Open Thread
Want to talk about something I haven’t covered? Do it here. You can find the previous open thread here.
Get Updates
Newest Comments
- len raphael: Unconfirmed that MJQ laid off 100 employees today, blaming RDA court case. How much did she and the CC waste in legal fees betting against Jerry’s lawyers?
- ralph: No, Livegreen, Occupy Oakland is doing plenty good. They are the poster children for the new, “This is Your Brain on Dope” Campaign.
- Livegreen: They seem to b determined to shut down Oakland and little else. They’ve forgotten Wall St. I can’t help but think the Officers who were preventing them from breaking in to City Hall could have spent...
- gregory mcconnell: The Occupest disrupted City Hall today. They managed to make it difficult, but not impossible, to go into City Hall. They demanded that people who accosted cops on Wednesday should be released. I was out...
- livegreen: I watched the M-Y mtg last night, & it was painful. Jose is a nice guy, but he has difficulty running a meeting that gets anything done. They debated for about 1 hour whether they should discuss recommendations...
- len raphael: The murder of 5 year old Gabriel Martinez. Got a call from an acquaintance who lives in East O and often gets supper at his family’s taco stand. She asked where she can sign up to help on the recall.
- Ravi: I’m sure that all of those Quan diehards (“a recall would be a waste of time and too expensive”) are very gratified that this lovely and deserving woman is having such a good time. No doubt they prefer...
- len raphael: JQ “”I’m actually having a lot of fun,” she said after rehashing many of the lower moments from her first year in office.” “http://www.insidebayare a.com/news/ci_19651889R...
- Ravi: And regarding police reform and the crime thing, Judge Henderson could decide to put OPD under Federal jurisdiction because the terms of the NSA haven’t been fulfilled by the City Administration. Those folks in City...
- len raphael: Harbinger of things to come to the City Council when they eventually have to make similar decisions. But they won’t. The Fed bankruptcy judge will do it for them.
- livegreen: Yeah, but OUSD has to do something. There are way too many schools for the school population. There’s simply no choice. At least they’re willing to make the tough decisions. Unlike the City of...
- len raphael: Are those school board recalls entirely over the school closing decisions? Different groups or one umbrella?
- Ravi: Two recall petitions for Quan; five recall petitions for five school board members.
- len raphael: City says there are now 7 concurrent recall petitions. Not clear how many are for Quan and how many for Council Members. Direct democracy at work.
- Ravi: Can the Oakland City Council lead? Nope, nor can the Mayor. It’s up to the citizens, who are deeply divided and have been for a very long time.
- len raphael: Oakland Local is the only on or offline general circulation media that shows understanding of the depths of our fiscal situation and understands that it’s causes precede the real estate crash. One of these...
- Mkilian: Related to the Cal Supremes haircut to Oakland with respect to RDA and the immediate need for a “fiscal operations plan” is another issue put forth in Oakland’s internet newspaper, Oakland Local, is...
175 Responses to “Open Thread ”
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
July 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
i want to start a movement for cities to abolish their redevelopment agencies and return money back to police and fire services, schools, seniors, and children. there’s a brochure i just came across that every taxpayer should read.
take a look at http://redevelopment.com/norby/ and tell me what you think. emeryville is listed on page 13, ranked 7th of the top 12 calif. cities in per capita indebtedness. oakland and alameda co. are also listed.
thanks for your hard work vsmoothe.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
This is not a prank, right? Wow.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
http://www.martinezgazette.com/news/story/i362/2009/05/01/conference-lays-out-pitfalls-redevelopment-agencies
About two or three years ago I attended a meeting of the organization that Norby heads, which is called MORR, Municipal Officials for Redevel. Reform, which occasionally meets in northern Calif. I definitely don’t agree with all their views, but I have indeed become a lot more skeptical of the redevelopment approach, over the years. There are some parts of it that more or less work, but somehow the whole structure seems to push toward extremely large but extremely hard-to-pull-off schemes.
For example, the Uptown project absorbed something like 68 million dollars of subsidy, but that was after it was cut back considerably from an unwieldy amount of territory–about 12 or 18 square blocks–and in the meantime, as potential eminent domain targets, the existing property owners began to neglect, refuse to lease, and emptied out their commercial spaces in hopes of a great buyout. We must have lost at least thirty businesses in the uptown area during the prolonged run-up period. Business tax and sales taxes lost to the city’s general fund, right?
One couldn’t help but notice that much more modest, privately-financed and designed projects in Chinatown were chugging away the whole time, without subsidy. There’s something about redevelopment’s structure or its legacy that causes the staff to attempt huge monolithic efforts, and some of them just take decades and decades to happen, if they succeed at all. It’s a sort of magic bullet mentality: “If we could just pull off this gigantic thing, then the city would miraculously become solvent, happy, and full of retail.” (I cannot tell you how many times I have sat through the meeting about the magical retail that will come down from the sky. Just now it seems we are doing it again, doubly, on Broadway and at the Army Base.)
In the meantime completed redevelopment projects generate “tax increment” monies (calculated upon increase in property tax valuation over the base year when the project began), most of which go back to the redevelopment agency instead of being allocated as other property taxes are.This stream of income going straight to ORA starves Alameda County and the General Fund of the city, and cuts into the funds available for needed services. I won’t go into details here, but it is worth learning about it if you want to understand city finances. It is why our planning department is so heavily funded and run by the Redevelopment side of the city.
Redevelopment is not all bad, but it for sure is not all good either. And it seems less accountable to the public in some respects. Take a look at its budgets sometime.
My two cents.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:14 am
naomi: please read the brochure per the link i offered. this is published by morr and has statistics and charts and is totally appalling. (skip over the goofy cartoons.)
i urge all out there who care about their cities and their neighbors to read this brochure.
shirley
July 10th, 2009 at 8:21 am
If you abolished redevelopment agencies completely, what would you replace it with? If you say “nothing”, then you’re essentially mortgaging the future development of your city for the purpose of making ends meet today. I, for one, actually care about the future. But hey, that’s just me.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Wasn’t the Fox done with public funds?
And as far as Chinatown goes, one of the things that makes it possible for growth to proceed there so easily is that they don’t have neighborhood groups trying to micromanage every last design detail, building height, or retail tenant. A while back, a thrift store tried to move in on lakeshore and the neighbors went apeshit. If that set them off, can you imagine how they’d react to a window full of ducks roasting with the heads and feet still on?
Maybe you could eliminate redevelopment agencies. But if we want to create a Ron Paul, libertarian, no-waste, no-free-money paradigm for development, we’d have to also eliminate the waste and inefficiency that comes from allowing non-investors to hamstring, stall or stop projects.
In short: if you axe redevelopment agencies, shouldn’t if only be fair to axe planning commissions too?
July 10th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Hey, it works for Houston.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Ah Houston, where recycling bins are a threat to personal freedom…
July 10th, 2009 at 9:18 am
At least you can take your dog to the park there.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Snap. I’ve been officially put in my place.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am
RDA’s and TIF’s are scams. If the project is so great and should be funded with public funds, well, fund it out of the big pot ‘o’ money.
If a section of the city is essentially cordoned off through tax dollars, why not just go whole hog and let that section become independent?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Which part of Houston? Downtown? There’s no town there after working hours, (unless you go on a game night). It’s like Oakland BEFORE redevelopment (even though it’s 10x bigger).
Ok, I guess at least they have a baseball stadium & a convention center downtown. The envy of Oakland…
July 10th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Marlene, You mentioned a while ago your next Lawsuit might be about the Mayor not working F/T…
Though it was informally known that Cynthia Dellums was running some things, with Edgerly’s lawsuit the specifics are now coming out. According to Chip Johnson the lawsuit claims Cynthia was running & convening city department head meetings…If true I doubt that’s legal.
Does this affect your prospects of suing?
July 10th, 2009 at 11:03 am
This could actually be a good thing for the City in the long run if it makes it to court. Glad to hear that at least one councilmember realizes that settling out of court is political suicide. Besides, settling out of court with someone who is the subject of an FBI investigation?
July 11th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Saw this via Andrew Sullivan (entry “One Reason California is Bankrupt”):
“[California]‘s annual pension fund contribution vaulted from $321 million in 2000-01 to $7.3 billion last year.”
Anyone know what the comparable statistic is for Oakland?
The city’s amount should be adjusted for the undercontribution our city’s leaders have chosen to defer.
When comparing the 2000 number to know, the ultimate question is: are we getting better served by our government for the higher tax burden we carry?
July 11th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Saw this brochure yesterday for Measure “C.” Prominently, it notes that Oakland residents will see no tax increase. Only outsiders who stay in a hotel located in Oakland will see a 25% increase in the hotel tax.
In honor of those who vote for this, perhaps we could change the city motto to “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me—-tax the guy behind the tree.”
Also, the brochure was a slick, highly produced document. Must have cost a whole lot of money to design, produce and mail. Don’t you think? By comparison, how much money would this new tax actually “generate”? Seems way out of proportion. Who paid for this brochure?
July 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
continuing the earthquakes, faults meme
huge beach uplift in alaska
http://www.homernews.com/stories/070809/news_1_002.shtml
i’m told freshly that the “70% chance of 7.0 earthquake in east bay in 30 years” has now been updated to “20 years.”
no wonder jane brunner is jumping around about saving money to deal with that eventuality than paying off muni debts… everyone have their 72hour and 3month kits?
July 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@livegreen: oddly enough, Houston now has a light rail train running thru their downtown, SF style, unlike us with bart underground and crappy bone jarring Van Hurls above ground. (nice paid trips to bruno-land, eh ACT directors?)
http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/
http://www.visithoustontexas.com/visitors/green/Index
Oakland is greener than Houston, but we still have
###
Check this: we have a true unemployment rate in Oakland approaching 40% if I am reading this correctly. I hope I am mistaken:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0653000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
294k total population over age 16
230k population Eligible to Work by my count.
IN labor force: 65%: 191k (65% — includes “unemployed” at only 6.5% or 12.5k)
NOT IN labor force: 35%: **102k** (retirees on social security or unsustainable 90% calpers pensions, in prison for pot or actual crimes, 10k still in high school, homeless, stay at home moms, trust fund babies, extended workers’ comp/disability)
Let’s figure out what’s in that 102k…
They can’t ALL be retirees right? Deyam that would be a lot of old fogies in Oaktown!
HS grade 9-12 population is 19,000.
9th grade- 14,15yo 5k
10- 15,16yo 5k
11- 16,17yo 5k
12- 17,18yo 4k
remove the 10k under age 16, total NOT IN Workforce population is 102-10 = 92k
remove the 9k over age 16 but still in high school is 92-9 = 83k
So, still have 83,000 retirees, homeless, Oakland residents wasting time in Santa Rita jail in Dublin, or others not working.
Charitably assume community college/college age population of 15k in school at UC or CSU, etc. 83-15= 68k
That leaves us 68,000 retirees, parolees, homeless, on disability and unemployable, selling drugs on the street, living under rich or poor parents’ roof.
Are a portion of the 68k “illegal aliens” using borrowed SSNs who were counted at census time but don’t report income to the feds? Assume 15k of those.
So, 53k Not In Workforce Over Age 18. (up to I dunno, age 99 a la myspace?)
So it seems that the 53k must be split into:
– Retirees (42k–see below)
– Parollees without jobs
– Prisoners
– Disableds
– Pregnant women and stay at home moms
Prison-related population can at most be 5,000 here. Does that seem low?
Out of prison:
From http://www.urbanstrategies.org/programs/csj/news/2004/2004-07-01.html
Oakland Parolee Population:
* CDC1 6/16/04 2,315
* CYA 6/28/04 253
Total=2,568 as of June 2004. This doesn’t tell me anything about whether they are working at McDonald’s or not.
In prison: can’t find data on # of Oaklanders in prison.
I did find this article on an Oakland pastor who went to jail voluntarily:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15341
Tricky: the “IN Workforce” number included a “6.5% unemployed” figure of 12,000.
Which is the larger group of bodies: retirees, or prisoners/parolees?
Obviously, retirees…as much as media highlights crimanimals constantly.
Smithsonian mag says we had 11.3% retirees as % of pop in 2006.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/where-to-live/oakland-california.html
Total pop 372k per American Fact Finder.
11.3% = 42k+
I leave this exercise to other curious minds to figure out. I’m sure we have AT LEAST 25,000 retirees in Oakland though. Good weather, retirement homes throughout rockridge and temescal that I know of plus those sojourner truth manors along MLK, all the people you see shopping at Long’s Drugs on your odd day off during the week….
Maybe up to 5k moms and preggers, leaving the rrest to be in prison or out of prison, plus people who habituate around the social services building on san pablo at 20th street.
——————————-
14% of Oaklanders are government workers. (all levels)
Families below poverty level: 15%
22% do not graduate high school with a diploma (probably includes some immigrants, but still seems too high)
37% of mothers are unmarried (this seems like a problem…or no?)
July 11th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
edit:
oakland commute rate is STILL 59% DRIVE ALONE to work.
not so green.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Does anyone know what the signs in the medians around the Lake say? They were posted by the City and are white with green lettering. The font was too small to read at speed (nice waste of $). I didn’t really want to risk my life standing in the middle of Lakeshore @ E 18th St. to see what they were.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
ELB, if the median is landscaped, the sign might be the one alerting you to the ongoing budget crises has resulted in reduced maintenance and the need for volunteer citizen gardner.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Ken, you are reading the stats incorrectly. You are only un/underemployed if you are either looking or doing something which is below your capacity (you would leave it in a heartbeat if you found something in your field).
37% unmarried mothers is a problem, it is a bigger problem if these unmarried mothers lack a high school diploma
July 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I really love the streetcar idea if it can use the BART’s Coliseum money. I would really make exploring Oakland, much more easier than it is now. Perhaps even cheaper.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:08 am
From Wall Street Journal
JULY 11, 2009
Cuts to Police Force Test a Safer Oakland
By BOBBY WHITE
OAKLAND, Calif. — Long a poster child of high crime, Oakland is preparing to lay off nearly a fifth of its police force just as it has turned the corner on crime, part of a national trend in the recession.
This city of 400,000 said last month it would cut 140 officers from its 800-strong police force, the department’s first-ever mass layoffs.
View Full Image
Oakland police faced demonstrations in January after a transit police officer shot an unarmed man to death. The city is planning to lay off nearly 20% of the department’s officers as it tries to erase a budget deficit.
Getty Images
Oakland police faced demonstrations in January after a transit police officer shot an unarmed man to death. The city is planning to lay off nearly 20% of the department’s officers as it tries to erase a budget deficit.
Oakland police faced demonstrations in January after a transit police officer shot an unarmed man to death. The city is planning to lay off nearly 20% of the department’s officers as it tries to erase a budget deficit.
Oakland police faced demonstrations in January after a transit police officer shot an unarmed man to death. The city is planning to lay off nearly 20% of the department’s officers as it tries to erase a budget deficit.
Dozens of hard-hit cities have done the same. In May, Toledo, Ohio, laid off 11% of its police force. In Minnesota, seven city police departments have closed since March, and state officials say an additional nine departments are likely to close by year’s end.
The Oakland cuts, to take effect in September, come after the city spent the past five years building its police force to the highest number of officers it had ever seen. The buildup is credited with helping to lower the city’s number of homicides by about 20% and cut its violent crime by about 13% over the past year.
To hang onto those gains, Oakland has tried for months to protect police from cutbacks. Faced with an $83 million budget deficit, Oakland lawmakers instead closed City Hall one day a month, trimmed the city attorney’s budget 10%, reduced Mayor Ron Dellums’s staff by 20% and even grounded the police department’s helicopter, saving the city about $400,000 annually.
But the moves weren’t enough. “We absolutely don’t want to lose any police officers, and under no circumstances would we do this voluntarily,” said Oakland City Council president Jane Brunner. “But we have no other choice. Our hand has been forced.”
Oakland’s experience shows how the recession is pushing some cities to enact last-resort budget cuts that could threaten basic law and order.
Police layoffs have been particularly prevalent recently in California, which has the second-largest number of local police at about 40,000 officers, according to the Department of Justice. New York state has the largest, with about 50,000 officers. Stockton, Calif., announced last month it would lay off just less than 10% of its police force, while Modesto, Calif., plans to shed 5% of its officers.
California’s budget crisis is exacerbating the financial pressure on communities.
Overall, about 1,100 police officers lost their jobs in California in the fiscal year ended June 30, and an additional 900 are projected to be laid off in the current fiscal year, according to the California Association of Police Chiefs. One city bucking the trend is Los Angeles, which has proposed hiring 1,000 officers by year’s end, despite facing a $530 million budget deficit.
In Oakland, law and order is a particular focus because the city wants to eradicate its reputation for violent crime, which has hurt its economic prospects. For most of this decade, Oakland had a crime rate that was double or triple the national average, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics and a report by former Oakland police chief Wayne Tucker.
Even this year, despite an overall drop in crime, Oakland has seen some high-profile violence. In January, the city grappled with riots over the killing of an unarmed man by transit police. In March, a parolee shot and killed four police officers.
Still, the growth in Oakland’s police force helped tamped down crime, statistics show. “It’s a big deal that we’ve been able to bring the crime rate down, and part of that can be attributed to adding more cops to our department,” Ms. Brunner said.
Barry Donelan, vice president of the Oakland Association of Police Officers and a sergeant on the force, said the department was trying to negotiate with the city to find areas where it could help avoid layoffs. “Laying off the number of officers [the city council] is proposing will have a major impact on crime, and it will not be positive,” he said. “The city and its residents will suffer.” He declined to comment on the morale of the police officers.
“The prospect of losing officers is not something we look forward to, but it’s an unfortunate sign of the city’s fiscal situation,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for Oakland’s Police Department.
To blunt the pain, Oakland officials have applied for about $24 million from a $1 billion federal grant offered by the Department of Justice that is part of the economic-stimulus plan. The grant, called the Cops Hiring Recovery Plan, was slated to save about 5,500 police jobs.
But city lawmakers are concerned they won’t receive much of the stimulus money because there is so much competition for the funds. In late June, Mr. Dellums traveled to Washington to lobby for the grant dollars, visiting with Attorney General Eric Holder and others.
“We desperately need the federal government to assist us to the maximum extent possible,” Mr. Dellums said.
Write to Bobby White at bobby.white@wsj.com
July 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
On a different subject, why does Desley Brooks abstain from voting so much? I’ve always had the impression that you abstain when you have a possible conflict of interest, or maybe for some parliamentary jujitsu, and that’s about it. It’s my impression that you should have a good reason for abstaining, and you ought to be answerable for it. Of course I’m not in her district, so she won’t answer to me.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:44 am
WooHoo! We’re only the 6th crappiest state government! http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090713_9497.php
SC, Alaska, Illinois, Nevada, and NY were all rated worse than us. Then again, looking at how screwed up those states are, i’m not sure that’s saying much…
July 14th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Couldn’t stay for the whole meeting, but Army Base Redevel. working its way through 100 speakers or so this afternoon at CED committee. (I was there for the modest purpose of speaking about some small historic structures on the site, then had to rush back to work.) But I did wonder if you might not be interested in the issue of the business that constitute Oakland’s film center, currently housed in those historic warehouses, and worrying about being displaced under the staff-preferred CCG proposal.
I like the idea of industrial and maritime uses on the army base land, but it would be nice to keep our filmmakers and our historic buildings over there on its edge.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Does anyone know what’s going into the storefront on Grand between the Subways and the corner of Broadway? There’s been plywood covering up the front for a while now and there does seems to be activity when I go by but it’s moving slowly. Another eatery perhaps? It looked like there was a liquor license type announcement on the front.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
It’s Era, a new bar/art gallery. You can get a peek at the space here.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
ok, you anti cookie people got your wish to put ncpc’s on a diet. (repost from charlie pine). they cut more than cookies. all to save a whopping $50k. -len
“To: Members of the Community Policing Advisory Board and Neighborhood Crime
Prevention Councils
From: Claudia Albano, Assistant Public Safety Coordinator
Date: July 13, 2009
Re: Funds for NCPCs
As you know, each Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) has been eligible
for $700 per year to spend on crime prevention and other activities in their
beat. These funds were part of a larger allocation of $50,000 per year from the
Oakland Police Department to further community policing, and were used to defray
the cost of such things as the bi-annual Leadership Summit, National Night Out,
and the Community Policing Advisory Board annual retreat.
As you may know, the City of Oakland has a severe budget deficit. I have been
informed by Gilbert Garcia, the Deputy Director of OPD Fiscal Services that the
$50,000 allocation is no longer available – which means the $700 per NCPC is no
longer available. This is an unfortunate situation since I know the funds have
been used for many important improvements and activities over the past decade
that have fostered community involvement in crime prevention and problem
solving. I am providing you with this information so you man plan accordingly.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at
238-6472 or calbano@…, or Gilbert Garcia at 238-6443 or
ggarcia@….
cc: Dorlista Reed, Public Safety Coordinator
Gilbert Garcia, Deputy Director, OPD Fiscal Services”
July 15th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Congrats to V. Smoothe and A Better Oakland — winner of the 2009 EBX Best of the East Bay for Best Blogger.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Thank you so much Dan and also to everyone who voted for me. I’m deeply flattered.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
The Lakeshore NPCP seems about ready to get out the pichforks and torches over the new parking regulations. Nothing like a $50 to $350 parking ticket in front of someones house to turn them into an activist.
Cookies aren’t going to make the agenda.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I think they targeted Kernighan’s district because she opposed the higher fines and the strict enforcement.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
They targeted Kernighan’s district because it’s full of parking violations. The city knew it would be a cash cow as soon as they started doing real enforcement. Kernighan knew it too, and her dissenting vote was a butt-covering move so she can look good to her constituents.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Armed robbery in Rockridge, is Oakland un policeable?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:55 am
V, i think we were wrong and charlie pine correct about dellums and the councils scheduling police layoffs only to get fed money and how dellums would never actually lay them off because layoffs would halt Measure Y spending on anti violence non cop programs. or with the same effect, dellums was delluding himself again about his federal connections. ultimately i don’t think our council president JB really changed her position of many years that more cops were not the solution to oakland crime.
in the end layoffs of cops will be presented to us in a way similar to Measure D. “we tried so very hard but this is the best we could do” vein.
will the WSJ let you provide a link to their article on Oakland crime and police layoffs?
-len raphael
temescal
July 18th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I’ve heard about a program in Oakland that plants trees for free for residents. My family is thinking of getting a tree in front of our house since the grass patch area on the sidewalk is currently a wide dry grass area with nothing special. No need to cut the pavement, just clean the area around it, and plant a tree. I was wondering if that program still plant trees for free. If anyone knows, please help.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:38 am
len, are you referring to the article posted above? On the political I owe you scale Dellums is probably not even a blip. the problem with long serving old people in public service they think they are more important than they actually are.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:44 am
ralph, yes. i missed that repost. and btw, JB wasn’t the only council member who for years opposed hiring more cops.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:52 am
if you hire more cops, you can’t give more dollars to suspect, if not downright meritless, afterschool programs.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Chris, people in Kernighan’s district were not complaigning about the sidewalk parking, it was a problem in other districts. If this had any relationship to curing problems, they would have gone after the areas where there were complaints. But you are right, the law is only an excuse here. As is typical, the city has no desire to actually solve a problem.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:57 am
len, want to take another stand on whether Dellums and the council will wait in laying off the police until after they have sent the tax certification to the county, which will let them collect the Measure Y taxes for another year anyway?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:44 am
rbt, i’ll take the 5th. i underestimated several aspects of our elected officials.
when they continue to collect the Y tax but don’t spend it (or was it they only had to “allocate it” Marleen?), can the council borrow against those tax monies? if yes, lindheim and council might just be buying a couple of years in the hope that revenues will bounce back by then or at least most of them will be retired on city pers, on to better jobs etc.
-len
July 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Almer, the city has information about that tree program here.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
len, great age brings great cynicism, apparently. I think that Russo will find a way to jsutify anything the council wants to do in terms of collecting the tax and even spending the money.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I know this is last minute, but if you happen to be around the Dimond District Sunday head on over to the neighborhood’s annual picnic.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am
Does anybody know if Oakland has a contingency plan for a budget that accounts for the $12 million the State is about to steal from us? Did I say steal, I’m sorry, I meant “borrow without asking”.
Can we pay them in IOUs? Can we borrow some CalTrans Bulldozers without asking and sell them on eBay?
OK. Venting over. What’s getting cut?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
the frequency with which i normally get my hair cut. turns out my barber can’t eat with i.o.u.s. so, instead of every 3 wks and 17 times a year, i am scaling back to every 4 wks or 13 times a year. this will save me $88/yr, the barber may have to cut back on dinners out, the restaurant may have to scale back on staff, a waiter will scale back on vacation plans and some kitchen staff may shop at pack and sav instead of safeway…if only i could steal from the tip jar or the guy on the corner… it must be good to be the state
July 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I find this state money grab infuriating. I don’t know how it’s even tolerated. Is this Prop. 13 or where does this system come from?
Someone please explain to me why the current State budget is better than approving the original 4 budget Propositions? As archaic as they might have been no structural reform came out of the final budget anyway…
July 21st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Well, the propositions from the May special election would not have come anywhere near closing the fund gap. The only one that would have raised any significant amount of money would have done so by borrowing against future revenues, virtually guaranteeing that we would be in an even worse situation a few years from now. So any budget that doesn’t do that is better. Of course, this budget does rely on some “borrowing,” although I don’t think anyone is going to be holding their breath waiting for the State to pay it back.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
looked a chunk of the local funds would come from redevelopment agency real estate tax collections not the general fund. doesn’t that only indirectly increase general fund deficit by reducing the RDA funds avail for reimbursing general fund for certain things? would greatly slow down RDA activity?
July 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The State plans to take $4.3 billion of local money from three different sources:
1. $1 billion in local gas taxes
2. $2 billion in local property taxes
3. $1.3 billion in local redevelopment funds
If my memory is correct, this will break down for Oakland as follows: $6.5 million from gas tax, $11.8 million from property tax, and around $8 million in redevelopment funds. The State tried to take the redevelopment money last year, a court ruled last Spring that they weren’t allowed to, but the State is currently appealing the decision.
The loss of any one of these sources of money creates huge problems for Oakland – the three combined are devastating.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Not to mention what it’s going to do to the schools (which in the long-term affects business & crime)…
I hope the cities can hold the state’s feet to the fire. (Wonder when the appeals are scheduled?) In the meantime we’re going to need real structural reform, including how wages & pensions are distributed, and how the bureaucracy is managed.
Doesn’t mean we’ll get it though.
BTW, do State workers get the same duplicate automatic salary increases as City workers do? (Both in the salary schedule & COLA’s)?
July 21st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
V, re. your comment “The only one that would have raised any significant amount of money would have done so by borrowing against future revenues, virtually guaranteeing that we would be in an even worse situation a few years from now. So any budget that doesn’t do that is better.”
The problem is it DOES borrow from the future. Except not a few years from now, but NEXT YEAR. I really don’t understand how this is any better. In fact it’s worse because they’re stealing from the cities & stealing from the schools. If they had just borrowed from Wall Street then they’d only be ruining CA’s bond rating. Now they’re bringing Cities & Children down with them…
Details in the Tribune today:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_12883847
with the key paragraphs being:
“Even though the state faces at least a $26.3 billion deficit, the budget deal calls for just $15.5 billion in program cuts. The remaining $10.8 billion shortfall would be erased by borrowing from local governments by $4.4 billion, delaying state employees’ checks from the last month of fiscal 2009-2010 to the first month of the next year, speeding up state tax withholding and other such gimmickry.
The budget deal would take $6 billion from K-14 schools, yet promises to pay them $9.8 billion when the economy recovers for 2008-09 budget cuts as well as $1.5 billion owed from the previous year.
In addition to repaying schools and local governments, the state will have to find ways to pay the cost of postponing a month of state worker pay into the 2010-11 fiscal year and suffer the loss of tax withholding in fiscal 2010-11 that has been front-loaded into the current fiscal year.
In other words, when California faces its next budget crisis, which will be less than a year from now, it will have to deal with more than $14 billion in commitments to local governments and schools and will not be able to repeat one-time accounting legerdemain.
It is dismaying to view the governor and legislative leaders saying they finally accomplished the difficult task of balancing a budget without additional tax increases or overly severe reductions in services. They did not.”
July 21st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
LG’s got a point that (was it ?) half of the budget balancing this time came from ever more painful smoke and mirrors instead of cuts or tax increases.
Measure D win or lose, we’re looking at another special or regular ballot to get approval for the mother of all Oakland parcel taxes.
As with D, if we let the cc and the mayor handle that there will no structural fiscal reform to oakland finances, no effort to improve service delivery efficiency, and no effort to reach public consensus on core city services. Just an urgent plea for more money to prevent desperate across the board cuts. Do we hold our nose and vote for that also?
-len raphael
temescal
July 21st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Poll closing report from ACROV.
REGISTRATION & TURNOUT
Alameda County
Completed Precincts: 260 of 260
Total Registration 204,116
Election Day Reporting Ballots Cast 0 0.00%
Vote by Mail Reporting Ballots Cast 47,424 23.23%
Total Ballots Cast 47,424 23.23%
Measure C – City of Oakland
Completed Precincts: 260 of 260
YES 36,191 76.63%
NO 11,040 23.37%
Measure D – City of Oakland
Completed Precincts: 260 of 260
YES 33,510 71.50%
NO 13,355 28.50%
Measure F – City of Oakland
Completed Precincts: 260 of 260
YES 37,652 79.90%
NO 9,469 20.10%
Measure H – City of Oakland
Completed Precincts: 260 of 260
YES 34,552 74.63%
NO 11,745 25.37%
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
livegreen –
I think you misunderstand the State budget situation and the May election. Proposition 1C, which would have cost us hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the next few years, was stealing from the schools. In fact, had it passed, the schools would probably be taking an even harder cut than they are now. And of course, the theft of local money was pretty much guaranteed to be part of the budget whether or not the May propositions passed, as I have explained repeatedly. And of course, nobody actually expects the State will repay the “borrowed” local money.
I would also caution against relying on editorials for details about complicated things like budget – the description in that piece of the budget deal is pretty sketchy – Sacramento Bee and KQED Capital Notes are good sources for State news.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
V, I’m not questioning your description of the previous Propositions (& I’ll look at 1c again). What I am questioning is whether we end up with something either a whole lot better, or a worthwhile solution in the end.
The borrowing and budget gimmicks in the current revised budget continues and, if not as bad as before, is still pretty bad and negatively impacts both the Schools & Cities (in addition to direct budget impacts, both will potentially negatively impact crime & declining economics).
Finally, the current budget also & still costs hundreds of millions of $, if not billions of $, as agreed in their repayment schedules. We have not ended up with a much better solution for all the dithering & dathering.
The Democrats & Republicans parties are both messed up. The new “Moderate Party” sounds intriguing…
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
In the L.A Times: California’s biggest government pension funds lose almost $100 billion
CalPERS’ preliminary losses were $56.2 billion in the fiscal year that ended last month, while the California State Teachers’ Retirement System lost $43.4 billion.
By Marc Lifsher
The article goes on to say they must earn 7.75% return to cover the losses or ask cities for more money to cover the debt.
Why not go to contract work where possible. That eliminates all of these problems of future obligations and debt. Bad workers and contractors can be removed easier since they are not employees. Fewer workers need to be retained on direct payroll. Competitive bidding should lower prices. Has anyone ever lived or worked in cities that do this? Lakewood was the first. There are others. Does this idea really work? What problems does it have? Does it lower costs?
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Y’all can complain all you want about the state budget cuts, but the fact is the budget has to be cut. I think transferring money from local gov’ts is stupid (and just a transfer–the local gov’ts will then try to raise taxes so it’s a wash), but the fact remains the state must cut the budget. Period. Municipalities must cut their budgets. Period.
A better way to cut would be to convert every last gov’t worker to a 401(k) plan, and eliminate retiree health benefits, but even if we did that, we’d still have to cut gov’t spending. California overspends on everything–law enforcement, prisons, education, and gets extremely low quality results. If we’re getting low quality, why aren’t we at least paying (less) for low quality?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Was the usual local editor on vacation at the Trib, allowing the downer article about oakland crime to get into print today? normally, the trib’s non specific crime articles seem to be written by people on the same happy pills that most of our elected officials favor. but this article seemed liked like a parody of the chronicle coverage of oakland crime.
they even found a rockridge merchant who said something to the effect that he wouldn’t let his own family come to college ave, or was it his dog?
or is this a taste of the new reality show Tribune?
-len
July 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Question about Sanji Handa at the CC last night: When he got up there with the 16 minutes, and I decided to leave, any insight about why JB & the City Clerk didn’t ask him if all HIS speakers were there?
July 29th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
It’s actually a bit different with Sanjiv. He fills out speaker cards on every single item. He used to just come up and take his two minutes on each item, but that took forever. So Ignacio tried to negotiate with him when he was Council President and now Jane does the same. Usually, Jane asks him to uses all of his minutes on the first agenda item. But for nights like last night, when there are lots of speakers signed up, she lets him have his minute for each of the first couple items, and then asks him to do the rest of his minutes later on. Hopefully that explains things.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Talking about Blogging on KQED right now with Salon.com. Nice to finally hear somebody saying positive things about Blogs. They asked for suggestions about good blogs. Hey I know one! Email them at kqed@forum or call them at 1-866-733-6786.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Regarding Harvest Hall or whatever it’s current incarnation is; does anyone know if the place is ever going to open? It looks pretty much complete to me, but empty. I would think the Port (?) would want to get it up and running during the nice summer months. Does anyone have any news?
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
A very sensible quote from Max in SFGate article about the parking increase. Yay!
Nice to see an article presenting more than one side of the issue.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
indeed it was a good quote. if only the commenters were similarly bright. the problem really isn’t council – it is the electorate
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Alma: you can also try the good non-profit Urban ReLeaf based in Oakland. They’ve planted trees in Richmond and Oakland for over 12 years now without any city support.
http://www.urbanreleaf.org
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
gem/Ralph, the quote was two facts (recession and subsidy) used by Max and the reporter in a way to suggest it was a bad thing. But a trillion dollar subsidy has been budgeted by the Feds to help during this recession, so just maybe subsidizing business during this recession is not a bad thing?
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Certainly better than waging a 5 trillion dollar war for no apparent reason.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Robert, I read that differently. I also read it at 3:50 in the a.m. after being out all night.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
My point was more that everybody’s taking cuts, Michaan’s neighborhood has more parking than many others, and he’s still benefiting from subsidized parking, so why exactly is he going apeshit?
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Good my 3:50 am reading comprehension is still as good as my 3:50 pm comprehension even at my advanced age.
and while enjoying Lakefest, I noticed the BA sign announcing the 4hr free parking in marked stalls. so, to echo max, what again is his gripe, and does he think he is going to lose business to emeryville movieplex.
and speaking of the lake – why didn’t anyone inform me about Lanesplitter
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Well, I drove around Grand Ave looking for parking this Sunday afternoon so I could stop at Walden Pond Books. I made 4 passes without any luck before giving up and heading over to Piedmont Ave and Black Swan Books. If parking rates were higher, it would encourage turnover in those spots and I might have been able to spend some money in the Grand Lake district. But hey, let’s keep those parking prices down: Black Swan Books thanks you.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:29 am
Chris,
First, parking is free on Sundays, so parking rates are irrelevant.
Second, Sat and Sun were the Lakeshore Art festival, so there was no parking anywhere within a half mile or more. Hardly your typical Sunday afternoon.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 am
I guess your point was not all that clear in the article.
Michaan always needs to go apeshit about something, this is just his latest cause. For years it was Bush, and nobody got upset because most of Oakland agreed with him.
And the parking lot over by Trader Joes is for Lakeshore shopping only, not supposed to be used for Grand Ave or Grand Lake Theater, so really only one free parking area. (not that that really impacts your argument, but you need to get the facts correct.)
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Robert, you’re totally right. I guess I figured that since pro-parking folks were using isolated, hyperbolic, anecdotal evidence without using facts or statistics, I thought I’d try my hand at it too. It’s quite satisfying.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
What about Lanesplitter, Ralph?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
There is a Lanesplitter on Lake Side. I felt underinformed.
Chris, I thought it was entertaining. Seriously substitute Saturday at noon for Sunday and you have the same painful situation.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
To: Nadel, Nancy
Cc: Brunner, Jane; De La Fuente, Ignacio; Quan, Jean; Fielding, Rich; Russo, John; chjohnson@sfchronicle.com ; kcbsnewsdesk@cbs.com ; news@ktvu.com
Sent: Mon Aug 03 16:36:22 2009
Subject: Lake Merritt and Measure DD improvements
Dear Ms. Nadel,
The improvements near the Boat House look beautiful. However, other projects which have already been completed with measure DD money are not being kept up. The 18th Street Pier is looking dingy, dirty, littered and has graffiti scribbled in many areas. It’s a complete disgrace to spend money to restore beautiful landmarks only to have them neglected soon after.
Ms. Nadel, you and Pat Kerninghan stood at that very 18th Street Pier when it was completed. I challenge you to go back with Pat and a news team and document this disgrace. Also, please take note that the Pergola which was also restored is also looking dingy. How about a pressure wash of those two areas every once in a while? Is this the same standard of maintenance Oaklanders are to expect of the improvements at the Boat House and all other future improvements? This, along with the graffiti splattered benches and filthy pathways directly in front of the Kaiser Center and Christ the Light Cathedral, is totally unacceptable. Lake Merritt is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Goose poop everywhere, overgrown weeds, broken paths, broken docks floating aimlessly, graffiti on benches, trees, paths, refuse containers. The “beach” area is another disgrace. The bird sanctuary area is sad and pitiful.. This is Oakland’s ” Crown Jewel?” Lake Merritt Park has reached third world status. Ms. Nadel, what are you, Mayor Dellums and the City Council going to do about this affront to the people of Oakland?
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I agree with some of the points made by Navigator and can’t wait until they install a behmoth AC Transient bus shelter right next to the 18th Street Pier, replete with garbage can and bus stop sign with schedules which will make this narrowest point of the Lake less accessible to joggers, strollers, kids, etc. as they wend their way around the burping wino sleeping on the bench. But of greater concern is when will the 4, 6, 8 (?) lane freeway, by the Kaiser Auditorium, be demolished to open the Lake and to finally link it (and the public) to the Estuary. Come on jackhammers! Start before the City goes broke!
August 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
On the brighter side of things: Measure DD work on Lakeside at the Lake Chalet seems to be finishing up. The roadway was just resurfaced. The new bike lanes will be striped in the next day or two. I am a happy biker (at that part of the Lake anyway).
August 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Dear Nancy,
Thanks for the info. I understand that the City of Oakland, along with many other cities, faces a severe financial crisis. Having recently returned from Europe, I also understand that our Country has fallen far behind Europe in many ways, mostly due the the heavy investment in militarism in order to be the world’s policeman. Unfortunately, we are no longer a first world country. Having said that, other cities like San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. do a much better job maintaining their landmark parks than Oakland does maintaining Lake Merritt. Balboa Park in San Diego, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, Grant Park in Chicago, Central Park in New York, Boston Common in Boston are all very well maintained despite budget deficits in these cities.
The bottom line is that Lake Merritt can not be allowed to remain in its current deplorable condition. It sends a message to any visitor that Oakland is a third rate city which doesn’t even care about its landmark park. Throwing up our hands and saying that were broke is not an option. There are creative ways to go about reclaiming this park into something presentable. As I said previously, maybe PW can redirect some resources from less prominent locations to improve the maintenance at Lake Merritt. Also, I’m sure in a city of 400,000 residents there are people willing to volunteer to make sure their city’s landmark park gets some tender loving care. Volunteer organization like the Lake Merritt Institute do a good job cleaning around the lake’s perimeter shoreline. Perhaps a call can go out to senior citizen homes and neighboring schools for volunteers to do some gardening and maintenance at Lake Merritt. Monthly cleanups around the Lake sponsored by the City of Oakland along with local businesses is another tool which could be used to supplement some redirected public works resources, along with a campaign for new volunteers for Lake Merritt.
The biggest problem areas are inside Lakeside Park itself. Three fourths of the circumference of the Lake is being revitalized. After the improvements are completed there has to be a way to maintain the new plants, trees, shrubs, paths, sod, light standards, sidewalks, benches, etc. This is where a volunteer campaign by the City of Oakland comes into play. Also, perhaps Oakland can ask for some Federal Stimulus Funds to initiate some badly needed capital improvements in areas of Lakeside Park which will not benefit from Measure DD funds. An upgrade to the bird sanctuary area is sorely needed. An upgrade to the “beach” area next to the bandstand is sorely needed. The removal of those floating blighted docks is sorely needed.
Nancy, I don’t want to bicker. I think we want to be on the same team. I think we need to fight for Lake Merritt. The bottom line is that Lake Merritt is too important to Oakland to let it deteriorate to its present condition. Some of the stuff we’re talking about doesn’t take a whole lot of money. Making sure park benches and paths are free of graffiti shouldn’t be a big deal if monitored on a regular basis. Steam cleaning the 18th Street Pier and the Pergola once a month shouldn’t be a big deal. Oakland’s image as a third rate city, or, as a “ghetto,” will be confirmed by every visitor who frequents the Lake in its present condition. The image these visitors take away from our city will end up costing Oakland much more in the long-term, in lost tourism dollars and lost business opportunities, than the small amount of money it would take to take care of some of these smaller issues.
Nancy, please, please do something regarding Lake Merritt. Please get Mayor Dellums and the City Council involved in order to find a solution to this on-going problem. Thank you.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Is the Mayor and council still fighting to keep the HBo show from filming here. How dumb, I mean why would they want to create jobs and bring some exposure to Oakland.
And to fight this before reading the script is amazing.
How much more time do we have before we can boot Dellums.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Redevelopment districts work as well as your elected and appointed officials.
Since Oakland is run by a bunch of wack jobs I am sure there is a lot of waste and ineffieciency in the redeveloment areas.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Does anyone have a sense of how Jean Quan would do in a race for Mayor against Don Perata? Thoughts?
August 6th, 2009 at 8:33 am
She’s be crushed! I don’t know why that woman thinks she could win a Mayoral race. It’s just delusional.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Over at the Contra Costa Times there’s a nifty link in this article http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/ that shows you where the federal stimulus money is going in alameda county.
We may end up being smarter and prettier (money to both a beauty and a barber college), and possibly fatter – Chubby Burgers made the cut.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
That’s what I think, too V. I really don’t think she has an organization or team since she ran unopposed four years ago . . .
August 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
It’s not just about organization. Don has really good polling numbers, like 64% favorable and only 24% unfavorable, which in local politics is pretty amazing.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am
And how many voters even know who Jean Quan is?
August 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
A lot. Particularly in the hills, which have a very reliable turn out. But knowing who she is and wanting her to be mayor are rather different.
There’s the added issue that in order to run, she has to give up her district 4 seat.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Max, I don’t remember if the charter says you can’t run for both offices, it says you can’t hold two offices.
Also, I think that the parking fiasco, regardless of what you believe about what the rates should be, has damaged her politically, especially in the hills where it is most unpopular.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
On the other hand, Quan would not be quite as beholden to huge contributors from the last umpteen years from all over the state, to my mind possibly a virtue.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
What’s so great about Perata? He hasn’t given us any glimpse of what plans he has for Oakland, if any.
+ I’ve been told up until very very recently he lived in Piedmont. (Before that it was Alameda). Anybody know if that’s true?
August 6th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Robert,
I believe that Quan has not yet sought an opinion from the City Attorney’s office about whether she can run for two things at once. But even if by se
miracle it was allowed, how the hell do you spin it? How can she tell her constituents that she want their vote for two offices that she can’t hold simultaneously? It would be confusing as all hell, and easy for her opponents to spin as egotistical.
Naomi,
It’s true that Don has had a lot of donors and allies, but they’re a large and diverse group, which means that any of their individual pull is diluted by the others. Quan would have a much smaller group with much less diverse interests, which would actually make undue influence more likely.
Plus, I really think that the influence that donors have is overstated. Politicians count votes more than dollars. And Don is capping his campaign contributions at $100 for his Mayoral run. Can Quan make the same promise?
August 6th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Max, Don has received sizable contributions from some heavy hitters, over a period of many years in local and state politics. These are relationships that already exist, and it doesn’t much matter how much folks fork over from here on in. If you gave somebody ten thousand or twenty thousand bucks a few years ago, it probably hasn’t been forgotten. Don is a sophisticated politician who has moved a lot of money between himself, favored candidates, and contributors up and down the state (not counting nonmonetary, but important contributions of influence and persuasion here). Do we want more bigtime state political machinations influencing Oakland politics if not absolutely necessary? I don’t. Of course Quan too has been associated with and might also be influenced by other politicians and sums of money. But I do think one at least ought to do the research on this and think about what the effects might be on our city government, its openness to citizens’ wishes, on transparency and fairness.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
V-Smoothe — the state take of funds from Oakland’s redevelopment agency would be $41 million this year (not $8 million) — almost half of net tax increment revenues– and $8.5 million next year.
Naomi — the restoration of the Fox Theater, Rotunda Building, Swans Market, Tribune Towers, Paramount Theater, City Hall, San Pablo Hotel, Preservation Park, many downtown SROs — all got significant funding from redevelopment tax increment. None of these projects, not to mention dozens of other smaller historic restoration projects, would have happened without the redevelopment agency.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Dan, I know that you are correct. I do not agree with Norby and his MORR movement that redevelopment should be entirely abolished. (Of course these projects also benefitted from syndication of federal historic and housing tax credits, and state money such as Prop 40,etc. )But I do question the tendency toward blockbuster projects that Redevelopment has engendered, and wonder whether a small-lot approach in which land assembly is minimized would be more successful. In Oakland, the limited-objective projects seem to me to have fared better and been done faster than the very large ones. To get a multi-block project built has generally required many many years and enormous staff resources, in addition to the direct funding provided by the redevel. agency. And the results have been mixed. I think projects work better when they fit into the surrounding city by matching the extant parcel dimensions. Thus, a Fox project makes more sense to me than the very protracted City Center project. The City Center project demolished at least twelve blocks, destroyed historic buildings and viable businesses, interrupted the street grid, put some fairly undistinguished buildings in awkward positions, has taken many decades and is still not complete. Additionally, too much redevelopment land went to projects that did not generate any tax increment at all, such as the EBMUD building, State Building, Federal Building, some city buildings. During the decades-long attempts to make an uptown project, many businesses moved out of the area under the pressure of short leases, deferred maintenance and the threat of displacement. Could a business incentive and assistance program have succeeded over a shorter period of time than the present project required? We’ll not know, because nobody tried it.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All