Also, I’ve always heard that the real issue with TJ’s was parking and traffic concerns. But ask Commissioner Boxer if he takes the bus or rides his bike to work. He’s against adding sufficient parking in buildings, but won’t leave behind his own car.

In late 2007, the city sold EBALDC fifty low-income apartments in Chinatown to preserve as affordable for $4m. EBALDC turned them into “moderate-income” condos. Public comment from Chinatown was overwhelming opposed to the plan, but the Council decided to do what was in EBALDC’s interest, not what was in the interest of the other condo-owners in the building and the low-income Chinese community.

East Bay Housing Organizations tirelessly promote Inclusionary Zoning as a solution to “gentrification,” helping low-income residents who are somehow “pushed-out” by market-rate development. However, nobody proposes using IZ funds for low-income rentals, instead acknowledging that the law would create middle-income condos, already provided by the market, at what are essentially market prices. If they do discuss this, they say it’s a route to homeownership. But the “inclusionary” condos must be sold back to the non-profit who manages them at a price that non-profit dictates, so the only party who gets the financial benefits of homeownership is the non-profit.

EBASE is currently promoting a plan to force the truckers to become eligible for union representation, under the aegis of environmental protection (the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports). In fact, the plan has nothing to do with the environment (their claim that organized truckers would be better able to afford truck upgrades is specious, and EBASE says that Port should pay for upgrades anyway), and could jeopardize the Port’s planned transition from trucks to rail by creating a new constituency for truckers.

These are only recent examples of the selfishness of the “left” nonprofits, who spout socialist rhetoric while single-mindedly pursuing their own interest. To protect union grocery jobs in North Oakland, EBALDC with Nancy Nadel’s encouragement deprived West Oaklanders of their best chance to get a full-service private grocery that didn’t need public subsidy.

I’d really like to see you blog on this in more detail.

I certainly am beginning to notice that business isn’t being made to feel welcome in Oakland. But I’d also like to see if there are any cases where our city’s socialist leanings have done us some good. Please elaborate when you can.

Fresh & Easy is taking a pause from opening US stores, but when they do begin opening their Northern California stores, the reason West Oakland will not get one is because EBALDC wanted them to commit to a certain wage as a condition of their lease, and they wouldn’t. Fresh & Easy has announced one store in Oakland, at 73rd and Bancroft.

Our company left Oakland years ago because of crime, and the lack of follow through with the police department. Our business is now in San Leandro with our 300 jobs.

We would love to come back to Oakland, if only the police would respond/follow up on calls.

The city council has to stop dealing with plastic bags