Opinion: Give it Back, San Francisco  Let’s Make Alameda Whole 75%

By Shum Preston91%

8/3/2026, 7:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Indoctrination, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 51.4% saturation with 384 hits. Analysis detected 1,852 faulty-reasoning hits from 747 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.1% and a BS Rank of 75% (6,992 of 27,923 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

It’s always been rough for little Alameda to be so close to San Francisco. 
We’re a peaceful island city, known for our tranquil lifestyle and endearing people. 
They’re the Behemoth on the Bay, known for their high housing costs and loud music festivals. 
Post Staff illustration based on OpenStreetMaps.org data. 
But there’s one way that Frisco—as I’m now calling it—has gone too far. 
There are 38.91 acres of Alameda Island, on the outer edge of the former Alameda Naval Air Station, that somehow are the legal territory of San Fran. 
My fellow Islanders, it’s time for us to draw a line in the sand, or at least in the rocky landfill. 
It’s time for us to rescue this castaway and make Alameda whole. 
I learned about this plot of land from an episode of KQED’s Bay Curious —it made me bay furious. 
In the 1950s the Navy extended the air station with landfill. 
Once they passed the high-tide mark, that new territory became legally San Francisco. 
Apparently, the City had generously drawn itself an eight-mile border around its land early in its history. 
This was possibly the last time they efficiently planned for growth. 
What this means is that they’re treating a forgotten corner of Alameda Island like it’s Alcatraz Island or the Farallones. 
There’s a big difference, though. 
We’re not a prison, even if it sometimes feels that way when the Webster Tube gets blocked. 
And it’s not just seals and sea lions who live on Alameda—we also have human beings. 
To be fair, there are a lot of seagulls over on SF’s tiny little corner of Alameda, with important colonies of least terns and harbor seals nearby. 
And the land itself is capped, meaning that the ground got polluted by the military, so is closed off to future development. 
But on the flip side, that makes it probably the least valuable land in San Francisco’s portfolio. 
Something’s fishy here. 
Why not give it back to us? 
There’s also the question of how well San Francisco manages the land. 
If a crime occurs, is SFPD gonna hop a ferry to come investigate? 
Will they brave the Bay Bridge in rush-hour traffic? 
Do they know where to catch the O transbay bus? 
I have my doubts, so I set out to learn just how carefully San Francisco City Hall is taking care of their patch of beautiful Alameda. 
I crossed the bay and ran into Rafael Mandelman, the President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 
I asked about his plans for this slice of Alameda. 
He pretended to be confused by the question. 
Matt Dorsey is the District 6 supervisor, and he is the one who presumably represents the area. 
I asked him next about his Alameda agenda, but he just laughed and hugged me. 
Nice guy, though more focused on his side of the bay than ours. 
I even asked Mayor Daniel Lurie about the issue. 
He drove off without bothering to answer. 
(Full disclosure, he was just driving by, and couldn’t hear me, but he’s been in office for nearly two years and has yet to tackle the problem.) 
If we treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves, here’s what the fix looks like: We need the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to vote to extend the county line by these 38.91 acres. 
Then we need the San Francisco Board to pass the same measure. 
Expect a 12-hour meeting with public comment. 
Maybe the NIMBYs and the YIMBYs can come together to agree that it just is not their backyard? 
Once it passes, the mayor signs the bill, with the State Board of Equalization finalizing the tax status. 
The City of Alameda would take the final step by requesting that the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, the A-LAFCO, move the city boundaries. 
There’s nothing funny about a LAFCO. 
I get that this sounds like a process only a bored lawyer could love. 
But making Alameda Island whole is an issue that unifies all of us. 
San Francisco Mayor Lurie’s famous slogan is “Let’s go, San Francisco.” 
I say yes, please. 
Go on back to San Francisco and leave Alameda Island here with us. 
Shum Preston is a writer who escaped what he considers the harsh grasp of San Francisco to enjoy beautiful Alameda. 
The post Opinion: Give it Back, San Francisco  Let’s Make Alameda Whole appeared first on Alameda Post . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 3.1%Alameda Post: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Shum Preston: 0.9%Alameda Post: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.6%This article: 3.5%Shum Preston: 2.1%Alameda Post: 0.9%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 8.6%Shum Preston: 2.7%Alameda Post: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic8.6%This article: 1.5%Shum Preston: 1.3%Alameda Post: 0.1%Hindsight Bias1.5%This article: 4.7%Shum Preston: 2.9%Alameda Post: 0.4%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 7.1%Shum Preston: 8.5%Alameda Post: 4.5%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 6.7%Shum Preston: 1.7%Alameda Post: 0.4%Loss Aversion6.7%This article: 2.9%Shum Preston: 0.7%Alameda Post: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Shum Preston: 1.0%Alameda Post: 4.1%Optimism Bias4.0%This article: 4.8%Shum Preston: 1.2%Alameda Post: 0.2%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 14.3%Shum Preston: 5.6%Alameda Post: 2.1%Negativity Bias14.3%This article: 8.6%Shum Preston: 3.2%Alameda Post: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias8.6%This article: 2.0%Shum Preston: 2.4%Alameda Post: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error2.0%This article: 1.1%Shum Preston: 0.3%Alameda Post: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias1.1%This article: 11.1%Shum Preston: 10.6%Alameda Post: 1.9%In-Group Bias11.1%This article: 2.1%Shum Preston: 2.6%Alameda Post: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.1%This article: 1.7%Shum Preston: 0.9%Alameda Post: 3.9%Halo Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 1.1%Alameda Post: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Shum Preston: 0.9%Alameda Post: 0.6%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Shum Preston: 2.2%Alameda Post: 0.2%Ad Hominem4.0%This article: 2.7%Shum Preston: 1.3%Alameda Post: 0.2%Straw Man2.7%This article: 1.5%Shum Preston: 0.4%Alameda Post: 2.2%Appeal to Authority1.5%This article: 4.0%Shum Preston: 1.6%Alameda Post: 0.6%False Dilemma4.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.4%Shum Preston: 8.7%Alameda Post: 2.3%Hasty Generalization9.4%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.1%Alameda Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.1%Shum Preston: 1.0%Alameda Post: 0.6%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 14.9%Shum Preston: 10.9%Alameda Post: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion14.9%This article: 3.1%Shum Preston: 1.0%Alameda Post: 0.2%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 1.5%Shum Preston: 0.4%Alameda Post: 0.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.5%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.8%Shum Preston: 1.9%Alameda Post: 0.2%Burden of Proof7.8%This article: 2.9%Shum Preston: 0.7%Alameda Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.9%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.1%Shum Preston: 4.3%Alameda Post: 1.0%Anecdotal17.1%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.3%Shum Preston: 0.6%Alameda Post: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Shum Preston: 0.6%Alameda Post: 0.1%Middle Ground2.4%This article: 2.3%Shum Preston: 1.0%Alameda Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.3%This article: 0.8%Shum Preston: 0.2%Alameda Post: 0.0%Special Pleading0.8%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.0%Shum Preston: 2.2%Alameda Post: 0.7%Unattributed Quote9.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 51.4%Shum Preston: 26.6%Alameda Post: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice51.4%This article: 15.0%Shum Preston: 11.8%Alameda Post: 2.5%Indoctrination15.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shum Preston: 0.0%Alameda Post: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

747 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.1%attributed speech739writer words
Selected voice

Rafael Mandelman

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+92.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Rafael Mandelman: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-52.0 ptsWriter: 52.0%Rafael Mandelman: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%Rafael Mandelman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.