Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SAVE OAKLAND'S WATERFRONT. OPPOSE THE OAK TO NINTH DEAL! KICK OFF SUNDAY JULY 23!
Hey folks, did you know that the Oakland City Council recently approved a deal which will sell off our waterfront real cheap to a private developer? We need to save our waterfront and public space for all of us. We need to oppose this deal. THIS IS AN ISSUE WORTH FIGHTING FOR AND THIS IS AN ISSUE WE CAN WIN! Here's what's going on.
The Oak to Ninth Project, recently approved by the City Council with virtually no press coverage, is a boon for the developer and a disaster for the rest of us. We need to ask these questions:
WHY IS OAKLAND:
Walling off our waterfront and limiting public access?
Selling our public land at a discount to a private developer?
Subsidizing a private developer to the tune of $114 million while leaving 2000 children without a school?
Demolishing the historic Ninth Avenue Terminal?
Building housing next to air-polluted I-880?
Creating unmitigated traffic congestion?
This deal is a downright shady one. It goes against the plans which were already created, supported by Oakland voters in 1999 and 2003, and which would be good for all of us. This plan will line the pockets of a few people who don’t care about our city and will take away one of our most precious resources with all its wonderful potential.
Oakland is a waterfront city-a special city located on one of the most beautiful bodies of water in the world-and yet many people don't even realize it. Oakland's waterfront is a valuable but largely neglected treasure that should be developed and nurtured for the pleasure and use of all of us. Why should this resource belong to a private developer and the few affluent people who will buy his waterfront units, blocking the water views and access to the rest of us, and creating traffic and other nightmares? Why indeed? A few people will make some big bucks. But the rest of us will get gouged, and the waterfront will be gone. Forever.
There IS a plan which was created by many people working for a long time on Oakland's waterfront area. It is a good plan, one which addresses social, historical and environmental concerns. It is called the Estuary Policy Plan and Oakland voters overwhelmingly approved it in 1999 and 2002. But the city is preparing to move forward with this private developer's plan which does NOT meet the goals and vision of the Estuary Plan.
The Oakland City Council's recent vote to approve the private plan received little press coverage or analysis of the deal-that is the defining feature of a back room deal.
BUT IT IS NOT OVER YET! We can stop this train wreck but we have to move fast.
A number of civic organizations and alarmed citizens have organized as the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee to mount a referendum (that would put the deal on the ballot) on this development agreement. This committee is determined to get a much better project by stopping the present proposal. The League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM), and the Green Party are among the sponsoring organizations.
By putting the deal on the ballot we will halt the developer's plans and allow them to be held to public scrutiny and analysis. We need to gather 18,700 valid signatures in the next month in order to do this. WE CAN DO THIS if we work together and hit the streets now. We have the petition ready to go, we have lots of will and people with the courage and strength of their convictions to save Oakland, but we need all hands! Please help.
KICK OFF MEETING FOR THE SIGNATURE DRIVE IS tomorrow! SUNDAY, July 23, 1-3 PM at Geoffrey's Club, 410 14th St. at Franklyn, Oakland. 14th and Broadway BART. At the meeting we will have a brief training, petitions available, and information about the issues.
If you can't make the meeting don't worry, you can still get involved and help make this happen.
Go to our website abetteroaktoninth.org for lots of information, articles and in depth analysis of the deal from several perspectives including a public health professional
For more info or to get involved:
Call Kate at 510 914 8355
katetanaka [at] aol.com
WHY IS OAKLAND:
Walling off our waterfront and limiting public access?
Selling our public land at a discount to a private developer?
Subsidizing a private developer to the tune of $114 million while leaving 2000 children without a school?
Demolishing the historic Ninth Avenue Terminal?
Building housing next to air-polluted I-880?
Creating unmitigated traffic congestion?
This deal is a downright shady one. It goes against the plans which were already created, supported by Oakland voters in 1999 and 2003, and which would be good for all of us. This plan will line the pockets of a few people who don’t care about our city and will take away one of our most precious resources with all its wonderful potential.
Oakland is a waterfront city-a special city located on one of the most beautiful bodies of water in the world-and yet many people don't even realize it. Oakland's waterfront is a valuable but largely neglected treasure that should be developed and nurtured for the pleasure and use of all of us. Why should this resource belong to a private developer and the few affluent people who will buy his waterfront units, blocking the water views and access to the rest of us, and creating traffic and other nightmares? Why indeed? A few people will make some big bucks. But the rest of us will get gouged, and the waterfront will be gone. Forever.
There IS a plan which was created by many people working for a long time on Oakland's waterfront area. It is a good plan, one which addresses social, historical and environmental concerns. It is called the Estuary Policy Plan and Oakland voters overwhelmingly approved it in 1999 and 2002. But the city is preparing to move forward with this private developer's plan which does NOT meet the goals and vision of the Estuary Plan.
The Oakland City Council's recent vote to approve the private plan received little press coverage or analysis of the deal-that is the defining feature of a back room deal.
BUT IT IS NOT OVER YET! We can stop this train wreck but we have to move fast.
A number of civic organizations and alarmed citizens have organized as the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee to mount a referendum (that would put the deal on the ballot) on this development agreement. This committee is determined to get a much better project by stopping the present proposal. The League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM), and the Green Party are among the sponsoring organizations.
By putting the deal on the ballot we will halt the developer's plans and allow them to be held to public scrutiny and analysis. We need to gather 18,700 valid signatures in the next month in order to do this. WE CAN DO THIS if we work together and hit the streets now. We have the petition ready to go, we have lots of will and people with the courage and strength of their convictions to save Oakland, but we need all hands! Please help.
KICK OFF MEETING FOR THE SIGNATURE DRIVE IS tomorrow! SUNDAY, July 23, 1-3 PM at Geoffrey's Club, 410 14th St. at Franklyn, Oakland. 14th and Broadway BART. At the meeting we will have a brief training, petitions available, and information about the issues.
If you can't make the meeting don't worry, you can still get involved and help make this happen.
Go to our website abetteroaktoninth.org for lots of information, articles and in depth analysis of the deal from several perspectives including a public health professional
For more info or to get involved:
Call Kate at 510 914 8355
katetanaka [at] aol.com
For more information:
http://abetteroaktoninth.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Aimee Allison is campaigning for a sane approach to development in Oakland and challenging incumbent Pat Kernighan who is a supporter of Oak to Ninth project and part of the Brown-DeLaFuente machine in Oakland.
Help Elect Aimee Allison:
http://www.aimeeallison.org/
Help Elect Aimee Allison:
http://www.aimeeallison.org/
This group is concerned solely with traffic, and nothing else. They erroneously and repeatedly claim that this development will be paving over parkland, yet the only parkland on the property will be as a result of the development. Currently it is an industrial toxic dump with no public access, not "open space." The flyer also says that 200 students will be without a school. The project is 3100 units. At Oakland's average of 1.5 people per unit, that will be 4500 residents. The idea that almost half of the new resdients will be public school students is so laughably wrong as to constitute a lie.
Also, Geoffrey Peete, who owns Geoffrey's Inner Cicrlce, the club where this group is meeting, is a Dellums crony and runs a public contact pressure group He's only in it to ensure that the development hands out its goodies to the most politically-connected people, such as himself.
Also, Geoffrey Peete, who owns Geoffrey's Inner Cicrlce, the club where this group is meeting, is a Dellums crony and runs a public contact pressure group He's only in it to ensure that the development hands out its goodies to the most politically-connected people, such as himself.
There is a bit more to this referendum than the issue of traffic.
In 2002 Oakland voters passed Measure DD to develop extensive parks on the Oakland water front.
In direct contravention of wishes of Oakland citizens, State Senator Don Perata, secured quick passage of SB 1622, authorizing the State Lands Commission to consider an exchange of part of the 64-acre property that is subject to public trust requirements for a property of equal value.
And perhaps not coincidentally, Michael Ghielmetti of Signature Properties, hired lobbyist Lily Hu, a former aide and longtime friend of Perata's.
On July 18, 2006, Oakland City Council voted to sell the property to Signature Properties/Reynolds & Brown for $18 Million for a project that will be worth over $2 Billion.
The fix was in.
By the way both Don Perata and Lily Hu who are currently under investigation by the FBI for all their financial dealings. Are there more to be said?
In 2002 Oakland voters passed Measure DD to develop extensive parks on the Oakland water front.
In direct contravention of wishes of Oakland citizens, State Senator Don Perata, secured quick passage of SB 1622, authorizing the State Lands Commission to consider an exchange of part of the 64-acre property that is subject to public trust requirements for a property of equal value.
And perhaps not coincidentally, Michael Ghielmetti of Signature Properties, hired lobbyist Lily Hu, a former aide and longtime friend of Perata's.
On July 18, 2006, Oakland City Council voted to sell the property to Signature Properties/Reynolds & Brown for $18 Million for a project that will be worth over $2 Billion.
The fix was in.
By the way both Don Perata and Lily Hu who are currently under investigation by the FBI for all their financial dealings. Are there more to be said?
We do worry about Oakland's waterfront, even those of us in support of this project. I wonder if the author of the original post has truly spent the time researching and evaluating the implications of this project to the waterfront. The assertion that this project has received scant media coverage leads me to believe that perhaps they haven't. After all, the approval of this project was featured in most if not all of the most widely-circulated Bay Area newspapers, has endured a great deal of published 'pros and cons' scrutiny in the months and years leading up to approval, and has survived an active and spirited public hearing process.
Granted, there was a lack of negative press denouncing the deal wrought between developer, City, and Public. Perhaps that's because the developer acquiesced to most of the key demands the public made of it, including: the allocation of a substantial number of affordable housing units; the allocation of 30 acres of green space to the public domain (has anyone mentioned yet that presently this 64 acre site is a brownfield and closed to the public?); the renovation of two marina terminals to provide public and private access to the water; and the preservation of the Ninth Avenue Terminal on a contingency basis. In addition, the developer met public demands for employment with an agreement to hire a certain percentage of local trade workers for construction and is funding traffic remediation studies for the adjacent Chinatown area. The project will also generate increased tax revenues for the City while providing a continuity between the waterfront and Lake Merritt districts.
That said: this is still a difficult project. It will take a long time to develop and the description of the sale of this parcel by the Port to the developer as a "back room deal" seems appropriate, though letus not forget that the developer is picking-up the $30 million tab for clean-up and wetland restoration.
The concern for schools is apt in terms of OUSD's present crisis for space; but aren't you better served attacking the sale of OUSD property to a residential developer at Lake Merritt, a sale that would essentially anull two or three well-performing Oakland schools?
I admire your concern for Oakland and its waterfront. The public would be better served, however, if you got your facts straight.
David Smolker
Granted, there was a lack of negative press denouncing the deal wrought between developer, City, and Public. Perhaps that's because the developer acquiesced to most of the key demands the public made of it, including: the allocation of a substantial number of affordable housing units; the allocation of 30 acres of green space to the public domain (has anyone mentioned yet that presently this 64 acre site is a brownfield and closed to the public?); the renovation of two marina terminals to provide public and private access to the water; and the preservation of the Ninth Avenue Terminal on a contingency basis. In addition, the developer met public demands for employment with an agreement to hire a certain percentage of local trade workers for construction and is funding traffic remediation studies for the adjacent Chinatown area. The project will also generate increased tax revenues for the City while providing a continuity between the waterfront and Lake Merritt districts.
That said: this is still a difficult project. It will take a long time to develop and the description of the sale of this parcel by the Port to the developer as a "back room deal" seems appropriate, though letus not forget that the developer is picking-up the $30 million tab for clean-up and wetland restoration.
The concern for schools is apt in terms of OUSD's present crisis for space; but aren't you better served attacking the sale of OUSD property to a residential developer at Lake Merritt, a sale that would essentially anull two or three well-performing Oakland schools?
I admire your concern for Oakland and its waterfront. The public would be better served, however, if you got your facts straight.
David Smolker
For a developer sitting on a project worth $2 Billion, it only small change to satisfy everyone. It does not cost much to fly City Councilpersons to Vancouver to make them feel special. It does not cost much to provide few job training jobs. That's how the bank is stolen. Everyone who should be watching have been bought off.
How many Oakland taxpayers know that because this is a Redevelopment Agency project, all of the property taxes goes to the Redevelopment Agency and not the General Fund. Yet the rest of the Oakland tax payers will be footing the bill for all of the city services inthe new development.
But the biggest issue is that Oakland is not getting the water front park they voted for in 2002. Just by looking at the development plan, it is obvious that the water front park will be walled off from rest of the Oakland residents and will become just a dog walk for the lucky residents of the new development.
How many Oakland taxpayers know that because this is a Redevelopment Agency project, all of the property taxes goes to the Redevelopment Agency and not the General Fund. Yet the rest of the Oakland tax payers will be footing the bill for all of the city services inthe new development.
But the biggest issue is that Oakland is not getting the water front park they voted for in 2002. Just by looking at the development plan, it is obvious that the water front park will be walled off from rest of the Oakland residents and will become just a dog walk for the lucky residents of the new development.
The reason why some people think the waterfront is being "walled-off" is because Signature is building high-rises, because the community requested more parkland. There will be plenty of public access, saying that it's just a dog-walk is, again, a lie. Not only will there be car acess (currently, of course, there is NO access to this toxic dump), the developer is paying for shuttle service to the new parks from BART. There is a commercial component, as well - I doubt the retailers want to cater exclusively to the new residents.
I think it's great that over 4000 people will get a chance to live on our waterfront. Currently, only a few hundred people have that opportunity. And, thanks to lobbying from local residents, there will be hundreds of low-income units there as well. It's very disrespectful of the local groups, that spend years negotiating with the developer, to try to stop everything.
Let's be clear - there is no proposal to resue the Ninth Avenue Terminal (the city forced Signature to try to solicit one for another year, regardless), there is no parkland or public access without the development, and any good use of this land will lead to increased traffic congestion. Don't sign this petition, and don't support the out-of-town groups that are trying to walk all over the neighbors by taking away their new parks.
I think it's great that over 4000 people will get a chance to live on our waterfront. Currently, only a few hundred people have that opportunity. And, thanks to lobbying from local residents, there will be hundreds of low-income units there as well. It's very disrespectful of the local groups, that spend years negotiating with the developer, to try to stop everything.
Let's be clear - there is no proposal to resue the Ninth Avenue Terminal (the city forced Signature to try to solicit one for another year, regardless), there is no parkland or public access without the development, and any good use of this land will lead to increased traffic congestion. Don't sign this petition, and don't support the out-of-town groups that are trying to walk all over the neighbors by taking away their new parks.
Oakland Heritage Alliance has been monitoring development on the waterfront for 25 years. We really do know the facts, and we have an enormous file of paper, studies, letters, etc. We were delighted when the League of Women Voters proposed a planning process that would allow for public discussion of what citizens want for our publicly-owned lands. The Estuary Policy Plan was controversial, hard fought, and represented many compromises. It did not definitively say what to do about the historic terminal building. But at least it was an attempt to think clearly before selling off enormous public assets.
When the developer made their first proposal they said they were going to be consistent with the EPP. Then, in a sort of bait and switch, perhaps encouraged by some big money politicos, they turned in a completely different project, and the city cheerfully decided to jettison the EPP and change the plan to fit. This is backwards. It isn't planning. It is unplanning.
We have some great counterexamples of how planning and public discussion can lead to good results: look at the Lake Merritt Master Plan, also a long drawn-out process, for some clues. And look at the second attempt by the Oakland Diocese to achieve building their cathedral: what a difference it made to build public consensus!
Entirely aside from what different groups do or do not want incorporated into the Oak to Ninth, the process by which we got here is entirely contemptible and should not be allowed to stand.
What we have had here is 1) a general attack on public assets, with one-time conversions into private hands, requiring special legislation (sponsored by someone whose legal fund received 20,000 form this developer, at a minimum) and 2) a desire to shortchange democratic process and public involvement in determining the fate of our own lands.
Let's not follow the Putin model!
When the developer made their first proposal they said they were going to be consistent with the EPP. Then, in a sort of bait and switch, perhaps encouraged by some big money politicos, they turned in a completely different project, and the city cheerfully decided to jettison the EPP and change the plan to fit. This is backwards. It isn't planning. It is unplanning.
We have some great counterexamples of how planning and public discussion can lead to good results: look at the Lake Merritt Master Plan, also a long drawn-out process, for some clues. And look at the second attempt by the Oakland Diocese to achieve building their cathedral: what a difference it made to build public consensus!
Entirely aside from what different groups do or do not want incorporated into the Oak to Ninth, the process by which we got here is entirely contemptible and should not be allowed to stand.
What we have had here is 1) a general attack on public assets, with one-time conversions into private hands, requiring special legislation (sponsored by someone whose legal fund received 20,000 form this developer, at a minimum) and 2) a desire to shortchange democratic process and public involvement in determining the fate of our own lands.
Let's not follow the Putin model!
The points regarding the Estuary Policy Plan are well taken. Citizens of Oakland should have the access to their waterfront for which they voted. That said: I'm still unsure as to whether the spirit of the Plan has indeed been compromised in allowing for this development to take hold. While it is true that the amendments to the plan adopted by the City Council in March of 2006 indicate a change of use in the estuary lands at issue - from strictly public-use to a "mix of uses"; it seems to me that the objective of ensuring public access to the waterfront remains intact. Let us not forget, also, that the Estuary Policy Plan is not solely about the provision of a public waterfront: it calls generally for the creation of a mixed-use cultural, residential, and commercial district extending connecting to a revitalized Lake Merrit District; transit and transportation improvements to provide increased access to the waterfront and Lake; and the establishment of a cohesive yet diverse civic identity extending from Jack London Square, on East into San Antonio and Fruitvale, and inland. In my opinion, the Estuary Policy Plan is about strengthening Oakland's urban core. While I'm not prepared to impose on anyone the reasons for which they voted to ratify the plan (it would seem that many votes were lured from the promise of a public waterfront), I am willing to serve reminder as to the actual scope of this plan, which goes well beyond the allocation of waterfront park space.
Whether or not the Oak to Ninth proposal accomplishes all of these agendas as specified in the Plan is open to debate. My feeling is that in general it does (though I say this with some trepidation given the distasteful prospect of a privatized and gentrified waterfront - which I deem more of a recurring nightmare than an eventual outcome of this project). I'm also a bit surprised that there's no support for this project as a mixed-use infill project that will delimit sprawl and foster transit improvements. It has received national attention to this regard, and if it is a success will set a standard of equal scope.
Finally: I find it interesting that a project that at least in theory will restore a brownfield, accomodate affordable housing, delimit sprawl, improve transit, and create a significant amount of public park space would be so maligned by groups that are often the biggest proponents of these agendas. Isn't this in tune with the general principles of the Estuary Plicy Plan? Are you not convinced of the potential?
David Smolker
Whether or not the Oak to Ninth proposal accomplishes all of these agendas as specified in the Plan is open to debate. My feeling is that in general it does (though I say this with some trepidation given the distasteful prospect of a privatized and gentrified waterfront - which I deem more of a recurring nightmare than an eventual outcome of this project). I'm also a bit surprised that there's no support for this project as a mixed-use infill project that will delimit sprawl and foster transit improvements. It has received national attention to this regard, and if it is a success will set a standard of equal scope.
Finally: I find it interesting that a project that at least in theory will restore a brownfield, accomodate affordable housing, delimit sprawl, improve transit, and create a significant amount of public park space would be so maligned by groups that are often the biggest proponents of these agendas. Isn't this in tune with the general principles of the Estuary Plicy Plan? Are you not convinced of the potential?
David Smolker
Look, you've got the woman from the Heritage Alliance (reminding us that she scuttled the Calatrava-designed Cathedral to preserve a parking lot) comparing the lengthy public process by which this got approved to Putin's Russia! All this Perata-bashing is so tired. If the opponents are so concerned with public integrity, why are they meeting at the offices of the Oakland Black Caucus, Dellums' public-contract cronies who are the focus of Desley Brooks' misappopriations scandal?
David is right - this is a fantastic, transit-oriented, smart-growth project that will clean up a toxic dump and create 30 acres of public parkland with no contribution from the city (aside from a one-time payment to subsidize the affordable housing component). Why would they oppose something (they're suing, too) that not a single elected official is willing to vote down?
Because it will increase traffic. Without this development the area remains a toxic dump with no public access. This development has gone through five years of a public process - the neighbors, the local groups that actually support housing and the enivronment have all worked with the developer and support the project. Now you have the uber-bourgeois OHA and CALA teaming up with SF-based groups like the Sierra Club and Green Party to destroy the tangible community benefits embodied in this project in serivce of some sort of ideology.
David is right - this is a fantastic, transit-oriented, smart-growth project that will clean up a toxic dump and create 30 acres of public parkland with no contribution from the city (aside from a one-time payment to subsidize the affordable housing component). Why would they oppose something (they're suing, too) that not a single elected official is willing to vote down?
Because it will increase traffic. Without this development the area remains a toxic dump with no public access. This development has gone through five years of a public process - the neighbors, the local groups that actually support housing and the enivronment have all worked with the developer and support the project. Now you have the uber-bourgeois OHA and CALA teaming up with SF-based groups like the Sierra Club and Green Party to destroy the tangible community benefits embodied in this project in serivce of some sort of ideology.
The citizens of Oakland who are opposing the current plan realize that we need to have a development in order to have a park. That is why we came up with the Estuary Plan and passed Measure DD with 80% of the vote.
The 64 acres is public land.
The citizen groups should not be asking for concessions from the developer. The developers should be asking for concessions from us. Only reason the situation has been reversed is that our esteemed elected officials have allowed it to happen.
What Ghielmetti of Signature Properties so masterfully has done was to divide and conquer. He gave every group a small concession so they all feel they got something. In the mean while he expanded the original proposal of 2,000 units to 3,100 units.
The city should first come up with a plan, with input from Oakland citizens and only then get a bid. The land is prime water front property, so the city should be demanding a share of what ever profit is realized by the developer.
We are not crazy. We just do not want the City Council to make chumps of its citizens.
The 64 acres is public land.
The citizen groups should not be asking for concessions from the developer. The developers should be asking for concessions from us. Only reason the situation has been reversed is that our esteemed elected officials have allowed it to happen.
What Ghielmetti of Signature Properties so masterfully has done was to divide and conquer. He gave every group a small concession so they all feel they got something. In the mean while he expanded the original proposal of 2,000 units to 3,100 units.
The city should first come up with a plan, with input from Oakland citizens and only then get a bid. The land is prime water front property, so the city should be demanding a share of what ever profit is realized by the developer.
We are not crazy. We just do not want the City Council to make chumps of its citizens.
The people urging a "better" development nonetheless make arguments that imply that no development should be built there at all. For example, the false issue of access, and the ridiculous criticism of homes built near freeways (many new downtown condos are built next to the freeway, and nobody's complained yet). If the process has to start all over, it will be many years before another project could be built, and the project opponents know that they will keep their precious traffic-free streets indefinitely. In addition, the Measure DD argument implies that we should CANCEL the reworking of Lake Merritt and instead spend all those funds making yet another empty, inaccessible waterfront park (like Middle Harbor).
The city councilmembers are not chumps, and not a single one of them voted against the project. It is very rude to assert that the local community groups that support the project were hoodwinked by the developer. They seem quite pleased with the low-income homes, subsidized public transit, pedestrian improvement funds, and enormous parklands that they negotiated for. The aspects of the development that the "coalition" (of SF- and Berkeley-based organizations) oppose, such as the high density, are a result of the community's request for more parkland.
This project is HALF parkland (arrogantly and falsely characterized as "backyards" for the condos). The development was extensively modified in response to community input. Project opponents are calling the entire city council "chumps," comparing the years of public hearings to Putin's Russia, accepting help from the scandal-ridden public-contract pressure group Oakland Black Caucus (are Desley Brooks' misappropriated staff funds going to help this, too?), and lying in their petition drive. These people have no respect for the community, and nobody should sign their petition.
And from my observation of the half-hearted petition drive, nobody is signing it.
The city councilmembers are not chumps, and not a single one of them voted against the project. It is very rude to assert that the local community groups that support the project were hoodwinked by the developer. They seem quite pleased with the low-income homes, subsidized public transit, pedestrian improvement funds, and enormous parklands that they negotiated for. The aspects of the development that the "coalition" (of SF- and Berkeley-based organizations) oppose, such as the high density, are a result of the community's request for more parkland.
This project is HALF parkland (arrogantly and falsely characterized as "backyards" for the condos). The development was extensively modified in response to community input. Project opponents are calling the entire city council "chumps," comparing the years of public hearings to Putin's Russia, accepting help from the scandal-ridden public-contract pressure group Oakland Black Caucus (are Desley Brooks' misappropriated staff funds going to help this, too?), and lying in their petition drive. These people have no respect for the community, and nobody should sign their petition.
And from my observation of the half-hearted petition drive, nobody is signing it.
dto510:
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are beginning to sound a bit daft. Let's try to preserve a civilized discourse, and not allow this to degenerate into silliness. Angry spouting off does not serve your cause.
Indeed, numerous people have questioned the wisdom of placing condos up against freeway 880, and not only in this location. The inhalation of diesel particulate causes a great deal of respiratory disease, and Oakland statistics are dire.
The Better Deal group has stated clearly and repeatedly that it supports affordable housing goals for the project, and does not seek to kill the whole project.
Are dto510 observations of the success of the petition drive accurate? I don't know, but it seems a bit early to come to any conclusions, since it just started.
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are beginning to sound a bit daft. Let's try to preserve a civilized discourse, and not allow this to degenerate into silliness. Angry spouting off does not serve your cause.
Indeed, numerous people have questioned the wisdom of placing condos up against freeway 880, and not only in this location. The inhalation of diesel particulate causes a great deal of respiratory disease, and Oakland statistics are dire.
The Better Deal group has stated clearly and repeatedly that it supports affordable housing goals for the project, and does not seek to kill the whole project.
Are dto510 observations of the success of the petition drive accurate? I don't know, but it seems a bit early to come to any conclusions, since it just started.
The below statement means that the person writing it is either purveying falsehoods or has not read the material.
Under Measure DD, funds cannot be transferred from one component to another. Many of the backers of the referendum drive were active in the Measure DD effort. No one has proposed shifting any funds from Lake Merritt to the waterfront. However, there is money allocated under Measure DD for the Oak to Ninth area. There were $22 million dollars allocated for four parks. One of those, Union Pt., has used $4 million. Now there are $18 million left, and they are earmarked for the three parks described in the Estuary Policy Plan, if I understand it correctly. If this money cannot be spent in this area, then it likely will not be expended at all, because the bond measure does not allow for wholesale shifting about of funds from one project to another.
"In addition, the Measure DD argument implies that we should CANCEL the reworking of Lake Merritt and instead spend all those funds making yet another empty, inaccessible waterfront park (like Middle Harbor). "
Lastly, I am unaware of any San Francisco organizations participating in the referendum drive. Although Sierra Club does have San Francisco offices, it is the local east bay staff and members that have been involved in it. Sierra Club has followed the issue in a series of articles in the Yodeler, all with an east bay focus.
However, such development does indeed have an effect upon the bay and upon communities around the bay, so even if some other bay area groups were to be involved, it seems appropriate.
Under Measure DD, funds cannot be transferred from one component to another. Many of the backers of the referendum drive were active in the Measure DD effort. No one has proposed shifting any funds from Lake Merritt to the waterfront. However, there is money allocated under Measure DD for the Oak to Ninth area. There were $22 million dollars allocated for four parks. One of those, Union Pt., has used $4 million. Now there are $18 million left, and they are earmarked for the three parks described in the Estuary Policy Plan, if I understand it correctly. If this money cannot be spent in this area, then it likely will not be expended at all, because the bond measure does not allow for wholesale shifting about of funds from one project to another.
"In addition, the Measure DD argument implies that we should CANCEL the reworking of Lake Merritt and instead spend all those funds making yet another empty, inaccessible waterfront park (like Middle Harbor). "
Lastly, I am unaware of any San Francisco organizations participating in the referendum drive. Although Sierra Club does have San Francisco offices, it is the local east bay staff and members that have been involved in it. Sierra Club has followed the issue in a series of articles in the Yodeler, all with an east bay focus.
However, such development does indeed have an effect upon the bay and upon communities around the bay, so even if some other bay area groups were to be involved, it seems appropriate.
You can say that you support the affordable housing goals all you want, but the effect of the petition drive would be to cancel the construction of 650 low-income homes. Several market-rate condo projects have been built along the freeway in the last several years, and the group that is bringing them up is from Berkeley (also, at the City Council meeting where not a single councilmember voted aginst Oak-to-Ninth, the health group whined that they shouldn't have the burden of proving any of their dubious health claims).
I sound angry? I guess it's just because i don't like being lied to. Ms. Schiff is the one comparing the years of public hearings to Putin's Russia. The project opponents are repeatedly lying in their petition drive (does that disqualify their signatures? Someone should look into that), with wildy exaggerated estimates of a school-aged population, straight-up lies about the amount and nature of the parkland in the project, completely false assertions about access (including lying about pedestrian, bicycle and transit access, which IS provided) and absurd mischaracterizations of the lengthy public input process. And about Measure DD - how are we supposed to use $18m to build a park of more than 30 acres? That's not enough money. There is no way the parkland component of the project could possibly increase.
These people are just upset that the community groups got what they wanted, which makes the project more exciting, more dense, and ultimately more successful. That means more traffic. These anti-growth groups are renowned for protecting surface parking lots, and even that is a step up from what they're doing here, which is protecting a toxic dump.
And why are these groups accepting the help of the Oakland Black Caucus, a scandal-ridden public-contract pressure group? Who donated the $6000 the "coalition" is using to pay staff? Did it come from Desley Brooks' misappropriated staff funds? Probably not, since even she didn't vote against the project.
I sound angry? I guess it's just because i don't like being lied to. Ms. Schiff is the one comparing the years of public hearings to Putin's Russia. The project opponents are repeatedly lying in their petition drive (does that disqualify their signatures? Someone should look into that), with wildy exaggerated estimates of a school-aged population, straight-up lies about the amount and nature of the parkland in the project, completely false assertions about access (including lying about pedestrian, bicycle and transit access, which IS provided) and absurd mischaracterizations of the lengthy public input process. And about Measure DD - how are we supposed to use $18m to build a park of more than 30 acres? That's not enough money. There is no way the parkland component of the project could possibly increase.
These people are just upset that the community groups got what they wanted, which makes the project more exciting, more dense, and ultimately more successful. That means more traffic. These anti-growth groups are renowned for protecting surface parking lots, and even that is a step up from what they're doing here, which is protecting a toxic dump.
And why are these groups accepting the help of the Oakland Black Caucus, a scandal-ridden public-contract pressure group? Who donated the $6000 the "coalition" is using to pay staff? Did it come from Desley Brooks' misappropriated staff funds? Probably not, since even she didn't vote against the project.
Corrections:
-about 460 units on site, not 650. Possibility of additional offsite housing under certain circumstances. Referendum proponents have specifically addressed their support for affordable housing. Many of them have been active advocates for affordable housing.
-no one said the $18 million was all the funding needed for all the parks: post claimed an effort to transfer money from lake merritt to waterfront, which would be illegal and impossible.
-don't understand comment about community groups: we are all community members and community groups. I don't mind the housing deal, except that it is so costly to the city that as stated by the CEDA director, it empties the community development housing funds for ten years, something that worries quite a few housing advocates.
-stuff about defending parking lots makes no sense.
-donations will be reported as required by law, but to my knowledge nothing has been received from any city official.
-public process as structured by CEDA avoided general public discussion of amending the general plan. Commenters were limited to addressing all the approvals together, rather than having a public consideration of planning issues first, and then consideration of proposed development.
-it is our patriotic duty to participate in our government and we are proud to do so, even though it takes so much time and effort.
-again, I urge everyone to maintain a civility in the public discourse.
-about 460 units on site, not 650. Possibility of additional offsite housing under certain circumstances. Referendum proponents have specifically addressed their support for affordable housing. Many of them have been active advocates for affordable housing.
-no one said the $18 million was all the funding needed for all the parks: post claimed an effort to transfer money from lake merritt to waterfront, which would be illegal and impossible.
-don't understand comment about community groups: we are all community members and community groups. I don't mind the housing deal, except that it is so costly to the city that as stated by the CEDA director, it empties the community development housing funds for ten years, something that worries quite a few housing advocates.
-stuff about defending parking lots makes no sense.
-donations will be reported as required by law, but to my knowledge nothing has been received from any city official.
-public process as structured by CEDA avoided general public discussion of amending the general plan. Commenters were limited to addressing all the approvals together, rather than having a public consideration of planning issues first, and then consideration of proposed development.
-it is our patriotic duty to participate in our government and we are proud to do so, even though it takes so much time and effort.
-again, I urge everyone to maintain a civility in the public discourse.
I don't understand why Ms. Schiff characterizes my posts as overheated and uncivil. I'm simply pointing out the repeated lies that are part and parcel of this ill-conceived referendum drive (which will fail anyhow - there's not enough opposition or time to raise the 20,000 signatures necessary).
Ms. Schiff, you led the opposition to building a Calatrava-designed cathedral in order to save a surface parking lot (remember? You mentioned it in an earlier post). Many of the anti-growth zealots behind this petition drive are the same people who recently scuttled a low-income housing project near the lake to save a surface parking lot. The only impact this project has on the people who are opposing it is increased traffic (which would accompany any good reuse of this brownfield). I am sick and tired of the pro-parking activists who oppose all Oakland growth in the name of "congestion management."
There is no money to build a park on this land without this development, we agree. There will be no low-income housing, pedestrian impovement funds, transit subsidies or other community benefits without this development. The neighbors, who overwhelmingly support this project (and, no, the Green Party, the Sierra Club and a Berkeley think-tank are not community groups), desperately want parkland and access to the waterfront. It is cruel and, frankly, disgusting to try to scuttle all of this in the name of "traffic mitigation."
You can complain all you want about the way CEDA structured whatever, but you had THREE YEARS to give public comment. Other community groups did, and the project is much different (more density, more parkland, more low-income housing) as a result. It is sad your "coalition" isn't willing to work with the developer, like all of the local community organizations, to make something that everyone is happy with (as we are with the Oak-to-Ninth project), and instead waste everyone's time with bogus, duplicitous petition drives.
If this petition drive succeeds (which it won't, fortunately), developers will have no incentive to modify developments in response to community input and to help community organizations. Why spend years extensively modifying it to make everyone happy, just to have out-of-town and narrowly-focused zealots put it on the ballot anyway?
I look forward to your prompt disclosure of the $6000 donation. And nobody has explained why the scandal-ridden Oakland Black Caucus public-contract pressure group is lending you office space.
Ms. Schiff, you led the opposition to building a Calatrava-designed cathedral in order to save a surface parking lot (remember? You mentioned it in an earlier post). Many of the anti-growth zealots behind this petition drive are the same people who recently scuttled a low-income housing project near the lake to save a surface parking lot. The only impact this project has on the people who are opposing it is increased traffic (which would accompany any good reuse of this brownfield). I am sick and tired of the pro-parking activists who oppose all Oakland growth in the name of "congestion management."
There is no money to build a park on this land without this development, we agree. There will be no low-income housing, pedestrian impovement funds, transit subsidies or other community benefits without this development. The neighbors, who overwhelmingly support this project (and, no, the Green Party, the Sierra Club and a Berkeley think-tank are not community groups), desperately want parkland and access to the waterfront. It is cruel and, frankly, disgusting to try to scuttle all of this in the name of "traffic mitigation."
You can complain all you want about the way CEDA structured whatever, but you had THREE YEARS to give public comment. Other community groups did, and the project is much different (more density, more parkland, more low-income housing) as a result. It is sad your "coalition" isn't willing to work with the developer, like all of the local community organizations, to make something that everyone is happy with (as we are with the Oak-to-Ninth project), and instead waste everyone's time with bogus, duplicitous petition drives.
If this petition drive succeeds (which it won't, fortunately), developers will have no incentive to modify developments in response to community input and to help community organizations. Why spend years extensively modifying it to make everyone happy, just to have out-of-town and narrowly-focused zealots put it on the ballot anyway?
I look forward to your prompt disclosure of the $6000 donation. And nobody has explained why the scandal-ridden Oakland Black Caucus public-contract pressure group is lending you office space.
Apparently the coalition is just renting office space from the Oakland Black Caucus, not receiving material support from them. Sorry! I just saw the address and assuemd the groups were working together.
However, he has recently refused to meet with Oakland Heritage Alliance.
I've reviewed the posts above and the points the petitioners make. One thing i don;t understand is this point about people living cloe to freeways. I don't understand why it's anyone's business if I want to live next to a freeway. I mean, aren;t the west oakland and other bart tranist villages next to freeways? What about Rockridge, straddled bya freeway? I think this point is just a red herring to throw an "environmental justice" veneer over the petition drive. What do you think?
Health studies show that people living within two blocks of major freeways have much more respiratory disease, and die younger. 880 is a very heavily travelled truck route. Diesel particulate is heavy, as pollutants go, and falls close to the freeway, where it is inhaled. (580 has limitations on truck traffic, and is somewhat less dangerous in terms of respiratory effects)
Housing near freeways should have effective air filtration, and children should not be doing a lot of outdoor recreation near truck routes. The whole society pays a lot for emergency room visits and other health care for people with acute respiratory disease, so it pays off in straightforward cost/benefit terms to consider this factor.
It is true that numerous places in Oakland are not particularly healthy locations for residential development, if mitigations are not undertaken to make them safer, particular near heavy truck usage. Why shouldn't we consider it, though, when we have the chance to plan ahead? Health services are expensive, plus ill health causes lost economic productivity, to speak for a moment on the macro level.
People living in the 28-story buildings of the proposed development will be high enough to be above this diesel particulate, and will likely be served by building-wide filtered air systems. The affordable housing, though, is to be built to a smaller scale, and is not at present required to do anything about filtration or noise baffling.
The noise levels near 880 are above the allowable limits, under the Oakland General Plan.
This too has bad health effects, including cardiac effects. We will pay for them in health insurance and public county health expenditures, if not taken into account now.
Thank you for your interest!
Housing near freeways should have effective air filtration, and children should not be doing a lot of outdoor recreation near truck routes. The whole society pays a lot for emergency room visits and other health care for people with acute respiratory disease, so it pays off in straightforward cost/benefit terms to consider this factor.
It is true that numerous places in Oakland are not particularly healthy locations for residential development, if mitigations are not undertaken to make them safer, particular near heavy truck usage. Why shouldn't we consider it, though, when we have the chance to plan ahead? Health services are expensive, plus ill health causes lost economic productivity, to speak for a moment on the macro level.
People living in the 28-story buildings of the proposed development will be high enough to be above this diesel particulate, and will likely be served by building-wide filtered air systems. The affordable housing, though, is to be built to a smaller scale, and is not at present required to do anything about filtration or noise baffling.
The noise levels near 880 are above the allowable limits, under the Oakland General Plan.
This too has bad health effects, including cardiac effects. We will pay for them in health insurance and public county health expenditures, if not taken into account now.
Thank you for your interest!
In another related post, one commenter mentioned Jack London Square and the 5th Avenue colony as places near freeways where people currently live. I just know that there is a growing movement against building housing near freeways and I just don;t think it's fair that Oakland--which carries so much traffic for the benefit of the entire Bay Area--is once again hampered because of the infrastructure burden we carry. Oakland is supposed to be a locus of smart growth because of its central location. That same central location means that infrastructure criss-crosses it. But now, we shouldn't build within 200 feet of all that infrastructure. It just doesn;t make sense. YOu have thousands and thousands of people who would be without homes near the MacArthur Maze if you all had your way. It's crazy!!!!
Yeah sure, some extra filters and double-paned windows are fine. But don't go down this "no development near freeways" thing. People know what a freeway is and don't have to live by it if they don't want to. It's one thing to argue that, historically, freeways have torn apart low income neighborhoods and oppose the development of new freeways for that reason (I friggin hate freeways!). It's another thing to let freeways DICTATE how we'll develop our community. That just cements their negative legacy on our city...and that's BS.
Yeah sure, some extra filters and double-paned windows are fine. But don't go down this "no development near freeways" thing. People know what a freeway is and don't have to live by it if they don't want to. It's one thing to argue that, historically, freeways have torn apart low income neighborhoods and oppose the development of new freeways for that reason (I friggin hate freeways!). It's another thing to let freeways DICTATE how we'll develop our community. That just cements their negative legacy on our city...and that's BS.
Check out this Craigslist ad: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/npo/191844843.html - the "coalition" is doing what corporations do to get their pet initiatives on the state ballot - they're paying per signature to people who aren't activists or even local. Notice how they need "professional"-looking gatherers: are their hippie volunteers not persuasive?
Where are they going to get $30,000 to pay random people who know nothing about Oakland to gather 20,000 signatures? Who the hell is paying for all of this? If this is coming from the Sierra Club, they better be prepared to explain to their members across the country that they are wasting huge amounts of money opposing an in-fill, transit-oriented, brownfields redevelopment with 20-percent low-income housing. I thought they were supposed to protect wilderness, not toxic dumps.
Where are they going to get $30,000 to pay random people who know nothing about Oakland to gather 20,000 signatures? Who the hell is paying for all of this? If this is coming from the Sierra Club, they better be prepared to explain to their members across the country that they are wasting huge amounts of money opposing an in-fill, transit-oriented, brownfields redevelopment with 20-percent low-income housing. I thought they were supposed to protect wilderness, not toxic dumps.
"Check out this Craigslist ad: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/npo/191844843.html - the "coalition" is doing what corporations do to get their pet initiatives on the state ballot - they're paying per signature to people who aren't activists or even local. Notice how they need "professional"-looking gatherers: are their hippie volunteers not persuasive?"
Actually, my understanding is that people gathering signatures on this one have to be registered to vote in Oakland. Maybe they can read this site to learn more about the various sides on this issue.
"Where are they going to get $30,000 to pay random people who know nothing about Oakland"
they will be able to find oakland residents who are signature gatherers.
" to gather 20,000 signatures? Who the hell is paying for all of this?"
you'd have to ask them.
Actually, my understanding is that people gathering signatures on this one have to be registered to vote in Oakland. Maybe they can read this site to learn more about the various sides on this issue.
"Where are they going to get $30,000 to pay random people who know nothing about Oakland"
they will be able to find oakland residents who are signature gatherers.
" to gather 20,000 signatures? Who the hell is paying for all of this?"
you'd have to ask them.
The community benefits coalition explains why people shouldn't sign the petition in the Oakland Tribune. http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/tribune/ci_4155307
So, the same "community" folks who complain that three years of public process is ramming a project down their throats now need to pay "professional looking" people to subvert the process (not to mention the efforts of the Oak to 9th Community Coalition) because they have to hurry?
They should just slow down and do a legitimate volunteer community effort to gather the signatures. "Be the change you want to see."
They should just slow down and do a legitimate volunteer community effort to gather the signatures. "Be the change you want to see."
How does the Oak to 9th plan go "against voters' wishes?" The Estuary Plan was never put out to a vote and Measure DD never specified the acreage of the public parks to built in the Oak to 9th area. The voters certainly did not vote to leave a vacant piece of dirt at Oak to 9th, which is what will happen if this project gets killed. And, no, the referendum supporters do not have any money to make anything happen there.
I just don't understand: you can be against the project for plenty of good reasons. What's with the misinformation and innuendo?
I just don't understand: you can be against the project for plenty of good reasons. What's with the misinformation and innuendo?
Advocates of improving the Oak to Ninth development want our city council to make these improvements for a better deal:
--Make Channel Park a site that can be used for public gatherings, without disturbing nearby residents, by moving the units to the other part of the project.
--Take additional steps to reduce the enormous traffic impacts.
--Improve safety provisions for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists, particularly in relation to railroad tracks (projected 75 trains per day)
--Require air quality and noise protection measures for the affordable housing units.
--Remove the requirement for affordable housing parcels to provide the developer with a parking garage and supermarket.
--Preserve at least half of historic Ninth Avenue Terminal building.
--Provide some accommodation for school facilities for the children who will live in the development.
--Make Channel Park a site that can be used for public gatherings, without disturbing nearby residents, by moving the units to the other part of the project.
--Take additional steps to reduce the enormous traffic impacts.
--Improve safety provisions for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists, particularly in relation to railroad tracks (projected 75 trains per day)
--Require air quality and noise protection measures for the affordable housing units.
--Remove the requirement for affordable housing parcels to provide the developer with a parking garage and supermarket.
--Preserve at least half of historic Ninth Avenue Terminal building.
--Provide some accommodation for school facilities for the children who will live in the development.
1) I understand that housing was removed entirely on Estuary Park to have a huge space for public gatherings. I guess we need to go to the ballot because the gathering place is 150 frickin feet to the west of where you want it.
2) "Additional steps." Very concrete
3) Given. Definitely good ideas.
4) Does anyone actually know what the current standards are? I would hate for anyone to think that the affordable units are going to be like the crappy wood houses you se next to 880. They will be built in the 21st Century.
5) Why remove this requirement? Everyone bitches about there being no supermarkets, and there's going to be one here. Everyone complains about too much traffic, but now we must eliminate the parking. How are we going to have "public access" to the waterfront when the residents are taking up all the parking spaces because you don't want a garage? Oh, and the affordable housing advocates agreed to this, but who cares what they think?
6) You'll all have your chance to prove the Oak to 9th Terminal building is usable now that there's a year-long RFP out there. And if you can;t find anyone to do anything with it, the excuse wil be "well, there wasn;t enough room." This is something that YOU ALL can do to make the project better: find someone to do something with the building (which the Estuary Plan shows not even existing at all!).
7) So, the solution here to school overcrowding is to not build any housing. That'll teach 'em! If you don't build a school, we don;t want your investment. Yes, I know Oakland's closing schools because of drops in enrollment, but YOU have to build one right here.
2) "Additional steps." Very concrete
3) Given. Definitely good ideas.
4) Does anyone actually know what the current standards are? I would hate for anyone to think that the affordable units are going to be like the crappy wood houses you se next to 880. They will be built in the 21st Century.
5) Why remove this requirement? Everyone bitches about there being no supermarkets, and there's going to be one here. Everyone complains about too much traffic, but now we must eliminate the parking. How are we going to have "public access" to the waterfront when the residents are taking up all the parking spaces because you don't want a garage? Oh, and the affordable housing advocates agreed to this, but who cares what they think?
6) You'll all have your chance to prove the Oak to 9th Terminal building is usable now that there's a year-long RFP out there. And if you can;t find anyone to do anything with it, the excuse wil be "well, there wasn;t enough room." This is something that YOU ALL can do to make the project better: find someone to do something with the building (which the Estuary Plan shows not even existing at all!).
7) So, the solution here to school overcrowding is to not build any housing. That'll teach 'em! If you don't build a school, we don;t want your investment. Yes, I know Oakland's closing schools because of drops in enrollment, but YOU have to build one right here.
Look at Ms Schiff's list! First she says that the affordable housing needs to be "healthier" (although only a UCB think-tank pushing the radical notion that urban living is inherently unhealthy thinks that there is a problem), but then she suggests they get rid of the affordable housing for a supermarket! If the referendum succeeds, that will eliminate 450 - 650 units of low-income housing. That is disgusting and wrong. It is sad to see Oaklanders and the Sierra Club spend $36,000+ trying to take homes away from the poor, just because of the traffic.
The only thing that will decrease the traffic "impact" is less development and a less popular park.
This is why we can't go back to the drawing board. If the referendum coalition gets to start negotiations all over, who knows what will happen? No more affordable housing? Some arbitrary requirement for schools or a grocery store? Nit-picking over the exact square footage of "public gathering space"? This is ridiculous. Everyone got what the wanted in the years of public hearings and negotiations. These people just want to stop everything, because there will be too much traffic.
The only thing that will decrease the traffic "impact" is less development and a less popular park.
This is why we can't go back to the drawing board. If the referendum coalition gets to start negotiations all over, who knows what will happen? No more affordable housing? Some arbitrary requirement for schools or a grocery store? Nit-picking over the exact square footage of "public gathering space"? This is ridiculous. Everyone got what the wanted in the years of public hearings and negotiations. These people just want to stop everything, because there will be too much traffic.
I don't know how long you have been watching the issues at the waterfront, but:
Estuary Park became unusable for large public gatherings when Portobello residents adjoining it complained that they were unable to live with them. Several festivals and music gatherings that formerly occurred there had to be halted.
We do support affordable housing. You may not know that I have been active in advocating for affordable housing for several decades, as have several other leaders of the Better Oak to Ninth coalition.
There is currently no requirement that the affordable housing to be built will include measures to reduce health impacts of noise and air pollution, and it is located in the most vulnerable part of the project. This doesn't mean you can't build it. It does mean that loading extra expenses onto these parcels, F&G, may make taking those extra measures difficult.
Among the extra expenses are the deal that causes for the city and affordable housing developers to pay for a supermarket and parking that will be controlled by the project developer, not the affordable housing developer. We are objecting not to the existence of these facilities, but to the structure of the financial deal, which makes the affordable housing parcels extremely expensive to the city.
We are objecting to the lack of any planning at all for school attendance. The issues are simply not being dealt with. We aren't saying that a school must be built on site, or off site, we are saying there is no clue as to where students will be able to go. If you are talking about affordable units with families that may not have cars, or income for private schools, where do they go? You can ask Jean Quan about this.
The reason we are advocating for a residence-free Channel Park is because it seems to be the only way we could get a large open space for public events at the estuary, within reach of the heavily populated parts of the city. The lawn area across from the Port building at Jack London Square will be built upon soon. The former Jack London Village site will be occupied by large buildings. Portobello residents reasonably enough don't want a lot of noise and activity next door. There is a conflict of use in putting residential units adjacent to a public gathering area.
Yes, we have been advocating for these things for three years. However, the public process has been inadequate. Although there has been consistent and substantial discussion of some of these issues, the city has simply caved in to the developer and refused to make adjustments.
Lastly, but maybe most important: there ARE traffic accommodations which can be made. At the least, how about a pedestrian overcrossing so that bicyclists and pedestrians do not have to cross busy rail tracks? How about a more robust plan for public transit? What about a more agressive car-sharing arrangement? It isn't that there are no solutions; it is that in their focus on the (still secret) financials, the developers have been unwilling to work cooperatively to find them.
Estuary Park became unusable for large public gatherings when Portobello residents adjoining it complained that they were unable to live with them. Several festivals and music gatherings that formerly occurred there had to be halted.
We do support affordable housing. You may not know that I have been active in advocating for affordable housing for several decades, as have several other leaders of the Better Oak to Ninth coalition.
There is currently no requirement that the affordable housing to be built will include measures to reduce health impacts of noise and air pollution, and it is located in the most vulnerable part of the project. This doesn't mean you can't build it. It does mean that loading extra expenses onto these parcels, F&G, may make taking those extra measures difficult.
Among the extra expenses are the deal that causes for the city and affordable housing developers to pay for a supermarket and parking that will be controlled by the project developer, not the affordable housing developer. We are objecting not to the existence of these facilities, but to the structure of the financial deal, which makes the affordable housing parcels extremely expensive to the city.
We are objecting to the lack of any planning at all for school attendance. The issues are simply not being dealt with. We aren't saying that a school must be built on site, or off site, we are saying there is no clue as to where students will be able to go. If you are talking about affordable units with families that may not have cars, or income for private schools, where do they go? You can ask Jean Quan about this.
The reason we are advocating for a residence-free Channel Park is because it seems to be the only way we could get a large open space for public events at the estuary, within reach of the heavily populated parts of the city. The lawn area across from the Port building at Jack London Square will be built upon soon. The former Jack London Village site will be occupied by large buildings. Portobello residents reasonably enough don't want a lot of noise and activity next door. There is a conflict of use in putting residential units adjacent to a public gathering area.
Yes, we have been advocating for these things for three years. However, the public process has been inadequate. Although there has been consistent and substantial discussion of some of these issues, the city has simply caved in to the developer and refused to make adjustments.
Lastly, but maybe most important: there ARE traffic accommodations which can be made. At the least, how about a pedestrian overcrossing so that bicyclists and pedestrians do not have to cross busy rail tracks? How about a more robust plan for public transit? What about a more agressive car-sharing arrangement? It isn't that there are no solutions; it is that in their focus on the (still secret) financials, the developers have been unwilling to work cooperatively to find them.
Referendum petitioners are being illegally harassed by paid representatives of Signature Properties, apparently non-Oaklanders. They are refusing to clearly state whom they represent or work for. PLEASE SIGN THE REFERENDUM PETITION if you want to have a better Oak to Ninth project.
What kind of ethics does this developer and his supporters have, and what kind of commitment to a peaceful open community that has a fair civic discourse?
IT IS OUR RIGHT TO PETITION: WE ARE FOLLOWING ALL LAWS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS! If you see illegal harassment activities, please call the police.
What kind of ethics does this developer and his supporters have, and what kind of commitment to a peaceful open community that has a fair civic discourse?
IT IS OUR RIGHT TO PETITION: WE ARE FOLLOWING ALL LAWS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS! If you see illegal harassment activities, please call the police.
I understand the referendum petitioners are paid, as well. One I bumped into at the Rockridge Farmers Market was super rude and asked "Well, what do YOU know about the project?" when I refused to sign the petition. And I also don't understand why people who are asking for signatures tell people they want to "Save Our Parks," when there are no parks on the waterfront to save.
How about "Save Our Toxic Landfill?"
How about "Save Our Toxic Landfill?"
I should also say that someone else at the farmers; market, who was against the referendum, did come up to me offering a flyer and asked "Would you please look this over before considering whether to sign any petition?"
Not all that rude, paid or not.
Not all that rude, paid or not.
As Jerome pointed out, the petition gatherers are LYING in their statements (save our parks is a total lie), which is not contributing to civic discourse. When I talked to two, both refused to tell me who they were working for and were quite rude (I'm still unclear where the $36,000+ that's funding this petition drive is coming from - the city clerk has not received disclosure forms, in violation of city law). Signature and other locals have every right to dispute the lies propogated by your petition (like the repeated claim that there has been no public process - THREE YEARS of hearings is more than adequate).
In fact, the petition at Mama Buzz cafe is being distributed and signed by non-registered voters, under the mistaken impression that it is not meant to stop a project but just to register dissent. More lies!
Your "coalition", Ms. Schiff, is made up of Berkeley hippies and SF-based Green Party activists. You are paying non-Oaklanders $1.50 per signature and encouraging them to lie. It is shameful and disgusting. You have no right to complain about any response.
In fact, the petition at Mama Buzz cafe is being distributed and signed by non-registered voters, under the mistaken impression that it is not meant to stop a project but just to register dissent. More lies!
Your "coalition", Ms. Schiff, is made up of Berkeley hippies and SF-based Green Party activists. You are paying non-Oaklanders $1.50 per signature and encouraging them to lie. It is shameful and disgusting. You have no right to complain about any response.
For more information:
http://futureoakland.blogspot.com
Some of our gatherers are paid and some are volunteers. We have many people out there. I myself have not encountered any outsiders who have no legitimate reason to participate. Most of the people I have spoken with in working on this effort have been Oaklanders. There may indeed be some concerned Alameda Islanders (who will look at the project and drive through the traffic) and folks from adjoining communities who are sympathetic or who many want to help. But it is a requirement that all the petition gatherers must be Oakland voters and as far as I know, all of them have been checked out carefully.
The waterfront trust lands are being managed by the Port in trust for all the people of California, so any California citizen is an owner of some tiny part of this land, and thus any CA citizen has a legitimate interest in getting a good deal in selling it. There is nothing wrong with other bay area people being interested in this huge project which will have wide impact.
We have documented numerous cases of illegal harassment of petition gatherers. This is a free speech and first amendment issue, and there are clear laws about it. We have consulted with our attorneys, and we know what the rules are. (I am sorry if someone was rude to you, but not having been there myself, it is difficult to judge the circumstances. Civility and appropriate behavior are crucial to having a functional democracy, though not everyone in or out of city hall seems able to manage it.)
As to who is paying for this referencum petition effort: Oaklanders who care about our city are scraping up the funds (and no, it is not easy), inviting each other to benefits, and asking other Oaklanders. The campaign finance statements will be filed in a legal fashion; we are still compiling the information. On a thirty day time clock, we are attempting to do a lot of work in a very short time. I don't think you will find contributions from any Abu Dhabian princes or underworld kingpins.
"Berkeley hippies and SF-based Green Party activists."
The most active peoplei n this effort have lived in Oakland, California, and many of them (such as myself) work here and own businesses here too. So I am not sure who you are talking about, but of course will be quite willing to be introduced to them if you would like to set that up.
We can use all the help we can get, but only Oakland voters may circulate petitions. We are checking the petitions, and if some are not from Oaklanders, they will not be counted as valid and will not count toward the referendum petition.
The waterfront trust lands are being managed by the Port in trust for all the people of California, so any California citizen is an owner of some tiny part of this land, and thus any CA citizen has a legitimate interest in getting a good deal in selling it. There is nothing wrong with other bay area people being interested in this huge project which will have wide impact.
We have documented numerous cases of illegal harassment of petition gatherers. This is a free speech and first amendment issue, and there are clear laws about it. We have consulted with our attorneys, and we know what the rules are. (I am sorry if someone was rude to you, but not having been there myself, it is difficult to judge the circumstances. Civility and appropriate behavior are crucial to having a functional democracy, though not everyone in or out of city hall seems able to manage it.)
As to who is paying for this referencum petition effort: Oaklanders who care about our city are scraping up the funds (and no, it is not easy), inviting each other to benefits, and asking other Oaklanders. The campaign finance statements will be filed in a legal fashion; we are still compiling the information. On a thirty day time clock, we are attempting to do a lot of work in a very short time. I don't think you will find contributions from any Abu Dhabian princes or underworld kingpins.
"Berkeley hippies and SF-based Green Party activists."
The most active peoplei n this effort have lived in Oakland, California, and many of them (such as myself) work here and own businesses here too. So I am not sure who you are talking about, but of course will be quite willing to be introduced to them if you would like to set that up.
We can use all the help we can get, but only Oakland voters may circulate petitions. We are checking the petitions, and if some are not from Oaklanders, they will not be counted as valid and will not count toward the referendum petition.
the petition drive is going super well, thanks to all who have worked so hard. voting can feel like an exercise in futility, this is real democracy: making your voice heard and effective in your community.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network