you’re forgetting about the four acre park currently under construction, boarded by the Uptown Apartments, Sears, and the Fox. What an incredible transformation that area is going through. Why criticize a project which adds a park to the city and places well over one thousand residents within walking distance to Lake Merritt, City Center, the Fox and Paramount Theaters, as well as the 19th Street BART station. It’s an incredible green development and everyone in Oakland should be embracing it.

And for outright illegal campaigning, this time with Measure OO aka Kids First Gone Greedy, see http://www.orpn.org/OO_campaign1.htm

While we have our attention on the Sierra Club, anybody seen the measure WW signs all over town with the big Sierra Club’s logo on them?

Kent, is that recycled paper and soy ink on those signs? And will the crew you paid to put them up be paid to take them down?

Just askin…

No. I can’t imagine why the Sierra Club would endorse Mario over Ignacio, especially since I know some people on the inside and know first hand that you all knew about Mario’s financial and personal “challenges” and you still supported him–with his having absolutely no track record of doing anything positive for the community of Fruitvale. The Sierra Club’s endorsement of Mario was an insult to our community, especially since not one of you lived in our community at the time.

No, style is NOT important. Results are. Style is important in Walnut Creek where children aren’t dying because of the inaction of the leadership. Style is not so important in Oakland. Leaders that act in Oakland are bound to make enemies by the very nature of their acting. Someone who thinks that style is important in their elected official is not likely seeing homicides, blight, and boarded homes when they walk out their front door. This is what I have come to learn about Oakland. Those who live in fear want action. Those who live in comfort and safety prefer style.

On Open Space and schools being environmental justice issues. This makes it clear to me that the local Sierra Club doesn’t understand environmental justice, and therefore is missing out on the opportunity to value achievements of urban leaders in the EJ realm. Open space such as ball fields may be the closest some inner city kids will ever get to Yosemite or Redwood National Park. Sad but true. Schools are environments. Again, for some inner city youth, it is the only sanctuary they know. When these schools are filled with toxic experiences which prohibits them from learning, how is this different than being exposed to toxic emissions from a factory. Different in what they’re exposed to. The same in that it could lead to an early death of the child, physical or spiritual. This is environmental justice.

On Transit Village and Ignacio’s role: Arabella Martinez, director of the Unity Council at the time the Transit Village was built, will be the first to tell you that without Ignacio it never would have been built. His job in the effort was to bust through the constant bureaucratic “we can’t”‘s, to shake the trees for money, and to step in when things broke down, which were often. I was with his office at the time, and I can tell you he was heavily involved.

On the wards issue: It was not feasible to put a school into the Wards building. In fact, the proposal by the preservationists was an insult. The proposal was to reuse the building for condos and parking, and then to put the school above the parking lot with the playing field on top of the concrete structure. Do you think this proposal would be acceptable to parents in Montclair or Rockridge? Then why would Fruitvale parents accept it? In fact, thousands of Fruitvale families led the charge to tear it down, in partnership with Ignacio, while only a few preservationists (all of whom lived outside the Fruitvale but one) led the charge to save it. A tenet of the EJ movement is self-determination for communities of color. In this case, the Sierra Club was on the side of environmental injustice.

On rejoining the Sierra Club: Because I care about Oakland, I always welcome or seek the opportunity to learn from or inform other efforts, interests, or movements in this city. To this end, I would be very interested in having a serious dialogue with the leadership of the Sierra Club on the issue of urban environmentalism and EJ as it applies to the urban environmental issues I am aware of as a resident of the Oakland flats. If there is serious interest in expanding the world view of the local chapter of our oldest environmental organization, then I would consider re-joining.

On the other hand, if they, like some other issue “leaders” in Oakland I’ve run into, can’t get past who I am, what I do, or who I once worked for (i.e. their world views are rooted in the cult of personalities), then there is no use for dialogue.

I appreciate your discussing these things with me. Truth be told, you hit on an irritation I have, through no fault or blame of your own. Oakland is full of people who call themselves progressives. But when you push the bounds of their progressivism to include the dreams, hopes, and desires of people of color and the most marginalized, they turn their back, at best, or call you the devil, at worst.

Best.

On the other hand, it is too bad that we are not in the position to congratulate IDLF for some of the good work he does, for instance helping establish schools and the transit village in East Oakland. However, the Club is not an education advocacy group. Nor are we an advocacy group for community ball fields like those that you mentioned. One area where I really do feel the club owes IDLF some gratitude, in terms of our issues on open space protection and TOD, would be the Fruitvale Transit Village. It certainly appears to hold promise as a successful TOD. However, I do not know the extent to which the council president was involved in that (I wasn’t around then).

In terms of the Montgomery Ward battle, yes that is one where I can also see your point. It’s too bad that that issue was framed (or is being framed by you) as an education vs. preservation issue. Surely there was room for both? How about a school in a (renovated) old building? However, I lack the expertise and the knowledge about that battle to comment further (again, I was not involved in the club then).

In terms of our decision making. All the club’s decisions are vetted by numerous volunteer leaders, some of whom DO live in Oakland, like myself. The same principle applied to our support for Ada Chan. So I cannot agree with you that our decisions are based on “cult of personalities” (though at times it may appear that way).

Lastly, the Sierra Club is a volunteer-led organization, and if you want to help make it better, we would certainly welcome your input, as a fellow (or returning) member.

This is the same group, I understand, that voted for Mario Juarez for City Council in District 5 in the last election over Ignacio De La Fuente; even though Ignacio can be credited with helping establish the first Transit Village in the East Bay, with pushing for the first 3 new schools built in Oakland in 30 years, and for getting more usable open space for kids in the Fruitvale than anyone else in the last 30 years (Cesar Chavez fields, Josie De La Cruz field, and Union Point park).

My master’s is in environmental science, and I worked for the EJ movement for about 7 years, and was once a member of the Sierra Club. EJ principles were cornerstone to everything we did while I was with Ignacio, and yet the Sierra Club never lent us support for anything we did. I found that, with respect to flatland communities of color, the Sierra Club misses the boat almost 100% of the time, including supporting the preservation of the Montgomery Ward building instead of supporting the community in the construction of the 2 new schools and open space at the site.

I think the local Sierra Club chapter has to get more in touch with the issues of the urban core, and stop basing decisions on the cult of personalities.