On Tuesday night, Oakland’s City Council will address the City’s growing crime problems the way it approaches most problems: reactively. Rather than confronting the issue with a well-thought-out overall strategy, Council will debate piecemeal proposals: gang injunctions, and curfew and anti-loitering ordinances. Make Oakland Better Now! believes that the real solution to the City’s growing crime problem must involve a comprehensive public safety strategy that dispenses with the current piecemeal approach and the “police vs. social programs” dichotomy that divides the City and keeps us from uniting to solve our most pressing issue.

When he arrived in Oakland two years ago, Chief Batts stated that the best way to reduce Oakland’s crime rate was to address three root causes: gangs, guns and drugs. The City responded by shutting down the police department helicopter, crippling the gang injunction program, and taking a series of budget actions that would ultimately cause a 25% reduction in authorized police officer positions.

Predictably, the homicide rate began to climb. Then came the unimaginable horror of little Carlos Nava’s killing in August. Two weeks later, Jose Esparza was robbed and gunned down in front of his 6-year-old son. The cry went out from City Council members to do something. Council members Reid and De la Fuente urged the Council to reverse its action limiting gang injunctions. Council member Brooks led a crowd into Council’s Public Safety Committee meeting to demand the City reinstate its “Shot Spotter” contract, increase lighting in public spaces, hire previously approved crime analysts, and take other immediate actions. Mayor Quan announced a half-day “public safety summit” featuring “strategy sessions, dialogues and/or workshops” on such subjects as “Gang Awareness, Loitering, Racial Profiling, Restorative Justice, Barriers to Youth Employment, Foreclosures, Volunteering and Youth Mentoring, Sexual Exploitation of Minors, Youth Perspectives on Crime, Truancy, Police-Community relationships, Parolees and Re-Entry.”

Many of these subjects are worthy of public discussion. But some are also code words for one side of a divisive debate that has dominated the public safety discussion in Oakland for years. Instead of looking at our public safety efforts comprehensively, Oaklanders have fought each other over the false dichotomy of “police officers vs. social programs.”

On Tuesday, Council will debate three relatively small public safety measures that involve police activity. Well-organized and vocal advocates for the “social programs” side of the debate will likely turn out to attack the proposals as part of a war on the community, and to accuse the police of racism. Residents who favor enhanced police activity will speak on the other side. No matter what action the Council takes, we will continue to have a divided community. We will continue to make no progress at all toward Oakland’s most critical public safety needs: finding ways to restore an adequate number of police officers to the Oakland Police Department, and even more importantly, designing and implementing a comprehensive public safety strategy for the City.

It is clear that we need more police officers (and far more than the 25 the Department of Justice has just agreed to finance). The ever-decreasing number of police officers is taxing the system to the limit; our citizens are experiencing a drastic reduction in police services. We also need focused, measured, and accountable programs to address the underlying social issues facing all Oaklanders today.How do we accomplish this? We need to make sure that all parts of the public safety effort are working together, and are held accountable for making Oakland safe.

We all agree our goal is to make Oakland safer. The organizations dedicated to this goal include not just the Police and Fire Departments, but a host of groups involved in Kids First programs, violence prevention programs, and the City Attorney’s office. So who coordinates the efforts of everyone involved in making Oakland a safer place? Who aligns all of their efforts to make sure they are pulling together? Who ensures that every contributor to the public safety effort shares a common vision? What mechanisms exist to ensure all players in our most mission-critical endeavor are aligned? And what procedures measure whether all participants are successfully making Oakland safer?

Sadly, there is no such person and there are no such mechanisms or procedures. Until there is a comprehensive public safety plan coordinating every person and every program involved in making Oakland safer, we will continue the pointless and destructive debate over cops vs. programs. Until we align, coordinate, and measure our public safety efforts, we will remain unable to effectively address the crime and violence problem in our city.

Alas, in reality, it’s been quite a bit more than one week. Recess is over, and starting today, the Oakland City Council is back to their normal business of infuriating any resident misguided enough to watch them in action.

So I hope everybody had lots of fun this summer! I had a great time. I rode the BRT in Cleveland, hiked beautiful mountains in Colorado, and relaxed along the shore of Lake Champlain in Vermont. I was actually kind of sad last week to have to come back to Oakland. It didn’t help that my regular weekend morning coffee-and-a-good-book park has been ruined by a horrifying monument to the inflated egos over at the Chamber of Commerce.

Remember Them

I did try visiting the other morning, hoping I’d be able to tune out the statue and just concentrate on my book. No dice. My poor neighborhood park is just totally ruined. But hey, it’s going to bring us tourism, right?

There were a handful other people in the park with me the other morning. A couple of the faces were familiar. As smokers living in non-smoking buildings, they’re in the park a lot. I noticed they were all sitting kind of towards the far edge of the park, whereas normally people tend to be pretty evenly distributed. I rarely talk to them, since they’re obviously not going to the park for socializing, and well, neither am I.

But I couldn’t help but wonder how they felt about the “largest cast bronze representational sculpture West of the Mississippi” (hint: if you need that many modifiers to make something sound special, that means it isn’t that special). So I asked. I was met with grimaces and exaggerated eye rolls. I suppose that’s to be expected, though, since the monument isn’t there for residents.

I haven’t seen any droves of tourists around the monument yet, although there were a few visitors when I was there the other morning. Two older gentlemen spent a long time standing in front of the monument and talking about it. I couldn’t hear what they were saying, but they seemed enthusiastic, so I’m guessing they didn’t find it anywhere near as off-putting as I do.

And then there was a couple with two small children. It was one of those moments, like riding on an airplane with a screaming child, that makes you never want kids. This poor couple was clearly trying to impress their children with the monument, maybe use it as an education opportunity, which I think is sweet, even if I personally do not like the sculpture. But the kids of course were having none of it.

The little boy had somehow procured a handful of small rocks and kept throwing them at the statues every time his parents took their eyes off him for even a moment. This happened quite a few times, since the little girl kept crying and wailing hysterically. I couldn’t help but think she was crying because she was terrified of the sculptures (I think they’re scary), but of course maybe she was upset because her parents had refused to buy her ice cream for breakfast or whatever it is that kids flip out about it. Who knows. In any case, it didn’t seem like a particularly successful outing.

It’s not all bad news in my neighborhood, though. At least we have the long awaited sculpture garden at 19th and Telegraph to look forward to!

Just think. It could have been a parking lot!

Council Committee Meetings

I had actually been planning on using my return from summer post to write a little roundup of the items coming up at today’s Committee meetings. Unfortunately, the agendas are kind of a snoozefest.

The issues of selling golf courses (PDF) and municipal IDs (PDF) are back at Finance & Management Committee (which starts at noon), for what seems like the five thousandth time in the past three years. I’m sure the actual number is probably in the single digits, but these discussions always just seem to be a repeat of what happened the last time around, and never go anywhere. If it turns out it’s more interesting this time, I’ll write about it later in the week.

The big item at the Community and Economic Development Committee (2pm) is a report on the City’s follow-up to the Grand Jury report (PDF) blasting Oakland’s Building Services division, which was released back in June. That one isn’t actually boring, but frankly, I am reluctant to write about it in spite of its importance because of the bad behavior the subject seems to prompt in the comments. Still, I’m sure that’s going to be an interesting discussion. So if you’re interested, you can either head over to City Hall this afternoon or catch it on KTOP — Comcast Channel 10, Uverse Channel 99 (I think, someone correct me if that’s wrong), or of course, streaming online.

-  Excerpt from a 1931 election brochure, which asked voters to change the San Diego City Charter and elect an independent City Attorney.

On July 19^th, Council Members Nadel and Kernighan plan to submit for Council approval, a resolution to present to the voters, a charter amendment entitled, “Returning the Elected City Attorney Position to an Appointed Position.” They acknowledge that the City Attorney serves as legal counsel to the City Council, the Mayor and each department of the City of Oakland (City). They cite that a City Attorney who gains the position through election by the public is subject to all political pressures experienced by any other politician. In addition, in the measure to be submitted to the public, they further cite as reasons for this change the following (PDF): the uniqueness of an elected City Attorney in California (2.5% elected) and the city attorney chooses his or her own boundaries ranging from legal to policy to politics.

For the reasons enumerated below, I respectfully ask that the residents of Oakland reject this blatant attempt to usurp power from other departments and people and eliminate this integral check and balance on the power of our elected officials.

Legal Counsel to City Council, Mayor and Each Department of the City

A City Attorney appointed by City Council and the Mayor cannot effectively serve each department of the City. When the City Council and Mayor appoint the City Attorney, the City Attorney works for and serves at the pleasure of the City Council and the Mayor. Thus, appointing a City Attorney does not eliminate the political pressures that our Council Members worry about with an elected City Attorney. If anything, these pressures are more pronounced and exacerbated when the Council and Mayor appoint a City Attorney, who serves at their will.

The City Attorney must feel free to offer independent advice, free of the pressure exerted by the City Council and Mayor, to the department heads he or she represents. When City Council and the Mayor have the ability to hire and fire the City Attorney, will the City Attorney provide counsel that is best for the department and the City or will it represent the interest of City Council and the Mayor, even if the position has no legal merit? An appointed City Attorney is subject to the political pressures of the individuals who appoint him. When the City Attorney is appointed there is a conflict of interest and invites the potential for abuse and retribution from the Council and Mayor.

The following is part of the discourse that occurred in the early 20^th century when the City of San Diego debated these same issues.

“Ray Mathewson, the San Diego labor union representative on the Freeholder Board, described the role of the independent city attorney in a proposal he submitted to the Freeholder Board in which he recommended a “Strong Mayor –Council” form of government:

The duty of the city attorney is to give legal advice to every department and official of the city government on municipal matters. He also must act as the representative of the various departments before the courts. He should occupy an independent position so that his opinions would not be influenced by any appointive power. For this reason, he should be elected by the people. If elected, the city attorney is in a position of complete independance (sic) and may exercise such check upon the actions of the legislative and executive branches of the local government as the law and his conscience dictate.”

Only 2.5% of California cities elect their City Attorney

This is true but misleading. Five of the ten largest cities in California, including Oakland, elect their City Attorney. These five cities represent over 18% of California residents. In total, elected City Attorneys represent over 20% of California residents. To understand what can go wrong when the City Council and Mayor appoint the City Attorney, one need not look any further than the City of Bell. As the former administrator and other officials paid themselves high salaries, former City Attorney Edward Lee did little to restrain allegedly lawless behavior.  That 97.5% of the cities have an appointed City Attorney does not mean that it is a better structure.

Legal Advice versus Policy Making

According to the Ethical Principles for City Attorneys adopted by the League of California Cities, “The city attorney should be willing to give unpopular legal advice that meets the law’s purpose and intent even when the advice is not sought but the legal problem is evident to the attorney.

An elected City Attorney is the people’s last check to ensure that our elected executive and legislative branches do not embark on an action that is either legally incorrect or ill-advised. This will not happen when the City Attorney serves at the will of City Council and the Mayor. When the City Attorney is appointed, the electorate does not know if it is the best legal advice or the advice that will ensure that the appointed individual is retained by City Council and the Mayor. The public trust is critical to a functioning and thriving democracy; this trust is eroded when City Council and the mayor seek to wrest the power from the people.

Conclusion

The proposed ballot measure seeking a return to an appointed City Attorney is designed for one purpose and one purpose only — to wrest power from the people and consolidate power in the hands of the few. We deserve a City government that works for all residents of Oakland. We do not have this when City Council and the mayor collude to appoint a City Attorney who primarily serves their needs.  I urge you to contact your council member to voice your displeasure with this ballot measure and join me at the July 19 city council meeting to speak against the proposed ballot measure to return to an appointed City Attorney.

• District 1: Jane Brunner, jbrunner@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7001
• District 2: Pat Kernighan, pkernighan@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7002
• District 3: Nancy Nadel, nnadel@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7003
• District 4: Libby Schaaf, lschaaf@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7004
• District 5: Ignacio De La Fuente, idelafuente@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7005
• District 6: Desley Brooks, dbrooks@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7006
• District 7: Larry Reid, lreid@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7007
• At-large: Rebecca Kaplan, atlarge@oaklandnet.com, 510-238-7008

This guest post was written by Ralph Cooke, an Oakland resident and advocate for transparent government.

But when it comes to putting sunshine into practice, most elected officials turn out to treat our many open government rules more of an annoyance than anything else.

Open government in Oakland

Oakland’s open government laws include things like the Campaign Reform Act and the Lobbyist Registration Act, which is currently in the process of being amended. (For background on the proposed amendments, see the recent action alerts from the League of Women Voters and Make Oakland Better Now. The Council was scheduled to consider changes to the ordinance at Tuesday’s meeting, but the item was pulled last week at Rules Committee.)

Another one of these laws is Oakland’s Sunshine Ordinance, which is designed to ensure adequate public notice of Council meetings. In short, it mandates that 10 days before the City Council has a meeting, they have to publish an agenda of that meeting that lists everything they will be voting on, along with any reports providing background information about those items so that the public has time to review them and offer informed comment about issues that may affect them before the vote. Doesn’t sound too crazy, right?

Urgencys!

Of course, sometimes things happen that we can’t predict, and the Council needs to act more quickly than 10 days in the future. The law recognizes this, and makes a provision for when things need to be scheduled on short notice. When this happens, the Council has to vote to say that the item is urgent. Here’s how the Sunshine Ordinance (PDF) determines whether a matter is urgent:

Action On Items Not Appearing On The Agenda. Notwithstanding subsection (D) of this section, a local body may take action on items not appearing on a posted agenda only if:

1. The Matter Is An Emergency. Upon a determination by a majority vote of the local body that a work stoppage, crippling disaster or other activity exists which severely impairs public health, safety or both; or

2. The Matter Is Urgent. Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote by the members of the local body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those present, that there is a need to take immediate action which came to the attention of the local body after the agenda was posted, and that the need to take immediate action:

   • (a) is required to avoid a substantial adverse impact that would occur if the action were deferred to a subsequent special or regular meeting;

   • (b) relates to federal or state legislation; or

   • (c) relates to a purely ceremonial or commendatory action.

The emphasis there is mine. So there are two things that need to be true for a matter to be considered urgent under the Sunshine Ordinance. One, something needs to have happened after the agenda was posted that we couldn’t have known before the deadline. Two, it has to meet one of the qualifications listed in a, b, or c. Note the “and.”

So. That’s what the law says. You might imagine, after reading that, that urgency findings are super rare. How often is new information requiring immediate action by the Council coming up before meetings, right?

In practice, urgency findings are not rare at all. The Council does them all the time. Things come up and the urgency is usually something like the Council has to act immediately so we can meet some kind of deadline. Presumably, these deadlines are not being announced with less than 10 days notice, but of course nobody wants the City to miss out on a grant opportunity because they can’t schedule items on time, so these things always get approved. I haven’t done an actual count or anything to compare, but just from casual observation it seems like nobody even asks what the urgency is like a third of the time.

Libby Schaaf stands up for sunshine

So it’s been a delightful change of pace in the last couple months to see a Councilmember finally taking the Sunshine Ordinance’s noticing requirements seriously.

Most of you probably recall a rather high profile incidence of this from last month, when the Council was scheduled to vote on scheduling a special election to put the Mayor’s parcel tax on the ballot.

When the special election came up, At-large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan moved the urgency finding almost before the Clerk had finished reading the item title “on the grounds that we learned after the 10 day period that the statewide special that was planned for June was not and that therefore we must act with great haste in order to have a election in time for the County’s deadline for the property tax and that therefore we did not have additional time to schedule this item.”

Councilmembers Brooks, De la Fuente, and Schaaf voted no on the urgency, which meant that the Council was not able to vote on scheduling a special election that night. (The Mayor could have still scheduled a vote on the special election in time for the deadline, but bungled the noticing of the meeting again.)

Of course, everyone had known perfectly well that a State special election in June looked unlikely, and the Council had previously talked about the possibility of their own mail-in special election. After public comment and a bunch of bickering, District 4 Councilmember Libby Schaaf gave a great speech defending the noticing requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance.

The City has rules about open government and providing adequate notice to the public. And the vote that we took tonight was whether or not this item qualified for an exception for the 10 day noticing requirement. And the issue is whether or not it’s urgent and whether or not information came to the knowledge of the body after the deadline for the publication of the agenda.

And I just want to explain that my vote on the urgency has nothing to do with the parcel tax, because that is not how we’re supposed to do this. But we discussed the option of a mail-in ballot. We have always had the knowledge that there may not be a state election in June. And so it’s my contention that we had knowledge of the possibility of having a mail-in election more than 10 days ago. And so for that reason, I do not feel like hearing this item tonight complies with Oakland’s Sunshine Ordinance.

So that is the vote that we just took. We did not take a vote on whether or not we support a parcel tax or not. So just to clarify, cause I’m sure it was very confusing.

So if you don’t want that many of these meetings, that little speech might not seem particularly remarkable to you. But really, it is. Aside from my obvious delight to see a Councilmember actually care what the Sunshine Ordinance says, I was also delighted because it is an unbelievably rare occurrence to see anyone on the Council act like they care in the least whether or not the public understands what they’re doing at meetings. So it was so refreshing, while other Councilmembers were sitting around ranting about the “tyranny of the minority” to see Schaaf take the time out to stop and make sure the public knew what was going on. (Video of the whole discussion is available here.)

Now, of course, not everyone was as thrilled with that stand for sunshine as I was, and a lot of people who want that tax dismissed Schaaf’s statement, saying that she was just using the Sunshine Ordinance as an excuse to block the election.

And if this were the only time Schaaf had defended transparency and open government laws, I might be able to see that argument. But that isn’t the case at all. In her brief four months on the Council, Schaaf has been consistently supportive of sunshine and transparency. District 1 Councilmember Jane Brunner’s proposal to gut Oakland’s lobbying restrictions would have gone to the Council in early March without any question if Schaaf hadn’t stood up for transparency.

And it isn’t just high profile items like the special election where she takes urgency findings seriously. Just last week, at Rules Committee, Schaaf refused to support an urgency finding on appointments the Mayor wanted to make to a City board. (The urgency provided by the Mayor’s office was that the Mayor was too busy to interview the candidates before the deadline — clearly not one of the exceptions covered by the Sunshine Ordinance.)

I have to vote no on this. Because it just sounds like we didn’t have our act together.

To give you an idea of just how radical a change this is on the City Council, compare Schaaf’s attitude towards sunshine and proper noticing to that of the office’s previous occupant, who frequently dismisses sunshine laws as “technicalities.” In the clip below from a year ago, then-District 4 Councilmember Jean Quan argues for an entire minute and a half with the City Attorney about whether they’re going to discuss something in violation of the open meetings law (this was a totally unambiguous case).

I hope the rest of the Council will be inspired by Schaaf’s commitment to transparency and start treating sunshine laws as important, rather than an afterthought. Until then, one strong voice for open government is better than none.

So when they get to the consent calendar at the Council meeting, District 2 Councilmember Pat Kernighan is like “Okay. Let me see if I have this right. ”

• This lot is worth $100,00.
• We are giving the lot to the developer at no cost.
• We are also providing the developer as much as $375,000 to build the house.
• The total investment is therefore $475,000.
• Then the house will be sold to someone who qualifies for affordable housing assistance.
• Then the house will have affordability restrictions for 45 years.

Which is, well, a pretty good recap of the situation. Then she added that the idea of any house in that neighborhood selling for $475,000 seems unlikely, and that although the job training aspect of the proposal was appealing, the Council had not been given any quantifiable information about said training program, like how many people would be trained or how many hours they would work or anything like that.

So then District 3 Councilmember Nancy Nadel was like, “Well, I don’t know about the cost of the land, but I’ve been trying to make this happen for like five years. Sure, it’s possible that we won’t get all our money back, but if we’re going to take public property and put it in private hands, there has to be some public benefit, which is the reasoning behind the job training and affordable housing aspects to the plan.

So the first thing that popped into my mind when she was talking is that if it is taking you five years to figure out how to build one house on one City owned vacant lot, maybe that should be a sign that it isn’t meant to be. Right? Also, if we were to just sell the lot at a market price, it seems like there would be a public benefit to the transaction because we would get money from it that can be used to pay for services.

So then Pat Kernighan comes back and is like “Well, that’s all very admirable, but I’m concerned that we’re not going to be able to sell this house. Even if it wasn’t required to be affordable, $475,000 seems like a stretch. And why would anyone buy a house with affordability restrictions that limit their ability to benefit from appreciation when they can just get a normal house without all that for less money?”

Then she asked if staff was aware of any affordable housing anywhere in the city that had sold for $475,000, to which staff responded that there are non-affordable condos like half a mile away that have been listed for $400,000, and that since this house is going to be bigger than most of the other houses in the area, and because the neighborhood is so “centrally located” to downtown and various highways, that they expected to get a pretty good price for it.

And Pat Kernighan is all “Um…you do know that the way people normally figure out what property is worth is by looking at selling prices, not asking prices, right?” And staff was like “Oh, sorry. We don’t have any information about that.”

Nice.

So then, at-large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan was like “Look, maybe you can sell this house for $475,000. Or you can sell it as affordable housing. But obviously not both. What is the price affordable to someone at 60% AMI anyway?”

And nobody knew!

I was pretty pleased with the conversation up to that point. But then District 6 Councilmember Desley Brooks is like “What am I missing? We own this property and we’re not doing anything with it right now. This seems like a great idea, why are we even discussing this?” And Rebecca Kaplan is all “Oh, I’m fine with us doing it for the job training if we remove the affordability requirement.” Which seemed odd to me, since nobody seemed to have any information about this training program.

Then District 5 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente is like “Look, this doesn’t make any sense. If we want affordable housing, then give the lot to someone who’s going to build some affordable units that will actually be affordable and stop pretending we’re going to get the money back. If we want job training, why don’t we just invest more in our existing job training programs like the Cypress Mandela training center or whatever.” I completely agree with that. I have never understand why Oakland seems to feel the need to constantly reinvent the wheel.

So then Mayor-elect Jean Quan is all “Well, there’s a lot of gentrification going on in West Oakland, so it’s important that this stay affordable. I walked West Oakland during my campaign and I’m really concerned about keeping some affordable housing there. Plus, this isn’t General Fund money anyway.”

And then Nancy Nadel is like “Oh, actually, there’s plenty of affordable housing there, so really what I want is the job training. The Cypress Mandela program is too long and lots of people can’t afford to do their 13 (actually, it’s 16 – V) week all day training program, so this is better because they can just come at night after they get off work and get trained.”

And you know what? Maybe that is the case. I have no idea. Because nowhere, in any of these discussions or reports (PDF), has anyone provided any kind of information about what this job training entails, how many people will be trained, and what the end outcomes for the trainees is supposed to be. And without that information, approving the project for job training purposes just seems totally insane to me. How can you evaluate whether a program is worth spending all this money on when you don’t even know what the program is? At the very least, you’d think the City should be providing some kind of tangible, measurable criteria for the program before doling out money.

So then Council President Jane Brunner is like “Well, I liked it when it was affordable housing and job training, but if it’s only training, then it seems silly, since we have all these other training programs already.” And then Rebecca Kaplan said she would support it if we removed the affordable housing component, although that seemed even more problematic to me, since most of the money they were proposing to use for the project was from affordable housing funds.

And then they decided that they’d go back and try to figure things out a little more and have it come back at a future meeting. And that was that.

You can watch a video of the discussion below.

One of the things that always surprises me about watching City meetings is what issues catch my attention. I mean, you look at agendas, and you would think it would be obvious what is going to be interesting to write about. Take, for example, tonight’s Council meeting. There are several controversial topics on tonight’s agenda — criteria for awarding the marijuana growing permits, doubling the number of dispensary permits in Oakland, and municipal ID cards.

319 Chester Street

But watching the Committee discussions from two weeks ago, those weren’t the things that I found I had the most to say about. Instead, my attention was grabbed by the conversation about a little vacant lot in West Oakland, at 319 Chester Street, which is on tonight’s consent calendar.

For the whole story, you can read the staff report (PDF), and watch the video of the whole discussion below.

Basically, the City owns this vacant lot near West Oakland BART. The want to give it — well, “sell” it for no cost to a company called the Alliance For West Oakland Development, who will then use City affordable housing funds to build a house on it, which they will then sell to an affordable housing buyer, and then give the money from the sale back to the City so that it can be used to fund more affordable housing construction. Additionally, there is a job training for youth aspect to the construction. From the the staff report (PDF):

The Alliance for West Oakland Development, Inc. is a 501(c)3 community development corporation, established in June, 1999. They were formed to address the issues of rebuilding the West Oakland community. Their mission is to initiate, promote and facilitate the development of blighted areas of West Oakland through a Green Building and Construction Training Program. The program provides training opportunities for West Oakland residents and is geared toward “at risk” young adults (18-25 years) and is also open to all persons interested in entering the construction field.

So this sounds like a good thing, right?

At the Community and Economic Development Committee

So when this item came up at Committee, District 5 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente is all “Um, so how does this make any sense when people can just buy houses for a fraction of that cost? Why don’t we just sell the damn lot?”

So staff responded that if we sold it, we wouldn’t have any guarantee that anyone would build on the lot, and also that the construction presents job training opportunities.

Now, I’m very sympathetic to the idea of doing it for the job training. But I found it very odd that there was like, no information about the specifics of this job training component in either the report or the presentation. I mean, if you’re going to invest all this money and the primary benefit is that it’s a job training program, wouldn’t you think there should be some more details about that program? Like, I don’t know, how many people it’s going to train? Even just a rough estimate? How people qualify to be part of it? Anything at all? It just seemed off to me.

So then, Igancio De La Fuente asked again about the cost. And staff was like “Well, we don’t actually know that it’s going to cost $375,000. Maybe it will cost less. And also, maybe property values in West Oakland will increase dramatically by the time we finish building this. So then it won’t be more expensive that everything else around.”

So then, Council President Jane Brunner is like “Okay. So we’re giving them $375,000 to build this place, plus $100,000 worth of land. So we’re talking about a $475,000 investment from the City?” And staff is like “Well, we’re going to sell it for at least as much as it costs us.” And Jane Brunner is like “You’re going to sell it for $475,000?” And staff is like “Well, we don’t know what we’re going to sell it for. If we sell it for $475,000, then yes, but if we don’t, then no.” And Jane Brunner is like “So you’re not going to sell it for as much as it costs us?” And staff is like “Yeah, sure. We’ll sell it for $475,000.” And Jane Brunner is like “Well, okay. That’s cool with me as long as all that money comes back to the City.”

So I don’t know if I’m just missing something entirely or what. But how is this house affordable if we’re going to sell it for nearly half a million dollars? I mean, nobody brought this up at the meeting, but it was the biggest question in my head when I was reading the staff report, which suggested that it was only going to be sold for $375,000. I mean, yes. I get that if we sell it to someone of a qualifying income level, then it technically qualifies as an affordable housing sale. But from a practical perspective, when you’re thinking about the actual goals of affordable housing production — well, I just don’t see how this fits with them.

So then District 2 Councilmember Pat Kernighan started asking about who is going to buy the house (participants in Oakland’s first-time homebuyer program) and what kind of affordability restrictions (45 years) there would be on it, and then was just like “Wait, how does this make sense? We’re going to sell this house for $475,000? Really?” And staff is like, “No, we’ll sell it for $375,000. Or however much it costs to build. Maybe it will cost $250,000. Who knows? The land is free!” And Pat Kernighan is all “But the land is worth money. And people don’t want to buy houses with resale restrictions when they can buy houses without them for cheaper. I do like the job training thing.”

And then staff was like “Yes! That’s why we’re doing it. Not for the money, for the job training. Also, it will revitalize the neighborhood.”

And then District 7 Councilmember Larry Reid was like “We’re going to do one of these in my District, too! It’s gonna be awesome!.” And then the Committee all voted for it except for Ignacio De La Fuente and now it’s on the consent calendar for tonight’s meeting.

Details seem to fall short

There are a lot of things about this that seem very admirable in concept. Affordable housing. Job training. Making productive use of vacant city-owned land. But you need more than a good concept. And the details on this thing — I just don’t see how they pencil out.

I mean, if we’re talking about selling a single-family home for almost $400,000, that doesn’t seem like a good affordable housing investment. Nor does it seem realistic to me in a neighborhood where comps are generally less than $300,000.

With no details on how many people we can even expect to be part of the job training, and what exactly they’re going to get out of it, I don’t see how we can evaluate if this is a good use of money for that purpose.

And of course, there’s the issue of money. The City is broke. We need money to provide services. So it seems like before we just go around giving property away, we should at least look into seeing whether we can sell it to someone who just wants to build a normal house on it, and maybe if we can get some much needed cash. Right?

It bothered me that the Committee was so cavalier about approving the whole thing. I mean, I guess they saw it differently, but when I was listening to the questions they were all asking, it really didn’t seem like they were getting very good answers from staff. There’s a tendency, on the part of the City Council, to act like if money isn’t coming from the General Fund, then we don’t have to think very much about spending it. But that’s a terrible way to approach running the City! And I can’t help but think that this attitude has a lot to do with the reason we’ve ended up in such a sucky situation with the budget.

But it is true, as some commenters have noted, that I do not live in District 4, and I may not be entirely familiar with all the issues residents of that District have to deal with. So today, I want to share with you another plea for a vote for Libby Schaaf for Oakland City Council from someone who knows District 4 more intimately than just about anyone — 24 year District 4 City Councilmember Dick Spees. Here you go.

Dear District 4 Voters,

As your Councilmember of 24 years, I care deeply about our community, which is why I’m supporting Libby Schaaf as District 4’s next Councilmember.

I’ve witnessed Libby’s dedication firsthand for more than thirty years. She has lived in Oakland her entire life (including in Piedmont Pines, Merriewood and Oakmore neighborhoods), and she has volunteered in every corner of our diverse District. She has worked on habitat preservation in Redwood Park, offered free legal counseling at Dimond Library, run a Redwood Heights haunted house for foster kids, tutored at Horace Mann Elementary, and served as a Block Watch Captain in Oakmore, as just a few examples.

Libby left her career as an attorney at Oakland’s prestigious Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May law firm to pursue public service. As a Chief Aide to Councilman De La Fuente and Mayor Jerry Brown, Libby helped reduce crime and revitalize neighborhood commercial districts.

As a Port of Oakland executive, Libby brought millions of dollars to our city, to build infrastructure, reduce pollution, and grow our economy.

Considering our dire financial challenges, Oakland needs a representative with the drive and savvy to reduce City Hall’s budget, while increasing services to neighborhoods.

Libby is the only candidate with the experience to make these changes that Oakland needs. Please vote Libby Schaaf for City Council on November 2nd!

- Dick Spees
Oakland City Council Member, District 4, 1979–2003

P.S. I encourage you to visit www.LibbyForOakland.com to read more about Libby and her specific plans.

I was working on my recap of last week’s big Mayoral debate, and when I got to the lightning round question about eminent domain, I got partway through writing it and realized I had written enough for a whole post. And then someone brought it up out of nowhere for a second time in the comments, so I decided it was actually pretty post-worthy.

So. Eminent domain is a touchy subject. And it’s a particularly touchy subject in West Oakland, where there is a long history, still fresh in the minds of many residents, of eminent domain being used aggresively and for reasons that…well, let’s just say that in retrospect, most people agree it did not end up being a good thing for the area or for the people who lived there.

Existing eminent domain rules in West Oakland

Okay, here are some things you should know. (I am trying to put this as simply as possible, so forgive me if some of the nuances are lost. We can discuss those in the comments.)

• In California, you can use eminent domain in Redevelopment Areas.
• When you set up a Redevelopment Area, you make a Redevelopment Plan.
• In the Redevelopment Plan, you get to decide whether or not this Redevelopment Area will have the power of eminent domain.
• The West Oakland Redevelopment Area was established in 2003.
• In the West Oakland Redevelopment Area, eminent domain is allowed by the West Oakland Redevelopment Plan (PDF).
• The Redevelopment Plan for West Oakland allows for eminent domain to be used only under cetain conditions (PDF). Briefly, those conditions are:
  • The property is located in the Clawson/MMcClymonds/Bunche subarea of the West Oakland Redevelopment Area. (There are a total of three subareas.)
  • The property is commercial, not residential.
  • The whole project the property is being acquired for does not exceed three acres total.
  • The property is located along one of four streets that have been designated as commercial corridors: West Grand, Mandela, San Pablo, and Market. The corridors are marked on this map (PDF).

Got all that? Good.

Proposed changes to West Oakland eminent domain rules

So now, the City wants to amend the West Oakland Redevelopment Plan (PDF) to modify the aforementioned eminent domain rules.

Why would they do that? Well, as explained in a recent San Francisco Business Times article:

Eager to attract a grocery store to West Oakland, the city redevelopment agency is preparing to broaden its eminent domain rules so it could acquire the final piece of a five-acre parcel desired by Foods Co.

The retailer has approached three property owners along West Grand Avenue between Filbert and Market streets. Two have agreed to sell but one, who controls just under an acre, is asking for more than Foods Co. has been willing to pay.

So, what changes exactly is the Redevelopment Agency asking for? Read the staff report (PDF) for the full story. Again, I’ll put it as simply as I can:

• Change the total size of a project that eminent domain can be used for to 5 acres rather than 3 acres. However, you would still only be able to use eminent domain to acquire 3 acres of the land to be used in the project.
• Add to the areas designated as commercial corridors that eminent domain would be allowed to include spaces at 24th and Filbert and Myrtle Street between 24th and West Grand.

That’s all. It would not change the rules about not being able to use eminent domain on residential property.

If you’re having a hard time envisioning the areas discussed, perhaps these maps will help. Click on them for a bigger version.

This map shows in green where in West Oakland eminent domain is currently allowed to be used on commercial property.

This map shows in yellow the new locations where eminent domain would be allowed if the amendment passed. Again, it would only be allowed to be used on commercial property, as laid out in the West Oakland Redevelopment Plan (PDF) on pages 7-9.

So, this proposal to amend the plan was brought to the West Oakland Project Area Committee in July. They voted on whether to approve the amendment (PDF), but the vote tied (5 yes, 5 no, 2 abstentions). Now the proposal is being brought to the City Council. The City Council is able to overrule the WOPAC and change the plan without their approval, but this will require a 2/3 vote.

The reason for this is because the Redevelopment Agency is trying to get a grocery store to locate in West Oakland. The national grocery chain Foods Co. wants to open a store in West Oakland. You probably read about the two stores they are opening in East Oakland. Foods Co. has found a site to locate a 70,000sf store in West Oakland, but had to acquire several properties to put together the land. One property owner in the area has not been willing to sell to Foods Co.

In order to aid Foods Co. in their quest to acquire the property, the Redevelopment Agency wants to amend the plan so they would have the power of eminent domain if they should ultimately need it. This isn’t a vote on whether to use eminent domain on the property now — that would have to be voted on separately later. I mean, obviously if the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan passes and the property owner remains obstinate and it does come to the point where they need to use that tool, then they’re going to. I’m just pointing out that we’re not actually there yet.

Anyway, the public hearing on the issue is scheduled for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 5th (PDF).

Proposed eminent domain rule changes at CED

So before items come to the City Council for a vote, almost everything goes through a hearing at one of the Council’s committees. And so, on September 14th, the proposed changes to the West Oakland Redevelopment Plan were heard by the Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee (PDF). If you are so inclined, you can watch video of the whole discussion below.

So. There were a number of speakers at the meeting. Several were adamantly opposed to amending the Redevelopment Plan. These people were all just totally against the use of eminent domain at all for anything.

I sympathize with that. I understand why a lot of people flip out the instant they hear the phrase “eminent domain.” That’s valid.

But the thing will all these people who came and spoke against it is that none of them seemed to understand what the proposal was at all. I mean, they all kept using this slippery slope type argument and saying that if you start allowing it for one thing, then as soon as it’s established eminent domain is allowed in West Oakland at all, the City is going to start gobbling up people’s houses. But, of course, they don’t appear to realize that it is already allowed.

The people who spoke in favor of the amendment, including District 3 (West Oakland) Councilmember Nancy Nadel, basicaly all said that yes, we know the history of eminent domain in West Oakland, and we’re cautious about using this as a tool, but the fact is that West Oakland really needs a grocery store and this is what it’s going to take to do it.

When she spoke, Nancy Nadel also mentioned that bringing in a grocery store was part of her platform when she first ran for Council in 1996, so it’s really important to her that we get one. Ha.

Anyway, the Committee elected not to delay the public hearing, as had been requested by some of the anti-eminent domain speakers.

They didn’t talk about it for very long. Jane Brunner asked a couple of questions, and after listening to the exact same explanation for the third time in half an hour suddenly acted like the fact that there is already language about eminent domain in the existing Redevelopment Plan was complete news to her, and I guess she decided that trying to wrap her mind around all that would like, make her head explode or something, so she concluded by saying that she’ll just do whatever Nancy Nadel wants because she knows how much Nancy hates eminent domain, so if even she is willing to use it in this case, it must be necessary. I don’t know where the hell she came up with that idea. Nancy Nadel is constantly talking in Council meetings about how she wants to seize people’s property. They’ll be talking about the budget or whatever, and she’ll contribute nothing for most of the meeting, and then chime in and be like “I wish we could use eminent domain to take all these properties as punishment for being vacant for more than six months. That would solve our retail problem!” Or something similarly crazy. Well, anyway. I’m getting a little off topic.

Pat Kernighan essentially said that she would support it, but that they sure as hell better turn out a massive amount of people at the Council meeting to cry about how bad they want a grocery store. Normally, I’m not much of a fan of Pat Kernighan’s do-whatever-looks-most-popular approach to governance, but in this case, I kind of agree with her. This is such an emotionally charged issue, you need to be able to demonstrate that you’ve got strong community support.

Should the Council amend the plan as requested?

I think so.

I mean, it’s a tough question. Some people just hate eminent domain and don’t think it should ever be used for anything, or maybe only for a road or whatever, and I respect that. It’s legitimate. And if you’re against all eminent domain, then of course you’re going to be against it in this case.

But the fact is that the question of whether this Redevelopment Area would allow eminent domain was really hotly debated and decided already. The people who are against using eminent domain in all case lost that debate. And it’s not like we’re talking about some ancient history from like 40 years ago or something. We’re talking about 2003. And after a lot of heated discussion and passionate debate, we made a decision that we would allow for the use of eminent domain in a specific area, and also only on non-residential properties. Now they want to change the language to allow for something that, from my perspective, is very clearly in the spirit of the way the rule was written, but outside the letter of it. I think that’s fair.

And really, it is an issue that there’s nowhere to buy groceries in West Oakland.

I was house sitting out there for like a week not too long ago, and I gotta say, the lack of places to buy groceries makes cooking out there a serious pain in the ass. I walked down to that Mandela Foods Co-Op one day, but the store was empty and they did not have any food. I mean, the loose lettuce was like, starting to cross the border between wilting and liquified, then avocados were so rock hard I honestly don’t know how you could have eaten them even if you wanted to, the tomatoes did not even smell like anything. They didn’t have any bread or meat that day, although they assured me that this was an anomaly. I mean, it’s nice they sell Clover Stornetta milk, and if it was on my normal way home I would probably stop in for a quart or something from time to time, but the fact it that this is simply not sufficient to meet people’s food shopping needs. I ended up taking BART to San Francisco and buying my groceries at that store in the bottom of the Bloomingdale’s mall. Which, BTW, was better priced than Mandela Foods.

Another day, I had nothing in the fridge and it was during this big heat wave and just the whole prospect of the ordeal of going to the store was just too much for me to handle. Forced to make do with what I could buy at the neighborhood convenience store, I ended up having a dinner of a couple of bottles of Anchor Steam, a bag of microwave popcorn, and canned peaches. Yum!

Anyway. I don’t mean to make light of the situation with my little stories. The fact is that the lack of access to groceries in West Oakland is a public health issue.

Where the Mayoral candidates stand

So, during the “lightning round” of questions at last week’s Mayoral debate, the candidates were all asked whether they supported the use of eminent domain to get a grocery store in West Oakland and instructed to answer either yes, no, or undecided.

Don Perata, Jean Quan, Rebecca Kaplan, Don Macleay, Larry Lionel Young, Marcie Hodge, and Greg Harland all said yes.

Arnie Fields said no, because “This is America.” And Joe Tuman, who, just like with most issues, clearly had absolutely no idea that this controversy is going on, had to ask to hear the question again. Then he said that he absolutely wouldn’t support it.

One more thing

So I complained a little bit earlier in the post about how the people speaking against the amendment were all uninformed and whatever. And that is true. But I don’t think it’s their fault at all that they’re clueless. It’s the City’s.

The City did a predictably wretched job of letting people living in the impacted area know what was going on. You know, they send out their required legal notice and act like that’s some kind achievement. What did they expect to happen? I mean, a bunch of people open their mailboxes and all they’re going to see is a date and the words “eminent domain” which of course is going to scare the shit out of them.

And then people want to try to figure out what’s going on and maybe they try to read this staff report that’s all in bureaucratese, and they’re scared and confused and probably feel like someone is trying to trick them or something, because hey, that’s usually they reason people are not forthcoming with clear information. Who can blame them for flipping out?

I mean, I’m sure that no matter how good a job of outreach the City did to inform people, you would still end up with several people vigorously opposing the amendment. There’s nothing you can do about that. Some people just hate eminent domain. But that’s not an excuse to act like it’s not worth it to invite comment from everybody else.

For those of you who used to subscribe to e-mail updates for new blog posts, I’m sorry to say that I lost all those addresses when the site got infected in May. If you enjoyed getting updates that way, you’ll have to sign up for them again. You can do that here. It’s annoying, I know. I’m sorry.

If you want to be notified of new posts, but don’t like having notifications come into your inbox, you’ve got a couple of other options. You can follow me on Twitter (http://twitter.com/vsmoothe), where I do post when I have a new blog up, but I also write about other stuff too. If you don’t want to clutter up your feed with updates about my life, you can follow the Twitter account I’ve set up just for this blog (http://twitter.com/abetteroakland), where the only tweets will be notifications of new posts. You can also become a fan of A Better Oakland on Facebook, and get notices of new posts in your news feed. And of course, there’s always good old-fashioned RSS.

I know there are some other features of the old site that people miss. Please just be patient. I’ll be building the blog back to normal over the next couple of weeks. For now, I have added back the edit comments feature since you guys really seemed to miss that more than anything else.

Okay, now onto actual blogging.

On Thursday, the Oakland City Council will meet to consider placing a number of measures on the November ballot (PDF). Eight of them, actually. They won’t all end up on there, but I think it is fair to say that we can expect a lot of things to vote on. So let’s take a look at what they’re considering.

Public Safety Parcel Tax

Shall the City of oakland establish a temporary parcel tax solely to assist the City in preserving, protecting and enhancing “vital public safety and violence prevention services”, which is subject to independent, annual financial reviews and oversight by a citizens committee?

This is that $360 a year parcel tax you’ve been hearing about for a while now. The Council will have the option on Thursday of placing this public safety parcel tax on the ballot with a lower annual cost than $360, but not higher. And where will that $360 go? Well…

The tax proceeds raised by this ordinance may be used only for any of the following purposes:

• 911 police and fire response
• 911 police and fire dispatch
• Community and neighborhood policing
• Park policing
• Police investigations and oversight
• A minimum of 75% of the annual amount appropriated may be used only for any of the police and fire services listed above
• Violence prevention services, including but not limited to, outreach workers
• Not more than five percent of the amount appropriated annually for the annual costs of administering the ordinance (such as evaluation, financial reviews, tax collection, calculation of the amount of the tax for each parcel)

Um. Okay. Where do you even start with this? Let’s see. I guess it’s nice that it doesn’t tie the City’s hands too much. I suppose everyone learned that lesson with Measure Y. They’re got themselves a little kind of grab bag of public safety stuff they can spend the money on, rather than limiting it to sworn officers — it looks like evidence technicians, dispatchers, the civilianization of oversight functions that a number of organizations have been advocating for, I don’t know, you might be able to even squeeze the Neighborhood Service Coordinators in there as part of “Community and neighborhood policing.” So the flexibility is nice.

It’s also, of course, totally irrelevant. Is there anyone who thinks a $360 a year parcel tax has a chance in hell of passing? I mean, I think a parcel tax in any amount would be a really tough sell right now, what with the economy and the widespread voter distrust of the City’s ability to spend taxpayer money either wisely or as promised.

And then to make three hundred and sixty freaking dollars a year? I mean, it’s like a joke. I get that the City is broke and wants more money, and the $53 million a year that this tax would generate could come in pretty handy, but come on. There’s just no way. I can’t imagine something that high getting even fifty percent of the vote, much less the two-thirds approval that would be required for it to pass. I don’t know why anyone would even bother putting this one on the ballot.

Read the full proposed text here (PDF).

Measure Y “Fix”

Shall the Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act of 2004 (Measure Y) be amended to (1) clarify that tax revenue may be used to hire officers who fill positions of officers who are transferred to community policing, (2) clarify the uses of violence prevention funding, and (3) suspend the requirement that the City appropriate non-Measure Y funding each year to staff the police department at fiscal year 2003-2004 levels (739 officers)?

Basically, the City wants to be able to collect Measure Y taxes (parcel tax and parking tax) without staffing the police department at a minimum of 739 officers funded by the General Fund, which the Measure currently requires. The “fix” would also allow them to use Measure Y funds for recruitment and training of officers, in addition to paying officer salaries.

There is also a change in the language relating to fire services, which receive $4 million a year in funding from Measure Y (an aspect of the Measure that people often forget about). The existing language reads:

Fire services: Maintain staffing and equipment to operate 25 (twenty-five) fire engine companies and 7 (seven) truck companies, expand paramedic services, and establish a mentorship program at each station with an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 annually from funds collected from this ordinance.

The new version would read:

Fire services: An amount not to exceed $4,000,000 annually from funds collected under this Ordinance may be used for the following fire services: to help maintain staffing and equipment to operate up to 25 (twenty-five) fire engine companies and 7 (seven) truck companies; to expand paramedic services; and/or to establish a mentorship program at each station.

I don’t even know what I think of this. I mean, Measure Y was bad from the start. It placed way too many limitations on the City. But it isn’t like the Council stuck in all these restrictions about how the revenues could be spent for the fun of it. Measure Y came on the heels of two failed attempts to get voters to agree to more funding for increasing the police force. It was written the way it was because that’s what it took for people to support it.

So now the City is admitting that they can’t keep the promises they made in 2004, but they want the money anyway. Will people be willing to keep paying the tax without the minimum service provision guarantees? I don’t know. I mean, it seems a hell of a lot more likely to pass than a $360 a year parcel tax, but that’s not saying much. I guess the hope for this one is that people will just be desperate enough to avoid even deeper cuts to police service that they’ll agree to anything. That’s not so far-fetched, I suppose.

Read the full proposed text here (PDF).

Sales Tax

Shall the City of Oakland be authorized to enact a temporary transcations and use tax (sales tax) of one-quarter of one percent for five years with all proceeds placed in the City’s General Fund to be used for any lawful public purpose?

So, technically, it isn’t a sales tax. It’s a TUT. Don’t worry too much about the difference — they’re mostly the same in practice.

The good thing about this one (from the City’s perspective) is that it would only require a 50% yes vote to pass. It’s expected that it would generate around $8 million a year for the City beginning in FY11-12.

Currently, Oakland has a sales tax of 9.75%. This one make it 10%, one of the highest sales tax rates in the State. It doesn’t really seem like passing this would do much in the way of furthering our retail attraction ambitions, but I guess the City is just so desperate for cash that long-term strategic thinking isn’t really a high priority right now.

Read the full proposed text here (PDF).

To be continued

Okay, that’s enough for today. I’m exhausted. There are a number of other ballot measures that will be considered at Thursday’s meeting — an amendment to the Just Cause Eviction ordinance (PDF), a dramatic increase in the cannabis tax (PDF) we passed last summer, and three different utility taxes (here (PDF), here (PDF), and here (PDF)). We’ll take a look at those tomorrow.

Since last June I have very publicly urged my colleagues on the City Council and my constituents in District 5 to put a priority on maintaining core City services while we pursue long-term options to address this economic crisis. Public Safety is a core function that ought to be a priority of local governments but in order to avoid laying off police officers, very difficult decisions need to be made and everyone needs to share the pain, including police and it doesn’t necessarily need to mean laying off 200 officers.

I have already presented a series of recommendations which would help the City avoid laying off 200 police officers. Among the recommendations I have urged my colleagues take action on include:

• Sworn employees (police) must contribute to a portion of their pensions. Today their contribution is zero; a 9% contribution from police sworn personnel would save the City approximately $7.3 million per year. This figure is equivalent to the annual cost of 36 fully loaded (salary & benefits) police officers.
• Cuts to non-sworn personnel in the police department would also be necessary in order to avoid cutting sworn staff. Unpopular as it may be, this means Neighborhood Service Coordinators (NSC). I prefer this option as an alternative to cutting sworn police officers because NSC’s currently cost taxpayers $1.8 million annually.
• Creating a 2-Tier Pension system for new hires. Implementation of a two tiered retirement system, one benefit plan for exiting police (3% at 50) and a less expensive plan for new police hires (2% at 50). In the case of non-sworn employees, a plan of (2.7% at 55) for current employees and for new non-sworn employees (2% at 55) would all reduce the City’s costs.

The City should NOT be in the business of operating golf courses or convention centers, as we find ourselves today. As a means to generate revenue to address the current fiscal crisis, I have recommended that we:

• Sell our golf courses. The sale of just half of the 235 acres entitled for residential where Chabot Golf course currently sits would generate approximately $30 million in revenue. Additionally, the sale of the 10 acres entitled for residential at Montclair Golf Course would generate upwards of $5 million.
• Sell the Henry J Kaiser Convention Center. The revenue generated from the sale of this property is projected at approximately $11 million. We simply do not have the luxury of sitting on some of our real estate assets when we are facing financial consequences such as laying off police officers.

We are in a fiscal crisis and many unpopular decisions need to be made and it all comes down to determining what our core priorities are. If we want to save in one place, we need to cut in others, it’s that simple. If sworn personnel do not contribute to their pensions, we’ll be forced to cut officers. 265 non-sworn full-time positions have already been eliminated from the City’s budget; urge the police and fire unions to give back so that we can save as many sworn personnel positions as possible.

Thank you and, as always, I look forward to your feedback and support.

Sincerely,
Ignacio

This guest blog is cross posted from District 5 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente’s e-mail newsletter. To receive these updates regularly, you can sign up for the newsletter here.