venues, and theater in the area with the promise of more to come. It just seems like there's more activity in general, at least downtown and around the lake, and in Temescal and Rockridge.
Actually, I've been here for 32 years. It's not the bars and restaurants I'm talking about, it's the way Oakland doens't mix. It's not as diverse in that way. It's too prone to racial divisions and indeed is dividing that way unlike I've ever seen before. It's becoming more like San Francisco used to be, and now I find SF more interesting.
Also part of my personal change has to do with being in the private sector and running a firm. There's more energy in SF than here. Moreover, the flavor that Oakland has because of it's African American culture is giving way in part because of Black out-migration.
So I say Welcome to Oakland young man, but it's not the Oakland I grew to love. It's rather boring.
What rankles me is that Oakland seems to have more and more places where if I look around I'm the only black person male or female. Part of this is demographic change -- but only a small part.
In my view a city has to make a sound commitment to policies that foster the growth of a diverse population.
In Oakland's history this has happened by accident. But one impact of Jerry Brown's "10K" plan was to "push" more whites to settle in Oakland.
Now, that's not a bad thing, in fact it's something I wrote -- in The Montclarion ten years ago -- needed to happen. But what was lacking in the 10K plan was an admission that what was going to happen did occur and the question "How do we have this happen and yet cause Oakland to maintain a population mix that at one point had it as the only city in America with NO census tract with a dominant racial or ethnic group.
That's something I've always been proud of.
In fact, I was so distressed over the 10K plan that I called Albert Ratner at Forest City in Cleveland and asked him to send 12 copies of the Cleveland Downtown Plan, which he did.
I then distributed the plan around the Oakland Economic Development office. Everyone agreed its a direction we should go in, but no one could get Jerry to pay attention.
The Cleveland Plan has housing in mixed-income settings, an open space plan (which we don't have), a transportation element (which we don't have), and a land use location element (which we don't have).
Now please don't point to the General Plan for Oakland as that's different from a downtown plan. The last real downtown plan Oakland has was created and approved in 1985.
The 10K "plan" was really a collection of housing developments in search of a plan. A big mess.
I pointed this out politely to Jerry in one of the first 10K meetings -- alas.
It is worse than it was in Baltimore, & it was damn bad there.
I think the street crime, begging & the perception of young Black men as criminals is part of the white side of it, but I get the impression in my neighborhood that as a White man, I am a non person, except to the neighbors I have known for many years.
I don't get that vibe from the Asian or Latin folks.
I picked the spot for all the different folks. And the Lake.
I love Oakland.
I picked the spot for all the different folks. And the Lake.
I love Oakland.
I have been ejoying your blog during the election.
I don't think star quality is what Oakland needs, and District 2 voters seemed to agree. We had one star mayor--our current Attorney General-elect--and now we have another star mayor, Ron Dellums. I'm not convinced that this star power translates into anything substantive, but using the old "fool me once, shame on you" addage, I'm in a wait and see mode on Dellums. Aimee has had plenty of time to get involved in concrete ways in the community, but all she's been able to do is campaign and come before the Council as a shill for the Wayans Brothers (a "big out of town developer," by the way). I cannot possibly see how Aimee could be more branded than she already is. The orange army, the artists, the bikes, the kids, the mixed-race angle. Plus the "businesswoman" and the Stanford grad. I mean, she can just about be molded into anything (and was). Sadly, she couldn't be branded as having done anything. For that, you just need to put in work.
I think it's clear that having a record of accomplishment means something to District 2 voters. You can laugh and say Pat got elected for Trader Joe's, but anyone who would laugh at that seems to have no understanding of what being a City COuncilmember actual entails. If that's a marginal accomplishment in your view, perhaps you don't want to be a municipal official, which is fine. I'm not alone in suspecting that Allison has bigger electoral fish to fry, anyway.
As far as Oakland vs SF, I have a family, so SF is no place for me. Oakland's just great it so many ways. I've grown up in cities all my life, and I don't necessarily think the absence of entrepeneurial energy/unending dollar chasing is necessarily a bad thing. SF's a great example of how incredible amounts of money and lots of business activity do nothing to lift people out of poverty. They just end up being pushed out. As we know, black outmigration rates in SF and Richmond are significantly higher than the same rates in Oakland.
What's also somewhat ironic is the very unaffordability of SF is what has driven some of the hipsterization of District 2. And we know the hipster contingent is the shock army of gentrification. Aimee hates gentrification, but certainly doesn't hate her own voters, so that's another, uh, "challenge," to use a kind word.