Comments on: Does Oakland need a Public Ethics Commission? http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19 The Continuing Story of a City Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:06:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: John Klein http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244973 John Klein Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:47:26 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244973 The deal to exempt EV from height limits took place during the last month of the CBD rezoning. It was not part of the planning commission recommendations sent to council. That deal first surfaced at the CED committee. Dto510's advocacy against height limits took place for an entire year before that and continues today. Hence the question whether he is still a paid consultant to any downtown real estate interests like he was then. The deal to exempt EV from height limits took place during the last month of the CBD rezoning. It was not part of the planning commission recommendations sent to council. That deal first surfaced at the CED committee. Dto510′s advocacy against height limits took place for an entire year before that and continues today. Hence the question whether he is still a paid consultant to any downtown real estate interests like he was then.

]]> By: Chris Kidd http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244908 Chris Kidd Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:48:07 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244908 Right, Max. Emerald Views was hands-off due to their submission of proper paperwork before the zoning update. Therefore, DTO wouldn't have a dog in the height limit fight w/r/t his work for EV. In fact, fighting for height limits would preserve views of City Hall/Trib Tower on the non-lake side of EV, making them more valuable. How counter-intuitive of him... Even if someone happens to be a consultant, they can still advocate in an altruistic manner for something they believe in. It doesn't happen all the time, but it's not outside the range of possibilities. Being a developer/consultant doesn't require you to surgically remove your soul. Shocking, I know. Right, Max. Emerald Views was hands-off due to their submission of proper paperwork before the zoning update. Therefore, DTO wouldn’t have a dog in the height limit fight w/r/t his work for EV. In fact, fighting for height limits would preserve views of City Hall/Trib Tower on the non-lake side of EV, making them more valuable. How counter-intuitive of him…

Even if someone happens to be a consultant, they can still advocate in an altruistic manner for something they believe in. It doesn’t happen all the time, but it’s not outside the range of possibilities. Being a developer/consultant doesn’t require you to surgically remove your soul. Shocking, I know.

]]> By: Max Allstadt http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244906 Max Allstadt Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:37:11 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244906 John, it was exempt because their paperwork was already in when the zoning change came up. Not lobbying at all, just good governance. If the city was in the habit of changing the planning rules for projects that were ongoing, two huge problems would arise: 1. The US Constitution has provisions against ex post facto lawmaking. 2. The uncertainty that would result would scare all development out of this town. John, it was exempt because their paperwork was already in when the zoning change came up.

Not lobbying at all, just good governance. If the city was in the habit of changing the planning rules for projects that were ongoing, two huge problems would arise: 1. The US Constitution has provisions against ex post facto lawmaking. 2. The uncertainty that would result would scare all development out of this town.

]]> By: John Klein http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244905 John Klein Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:22:00 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244905 Chris Kidd: yes, the EV site was exempted from height limits - clearly the result of lobbying. Max, it was early 2009, I believe. Chris Kidd: yes, the EV site was exempted from height limits – clearly the result of lobbying.

Max, it was early 2009, I believe.

]]> By: Barry K http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244903 Barry K Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:43:17 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244903 Which agency is best to use for reporting allegations on political fundraising? There seems to be a bit of overlapping functions from the local-county-state-federal levels. We have the PEC for Oakland. Alameda Grand Jury for the County. The CA Fair Political Practices Commission, and, the FBI on Public Corruption. (The FBI ranks Public Corruption as the #4 crime in the USA by the way.) What about those that intentionally make false and/or baseless allegation(s)against a candidate? Is there no recourse? Which agency is best to use for reporting allegations on political fundraising?
There seems to be a bit of overlapping functions from the local-county-state-federal levels.

We have the PEC for Oakland. Alameda Grand Jury for the County. The CA Fair Political Practices Commission, and, the FBI on Public Corruption. (The FBI ranks Public Corruption as the #4 crime in the USA by the way.)

What about those that intentionally make false and/or baseless allegation(s)against a candidate? Is there no recourse?

]]> By: Max Allstadt http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244901 Max Allstadt Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:27:24 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244901 John, When did you have that conversation with that Planning Commissioner? John,

When did you have that conversation with that Planning Commissioner?

]]> By: Chris Kidd http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244898 Chris Kidd Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:06:18 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244898 John, Just to clarify (I can't seem to remember), but wasn't Emerald Views one of the few parcels of land that would not be effected by height limit changes in the CBD zoning update? John,
Just to clarify (I can’t seem to remember), but wasn’t Emerald Views one of the few parcels of land that would not be effected by height limit changes in the CBD zoning update?

]]> By: Robert http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244897 Robert Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:56:28 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244897 I think that the sanctuary itself is very nicely done. The rest of the site design is ugly, and will remain so even after the ivy is grown. I can't understand why Oakland allowed them to get away with such a monstrosity. I think that the sanctuary itself is very nicely done. The rest of the site design is ugly, and will remain so even after the ivy is grown. I can’t understand why Oakland allowed them to get away with such a monstrosity.

]]> By: Naomi Schiff http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244890 Naomi Schiff Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:43:44 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244890 Chris, you are right. The Diocese is a substantial enterprise, employs people, runs schools, and owns property in Oakland. Think of it as a large Oakland-based business. There is a spectrum of opinion within and around any big enterprise; some parishioners were worried about a large new cathedral because they worry about the impacts on their parishes. But looking at it from the outside, the only disadvantage I see, apart from whatever views one holds about Catholicism, is that it is all off the tax rolls. That would be true wherever they built, of course. Chris, you are right. The Diocese is a substantial enterprise, employs people, runs schools, and owns property in Oakland. Think of it as a large Oakland-based business. There is a spectrum of opinion within and around any big enterprise; some parishioners were worried about a large new cathedral because they worry about the impacts on their parishes. But looking at it from the outside, the only disadvantage I see, apart from whatever views one holds about Catholicism, is that it is all off the tax rolls. That would be true wherever they built, of course.

]]> By: John Klein http://www.abetteroakland.com/does-oakland-need-a-public-ethics-commission/2010-02-19#comment-244886 John Klein Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:46:36 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=4101#comment-244886 dto510: if you are paid by the very interests you defend here and on other blogs, you have an ethical duty to disclose those interests. This is especially true since you are so vehemently against historic preservation. If you believe you practice good blogging ethics, those ethics include disclosing your conflicts of interest. I agree with one blogger who wrote, “You don’t need to be unbiased, just transparent.” http://bit.ly/4YCH In your case that would be if you have a direct financial interest in a new or proposed development project where a historic property might now exist, for starters. You have not always been so forthcoming. At lease one planning commissioner, the Chair of the ZUC, did not know you were a paid consultant for the Emerald Views project until I mentioned it to him back during the CBD rezoning. This was after you had spoken against building heights in the CBD on numerous occasions at the Planning Commission. It was only after you were called out on it that you began your disclosures. Given that you needed to be reminded about your ethical duty to disclose your financial interests then, and given the veracity of your opposition to historic preservation now, this might be a good time for you to disclose any financial interests you’ve got regarding real estate and real estate development downtown. dto510: if you are paid by the very interests you defend here and on other blogs, you have an ethical duty to disclose those interests. This is especially true since you are so vehemently against historic preservation.

If you believe you practice good blogging ethics, those ethics include disclosing your conflicts of interest. I agree with one blogger who wrote, “You don’t need to be unbiased, just transparent.” http://bit.ly/4YCH

In your case that would be if you have a direct financial interest in a new or proposed development project where a historic property might now exist, for starters.

You have not always been so forthcoming. At lease one planning commissioner, the Chair of the ZUC, did not know you were a paid consultant for the Emerald Views project until I mentioned it to him back during the CBD rezoning. This was after you had spoken against building heights in the CBD on numerous occasions at the Planning Commission. It was only after you were called out on it that you began your disclosures.

Given that you needed to be reminded about your ethical duty to disclose your financial interests then, and given the veracity of your opposition to historic preservation now, this might be a good time for you to disclose any financial interests you’ve got regarding real estate and real estate development downtown.

]]>