On Monday night, June 6 (PDF), Oakland Redevelopment Agency (ORA) staff presented to the Central City East Redevelopment District Project Area Committee (CCE PAC) a proposal for ORA to buy the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center from the City for $29 million [6/14/11: Added the word "million" for clarity, thanks livegreen -V]. The reason for the deal is obvious: Redevelopment has money; the City needs money. CEDA Deputy Director Gregory Hunter made an eloquent case for ORA taking charge of this landmark building and turning it into a productive cultural resource for the City, like the Fox Theater. The proposed deal was for the Central District to pay $13 million and CCE to pay $16 million. The Kaiser Center lies in the Central District. Laney College, just south of the Center, is in CCE.

CCE PAC members were unreceptive to the idea. Some PAC members have been working for decades to improve their neighborhoods, and were distressed that, now that we had money to accomplish some of their goals, that money was being snatched by the City. They did not see how the proposed purchase would benefit CCE. The claim that any development that draws positive attention to Oakland helps all of Oakland did not comfort. The PAC rejected the proposal 13-1.

But the PAC is only advisory to the City Council. The Council was reviewing the proposal as part of the ORA budget the next night. PAC Chairperson Gloria Jeffrey, heading up a delegation from the PAC, spoke passionately against the proposal. Others spoke individually, including myself. I questioned the price.

The $29 million tab is based on the replacement value of the Center (PDF). When the City buys or sells a property it is required by law to pay or receive fair value for the property. Fair value is the value that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arms-length transaction. This is not an arms-length transaction, since the City Council decides both for the buyer and the seller. Therefore the valuation price demands special scrutiny.

When an oil tanker explodes and destroys a section of an overpass, the fair value of the overpass is the replacement value. The overpass must be replaced. There is no choice. In the current economy, would the City feel absolutely compelled to replace the Kaiser Center with a similar building if the building were lost? Clearly not. The building has sat vacant and locked for years, and the City has not sought money to bring it up to code. Replacement value is arguably not fair value.

There are two other ways of valuing a commercial building: comparable sales and cash flow. This is a unique building; there are no comparable sales. The alternative cash flow method asks what the building is worth in terms of the stream of income it could generate. Gregory Hunter told the PAC that the appraised cash flow value of the Kaiser Center was $14 million. It could be used by the East Bay Symphony, Oakland Ballet, Laney College and others. I told the Council that I might be persuaded to support a deal, but not at $29 million.

Mayor Quan was present at the meeting, and caught up with a group of the PAC members on our way out. She explained that if the Council did not come up $29 million here, they would have to find it in additional cuts to libraries, senior and youth programs, arts programs and such. She foresaw that the Council would avoid such cuts by pushing through this deal.

I asked the Mayor why $29 million, when the next day the Center would only be worth $14 million to ORA. The issue, she explained, is in the hands of the City’s bond underwriters. She told us that the Kaiser Center is collateral for some of the City’s outstanding bonds. If the City treated the fair value of the Center as $14 million, they would violate the bond covenants. The Mayor hinted that an alternative would be to transfer the collateral to City Hall, but she didn’t want to put City Hall in hock.

So there it is. In order to avoid a lien on City Hall, ORA is compelled to go along with the legal fiction that the Kaiser Convention Center is worth $29 million. While the Center might generate a stream of income worth $14 million, the remaining $15 million is simply an overpayment and is irrecoverable to the two redevelopment districts. It is an unwilling gift from the people of the Central and East Oakland flatlands so that the City can balance its budget this year.

Here you go:

• Governor’s Proposed 2011-2012 Budget, detail version

• Governor’s Proposed 2011-2012 Budget Summary: The whole summary is 226 pages, so it should probably be more than enough for most people. It is also written in refreshingly clear language.

• Video of the Governor’s budget briefing

• Transcript of Governor Jerry Brown’s remarks at yesterday’s budget proposal press conference: With respect to the redevelopment changes, he offers:

  Finally, the last slide: ending subsidies. Redevelopment has done some important things and we don’t — I don’t — want to interfere with any redevelopment bond of commitment that has been contractually entered into. But going forward, the redevelopment takes money from schools, cities, and counties, and we want that money to be available, because all that’s happened in the redevelopment is that the state has to backfill and pay to make up for the property taxes that are taken by redevelopment. So, in effect, what we’re doing here is spending money at the local level that the state doesn’t have. So we want to take that money and leave it at the local level for the purposes that it was historically intended. That’s police or fire or local activities, county, or schools.

• “We’re Finally Facing the Music”: Initial analysis on the Capital Notes blog from KQED Sacramento Bureau Chief John Myers. Myers, on the blog, on his podcast, and on the radio, is always excellent, and I highly recommend his rundown of the budget. Regarding the redevelopment issue specifically, he offers:

  The Redevelopment Slugfest: The governor’s proposal to begin phasing out the existence of California’s 397 redevelopment agencies (RDAs) is going to be one of the real battles to watch in 2011. RDAs exist in both cities and counties around the state, and are given a share of property taxes that are often leverage against private sector dollars for economic development projects. RDAs don’t, on the whole, have money sitting in the bank; most of their money is tied up in projects with long-range commitments. And so Brown proposes to stop funding RDAs sometimes after July 1, with future property tax dollars redirected to local programs and schools. A long story can (and, later, will) be written on the pros and cons of the RDA process in California. But the governor’s plan is already igniting a battle royale by RDA supporters, who blanketed my email today with stats about jobs created by redevelopment projects and thus equating the Brown plan with an economic poison pill.

• California Budget Project on proposed budget (PDF)

• California State Association of Counties Budget Action Bulletin on the Governor’s Budget Release (PDF): Summary of proposed realignment of services starts on page 5, summary of redevelopment proposal on page 12

• California Redevelopment Association press release on the budget proposal (PDF): It’s about what you’d expect — naturally, they don’t like the idea of phasing out redevelopment agencies at all. The all-caps bold headline reads “Governor’s proposal eliminating redevelopment is budget smoke and mirrors that will bring little financial benefit to state but will cause significant harm to California’s economy.”

• California Redevelopment Association talking points on proposal (PDF): “It is an gimmick that will likely result in extensive litigation.” Well, the litigation part is definitely true.

• California Redevelopment Association sample letter to the Governor (PDF):

  However, even in difficult times, the Governor’s proposal to eliminate or curtail redevelopment is short-sighted public policy that will damage our economy and bring little budget relief to the State. The proposal to eliminate redevelopment:

  • Will not provide expected budget relief to the State or local governments after bond issues and contractual obligations are repaid;
  • Will destroy billions of dollars in local economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs;
  • Will kill the state’s leading program to provide affordable housing; and
  • Will harm our efforts to grow responsibly by focusing on urban and infill development.

  The proposal will not provide budget savings to the State or local governments.

• California League of Cities initial analysis of Governor’s budget proposal: They don’t like the idea of phasing out redevelopment agencies at all either:

  From a policy standpoint, such a radical proposal makes no sense in a state with unemployment rate of more than 12 percent, a monstrous infrastructure deficit and recently passes policies championing more infill development. Redevelopment, which has been around since the 1950s, is a tool for building things. It builds and improves communities, spurs job growth and taxes and is the most significant provider of infrastructure, urban development and affordable housing in the state. Enterprise zones are one of the few economic development rools that cities and counties have to bring jobs to depressed areas.

  This proposal will hurt our underserved and distressed cities and communities. It will cost California thousands of jobs. The reality is that the plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies will bring very little financial benefit to the state and will actually move the state backward in terms of land use and infill development. In addition, the League is reviewing the constitutionality of the realignment proposal under Proposition 22, and other constitutional provisions.

• California Planning & Development Report on proposed elimination of redevelopment agencies: “The proposal has set off what will likely be an ongoing debate over the value of redevelopment as it has been implemented in the 59 years since California voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing the use of tax increment financing to combat blight.”

• Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert blog roundup of reactions to Governor’s budget proposal

• Press release summarize Public Policy Institute of California 1998 study on success of redevelopment agencies

• “Subsidizing Redevelopment in California”: A 1998 report from the Public Policy Institute of California that offers a fairly negative assessment of the benefit of redevelopment agencies.

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.

Probably because it smells bad, it’s often filthy, and it is poorly lit at night. BART owns it.

When you come out on the Telegraph side, you are right across the street from the Fox Theater. You would think, then, that it would make sense for visitors taking BART to Fox shows to use this spot to enter and exit the BART station. Instead, they mostly use the exit at the corner of 19th and Broadway, right in front of the Hat Guys and where Oaksterdam University used to be before they had to go get bigger digs.

Since you can’t see the Fox Theater from that exit and there is no signage anywhere directing people, they often stand there asking each other which way the theater is. Then after the show everyone pours out of the theater and walks back to Broadway to go back on BART at 19th Street again.

17th Street Gateway

I suppose there’s nothing really wrong with the way this works right now, but it definitely doesn’t make for the world’s most enticing welcome to Oakland for visitors coming to check out this thriving Uptown arts and entertainment district they’ve all been hearing so much about.

Happily, the City is doing something about it! Using Redevelopment Funds, they’re going to brighten up the alley with landscaping and cool light art! From the staff report (PDF) about this, which came to Life Enrichment Committee two weeks ago:

The focus on redeveloping this particular site, in addition to its strategic location, arose from the concerns of local property owners regarding the cleanliness of the site, the need for BART patrons to feel safer, and lack of sufficient signage alerting pedestrians to the existence of this entrance to the station. Long-range planning efforts for the Uptown District have also consistently identified this location as a key opportunity site for public art.

Redevelopment Agency staff and City Public Art staff have developed a project to revitalize the site through a collaborative design team between the project landscape architect and a professional artist, with input from community and other stakeholders. The landscape architect/artist design team will collaborate on the transformation of the existing space into a memorable, distinctive arts-centered gateway for Oakland’s re-emerging Uptown arts and entertainment district. The artist selected for the project had to demonstrate experience working with a six or seven figure budget, experience working as part of a design team, experience working with integrated architectural design and experience in the creation of light-based/new-media art installations, with transit-related project experience a plus.

Skeptical? Yeah, I totally don’t blame you. I mean, we all remember the last time the City tried to get involved with art in the Uptown neighborhood.

This is no Champions for Humanity!

So you’re probably thinking that the Redevelopment Agency would want to do one of two things. Either slap a quick mural up on the wall and call it a day, or find some kind of hideous and terrifying sculpture to stick there that will frighten all the visitors back into the BART station. Or maybe just close off the BART station exit entirely and turn the alley into a parking lot. That’s three things, I guess. Anyway.

Happily, they are doing none of those things. They’re actually investing a substantial amount of money into ensuring that we’re able to have something genuinely nice right here that will really draw the attention of visitors and make a strong impression. The art component of the alley improvements is $600,000, which is close to half of the whole project budget.

I know what the tea party contingent is thinking right about now, and you can relax. This isn’t money that would otherwise be going to policing. In Oakland, when the Redevelopment Agency spends money in an area, 1.5% of the money they spend gets set aside to be used specifically on public art in the area. Since the City has invested a significant amount of money already in the Uptown neighborhood, there is a decent pot of funds sitting there already, waiting to be spent on art.

Anyway, so they put out an invitation for artists to apply listing all their requirements, and they got 148 applications, which were then reviewed by a selection panel and they picked this artist from Seattle, Dan Corson.

What will it look like?

Well, that part hasn’t been decided yet. But I have high hopes. At the Life Enrichment Committee meeting, they showed some examples of other light-based work the artist had done, and almost all of it looked really neat.

This one was my favorite, though. It’s in Ft. Lauderdale. The lights on the trees change color when you walk past them. And then there are also the tiles on the ground nearby that you can press which will initiate one of four different little light shows among the trees.

You can see more of the artist’s work on his website.

Anyway, we’re going to have to wait a little while to see what he’s going to do here. When the final proposal is ready, it will come back for review by the City and the Cultural Affairs Commission. A friend of mine went to a planning charrette about it a month or two ago, and they said that everyone there’s big idea for a cool thing to do with the alley was some kind of archway. Lame! But I trust that Dan Corson will come up with something a bit more creative than a stupid arch that says “Uptown” or something equally dumb.

Anyway, I’m glad that they’re doing something nice with the alley, and I look forward to seeing the proposal when it is ready. And if you want to watch the video of the meeting, well, there it is, above.

But you weren’t. Instead, three years later, every time I go to AAMLO, I am forced to stare at this tremendous ugliness:

You guys know where I’m talking about, right? It’s the half-finished condo project between the Federal Building and Preservation Park, and it’s a giant freaking eyesore.

City Walk: Abandoned since 2007

City Walk suddenly halted constructed in July of 2007 when the developer, Olson Co., ran into, like, all sorts of problems. Olson insisted they were going to be able to get it together and finish, and in December of 2007, the City Council gave them an extension on their completion deadline. They were supposed to restart construction by the end of January 2008 and finish by July 2009.

Obviously, that didn’t happen. Then, like nine months later, Olson was all “Oh yeah, we will restart construction – in November!.” Hahaha. Finally, in February of 2009, Olson admitted defeat and asked the City to amend the DDA so the project would no longer be in default and they could sell it to a rental housing developer, which they said at the time was like, totally about to happen any day now. Construction was going to restart in May, and be finished by December 2010.

Big surprise, that plan didn’t work out either. So then, last summer, someone else decided they wanted to buy the building and finish it up as rental units, so the City once again extended the DDA, this time promising completion by the end of 2011. If you’re wondering at this point why we even bother having these construction deadlines, well, it’s a good question. I don’t have an answer for you.

New City Walk owners need help

Anyway, this time, the sale actually did go through. So that’s something. Unfortunately, this new company that owns it now and wants to finish the building off as a 264 apartment project (instead of the originally planned 252 condos) can’t get the all financing to finish construction. Or, I guess more precisely, they can’t get enough financing that they think it’s worth their while to finish construction.

So in order to just get the damn thing finished already and give the poor pedestrians of downtown Oakland their sidewalks back, Redevelopment Agency staff is now proposing that we just loan them $5 million of redevelopment money (PDF), which will be enough, apparently, to fill in the financing gaps that are preventing the project from getting restarted. I’ll let the report explain it to you:

The loan is required to decrease the equity and investor profit requirements in order to make the project financially feasible. Without this reduction in equity the investor does not meet its minimum return and is therefore unwilling to finance the project. Providing the loan will help complete the project and transform the blighted site into beautiful new rental housing.

I don’t know how “beautiful” the finished building it going to be, but “blighted” is definitely an accurate way to describe the site as it sits now. Here are the loan deets, also from the agenda report (PDF):

The loan terms will be at least as favorable as the other debt financing Wood Partners obtains for the project. The interest rate will be set after negotiations are completed with the other construction lender. The negotiations were under way at the time this report was being written. The interest rate will be at least 8%, but no less than one percentage point higher than the interest rate on other debt; the higher rate on the Agency loan is appropriate given that the loan will be in second priority position. Wood Partners’ latest offer from a construction lender is a loan at 7.5% interest, with a term of up to 7 years, a 1% origination fee and a 1% early termination fee, which would set the Agency loan interest rate at 8.5% assuming similar fees. The Agency loan would be interest-only until stabilized occupancy and then converted to a 25 year amortization schedule with a balloon payment (i.e. loan due in full) in 2015, five years from execution of the loan documents. The Agency could be repaid sooner if conditions are favorable for refinancing with a long term permanent loan. There will not be a prepayment penalty. Given 1) that this is a market rate loan, and 2) the troubled status of the housing market, no additional project development conditions are being proposed in return for the loan.

As far as I’m concerned, this is excellent. It is just like, downright shameful that the City could let that freaking eyesore just sit there unfinished, sometimes shrink-wrapped, sometimes not, for years and years, right in the middle of downtown! It’s blight, and it makes the City look like crap. It just needs to be finished, I don’t care what it takes.

The City Walk loan will be considered by the City Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee on Tuesday. The meeting starts at 2, but this is last on the agenda (PDF) and the first item is going to take like a year.

I know what you’re thinking – why does the City need to give the Chamber of Commerce’s Foundation any money for anything? Isn’t the point of them having a Foundation is that they can go out and raise money from the private sector that they can then use to do some kind of civic good? Isn’t the Chamber of Commerce begging for tax money from the City, like, the opposite of how these things are supposed to work? The answer, of course, would be yes if we were in any other City. But this is Oakland.

Anyway, let’s ignore for a moment just how aggressively pathetic the whole who’s giving who money scenario is. What is this thing they want to put in the park?

Sigh. It’s a “monument” by local artist Mario Chiodo called Remember Them: Champions for Humanity.

More specifically, it is a 52 foot long and 21 foot high bronze sculpture (actually, 4 sculptures) of the following people: Cesar Chavez, Coretta Scott King, Elie Wiesel, Chief Joseph, Harvey Milk, Frederick Douglass, Franklin Roosevelt, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Maya Angelou, Mahatma Gandhi, the unknown rebel of Tiananmen Square, Ralph Abernathy, Oskar Schindler, Nelson Mandela, Rigoberta Menchu, Susan B. Anthony, Shirin Ebadi, Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, Thich Nhat Hanh, Winston Churchill, Helen Keller, Ruby Bridges, and Abraham Lincoln. It will be the largest bronze monument in the whole West Coast and people are going to travel to Oakland from all over the world to look at it and reflect on their lives. There will be plaques in the ground beneath the image of each person with an inspirational quote from them.

I know what you’re thinking now, too – give me a freaking break, she’s obviously making this up, is it April Fools again? NO. I swear to God, this is what they are planning on doing to my poor little park. Why anyone ever thought this was a good idea is completely beyond my comprehension.

But someone (actually, a lot of people) did, and in September of 2006, the City Council agreed to accept the monument as a gift (PDF) and put it in Fox Park. (Insane, I know.) Of course, at the time, since it was, you know, a gift, and all, the monument was not supposed to cost the City any money. In fact, the Chamber Foundation was not only going to pay for all the costs to build and install the monument, they were also going to set up an endowment that would cover the cost of maintenance and repair for the monument, and I suppose pay for the inevitable constant graffiti removal that will obviously be necessary. From the 2006 resolution (PDF):

WHEREAS, the gift will be made at no cost to the City of Oakland, as all funding for creation, installation and maintenance of the monument, and all supporting activities, will be provided by the project donors;

Anyway, big surprise, the Chamber Foundation has not managed in the last three years to raise the seven million dollars they need to build this ridiculous thing. In fact, they’re still like, $2.8 million short. I guess with the City’s contribution they’ll only be, like, $2.6 million short, which they think they can raise in the next year and a half. Um, yeah. Good luck with that. The staff report doesn’t seem to think that prospect is any more realistic than I do (PDF):

The delay in reaching full funding raises concerns regarding the achievement of a reasonable timeline for completion of the monument. Chamber Foundation representatives state that they can raise all remaining funding in 18 months. The fact that the Chamber Foundation has not been able to secure full project funding over the last three years in a continuously challenging economic environment raises doubt about their ability to complete this effort in the next 18 months.

But alas, the Council wants to give this hideous thing money. Why? I don’t know. I really, really don’t. It’s just, like, beyond me. Building it is going to create local jobs? Oh! And tourism! People into the monument are like, all completely convinced that it’s going to become this big tourist attraction and all these people are going to come to Oakland from all over the place to see it. Every time someone tells me that, I want to scream at them to put down the crack pipe, like now. I usually manage to hold my tongue. But come on. You think that? Really?

People might come to Oakland to go to a show at the Fox. They might visit Oakland and take in a concert, or an old movie, at the Paramount. They might come to Oakland to eat at one of the many fancy new restaurants that have opened up downtown over the last couple years. Hopefully, when the Oakland Museum’s renovations are finished, people will come to Oakland to check out their awesome new galleries. Some people, I learned recently when I was stopped by a disappointed looking tourist asking for directions, even come to Oakland just so they can see this “Oaksterdam” they’ve heard so much about.

But I promise you, nobody is ever going to come to Oakland so they can go look at a sculpture of Winston Churchill.

Seriously, I just do not get people’s thing with this monument. If you were on vacation, visiting some neat City with all sorts of activities available to you (I’m just going to assume for the purposes of this little scenario that all potential tourists coming to view the monument are already on vacation in San Francisco. I know that some Remember Them advocates are laboring under the extreme delusion that people are actually going to take vacations to Oakland so they can look at this thing, but that idea is so ridiculous I can barely type it out without collapsing into a fit of half giggles/half sobs, so we’re just going to ignore it for now.)

Where were we? Oh yeah. Close your eyes. Imagine you’re on vacation somewhere far away. You are overwhelmed with cool things to do – museums to visit and scenery to enjoy and cheap tchotchkes to buy. You checked out all the travel books about your destination that they had at your local public library, and they are all chock full of post-it notes about cool places to visit, and you just know there is no way you’ll have time for everything. And then someone is all “Hey, you know what you really should do? Go ride that train for like 20 minutes, and when you get out, you can go look at a big statue of Susan B. Anthony.” How would you respond? Would you spend your vacation doing that? OMG.

Anyway, the Community and Economic Development Committee meets at 2:30 this afternoon, and the grant is Item number 10 on the agenda (PDF). Catch the action live in City Hall Hearing Room 1 or watch it from the comfort of your home or office on KTOP – Comcast Channel 10 and also available streaming online. Damn it! No, you can’t! For now, apparently, there is no streaming video. KTOP’s website simply says “Due to severe technical issues the Streaming Video Service is halted until further notice.” Disaster!

City inspectors found the property in worse shape than we could determine from the street. They red-tagged the property and the remaining tenants were relocated. The property has stood closed up and vacant since August. But this is not how I killed Amber Tree Apartments.

Every fall, the CCE PAC hears proposals for affordable (meaning not simply inexpensive but deed-restricted based on HUD guidelines) housing. On October 5, East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) came with a proposal to purchase Amber Tree and convert it into affordable housing. We learned that the owner of this long-neglected property recently died. Ownership transferred to the spouse. It has been in foreclosure but JP Morgan Chase is hesitant to take possession of the property because of its condition. EBALDC was negotiating to buy the property. Tom Herr of EBALDC reported that at least one private party is also negotiating for the property. EBALDC operates two other affordable properties within a quarter mile of this one.

EBALDC proposed to spend $11,557,507 rehabilitating the 61 units, or just under $190,000 per unit. The proposal looked viable if they could attain the funding, beginning with $2.9 million from Redevelopment. They showed their competence in managing other properties; that was not in dispute.

At the November 2^nd meeting of the PAC, we had to make our recommendations to Council. We favored both of the projects that came up before Amber Tree, each without serious dissent. Kathy Chao of the nearby Lao Family Services and Ross Ojeda of the Unity Council both asked critical technical questions, but said nothing negative about the proposal. As chairperson of the PAC, I observed the protocol of mediating the discussion, and reserved my comments until the end. No one had voiced a strong opinion for or against the project.

Finally, I told the PAC that I opposed the project. First, that neighborhood did not need another affordable housing project. Besides the two nearby EBALDC projects, another project about a mile away was also on our docket for that night, requested by RCD.

Second, the project was not currently bound by the deed restrictions of HUD affordability. We should consider what kind of property we want to add to the affordable housing stock, since it could well keep the affordability restrictions for 55 years. New construction affordable housing often has many elements to enhance the neighborhood. The design of this project detracts from the neighborhood. Clearly the property needs someone to turn it around. Just because someone’s single, that doesn’t mean I should marry them.

Third, we should consider the impact of this property on Foothill Boulevard. The development of this commercial corridor is crucial to redevelopment in Central City East. The project’s two buildings look inward and away from the street. They do not form the “hard urban edge” we would to see along a commercial corridor. A more appropriate design would, after a reasonable set-back, run continuously along the street with better controlled entry and no hiding places. Windows would face the street so misbehavior on the sidewalk is less likely because someone might be watching—the cherished “eyes on the street” of New Urbanism.

Finally, removing this property from the tax rolls would be an opportunity lost. The property is perhaps 40,000 square feet. Such large, well shaped properties are rare in this part of the city. Redevelopment and the neighborhood might benefit more if a developer tore it down and started over. The lot is big enough that a developer could actually find this worthwhile when the economy recovers. This will never happen if the property becomes affordable.

I saw no further comments on the proposal so I called the vote. Ten voted against this project and two voted for it with four abstentions.

The project seemed dead at this time. I learned from District 5 Council Aide Claudia Burgos on November 19 that EBALDC is still pursuing the project. Affordable housing is commonly funded by tax credit financing. With investors carrying abundant losses and less tax credit money available, this funding is difficult, even for popular, better designed projects. In the absence of a private developer, this property is likely to sit vacant for years while EBALDC tries to get sufficient financing.

Tom Thurston is an East Oakland resident and Chair of the Central City East Redevelopment Area PAC.

In case you haven’t visited lately, right now it looks like this:

It’s a nice enough park, I guess. I enjoy sitting on the lawn there and reading sometimes. But it is rather run down. It’s got this kind of awful abandoned storage building that looks like it’s about to collapse, which certainly does not help the overall feeling of disrepair at the park.

And then there’s this really depressing (and cheap) looking “play structure”.

But all that is going to change soon (PDF)! They’ll be demolishing the storage building, installing a new (and hopefully less pathetic) play structure, moving the basketball court, and creating a dog park for both large and small dogs. A dog park! Exactly what Old Oakland needs!

I know what you’re thinking. Didn’t the City just gut public works funding to the point where we’re basically no longer taking care of our parks? The answer is yes. But the shortfall that caused those cuts was in the LLAD and the General Fund. The park improvements will be paid out of redevelopment money. This, of course, highlights one of the frustrating things about redevelopment, which is that it provides money you can use to build stuff, but leaves you with nothing to maintain it. But that’s an issue for another day.

Anyway, it’s not just Jefferson Park getting lucky this year. Improvements are on the way for Chinatown’s Lincoln Square Park as well. Lincoln Park, in case you haven’t been, is basically just a giant block of asphalt with a play structure and some swings scattered around the edges.

Don’t get me wrong – the play structure is actually pretty cool.

And with all the kids in that neighborhood, it’s crowded pretty much all the time. But it’s hard to deny the park could use some help. Which it will be receiving (PDF) in the form of new lighting, ball courts, a multipurpose synthetic tufts field, and game tables!

I thought of all this, well, actually because some small funding allocations for these park improvements on next week’s agendas (FYI, the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts (PDF) and the Chinese Gardens (PDF) are also getting help) reminded me that I’ve been meaning to mention them. But I’m writing about it because it gives me the perfect excuse to pimp a cool exhibit going on at the Oakland Art Gallery right now.

ProArts and 10,000 Steps have put together a multimedia installation showcasing the history of downtown’s four historic parks (Madison, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Lafayette), which you can check out at the Oakland Art Gallery (150 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza) between now and October 9th.

I could go on about it, but Tina Tamale actually has a really sweet blog up about it right now, so instead, I’m just going to encourage you to head over there and read her pitch for visiting.

click to enlarge

Back in March, as part of a series of amendments to our agreement with Forest City, the Community and Economic Development Committee was scheduled (PDF) to approve the creation of a new surface parking lot at 19th and Telegraph in Uptown. Awful, I know. Becks and dto510 and I and a bunch of other pedestrian advocates and downtown residents were all worked up about how terrible it was, and they were all like “We have to stop this, it’s so terrible.” And I was like “Don’t bother. Yes, it’s terrible. But the City does terrible things all the damn time, and even though this is more terrible than many of them, you have to pick your battles, and you’re just not going to win this one no matter what, so why waste our time trying.”

But my bad attitude did not dissuade them, and on March 27th, they went down to City Hall and the two of them and Joyce Roy and Naomi Schiff all got up and said how bad a parking lot would be and how they shouldn’t do it, and I sat on my couch fiddling with a spreadsheet and watched them in the corner of my screen, wondering why they possibly thought this was going to accomplish anything. And then they finished speaking, and District 5 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente was like “This almost never happens, but the public speakers changed my mind.” It was amazing, and shocking, and I jumped up and starting screaming with glee to nobody in particular in my empty apartment.

And then District 1 Councilmember Jane Brunner said she agreed it shouldn’t be a parking lot, and was even more shocked and screamed and jumped around some more. Then District 2 Councilmember Pat Kernighan gave one of her increasingly frequent ill-informed and condescending lectures and said we should have the parking lot, so that subdued my excitement a little bit. And then the Committee agreed to direct staff to explore alternatives to the parking lot and come back with a new report.

And then I talked to Becks and dto510 later and Becks was like “We have to come up with our own ideas, because staff wants the parking and totally won’t even try, and if there’s no alternative, they will do the parking lot.” And I was like “They won’t take any alternative, and there’s no good use for it that doesn’t cost money, let’s just get them to build a nice fence and have the School for the Arts kids put art on it.” And Becks is like “They’re not going to go for a fence.” And I was like “They’re not going to go for anything else either, and a good, painted fence like the one they used to have around the park would be really pretty, and it’s the cheapest thing to do.” And Becks was like, “No, we can do better” and put up a blog asking for people to think of alternative uses for the lot.

And then Genie Gratto was all “Stick burning man art on it.” And there were so many comments on her post, all these people totally against the parking lot, and I got so excited, and thought “Wow, maybe we can actually win this one” and then Becks wrote about it again and I wrote about it and dto510 wrote about it and Ken wrote about it and people really seemed to be responding and I felt like we had so much momentum and I was so hopeful and excited going into last week’s Committee meeting that we really could stop it.

But then Ignacio wasn’t there and Jane had changed her mind, and although many alternative suggestions had been made, staff hadn’t actually researched them as directed and just was like “We can’t do this or that for various reasons we would know aren’t true if we had bothered to take any time at all to look into it.” And nine people spoke against it, and then the Ice Rink and Another Planet (both tenants of the Redevelopment Agency) said they wanted it, and Pat Kernighan gave yet another uninformed and condescending lecture, and they all said there was nothing else to do with it, and passed it and I was crushed.

And Becks was like “We can kill it next week at Council” and I was like “Are you kidding? The Council loves parking, they won’t listen to reason, let’s just forget about it and we can try again at the Planning Commission where they’re much more rational when it comes to pedestrian and parking issues.” And Becks was like “No, we’re going to stop it now.” And I was like “Oh, God, don’t even bother. Another Planet and Phil Tagami get everything they want, and it’s just not even worth trying.” But Becks and dto510 refused to give up and Becks was like, “Since staff didn’t actually research the alternatives suggested like they were instructed, we’re just going to have to do it ourselves.” And she wrote about it again and dto510 went to Rules Committee on Thursday and asked for a two week delay so they could have time to pull together their proposal, and the Committee was like “No.”

And I was like “You can’t do it in four days, the Council won’t listen to you no matter what you say, just give up.” But they ignored me and went ahead and found themselves some artists who were not only eager to display their large scale sculptures on the spot, but even had experience doing exactly this in multiple other cities. And Becks wrote about it again and dto510 wrote about it again and Eric wrote about it and there was a great MyWord in the Trib about it, and they were like “Come on, we can win this!” And I was like “Why are you doing so much work on this? You can’t win at the City Council, all this is pointless, and all this time and energy you’ve invested in this just means that it is going to hurt that much more when you inevitably lose on Tuesday.” And they were like “Wev,” and just kept pushing forward and got together with Public Arts staff and figured out how the costs for installation and insurance could be covered by the existing public art program for the area, and they just kept doing all this work and I kept telling them they were wasting their time, and then yesterday, dto510 lays out all the details of this whole plan they had pulled together for me, and I was like “Oh my God, wow, you guys really covered everything, and this is so unimaginably cool, maybe we actually can win. Although probably not. Don’t get your hopes up.”

And then, amazingly, they did. Last night, the Council unanimously passed a motion to “spend the next two weeks confirming a plan to use the subject lot for a temporary public art installation space at no additional cost to the Redevelopment Agency, pursuant to the Council-approved plan and funding for public art in this area.” OMG.

There wasn’t much Council discussion on the item, although Pat Kernighan and Nancy Nadel both couldn’t let it go without getting in some gratuitous comments about how they didn’t think public art would work in the space. (WTF, right?) Pat said there were a lot of questions people hadn’t thought about, like insurance (wrong) and how people would be able to see the art (also wrong), saying that she found it “shocking” that the idea for public art instead of parking came from Ignacio De La Fuente. She then said she was being “the fiscal conservative here” by questioning the reality of using the space for sculpture, saying that she’s concerned the sculpture garden would turn into a “homeless encampment” and offering like, the most modest possible support with “If you guys can work it out, more power to you.” Gee, thanks.

Nancy Nadel said that there were logical flaws in the e-mails she got opposing the parking lot, and that she thought a parking lot would be great because they could have a farmer’s market there once a week, and she’d love that, and that whatever ended up happening couldn’t cost the City money. And then after the public speakers, they passed the motion unanimously and Rebecca Kaplan said that the City really does need to keep the garage open at night every night, not just on nights where there are shows at the Fox, and also that signage and lighting directing people to parking are important.

You know, when you lose over and over and over again, and watch the Council make terrible decisions week after week after week for years, you (well, I, anyway) can become incredibly pessimistic about the City. I mean, most of the time at this point I just feel like it’s not even worth trying, not worth getting crushed again, and the best I can do is just pour all my energy into trying to make people more informed about the City, and just pray that it will pay off somewhere down the road, and that if more people at least know what’s going on, it will mean better decisions like, five years from now or something. I have no idea how some of these people who have been fighting City Hall for decades can keep themselves from just getting so discouraged that the give up completely. They’re amazing.

But Becks and dto510, somehow, still believed they could make a difference, and they ignored all my naysaying and they just fought and fought and fought and did every possible thing that was asked of them and more, and then, unbelievably, they won and unless something terrible and unexpected happens in the next two weeks, we are going to get wicked cool large scale sculptures to look at on 19th and Telegraph instead of a freaking parking lot. If you didn’t want a parking lot, please, go over to Living in the O and Future Oakland and leave a comment to thank them for everything they did. Seriously. Becks and dto510, I cannot thank you two enough for reminding me that sometimes it actually is worth trying to fight City Hall. You inspire me.

And I also want to thank everyone who e-mailed and called the Council on this, thank especially to Dan Das Mann and all the wonderful people who took time out of their day to come down to City Hall and speak on this – Ken O., Joyce Roy, Naomi Schiff, Steve Lowe, Jim T., Chris (I’m sorry, I forgot your last name!), Joanna, Karen Hester, Sean Sullivan, Max, Ralph, and I’m sure I’m forgetting someone, but really, you guys are all totally awesome, and also to Eric and Shannon Bowman for their efforts to raise awareness. You guys are all so great.

PAC members along with anyone else interested will gather at 5:30 by Council districts. CEDA staff will also be available for these gatherings. While the PAC meetings often are focused on very specific projects and proposals, these gatherings will give the various sub-areas to focus on their goals and priorities. They can hone their goals and make sure staff understands them and is working on them. Staff can tell the groups about possible upcoming proposals or opportunities. Community members who find the regular PAC meetings a bit long (6:30 to 8:30) and removed from their immediate interests might get more out of just attending these less structured gatherings. And they would attend these gatherings as participants rather than just observers.

On the official agenda first is the District’s vision document. This has been over a year in the making and should be finalized in May. When developers log on to the Oaklandnet.com to see how they might work with Redevelopment, they will find this document. Proposals consistent with the document will be encouraged.

We have two funding requests. First, the Business Development Division of CEDA is asking for $54,000 to help fund the business assistance center (PDF). This will be a centralized technical assistance center to help people who want to open or expand a business in Oakland. They will assist in the processes for permits and licenses required by the Fire Department, Planning and Zoning, Building Services and Business Licenses. CCE is being asked to fund about 10% of the costs of this program.

Also asking for funding is the Planning Department. They have received a $245,000 grant for CalTrans for planning Transit Oriented Development along the International Blvd. corridor. CalTrans is requiring $40,000 in matching funds for this grant. The proposal is that the Coliseum Redevelopment District provide $30,000 and CCE provide $10,000.

In a non-voting item, Devon Reiff and Neil Gray will discuss the Zoning Update as it affects CCE. More controversial, they also included in the information packet information on the housing update. Their packet gives the vision of housing through 2014. The “vision” seems to be that as the population of Oakland increases, we should have the same mix of incomes as we have had in the past. Information on the city’s housing element plan can be found here. A map there shows where they believe the housing (including low-income) opportunity sites are.

Tom Thurston is an East Oakland resident and Chair of the Central City East Redevelopment Area PAC.