Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
OAK TO 9TH – A Response to Objections to the Case for Referendum
Response to Pat Kernighan's August Newsletter regarding the Oak to Ninth Coalition flyer.
Oakland District 2 Council Member Pat Kernighan recently voiced her “dismay” at the arguments the Oak to Ninth Referendum Coalition has made against the poorly-conceived development agreement voted by the Council in June. She has called those arguments “false statements” and “misleading rhetoric”.
It is unfortunate that Council Member Kernighan and others chose not to establish a dialog when these same arguments were made by so many concerned citizens before and during the Council hearings on the Oak to Ninth agreement. Much time, effort, and money would have been saved by all of us working together to give Oakland the best waterfront project possible. Now the debate may have to be carried out in the media and at the ballot box, so that all the people of Oakland can decide for themselves what they want their waterfront to look like.
So let’s begin the debate by responding to Council Member Kernighan’s objections:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kernighan’s Objection: "The project was supported by a broad array of community and environmental organizations."
* Coalition Response: Environmental groups supporting this project were few and far between. While Greenbelt Alliance apparently supports it, their only useful comment has to do with a simple-minded claim of "infill." Can a project on the edge of the city with serious access problems and badly served by public transit, be called “infill”? The Better Oak to Ninth Coalition would call this a case of urban sprawl in infill clothing. The Sierra Club and the Green Party, each with large numbers of Oakland members, oppose the project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kernighan’s Objection: "[The project provides] affordable and market-rate housing . . ."
* Coalition Response: The affordable housing will be paid for by our city’s redevelopment funds. The developer is requiring that it be built atop a grocery store and three floors of parking. It will be placed on the two parcels most affected by Freeway 880 pollution and noise. There is no requirement to incorporate such mitigating measures as air filtration and noise baffling. It will not be built until 2016 or later. It will soak up all Oakland’s affordable housing funds for the next ten years, meaning that other less costly affordable projects may not get built. While this housing may be affordable for future residents, is it affordable for the city today?
. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Statement of the Referendum Coalition: "Don't Sell Off Our Public Park Land!"
- Kernighan’s Objection: "No parks are being sold by anyone. The land for the development project has been zoned and used for industrial activity for most of the last century. It is now a contaminated brownfield.
* Coalition Response: The Estuary Policy Plan, approved unanimously by the City Council, is part of our General Plan, and calls for 41 acres of parks in the area. To approve this project, the City Council had to pass an ordinance to override the General Plan in order to suit the developer, and did so without holding any separate hearings, nor establishing a Specific Plan as recommended in the Estuary Policy Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kernighan’s Objection: "The City of Oakland is not selling any land, park or otherwise. The Port of Oakland is selling land, a decision they made 3 years ago, under the review and approval of the State Lands Commission.
* Coalition Response: The Port of Oakland is holding the areas overseen by State Lands in trust for all the citizens of California. While it has a lot of fiscal independence, Port of Oakland is most certainly a city body, with all its commissioners appointed by Oakland’s mayor. No development can take place without the agreement of the Oakland City Council. The people of Oakland have the final say on what happens to their waterfront.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kernighan’s Objection: "The City does not even own the land. In order to create the parks envisioned in the Estuary Policy Plan, the City would have to buy the land from the Port, clean it of toxics, and then build the parks. It is highly unlikely the City could find enough money to do that for many decades to come. The amount of money allocated by Measure DD is a fraction of what would be needed."
* Coalition Response: More money is available, but the city has put virtually NO EFFORT into applying for funding for park cleanup and improvements at the waterfront, beyond the $18 million in DD funds. According to park management experts, the city has moved this project forward while ignoring opportunities to apply for public funding of several kinds. Private funding could also come by soliciting a more reasonable development plan. We are surrendering to the developer's demands, while abandoning other funding opportunities. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Coalition Statement: "Why is Oakland selling off our public land and limiting public access?"
- Kernighan’s Objection: "There is no public access now at the Oak to Ninth area. You can't limit access if there is none to start with."
* Coalition Response: This is a false argument. Everyone agrees that the area will change. The question is HOW will it change? We believe this is Oakland’s last chance to have a usable, nearby waterfront access area. The Estuary Policy Plan showed a major waterfront destination, similar to San Francisco’s Crissy Field, with three major park areas. But this development replaces our planned parks with a modest expansion of one pre-existing park (Estuary Park), a reduced-size Channel Park (which will not serve for public assembly due to the presence of over 300 residential units), and instead of a third park, open space will be created on a concrete wharf by demolishing a significant and re-usable historic building. This is not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kernighan’s Objection: “The Oak to Ninth development will create public access by building 20+ acres of new public parks on the east side of the Channel, plus build out the Bay Trail, at no cost to the public, where no parks, trails or public access exist now. The developer is also donating several acres of cleaned-up land on the west side of the Channel to expand Estuary Park. Out of the 64 acre project, 32 acres will be public open space!"
* Coalition Response: This 32-acre number includes an extant park, Estuary Park, and the acreage on the footprint of historic Ninth Avenue Terminal. On most of the park areas, the developer would not be permitted to build housing anyway, because of Trust Lands restrictions. While he may be "donating" park land (which is now in public ownership), and will clean it up, he will make back much of the land cost by selling the affordable housing parcels F&G, now publicly owned land, back to the city for an estimated $26 million dollars. He is buying the entire project for only $18 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Coalition Statement: "Elected officials are going against the mandate of Measure DD."
- Kernighan’s Objection: “Measure DD was a funding measure. It did not guarantee full implementation of the Estuary Policy Plan - it merely allocated bond money toward that goal."
* Coalition Response: The voters were told that their funds would be going toward waterfront parks. Does this mean we agreed to pay for them and then not build them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kernighan’s Objection: "The $18 million in DD money earmarked for the area from Estuary Park to Union Point Park is a fraction of what it would cost to buy, clean and build all the parks envisioned for that area in the EPP."
* Coalition Response: Measure DD was never intended to supply all the money. The assumption was that we would use this money to get matching funds from other sources, including federal and state government as well as private and nonprofit funds, to build parks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Coalition Statement: “Oakland cannot afford this corporate welfare.”
- Kernighan’s Objection: "Just the opposite of corporate welfare, the developer is giving the City millions of dollars in public benefits--
- donating clean land to expand Estuary Park
- donating approximately 20 acres of clean land for the rest of the parks east of the Channel.
- building approx 20 acres of park at no cost to the City as well as maintaining all 32 acres of parks in perpetuity.
- building all the public infrastructure for the area: sewers, utilities, streets, sidewalks, etc.
- contributing $1.6 M toward job training programs for Oaklanders and guaranteeing that 300 Oaklanders will get apprenticeship jobs, which will get them into the union construction industry for a lifetime of high-paying work.
- selling clean land at the developer's cost to the Redevelopment Agency to build 465 units of affordable housing. The developer is thus forgoing millions of dollars in profit that he could have made by selling that land for market rate housing."
* Coalition Response:
* Many of the areas to be "cleaned" are proposed simply to be capped with 6 inches of concrete, allowing pollutants to continue to leach into water and land.
* Most of the park area is land on which housing cannot be built, by law. This is not a donation.
* While the developer is building public infrastructure within project areas, there are many costly items the city will have to pay for, including vehicular and pedestrian safety accommodations, police and fire services, and road improvements outside the project to handle the huge new traffic flows. There is no provision for a school to serve children from this development. The two nearest schools are full.
* While the job training and employment provisions are a positive step, the agreement calls for only six percent of jobs to go to local residents. The Fox Theater rehabilitation project will employ almost fifty percent local residents, by comparison.
* Perhaps the developer is forgoing millions of dollars in profit for the affordable housing, but he will be paid more than his full cost for all the land -- for just two parcels, F&G.
* 2700 market-rate units at this location, some with wide views, would sell today for between one and a half and two BILLION DOLLARS. We are sure there are developers who would be willing to work on an appropriate project here with us. Otherwise, the city should consider developing the land itself!
---
***The Better Oak to Ninth Coalition supports intent of the provisions in the current agreement for affordable housing, training, and jobs. But we think this agreement represents only a modest success, achieved after a long struggle by community activists, in the face of strong resistance from the developer and little support from the City Council. If the referendum qualifies, we would be willing to negotiate improvements in the current agreement to satisfy our requests. We would not give up any of the affordable housing units, job training or employment agreements already in place, but would improve on them.
Some of the improvements we want to see are:
---more open space with better public access
---improved mitigations for public health dangers
---preservation and re-use of the Ninth Avenue Terminal
---better urban planning within the development, especially for traffic, schools, and recreation
---a better economic deal for the citizens of Oakland, including more jobs and benefits
---independent analysis to determine a fair affordable housing component
OAKLAND WANTS AND NEEDS A BETTER “OAK TO NINTH”, AND WE CAN GET IT!
http://www.ABetterOakToNinth.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
this is really informative and clear. i appreciate the issues being illuminated in this way. i hope everyone in oakland knows about this and can weigh in with their vote/voice/signature to stall the plans to build something so ill-conceived as the Oak to Ninth deal clearly is.
Does Councilor Kernighan think that the League of Women Voters, not to mention the Sierra club and other members of this coalition cannot be trusted to tell the truth?
The Estuary Plan does not "call for" any specific acreage of open space in the Oak to 9th area. The Environmental Impact Report for the Estuary Plan used 41 acres as a potential example for the purpose of environmental analysis, but that is not a legally binding number (since it's not in the plan).
Additonally, what the Estuary Plan DOES have is an artist's conception of open space at the Oak to 9th area--and there is NO 9th Avenue Terminal. There's open space instead, as in the proposed Oak to 9th development.
And please STOP it with the housing next to freeways thing. Folks on Trestle Glen Road (next to the 580), in Rockridge (next to the 24), in lofts near Jack London Square (near 880) or the Portobello Condos (next to 880 and Oak to 9th), in the Coalition's exalted 5th Avenue colony (next to 880 and Oak to 9th) or in Piedmont/Montclair (next to the 13) aren't complaining, so you shouldn't either. If people want to live there, it's their business. What we need is MORE housing, not less.
Additonally, what the Estuary Plan DOES have is an artist's conception of open space at the Oak to 9th area--and there is NO 9th Avenue Terminal. There's open space instead, as in the proposed Oak to 9th development.
And please STOP it with the housing next to freeways thing. Folks on Trestle Glen Road (next to the 580), in Rockridge (next to the 24), in lofts near Jack London Square (near 880) or the Portobello Condos (next to 880 and Oak to 9th), in the Coalition's exalted 5th Avenue colony (next to 880 and Oak to 9th) or in Piedmont/Montclair (next to the 13) aren't complaining, so you shouldn't either. If people want to live there, it's their business. What we need is MORE housing, not less.
I'm sure if that "politician" were someone like Chris Daly or Kriss Worthington or Aimee Allison, your question wouldn't be the same. Something is either correct or incorrect, regarding of who says it.
I mean, any so-called "progressive" could ask you: Who do you believe, the Alameda County Central Labor Council, or a bunch of old white ladies with the League of Women Voters?
Up the dialogue.
I mean, any so-called "progressive" could ask you: Who do you believe, the Alameda County Central Labor Council, or a bunch of old white ladies with the League of Women Voters?
Up the dialogue.
But, the term "old white ladies" doesn't describe very well the many and diverse people who are advocating for a better Oak to Ninth project. ( You must be a bit short of substantive material to use this.)
We aren't inventing the health effects of pollution and freeways, by the way. Writing as someone who developed respiratory illness from working many hours a day in a high-diesel-particulate environment, I can report that switching to filtered air has probably saved my life. I was dependent upon medication and emergency room visits after 15 years of working in a too-polluted environment. The simple measure of moving one half block to an office with filtration completely eliminated asthma and related problems.
From comments to the EIR:
"National, State, and Regional Air quality regulations and standards are described in the Project EIR. The California Air Resource Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) recommends not locating sensitive land uses, including residential developments, within 500 feet of a highway with more than 100,000 vehicles per day. While these guidelines, do not have the authority of environmental regulations they are based on findings from extensive health research, demonstrating that proximity to high traffic density or flow results in reduced lung function and increased asthma hospitalizations, asthma symptoms, bronchitis symptoms, and medical visits. The handbook can be downloaded from ARB’s website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm."
Our group has shown that there are things that can be done to lessen the effects. But the project is not required to do these things.
We aren't inventing the health effects of pollution and freeways, by the way. Writing as someone who developed respiratory illness from working many hours a day in a high-diesel-particulate environment, I can report that switching to filtered air has probably saved my life. I was dependent upon medication and emergency room visits after 15 years of working in a too-polluted environment. The simple measure of moving one half block to an office with filtration completely eliminated asthma and related problems.
From comments to the EIR:
"National, State, and Regional Air quality regulations and standards are described in the Project EIR. The California Air Resource Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) recommends not locating sensitive land uses, including residential developments, within 500 feet of a highway with more than 100,000 vehicles per day. While these guidelines, do not have the authority of environmental regulations they are based on findings from extensive health research, demonstrating that proximity to high traffic density or flow results in reduced lung function and increased asthma hospitalizations, asthma symptoms, bronchitis symptoms, and medical visits. The handbook can be downloaded from ARB’s website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm."
Our group has shown that there are things that can be done to lessen the effects. But the project is not required to do these things.
I don't know whether the League of Women Voters of Oakland is a bunch of old white ladies or not (although I believe one could probably be forgiven for thinking so, no?). I was just pointing out the absurdity of the previous poster's ad hominem arguments and the radical-chic dismissal of elected representation/democracy. There's always someone more "down" than you are, was my point. Anyway, some of my best friends are old white ladies!
Sure, make put some filters on buildings to make the air cleaner. An interesting question here, though, is: why should the developer pay for iot? why not make CalTrans/DMV pay for these improvements? How about a fund from bridge toll money to offset the costs of these improvements? It's not the developer's fault there's a freeway there; why should he take the whole burden? Especially when the proximity of the freeway lowers the property values of his project anyway?
I'm not advocating for cars or dirty air. I'm advocating against efforts to further limit where housing can be built.
Sure, make put some filters on buildings to make the air cleaner. An interesting question here, though, is: why should the developer pay for iot? why not make CalTrans/DMV pay for these improvements? How about a fund from bridge toll money to offset the costs of these improvements? It's not the developer's fault there's a freeway there; why should he take the whole burden? Especially when the proximity of the freeway lowers the property values of his project anyway?
I'm not advocating for cars or dirty air. I'm advocating against efforts to further limit where housing can be built.
For another view, here's a letter from the Oak to 9th Community Coalition:
We are the Oak to 9th Community Benefits Coalition and we want to share some good news with you. We represent thousands of working families, most of whom live within two miles of the Oak to 9th 3100-unit condominium project, in some of Oakland’s poorest neighborhoods. We are the waitresses, janitors, security guards and parents who keep Oakland running. Through our member organizations – the East Bay Asian Youth Center, the Oakland Community Organizations, and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network --- we have worked together for three years to make sure that the Oak to 9th development truly benefits working Oaklanders. We are very proud to say that our hard work has paid off. We negotiated an historic jobs and housing package at Oak to 9th. And we demonstrated-- to our elected officials, to the developer and to other residents--- that we can and should create development in Oakland that provides opportunities for Oakland’s low-income communities of color.
Here’s what we accomplished. We negotiated 465 units of housing for very low- and extremely-low income families and seniors. This is more than twice the amount of very- and extremely-low income housing that is required by Redevelopment Law. The majority of these 465 units will be 2 bedrooms or more. No other private project in Oakland includes such a high percentage of units for very-low and extremely low-income families.
We are also proud to have negotiated 300 entry-level construction career-path placements for Oakland residents, with real penalties for non-compliance.. Additionally, $1.65 million will be dedicated to training programs to support immigrants and those formerly incarcerated to get a start in the building trades. No other project in Oakland has accomplished this many long-term placements for people entering construction and the building trades.
And we are especially proud that we fought for and won the right of low-income community residents to “speak for themselves”. Many wrote off our efforts as “impossible”. The developer had too much political clout, it was said. Nobody cared about affordable housing. Other issues were more important, we were told. But our members did not have the luxury of giving up. People like Evangelina Lara, who lives in a studio apartment with her family of six, or Quan Tat who worked in construction in his home country of Vietnam, but has been unable to find more than day laborer work here in the U.S. decided to try to change things. They told us that they wanted their families and their community to be able to stay in Oakland, not be pushed out by rising rents and bad-paying jobs.
So they joined with other residents like Gabriel de Leon of St. Anthony’s Church and Wei Ying Leung of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Residents like them were the soul of this campaign – organizing scores of community strategy sessions, door-to-door conversations and house meetings. Together they organized an 800-person town hall forum, took community delegations to City Council offices, and brought hundreds of residents to City Hall. Because of their organizing efforts, the Coalition was able to sit down with the developer and come to an agreement.
We are also proud to have helped bring about a major shift in how development happens in Oakland. Other developers in Oakland are beginning to see that it is in their interests to engage community residents in real, substantive dialogue around issues that matter to working Oaklanders. As a result of this and other community benefits campaigns, Oakland’s elected officials are seriously grappling with policies like Inclusionary Zoning to make sure that developers pay their fair share in Oakland.
This Campaign is only the beginning. As Evangelina Lara said, “I fought for housing at Oak to 9th not for me, but for my kids and my community.” So a very real accomplishment for us was the relationships that were built. We wish to thank the labor unions, faith leaders, environmental organizations and elected officials who stood with us. Our accomplishments are yours as well. And we recognize the good-faith efforts of Signature Properties and look forward to implementing our agreements in partnership with them.
Some want to backtrack on Oak to 9th and overturn City Council’s approval. The community members that waged this 3-year campaign do not have the luxury of waiting. Let’s make these 465 units and 300 jobs a reality. Let’s celebrate our accomplishments and hard work. And let’s keep working for housing, living-wage jobs and other opportunities for Oakland’s low-income communities of color.
On behalf of the Oak to 9th Community Benefits Coalition,
Chanda May, East Bay Asian Youth Center
Leonor Godinez, Oakland Community Organizations at St. Anthony’s Church
Francis Chang, Power in Asians Organizing/Asian Pacific Environmental Network
We are the Oak to 9th Community Benefits Coalition and we want to share some good news with you. We represent thousands of working families, most of whom live within two miles of the Oak to 9th 3100-unit condominium project, in some of Oakland’s poorest neighborhoods. We are the waitresses, janitors, security guards and parents who keep Oakland running. Through our member organizations – the East Bay Asian Youth Center, the Oakland Community Organizations, and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network --- we have worked together for three years to make sure that the Oak to 9th development truly benefits working Oaklanders. We are very proud to say that our hard work has paid off. We negotiated an historic jobs and housing package at Oak to 9th. And we demonstrated-- to our elected officials, to the developer and to other residents--- that we can and should create development in Oakland that provides opportunities for Oakland’s low-income communities of color.
Here’s what we accomplished. We negotiated 465 units of housing for very low- and extremely-low income families and seniors. This is more than twice the amount of very- and extremely-low income housing that is required by Redevelopment Law. The majority of these 465 units will be 2 bedrooms or more. No other private project in Oakland includes such a high percentage of units for very-low and extremely low-income families.
We are also proud to have negotiated 300 entry-level construction career-path placements for Oakland residents, with real penalties for non-compliance.. Additionally, $1.65 million will be dedicated to training programs to support immigrants and those formerly incarcerated to get a start in the building trades. No other project in Oakland has accomplished this many long-term placements for people entering construction and the building trades.
And we are especially proud that we fought for and won the right of low-income community residents to “speak for themselves”. Many wrote off our efforts as “impossible”. The developer had too much political clout, it was said. Nobody cared about affordable housing. Other issues were more important, we were told. But our members did not have the luxury of giving up. People like Evangelina Lara, who lives in a studio apartment with her family of six, or Quan Tat who worked in construction in his home country of Vietnam, but has been unable to find more than day laborer work here in the U.S. decided to try to change things. They told us that they wanted their families and their community to be able to stay in Oakland, not be pushed out by rising rents and bad-paying jobs.
So they joined with other residents like Gabriel de Leon of St. Anthony’s Church and Wei Ying Leung of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Residents like them were the soul of this campaign – organizing scores of community strategy sessions, door-to-door conversations and house meetings. Together they organized an 800-person town hall forum, took community delegations to City Council offices, and brought hundreds of residents to City Hall. Because of their organizing efforts, the Coalition was able to sit down with the developer and come to an agreement.
We are also proud to have helped bring about a major shift in how development happens in Oakland. Other developers in Oakland are beginning to see that it is in their interests to engage community residents in real, substantive dialogue around issues that matter to working Oaklanders. As a result of this and other community benefits campaigns, Oakland’s elected officials are seriously grappling with policies like Inclusionary Zoning to make sure that developers pay their fair share in Oakland.
This Campaign is only the beginning. As Evangelina Lara said, “I fought for housing at Oak to 9th not for me, but for my kids and my community.” So a very real accomplishment for us was the relationships that were built. We wish to thank the labor unions, faith leaders, environmental organizations and elected officials who stood with us. Our accomplishments are yours as well. And we recognize the good-faith efforts of Signature Properties and look forward to implementing our agreements in partnership with them.
Some want to backtrack on Oak to 9th and overturn City Council’s approval. The community members that waged this 3-year campaign do not have the luxury of waiting. Let’s make these 465 units and 300 jobs a reality. Let’s celebrate our accomplishments and hard work. And let’s keep working for housing, living-wage jobs and other opportunities for Oakland’s low-income communities of color.
On behalf of the Oak to 9th Community Benefits Coalition,
Chanda May, East Bay Asian Youth Center
Leonor Godinez, Oakland Community Organizations at St. Anthony’s Church
Francis Chang, Power in Asians Organizing/Asian Pacific Environmental Network
The truth is both the Oak to 9th Community Coalition and A Better Oak to Ninth Coalition can and should get what they are fighting for.
We should not have been put in a position trying to get concessions from Signature Properties. They are not he owners of Oak to Ninth. The people are the owners of Oak to Ninth.
Only reason we have been put in a ridiculous position of having to get concessions from the likes of Signature Properties is because the City Council members, who seems to think only about their re-election campaign funds and a cut of the redevelopment money for their district, have sold us out. They lack the vision and the courage to make Oakland a truly wonderful city.
We should not have been put in a position trying to get concessions from Signature Properties. They are not he owners of Oak to Ninth. The people are the owners of Oak to Ninth.
Only reason we have been put in a ridiculous position of having to get concessions from the likes of Signature Properties is because the City Council members, who seems to think only about their re-election campaign funds and a cut of the redevelopment money for their district, have sold us out. They lack the vision and the courage to make Oakland a truly wonderful city.
the reason we're in this "fight" is because the "community" does not have the money to clean, prepare and build anything. You may roll your eyes, but WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM TO DO ANYTHING ON THAT DIRT PILE?
I mean, who built your house? Hint: it wasn't "the community."
I mean, who built your house? Hint: it wasn't "the community."
It might help if Mr. Davies actually read the original posting at the top.
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