Press Back Browser Button to return to the City Index
Measure L
City of Alameda – GO Bond Measure
To prepare for emergencies, earthquakes and sea-level rise; prevent flooded Tubes; repair potholes; keep streets safe and accessible; maintain response to fires, accidents, and medical emergencies; prevent Bay pollution; and protect shorelines; shall the City of Alameda measure issuing $300,000,000 in bonds, levying $49/$100,000 of assessed value, generating approximately $19,000,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, requiring oversight, public disclosures, and local control, be adopted?
Vote Required: 2/3
Criteria:
1. Intent of bond and amount of the bond.
2. The annual cost should be stated in $ per $100,000 of assessed value of a property.
3. Duration of the bond and total estimated cost to repay the bond including interest.
4. Is there another similar bond already in place? If so, that bond information should be included.
5. What is the money specifically being spent on?
**** Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter ( -1 point).
SCORE: 3.7
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide sufficient information whether there were any existing bonds in place, and failure to provide information on the duration of the bonds and estimated cost to repay the bonds.
Measure M
City of Alameda – Charter Amendment – Amend and Repeal Outdated Provisions
Shall the measure amending City Charter Sections 2-1.1, 2-3, 2-10, 3-7(G), 3-14, 7-2(J), 8-2, 8-5, 10-3, 10-6, 10-7,10-12, 12-4(A) and (B), 14-1, 17-10, 28-2, 28-3 and 28-4, and repealing Sections 12-3(D) and 23-3 to conform to existing practices and amend and repeal outdated provisions be adopted?
Required Vote: 50%+1
Criteria:
1-Intent of the Measure and the duration.
2-Are there any financial effects if this measure passes? If so- how much?
3- If this passes, what or who will this measure specifically affect?
4-Does the measure deal with more than 1 issue? (Measures should deal with one or closely related subjects.)
5- What is the current situation that would remain if this measure does not pass?
*****Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter.(-1 point).
Score 1.8
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide even minimal information on what was being amended and little information as to why. No information is provided as to whether the changes would have financial effects. Approximately 30 more words could have been added to give voters some hint as to the subjects being affected by the proposed amendments.
Measure N
City of Alameda – Charter Amendment – Leases and Sales of Real Property Measure
Shall the measure amending Section 3-10 of the City Charter to change sales or leases of City real property exceeding one year to be approved by resolution rather than by ordinance and to reduce the City Council approval threshold from supermajority (four affirmative votes) to simple majority (three affirmative votes) for leases of City real property not exceeding ten years be adopted?
Required Vote: 50%+1
Criteria:
1-Intent of the Measure and the duration.
2-Are there any financial effects if this measure passes? If so- how much?
3- If this passes, what or who will this measure specifically affect?
4-Does the measure deal with more than 1 issue? (Measures should deal with one or closely related subjects.)
5- What is the current situation that would remain if this measure does not pass?
*****Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter.(-1 point).
Score: 4.0
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed. No problem was identified for which this change would be the solution. There also is no explanation whether there would be financial impacts from the change. Only about 60 of the 75 words allowed to explain the measure were actually used. Voters may conclude that there would be improved efficiency in the leasing of city-owned property, but more clarity could have easily been provided.
Press Back Browser Button to return to the City Index
