Daysog's reponse to Oakland Chamber of Commerce

By Tony Daysog

Daysog's reponse to Oakland Chamber of Commerce

a)JUVENILE HALL: No one argues against the need for a new juvenile hall, as the existing facility in San Leandro is seismically unsafe and in need of substantial modernization. Youths and juvenile justice advocates accept a 330-bed facility. The Board of Supervisors decided to build a 420-bed facility that includes the infrastructure to expand to 540 beds. Juvenile justice advocates and experts demonstrate that metro areas larger than Alameda County, such as Cook County (Chicago, IL), Clark County (LasVegas, NV) or Kings County (Seattle, WA), do not have nearly as much beds as what the Board of Supervisors propose. Keep in mind that the issue is not simply about where to locate the new juvenile hall or how big it should be: it is also about the underlying philosophy of our juvenile justice approach. Do we build more jails - or do we support alternative, community-based approaches? What will I do?

(A1) Alameda County needs to seek immediately a ?waiver? from the State Board of Corrections, to obtain more time to review data presented by juvenile justice experts who claim that 420-540 beds is too much for a region the size of Alameda County.

(A2) After reviewing expert testimony and data, the County Board of Supervisors must reverse course and, instead of building a 420-540 bed facility, build a 330-bed facility, and re-direct saving generated by building a smaller facility to juvenile justice organizations based in neighborhoods where the bulk of juvenile hall-bound youth come from.

B) COORDINATING FOOD PROGRAMS, LOW-COST INSURANCE AND OTHER PROGRAMS WITH SIMILAR ELIGIBILITIES: Alameda County BOD must coordinate all programs for youths, even those that it does not have jurisdiction over. What will I do?

(B1) Board of Supervisors must create a community-based ?one-stop shop? approach to social service programs for youth that allows parents to sign up their children simultaneously and seamlessly in a number of programs such as Health Families, Food Stamps or the Free Lunch program, etc..

C) WELFARE REFORM: The County BOS must continue with the work orientation of its welfare system ? but it must use this opportunity to fashion a new ?welfare reform? that focuses on solving the underlying problem of child poverty. Welfare reform advocates saw reform as a way to promote work and marriage, but they are yet to address points raised by reform opponents, who continue to assert that reform spending reductions and removals of federal protections hurt children. Data shows that child poverty remains as pervasive today as before 1996 [according to the US Census, 16% of all children in the US live in poverty today, as opposed to 18% in 1990][In Alameda County, 15% of all children lived in poverty, versus 17% in 1998, according to estimates by the US Census]. What must be done? (C1) In addition to continuing to partner with the private sector to create jobs, especially for those who are low-income, the county must coordinate social programs through a one-stop shop approach for youths and children that addresses in an effective and comprehensive manner the fundamental problem of child poverty.

D) WELL-PLANNED, ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY SUSTAINABLE GROWTH: I support Measure D ? but we might want to modify it along lines articulated by Urban Ecology and Transportation Choice Forum. Passed by county voters in 2000, this measure strips the county's role in planning a 12,500-unit residential development north of Livermore. It also protects ridgelines west of Dublin from what many called piecemeal development. Urban Ecology and the Transportation Choices Forum demonstrated viable alternatives to the 12,500 suburban sprawl development of single-family homes, offering instead a development vision based first on in-fill, then development that preserves open space and allows residential development on less acreage and at medium to higher densities. What will I do?

(D1) If elected, I will encourage county planners and local government officials to pursue the Urban Ecology and Transportation Choices Forum's vision for the northern Livermore area, as what I call a "middle path" growth solution that straddles the extremes of either Livermore City Council's absolutely no-growth or the typical suburban sprawl of residential developers. As a city and regional planner by profession, having earned my Master's from UC Berkeley, and as a member of Alameda's City Council, I firmly believe that the kind of growth that the region needs must involve a mix of housing types for a mix of income groups. Any development must be well-planned, environmentally sensitive, with an emphasis on housing-transit and housing-jobs linkages. As a Supervisor, I will only pursue the Urban Ecology vision in so far as there is substantial commitment to set aside homes as affordable for low- and moderate-income families, and so long as the issue of jobs-housing balance is also pursued.

(D2) Why do we need well-planned growth? Much of the social services provided to distressed communities are paid for by sales tax and vehicle license fees, so there is a ?nexus? or connection between economic development and social services for the poor.