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...
208 Responses to “Open Thread ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
August 11th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Lots of robust discussions happening on the old Open Thread, but the number of comments was getting a little unweildy. Seemed like time for a fresh start.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Russo’s idea of three boroughs plus an at large council, seems like his way of getting rid of district elections. the theory is that at large cc members would be less parochial but don’t see how the reality of making candidates come up with enough bucks to run a city wide election would improve the quality of our cc.
But i’m not even sure that making cc members think more globally = thinking more deeply and several moves ahead.
were recent at large cc members notably better than district members?
anyone know the history of district voting in Oakland?
-len raphael
temescal
August 12th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Len,
your question about the quality of At-Large representation is a tough one to answer. Rebecca Kaplan is awesome, but she’s only been Round
for a little while. Henry Chang, in many people’s opinions, didn’t do much at all.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Has anyone considered the fact that BART actually likes all of the consternation around the OAC because it keeps the focus off of all the other dubious projects that move merrily along under the radar?
There’s the $500M 10 mile eBART extension to Antioch, the who-knows-how-much-it’ll-cost extension to Livermore, and most importantly for BART, nobody at all is talking about the $890M single station Warm Springs extension which makes no sense at all unless it continues down to San Jose.
All of these continue apace without so much as a word in the local press.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:31 am
PRE –
I seriously doubt BART enjoys having to spend months on end fighting to get their capital projects approved under any circumstances. As for the other two projects you mention, there’s really not much to say about them. Transit advocates did try to fight MTC’s reprogramming of money earmarked for Dumbarton Rail to the Warm Springs extension, and they lost. At this point, there’s nothing else to do. And eBART has been delayed basically indefinitely, so there’s not really anything to do about that either.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:50 am
History of at-large voting: When I first came to the east bay, there was no district voting in Oakland. Everyone was elected at-large until the mid-1970s, about 1976. That meant a council made up mostly of white businessmen, with Mayor John Reading presiding.
No African-Americans, no Hispanics, no women. I believe the first woman was Mary Moore, District 2. I think the first black city councilperson was Carter Gilmore. Lionel Wilson was the first non-white mayor, 1977. Raymond Eng and Frank Ogawa were the first two Asian-Americans on the council, and each generally promoted the status quo in most votes.
In my view, it would be backwards to return to all at-large council seats, which require more money and thus favor wealthy contributors. Until Rebecca Kaplan, about whom we don’t yet know, the at-large seat has basically been the chamber of commerce seat, in my view. Tends to support status quo because of the funding level required for election. I hope Rebecca will be more independent. Time will tell.
The idea that Oakland would have a well-balanced council if it returned to at-large elections is a figment of Chip Johnson’s imagination, and seems to me ahistorical, likely to disenfranchise whole stretches of the city, and unlikely.
Please note that our elections will change, though: we are about to find out how it works with instant-runoff voting, which I believe comes in on this next round of local elections. It will change the game plan somewhat: http://www.fairvote.org/oaklandirv/webarchive/
August 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Agreed with Naomi. We watched the “The Times of Harvey Milk” recently, and one of the big points I came away with was how critical district elections were to getting a diversity of voices on SF’s council. Essential here, too, in spite of the challenges that come along with districts.
Incidentally, though, there will be mandated redrawing of council district borders in 2012 or thereabouts following the 2010 Census to balance population. I’d expect to see some rather significant changes in some areas of the city (specifically District 3, where there’s been a lot of housing development since 2000, but possibly other districts too). This might present an opportunity to shift council districts in other ways, too—there are three years to think about it, which is plenty of time to craft a vision and start a conversation around it.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Is there something wrong when whole stretches of the city are disenfranchised? I’m not seeing a problem.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Several of us in West Oakland and down here on the Waterfront have been in favor of redistricting the baby for quite some time: four Districts and four At Larges. Brings more balance to the Council, makes it more democratic and eases the fiefdom quandary without doing away altogether with a dedicated champion for a specific area of town.
Plus which, we wouldn’t have to set up a new system that runs the risk of becoming way too complicated and intrigue-riven. However, the real problem in Oakland is not so much its representatives (in any given time period you’re going to get as many clunkers as you are truly dedicated individuals) as it is the process by which they can be educated as to best practices in Oakland. Let’s face it, your speaker card has about as much worth as a splotch of gum on the sidewalk: it’s mostly an annoyance, and no one particularly wants to have anything to do with it. When was the last time a Councilmember, Commissioner or Mayor ever stopped you on the street to say how much they enjoyed your latest truncated oratory at this or that City, Port or Planning forum?
What can work – as proved by the consistent success of certain lobbyists here in Oakland – is the creation of a better dialogue with our revered policymakers and their staff. And that is accomplished when you and members of your group are seated in some sort of non-confrontational, facilitated forum wherein real interchanges take place and accusations are kept to an absolute minimum (I’d advocate for none whatsoever, but who wants to give up all one’s options?).
So instead of hearing an hour’s worth of one-minute rants which have no relevance with the VIP him-or-herself, his-or-her VIPness is pretty much on the spot to respond with something intelligent, as opposed to some of the truly bogus rationalizations that we’ve all been endlessly exposed to when the VIP’s have already had their minds made up long before you even got up to speak – sort of like the judge down at traffic court when you’re trying to explain why the Toyota’s seat belt can’t always be fastened when you’ve got coffee spilling all over the place: he or she is only impatient and just not at all sympathetic.
Usually, the only place that kind of enhanced dialoguing can occur is at committee level or in chambers. The lobbyists get their interactive face time with the VIP’s, so when can there be equal time for the rest of us, time that is set aside as a matter of courteous public policy and interested outreach? Had that kind of open interchange been available to those who spoke so eloquently at the recent MTC hearing on the Airport Connector, would the Duh vote have been so inexplicably lopsided – as well as so pathetically unjustifiable?
We’ve seen good illustrations of enhanced dialoguing, mostly in the Planning Commission committees where speakers cards are not needed, and the whole proceeding is more or less like a big Task Force. So the next rung on the ladder has to be getting our representatives to adopt best practices and engage in a better, more productive dialogue with the folks they ostensibly serve – the very folks, in fact, who were begged for money, volunteers and votes so that their bigwig wonderfulnesses could be installed in office.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Had that kind of open interchange been available to those who spoke so eloquently at the recent MTC hearing on the Airport Connector, would the Duh vote have been so inexplicably lopsided – as well as so pathetically unjustifiable?
Steve – we did have that kind of interchange with many of the MTC commissioners (some were not worth approaching ahead of time, as they weren’t going to change their minds). And most of those whom we spoke with agreed with us in principal, but in the end, they weren’t willing to stand up against BART and voted for the OAC.
Also, keep in mind that the MTC is not really accountable to anyone. Nobody’s going to vote against a mayor or a supervisor because of some vote on the MTC. Few even know that their local reps are on the MTC.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
And speaking of the OAC, if you haven’t done so yet, please sign the petition opposing the OAC and asking for a better connector: http://oaklandairportconnector.com/sign-the-petition/
August 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Well, maybe the Transportation Commission that the Mayor’s Task Forces recommended (or, just short of that, a Transportation Roundtable that Rebecca has been contemplating) can be put together soon enough to help MTC Commissioners (and JPC’s Smart Growth proponents) better understand the difference between thoughtful representation of healthy public transit and rubberstamping of More-Than-Craven staff infection.
– S
[Plus which, there's still no Duckie-Go-Round for the Boathouse: not exactly what most people think of when public transport is mentioned, but still...]
August 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
New police chief.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13046138
August 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
The new chief sounds great on paper. I got high hopes for a new era of detente.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A very shrewd pick indeed.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Patrick, curious why you think it’s a saavy selection other than the diversity angle.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
There is nothing diverse about a black mayor choosing a black police chief in a city that is now less than 30% black.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Anthony Batts seems exceptionally well-qualified. Long Beach is similarly-sized to Oakland, and we have other things in common: incredible diversity, a Port-oriented economy, and a larger neighbor overshadowing us. Long Beach seems better-run and more successful than Oakland. Batts appears to be a very good choice.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I also agree with Naomi that district elections are a good thing. Steve, Becks’ example of how the MTC is unaccountable, and that’s why they approve bad and unpopular projects like the OAC, proves the point. With smallish districts (Oakland’s districts are the same size as SF’s, though SF has more voters per-capita), Councilmembers simply can’t avoid talking to and being responsible to constituents. Maybe we could add an additional at-large seat so there’s one every cycle.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco does not have a port to speak of; LB and LA are not separated by a 7 mile long bridge/bay, and Long Beach, futhermore, had a 2008 budget of $3.1 billion; a huge disparity when you consider our population difference is only 20%. I agree: Oakland made a good choice, the question is whether Batts did.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Because clearly Oakland’s improved as a city since the elimination of ‘at-large’ elections.
I’ll wait while you find a metric that’s improved in the past 30 years. I think I’ll be waiting awhile.
D
August 12th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
diversity or adversity. i love dearly my rainbow hodge podge of neighbors, but i am not convinced that it’s an unmixed blessing to our city . i have this suspicion that a lot of people here figure they’ve fully discharged their civic duties by merely getting along with their neighbors.
regardless, dellums was the one who touted new police chief’s urban diversity as a big plus.
wb interested to learn what it took to make a change here to district representation. the change that jerry brown pushed for a strong mayor doesn’t seem anywhere as big a deal.
-len raphael
temescal
August 12th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
what are the stats for the long beach police dept re officer to resident ratio, number of cops in IA, number of investigators per unit, crime stats for last decade cf to oakland.
looks like the cops are well paid. http://www.longbeach.gov/police/join/full_time/compensation.asp
-len
August 12th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
For those who missed it, Oakland’s taco trucks got a shout out on the Travel Channel’s “Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations” show on San Francisco this Monday.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Oakland’s public safety can’t improve simply with a new police chief, no matter how good a man Anthony Batts may be. It’s going to take an enormous increase in community involvement to improve things. There is, fortunately, a model, based on the experience in Cincinnati. A good description of police reform there is available at: http://www.cincinnatimonitor.org. The final report on reform (December ’08) is the first download listed at the url. There was also an article on Cincinnati police reform in the New Yorker magazine several weeks ago.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am
One problem of the strong mayor charter revision is that it leaves us with an even no. of councilmembers. Thus they must achieve a supermajority (5 votes) to avoid going to the mayor for the deciding vote. Mysterious abstentions are sometimes part of a dance to avoid giving the mayor a vote. During the Measure X revision hearings necessitated by the incompetent drafting of the original measure, a couple of us committee members advocated either for getting rid of the at-large seat, or adding a second one. We were overruled by the majority of mayor appointees who wanted to keep power in mayoral hands. The current structure gave us the absurdity of having both a vice-mayor and a council president, a newly-invented position with no basis in the city charter, but which has achieved some level of power with control over agenda, rules, and presiding over meetings. Vice mayor is still useful in case mayor drops dead or there is a need for ceremonial representation at somebody else’s funeral. Also, Brown and Dellums rarely or never attend CC meetings. Formerly, the mayor presided over the council meetings as a sort of glorified councilmember–less powerful than mayors now, but more engaged in the public parts of governance, and required to work closely with the other councilmembers. Both Brown and Dellums have taken the opportunity to limit public interaction severely. It was so bad with JB that the Measure X revision included a requirement to meet with the public once in a while. Even the mayor’s appointees worried about the lack of access the public had to the mayor.
Weirdly, neither Brown nor Dellums has fully exercised the office’s increased power. On the other hand, the city administrator position–formerly city manager–has lost a lot of clout and I believe that city staff is less protected from political interference now. And we have difficulty recruiting highest-level professional city management, because the job is subordinated to the mayor’s office. It also seems to me that the elected city attorney is less responsive to citizen access and procedural issues, and more involved in defending the electeds, than formerly. Maybe that is also influenced by city attorney’s ideas about mission. It is new territory for Mr. Russo, as he is the first elected city atty. I hope that the next election provides an opportunity to discuss what that role is and should be.
As to the skeptical comments above about district elections: It is worth a great deal for all citizens to feel they have direct representation on the council, no matter whom they actually elect. The disempowerment related to at-large elections can be seen in the rise of the Black Panthers and other manifestations of unease during the 1960s. Without the modification of the city’s governance, Oakland might have been susceptible to much greater upheavals, as were experienced in many other cities around the country. We have had our share of commotion, but not major riots such as in LA and Newark.
for example:
http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu/n_index.htm
August 13th, 2009 at 10:15 am
It’s worth a great deal? Interesting. Because the Black Panthers did so much to improve Oakland? Because Deep East Oakland dwellers feel so positively about their district?
Sorry. not buying it. I don’t think district elections really contributed to the total mismanagement of Oakland over the past 30 years, but I also don’t think district elections made anything better, because clearly Oakland’s only gotten worse over the past 30 or 40 years.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Maybe it is clear to you. How involved were you in this town thirty years ago? Some things have improved, and some things have gotten worse. But a strictly negative view says more to me about one’s outlook than it does about the city. Nostalgia is not always a clear lens.
Thirty years ago. There was a lot of empty demolished space at city center. Painful attempt at redevelopment in Chinatown. A bubble of condo conversions was displacing enormous numbers of middle-class renters. There were parking complaints (okay, that one is about even steven). There was a crack-related epidemic of shotgun firings in my neighborhood, and several arsons; there were also at least seven abandoned buildings (now all in use and reasonably respectable). Downtown was emptying out. Liberty House (present day Rotunda) vacated in the early 1980s, to be followed by nothing for decades. I don’t have time to go into an extensive history but suffice it to say it has not “only gotten worse.” Some things are better, some worse.
For myself, I choose optimism over gloom even when things are tough. You are welcome to be pessimistic, but does it help?
August 13th, 2009 at 10:38 am
About Mike’s link above: I had no idea such oversight was in place. The Final Report’s opening paragraphs are so telling. Sounds like a lot of legal jargon, way over my head. But it does show how complicated the problem can be. I’ll have to take some time to digest it. Thanks. This is real good information. Also on today’s news is something interesting about CalPers. Looks like the stuff has hit the fan. This is interesting. Perhaps Cincinatti has set a precedent, along with the DOJ. There is at least the appearance of not promoting from within the ranks. Beyond that we have to wait and see.
Still, it seems that everything is about the money. We see CalTrans being involved in the whole debacle here, and BART too. I wonder what Ronald Reagan would do?
August 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Naomi, can you HABO? You seem to grasp the ins and outs of this weak form, no form, strong form mayor, vice mayor and council president concept. How does one become vice mayor or council president? It seems very wrong to be both President and district rep. As CP, I would hope you have your eyes on the bigger picture. As a district scrapper, I imagine you are looking out for your own. What happens when the 2 collide?
I am a simple man of simple means and back where I come from there is a citywide election for a mayor and council president. In the event that the mayor can not fulfill the r&r of the office, the CP, as the only citywide elected rule making official, steps in to complete the term. This makes sense to me.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
30 years ago. “Don’t go below MacArthur”
Today “Don’t go below MacArthur” (ok, I’ll give you China Hill is fine, and Maxwell Park is ok).
Heck, you know what, 50 years ago, my grandmother told my father the same thing, “Don’t go below MacArthur.”
Pretty much the same with the longer view; I’ll admit in the late ’90′s Oakland started getting noticeably better like most cities in the US, off of the nadir of the crack/crime wave of 1989-1993.
My dad’s family’s lived in Oakland (and Berkeley) since, oh, around 1922, when my great-grandfather moved to take a job as a security guard at Mills College. I can show you the house on Lily St. where they grew up (just above MacArthur) if you like. My great-uncle can tell you about the days when the smart kids went to Oakland Tech (fun fact: Clint Eastwood graduated from there several years after him).
It’s nice you’re optimistic. That doesn’t change that the city government, whether it’s district-wide elections or not, hasn’t been the paragon of efficiency for at least a generation, and probably more. Never mind the schools, etc etc.
D
August 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Who still says “Don’t go below MacArthur”? And how far east and west does that apply? I spend most of my time below MacArthur, and I love it here.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Oh, for heaven’s sake, look at the crime reports and compare above and below MacArthur.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
As you have heard by now, Oakland’s new police Chief, Anthony Batts, has been named. What I have learned about him seems like very good news for Oakland. ( I plan to meet with him one on one, and, from information so far and other references, I am optimistic that he has the experience and capabilities to strengthen public safety in Oakland).
For a little more background about him, you can see:
http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about/chief_of_police.asp
August 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
David, I have lived below MacArthur since 1978. My not-stupid younger daughter graduated from Tech two years ago. From her class, three girls went on to MIT. (They may be smarter than Clint, even. Other notable graduates: Curt Flood, Ricky Henderson and Ron Dellums) In New York City, where she will be a college junior, there is a tight-knit group of students from Oakland high schools who get together from time to time.
Okay, I agree with you: Oakland’s municipal government is probably not the paragon of efficiency. (But them neither am I, either! Now, back to work.)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
BART strike on Monday, if you hadn’t heard.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Ron Dellums notable. Curt Flood, I wonder how many in Gen Pop know who he is. I wonder how many athletes know him.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
David,
I wonder how many of those crimes involve someone from above MacArthur getting jacked below MacArthur. I’ve lived in West Oakland for 5 years and the only person who’s ever presented even a minor threat was a drunk hipster from San Francisco.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Max, maybe not you personnaly being threatened, but from another thead,
1. How many people do you know who’ve been mugged or attacked by Lake Merritt after dark?
1: more than 5.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Dellums notable, in the sense that he has name recognition. But in the sense of actually producing anything of note?
August 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
It’s healthy that the new police chief is “an outsider.” When was the last time OPD had a chief from outside the ranks? He sounds like a great choice; hope he can challenge the POA and get some pride back in the job. A good first step would be for him to release findings on the investigations into the four deaths of the patrol officers and SWAT members.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
The BART strike is Sunday, midnight. Technically isn’t that Sunday 12am, meaning very early Sunday morning?
August 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Uh, no? It is confusing because we say that “12am” = midnight. But, the American convention is that our days end at exactly midnight, and the next day begins immediately after.
Either way, this strike is gonna suck.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
@Mike Spencer: The last time OPD had a chief from outside the ranks was the last chief. Hired in February 2005, Chief Tucker was from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Violent crime spiked 60% during his four-year tenure. Let’s hope this outsider does better.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Patrick, I disagree with your American convention. By your definition, a no parking 12am – 3am on Mon would translate to no parking on Sunday and Monday. This is why I use the 12:01 convention.
I do agree the strike is going to sbmb. Just hope they resolve it before I get back into town.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Naomi. The exception that proves the rule.
http://www.city-data.com/school/oakland-technical-high-ca.html
In your next trick, you’re going to argue that because there are a lot of smart people at Cal State Hayward (I refuse the “East Bay” nomenclature), the average caliber of student there is comparable to, oh, UC-Berkeley.
Max, we can do argument by anecdote all day. I will say that there are parts of West Oakland that aren’t that bad. Before children, I used to play baseball at DeFremery all the time, and it was fine. I also earned the respect of the locals by defining “pot likker.” Going up to the 30′s and MacArthur, not so fine.
What you can’t argue is the Oakland crime map. There are objectively many more crimes below Mac than above it. Period. And judging from my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents comments, it’s been that way for a long long time.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
JB, yup. and Tucker was Jerry Brown’s pick.
Mike, i tried and gave reading that Rand document. I need the Newyorker version or can you summarize and cf to Oakland’s Rider federal monitoring? If anyone can tell me anything good that has come out of our monitoring, please tell.
-len raphael
temescal
August 13th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Sol, that calpers article quotes the state’s actuary simply stating that calpers benefits are not “sustainable” and that a two tiered fix (new hires get the shaft) is too little too late. then the quote from another muckymuck that it has to be fixed before it hits the ballot.
can’t cut benefits because of contracts, so have to layoff current employees so older employees can retire and get their promised benefits. politically unacceptable to make all new employees accept 401k type plans. enough to make one join a tea party.
-len raphael
temescal
August 14th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on if we simply can’t pay the pensions.
Existing public employees are going to have take lower benefits, or take a number at the unemployment line.
Speaking of which, are you ready to apply for a BART job. Cuz I sure am.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Oh BART, For those of us who rely on your service, why must every single part of your organization (Mangement, Workers, Train Cars) be so dysfunctional.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Quick analysis of BART worker salaries finds that the bottom 20% make $60K/year.
Break the union. Break it hard, break it now.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:38 am
David, there are denser neighborhoods below MacArthur than above it. I’m aware there is more crime below MacArthur, but some adjustment against population numbers by census tract might give a truer picture.
Reading your posts one might conclude that you believe people in spacious single-family homes in the hills are good citizens, and everyone else is a jerk. But I know you probably don’t intend that. You seem a lot better informed and more thoughtful than that.
Anyhow, I am not focussed on crime as my reason for going or not going someplace, perhaps a legacy from my New York roots.
My grandmother used to say “Don’t cross Central Park after 4 pm!” My friend’s mother said “walk on the outside edge of the sidewalk! Air conditioners might fall down and kill you!” I crossed Central Park. I walked on the sidewalk’s inner edge. Life is too short for for living by one’s fears, which does not mean that I don’t have any, but that there are more important factors.
As to Dellums’ career, no matter what you think of him as mayor, he did a pretty good job as congressman, chair of Armed Services Committee, and in leading the charge against apartheid in South Africa. And he brought a lot of federal funds to this district. He performed with courage and with integrity.
As to Curt Flood, okay, if you want I’ll find you a few others. But he was illustrious in his prime.
As to Oakland Tech, statistics don’t tell everything. I was responding to your comment that smart kids once sought out Oakland Tech for high school. They still do. (If you doubt this, ask around, or google Oakland Tech MIT or Oakland Tech Harvard). I agree that OUSD has some lousy stats (and did not benefit whatsoever from the hapless state takeover abetted by Messrs. Perata and O’Connell), but in the dreadful picture of California schools many things going on at Tech are impressive. They just got a six-year WASC accreditation. They are sending a lot of Oakland students (many from below MacArthur!) to excellent colleges.
Out of the posts on this well-known involved-middle-class-parent site, two negative, all the rest pretty darn positive.
http://parents.berkeley.edu/recommend/schools/oakland/oaklandtech.html
General info:
oaklandtech.com
August 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am
VS had some pretty good comments embedded in some thread about what the City auditor is NOT doing that she should be, esp as compared to her predecessor. But dang, I can’t find that thread.
Anyone know or remember what thread that was?
August 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Is it the case that BART, Caltrans, OPD, SEIU, OFD and every other publicly funded organization is part of the PERS system? When I worked as a public employee the union not only paid for my health care plan(at a nominal or very low cost to me) but I paid no social security either. That gave me something like 6.5% more on my paycheck than someone making a comparable base pay in the private sector. It adds up in a hurry. We should all remember that in the case of all PERS participants, that’s money which is not going back into circulation, ever, if those benefitting are not spending their income locally. It effectively makes cities like Oakland and others like privatized corporations that enjoy a tax-exempt status. IMHO. it seems the larger problem is endemic to the system itself.
When all these agencies are getting lock-step guaranteed increases, and have been for so long, it’s no surprise about the difficulty in getting concessions. What fries me is the ginormous waste just to keep certain projects fully staffed with managers and consultants while delays and bad work(the ped. walkway) along the Dublin(?) route are decidedly a waste. Now, they pick this time to draw everyone into this extortive process. The bridge is slated to be closed in a couple of weeks. How much more is this going to cost?
August 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am
VivekB: I think it was in
more-budget-cuts-coming-on-tuesday/2009-07-25
August 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Yeah, that was it. The post is here, and the auditor stuff starts pretty far down in the comments.
I realize the search function on this site is very poor. That’s something I hope to remedy with some changes I’m working on right now, and hope to unveil in the next few weeks. Speaking of which – if anyone has something they’d like to see added to the site, now is a good time to suggest it.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Naomi, we’ll have to agree to disagree on Dellums congressional track record. My take is that he was all show. As far as delivering the pork to Oakland, in the end we got scrooged on mothballing the bases and losing hecka good paying jobs.
So some time, we should really go off topic and discuss the record of his successor, Barbara Lee.
-len
August 14th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Naomi
It’s amusing that in one paragraph you extol the 3 Oakland tech grads who went to MIT, and in another you point out that population density might be the cause for absolute higher crime rates below Mac. Yet, remind me again how many students go to Tech, oh yeah, about 1800.. Could those awesome 3 graduates be just the law of large numbers?
Actual densities aren’t that different, maybe by a factor of +/- 30% at the most. Crime differences are an order of magnitude different at least. Even Adams Point isn’t 10 times as dense as Rockridge. And there are plenty of neighborhoods in East and West Oakland below Mac, that are the same density as hill ‘hoods, but with the typical East/West Oakland crime happenings.
We can disagree on Dullums’s Congressional career (I actually didn’t comment on him being an example of a dumb Oakland tech graduate, although anyone who supports Castro and the ex-Communist gov’t of Grenada is clearly a fool). Reading your posts, one might conclude that you enjoy walking around 30th and San Pablo at 2 am in a short short skirt just for kicks. Give me a break. I don’t think, nor have ever stated that people living in the hills are “good citizens” and those in the flats are “jerks.”
What I’m tired of is people making excuses for Oakland. Seriously. Huge swaths of the city are crap, by any objective measure–housing stock, crime, open air drug markets, mass transit access etc etc. I’m tired of people pretending that crime isn’t so bad. Again, by any objective measure, it’s terrible. Ditto for the schools. Sure, there are maybe a half dozen decent elementary schools, and that’s it. Gov’t officials are overpaid do-nothing gold brickers. And then the mindless “diversity” bleating worship.
Yes, there are nice neighborhoods. Sure you like yours. That’s why you live there. But stop pretending Oakland overall is anything other than a more expensive version of a multitude of other crappy mid-size cities in the US (St. Louis/Philadelphia/Milwaukee/Newark/Jacksonville/Mobile etc) with nicer weather.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:56 am
In response to Len (and others who want to reflect on violent crime issues):
The New Yorker police reform article is from the June 22, 2009 issue, under “Annals of Crime” titled “Don’t Shoot.” Written by John Seabrook, it’s an easy and enjoyable read.
Bottom line with regard to Oakland police reform: we have a lot of good elements already in play. We need much more community involvement and more institutional involvement. More cops are not the whole solution. We need much better communication between police and the community at large and especially the alienated community. Cincinnati police, for example, have the very unusual policy of publishing police policies and procedures. We need much greater transparency than we have now. Police need much more public support (and understanding) than now exists.
Oakland is not the same as Cincinnati. From what I have heard from Oakland’s Street Violence program coordinator (Measure Y), Kevin Grant, youth violent gang culture is not drug-related, but is tied to power, reputation, personal-identity and personal-affront-retaliation issues. The shooters are getting younger (16 to 24 rather than 18 to 35). It’s a clear reflection of family dysfunction and community failure.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am
David, there are many kids graduating from Oakland Tech who are doing well and becoming useful members of society. It was just an example because you said smart kids didn’t seek to enroll at Tech. You are incorrect about that. It is not an accident.
I’ll disagree with your comment on Grenada just to say that it was one of the most cynical stupid invasions ever.
I’m too old for short skirts. I walk all around Oakland, having achieved the level of invisibility that comes with anonymous middle age. I like and approve of diversity, which since we live in a diverse world we may as well appreciate. Don’t see what is wrong with it.
I don’t think any whole city is crappy, and I am sorry that you suffer from a negative and dreary view of the world, which I do not share. Hey, I once lived in Akron, Ohio! Even that had its virtues. Though at the time it smelled of rubber.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Again. View the scores at Tech.
Again. ‘huge swaths’ does not equal ‘whole.’
August 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I find the oakblogoshere’s relative silence regarding the BART strike disquieting, if not downright peculiar. Yes, it’s been mentioned, but where is the analysis? No one has an opinion? Personally, I would gladly crab-walk over the Bay Bridge before I’d support giving in to the ATU’s demands.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Sitcheations like this get liberals all turned up in knots – BART unions or what my experience tells me riding BART? It’s too difficult to deal with. Better to ignore it and hope it goes away before Monday morning.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Said it before and I’ll say it again. Break the M’fing union. I’ll gladly take a scab job.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
On the Bart issue – either the union needs to cave or Bart needs to hire replacement workers, starting with enough to reopen the key Transbay tube link.
Bay Area workers can’t afford this strike. The last one in 1997 was sort of tolerable because the economy was on the upswing. Not so today.
More importantly, Bay Area workers will not tolerate this strike. I give it one or two weeks before people start demanding the union’s figurative head on a chopping block.
One more thing — there really is little management can do here. They have to balance the budget. They’ve already raised fares. The tax situation is fairly static. Where else can they cut?
August 15th, 2009 at 6:14 am
That’s what we get when a region decides that it’s better for the sake of image and business and political correctness, to place its large businesses and corporations in a city built on landfill, and connected to the mainland by bridges and an underwater tunnel here in earthquake country. The BART strike will be minuscule compared to what might happen when the “big one” hits. Meanwhile, Oakland with a more central business location located on the mainland, is mostly used as a thoroughfare to get to the almighty “City.”
The BART strike may be a good thing for Oakland. Who cares about the economic affects to the “City.” Let’s see how those SF snobs do without the “bridge and tunnel crowd” they so often disparage.
August 15th, 2009 at 6:48 am
But don’t worry, there is no way there will be a strike come Monday. The media is just doing what the media does best. The media is creating hysteria and not letting go of an issue which they perceive will generate higher circulations and ratings. This will be resolved. There is no way the politicians will allow the “City’s” economy to go in the toilet. It’s always all about going to, and coming from, the “City.” The rest of the Bay Area is just background noise for the SF centric media. This is why they always have their cameras fixated on the toll gates at the Bay Bridge.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I disagree, nav. I don’t think the media is creating hysteria at all. I think they’re helping create resolve amongst taxpayers and riders. I don’t think many people anticipated the level of anger regarding the union position – politcians and union members included.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Patrick, I’m just saying that the media makes this out to be something that’s basically a done deal. There is plenty of time to resolve this. I’ll bet you a plate of crow that there will be no strike come Monday. This is all posturing.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Hmmm….very interesting. If the union backs down now, it does not bode well for every other public employee union in the state. But if they don’t back down, the BART board has the support of the populace. Oh! what a tangled web we weave…
August 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Patrick, one reason Oakland bloggers haven’t been digging into the BART contract dispute is because the details aren’t available. We don’t know exactly what the ATU wants, though it does seem they’re paid generously and enjoy inefficient work rules. However, BART management received bonuses earlier this year right before BART announced it was seeking labor savings, and of course the BART Board is determined to build money-losing extensions even when they’re completely unnecessary, like the Oakland Airport Connector. BART’s budget for years has shifted operating funds into capital projects, which is the exact opposite of what every other transit agency prioritizes (agencies usually transfer the maximum possible from capital to operating), and calls into question management’s assertion that substantial labor savings are necessary for the budget to be balanced.
I think everyone should think a little bit more about what BART’s management has been doing to the budget before declaring they support the Board’s contract demands.
August 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
@dto510: Is there anything we, as citizens, can do to find out more about the details of the dispute? While I understand that these types of negotiations need to happen with a little bit of privacy, I’d like to know a little more about the details. For example, how many managers does BART have for every driver & station agent?
And speaking of BART, what do you think about the new citizen’s oversight board that was proposed recently? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/14/BAN31988FC.DTL)
August 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Oops,. my bad JB. (I just never considered Tucker a permanent police chief because it seemed like he was just keeping the chair warm until retirement.)
Worse to me than the parking situation is the City coming after my wallet for business tax each year. I know there is some sort of amnesty but it still amounts to an unfair tax. The City claims that the tax is because as a business, I use more City services. Most of these years I have worked from home. I don’t meet clients at my house and for 13 years have never had to call fire, 911, etc related to my business. It’s a sad state of affairs when it seems that there are more penatlies than breaks for trying to grow a business. It’s the small businesses that have the most potential for adding jobs (thinking of businesses with more than 5 or 10 employees.).
August 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Anca, both BART management (bartlabor.org, now taken down) and BART labor (bartmanagement.org) had websites with their versions of negotiations. You can find the details of what management says is their best offer in the Board agenda, http://bart.gov/about/bod/meetings/agendas/08-13-09%20SPECIAL%20agenda%20packet2.pdf.
Given BART management’s actions and the Board’s public statements about the shooting of Oscar Grant, I would not expect the Board’s police oversight policy to be meaningful or effective.
I think what V would say in response to Patrick’s question, if she weren’t on blogging vacation, is that BART just isn’t her beat. While the BART strike is undeniably important and local, we metrobloggers take seriously our responsibility to be well-informed before publicly advocating a position, so we don’t want to jump into BART negotiations without knowing a lot about BART’s budget and their labor situation. Here’s something missing from the MSM, though – few articles have connected the labor dispute to the Oakland Airport Connector (which the ATU opposes), another major financial decision the board is making. I mean, BART management wants $100m in labor savings so they can take out a $70m loan to build a money-losing extension? That doesn’t seem right.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Mmmm…no. Viewing the union’s demands within the context of what management has or has not done is nothing but pointing fingers – which is what children do. This dispute is not about management; it is about ridiculous work rules and unsustainable compensation. We will deal with management later. Now is the time for BART employees to remember who pays their salaries.
I appreciate the desire for a holistic approach to solving the problems. But it is clear that such an approach = failure. One problem at a time. Asking the ATU to pay for the “employee portion” of their pension is not particularly remarkable, except for the fact that they did not pay it before.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
You can review BART workers salaries (google it, and find the CoCo Times article). A quick slicing of the pay reveals that the BOTTOM 20% of workers makes $60,000/year, which is the average household salary in many Bay Area communities.
Again. Break the union. Break it now. I’ll be first in line for a job. Any job.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
agree w Patrick on this. dt’s reasoning extrapolated to Oakland govt, would mean opposing cuts in employee compnsation and benefits because the city officials fund ngo social programs that are the service equivalent of the bart connector.
-len raphael
temescal
August 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
No Len, city-funded social programs (which are not a huge part of Oakland’s budget problems, unless you’re counting the library and park services), are not the equivalent of the airport connector. BART and other transit agencies have closed-loop funding and a clear mandate. And Oakland’s city employees did not accept a four-year contract with similar provisions to what the ATU is being asked to accept.
August 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
And Oakland’s city employees did not accept a four-year contract with similar provisions to what the ATU is being asked to accept.
You’re right. Oakland workers agreed to a cut in compensation, a wage freeze and increased contribution to retirement. The terms were different, but I think it was pretty painful for Oakland employees also. And you have to remember that one of the major sticking points right now with ATU is in the work rules that allow extensive featherbedding.
August 16th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
BART STRIKE AVERTED!
August 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
NEWS: Expanded Homebuyer’s Assistance in Oakland! I am pleased to announce that Oakland has approved an expansion of our “First Time Homebuyer’s Assistance Program” — which will now allow households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income to receive help, including Downpayment Assistance, to purchase a home in Oakland. My hope is both to help stabilize neighborhoods and prevent blight and crime (which tend to be attracted by vacant properties) while also helping people acquire homes.
More info, and eligibility, and info about qualifying workshops for participation, and more, is available online at:
http://www.rkaplan.org/homebuyer.htm
August 21st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Here’s some crazy sh1t from the southland suburbs:
High Desert Ghetto Birds Fly Over Neighborhoods and Announce Suspect Descriptions with Megaphones
August 21st, 2009
http://cryptogon.com/?p=10519
They never did this in Oakland as far as I could tell. It wouldn’t work! Haha.Plus our “ghetto bird” pilot is no longer getting any flight hours right?
–
Separately, for OUSD fans…
California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. It spends $8,000 on each child attending the Oakland public school system.
http://cryptogon.com/?p=10512
Hooray for the prison guard union, and publicly-traded corporate prisons! And Joe Biden and all them in DC/NY for enabling this crap such as with unequal sentencing laws for crack vs cocaine powder.
Cheers!!
August 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
So for the FirstTime homebuyer program Rebecka Kaplan is promoting, you can’t have income above 100% of median area income. The max price of a house is $503k which means Temescal and Rockridge — nicer areas — are effectively off limits to young couples and other first time buyers without rich parents. The purpose of this program then is to GENTRIFY poor Oakland neighborhoods as in West, East and South Oakland. Not that I’m against that. (there will still be plenty of public housing at $99/mo rents for people lounging at home, getting in trouble, etc. I’ve seen ‘em and some of them throw stuff at me as I bike past.)
So in West Oakland if a house costs 300k and you make 100k combined (a respectable 3:1 income to house price ratio) that isn’t allowed, since the median area income in West Oakland is… 30k? 50k? 70k? For Oakland, the median income is 47k. I don’t have a figure for West O.
You’d have to earn 47k then, for your entire household, which translates to an income to house ratio of over 6:1. Unsustainable right? But the banks will love you! They get money at 0% from the Federal Reserve to loan it out at 5-6% to you! (or more if you have a debt, er, credit card.)
So this FTHB program enables people to engage in mortgages (debt purchases at 5-6% APR) that they realistically cannot afford and should never be allowed to step into.
Owners take better care of property than renters though, that is for damn sure. So despite the problems I encourage this attempt at fostering more Home OWNERSHIP in Oakland. And of course I haven’t checked out the whole FTHB program–maybe there is a significant down payment required, which would make it legitimate.
* median HH incomes: which is more accurate, the city website or the 2007 American FactFinder/Census estimate?
http://www.rkaplan.org/homebuyer.htm
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&-_sse=on
August 21st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Area Median Income for a 2-person family is $71,450. For a 3-person family, it is $80.350. And so on.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Like V. said. “Area Median Income” is a formally defined figure used for housing purposes that’s updated every year. It’s established by HUD for an entire metropolitan area using a fairly complex formula—doesn’t vary from neighborhood to neighborhood (or even city to city within the area).
August 21st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Hi there folks, I wanted to clear up a couple questions about the Homebuyers Program. First, in order to participate, people have to attend a workshop/training with information about financial viability and more, and participants have to qualify in terms of demonstrated ability to pay their mortgage.
(The next workshop will be in mid-September, so folks who are interested are encouraged to follow the link to check out the qualification criteria, follow the links for the program brochure, and then call to RSVP for the workshop if interested).
Info online at:
http://www.rkaplan.org/homebuyer.htm
Second, as has already been explained, the “area median income” for a 2-person household is $71,450 (the numbers are at the page I had linked to), and there are right now in Oakland many homes available that such households could afford to buy. And, many middle-income households, with downpayment assistance, (which is allowed for up to 20% of the purchase price) can qualify for a loan for the rest of the purchase price, and then can afford to pay the loan, and obtain the benefits of homeownership.
The program will not work for every household, and not every household will qualify. But, for the people in “the middle” who can afford homeownership with the downpayment assistance, this can be very helpful.
In addition, Oakland communities benefit by reducing the stock of vacant properties because vacant homes are often magnets for blight and crime. The Oakland budget benefits by stabilizing real estate tax revenue.
Best wishes,
-R Kaplan
August 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@V: to your point, it doesn’t matter if the city uses higher numbers than the census, since the program goes by the city’s numbers. so the city can make up whatever it wants.
The most financially sensical house purchase would then be for a pair of DINKS making combined $71,450 per year buying a House for $213k in East/West O.
That is closer to the house price to income ratios in San Antonio, El Paso or Fort Worth. And that assumes a very low down-payment or even a (screwy) $0 down buy.
So the cost of the house could be even higher than 213 which affords said couple a nicer ‘hood. Maybe they put $70k down for a 300k house.
“Coming in on top at number one for housing affordability is San Antonio, with an average home price of $89,800, an average annual income of $40,186, and a living wage ordinance.”
– http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/categories/housing-affordability
In San Antonio, a normal household can buy a house for just a handful of loose change over a 2:1 house-to-income ratio. No wonder streams of “reverse Oakies” are going back to the dustbowl and to Texas!
I hear it costs almost NOTHING to rent a uHaul to move from Austin to California.
This all ignores the probability of house prices cratering further, though.
google “doctor housing bubble”
August 21st, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Ken, the city cannot “make up whatever it wants” as far as the numbers go. These numbers are federally defined. I’m not sure how to make that clearer. The HUD website has the formula they use. The money to pay for these programs typically comes from federal allocations to the city or county. And the point of affordable housing programs is not to make homes as affordable as they are in the least expensive parts of the country (nice as that might be). The point is to make home ownership more accessible to people who would otherwise be renting in the same area of the country. As I’m sure you know, rents and other costs of living in Oakland are much higher than rents in El Paso or San Antonio, too. It’s pretty basic supply and demand. If cheap housing and low cost of living is your primary goal, California is definitely not the place to be living.
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:23 am
Actually, our DINKS could easily afford a $300K SFH. They might be able to afford a condo but they would need to do the analysis for the HOA . They can possibly buy into JLS if they can find a foreclosed or other similarly priced condo. Hopefully, this program will take some of the excess housing off the market.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“There is nothing diverse about a black mayor choosing a black police chief in a city that is now less than 30% black.”
Hmm, I wonder if this same comment was made back in 2005 when a white mayor chose a white police chief in a city that was/is less than 30% white.
By the way, the latest Census estimates (2007) show Oakland at 32.6% Black and 24.7% White (Non-Hisp). What source was used as basis for the “less than 30% black” assertion?
August 24th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
One of my sources is here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060818/ai_n16643551/
I use the below 30% figure because virtually all black residents in the city are legal and many hispanics are not. Therefore, I am assuming that hispanics are undercounted due to fear.
My comment on diversity was a direct result of len suggesting that I stated that it was due to “diversity” that the choice was shrewd. It was not. I believe Batts was a shrewd choice because, other than tales of womanizing, the man appears to be exactly what Oakland needs and his resumé pushes all the right buttons.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The most financially sensible choice for any putative homebuyer is to compare the cost of renting vs. buying, using REAL buying costs, which include maintenance and opportunity cost for your down payment that could otherwise be invested.
Let’s say a putative buyer is renting a house for $2100/month. Assuming minimal appreciation (2ish%), minimal rent increases (rent control) of 2ish%, the putative buyer could buy a house for around $430K (+/- 10-20K, depending on interest rates that day etc etc), with a break-even point of 7ish years, and a tax-free rate of return on the down payment of ~6%. Your PITI payments would be around $2400, which means you need a pre-tax monthly income of about $8000 with current guidelines…or a solid $100K annually, still well over the median income. And $430Kish isn’t going to get you much in Oakland, certainly nothing as nice as you can get of course just about anywhere else in the USA. Or heck, in San Leandro.
Finally, just FYI, over the past 30 years, the median price/income ratio in the Oakland/Fremont/Hayward MSA has been right around 5-6X. Price/rent has averaged around 18. Lows for the former is around 4X and latter around 14-15X. And yes, Dorothy, real estate in California does go down. Up and down. For decades.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
There are plenty of perfectly nice houses in Oakland for under $300k.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Your comment completely ignores the tax advantages of owning and, perhaps more importantly, the real-world advantages. Who wants a landlord criticizing/commenting on their lifestyle? “You can’t do this…your dog is too big/loud… your bathtub, though moldy, is serviceable…” Ugh. No. Furthermore, I own a beautiful home in Oakland: 3/2, garage, yard, basement…completely renovated by me from pipes to paint. And my mortgage is less than half of your putative buyer’s. I live in a great neighborhood.
If you have an investment plan for the 3% of mortgage value I put into my FHA down payment that will give me a decent rate of return, please post it. Otherwise, I’ll happily remain in my personal castle, secure in the fact that I can paint zebra stripes on the ceiling if I feel like it.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
you know, the zebra stripe ceiling was not as attractive as i thought it would be.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
You would know; you were looking at it the entire time you were at my house
August 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
What about those of us who didn’t pay down payments? It cost me less to move into the townhouse than to pay a deposit on a rental. Of course, the cost of rent has since gone down substantially (along with the value of my home), but in the long run, I hope buying will work out better for me.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The only determinant of value is what you are willing to pay. I value ownership over renting for many reasons. Reasons I can’t even express.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
i actually meant that in regard to my own piece of the rock. of the many reasons i value ownership over renting the ability to do whatever i please to my walls. sadly i am regretting not doing anything with the ceiling. i believe in an ownership society. huge psychic income.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:02 am
since many of us no longer have the ability to have financial capital and buy a house, we’re going to see even more efforts at obtaining symbolic or social capital.
you know-
old lexus cars with a big “L” logo painted on the doors with big wheels.
fancy web capable phones, blueberries and ipods.
elaborate facebook/myspace profiles.
twittering madly
and so it goes.
not all bad, but largely unnecessary.
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All