–The verification system, if any, is not thoroughly carried out, or is otherwise flawed (IF PAC or CEDA staff actually goes to the property, they don’t actually look in detail at the repairs. Like the Sheriffs visiting Phil Garrido).

–On top of it the owners have refused to do repairs to the tenants property. These are the same repairs the PAC loan was for. The tenants had no idea the City had loaned money to the owners for this repair. They just wanted repairs to be made because the conditions were so bad.

–I never mentioned anybody had called Code Compliance. Residents of the property had no awareness of the PAC’s, CEDA’s, or the City’s involvement with the property. (Again, shouldn’t residents be notified about repairs to be made? That would help both tenants AND the PAC ensure money you’ve loaned is actually being spent instead of pocketed. Unless the system is honor code, or self-enforcement, as this makes it appear).

–On top of it the tenants ended up taking the owners to court, on their own time and dime. If the PAC is defacto outsourcing Code Compliance to tenants you should at least compensate them for it…

Specifically on 8603 Hillside, that property had more than a few problems. Some investors from the east side of the hills bought it a few years ago, thinking they were getting a bargain, and got more than they bargained for. The property was in disrepair and had significant security problems. They sunk far more of their own money in than the anticipated, and came to the PAC for help. The owners impressed us as trying to do the right thing. If people are calling Code Compliance on the owners, that means they care about the property, and that’s a good thing.

Regarding ener’s comments, I would have been more sympathetic toward the project if the proposal included redesign to create a strong street presence. It did not.

In response to Jason, I said that I killed Amber Tree because I was the only person who made a clearly negative statement about the property. PAC members from other areas look to those more directly concerned or affected by a proposal and often give significant consideration to their opinions.

On the issue of affordable housing above 580, studies have shown that small to mid-size affordable projects do not have a negative affect on affluent neighborhoods. On the other hand, there’s a financial Catch-22. The bigger the project, the easier it is to make the financing work,due to economies of scale. But bigger properties are not available above 580, or not available at a price that would attract a non-profit developer. A solution would be greater subsidies per unit.

These schemes are nothing but the “projects” of our time. The high-rise “clusters” of the 1960′s? Razed. The low-rise “courtyard-communities” of the 1970′s? Razed. The mixed townhome/single family planned – communities of the 1980′s? Abandoned. The “inclusionary villages” of the 1990′s? Half empty. The “work-play-live” developments – and the required percentage of “affordable units” – of the 2000′s? Just look around you.

thank you for your thoughtful post on the amber tree, and for your service on the cce pac. my name is ener chiu; i am a resident of downtown oakland , and also an ebaldc employee. i’m not currently staffed on amber tree, but i came across your abo post, and thought it was a good opportunity to open up a dialogue about the development. this response is a personal one, and is not intended to represent the opinions of the ebaldc board or management.

first, i agree that the neighborhood has a significant amount of affordable, deed restricted units. ebaldc owns and manages three buildings within eight blocks of the site: hismen (2555 international), oak park (2618 e.16th st.), and 7 directions (2946 international). hismen and 7d are new construction, and oak park is a gut rehab similar to what we have proposed for amber tree. there are two reasons we tend to cluster our sites. first, market rate development tends to crowd us out, not the other way around. in investment desirable neighborhoods, land tends to get snappedup at prices higher than we can afford. as a result, we have traditionally been pushed into areas that are tougher, on more difficult sites, where larger developers don’t want to go (yet). we would welcome the opportunity to bring dignified, professionally managed affordable housing development to neighborhoods like rockridge or montclair , and hope that if that chance ever comes up, we would be able to count on citizens like yourself and others responding to your post, to help us educate the nimbys who are oposed to any affordable developments in their neighborhood. (as an aside, i personally own a condo and live across the street from an ebaldc affordable housing development, and am excited about the possibility of more well-run affordable housing in my neighborhood.) the second reason we cluster sites is because we find that it benefits the residents, building operations, and neighborhoods. we often have unique services at each building. for instance, at 7 directions, we are able to offer low-cost medical services at the clinic. we have childcare at hismen. and we have financial literacy programming at oak park . this community hub provides easy access to services for residents of all three of our buildings, while allowing us to keep our service budget manageable. we also offer and advertise these services to nearby residents who don’t live in our buildings.

to address your second and third points, i concede that indeed, it might be more ideal to tear down amber tree and start over. as you pointed out, the design of the building is both dated and lacking in a strong street presence. however, i doubt that any financially responsible developer or investor would demolish and rebuild this site, even as market rate rental or for-sale residential and expect to make a profit, and i don’t believe the site is well situated for a retail development within the next ten years (though i could be wrong – i’m not an expert in small scale commercial development). it would be extremely difficult, maybe impossible in the current environment for ebaldc to raise the funds to demolish the building and create a new building. that’s not to say the site is a total loss as a rehab. i think we can address some of the street presence issues that you brought up with a rehab. if you’ve been in the area for more than ten years, you may remember what the old oak park apartments were like before we took them over. if you’ve seen oak park recently, i think most reasonable people would conclude that we accomplished something more than just putting lipstick on a pig when we rehabbed it. we also helped to catalyze a reduction in crime in the immediate vicinity and bring some new homeowners to the area who have bought homes nearby, and started a church/childcare center next door.

lastly, your comment regarding the loss of the property as a tax generating source does have some validity. as affordable housing, the site would generate less property taxes for the pac than other uses. however, by effectively improving the blighted property, the site would more likely attract other development and investment (and homeowners) to the area and raise the values of the surrounding properties, thus generating more taxes overall in the area. as an empty, boarded up site for a long period of time, it would most likely become an attractive nuisance and lower property values around it. again, i would point to what ebaldc accomplished at oak park as an example.

thanks again for your insight. i hope that i have the opportunity to meet you in the future, and continue this conversation so that we can learn how to create a better development that more fully meets the pac’s goals.

and v, thank you for providing this excellent forum for exchanging ideas about oakland . this is a good reminder for me to finally make my donation to your great efforts. thank you!

ener