Many Oakland business people are asking whether Oakland is still a good place to invest. As I talk to small and big business people all around the city, I hear the constant question. Is it time to pack up and leave?

Phil Tagami told me that several tenants have talked to him about leaving the Rotunda and taking hundreds of jobs out of the city. The small shops in Frank Ogawa Plaza report that business is off 30 to 50%. The Tribune Tower managers say they can no longer tolerate the fact that their building is frequently forced to close because Broadway between 13th and 14th Streets is usually the epicenter of unrest.

On Wednesday, a client attending a conference at the Marriott called and asked if it was safe to eat at Jack London Square, I told her no, it had been shut down. Another business group that has invested in Oakland brought its national board of directors to the Bay Area. They too had plans to stay at the Marriott and visit potential sites in Oakland for new investment. Instead, they went to San Francisco fearful of riots and unruly mobs.

City officials are assessing the impact of the occupancy on our fragile economy. They will be looking at reduced sales at restaurants, lost revenues at retail outlets, lost leases, and lost jobs. We will have empirical evidence soon, but for people who lost a lot in broken windows and shattered confidence, and workers who have been told to go home, or have been laid off, the impacts are already known.

All of this begs the question. Is Oakland worth it?

No, if our leaders allow long-term unlawful occupancy of our public spaces. No, if the police are forced to hide away in the City Center parking lot under a “minimal presence” order, thereby forcing property owners to arm themselves and risk their lives. No, if graffiti and broken windows are acceptable. No, if the city does not protect the people that employ the 99% and serve the residents.

On the other hand, there are many reasons to say yes. Oakland is still one of the most beautiful places on the planet. It is rich with caring, intelligent people who work hard and engage in community affairs. We have young entrepreneurs who are opening small businesses. We have new innovative companies like Pandora, Sungevity and BrightSource Energy that are bring thousands of jobs to the city. Large corporations have established foundations that give back, Kaiser foundation and the Rogers Family Foundation are just a couple of examples.

Most Oaklanders share the outrage at the failure of our economic system. It rewards a small segment and seems to ignore the plight of every day working people who are losing jobs, homes, investments, and worse, the optimism that has always allowed us to think that our lives will get better. The Occupy Movement has brought this to our nation’s attention. For this, we are grateful.

Nevertheless, we have to distinguish between our shared anger at Wall Street and the occupancy of Frank Ogawa Plaza and lawlessness in our streets. Oakland’s business people are not Wall Street profiteers. They are people like you and me who wake up in the morning and work to feed their families.

The owner of Café Teatro hires four people to sell coffee and sandwiches. She is not rich and she is not exploiting anyone. The owner of Rising Loafer is in the same boat. Well before the occupancy, she frequently talked to me about her outrage at corporate America. Tully’s supported the occupancy with donations of food and cleaning supplies, before their windows were smashed. Each of these businesses will be forced to shut down, and the people they employ will be jobless, if the unlawful occupancy of Ogawa Plaza and violence in the streets continues.

I believe that this too shall pass. It needs to happen soon. If it does, YES, OAKLAND IS WORTH IT. But, if we don’t do something soon to change our downward spiral, we may lose the city.

On Thursday night, I took visiting business people to Pican Restaurant. My mission was to help a local business, which has seen a 40% decline in sales over the last few weeks, while trying to give potential Oakland businesses confidence that the city is still functioning. I hope others will do something similar to support Oakland businesses that create jobs and revenues for this struggling city.

We all honor Oakland’s long history of promoting peace and justice. Nevertheless, we need to acknowledge that there is a big difference between supporting efforts to change Wall Street and the unlawful encampment that is destroying the city, our local business people, and their employees.

I urge the residents of Oakland to tell our leaders that support for changing Wall Street and ending unconscionable corporate greed, does not equate to support for an on-going unlawful occupancy. Please write the Mayor, the Council, and the City Administrator. Tell them to end the occupancy and lawlessness in our streets. Let them know that this caring community also cares about working people and businessmen and women who bring jobs to the city.

When we make that clear, I trust that our leaders will find a way to end the unlawful occupancy. If they do not, perhaps we will need to end the occupancy outside and inside city hall.

At their meeting tomorrow night, the Oakland Planning Commission will consider a conditional use permit to allow a Good Vibrations to open up on Lakeshore.

The store would have the same conditions of approval (PDF) as Feelmore510 received — adults-only entry, no massage, booths, or clothing-optional activities, and windows displays that do not contain explicitly sexual materials. You might think that, since the style and operations of Good Vibration stores are pretty well known, it would be less stress-provoking that Uptown’s Feelmore was, where all anyone had to go on was good faith in the owner’s intentions. (For the record, I live down the street, and Feelmore has proved to be a good neighbor and an excellent addition to the area.)

You might also think that a neighborhood that manages to produce so many children wouldn’t be particularly puritanical about sex. But you would be very wrong.

Staff has recommended approval of the permit (PDF):

In addition, the Lakeshore/Grand Lake Theater district has transformed into a specialty shopping and lifestyle area for educated singles and families. Thus it is not unreasonable to introduce a low-key retail establishment catering to adult items and sensuality, although restrained in presentation since more families use these sidewalks. The business model, along with conditions of approval as accepted by the applicant, this Adult retail activity should not have adverse impacts at this location.

Many Grand Lake residents, however, disagree.

What about the property values?

Objections generally seem to focus on the idea that Lakeshore is a family-oriented street, what with all the children’s clothing stores and yogurt shops and such, and therefore has no room for adult-oriented retail.

The City received a number of letters on the subject, mostly opposing the store. Here are some excerpts from the letters included in Wednesday’s Planning Commission report (PDF):

The sidewalk in front of the proposed location is very narrow and it’s impractical and wrong to expect parents to avoid this area or distract their children each time they walk by.

Furthermore, the addition of an adult bookstore changes the character of the neighborhood and I’m concerned about its effect on our community, property values and the image of Oakland.

…a good portion, if not a majority, of the foot traffic at this location is families walking with their children. I, as a local home owner and the Father of two young children, will be more hesitant to walk this street knowing that an adult-only sexual accessories shop is at this location.

In short, our neighborhood is not a good fit for Good Vibrations. They should consider Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, near the piercing and tattoo shops abuzz with college students. But a family-centric neighborhood is not a good idea…I am already cringing at the questions I will get from my daughter about what they sell at the store.

This is to register total OPPOSITION to Good Vibrations on Lakeshore — are you kidding me??

I know we’re all supposed to be as sexually liberated as those good people at GV but the fact is who wants to bump into their neighbor inside a sex shop let alone be seen by hundreds of other locals.

Not everyone objects

For my part, I don’t particularly care much either way. I think the Grand Lake neighborhood in general is a little ridiculous about rejecting businesses that don’t meet their narrow ideas of what belongs in a neighborhood retail district. (The rejection of Out of the Closet springs to mind, as does the successful effort to block a proposal to put a upscale quick service burger and fries restaurant in the shuttered Kwik Way, only to have the spot sit hideously blighted for several years until everyone rejoiced when a upscale quick service burger and fries restaurant eventually opened.)

I also think the people objecting could stand to take a deep breath and chill out a little over the whole “what about the children” thing. Kids aren’t idiots, and if you’re letting them watch basically any TV or movies, they understand already that adults sometimes do things that they don’t, stuff that involves touching and removing clothing. In the town we lived when I was younger, where the zoning codes were less restrictive/non-existent, we had a adult store right next door to a restaurant our family frequented, and not a classy one like Good Vibrations either. Somehow, my sisters and I survived.

Still, I don’t live in the neighborhood, and picking and choosing the stores they want seems to be a Grand Lake thing. If they’d prefer empty storefronts, well — that’s really their decision.

Comments on the question over at the Grand Lake Neighbors website are more evenly divided — plenty of people in favor of Good Vibrations and plenty against. (And pretty much nobody in favor of a potential new Wingstop, which is apparently some sort of chain that sells lots of different flavors of chicken wings?)

Comments on the website in opposition to the store overall are a little less restrained than the letters submitted to the City:

Not to mention, how many of us want to be seen frequenting the store in our own’hood only to bump into your neighbor, vibrating dildo in one hand, frozen yogurt in the other!

Good Vibrations on Lakeshore? How tacky! Ummmm…”upscale sex shop” is an oxymoron. I think their presence would really downgrade our neighborhood. They are located “across from Bloomingdales” on the Mission Street side on the wrong side of Mission, which is where they belong. I think another neighborhood would be more appropriate — perhaps International Blvd? West MacArthur?

Of course, those in favor of Good Vibrations opening aren’t holding back either:

Yes to both! As a father of a four year old who freqeunts the farmers market, Yogafina, the baby clothes store, Arizmendi and Monkey Shala. I am completely for GV moving in. Welcome. A great store, with wonderful products that enhance peoples lives beautifully. If you’re worried that people may think you’re sexual than don’t go in. If you happen to see someone go in who you know and you feel embarrassed than I’m afraid you probably have a few problems needing attention.

…I am a firm supporter of Good Vibrations erecting their store on Lakeshore. We already have other stores that cause children to ask questions about sex, “Daddy, where do the children that wear Baby Gap clothes come from?” Personally, I am still shocked that there is a store selling bedding on Lakeshore without covering up their windows. I blush every time I walk by and see the clean sheets on display.

As for the other businesses, Lakeshore BID Director Pamela Drake chimed in to note that the neighborhood merchants are “for the most part” in favor, and later indicated in a message to the City that the BID had voted to support Good Vibrations but had some concerns about the specifics of the exterior design.

What will the Planning Commission say?

We’ll find out tomorrow. The Good Vibrations permit is on the Planning Commission agenda for Wednesday, September 21st (PDF). The meeting starts at 6pm in Sgnt. Mark Dunakin Hearing Room 1 at Oakland City Hall. If you’re not going in person but want to see the excitement, tune in to KTOP, Comcast Channel 10, U-verse Channel 99, and also available 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.

OK folks–here it is. It’s time to let you all in on the contract that Local 55 (fire) has negotiated with the city. Ready? Go!

As you know (hopefully) Local 55 is already paying 13% of our salary towards PERS. This is far over and above any other bargaining unit in the city. And we’ve been doing it for years, saving the city lots of money. We also reduced the amount the city paid for our medical coverage two years ago. Next, two years ago we agreed to work four hours per week for free. We’re still doing that. This was effectively a 7% cut in pay. I’ve heard a lot of people say that that isn’t a cut to work four hours per week for free. But imagine if you are a 40-hour per week employee and your boss told you that you had to come to work every other Saturday, all day long. For free. It would probably feel like a cut.

Anyhow, that’s what we did before. Here’s what we’re proposing now:

• Three year contract
• 8.85% pay cut
• Give up 2 Vacation days per year
• Freeze the city’s contribution to our dental plan
• New hires go to 3% at 55 for pension

An 8.85% cut plus a loss of two vacation days is equivalent to 10% of our total compensation, or 9.57 million dollars. Two vacation days might not seem like a lot, but we work 24-hour days. Most folks in the dept get either 7 or 9 days, so a loss of two days is a significant chunk.

So there you have it (for the first part at least; there’s more). Ten percent. Boom. In the form of a 9-ish percent cut and two vacation days. This is on top of the 13% contribution to PERS and all that other stuff. It saves the city 30 million over the life of the contract, and the change in retirement calculation saves millions more down the road.

But wait, there’s more…In the second year of the contract we give the city the option of browning out two companies. The city is quite eager to close/brownout firehouses. We insisted that each neighborhood share the pain. So to that end the brownouts will roll through the entire city. We have 32 rigs and 2 will brown out each day, beginning July 2012. Essentially, each company will be closed one sixteenth of the time. This saves the city 4.4 million dollars per year.

So there you have it. A 10% cut directly out of the firefighter’s pocket. Ten million bucks a year. And two years of brownouts. It’s not anybody’s dream, but it’s a solid concession and we’re proud to do our part to help the city through this rough patch. I also feel compelled to point out that this concession far exceeds what any of the council members asked us for in their budgets. Going off of V Smoothe’s analysis, IDLF wanted 3.7 million from us; the Kaplan team wanted 12 million from ALL UNIONS COMBINED; and the Reid group didn’t really seem to be asking for any concessions at all. At any rate, we tripled the concessions that IDLF asked us for, and his seemed to be the most concessions-based budget.

Bottom line is that it’s a solid deal in a shaky time. We hope all of the other bargaining units will make similar concessions so that we can get this city moving again. It’s a pleasure working for/with all you fellow Oaklanders and I hope you feel OK about this deal.

And now: fire away! I’ll take your questions.

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights wants to know. They might just be able to provide those helping hands for you.

Through their Soul of the City initiative, the Ella Baker Center is organizing a city-wide day of service on Saturday, August 13th. From 10-2, they’ll have volunteer service projects (neighborhood clean-ups, tree plantings, stuff like that) throughout the City. Some projects are already confirmed, but they’re also still soliciting suggestions:

We are leading Oakland in a City-Wide Day of Service and we hope that you will join us! We’ve confirmed 15+ service projects throughout Oakland. However, it’s not too late to submit your proposal to host a project and help Oakland thrive.

You lead a service project and we’ll help turn out volunteers.

Your project can be anything from working on a community garden to cleaning up a neighborhood, to painting a school. Please click Host a Project and we’ll contact you to get all the details.

And after the work is over? Time to party!

After four hours of people-powered community service, we’re hosting a celebration at Mosswood Park. There will be food, dance, and a solar paneled hip-hop concert. This will be a family friendly event and an opportunity to build community after a hard days work.

So if you have an idea for a project you’d like to host, fill out the form. And if you don’t feel up to organizing something and just want to help out, mark your calendar for August 13th, so you can volunteer for whichever project speaks to you.

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.

Make Oakland Better Now! (MOBN!) has combed through these documents, and still has many unanswered questions. The answers may be available, but as far as we can tell, they don’t appear in the budget documents. In the coming days, MOBN! will raise some of these questions and try to explain why the answers matter. Future posts will appear at MOBN!’s blog, Oaktalk.

How Did The Mayor Set Priorities in the Three Scenarios?

Part One

Whether written in a strong economy or in hard economic times, all budgets show priorities. MOBN! strongly favors the Budgeting for Outcomes means of budgeting described in David Osborne’s The Price of Government. Under this model, a city determines the most cost-effective and efficient way to provide desired levels of each potential service, prioritizes those services and allocates sufficient funding to each of the services in order of priority until all resources are exhausted.

This is the complete opposite of how Oakland and most other cities budget. Instead, the usual process is to take last year’s numbers, determine how they should be adjusted for changed circumstances (e.g., contractually required cost of living adjustments, known price changes, losses of funding sources, etc.) and then make cuts until expenses match revenues. The result is often a budget that waters down all city services and trains citizens to continually lower their expectations about city government.

Unfortunately, the Budgeting for Outcomes approach takes approximately a year to execute and we are far too close to the start of the 2011-12 fiscal year to consider it. So, if we must have the Death by a Thousand Cuts method of budgeting, those cuts must be made in a way that consistently and coherently tracks city priorities.

The mayor’s budget documents and transmittal letters send decidedly mixed messages about the City’s priorities. The Mayor/Council Priorities at the beginning of each scenario (which is identical to the list submitted with the 2009-11 budget) tells us that everything is a priority: public safety, sustainable and healthy environment, economic development, community involvement and empowerment, public-private partnerships and government solvency and transparency.

Some of the detail shows us that this is more of a wish list than a realistic set of priorities. For example, the detail for public safety–in a city that has seen its sworn police staffing drop by about 150 officers in the past two years–urges “an adequate and uncompromised level of public safety services to Oakland residents and businesses. . . .” And one of the sustainable and healthy environment bullet points is “Infrastructure: Provide clean, well-maintained and accessible streets, sidewalks, facilities, amenities, parks, recreational facilities and trees.” This language precedes a budget that eliminates tree trimmers, and anticipates very little street repair. Acting City Administrator Lamont Ewell estimates a capital improvement need of $1.6 billion.

Mr. Ewell identifies seven Budget Balancing Principles, two of which reflect at least some prioritization:

• Principle 2: Give highest priority to protecting the most essential City services. (Although he does not commit to what the most essential city services are); and
• Principle 4: Minimize the negative impact on Oakland residents, businesses and employees.

Mayor Quan identifies her overall approach to budgeting as “an attempt to be fair to all groups while trying to reduce the impact on our most vulnerable citizens, especially low income seniors and youth”. This begs another question: Is being fair to all groups a budgeting priority for Oaklanders?

Perhaps a better way to identify the city’s priorities is to look at how it actually spends its money and where it makes its cuts. Interpreting the three scenarios for this purpose; however, presents several challenges. MOBN! will dig deeper, and look at those challenges, in our next post, at www.Oaktalk.com.

I wanted to call attention to one fun way to help out one of these great organizations — attend the Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation’s annual fundraiser, A Taste of Spring, which will be held this Wednesday.

Here’s some more information about the event from their press release (PDF):

Proceeds from the benefit will be used to fund swimming, boating, and camp scholarships, and special projects designed to support and enhance the City’s parks and recreation centers.

The event will feature delicious hors d’oeuvres from some of the East Bay’s finest restaurants, delicious fine wines, special musical entertainment, and a silent and live auction. Auction items include: a power lunch with Mayor Jean Quan, U2 concert tickets (June 7, Oakland Alameda County Coliseum), Oakland A’s luxury box tickets for eighteen, a football autographed by Raisers tight end, Zach Miller, and more.

and

A new community award — named after Friends’ founder, Anne Woodell — will be given in honor of the 30^th anniversary of the founding of the group. The two community honorees who will receive the first ever Anne Woodell Community aware are: Gordon Piper, Oakland lanscape Committee and Ellen Wyrick-Parkinson, the 2008 winner of the Oakland Mother of the Year Award.

“A Taste of Spring” will be held this Wednesday May 4^th at the Rotunda Building (300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza) in downtown Oakland. Tickets are $75 in advance or $85 at the door. You can buy advance tickets online at http://oaklandparks.org or by phone at 510.465.1850.

Hope to see some of you guys there!