It’s true that we often don’t get very many responses to RFPs. But that’s not really something you need to “look behind the scenes” for, nor is it the City’s fault. (Well, I suppose it’s the City’s fault indirectly – more people might want to work with us if we provided a better environment for business, paid people on time, didn’t constantly threaten to pass anti-growth legislation, etc). A one-bid project is a one-bid project, not a no-bid project.

Using the EIR as a mechanism to change a project or stop a project is an abuse of CEQA. That wasn’t what the law was intended for. Unfortunately, that has become its primary function. The blame for this, I think, cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of those who try to use CEQA toward these ends. Poor planning practices can result in a situation where people like yourself feel they have no other avenue of recourse.

I think that two things need to be done here. One is that the City (or someone) needs to provide better information about proposed developments, making this information accessible to the public in a clear and understandable way, and presented from a fact-based, unbiased perspective. Second, those who want modifications to developments need to be reasonable. Complaints from neighbors about increased traffic are not legitimate reasons to deny approval to projects consistent with the General Plan. But if community members are willing to accept the basics of a project, they can then work with the developers to see what can be done to ameliorate their concerns. When the requests are reasonable, developers are generally willing to be accommodating. Residents of a condo building adjacent to Shorenstein’s proposed new office high-rise provide one example of how this process can work.

For major projects the City will often brag that it held an open RFP but when you look behind the scenes it turns out there was only one viable proposal submitted. Then after that lone proposal is accepted rules are changed because, well, its the only proposal and because its Oakland we have to be grateful for whatever we can get. After that of course the EIR is the last resort to opposing second rate development that should just not have happened at all. If Oakland stuck to its plans and rejected all plans that didn’t meet them, and found ways to fund those that do this would not be an issue – heck you might even find we the people lining up to support them.