I’m not really sure what the OCC has to do with this post, but I think it’s a completely inaccurate assessment of the situation to say that they were “punished” by CED for defending a ZUC decision. Their contract was called into question because they are either not fulfilling their obligations to the City under said contract, or, if they are, as they claim, they are refusing to provide information that justifies that claim. Perhaps if the OCC were willing to provide said information, they would not have found their taxpayer funded contract in jeopardy.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say “[my] organization” – you know I have no “organization” to speak of. But the reason I don’t go to West Oakland meetings about toxics reduction is not because I don’t understand where we need to go as a community, or that I don’t value parity, community consensus, or environmentalism. It’s because that isn’t the issue I choose to spend my time advocating for and volunteering for. We all have a limited numbers of hours in our day, and therefore are forced to pick and choose our issues to some extent, and mine are (and have been for as long as I can remember) libraries, access to information (which is why I spend so much time writing and researching this blog, which is entirely a labor of love) and food security. I don’t condemn you or Kent as short-sighted for spending your time working on clean air policy instead of sorting food at the County Food Bank or passing out groceries at Project Open Hand, and I don’t think it’s fair at all for you to do the reverse.

I also think your characterization of who I’ll “always support” is unfair and unjustified. I have said repeatedly on this blog that I would be open to a replacement for anyone on the City Council, and I know we’ve had that discussion in person at least twice – the unfortunate fact is that De La Fuente and Reid’s challengers in this race have not demonstrated that they are anywhere near prepared for the task, or could deliver for their districts, or the city as a whole, better than the incumbents. Also, as I understand it, you’re currently supporting an incumbent who supported the Forest City “gift” as well, and who boasts about it at every campaign appearance I’ve witnessed, so it appears there’s a double standard here.

Yet CED has called OCC’s contract into question, not because the organization is ineffective, but because it, gasp, helped challenge the idea that Oakland’s Council fiefdoms might be looked upon as less than sacrosanct. Not quite Chicago, to be sure, but the hardball paradigm prevails, nevertheless, even though a more cooperative model would get us where we need to go a lot faster.

So I know Kent and V, and both are good hearted most of the time: Kent shows up at many of the meetings in West Oakland to do something about clean air policy and other Toxiics Reduction Collaborative issues. V doesn’t because her organization, such as it is, doesn’t quite understand where we need to go as a community: that’s why she’ll always support Ignacio and/or Larry whose first concern is maintaining the power bloc they believe is fundamental to politics-as-usual, as opposed to those who, like Kent, will always support an Oakland-of-the-future, where parity, environmentalism and community consensus is the goal.

In the end, who has incorporated into their idealism the ideas of the great urbanologists? Where is the expertise in terms of community planning and support for true greatness for Oakland? To say that Forest City – and all those who backed it – is a wonderful solution for Uptown is to affirm that we are njothing but a second rate city. A better Council would would never have voted for that $60M gift to a developer, and only change in that continuum will begin to bring us into the 21st century.

Thanks,

– S

Are you saying that Reid stopping a proposed development in response to constituent objections is a bad thing? I just don’t follow that logic at all.

You say “Larry Reid’s assertion that he “halted” the Dunsmuir Estates development is COMPLETELY WRONG,” then later “Larry had no choice but to halt the project,” implying that he did, in fact, do so. Which is it?

When did I “defend” Desley Brooks? I said she and Larry Reid are the only Councilmembers who routinely talk about the realities of implementation and what the results of legislation will be, which is true. The fact that I like her voting record (on most, not all, issues) has nothing to do with my views on her financial improprieties.