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...
412 Responses to “Open Thread ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 » Show All
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Anyone noticed different police patterns recently? Over in funktown (ok, E 18th between Park and 14th Ave) I’ve seen a lot more cruisers in the evening and night over the past few days, wondering if anyone else has noticed anything. As far as I’m concerned it’s a positive change on the E 18th corridor.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Howzabout the report that the city auditor released about personnel practices in Oakland? And how the current city manager said that she’s “making it up”?
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Ok, so push has come to shove. I’ve been asked again to apply for the Public Ethics Commission. Deadline is this Friday.
Is this just a generally crappy post? Is it volunteer? I’ve asked the head, haven’t heard back yet, but I don’t want a paid position as I don’t want folks thinking it’ll make me biased towards any given PoV. Is this viewed as a crappy job? I have a great full time job, don’t want/need another one. If this is something that’s truly independent and I can’ say/do what I want, i’m happy to do it. But if I have to toe a company line, i’m out.
Ack. Dunno what to do, i wish I knew 1/20th as much about Oakland Gov’t as VS…
October 24th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Vivek,
I think it’s a genuinely important post, and yes it is volunteer. I think it’s very independent. The opening they have is for a candidate chosen by the committee, not by the mayor, which makes it even more independent.
The only line you have to toe is that you can’t be involved in certain political activities while you serve in this post. No campaigning, no endorsing, no fundraising, no precinct walking, etc…
October 24th, 2009 at 6:19 am
len, you asked “City employee parking allowances: do they count as compensation for retirement calculations? Is there a list of them somewhere?”
Not sure if you mean free parking afforded employees in City garages, or car allowances. Regardless, neither would be included. Included in the PERS calculation are base wages/salary, certain premium pays and the value of any employer pickup of the required employee contribution. The City pickups up the 9% employee contribution for Police. This 9% is added on to their pay to calculate their retirement, as PERS considers it additional compensation.
The subject of free parking for certain employees comes up now and then as does the subject of car allowances. The 11/13/07 Fleet report to the Finance Committee discuss car allowances and the number of employees who receive it. The Professional/Supervisory Employee contract provides a monthly amount, plus mileage, for employees who use their private car at least 50% of the time in their work. It appears that most of the recipients are lawyers in the City Attorney’s Office. I was told that few if any of them actually claim any mileage and that the allowance is a little “gift” from the City Attorney to his staff. So glad that the City is flush with cash for such “gifts”.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Vivek – now is an important time at the PEC. It’s updating laws on lobbyists, contributions, transparency, & restrictions on PEC members related to marriage or domestic partnership. It might be helpful if you familiarize yourself with these.
You will go through a public vetting process. It’s not like a Supreme Court nominating process, but you’ll get a little scrutiny. Don’t want to scare you off – you should be okay.
I wish more people were involved right now. The PEC is amending and updating laws that will greatly affect the quality and transparency of Oakland’s local government for many years. People who are interested in a fair and transparent government should be paying attention and participating right now.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
@Vivek B. I’ve been on the Landmarks Board for about 6 months now. In general, it has been a great experience. I’ve got to learn a lot more about the city. I feel I’ve made contributions that the planners/architects/historians/etc. normally involved with preservation might not have made. I think your business background could in a similar manner offer a fresh perspective to the PEC.
On the downside, it is a fair time commitment, and I find the filing of the Form 700 to be overly intrusive. You might find the Form 700 even more irritating than me, so you should be comfortable with it before applying.
@Tommy Saxondale maybe they are going to get some tasty rice ball salad at the Champa Garden.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Mmmm…Champa Garden…
October 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Champa is good…even if u can taste the
change in Chefs.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
We walk to Champa Garden…mmmm good. My favorite is the Rice Ball Salad as well.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“mmmm good”
Or as they say south of the Mae Khong, แซ่บอิหลี
Champa Garden is our go-to place for Lao/Isaan when Vientian Cafe is closed.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
BTW, Andrew Simmons has an article just posted today on the KQED website about the “big three” Lao restaurants in E. Oakland – Champa Garden, Vientian, and Green Papaya Deli.
http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareabites/2009/10/27/lao-food-in-east-oakland/
October 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
nav, did you see the episode on Discovery on County Jail: Oakland about Santa Rita, which is actually in Dublin?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Robert, are you referring to the Discovery Channel series on gangs in Oakland? I didn’t get a chance to see it but heard that it was mostly a sensationalized crime hit piece on Oakland. I did hear that they had 8 Oakland gang unit cops going all around the city looking for one guy. I heard it was rather comical. It was like “is he here? No, OK” and they would leave and repeat the same thing somewhere else in the city. I also understand that they grossly overestimated the number of gang members in Oakland. They mentioned that there were 10,000 gang member in Oakland. That may be true of Alameda County, but not Oakland. OPD estimated about 1,000 gang members in Oakland.
Anyway, what did they mention about Santa Rita?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I didn’t watch it, but my understanding is that it was on the jail itself.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
WHY CAN’T OAKLAND RECRUIT GREAT GREEN BUSINESSES LIKE SOLYNDRA? It will have Tech AND Manufacturing jobs. White Collar AND Blue Collar.
Solar firm Solyndra signs huge lease in Fremont
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_13660141#at
October 28th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Because apparently, the city council is allergic to business.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Because the redevelopment folks are eternally messing around seeking retail and dreaming of condos instead of fostering manufacturing, technical, industrial businesses (with their better-paying jobs). And they have been steadily reducing the amount of land zoned for industry.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
JR, you might be right. But aside from the CC, Oakland has two affiliates devoted to Business Development, CEDA and OBDC. With their emphasis in Business Development, including recruitment, what are THEY doing to recruit new Green jobs.
For all the talk in Oakland about Green jobs, I’d like to know when they’re going to have some announcements about some successes. Most businesses recruited seem to be filling the downtown buildings.
But what about companies that need hybrid offices & production space?
(This includes Tech companies BTW). Is this because we only have limited Light Industrial space, which can be flexible between Office & Manufacturing that many High Tech, Bio Tech and Green Tech companies like?
October 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Granted, retail should be a top priority in Oakland, considering how much tax money the town loses to surrounding cities. But perhaps CEDA and OBDC have staff who aren’t very knowledgeable about this whole “green” thing, or science in general. Who are the members of these organizations and what are their backgrounds?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Winner of the return-the-phone call bet goes to….drum roll….Jean Quan’s office! Two days ago, I had left messages with Quan, Brooks and Desmona of Parks and Rec. Today, left message for Ignacio’s assistant. The inquiry was about trying to get a field for my high school rugby club.
There is a bullshite policy that the City has about not allowing people on grass fields from November through April. The kids I coach don’t weigh more than 180 and we don’t “pack down” or destroy the fields. Apparently, the City thinks that if kids practice on a field at night in the rain, it will damage the field/ WTF??? Like I’m sure in England and New Zealand they don’t allow their teams on grass in the rainy season….Quan’s assistant gave me a mini-lecture about parks and rec staff being laid-off.
The city has opened a new field-turf place in West Oakland, Raimondi, but really needs new fields. The real issue is that the City and OUSD need to work together to allow youth sports to use school fields during the winter and other months.
Last time I checked, you cannot simultaneously be breaking into cars and playing a game or running on a field or court. Let’s stop playing lip service to keeping kids occupied in the danger hours from 3 to 8 pm. Open up the school fields, especially the ones with lights, like Oakland High School.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Naomi, what type of manufacturing do you think Oakland can accommodate. I could be wrong but I think as a manufacturing site Oakland is at a competitive disadvantage. I assume that these mfg plants will need some engineers and we lack the engineering smarts found on the peninsula. To attract them we need to upgrade the schools. Businesses won’t relocate here if they can’t get the talent.
Mr. Spencer that field policy stinks. Doesn’t OUSD have a groundscrew? When I was a student our girls soccer team played an outdoor winter schedule. It wasn’t NE just Mid-Atlantic but it rained and snowed and in the spring the same fields were sometimes used for dressage and lax. Really don’t understand the OUSD problem.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:56 am
The combination of waterlogged clayey substrate and semi-dormancy exacerbates turfgrass damage and is very costly to repair. Oakland’s policy may be “bullshite”, but it is based upon sound turfgrass management principles and economic reality.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:23 am
The idea that a person who is less than 180 pounds doesn’t compact the soil in fields and/or cause damage to rain-soaked fields is not correct (or at least, not unless their feet are inhumanly large)–we can see plenty of compaction and field wear from soccer teams made up of young kids (e.g., 4th graders, junior high schoolers, etc.). Perhaps we’d like more money to maintain fields, or more money for field installation to amend or replace native soils below the turf, but that opens up a different can of worms…
October 29th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I know it might not be visually-pleasing to some but I think the solution is more synthetic turf fields in more centrally-located places. (Over time, the field-turf fake stuff should be cheaper than the natural stuff.) Placement of these fields is the issue as kids in East Oakland without cars can’t easily get to the wilds of west Oakland for practice.) Berkeley built that nice complex down near the freeway but I know it took like 5 or 6 years of planning, etc. I’m just saying that it’s cheaper to spend on the front-end, engaging kids before they go to the streets, gangs, etc. Knowing how this City wastes money but comes after its residents for $ all the time, I just think it’s fair to ask for more access to fields or building a couple new fields.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Mike, why don’t you try and get some of the kids first money to do the renovations. It seems like a good use for the money.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hi Robert,
You can email me at hirepimike@gmail.com with more details if you have them. I am not familiar with the program. We do have non-profit status for our club and have recently become independent, which is good news-bad news as we do need to go hustle for funds, etc. Shameless plug: http://www.oaklandwarthogsrfc.com
Thank you!
October 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Ralph, I don’t see that we are at a competitive disadvantage as to industry. We do have many educated people who are commuting outward to get to jobs in other towns around the bay. There’s a whole pickup service that carries employees all the way to Google HQ, for example. We are at a great location for access in many directions. We have room for both retail and industrial. The thing about retail is: what kind? Many retail jobs tend to be dependent upon national companies with national financing, and when they pull the plug, they leave a hole. This can happen even when the local store is making money. (A prime example was Capwells/Emporium/Federated Dept. Stores, which made money here and owned its own building, but vacated due to the collapse of the national chain.) CEDA has a tendency to want to think big, chain-owned, and not necessarily locally-owned, and then fall victim to the general economic vicissitudes of national economics. Thus CEDA staffers of various generations have longed for department stores for the entire long decades I have lived here, with no success. It is time to come up with some more innovative models.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Naomi, I am still not sure what industry you are describing. I tend to think of industry and mfg as hard stuff like cars, fabrication, etc. Oakland has an educated population but they lean towards the professions – software, finance, law, medicine etc. From what I have seen in census reports we don’t have the engineering types who build stuff.
Big chains have not been in Oakland for one plain and simple reason – Oakland is a perceived black town with a crime problem. Local companies are dependent on local financing and customers. When they collapse, they leave a hole in the economy.
This being Oakland, you can’t go one way or the other. You are going to need a mix. Local stores do not always have the resources to do advertising as a result they rely on word of mouth to get the news out. National stores have the resources to do an ad campaign, which brings feet to the street. Local stores become free riders and benefit from the additional foot traffic.
In many cases people do comparison shopping. But if there is only one locally owned jean store in the neighborhood why would you travel to that store if you could travel to a location that had multiple jean stores. The local store could benefit by having more similar stores and density, but too many in Oakland rail against the density that would help the local stores.
I can make some educated guesses about C-E but by the time Federated made the purchase the demise of the downtown shopping district had already been written. And neighborhoods with high percentage of black people were seen as risky investment.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The available labor pool in Oakland is neither a plus or minus for the high tech industries. These industries do not look at the applicant pool in the local city when they decide where to locate, they consider their applicant pool to be the entire Bay Area. So they are looking much more at facility costs, tax structures, etc. when making the decision. Now the bad side for Oakland is that there is really little reason to give them tax incentives to locate here either, as the jobs created by these high tech companies are not going to go to Oakland residents. To a somewhat lessor extent, other manufacturing industries are going to be similar.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Robert and Ralph, I disagree with your comments to Naomi. I think there are pools of labor for both Manufacturing (& its cousin Distribution) and Tech/Engineering. We have lots of engineers who live here and commute elsewhere.
(Robert, I’m confused about your comments since you say as much but then say high tech companies are not going to go to Oakland residents).
October 29th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The Bay Area is so anti-Republican, anti-defense research, anti-nuke, anti-military……why would any industry having any remote conection to the afore mentioned want to come to Oakland? ‘s. We anti-war refugees from the 60′s and 70′s have reaped what we sowed. We made a mistake by excluding some kinds of research and hammering anyone with a military connection or job as an idiot. Of course some 60,000 military and civilian jobs are gone due to base closures (thanks Ron and the Republicans on this one.) No crying now . At least we are no longer a “target” in the event of a nuclear war. I am dismayed by Bay Area progressives (I used to be one.) So smart, smug and over- educated. No need to compromise on issues, the other side is always morally wrong, corrupt, evil and ignorant.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
i have to find the report but Oakland (and SF) relative to the valley lack high number of people in the engineering professions. That is not to say, there are no engineers in Oakland and SF but many use that talent in other professions.
If I am an employer in addition to the tax incentives, I am going to go where there is a high supply of labor and the peninsula has that in spades. We need to incubate UC Berkeley business, take advantage of the biotech infrastructure provided by UCSF, Emeryville pharma, and UCB. We also have a creat opportunity to take advantage of green tech design but we need to recruit to make that successful. Green manufacturing is a dream.
livegreen, we are free to disagree so long as we remain civil.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Examples of some modest but encouragement-worthy businesses we might think about:
Downtown in grade A and B office spaces we have long housed a great many small to medium design businesses (including my own) who while not highly visible do a national business. These include planning and architecture, engineering of many kinds, landscape design, graphics, publishing, communications, and many web-based enterprises (consider: Pandora). Could we ramp this up a bit and strengthen this community?
We house many nonprofits, some of substantial size, renown, and power. Okay, we are trying to be a nexus of food-related business. A strong arts community that taken as a whole generates income, jobs, street traffic, image, and tourism needs to be fostered with attention to rents and zoning. We have a lot of services and professionals, attorneys and lawfirms; does CEDA ever look at these types of businesses as possible contributors to our city?
Just to throw out one idea: While everyone is trying to figure out what kind of bigboxish store they can plop onto Broadway near Pill Hill, why aren’t we pursuing an Alternative Transportation and Green Living Retail Zone? Let’s designate a piece of Broadway to muscle-powered, sustainable, green enterprises: yes, bikes and bike repair and bike accessories; but also sports clothing, small electric or other efficiently powered vehicles to replace the disappearing gas guzzlers; every kind of wheeled item such as great luggage carts, baby buggies, wheelchairs, scooters, little red wagons, wheelbarrows, skates, and strollers. Maybe also green home stuff like water cisterns, grey water systems, gardening gadgets, solar panel installation services for single-family and apartments, and perhaps energy-efficient appliances. Services for people who are upgrading and rehabilitating their homes and historic buildings that are part of Oakland’s fabulous architectural heritage. Reimagine Sears for the re-use oriented green resident. (Also, for you retail-minded folks: a store where one could buy decent quality hosiery and socks could do quite a lot of business.)
We need to look forward, not back at the just-burst balloon model, but really try to think about what’s next. We should not ignore the industries that are already here; let’s be sure to leave some areas available for light and even heavier industry. We do have plenty of parcels that could be better used, and we should not plan it all for the condos of 2003.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Okay, now I understand what type of businesses you are trying to attract. With regard to design work, architecture, foundations and all the others that you named above I do not disagree those are the very type of businesses that we should be going after to fill that Class A office space.
With respect to the professional services – medical, law, accountant. CEDA needs to bring those business into the fold. I was at $1 tasting at FSWB earlier tonight and had a very interesting discussion with a woman who works at CSU East Bay. The long and short Oakland is on the right path with bringing more people to the downtown. Many neighborhoods have 3 generations peacefully coexisting but what is missing are the services noted above.
The condos of 2003 are so yesterday. We need the green LEED condos of 2012. I have long been annoyed that you build to accommodate 10s of thousands of people but you don’t have the stuff to make them happy homeowners. I would be happy with green co-existing with bigbox.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Why aren’t businesses in Oakland? Please. Why aren’t businesses in SF? Because their CIty Councils only see businesses (real business, not retail, but even this applies to big-box retail) something to extort money from.
The cost (and more importantly, the hassle) of doing business in, say, San Leandro, Fremont or Hayward, or even South City, San Mateo etc are so much less than Oakland, Berkeley or SF, as to make the comparison laughable. No non-masochistic business/manufacturer/warehouser, etc would set up shop in Oakland, Berkeley or SF. Period.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Why aren’t businesses in SF? Really? What’s in all those tall buildings in downtown SF? Last time I checked, the city/county of San Francisco was the financial center of the west coast. What kind of businesses are supposed to be in San Francisco?
Meanwhile, Oakland would want to get whatever businesses it can get and stop being picky. Better yet, maybe it can successfully transition from industrial to something else the way South San Francisco and Emeryville did.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Specifically, for my education, please advise how the cost and hassle of doing business in SL, Fr, & Hayward are less than Oakland?
October 29th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
High tech startups prefer the south bay because of the abundance of campus style expandable space and venture capitalists.
Plus it’s a marketing plus to be in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Palo Alto etc. It’s a negative to be in Union City or Oakland or Concord. Somewhat positive to be in Berkeley or Alameda. Hayward is neutral and cheap.
SF now and in the height of dot com era Oakland was ok to be web design outfit, or a soft tech co like Ask
but not a heavy duty tech company. Same true for Manhattan. So it had little to do with crime, but more with the type and availability of real estate and density of like minded techies and financiers.
A small part of the decision to stay in Oakland for a growing high tech company would be comparing business tax rates (Oakland is one of the highest around for non manufacturers), but over the years most of the start-ups i’ve worked with simply chose those other locations even if the owners lived here.
I’d bet high tech incubators are a waste of tax money. Might be worth it for say food industry startups.
To me Oakland’s best shot at private enterprise are retail, and paper pushers: attorneys, consultants, accountants, and massage therapists, and convalescent facilities. LOL on the green manufacturing because cost of labor and facilities in the entire Bay Area is so high for relatively low margin stuff.
-len raphael
temescal
October 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
David, I think you are glass-half-emptying and need a bracing dose of optimism. For those of us who have been around for a long time, it is easy to fall into a “good old days” mentality. Let’s avoid it! We tend to forget the bad and only remember the things that were better once.
My own business has been here since the early 80s and is staying, for many reasons: we are functionally closer to downtown SF than people who live in SF, have always been able to get reasonable lease rates, can be in Sacramento in 90 minutes, and have a full range of business services available right here. Our employees are well-educated east bay residents, all but one from Oakland. While housing costs are high, they can afford to live in the east bay a lot more easily than they could in SF. And they can take advantage of public transit or bikes for the commute.
We do pay a substantial business tax. Therefore, I believe the City of O. is doing the right thing in offering new enterprises a start-up business tax incentive under their new program. We are also the beneficiaries of a large enterprise zone and quite a few small business incentive programs. (Note: “small businesses” can actually be multimillion dollar enterprises.)
October 30th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Len, Re. Campus-Style offices, there are plenty of small & medium tech companies in Hayward, Fremont, Eastern SJ that are in buildings that are mixed-use. They can be used as offices, warehouses, and often have both (esp. for tech companies that market & warehouse tech products).
They are side by side with traditional businesses, such as the afore mentioned SF Herb Co. in E-SJ. I note the northern peninsula closer to the airport, like Millbrae, has a similar mix of businesses. When the Dot-Bomb happened the ones left in business were traditional brick-and-mortar next to the D-B survivors & some service industries.
This is why a mix of business & facilities that are flexible for different businesses are VERY IMPORTANT.
You say you favor retail and paper-pushers. That’s great for residential neighborhoods and the downtown office spaces, but then what would you do with the light-to-heavy industrial areas in Oakland?
October 30th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
LG, i’d encourage large non profit health care facilities to expand into the former industrial areas. including warehouses for old people. (including me in a couple of decades or less).
non profits are not my first choice, but i just don’t see light industry or high tech fabication happening here on a big scale. doesn’t hurt to aim for some green and food startups, who then move their mfg facilities to the boonies when they do well. at best, we’ll keep their design staff and back office people.
i’d say biotech startups, but we’re too densely populated for the risk of that
-len
October 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
len, aren’t there a host of bio-tech start-ups located in areas more densely populated. heck there is a stem-cell research park in SF.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Len, Large non-profit health care facilities? Please explain. You mean offices like Kaiser’s (that want offices like downtown) or medical facilities like hospitals? Or something else?
BTW a lot of the “former” industrial areas are CURRENT industrial areas. Oakland already has some of the businesses you mention won’t open here. Besides light manufacturing, Oakland IS bringing in more food companies.
If there are “former industrial areas” it’s not because of the businesses but because the CC didn’t want them there. That’s not free market, that’s Govt.
picking winners & losers.
Re. the tech fabrication, distribution & Green-tech (like Solyndra that I posted the link to) I think it’s both because we don’t have enough mixed-use facilities and because of Oakland’s reputation for crime. Cleaning up & building more mixed-use developments like the ones we’ve been discussing in the SL-Hawyard-Fremont-SJ corridor would bring them here just like it has there (IF crime is also reduced).
Those are the SAME light industrial areas that you & the CC want to get rid of but all those other cities are having great success using them to recruit businesses with.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
lg, The skill workers who live in Oakland are not necessarily the ones that any high tech company that locates here will end up hiring. The labor pool for these workers extends out about 50 miles or so in radius. So while Oakland may get high paying jobs, they are no more likely to go to Oakland residents than jobs in SSF, Hayward or Emeryville. The local hires and local support jobs for the high tech (think cafes for the new workers to eat in) are lower skill and lower pay. Bottom line, in terms of labor pool for skill workers, Oakland, SSF, SF, Hayward, Richmod all look the same.
len, I hope you are kidding about the risk of biotech companies. The manufacturing everybody seems to want, even the green stuff, is far more dangerous to the neighbors and the environment that a biotech research company.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Robert, That’s a good point. However I do think that more businesses here means the chances will overall increase for people living here, and is an increased incentive for people to live closer to work. The closer the jobs are to home, the easier to get to, the more people here will be employed, or the more people will want to live here for convenience.
Re. the lower skill, lower pay work, that’s what we need for underemployed segments of society. Companies that employ broadly, creating a broad ecosystem of employment, jobs and wages are exactly what Oakland needs.
Finally businesses here will much improve Oakland’s tax base…
October 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
lg, my point was more that the available labor pool in Oak does not provide and incentive for companies to locate here, so Oak needs to figure out some other way to get industry/business to come here. Now personally I would prefer to work close to home, and I think that is true for many people. So if Oak were successful in luring companies here, some of those workers would probably end up relocating to Oak, with an overall improvement to the economy. Getting industry here would be a good thing for Oak, I am just not o sure that it is a good thing for industry without some type of incentive.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
our cc could easily eradicate much of high tech and light industrial with a few bad zoning rules, but i doubt if anything they could do could greatly encourage those industries.
most of the economic forces buffeting oakland, affect entire western industrial world. where even five years ago, you could say western countries had an advantage in producing high intellectual content imagination tangible and intangible stuff, becoming much less true. many of those high tech engineering and scientific jobs left and are not coming back to high cost western countries unless there’s an advantage to be located near their customers.
interesting footnote, some of my high tech customers tell me that the bay area is so attractive to many potential employees, that they don”t have to pay higher wages here than they would in say Colo or Baton Rouge. (talking in the 125k -225k range).
LG, i didn’t mean back office health care admin offices, but patient care facilities. The vast majority of the staffing requirement for convalescent and assisted living facilities are non technical, high school, communication, and strong back skills. obviously higher skills needed for full care medical.
Industrial food absolutely suited to oakland. Knew latinos where multi generations worked at local cookie companies. kids had kids and dropped out of high schools to go to work there. never got of poverty. did produce some great local youth soccer players.
My knowledge of the risks of different types of bio tech activity to neighboring residents is zilch. But me i’d rather live next to a nuclear reactor than a recombinant lab working with animals. i know left wing and right wing techies who do know the science, who agree that bio tech is scary stuff in both social and technical ways that we ain’t prepared to deal with the consequences.
but i could see that the processes to manufacture some of this green stuff are hazardous. akin to prius drivers congratulating themselves on saving the earth by driving around on lead acid batteries.
-len
temescal
October 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Oakland is definitely doing great in attracting restaurants, pubs and entertainment venues. Oakland has so much potential. There is so much that passes through Oakland to needlessly go somewhere else. Oakland should be attracting businesses because of its central location and its access to 2.5 million East Bay residents.
Why do hundreds of thousands of Bay Area residents pass through Oakland to get somewhere else? How about shortening those commutes over dangerous and inconvenient bridges. If only San Francisco developers who dig holes in the middle of downtown Oakland in order to squat on the land, would begin construction of their building, maybe Oakland could convince some of those San Francisco corporations to relocate to an area which is closer to their workforce.
Oakland is really where SF should be. In San Diego for example, you don’t cross the bridge to Coronado to go to your office. Oakland is not meeting its potential based on its natural geographic advantages. The question is why?
October 30th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
len, far more damage has been done to the environment and our health by traditional food science and animal breeding than has been done by anything in the biotech field. The biggest danger in living next to a biotech lab is from the nut jobs bombing the facility.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
rbt, that could be, but i’d rather wait for ver 4.0 to know for sure.
in any event, depending on biotech to employee zillions of people in oakland ain’t gonna happen just because it’s not labor intensive and needs more phd’s than ged’s.
-len
October 31st, 2009 at 8:23 am
len, what is this version 4.0 you are waiting for? Amgen, Genentech, OSI, CV Therapeutics, Gilead, BioMarin, XOMA….all biotech, all have a bay area presence…but like you say they need PhDs (MBAs, MDs, BS) and not GEDs. But the reality is the peninusla and San Diego are filling that niche.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Help keep the A’s where the belong — in Oakland. Go to: http://www.letsgooakland.com and sign our petition telling MLB to keep the A’s in Oakland.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I would love to keep the A’s in Oakland. I would like nothing more than to have a Camden Yards in Oakland. But what is the value in signing a petition if Oakland doesn’t take some initiative. If it is about more than the ballpark – hotels, arts, and entertainment just build. Back up the words with action.
As to hotels, yes please bring them to the Uptown. When visiting artists do stay, it would be nice if they could stay in Oakland not SF. When my parents come to town, it would be nice if they could stay in Oakland not SF.
It would be great if Oakland had a downtown convention center that could be in the running to host annual events such as the National Black MBA Assoc. or the National Hispanic Engineers etc…
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Doug Boxer,
I’d like to keep the A’s in OAK but AK government should tell me that they can handle a MLB team. I don’t wan’t to spend one penny of tax $ on keeping them here (OK maybe that’s a bit negotiable but I would wqant to spend alot.) OAK CC just backed a BART boondoggle for $500mm, I know it wasn’t OAK money but the project is ridiculous and OAK CC looks ridiculous for backing it. OAK CC has had a history of getting screwed by major league teams, also a history of misspending funds, high taxes on her citizens, also a recent history of taxing ( parking fees without any thoughtful way of going about it.) I don’t think OAK gov’t can handle a major league team and stadium building project. If a proposal came up that was like SF’s it may be possible to support but the petition has nothing. Sorry can’t sign now.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Marleen, You mentioned a little while ago that the City Charter requires the Mayor to be a full-time position, and as such, this might be motivation for another lawsuit. I would like to request that you seriously consider this right now.
Timing is everything, esp. in the eyes of the public and the news. When other events are impacting the job of the Mayor, when he has even less time to perform his job (as his dealings with the IRS will obviously have), and when the public is well aware of this situation, the justification and support of such a lawsuit has never been more meaningful or would be more supported.
There are examples to support this, but in brief, a lawsuit on this subject right now would have a real impact. The Mayor might not even wait for it to go to trial for the results to be felt…
November 4th, 2009 at 9:27 am
City of Oakland raises ad valorem taxes to cover bond repayments – Mayor of Oakland rides in city-provided chauffeur-driven limousine – Mayor of Oakland owes $239,000 in back taxes dating to 2005. It’s so pathetic you kind of have to laugh. I second livegreen’s motion – I’d be happy to be part of a class action lawsuit to rid our city of this detestable man. Any normal person would have the decency to resign. I guess he’s taking a page from Blagojevich’s playbook.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
V, re. Tribune editorial board, who are the other members, what are their roles, is it a compensated position, etc. Do they make you sign a non disclosure agreement?
-len raphael
temescal
November 13th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Help spread the word and join our Facebook group to keep the A’s in Oakland where they belong. We are now at over 13,200 members and counting!!
http://www.facebook.com/letsgooakland
As part of a larger plan to build new hotels, restaurants, and cafes, a new destination stadium will attract visitors from all over the region. We hope our ballpark will be a catalyst to bring new investment and jobs to Oakland.
The final plan to keep the A’s in Oakland will be implemented by the City of Oakland via official communications with Major League Baseball. Let’s Go Oakland’s plan is to demonstrate to the City and MLB that there is substantial and widespread support to keep the A’s in Oakland by building a new destination ball park in Oakland. We must do this by getting thousands of fans to sign our petition. Based on our understanding of MLB’s process, we believe this approach can lead to a new destination ball park in Oakland.
Please don’t forget to click on the link to sign the petition at either the FB page or the link provided below and remember to PASS IT ON by clicking the “Suggest to Friends” link at left, and invite everyone you know to join us. Help us keep the A’s in Oakland!
http://letsgooakland.com/
Thank you so much for the support and Go A’s!!!
OKLND. It wouldn’t be the same without the A’s.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Can someone riddle me this, why is it with every item before council, they state that they can’t look at one-offs but need to complete a comprehensive strategy to tackle x, y and z and the other? There is no try just do.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Because the city council is not completely competent?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I had a bad day today, started by patronizing my favorite cafe/small business, Jenny’s Cafe on Grand. Full disclosure: I am a parking scofflaw with 5 unpaid on the books. So, I am at the ATM getting some cash, after paying my $2 into the meter box, when I spot the pseudo-OPD cop car blocking me in. I know why he is there but I point out that I just spent $2 on parking. His partner, Cop 2, is booting someone else and I quickly figure I am in for it. Partner, Cop 1, tells me I am going to get booted (the coincidence is that I am within a week of going to DMV to pay tickets to register my car ). I am with my dog and gradually coming unglued.
Cop 2 is busy, so I realize that I have to go to the bank to get money to pay to get the boot off. I am about to put my dog into the car, which has all the windows down at 11 am on a cool morning, when Cop 1 says, “You can be arrested if you put your dog in an unattended car.” I say, “What?” He repeats, “You can be arrested if you put your dog in the car.” Cop 2 comes back and sticks the sticker on my car. I am pissed. Cop 1 has more or less threatened to arrest me for putting my dog into the car while I go into the bank 20-feet away. I tell the cops, “You are very full of rules today aren’t you?”
I call the OPD complaint line where an Officer Steinberg calls me back. I tell him I am A) Yes, pissed off about the boot but that is my fault and B) very ticked off that I have a cop threatening me with arrest for putting my dog in my car. Steinberg procedes to ask, “You are mad about the boot aren’t you?” I admit to it. He offers me the choice of “citizen mediation” or the internal affairs complaint. We keep talking and I make remarks that yes I pay taxes here and that I am get pissed off paying for cops after they beat people up. He tells me, “We don’t beat people up.” We have more words. I tell him that yes, I do want to make an internal affairs complaint for a cop threatening an arrest for the act of putting a dog in the car while I go to the bank to pay the City’s ticket.
What Sgt. Steinberg said next floored me, “WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?” I wanted to tell him none of your f-ing business and what difference does it make? So I fudged and said legal consultant.
There, I feel a little better for venting but if the citizen complaint line is in the business of asking people their occupation then why bother complain. And, yes, I want my pound of flesh.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Mike, complaints like yours are why Oakland has ended up with more investigators for IA than it has for all other investigations. A totally baseless complaint that started off with your own refusal to obey the law.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Robert, now that I have cooled down I agree and will withdraw everything.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Wow Max, sounds like you’ve been dealing with a lot recently:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/you_don_t_know_jack/Content?oid=1232930
Glad you were able to defend yourself…
November 19th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Kudos to Robert Gammon for great coverage in the East Bay Express on another interesting view of the soft under belly of Oakland politics in the flats. Poverty funding continues to be an inside job for the chosen few who make the most noise (and threats). Those who suffer most in this tragicomedy are the much maligned and downtrodden poor of Oakland . They are the ones the funds are designed for and who are rarely served by the downtown administrators. For shame! What can be so difficult about distributing funds to those who really qualify? And thanks to Max for standing up to the West Oakland race charade. This stuff does not wash with the majority of the people who live there. West Oakland is a qreat place and so are it’s denizens.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Thanks guys, for the acknowledgement.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
i like the way gammon got in a back handed complement of MA as “challenging the neighborhood’s traditional black and progressive power structure” Anti progressive. That’s fighting words in this town.
So which cc member proposed the 50k grant and who voted for it. Link to the council meeting?
-len raphael
temescal
November 19th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
It’s an important story about the Max Factor and city government. It shows what someone with instincts and intelligence does to get justice, or at least expose a fraud.The other lesson is that the media and Oakland power structure are sheep/lemmings for celebrating Mr. Jack.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
So apparently, by some entity’s measure, we’re the third most crime-ridden city in the US. This honor was bestowed upon us by the same group who gave us a #5 ranking in 2008 vs. a #4 ranking in 2007. At which time Mayor Dellums seized upon this “improvement” as progress. What is his current excuse? Someone needs to shuffle the flashcards.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Barbara Boxer announces she’s trying to get funding for CompStat: “I am pleased to let you know that funding in the amount of $1,325,000 was included in the Senate version of this bill.”
Let’s hope it makes it through to the final bill. It’s worth fighting for, especially as our “City Leaders” show no signs of finding funds for it instead of their discretionary, especially “cultural”, projects.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Something of a non-sequitor, but I remember a ways back when a bunch of the pro-car folks on this here blog trumpeted the ability of drivers to pay for road infrastructure while public transit always receives subsidy.
To that end, I would recommend a second look: http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/24/new-report-road-funding-from-non-road-users-doubled-in-25-years/
November 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Just for fun-
Oakland is confused.
How about the clothing store Melt on grand Avenue- their slogan “It’s not what you wear but how you wear it.” Hey kids for you it Is what you wear because you’re a clothing store – now out of business. Replaced by Tea shop and foot spa- shouldn’t this be the commercial for what 2 business don’t belong together. How bout a little toe jam with your crumpet.
On lakeshore they are confused as well you’ve got you high end chocolate store then your upscale fitness center then you Domino’s and Weight watchers…lemee outta here
November 24th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Chris, Thanks for posting this.
Funny I was thinking of the same thing today when on Forum they were talking about “What would you pay for to make driving safer? Increased taxes for safer highways, blah blah blah” and I thought: In CA we’ve already paid for $40 billion in bonds for Hwy reconstruction funds, the 4th bore in the C, etc.
This State is crazy, & I’m not even a conservative. I wonder what bond measures they’ll come up with next year…
November 25th, 2009 at 6:59 am
AC transit’s fare recovery is, what, 17%? (East Bay Express IIRC).
Gas taxes pay for 51% (and with an economic recovery some day, maybe), it’ll go back to 60%. Want to raise gas taxes? Fine, but again, a similar “recovery” rate for buses would require a $6 fare (or, heaven forbid, a rational pay & benefit scale for workers). I also don’t think the fare recovery covers capital costs, which again, are paid for by bonds typically.
Furthermore, that article is talking about federal roads & highways. What’s the rate for California?
Finally, 15% of federal gas tax dollars are diverted for transit. Well, 94%+ (and the percentage has only increased over decades) of Americans drive to work etc so again, a disproportionate amount of money is spent on transit projects that fewer people use.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:17 am
There are two articles in Today’s paper that struck me.
One was on how poorly pets and the shelters that support them are doing during nationwide in this recession. The other is on Oakland Animal Care and control.
What some people do to animals is just horrible. Oakland ACC has to deal with all of it, and yet they are succeeding. We should really congratulate them on a job well done.
Thank you Animal Care and Control. You make me proud to be an oaklander, and supporter. This is a very bright spot for OPD (which runs the shelter)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34117457/ns/us_news-the_elkhart_project/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/25/BABV1AILRA.DTL
November 25th, 2009 at 9:58 am
David,
User fees (gas taxes, registration, etc) covered 65% of road costs in 2007. ($124.5 billion fees of $192.7 billion road expenditures.) The 5 year average is over 70% covered.
The expenditures includes federal, state and local expenditures for both highways and local roads. It also includes highway law enforcement, e.g. California Highway Patrol.
The data is available here, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/
and you should be able to get enough information to pull out the CA specific data.
But as you indicate, car drivers pay for the bulk of road costs while transit users only pay a small percentage of transit costs.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Robert and David, how do you conclude that drivers are less subsidized than transit riders when your source identifies over fifty billion dollars in car subsidies? And you of course are not counting local sources – even here in supposedly progressive Alameda County, we pay for highways out of sales tax, and the City of Oakland subsidizes car parking out of the General Fund.
The fact is that the government is spending crazy sums encouraging people to drive, with more-efficient public transit getting only some scraps. What is the point of your argument? That because we subsidize cars more, and people then use cars more, that we should increase distorting subsidies? You guys sound like the Oakland City Council.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Not to mention, did you notice the news items this week on the highest ranked greenhouse gas emitters in California? Number one is the Richmond Chevron refinery.
This is nothing new, either. I worked on a comprehensive statistical book about refinery emissions in 1974-5, and it was among the highest-ranked polluters then too, before anyone was worrying about atmospheric warming effects. So when do we get to make this better? Right now we are all sharing a n atmosphere that is declining precipitously in quality, and there isn’t a spare available.
It’s some form of double-dipping! First they emit greenhouse gases to produce gasoline, then the driver puts the gasoline into the car so they can burn it and emit: pollution and greenhouse gases. That cost isn’t in your calculations anywhere, Robert and David, but the health consequences, air and water pollution consequences, and global warming consequences have a very heavy cost that we all pay. The transit rider is not running up these costs nearly as much.
AC Transit should be subsidized as much as it takes, and we should rebalance the equation to subsidize automobile driving much much less.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Good point, Naomi. And what are the costs to Oakland of being divided by highways built for suburban car commuters? It’s difficult to measure, but certainly costs the city enormous sums in lost property taxes, a poorer economic and neighborhood climate, and the heath consequences of pollution.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I would subsidize AC Transient more if I felt it could offer a viable alternative to the automobile. And with the great Mary King now the General Manager of AC, things will only get worse. Smaller buses running more frequently and getting rid of morbidly obese drivers to reduce fuel and health costs would also help.
As for Chevron, let’s run them out of the Bay Area along with auto use. The air and views from the Oakland hills will be prettier. I am not sure it will stop the irreparable harm cause by the violence in this city.
While we are at saving the world, let’s hammer PG&E. 80 percent of electricity in California comes from fossil fuelsl Not very green unless we turn off all the lights. We could have nuclear power, but….arghhh, not in my backyard.
Subsidize more and punish those who pay taxes and everything will be better.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Sorry, Naomi, the greenhouse hypothesis is a myth. lies by scientists.
i’m not talking about absolute subsidy dollars, i’m talking about as a percentage of costs, and it’s far greater for mass transit.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
BIO, AC Transit does provide a viable alternative to the automobile. Oakland has a very high transit mode-share. Smaller buses don’t save money, that’s a popular canard – in fact, it’s quite the opposite, and ACT’s routes with the largest buses (like the 1R) are also the most cost-effective. Mary King is the interim manager, by the way, and the agency is searching nationally for a permanent director – not that I have any problems with Ms. King, a long-time public servant in Oakland, running the agency.
David, you are conveniently ignoring most car subsidies, from pollution to land-use to debt service on highways (which is what’s dragging California’s budget down). Global warming or no, the costs of manufacturing and using gasoline are immense, and public subsidies for drivers are only encouraging more use of these harmful and limited resources.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Cars are cheap. And gas is cheap.
And the ‘public subsidies’ again for driving, are smaller (as a percentage of funds) than user fees.
And AC transit is a viable alternative for the automobile if 1) you don’t value your time and 2) you’re not hauling any groceries/people etc. In terms of time, it’s cheaper to drive, and in terms of money as long as you’re driving yourself and one other person at least, it’s cheaper in terms of cash out the door.
Seriously, an example. I can ride the 1R to downtown Berkeley from my house. It will take about an hour, at least (I’ve done it, not counting the walk to the stop). I could drive the same distance (about 16 miles on google maps) in 15 minutes (done it repeatedly). Cost in gas: about $1.50-$1.75.
Bus: Incremental Cost in time (if I pay myself minimum wage): $5, plus fare= $7.
Even IF you capitalize your car cost etc, I’m paying maybe $3-$4 for a 16 mile trip.
Round trip bus costs me $14 in incremental time lost and fare, car costs me about half that.
It’s a no-brainer to drive, and that works for every distance but the Transbay bus (which I do take, plus carpool)
Modern cars hardly pollute (and I’m talking real pollution–carbon monoxide etc, not carbon dioxide, which doesn’t do anything, as we’ve seen from the scientists’ own emails). The only thing less productive than me sitting on a bus is sitting here typing on a blog:)
November 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
David, I don’t know whether you have children and grandchidren to suffer the consequences of environmental degradation. I worry not only about my own generation, but about those who will follow us, who surely deserve to inherit a habitable planet.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I have children and a grandchild and I worry less about air quality, which has improved since I was young, than I do about the degradation of public safety . I understand death by violence and emotional dysfunction is quite high for young people in this town. This is not Chevron’s fault.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Robert & David,
–Gas is cheap I’m part because of massive govt subsidies & tax $ to the gas companies. That should b factored in to your costs;
–Where in your link is the $40 Billion CA Bond for Hwy and Infrastructure taken into account? (This included both Hwy and Mass Trans, but mostly Hwy);
–The FHS’ initial cost was $425 BILLION. The cost of cars and highways is lower today only because some of the highest costs have already been spent to make them cheaper today;
–Remember the reason we have buses is because GM, Firestone & Standard Oil paid to have the Key System ripped out.
So if we need buses at all it’s because these 3 forced it on us.(It’s more than ironic to then say buses are too expensive so we should stop them all together!).
And if we then need to re-install rail infrustructure today at high costs it’s for exactly the same reason! Factoring in this history, cars would have to pay even more to make up for this massive dis-investment, then re-investment at taxpayer expense!
–I don’t know if you think mass trans shouldn’t exist, but u need some way for people who can’t afford to drive to get places…
–For that matter if you’re arguing that we shouldn’t have mass trans then one has to wonder what kind of conjestion would exist for drivers. You have to admdit there are at least some benefits for cars & drivers too.
–Cars enabled mass migration to the burbs. Then it costs mass transit a gazzilion $ to follow the masses, and you’re surprised?
If u think mass transit is too expensive, then the obvious solution is to stop it’s expansion to the suburbs and make it more efficient where it already is. Personally I wouldn’t mind this (or spending my tax $ on teachers, officers and making our businesses more competitive, or my own pocket…)
I also wouldn’t mind seeing some cost savings in BART salaries. I think the way BART is managed does a dis-service to everyone, including advocates of mass-transit, by making it so expensive to go to so few places. NYC is 10x better, even if dirtier. Then again we’re getting back to legacy costs…
November 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I was going to do a long comment with diagrams and circles and arrows and all that stuff, but got busy, and lost the energy for writing something for folks, many of whom are less interested in data than in their own feelings about stuff. So in dto’s words, here are the facts.
If you ignore sales taxes on cars and related auto services, there is a subsidy for roads and highways. However, drivers pay about 95% of the full costs for operation of their cars and road construction and maintenance. Transit users on the average pay only 20 to 25%, with ACTransit users paying only 17% of operation only costs. So while my trip to San Leandro might go from $5.50 to $5.75 in my car, that trip on ACTransit would go from $2.00 to $12.00. Which do you think has a bigger impact on transportation decisions? So quit whining about the subsidy for cars distorting decisions because if all subsidies for transportation were eliminated it is mass transit that would suffer.
Now, as Naomi points out, there are good reasons for reducing dependence on gas powered cars, greenhouse warming and social justice being among them. But mass transit in general and bus systems in particular are a remarkably financially inefficient way to accomplish those goals. If you are seriously concerned about global warming you should be putting the money into electric cars, electric rail systems and those nuclear power plants. If you are really concerned about social justice, figure out a system for subsidizing car ownership for the poor, which would be cheaper than subsidizing buses, and provide far more equality for the poor and far better opportunities.
Rather than focusing on something that likely has marginal impacts on auto usage, highway subsidies, focus on looking for real solutions to the problems such as global warming and social justice. Buses do a poor job on either of those, and a financially inefficient job to boot. But as long a people continue to default to the idea that we should put more money into systems that are not used, we will never focus on looking for innovative solutions to our real problems. the default option should be to look for new solutions that do a good job of accomplishing our real goals.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Robert, I’d be interested to see how you square your argument with this: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/17/a-few-words-on-user-fees/
November 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Chris, I really don’t see the need to reconcile with somebody who only looked at part of the picture, federal expenditures, and from the comment did not even do that correctly. My comment was about total expenditures on roads. And as I said, I lost a lot of energy for this compared to 2 days ago, but…
From the references in your earlier link, the federal highway agency indicates that there are about $122 billion is user fees from vehicles (includes gas taxes, registrations, tolls, etc.), net of collection costs. Same source give $193 billion for all road expenditures, including federal, state and local government on highways and local roads, and including highway law enforcement. This number also includes expenditures from bonds along with bond interest and redemption costs. So the total subsidy is around $70 billion. From DOT numbers, there were about 135 billion gallons of gasoline sold in the US, along with about 40 billion gallons of other fuels, much of which are used by vehicles on roads. But to be generous, considering only the gasoline sales, the subsidy would be accommodated by a $0.50 per gallon additional tax. With 20 miles per gallon average, this would be about 2.5 cents per mile. Now the average cost of car ownership is about $0.55/mile, so the additional cost to eliminate all (quantifiable) road subsidies would be around 5% of the cost of operating the car.
On the other hand, I fully agree with Ryan’s last comment, that this country needs a rational transportation policy. But when you fully account for all costs, it just might not work out quite the way you expect.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Gas is not cheap because of massive federal subsidies. Gas is heavily taxed. The companies that produce gasoline (and/or crude oil) are heavily taxed.
Gas is a cheap energy source on a dollar/BTU basis (relative, to, say, solar power) because of simple physics and chemistry. There’s nothing easier than sticking a big straw in the ground and sucking up some seriously concentrated energy. There’s nothing harder than trying to take a huge, diffuse energy blanket and concentrate it in your tank. it’s called entropy.
Naomi, I have kids. And to second the comment above, I’m way more worried about getting shot around 106th and MacArthur getting off the NX3 at 9 pm than air pollution, which may or may not shorten my 80th decade (and as pointed out above, has only gotten better; I remember just in the 1980′s the smog in San Diego and LA when I’d visit relatives, now it’s clear almost all the time down there).
Finally, mass transit in nearly all incarnations is not efficient use of funds as pointed out above. It’d be cheaper over all to take those clunkers and hand them out to poor people, or, heck, subsidize cabs. In certain cities, really only NYC, Chicago, and maybe Boston, DC and a handful of others in the USA, is the population density such that mass transit makes sense over all from a congestion point of view etc.
As for the Key Route, it wouldn’t be any cheaper today if it were in place. First off, it was slow. Second off, it would still need big capital spending. I lived in Chicago, the CTA and the ‘L’ was terribly slow (I could literally bicycle from my house to downtown, 6.5 miles away, faster than taking the train, without coming close to breaking a sweat, in summer), always short of capital funds, and still cost $1.75, now $2 for a fare.
Finally, city dwellers don’t understand the attraction of the ‘burbs. But once again, throughout human history, people have left the cities to smaller, less dense towns. In the past only the rich could afford it (the landed gentry), now the middle class can. You would prefer to socially engineer out this deep human desire to have a little yard, etc etc. It can’t be done. Period. Sorry. As my econ professor would say regarding socialism, “Great idea. Wrong species.”
November 27th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
So based on what David said, there should be in emphasis on population density in order to make mass transit practical. I think that is happening in the downtown/uptown/JLS/Lake Merritt parts of Oakland. David also mentioned that a suburban environment appeals to many people. I think Oakland can develop a suburban type of environment in the eastern parts of the city. I think it would be nice to have both environments in one city.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Dave and Robert, I really don’t mind your POV as I learn from the exchange of ideas. FTM I wouldn’t mind some if the Trans backers to respond to your points. In the meantime:
–The oil companies DO get subsidies for exploration (even when it’s subcontracted out). I do realize it would probably still b cheapest.
–Without any public trans you are going to have pubic parking issues in any dense areas. Cars alone simply can’t address that.
–Interesting point about giving electric cars away for free. Logistically very difficult especially with the rate of car thefts. Maybe subsidized Car Shares would b an intermediate solution? (+private companies could handle this);
–Key System: The point is not it’s past speeds. The point is it had established infrustructure. That’s what’s most expensive. More modern & efficient transport could easily have been placed on top of it.
–The history is important because it fundamentally Impacts the costs today. GM and the others tore out public rail in Oakland, LA, and other cities, roads and Hwys got massive infrastrucure subsidies instead, and then u say cars are cheaper? Duh, no surprise there.
Why shouldn’t newer public Trans receive the same subsidies for infrustructure that cars got? Especially as it solves the parking problems that eveyone having a car will present (and that u have not answered a solution for);
–I take your point about the cost of buses, and it’s the same with the cost of engines for trains and BART. If more questions were asked about these and other costs then it would probably become more efficient.
–Then there’s the same for labor costs, which in the Bay Area are holy even when BART employees earn on avg 100K+. Whenever more money is allocated labor points to the money and says they need more of it. This makes BART less efficient, & cost more.
But public transport and labor are holy, no matter the costs, so nothing is done to make them more efficient. Welcome, once again, to the all or nothing view of American politics. There is no in between anymore. Both the left and the right are responsible for being this IRRESPONSIBLE.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“throughout human history, people have left the cities to smaller, less dense towns”
This is patently false. Please, I would love to see any evidence to prove this. Throughout history cities were enormous magnets for excess population from the countryside and did not shed population out into the surrounding areas. This constant influx into cities was a necessity because, until the industrial revolution, cities were a net loss for overall population. Public health and the quality of life caused more deaths than births in every city, making it imperative that they attract rural populations in order to even maintain a stable head count, much less grow and prosper.
The urge to remove yourself from the city to the surrounding areas (whether we want to call them suburbs, garden cities, etc.) is only an invention of when cities reversed their death/birth rates and started becoming a net gain for population. This practice only became available for upper-middle class with the implementation of railroads and, most especially, street-car systems (funny that the street-car, now one of the urbanist’s best friends, was once the original tool of spreading sprawl. Land speculators would build street car systems out to parcels they owned and subdivided). True suburbs, in the sense that we know them today, only became a viable option once cars and highway systems were put in place. San Fernando Valley was still almost all farmland until the 1940s. Even areas like Lakewood(dead center in the LA bowl) were not fully developed until the 1950s.
So, if by “throughout human history”, you mean “the last 70 years”, then: yes.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
This is patently false. Please, I would love to see any evidence to prove this.
>>
Look up archaeological evidence. There were suburbs of Babylon, Tenochtitlan, Mohenjo Daro, Rome, and other large cities in history. Rich Romans had their country houses etc for centuries.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/maya/caana.htm
” Archaeologists have uncovered what they say is a prime example of Maya suburbs in the ruins of Caracol in Belize.
Excavations by Dr. Diane Z. Chase and Dr. Arlen F. Chase, archaeologists at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, have revealed that
beyond the grand palaces at the core of Caracol, one of the largest Maya cities, lay crowded settlements of workshops and modest dwellings of
poor construction. They likened this to the poor neighborhoods and industrial zones that surround the centers of modern cities. ”
Try again. And seriously, if suburbs were so evil, people wouldn’t move there. Given a choice, people fled the cities in droves in the past century.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The magnitude of scale is so completely different that you cannot call them suburbs. That’s like saying the Temescal is a suburb of the DTO.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
There were no suburbs of Rome, what are you talking about? Being exiled ten miles away was considered a similar punishment to death.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Scale is dependent upon mode of transportation. Cars driving on freeways at 65 mph is quite different from a human walking beside a fully laden donkey over an eroded, muddy surface. At 2 mph, Temescal is an hour away from DTO. In my car, I can drive from my home in Oakland to Napa in less time.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
??? Rome had an extensive network of suburbs; the many enclaves of seaside villas around the Bay of Naples, for example. It is well-documented that our system of urban-suburban-exurban is derived from their early example. Our suburbs, as they have become denser, are just more “urban” in character than ancient Roman suburbs were. Don’t forget – Rome laid out much of the infrastructure around the Mediterranean – roads/highways, towns and cities that are still in use today.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
And please, I’d like you to address the population issue. How could people “throughout history” be leaving dense cities for less dense country towns when cities had higher death rates than birth rates? Wouldn’t these cities simply empty out and die?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 » Show All