3.7 MILLION VISITORS SERVED. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Oakland proposal to border wall builders: Take your biz elsewhere

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
Prototypes for President Donald Trump's border wall are nearly complete. The City of Oakland, however, believes it has its own prototype for stymieing the wall's construction.

An Oakland City Council proposal to ban vendors from seeking city contracts who if they help design or construct the controversial border wall was approved Tuesday by the Financial and Management Committee.

Oakland is "putting our values where our dollars are," said Councilmember Abel Guillen, the chair of the finance committee. "We should really be working on security here at home and our communities and not a wasteful wall that's going to do nothing around immigration."

Oakland Councilmember Abel
Guillen first proposed legislation
about a border wall in February.
The committee unanimously backed the proposal, which would amend the Oakland municipal code to forbid companies that contract with the federal government to offer services or construction of the border wall from applying for any city contracts.

If approved by the full council next month, the city administration wants to make it clear to prospective bidders that cooperation with the border wall's construction is an automatic disqualifier.

The prohibition will included in the city's procurement procedures and all contracts, including Request for Proposals, said Deborah Barnes, director of the city's Compliance and Contracts Division.

Language from the proposed amendment will also be included on the city's Web site, Barnes added. "We want to make it clear this is a policy before even contemplating seeking Oakland contracts."

This iteration of Oakland's "resistance" against the President began last March when the council approved a resolution opposing the border wall, while setting the stage for Tuesday's proposed amendment to the city code.

5 comments:

  1. By MW:

    IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND CITY GOVERNMENT TAKING THE POSITION THAT THOSE BUSINESSES WHICH GET INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BID ON CITY CONTRACTS:

    Doing it officially, in other words by having such a LOCAL law on the books. would obviously be extremely illegal, and including since federal laws, and including the US Constitution, supersede local laws, and as probably even the local demagogues are well aware of.

    However taking such a public position allows the local demagogue politicians to pretend to be great liberals and wonderful humanitarians. And if the federal government ends up suing Oakland over the issue, it will also give the local demagogue politicians still more opportunity to self righteously rant and rave and yell and scream as they continue to pretend that they are great liberals and wonderful humanitarians.

    However if the local demagogue politicians were actually interested in punishing those businesses which got involved in the construction of the wall, and rather than just pretending to be great liberals, they would find all sorts of cute ways to find that the bids of those businesses they did not like were "defective."

    For instance, the big boys of real estate are well aware that they have to provide the local politicians with large election campaign contributions, and sometimes also under the table bribes, if they want to receive building permits, and as example of the "standards" of most politicians, and those builders and developers who do not provide the politicians with money will have their proposals deemed "defective."

    In other words most politicians, and no matter how much they pretend to be great liberals and wonderful humanitarians, are the very best that money can buy.

    Still furthermore, and as far as the issue of trying to keep certain people out, Alameda County DA Nancy O'Malley, and who pretends to be a liberal, lives in the city of Alameda.

    And yet Nancy "THE GREAT LIBERAL" O'Malley was strongly against the construction of a certain proposed road project, since she felt it would likely cause a lot of people from Oakland, and who she thought many of whom were criminals, to come into Alameda.

    However lawyers are the runaway "leaders" among all major professions in all sorts of criminal and anti social activities, and including domestic violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, divorce, and a ton of other things. Therefore so as to restrict the infiltration of criminals and riff raff into respectable and law abiding areas, I propose that Alameda County, and including Oakland, enact a special tax so as to build a high and impenetrable wall around the residences of all lawyers, and that way lawyers will be unable to escape and infiltrate and contaminate respectable and law abiding society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I support the wall and any builders who work on it. I have no problem boycotting Oakland. There are plenty of places with better restaurants and shops.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By MW:

    Including in regard to the above post of 5:50AM.

    Let me provide another perspective on whether or not we should build THE WALL that Donald Trump proposes.

    There is the theory, and which I think Donald Trump and a lot of other conservatives believe, that a high percentage of the illegal drugs that enter the US are smuggled in from Mexico, and so that therefore building THE WALL might be a partial solution to this country's problems with illegal drugs.

    However a high percentage of lawyers, and also a high percentage of liberal politicians, are extreme drug addicts. Ask the Kennedy family for details.

    In fact if I remember correctly, also at least one of former Vice President Joe Biden's children was an extreme alcoholic and/or an extreme drug addict.

    So if we build THE WALL, it might greatly inhibit the ability of drug addicted lawyers and liberal politicians to get their fixes of illegal drugs. So we need to carefully think about that before we further consider going ahead and building THE WALL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey 550 am go dine with other klan members

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am against the wall but ONLY because it would cause havoc for wildlife. If that could be remedied, and it can't, I would support a wall in a heartbeat. Must support to mass deport!

    ReplyDelete