In Piedmont we are extremely fortunate to have wealth, a good school system, parks and playfields, community activities and events and a beautiful environment. It’s easy to see the appeal of the status quo and why we might look askance at someone new who comes in and says we can change things for the better.
But change is critical component of progress. Through the lens of history we see radical ideas (democracy, abolitionism, women’s suffrage, etc.) become more than just mainstream, but fundamental tenants of our society. Because of my belief in the positive power of change, the ideas behind phrases like “we’ve always done it this way,” or “this is how we do it” are anathema to me – particularly in the context of political discourse. For the same reason I strongly value critical thinking, open and honest discourse and a public process that is informative, engaging and inclusive.
The Piedmonter, the Post and many supporters of Dean Barbieri and Margaret Fujioka have argued against the candidacy of Ryan Gilbert because he has not lived here a long time and has not served the requisite time on any of the commissions or committees in our community. That rationale perpetuates the status quo and limits the voices of newcomers, most of the people with young children and perhaps most significantly, the people bearing the highest relative tax burden. Length of residency is not a legitimate pre-requisite to office.
I am supporting Ryan Gilbert because he has exhibited the characteristics I look for in a leader. He is bright, thoughtful, accessible, friendly, enthusiastic and worldly. He is willing to question the status quo where necessary. He is not constrained by the history of how things have always been done, but is open to new ideas. He is committed to a “greener” Piedmont and has the intellect and personality to bring that goal to fruition. Ryan has three young children and therefore an incredibly deep stake in what will happen in our town as they grow up.
I think Margaret Fujioka would make a fine city councilmember. She is thoughtful and well spoken and I believe her when she says that she can be a consensus builder. But she doesn’t strike me as a leader, or at least not the kind of leader we need now. I was disappointed that Margaret, as a long time resident, didn’t loudly and publicly condemn the personal attacks made on Ryan in the Post.
Dean Barbieri is running on the state of the city. I would argue that the state of the city is more the circumstance of the time in which councilmember Barbieri has held office than anything he’s done. And I think if you look more closely, you find reasons to take issue with his role on this city council.
Piedmont has very little retail business, so we don’t have any possibility of sales tax revenue. We rely instead on real estate transfer taxes and a parcel tax to fund our operations at the level to which we’ve become accustomed. In the recent past, real estate transfer tax revenues have been high, so high in fact, that the city council did not need to levy a parcel tax and was able to sock away large chunks of money for projects at Hampton, Coaches Field, and a reserve in case they had to take over the pool. And they spent a large sum of money on consultants for the general plan and the civic center master plan. The real estate slow down though will have an impact on Piedmont revenues in the coming council session. In this context, we are better served by the skills Ryan has amassed in business; the most critical of which may be the understanding that you need to have a realistic end goal before you embark down a particular path.
The current city council has moved forward with planning for a significant renovation of Hampton Field, field turf and possibly lighting at Coaches Field, and has fully embarked on an exceptionally expensive civic center master plan with a $4,000,000+ parking garage and a large new pool complex that could run in the tens of millions. There is no funding currently for the civic center project and how to fund the project has not been integrated into the planning process. If the community can’t or doesn’t want to fund the project, the significant sums spent on the consultant will be wasted.
Councilmember Barbieri’s involvement in several issues that have surfaced in this past Council term raise questions in my mind as to his judgment.
This Council has handled the pool lease poorly. The opponents of the Piedmont Swim Club (“PSC”) were primarily unhappy because there simply isn’t enough pool space in town for all of the users and they blamed this on the PSC. The city’s own consultant reported that under the circumstances, with the lack of capacity, the PSC was doing a fine job managing the pool and that it would cost the city $300,000 annually if it took over operation of the pool (this is because PSC members subsidize public uses of the pool). At that point it should have been clear that the fiscally responsible path would have been to renew the PSC lease for the length of time it would take to plan, fundraise and build new pool facilities – if that is truly what the community wants. Alternatively, the city could have gone to the voters and asked them whether they’d like to have the city run the pool and budgeted the cost of pool operation. The city council dragged this issue out for years before it finally did enter into new a lease with the PSC which costs the city $114,000 in lost lease revenue from PSC over the term of the new lease.
A few years ago Piedmont Soccer Foundation (“PSF”) came to the recreation commission and the city council requesting an experimental program of (I think) 16 Sundays with games at Beach Field. A large contingent of Beach Field neighbors supported the proposal, a few did not. In rejecting PSF’s request, the councilmembers, including councilmember Barbieri, were swayed, in large part, by the argument of the few neighbors that owned their property when the field was built that they were “promised” that there would be no games on Sunday. That is simply a bad basis on which to make public policy. Circumstances change. When Beach Field was built fewer children participated in organized sports in Piedmont, there was no lacrosse and PSF wasn’t faced with losing field space in Alameda. In the meantime there has been significant turnover in the houses in the area. The PSF proposal should have been considered on its merits and not dismissed because of a bad public policy decision made years ago.
My objection to the city council’s handling of the recent playfield restrictions is here. Councilmember Barbieri supported the restrictions as drafted.
The city council, with councilmember Barbieri taking the lead, roundly rejected the request of the League of Women Voters and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that Piedmont join 40 Bay Area cities and 8 counties in adopting some form of legislation regulating wood smoke. This patently anti-environmental stance ignored the “many scientific studies have been published that correlate rising [particulate matter] levels with serious health effects, such as asthma symptoms, decreased lung function, increased hospital admissions and even premature death.” Click here for more information on this issue.
I can’t divine how Ryan would have voted on any of these issues, but I am certain that he would have viewed them with an open mind, without pre-conceived ideas, with an understanding of the fiscal consequences and, on the wood smoke issue, with an understanding that we all are responsible for the stewardship of our environment. Please join me in voting for Ryan Gilbert.
Subscribe to Piedmont Neighborhood News by Email
