The pathetic pettiness of the 2008 season of this show peaked at the Council’s July 1st meeting, when De La Fuente asked to revisit a vote from the previous meeting where the Council had approved a redevelopment agency purchase of some property in District 6. This happened is response to a error-ridden and nonsensical item in the East Bay Express asserting (without any evidence) that Ignacio was somehow responsible for the City overpaying for the land. Ignacio, who one would assume is accustomed enough to paranoid accusations of corruption from Robert Gammon to ignore them most of the time, was apparently so incensed by the mere suggestion that he’d ever do anything to benefit Brooks’s district that he had to make a huge scene about it.

The discussion on this item at the meeting was beyond embarrassing. Brooks and De La Fuente looked like children squabbling on a playground, fighting over nothing at all. The rest of the Council was almost as bad - frankly, the only person in the entire room who looked like an adult was District 2 Councilmember Pat Kernighan, who basically sat there telling them to shut up and work out their problems after class. If you missed it, don’t worry. You can catch the encore tonight.

First, some background. The Mayor and every Councilmember get around $300,000 every year to spend on, well, basically on whatever they want. Not exactly anything they want, but basically, it goes for small projects that the City probably wouldn’t do otherwise. They’ll get less this year - pay-go funds were cut in half in the budget revisions earlier this month.

A lot of people hate pay-go. They call it wasteful or a “slush fund,” or act as though the very existence of discretionary funds is evidence of corruption. I disagree. I think it was only fair to cut the pay-go budget in half this year - in a time of such great budget difficulty, the pain needs to be shared broadly, but I think that if and when revenue starts returning to the City and we have a little more leeway, the full pay-go sum should be restored. Frankly, I don’t really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of their representatives having access to a small amount of discretionary funds they can use to buy license plate readers for the police department or put bike racks in their district or make minor improvements to a park or school playground. Click here (PDF) for a list of all the FY07-08 pay-go expenditures.

Some people say they oppose pay-go because it makes it too difficult to unseat incumbents. They say that when Councilmembers use it to do nice things for their districts, people who benefit from the projects vote for them because of it. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Councilmembers making neighborhood improvements that make people happy and enhance the quality of life in areas they represent - that’s kind of their job. Besides, I think this election bribery through pay-go stuff is kind of overblown. I mean, my Councilmember basically threw all her pay-go money in the trash, and she still got re-elected.

Anyway. Last year, the Council passed a resolution defining legitimate uses (PDF) of pay-go funds, and during tonight’s meeting (PDF), at the request of City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, they will consider making those restrictions (with some additions from De La Fuente) actual law (PDF). This would basically limit use of pay-go funds to capital improvement projects. For most Councilmembers, this won’t be a problem. For one, it will. District 6 Councilmember Desley Brooks uses some of her pay-go money to fund the series of concerts she puts on every summer at Arroyo Viejo Park.

So, I’m obviously not against clarifying guidelines for allowable uses of City funds, and I don’t, in theory, have any problems with De La Fuente’s proposal. I wasn’t really planning on commenting on it one way or another until I got this mass e-mail from Ignacio yesterday afternoon, asking people to support his proposal. The first part was good:

“Pay-go” was created for permanent, visible improvements to our City.

Pay-go is a program which started in 1999 for City Council members and the Mayor to fund Capital Improvements on City property, and it was later expanded to include public schools. The discretionary money, approximately $250,000 per year, was funded by the City’s Municipal Capital Improvement Fund. Since its inception, the program has allowed Council members to address urgent community capital needs and to support capital improvements such as playground equipment, recreation center and park improvements, pedestrian safety, street lighting, and sidewalk repair. The funding has also allowed for the timely purchasing of security cameras and vital police equipment.

In 2006, these funds ran out. At that time, it was decided that the Pay-go program would be funded with General Fund money.

Fine. But then, it goes waayy downhill:

Some council members chose to use this General Fund Pay-go money to pay for entertainment, food, tent rentals, special events, DJs, to “create a festive atmosphere”, and even hotel rooms. I think this practice is completely unacceptable.

For example, in fiscal year 06-07, Councilmember Brooks spent $40,000 of Pay-go funds on payments for food, equipment rentals, booth rentals, and stage rentals, including $2740.00 on “Room Rental fees for a Kwanzaa and Christmas Expo at the Marriott Hotel.” In 07-08, Councilmember Brooks spent $70,000 on similar expenses. Both the public and most council members have believed in and adhered to the original intent of the Pay-go program. Not only do Councilmember Brooks’ expenses not adhere to the original intent of the Pay-go program, they are also extremely expensive.

First, let me say that I do not think Brooks’s concerts are a waste of money. It’s not like there’s a whole lot of nice, family-friendly things to do going on in Eastmont. She’s doing a great service for her District. Now, having said that, I’ll also say that it’s possible that Ignacio is correct, and there are more appropriate funding sources than pay-go for these events. I don’t know. I’m inclined to think the concerts are okay, but I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.

But by framing his bland, good-government, fiscal accountability proposal as an attack on Councilmember Brooks, De La Fuente has definitely made me disinclined to support it. All of a sudden, it’s really difficult for me to see the guidelines as anything but politically motivated, just one more way for Ignacio to screw over his arch-nemesis.

He should know better. I don’t care what legitimate issues De La Fuente has with Brooks (or vice versa). They both need to learn to keep the finger pointing and petty political bickering out of City meetings, because God knows we have plenty of serious issues that should be taking up our time instead. Their ridiculous arguments remind me of the inane fights I inevitably get into with my little sister every single time I go home to Texas, where we both end up crying and screaming at each other at the top of our lungs over the dinner table about whether or not Verizon is a bad cell phone provider or something equally inconsequential. These incidents always end the exact same way - my father jumps in and sternly demands that I stop and I, in turn, point out that she started it and I’m in the right (naturally). No matter how many times this happens, his response is always the same. “V, I don’t care. You’re older, you need to act like it.”

Ignacio would be well-advised to heed his advice.

When you read these stories, you may have noticed two claims from Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums that probably made you feel a little better about the direction Oakland’s been heading. First, this one:

“We have now met the test and responsibility of Measure Y,” said Mayor Ron Dellums. “That’s an extraordinary thing.”

As a matter of fact, we haven’t. Measure Y does not simply mandate a total staffing level of 803 officers. Measure Y funds an additional 63 positions above the previously authorized 739, and gives very specific instructions about what those officers will do. It’s supposed to guarantee a Problem Solving Officer (PSO) in every beat. We now have PSOs assigned to every beat, but due to equipment shortages, many of them split their time between the beat they’re assigned to and another. It’s also supposed to add six officers to Oakland’s crime reduction teams. Not only have we not done that, but we’ve actually disbanded the existing crime reduction teams to serve as field training officers for the new recruits. Measure Y was also supposed to supply school resource officers and domestic violence officers, which, of course, hasn’t been done.

In the meantime, Measure Y funds, instead of paying for the positions explicitly delineated in the measure, have been funding the 6 Sergeants who supervise the 57 PSOs. I am not pointing this out to minimize the achievement of reaching full staffing, and I know that to some people, it probably seems like nitpicking or gratuitously raining on the Department’s parade or something. That’s not my intention.

I understand that these issues of what was promised and what was mandated versus what was delivered are probably migraine-inducing to people who just want enough police on the street. But I wouldn’t keep harping on them if I didn’t honestly believe they’re important. For me, this is an issue of the public trust, and the betrayal of that trust by the City. When you take someone’s money, you have to give them what you promised them. When City Councilmembers sign a ballot argument asking people to vote to tax themselves that says:

Measure Y will decrease violent crime by adding at least one community policing officer in each neighborhood beat, and expand specialized teams focused on violent crime, drug dealing, and gang activities.

the City needs to then deliver those specialized teams. It isn’t okay to lower our expectations just because they say it’s too hard to meet them. It’s like dealing with a self-involved boyfriend. You might get all upset when he flakes on something important to you or says he’ll bring you hot and sour soup when you’re sick, but instead shows up with wonton soup, because he likes wonton soup better even though he should know by now that you hate it. It’s totally tempting to just not say anything because you don’t want to seem petty or whiny or too demanding or whatever. But when you let it slide, all you’re doing is telling him that’s it’s okay to treat you that way. Why would you then expect him to ever behave any differently in the future? Same exact thing with the City. When we give the City a pass on abandoning their promises on one issue, we’re letting them know that the practice is okay. Why should they then feel obligated to do anything else they say they will?

The other thing you may have found heartening from all the news accounts is this:

Tucker and Dellums said violent crime is down from last year, which they cautiously attributed to more officers being on the force and problem-solving officers being assigned to each of the city’s 63 police beats.

Unfortunately, this is also not true. Violent crime is, in fact, up from last year. As of November 13th (xls), we were at 7,054 violent crimes for the year. Last year at that date, we were at 6,799. That’s a 3.8% increase. That’s right, violent crime is up from last year, when we had a total of 7,900 violent crimes reported for the year, representing an increase of 4% over 2006, when there were 7,599 violent crimes reported. That figure, of course, was 38% higher than it had been in 2006, when we recorded 5,519 violent crimes, which was 7% higher than the 5,150 we had in 2004. So, to sum up. Violent crime is not down from last year, it’s up. And last year’s violent crime total is 53% higher than it was in 2004, the year Oakland voters passed Measure Y.

Another sad bit of news in all this is that in order to pay for all these new officers, we had to cancel our next scheduled academy. This means the achievement, such that it is, may be short-lived. At the October 14, 2008 Public Safety Committee meeting, Assistant Chief Howard Jordan told the Councilmembers present “If we don’t fund the December academy, we will be below 803 by April.”

The coverage of the graduation of the 165th Academy also highlighted another long-standing problem I have with our local traditional media - they don’t seem to know how to have any fun with the news. How else to explain that while every report I saw featured a quote from at least one of the graduates, not a single one of them used new officer Jesse Lawless for that part of the story? Talk about missed opportunities.

It was a banner day for intolerance, not just in California, but across the country. Arizona voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage 56.3% to 43.7%. Florida did the same thing, voting 61.9% to 38.1% to “protect marriage.” Even sicker, 56.95% of Arkansas voters decided they don’t think gay couples should even be able to adopt children. WTF?

This Saturday, equality advocates across the nation will come together to protest this widespread show of intolerance and rally for an end to discrimination and equal rights for all citizens. Protests are being organized in more cities than I can count, and Oakland, of course, will have one of its own at 10:30 tomorrow morning in front of City Hall. Lucky for us, local organizers have lined up some truly excellent speakers, including newly-elected at-large City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan and Equality California development director Sean Sullivan. So if you can, please try to make it down to City Hall on Saturday morning and show your support.

Here’s my take on it. For me, whether or not Don Perata would be a good Mayor is irrelevant. I am not in favor of his run because he’s simply too polarizing a figure. Whether he is or isn’t corrupt, people who don’t like his positions would bring up the FBI investigation left and right, and every time he does anything, good or bad, you’d have to listen to people whining about how evil he is and how this is some elaborate conspiracy to benefit some campaign donor or other. I just don’t want to deal with it.

And maybe that isn’t fair to Perata. It definitely isn’t fair to Ignacio De La Fuente, who I think would make a great Mayor, but I also don’t want to see run in 2010 for the same reasons. I feel bad for Ignacio - random people are constantly trying to tell me how evil he is, but, when pressed, of course can’t name a single thing he’s done they have a problem with. Sometimes they’ll bring up an issue where De La Fuente was actually on their side - they just assume he was against their cause because they have this bizarre idea that he’s pro-business, and therefore, apparently, against anything and everything good. (I realize that there are people with specific complaints about Ignacio, but you’ll never find a politician who hasn’t upset some group at some point. What I’m talking about is more general perception among the less engaged public.)

So, that’s sad for them. And maybe that means we’ll miss an opportunity for real progress that could happen under their leadership. But the political environment in Oakland is just so poisonous, and I don’t think that’s healthy for the City. It certainly doesn’t encourage people to become engaged. The blame for this totally toxic environment lays largely on the shoulders of, for lack of a better word, the local left, and the politicians that tend to align themselves with them. I can think of no clearer example of this than the early fall City Council meeting where the Council rejected Planning Commission nominee Ada Chan. On the one side of the room, you had those opposed to placing Chan on the Commission, who sat quietly through a very long meeting and, when the time arrived, came to the podium and explained their objections in a calm, rational, and specific manner. On the other side, you had a large group of activists wearing Ada Chan stickers, literally (and loudly) booing and hissing these speakers. They held a freaking rally for her on the steps of City Hall before the meeting. And yet, when the time came for the Council to weigh in, Jean Quan and Jane Brunner unfuckingbelievably accused those opposed to the nomination of “politicizing” the appointment, and even dared to lecture them for having an opinion. It was one of those things that you’re watching and still can’t even believe it’s happening. How can people be so completely divorced from the reality in front of their faces? I just don’t get it.

The polarization is such that it’s almost impossible to have a rational, reasoned debate on many of the serious issues facing Oakland. I think it’s sad that we have to let the opinions of people who consistently behave like spoiled children at public meetings dictate our leadership choices, and while I don’t think we should let that extend so far as supporting whichever candidate they endorse (we all know how well that turned out last time), I do think that, for the purposes of creating a more civil public discourse, we should have a Mayor that they don’t hate with some totally bizarre and disproportionate passion.

For my part, none of the names mentioned in Chip Johnson’s column excite me. Jane Brunner and Jean Quan are both completely unacceptable, being themselves active contributors to the unproductive and divisive atmosphere I’ve been complaining about. If Robert Bobb, as Johnson suggests, helped write the Mayor’s late and incomplete budget, with its heavy emphasis on cuts to direct services - well, that’s hardly an encouraging example of his leadership abilities. I don’t know enough about Tony West to have an opinion either way.

What I’d really like to see in Oakland’s next Mayor is someone who will work towards more transparent and inclusive governance. This was a major complaint many people had about Jerry Brown, and now, on the heels of that, we’re stuck with an administration that I don’t think could possibly be less transparent or more insular. It’s time for that to end.

Before you get too excited, this does not mean that the promise or obligations of Measure Y have been filled. While we finally have a Problem Solving Officer (PSO) assigned to every beat, as mandated by the Measure, we have not assigned the 6 crime reduction team officers, school resource officers, or domestic violence officers that Measure Y required.

Nor does having a PSO assigned to every beat mean that every beat is actually getting the service level its supposed to. First, there’s the issue of a number of officers currently being on leave or desk duty over illegal warrants. When asked about this at the most recent Measure Y Oversight Committee meeting, OPD representatives declined to answer, saying it wasn’t something they were prepared to discuss in a public forum. Beyond that, active PSOs are still splitting time between their beat and another, because they have to share cars with other officers due to equipment shortages. When Measure Y Oversight Committee Chair Maya Dillard-Smith asked Captain Orozco if the department had an idea when there would be enough cars that each PSO could work only on their own beat, the response was a curt “No.”

Pressing further, Dillard-Smith asked “So, how is the department reconciling the very clear mandate of the legislation with the actual practice? Because, in effect, it’s not even a legal use of funds to be paying for two officers to be in one beat. It says very plain - I’m just trying to understand.” Orozco responded “I think we’ve said it, it’s because of equipment concerns. We just don’t have the vehicles to place an officer on the beat by themselves. We need to have them in a car to respond to calls, to go to that beat, working in pairs. So it comes down to an equipment issue.”

So, of the $7.7 million from Measure Y reserves that the Council approved for the augmented police recruitment program last spring, we’d spent $3.2 million as of September 30th (PDF) (most recent figures available). Was it worth it? Well, we got to 803. (It’s unclear how long this would have taken without the extra spending from the Measure Y reserve funds, as we hit 778 in July with the graduation of the 164th Academy in July, which began in January before the augmented recruitment was even proposed. The staffing projections (PDF) presented to the Council along with the request for funds said we would only be at 752 officers by that date.)

Perhaps, if we were determined to spend the Measure Y police reserves, a better use of funds might have been to buy the equipment the officers need to actually do their jobs. Or maybe, we would all have been better off just letting the money sit in an account and collect interest until we need it, because - and I don’t know how many people realize this - the taxes collected under Measure Y are not actually enough to fund all 63 officers the Measure is supposed to pay for. The plan, until the Mayor requested the money be spent on this augmented recruitment program, was to use the reserves to cover the deficit in the Measure Y account in future years. With that money gone, it’s unclear where that money is going to come from. Well, it will have to come from the General Fund, I guess, but what we’ll have to give up to cover that shortfall is yet to be seen. Our projections (PDF) show the deficit being close to (or in some years, over) a million dollars a year.

I’m happy that the department is fully staffed, I really am. Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums said in his State of the City speech back in January that he’d get it done, “whatever it takes.” And hey, he did it. Kudos. I don’t like the way it happened (and didn’t then either) because I think it screws us over in the long-term. I also wonder how necessary it was given that the actual police staffing by mid-year turned out to be dramatically higher than the projections presented as justification for the need to spend all the reserves.

But it’s done now, and I don’t think anyone is going to complain about having a fully staffed department. That does not mean, however, that people should assume they’re finally getting the level of service they’re paying for. The City needs to find a way to produce those cars so every PSO can actually spend their time working the beat they’re assigned to. Otherwise, what’s even the point of having them?

The next meeting of the Measure Y Oversight Committee will be held on next Monday, November 17th, at City Hall Hearing Room 1 from 6:30 to 9:00 PM. It should also be broadcast on KTOP, which you can watch on Oakland cable channel 10, or streaming over the internet. The meeting is going to feature some very detailed discussion of the Measure Y budget and funding projections, so if you’re interested in this stuff at all, it should be worth watching.

So, in case you live in like, a cave or the other side of the Lake or something, Safeway wants to tear down their Rockridge store on College and Claremont and build a new, bigger, fancier one in its place. You know the one. It’s the unfriendly windowless building surrounded by a huge surface parking lot and a gas station towards the end of the Rockridge shopping district.

Safeway unveiled designs for the replacement store back in June. The 25,000 square foot existing store, parking lot, and gas station would all be replaced with a 59,000 square foot 2-story building extending all the way to the property line. College Avenue and a little bit of Claremont Avenue would be fronted with small retail spaces totaling 16,000 square feet that would hide the 212 parking spaces inside them, then the second level would hold the grocery store itself.

I don’t think the design above is perfect, but it’s definitely a good start, and certainly a huge improvement over the existing mess on that lot. In spite of the row of cute shops and restaurants across College Avenue from the building, I always kind of feel like Rockridge ends at the Claremont and College intersection - that intersection is weird and a pain to cross, and the giant parking lot and concrete wall is just so unpleasant to walk past, I usually just stop and turn around at that point. So I’d love to see it replaced with retail that would not only improve the pedestrian experience, but also add more shopping and possibly dining options to what is already a quite charming neighborhood.

Regular readers know I tend not to be particularly sympathetic to NIMBYs, so it should come as no surprise that I find the protests over the new store silly. But this time the NIMBYism is even more absurd than usual, to the point where I seriously can’t even deal with it. Like, I just don’t understand at all. When people talk about a 5 story building being too tall, I think that’s silly. But when people complain, as they do here, that a 2-story building is too tall - well, I don’t even know how to respond to that. Blocking out the sky and the sun? WTF? It’s two stories. Two stories! Get a grip, people.

The other thing I don’t get, and that I hear over and over and over again, is that the design proposal was “suburban.” Again, WTF? I can’t help but wonder if these people have ever been to the suburbs. Having grown up in a suburb of Houston, I consider myself somewhat of an expert on the subject. So please, let me educate you city-folk about how it is. In the suburbs, people tend to drive everywhere they go. Development is planned to accommodate this transportation habit, and the result is that most grocery stores and shopping centers are placed far off the street and surrounded by ginormous surface parking lots. Usually, there’s a gas station near the parking lot entrance, because people who drive around constantly need to fill up a lot. For the most part it looks a lot like - well, a lot like the existing College Avenue Safeway.

Now, I never particularly enjoyed living in the suburbs, which is why I moved to a city. Things I like about living in a city include pedestrian-friendly streets with retail frontage all along the sidewalk. You know, like most of Rockridge. And like the building above. So calling this design “suburban,” well, it doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

Anyway, after early summer community meetings revealed significant community opposition to this, um, allegedly too tall, suburban style building, Safeway decided to scrap the plans, temporarily at least, and convene a working group where community stakeholders air their concerns in a structured environment, which will then be used to inform a new design.

The working group will meet for the fifth time tonight from 7 to 9 at the Claremont Middle School gym, 5750 College Avenue. My understanding is that members of the public are welcome to attend the meetings and watch, but are not permitted to participate in the discussion. But if you’re interested in the current status of the project, it might be worth popping by. here’s the agenda (PDF). If you can’t make it, but want to learn more, I recommend checking out the Safeway on College website, where you can view the minutes of previous meetings and get more information about the project.

Safeway on College Coverage:

• 05.26.08 Oakland News: Revised plans for controversial new Rockridge Safeway due in two weeks
• 06.13.08 Oakland News: New College Ave. Safeway plans released
• 06.14.08 Transbay Blog: A Facelift for the College Avenue Safeway
• 06.14.08 San Francisco Chronicle: Fight simmers over plan for huge Safeway store
• 06.14.08 Oakland Focus: Safeway Design for Rockridge is Terrible; Out of Scale with Surroundings
• 06.18.08 Living in the O: Safeway gets an earful over Rockridge expansion plans
• 06.22.08 Living in the O: Safeway Community Meeting Turns into Public Venting Session
• 07.14.08 Oakland News: RCPC opposes Rockridge Safeway plans
• 09.23.08 Oakland North: Rockridge residents still unhappy with Safeway expansion

So, CompStat, basically, is a program developed in New York in the mid-1990s by then NYPD Chief William Bratton . He has since brought the program to his new post in Los Angeles, and many of his former deputies have implemented it in the departments they now head. CompStat-like systems, or at the very least the program’s driving principles, have been adopted by tons of agencies large and small throughout the country.

CompStat, at its core, is about using technology to assess real-time crime data and continually redeploying resources in response. At the October 14th Public Safety Committee meeting, the Police Department presented an update of their strategic plan, and much of the discussion centered around implementation of CompStat in Oakland, which the department identified as their top strategic priority, which an implementation goal of July 2009.

So what do you need to do CompStat? First, you need software. CompStat itself is not software - it’s a process that uses real-time data and pattern identification provided by software to shift resources to where they can be most effective, help departments address crime in a somewhat pre-emptive fashion, measure progress, and create greater accountability. Right now, our first challenge is to get the software we need to do that. Every department uses something different - LAPD, for example, built their crime data system themselves. We’re not going to be doing that, because we really don’t have anywhere near the resources in the City that such an effort would require. So instead, we’re buying (or, hoping to buy) a system from Bishop Rock.

Oakland’s IT department has been, and as far as I know, still is (all this information was presented at the October 14th meeting, it’s possible things have changed in the meantime), working with Bishop Rock to develop a program for Oakland. Because data collection and entry, as well as information needs, are different in every city, Bishop Rock has to customize their software for any agency interested in purchasing it. So right now we’re working with them on development and testing (at no cost to us), and specifically trying to work out some issues with data integration and data validation. The IT department has created a timeline for Bishop Rock with defined deadlines for meeting our needs, and hopefully, that’s going to work out. If it doesn’t, then we’re kind of back to square one. That would mean looking for other companies to work with. They have, as a back-up in case Bishop Rock doesn’t work out, begun looking into whether its possible to purchase and use LA’s system.

Anyway, getting the software is just the first hurdle. CompStat isn’t magic. It’s technology, and just like with all other technology, its utility is dependent on how you use it. It doesn’t matter how much expensive photo-editing software my Mom has on her computer if all she’s going to do is crop and resize her images for printing. Similarly, it doesn’t matter what expensive crime data software OPD has if they don’t have anyone to analyze that data. Implementing CompStat will require more crime analysis staff, and when and if the discussion ever reaches this point, it’s really important that we find a way to fund these positions. One investigation into the use of CompStat in three different cities (PDF) found that all three failed to fully realize the potential benefits of the CompStat system because they didn’t properly fund the accompanying analysts it needs to work:

Given the ostensible importance of strategic crime analysis to these Compstat programs, it is noteworthy that departments failed to give their CAUs enough staff, training, and support. As a result, the CAUs could only provide police decision makers with limited, and fairly rudimentary crime analysis. This is not to demean the CAUs contributions, which are quite impressive, especially given the many challenges involved merely to process data to a state that the software could analyze. It does, however, indicate that the accouterments of new information technology and data analysis were introduced into the organizations without preparing their members to make the most effective use of them.

It’s great that we’re doing CompStat. And having decent crime tracking software is in and of itself a huge step forward. At a Public Safety Committee meeting a couple of months ago, a Police Department representative told the Committee that he had no idea what had been happening with respect to certain types of crime in the month or so since the data in the report was compiled, because their crime data software had been down for weeks. Obviously unacceptable. But it’s really important, if we want to program to have a real impact on crime in Oakland, that we make sure not to just adopt a skeletal version of the program and pat ourselves on the back for copying a best practice. We need to make sure its fully implemented, properly implemented, and - this is the part I’m most worried about in a time of budget crisis - fully staffed. The Council has to fund the staff, and we hope the Police Department can properly handle the rest. But the Council also needs to start exercising more vigorously their oversight role, and make sure, when we finally do it, that we do it right.

Besides Oakland, the airport I probably spend the most time in is Denver International. Conveniently, Denver International just so happens to be my hands-down favorite airport, for two reasons. One, the smoking lounges. There are (as far as I know) three separate places to smoke at DIA, two after you pass security. Denver isn’t the only airport with a smoking area, but unlike, say, Salt Lake City or Atlanta, it provides pleasant accommodations. Instead of those depressing, ventilation-less glassed-in rooms like most airports have, where you get nauseated just walking in them, Denver has bars where you can smoke! They’re spacious, well-ventilated, and comfortable. And you get table service. It’s great.

Anyway, the other reason I love the Denver airport sooo much is because they have free wi-fi. This is just sooo nice and eliminates one of my most stressful travel dilemmas. Like, if you get to the airport and once you get through security and get settled, you only have like 45 minutes before your plane boards, and you want to get some work done, is it worth paying the $7.95 it costs to get online? Hard to say. Or say you’re at the airport, waiting for your flight, killing time reading Cosmo, and you get a phone call asking if you’ve read a certain local weekly columnist today, because it’s even more ridiculous than usual. If it was enough to warrant a phone call, you figure it must be pretty damn good, but is it good enough to be worth the price of a day pass?

At Denver International, you never have to deal with these little crises. You can use the internet whenever you want. If all you want to do is send one e-mail, no problem! Pop open your laptop and hop online. It’s free! If there was bad traffic on I-70 and you only have a few minutes before your plane leaves, it doesn’t matter. It costs nothing to get online. All you have to do is watch an ad.

Anyway, every single time I find myself in the Denver airport, I say to myself “Denver is so the best airport, what with the smoking lounges and the free wi-fi. The Oakland Airport sucks. Oakland should totally get free wi-fi. And not close all the restaurants at the same time.” And now, part of my wish has come true. I’m so excited!

Oakland is using FreeFi, the same company that provides the awesome service in Denver. FreeFi has a three-year contract and will be using the wireless infrastructure installed by former wifi provider Sprint, and most recently used by Boingo. And this amazing service is only going to cost the Port $34,000 this year (PDF!). So totally worth it.

The City of Oakland’s total funding contribution to the Uptown Project was $60,031,057.

The Redevelopment Agency was responsible for purchasing the 38 individual properties that comprised the Uptown project area, contributing to part of the environmental clean-up costs, paying for street and infrastructure improvements, and paying for the public park on the property. We provided Forest City $13 million in financial assistance for their development efforts. In addition to that, between 2007 and 2020, we will be making annual payments to Forest City (funded by the tax increment in the City District redevelopment area and reimbursements of Forest City’s business tax payments to the City) to help cover project costs.

This is how the costs break down:

• Costs for assembling the land: $23.5 million
• Initial Financial assistance: $13.6 million
• Financial assistance from tax increment and business tax reimbursement through 2020: $12.1 million
• Environmental Remediation Assistance: $4.1 million
• Infrastructure/Street Improvements: $5.7 million
• Public Park: $1 million
• Total funding: $60 million

Now, $12.1 million of that is money generated by the project itself given back to Forest City, so the total City subsidy of non-project generated funding for Uptown was $47.9 million.

So once we’ve done all that, Forest City gets to build apartments on the property, 20% of which they must make affordable to households earning less than 50% Area Median Income, and 5% of which they must make affordable to households earning less than 120% Area Median Income. They get to lease the land from us for 66 years, and have an option to extend that lease for an additional 33 years.

If they decide to buy the land from us, which they have an option to do, they have to pay either the Fair Market Value of the land or what the land cost us to purchase and assemble, plus annual CPI increases. Whichever of these amounts is less is the one they have to pay (most likely that would be the CPI-adjusted land cost). If they decide to extend their lease after the initial 66 year term, then they just have to pay Fair Market Value whenever they decide to buy it.

Now the part that seems to be causing most of the confusion - the profit guarantee. We are not on the hook for any more money. Forest City wants a minimum of a 12% return on the project. If they do not achieve a 12% return, they don’t have to pay us rent on the land. If they do get that 12% return (the estimate was that this would happen in 2017), then from that point on, they have to pay us 25% of what they’re making over the 12%. They have to do this until whatever date all our financial assistance has been repaid. If, at some point, Forest City sells the project, they have to use the proceeds of the sale to pay back our financial assistance.

So, the best case scenario is that the project is an enormous success and Forest City ends up paying back the entirety of the subsidy (note - costs for infrastructure improvements, remediation, and the park will not be reimbursed at any point). The worst case scenario is that Forest City makes no money on the project and doesn’t pay us back any of the subsidy. Probably it will be somewhere in between.

The information is assembled from a number of different reports. I wasn’t sure how best to include the links, so if people want to know more than I included in the post, you can find it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. They’re all PDFs.

Hope that cleared things up.

Anyway, this game my sister loves so much involves highly addictive challenges like, for example, reading out loud a word written on her screen when that word is a color, but written in a different color than it spells out. She will spend hours sitting in a chair screaming intermittently “RED!” “BLUE!” “BLACK, NO I MEAN RED! I SAID RED!! RED!!! RED, RED, RED YOU STUPID PIECE OF CRAP!!” “YELLOW!” Frankly, it’s a little irritating. I much prefer when she plays the basic math problem game. That’s right. One of the features on this apparently engrossing video game is a timed test of simple addition and multiplication problems. Why an adult woman would choose to spend her free time doing something I used to find tedious as an eight year old is somewhat beyond my ability to comprehend, but like I said above - City Council meetings.

Anyway, last night, I just happened to be watching the last Council meeting before recess from this summer, and during the item where they put the police tax on the ballot, it occurred to me that maybe Jean Quan could use a copy of this video game. Cause here’s one of the things she had to say:

First of all, our Chief and the Mayor are somewhat on a roll. I’m one of these people who open the crime stats every morning and I look at them, and since January - crime was down last year, even though it doesn’t seem like it since murders were up, but crime was down last year - but just since January, home burglaries are down 12%, robberies are down 2%, and car thefts have never gone down in my entire time on the City Council are down 4%.

So…there’s a couple of things wrong with that statement. First of all, I don’t want to sound petty, but on the day she said this (xls), burglary was actually down 11% and auto theft down 3%, not 12% and 4%. Also, come on. For starters, in 2006 we had 145 murders. In 2007 we had 120. That’s down, not up. Also, auto thefts have gone down twice during her tenure on the Council. Jean Quan was elected in 2002, and joined the Council in 2003. In 2002, we had 6,258 auto thefts. In 2003, we had 5,511. That’s fewer, which means they went down. In 2006, we had 10,549 auto thefts, and in 2007, that number was only 9,923. 9,923 is less than 10,549, meaning, again, that they went down. Fun fact about auto thefts, BTW: before we set that new record in 2006, the previous all-time high number of reported auto thefts in Oakland was 8,821 in 2005, then before that, it was 7,772 in 1993.

Anyway, when our elected officials, especially our likely next Mayor, have difficulty with elementary concepts like greater and less, I tend to think that’s a problem. Jean Quan should totally put this game on her Christmas list. (I’ll ask my sister what it’s called next time I talk to her.) And she can totally use it to pass the time during all those boring Council meetings. Well, the math part anyway. The colors game might be a little distracting.