We’ll be keeping the park rangers after all

So, it looks like the City won’t be shutting down on Fridays after all. (Or closing parks!) You may recall that when Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums submitted his budget proposal a couple of weeks ago, he left a $10 million deficit and told the Council to figure out how to close it (offering them three options). Subsequently, Dellums explained that he actually didn’t want the Council to make their own decision, and instead expected to save the money by closing the City every Friday, cutting the pay of every non-sworn employee by 20%. Read more

Army Base, quickly

Aah, I had so wanted to write a whole bunch of posts about the Army Base last week before the item came to Community and Economic Development Committee (CED) today, but I just couldn’t find the time, and while I still hope to get to it later this week, I wanted to say something before the meeting.

Okay, so when we last visited the Army Base question, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums wanted what he referred to as a “vision-based” development strategy for the Army Base, which basically involved asking developers to come up with a plan that would incorporate like every conceivable use on the land. In one of their better moments last year, CED wisely rejected the recommended “Mixed-Use Oakland” plan, dismissing the “vision” with one of my favorite lines from Jane Brunner ever, “This isn’t a vision. It’s a list.” Henry Chang had had enough, and awesomely suggested that we just wash our hands of this neverending saga and just sell all the land to the Port, and then use the money for like, affordable housing, or whatever. Read more

June 2008 Endorsements

So one of the funnest parts of having a blog, or so people tell me, is that you get to make endorsements. I wouldn’t know. I’ve somehow managed to find myself so busy that I’ve run out of time to write them. So here’s A Better Oakland’s endorsements. I’ve already said who I’m supporting in most of these races, and I’m linking to my previous explanation for the decision because I just don’t have the time to write a new, short one. Sorry. Next time around I’ll do it right. Read more

Larry Reid v. Clifford Gilmore: LWV Forum Recap

Since I know next to nothing about Clifford Gilmore (other than that he’s the son of longtime Councilman Carter Gilmore), I was really looking forward to this forum. Not being particularly invested in this race, or particularly knowledgeable about specific District 7 controversies, I figured I might learn something new, and sat down to watch with no real expectations, thinking that I really had no idea who I thought would or should win.

Opening Remarks

Larry Reid went first, saying that when he first ran for Oakland City Council, he did it to give residents in his district a sense of hope that it was possible to make changes in long-neglected areas, and that he’s proud of the “tremendous changes” that have come to District 7. He predicted that the growth and change Oakland, particularly East Oakland, witnesses in the next five to ten years will be among the most spectacular in the US.

Clifford Gilmore started out strong, complaining that crime is out of control, the schools are a mess, and people have to leave the District to shop for basic necessities. He said he’d served as the executive director of a local nonprofit for 10 years, but bizarrely didn’t say its name. He said that he’s worked with residents to create NCPCs, worked with the business community to create partnerships, and led the campaign to create the first school report card in Oakland.

V: Winner: Larry Reid! As soon as he opened his mouth, I realized that I was kidding myself to think I didn’t have an opinion on this race. Opening statements reminded me exactly why Larry Reid is my hands-down favorite Councilmember, and the whole contest was just over for me right here. I’m thrilled he’s running for re-election, even though he did say four years ago that “12 years is enough.” Reid is the Councilmember who most consistently sells me on his passion and commitment to his job - this is not to say that others don’t care, but that it shows so much more with him. When everyone else is tired and trying to blow through an agenda as quickly as possible, Reid never passes up a chance to share how excited he is about things happening in his district. There are some positions we don’t share, but I agree with his votes more than anyone else’s. Sure, he has a tendency to pout and generally act like a spoiled child sometimes when he doesn’t get his way, but I can forgive that because I’m always convinced that he’s doing what he truly believes is right for Oakland. He and Desley Brooks are also the only Councilmembers who consistently seem to consider whether proposed legislation will actually accomplish anything, rather than just sound nice. Gilmore didn’t say anything wrong, but he had a rough job convincing voters that he can deliver for the District better than Reid does, and I just don’t think he met that bar. Read more

The sad story of subarea 8

People will tell you that the new industrial land use policy is about providing certainty and predictability to developers, business owners, and property owners. Adopting a set of objective criteria, developed through a public-input process, to use in evaluating applications for General Plan amendments is a planning tool. In theory, it should ensure that approvals are not arbitrary, or based on the political influence of any particular developer or business owner, and that the decisions made are those appropriate for the city as a whole. It would provide objective measures to evaluate whether the land in question has potential for job creation and industrial business use, what sort of economic impact the conversion will have on the city, and whether a proposed residential development will contain appropriate measures to buffer the new homes from nearby industry, in order to avoid creating the oft-threatened domino effect of conversion after conversion.

And if that were the case, all this would be fine. But it isn’t. Nancy Nadel and Pat Kernighan both stated on March 4th that the provision of community benefits in any new residential project on industrially designated land should be one of the criteria for conversion. Dan Lindheim threw a minor fit because the Council’s motion did not specifically identify community benefits as part of the criteria staff was to return with (I found this utterly bizarre - the Council didn’t give any direction as to what criteria should be, only that they be “comprehensive.” Nothing prevents staff from returning with criteria that include community benefits - in fact, I would be shocked if they didn’t.) Community benefits have nothing to do with predictability or the appropriateness of conversion.^*

As illustration, let me tell you a about a little place called subarea 8. Subarea 8, a 50 acre section of East Oakland, is bordered by 92nd and 98th Avenues, San Leandro St. and E Street. Read more

Does nobody in this city play golf?*

I’ve explained before how banning smoking for air quality reasons in a venue where you’re virtually guaranteed to be no less than 50 yards away from anyone not in your party at any given time is absurd. And of course, since I don’t really play golf, I can’t get too worked up over the whole thing. You’d think the same would be true of the anti-smoking activists. But no. Several people spoke to urge the Council not to exempt golf courses, because…well, I think just because they can’t stand to lose even a teeny bit of their sweeping new law. It certainly isn’t because they’re actually having problems with secondhand smoke on the golf course:

Anyway, I thought I’d share some of their comments: Read more

Nancy Nadel exempts golf courses from smoking ban

So for the third time this fall, the Oakland City Council passed a first reading of the new outdoor smoking ban tonight. A first reading of an amended ordinance that exempts golf courses. The ordinance will have its second vote on December 4th. Read more

This isn’t a vision - it’s a list.

So the exciting news about the Army Base is that it looks like pretty much everyone (except Ron Dellums) is on the same page. Nancy Nadel, who I’m thrilled to agree with for once, told the Committee that she liked to Eco-Oakland option the best, and that she wanted to see the land used for maritime support services so that they could move out of West Oakland. She’s completely right - trucking companies and recycling centers belong next to the Port, not next to somebody’s house. She also noted almost everything in the “vision” (except for logistics) could locate somewhere else in Oakland, but this is the only suitable place to stick Port support. Read more

Council finally listens to constituent concerns on smoking ban!

So, amazingly, the Council did not do as I predicted yesterday and just let Barbara Killey get away with this ignoring the instruction to exempt bars. Not that she was reprimanded or anything, but they actually did not pass her legislation.

Killey’s further attempts to explain the fire safety concerns were ludicrous - she clarified what she was told by the Fire Marshal - that the concern is that people should not be blocking a radius of 5 feet from the center of a door. How this translates into a necessary minimum of 5 feet from any door or window is completely unclear. Henry Chang responded with the common sense statement “To me, 5 feet, 2 feet, whatever. If people block the door and people want to get out, they move. If people want to get in, they move.” Well said. Read more

Once again, the Council proves they don’t care about good public policy or practicality

The Council voted to pass the smoking ordinance just before 2 am this morning. Jane Brunner left the meeting before the item was heard. Ignacio De La Fuente, Pat Kernighan, Jean Quan, Nancy Nadel, and Henry Chang said yes.

Here are some highlights from what I managed to jot down of the discussion.
Nancy Nadel:

For some of my constituents “exposure to smoke can be as deadly to them as being shot in the street.”

Read more

Larry Reid gets it. Pat Kernighan, Jean Quan, and Nancy Nadel? Not so much.

Tuesday night, the Public Safety Committee voted 3-1 in favor of the new secondhand smoke ordinance. It will now move on to the full City Council. The Committee struck the sections banning smoking in new multi-unit housing and declaring secondhand smoke a public nuisance.

So here’s what is going forward: Read more