I wrote last month about the many problems confronting Oakland’s transportation planning process. With civic leaders pushing new ballparks, my thoughts turned to the transportation aspects of planning a major entertainment destination. Two of the announced sites were West of Jack London Square, including a site called Jack London North that has stirred significant interest (and is the most popular plan in a poll at Oakland Local). But it poses some serious transportation access problems, including being certainly outside of what can be considered reasonable walking distance from BART (as is AT&T Park in San Francisco, of course). Without an up-to-date downtown transportation plan or even summary information, it’s hard to blame decision-makers for not knowing the transportation context of grand plans. But what is really striking is how important many downtown plans consider ferry service to be, from Jack London Square developments to the proposed shuttle service, yet those making the plans clearly are unaware of the ferry’s serious shortcomings, including the likelihood that Oakland will lose its ferry service in five years.

All the information below can be found in WETA’s Transition Plan.

The City of Alameda, in partnership with the Port of Oakland and Alameda County (ACTIA), provides a commuter ferry to San Francisco called the Alameda – Oakland Ferry. Its operations are contracted to Blue & Gold Fleets, using two publicly-owned ferries. Alameda, like many other cities, subsidizes this transit service out of its General Fund, and the Port of Oakland also contributes a significant sum yearly out of general revenues, for a total subsidy of about four million dollars. Next year, the new Water Emergency Transit Authority will take over operating the service, but WETA is only committed to maintain current service for five years. So here’s the problem: the Port doesn’t want to keep paying, and WETA wants to expand service to South San Francisco, which will require increased subsidy. With Port and City budgets squeezed, the future of ferry service is very much up in the air.

The present state of ferry service is also a big problem. Everyone seems to assume that people use the ferry, but the truth is that almost nobody rides it. Ridership declined ten percent from 1997 to 2008, and has dropped 15% in the current fiscal year. The ferry’s maximum roundtrip capacity is only 2328 passengers a day,* and average daily ridership is a pitiful 640 people**, with two-thirds of commuters coming from Alameda (though most weekend trips originate in Oakland). Because Jack London Square and Alameda are so far from BART, and SF’s Ferry Terminal is in a major job center, there are several thousand people that could use the ferry to commute, but they don’t. The ferry is slow, expensive, and frankly, unpleasant to ride. There’s no signage, no ferry employees outside of the ferry itself, no waiting area, the ferries’ interiors are shabby, and the snacks and alcohol bar is woefully underutilized. On top of that, tickets are expensive. And what kind of “emergency” transit closes during a rainstorm? Unless WETA addresses these problems, ferry ridership can’t increase significantly enough for the ferry to be a real transit option.

If City officials are going to say that Jack London Square’s ferry pier is a transportation option, or attempt to make any plans including it, Oakland must determine the future of the ferry. The City should ask the Port and Alameda to explain their plans for ferry subsidy over the next ten years. Oakland should tell WETA in no uncertain terms that if they want Oakland to commit to long-term funding, WETA’s multimillion-dollar planned investments in Berkeley and South San Francisco should be matched by investments in Oakland. To determine how much of a commitment public agencies should make, Oakland should also find out what plans WETA has for increasing ferry ridership, because current levels don’t justify a continued subsidy. Local leaders are making plans based around a ferry service that is clearly failing, with no plan to improve it or to ensure it doesn’t disappear. Burdened by a chaotic and unfocused transportation bureaucracy and decision-making structure, it’s unclear who is keeping an eye on Oakland’s transit infrastructure, even as it slips away.

** 466,818 trips in FY 2007-2008, divided by 365 days, divided by two trips/person, means an average of only 640 people rode the ferry each day during that period. Remember, this includes Alameda as well as Oakland; Alameda passengers represent about 2/3s of the riders, so the Jack London Square ferry terminal is only serving about 220 people on an average day.

Last week I wrote about the problems with Oakland’s transportation decision-making process. Existing problems include not only a lack of planning for future investment, but flawed approaches to oversight of public and private transportation projects for compliance with city goals, poor coordination with other cities and agencies, and an almost incoherent division of transportation responsibilities both within the bureaucracy and at the City Council level. A Transportation Commission is floated as one solution to that problem. Before thinking about what a Transportation Commission or other changes to transportation decision-making would look like in Oakland, it’s instructive to look at other cities’ approaches. I examined the transportation structures of a dozen West Coast cities, and Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan’s office shared their research on Transportation Commissions with me.

Rather than list all of the cities and their different approaches to transportation decision-making, I will summarize three different models of transportation decision-making and use representative examples. Many cities have advisory-only transportation commissions with no real power and a limited or unclear mandate for review, much like Oakland and its Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (which I chair). Some cities have Transportation Commissions with some real power, and City Council Committees that unify transportation policymaking. And two cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco, have powerful independent transportation authorities with a clear mandate and substantial, though appealable, authority.

Advisory-only transportation committees

Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle all have advisory-only committees. All three cities have both Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committees, with varying levels of oversight mandates. Portland and Seattle have regional transportation authorities, and don’t have city-level Transportation Commissions. Berkeley has a Transportation Commission, but its only role is advisory, and it doesn’t have a clear mandate (for example, the Planning Commission, not the Transportation Commission, reviewed both Bus Rapid Transit and the new ferry service). Berkeley’s City Council has no committees beyond Rules, so there’s no transportation committee; Seattle’s Council coordinates its transportation policy message to regional agencies with a Council Committee; and Portland has a very different governing structure than California cities. None of these cities encourage its transportation commissions to examine private development projects. All in all, these cities do not have a very different approach to transportation decision-making than Oakland.

Some independent transportation authority

Alameda, Long Beach, and San Diego are examples of a middle ground between advisory-only and authoritative Transportation Commissions. In San Diego, the Land Use and Housing Committee of the City Council hears all transportation-related issues, including parking and encroachments, making it easier to have a coherent policy. The city does not enjoy a Transportation Commission, or even a bike or ped advisory committee, but does have a Community Planning Advisory Committee and an Airports Advisory Committee, with substantial oversight over some aspects of transportation. Long Beach doesn’t have City Council Committees, but has an independent Public Transportation Commission that oversees its city-run bus system (Oakland, by the way, does have a city-run bus system, and is planning to expand it, yet has no transit authority figure).

Alameda’s Transportation Commission not only has a clear mandate to review transportation policy and the transportation aspects of major projects (and Environmental Impact Reports), but serves as the public appeal board for decisions made by the Department of Public Works. In Oakland, the Planning Director’s decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission, but other internal decisions are either unappealable or only appealable directly to the full City Council. By providing a venue to appeal decisions on minor encroachments, for example, the Alameda Transportation Commission relieves the City Council of some time-consuming tasks, while reinforcing the unity of the transportation decision-making. The Alameda Transportation Commission, however, has multiple vacancies, and Alameda does not seem to be doing a great job with transit planning (though at least they have some ideas!).

Transportation commissions with real power

Los Angeles and San Francisco have institutional structures devoted to transportation. The LA City Council has a Transportation Committee, and San Francisco has an independent Metropolitan Transportation Authority with significant power. Los Angeles operates a Department of Transportation (LADOT), unifying all transportation-related service in one organization, as does San Francisco, whose MTA arose from a combined Department of Public Transit Parking and Traffic and MUNI in 1999. LADOT has an advisory committee roughly equivalent to a Transportation Commission, with significant authority over transportation decision-making, including ambulance licenses, off-street parking, transportation planning, and encroachments; In SF, all such decisions are made by Mayor-appointed SFMTA. Both LADOT and SF have separate Taxi Commissions. The LA City Council and SF Board of Supervisors maintain ultimate authority over transportation decisions but rarely get involved on non-budget issues.

Conclusion

It is apparent that there are several models for expanding and unifying transportation decision-making with an independent body. For City Councils, the LA and San Diego model of placing all transportation issues in one committee seems to work well. But there is a huge difference between the SFMTA, whose decisions are hardly ever appealed to the Board of Supervisors, and the Alameda Transportation Commission, which is clearly subservient to the City Council and doesn’t have much budgetary authority. LADOT’s Board of Transportation Commissioners are invested with similar powers to the SFMTA, yet their decisions are more explicitly subject to City Council review.

The virtue of creating an independent authority would be to tap expertise in the community while relieving the Council of some of its more mundane duties, like examining encroachments. The BPAC is meant to advise city staff, yet has no mandate over anything but the bike-ped program so has to resort to wheedling to hear private or redevelopment projects. The LA Commission is structured to advise staff, but in reality has similar powers to the SFMTA, which is meant to be the final word. Both the Alameda and Berkeley Commissions are mandated to merely advise the Council, yet Alameda’s Commission has real power and unified authority while Berkeley’s has neither. Other cities vary in their Transportation Commission’s bureaucratic placement (ie, advising staff versus advising the Council), power and mandate, and scope of authority. Oakland has many models to examine when planning its own Transportation Commission, but which one is best?

The lack of coordination on transportation extends to the City Council level. Transportation issues are split up among different Council Committees, making it harder to have a coordinated policy: parking fees are at Finance, investments and most policies go to Development, most right-of-way issues go to Public Works, and taxi regulation goes to Public Safety. Meanwhile, Oakland’s representatives on major transit agencies are scattershot: Rebecca Kaplan is our representative to ACTIA (the County’s main funding agency for transportation), Jane Brunner is our representative to the MTC-ABAG Joint Policy Committee, and CM Reid is Oakland’s voice on the Congestion Management Agency, which is the County’s transportation planning authority. A casual observer of transit issues will know that these three Councilmembers don’t see eye-to-eye on transit issues.

Though Oakland’s economy and cityscape is defined by transportation more than any other factor, the city has ignored transportation planning and has no coordinated or formalized means of addressing a whole host of transportation issues, from parking ratios for new buildings to bus stop locations. There is absolutely no planning whatsoever for transit improvements, and, frankly, CM Reid seems to be intent on preventing Oakland from making any transit investments now that he has approval for the Airport Connector, using his positions on the Congestion Management Agency and the Bus Rapid Transit Steering Committee to undermine BRT without doing anything that his bus-dependent constituents would even notice. In 2006, the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force recommended (PDF) creating a Transportation Commission “to develop. implement, and prioritize transportation strategies,” yet this idea was only half-formed and didn’t address many of the problems outlined above.

Can these problems be addressed with a Transportation Commission? Does the City Council have to restructure its own appointments and committee system in order to address transportation issues? Do City agencies need to be reorganized in order to create a Transportation Department, or can the Task Force’s suggestion of a “go-to person” and a working group be sufficient? Do you agree that the issues outlined above are real problems, or is Oakland doing just fine transportation-wise? Like almost everything else that came out of the Mayor’s Task Forces, the Transportation Commission idea has gone nowhere, but if the idea is worthwhile, there may be an opportunity to revive it. But that begins with identifying the problem. In this case, the problem may be bigger than the proposed solution.

UPDATE: I added a link to the Transportation Task Force report (PDF).

Today, the attention of the blogoaksphere has turned to the open seat on the AC Transit Board. The largest bus-only transit agency in the United States will appoint a member to replace Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, and transit activists as well as other concerned leaders are weighing in. I am proud to report that East Bay transit advocates have conducted an endorsement process, and chosen Elizabeth Echols (PDF) as the best candidate to replace Ms. Kaplan.

Last year I asked a respected community leader to apply for this seat. After seriously considering it, he declined due to other commitments to important causes. Since I did not know any of the candidates personally or from their work as transit advocates, I felt it was important for transit activists to have a role in the process of choosing our new transit director. In January I invited several leaders of different transit advocacy groups to meet and discuss the open AC Transit seat. We decided that, instead of putting forth one of our own as a candidate, we would offer our joint endorsement.

We put together a detailed questionnaire and sent it to the candidates that we had heard about (including three of the four finalists). The questionnaire was created with input from leaders of every East Bay transit advocacy group: Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, Friends of BRT, the No on KK Committee, Alameda Transit Advocates, the City of Oakland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley, Livable Berkeley, the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, and TransForm. (I am on the Oakland BPAC and was on the No on KK campaign committee.)

We scheduled interviews with the respondents and talked to them about their qualifications, their vision and priorities for the agency, and followed-up on some of their answers to our questions. I attended all but one interview, and found them incredibly informative. The candidates explained different facets of the challenges facing AC Transit: one explained exactly how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s totally ass-backwards financing priorities screw AC Transit (apparently they think bus stops are just as useful to the regional transportation infrastructure as new desks for administrators), another had a very in-depth understanding of the position of the drivers and mechanics (they are concerned about working conditions, and understand the agency’s financial pressures), and another related his experiences as a rider advocate and how the agency works with community groups (rather well, in his opinion, as long they know about a project).

Walking to our endorsement meeting in transit-proximate Old Oakland, I didn’t know who would be our consensus choice. There are many strong candidates. But one offered the combination of experience, new ideas, and appropriate priorities that appealed to everyone at the table: Alameda County Democratic Central Committeemember Elizabeth Echols. A former Google executive who served on the technology cluster of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, she has a fresh perspective on the agency, new ideas about improving service using technology and data, but also a solid grasp of the importance of service reliability to attracting and maintaining an expanded ridership base. Her energy and political connections will allow her to help the agency get approval for the best Bus Rapid Transit system in the next few months, and help her work with regional, state and federal officials to improve the agency’s long-term financial health. I am pleased to be one of many local transit advocates to endorse her candidacy, and I am confident she is able to help guide AC Transit through its troubling financial times without sacrificing the needs of both “choice riders” and the transit-dependent.

It is no secret that there are many qualified individuals applying for this seat. When the Board voted on its four finalists, a former Boardmember who had applied was not among them – that’s a clear signal that the agency is extremely pleased with the quality of those who want to join the Board. With the overwhelming electoral victories racked up by AC Transit last November (78% voted no on Berkeley’s anti-BRT measure KK, and 72% of the district’s voters backed a parcel tax to make up for last year’s state budget cuts), and the caliber of those vying to lead it through a recession, it is clear that AC Transit is on the right track. All transit advocates are pleased by these developments, and the phrase “embarrassment of riches” to describe the selection of a new Boardmember has been used by more than one observer. This is a far cry from six years ago, when Rebecca Kaplan was the only well-qualified applicant for this open seat. Though transit advocates will be satisfied with any of the four finalists to represent us on the East Bay’s largest and most important transportation agency, Elizabeth Echols is the best choice, and we hope that Board will agree.

For a list of all five blogs that today endorsed Ms. Echols, see A Better Oakland’s Elizabeth Echols for AC Transit

A new year presents the opportunity to dream and hope for the new. It may seem that this is not the best moment to hope for new transit service: not only will a slipping economy mean less sales-tax revenue from which to fund local transit, but one state budget-balancing idea includes stripping local transit agencies of operating subsidies in order to jump-start the construction of High Speed Rail. This rests on a calculus that High-Speed Rail will create construction jobs, while transit service merely takes people to their existing jobs. From this government-centric perspective, efficiency and broadly-shared benefits lose to glamorous and expensive new projects. Similarly, BART wants to cut existing service while still building new stations in suburbs where ridership is likely to be low. But the East Bay is about to see enormous transit improvements that are incredibly cost-effective, and a less-cost-effective project is getting another chance.

The handful of choke points connecting Alameda to Oakland’s transportation system have long bedeviled planners. Car access is considered adequate, and only a new bike/ped/transit crossing is being studied, with options to be presented to Oakland and Alameda later this year. However, the need to fit a large Coast Guard ship on the estuary is a major physical barrier to building a bridge. A drawbridge would be useless to buses because it would introduce delays, and building a tall crossing would be prohibitively expensive. But Alameda has figured out how to create reliable transit service with just a bucket of paint: bus queue-jump lanes leading to the Posey Tube. By prioritizing buses over private traffic through the tube, buses avoid a significant bottleneck and restore reliability, at basically zero cost to the public. The lanes should be painted soon.

Though not quite free, Bus Rapid Transit is extraordinarily low-cost transit service that can accommodate tens of thousands of daily riders in its eight-mile corridor for only $250m, all of which has been secured. The Measure KK vote in Berkeley shows that the general public strongly supports Bus Rapid Transit, which confirms my personal experience: everyone I tell about it immediately grasps the concept and the benefit of bus-only lanes, and very few grumble that rail would be better or that cars deserve every last inch of asphalt. The project qualifies for the Federal Small Starts program because of its cost-effectiveness (a metric often not met by rail projects), and all funding has been secured including a generous allotment for overruns. Such a large transportation benefit for little cost, though perhaps uninteresting to state-level politicians, is the perfect project for a recession.

Ironically, as BRT proves its popularity and its cost-effectiveness becomes more valuable, several developments may have made an Oakland streetcar idea more feasible. Unveiled in 2001,  the multi-jurisdictional Long-Range Investment Study looked at BART to Jack London Square, improved transit connection to Alameda, and various Rapid Transit options (BRT, LRT, and a streetcar). Ultimately most ideas were found to be expensive or otherwise infeasible. Out of this study only the aforementioned transit plans are progressing. A MacArthur BART-Downtown-JLS-O29 streetcar circulator was found to be very expensive and have no identifiable funding source, and a cheaper “rubber-tire trolley” suggested by Councilmember Nancy Nadel was not studied. Yet, in the five years since a Congestion Management Agency meeting I attended in 2003 where those conclusions were reached, several funding sources for a downtown streetcar may have presented themselves.

Without radically rejiggering the Central District Redevelopment Area’s spending formula (which provides the vast majority of funds for citywide affordable housing projects), there is no obvious financing mechanism for a downtown streetcar. The City Center and Lake Merritt office districts alone could not bear the costs, and those property owners would be unlikely to see great benefit in shipping their tenants off to Jack London Square for lunch. But the Jack London Square II project is building a substantial amount of office space, and if O29 is approved soon, there will be thousands of new residents needing new transit service. But the real clincher is the Conley Report proposal for a Mid-Broadway large-scale retail district. Since there’s no BART station between 20th and 40th Streets, and the city will be hard-pressed to fund thousands of parking spaces to support new retailers, new transit service will also be needed at the other end of the proposed streetcar route, up Broadway to the MacArthur BART station. With a mix of new retail, office and residential large-scale development along the proposed streetcar line, the prospects for its funding are much brighter, especially as it combines transportation with economic development, and is a large infrastructure project that would create jobs.

As promised in her inauguration speech, Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan will tomorrow present an urgent proposal to the Oakland City Council Rules Committee. She will ask that Oakland add actual infrastructure projects to its federal stimulus request which was woefully lacking when drawn up by the mayor, and adopt a strategy for lobbying Congress to get as many projects funded as possible. Transportation projects are expected to get additional attention, from implementing the Bicycle Master Plan to repaving every street and sidewalk in the city. Even though simple and cost-effective transit solutions are becoming more apparent, with the opportunities presented at the federal and local level (from Obama’s stimulus to Oakland’s retail revitalization plan), new transportation improvements are getting a fresh look and perhaps a fresh start.

Before the clock runs out on election interest, this is the first of two blogs noting electoral trends.

Real estate development is a political football in many cities in California, with some battles reaching the ballot box. This November, NIMBY initiatives across the state were defeated. The three most radical anti-growth measures in California were Measure KK in Berkeley (anti-Bus Rapid Transit), Measures V and W in Redwood City (wetlands preservation), and Measure T in Santa Monica (cap on commercial construction). All lost, by substantial margins.

Regular readers of this and other blogs know that Bus Rapid Transit’s showdown in Berkeley was followed closely by transit activists. I was part of the No on KK campaign, which won with 77% of residents voting No. Measure KK received more attention than anything else on the Berkeley or even East Bay ballot. The media, from the blogs to the Daily Planet to the Chronicle, devoted far more space over the course of the year to Measure KK than to Berkeley mayor’s race, the wide-open City Council seat, or Oakland and regional measures. Now BRT opponents are arguing that people voted based on No on KK’s excellent mailer and not because they support BRT on Telegraph Avenue, but the overwhelming margin of defeat and the great deal of substantive public discussion shows that voters support changing car lanes to other uses.

Several years ago, Cargill Inc sold their pink-hued, salt-producing wetlands to the state in a large and complicated deal, while reserving two profitable portions to offset the cost of the land. In Redwood City, influential Oakland-based nonprofit Save The Bay placed a measure on the ballot to upend this deal and prevent development on a newly-created parcel by requiring a two-thirds vote to change its General Plan designation to open space. In response, the City Council placed a measure requiring only a simple majority vote. In the end, voters rejected both measures, Save the Bay’s W by 63%.

Arguably the most radically anti-growth local ballot measure was in Santa Monica. City Councilmember Bobby Shriver, working with a local NIMBY group, sponsored an initiative to cap commercial construction at 75,000 square feet. Not only would that entirely preclude office development, it would also prevent retail and urban mixed-use (housing over retail) projects. Much like Smart Growth links transportation and growth, so did Mr. Shriver and other supporters of Measure T attempt to convince voters that ending growth would somehow “fight traffic.” Also like KK, Measure T enjoyed a sympathetic media. Yet just as KK supporters failed to convince Berkeleyans that next-generation bus service would worsen traffic, Santa Monicans rejected T’s traffic argument by 56%.

There are other examples: Beverly Hills voters narrowly approved construction of three hotel / residential skyscrapers on the ugly white concrete high-rise Beverly Hilton, referended by NIMBYs; and Moraga’s restrictive Measure K was voted down by 56%. On the other hand, San Francisco voters approved NIMBY-in-chief Aaron Peskin’s powerful Landmarks Preservation Commission (Measure J), but there was no argument filed against it and it was lost in the confusing morass of San Francisco’s ballot questions, A-V. Without opposition, it earned only 57% of votes. The failure of anti-growth measures across California show that Smart Growth proponents can craft winning messages, and that electoral sympathy for NIMBYs and anti-transit activists is low.

Last Tuesday, voters set a course for Oakland’s future. Certain races have something to tell engaged Oaklanders about voters’ wishes, the effectiveness of different kinds of campaigns, and about the current and future policymaking boards that govern our city and our transit service. The passage of Measure OO (and failure of Measure NN), Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory over Kerry Hamill, and a host of pro-transit votes, were the key choices facing voters this cycle.

Measure OO vs the rest of the budget

My only disappointment in the local ballot measures was the narrow passage of Measure OO, also known as Kids First 2. As I wrote at the time, Measure OO did not meet the ballot deadline and the City Council was not under a legal obligation to place the measure on the November ballot. They may have been compelled to call a special election for it, but of course that would have been a better bet than the November election. Now the city is going to do a special election anyway, and they’ll be under great pressure to compromise with Kids First and give them at least some money from the strapped budget.

This potentially gigantic hit to the city budget is the City Council’s fault for not doing a special election in the first place or placing a competing measure on the ballot (not a compromise, a measure that would just do what the Council already did but trump KF2, a common legislative tactic). Now OO is in a good position, even though it wasn’t the voters’ highest priority on Election Day. Measure NN, to raise taxes to pay for police, received thousands more votes yet is a failure. Neither NN nor OO did much of a campaign: a friend of mine received a four-page glossy mailer promoting NN after Election Day, and its slogan sounded like it was translated from an Asian language (“Get Involved! Today Oakland!”). OO sent a mailer only to poll voters, and the No on OO campaign sent a mailer only to absentee voters. In such a low-energy election, the Council’s actions framing the ballot would have been decisive.

Kaplan vs. Hamill

I think a lot of Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory can be attributed to her preparation for the job of running Oakland. Ms. Kaplan outperformed Kerry Hamill at endorsement interviews and forums, and won allies in blogs and among the politically-involved people who judge endorsement interviews. This election may not prove the power of local opinion-makers, but their almost-unanimous backing of Ms. Kaplan certainly undercut the support Ms. Hamill had from elected officials. In the end, Ms. Kaplan’s impressive endorsement list made her a very safe choice for the average voter.

Of course, more voters were exposed to Rebecca Kaplan’s supporters because Kerry Hamill just didn’t do nearly enough to win the seat. She admits she only had the money to wage half a campaign, and couldn’t mobilize enough volunteers to match Kaplan’s access to the Democratic Party Headquarters. I never received mail or a call from Ms. Hamill at anytime in this year-long campaign.

Elections are not necessarily about issues, but Rebecca Kaplan did identify and articulate some priorities that are attractive to certain interest groups, like supporting dense transit-oriented development, implementing the Conley Report, sprucing up downtown, and improving public transportation and bicycling. These things can mean different things to different people: condo developers as well as medicinal marijuana dispensaries see opportunities in a more successful downtown; labor unions and businesses like her call to increase revenue with more business; and with a holistic view of transportation, there really is something for everyone.

As one wag observed, Kerry Hamill’s defeat shows that Don Perata cannot install a puppet on the City Council by not campaigning or raising money for her. It also reinforces how difficult it is to run a come-from-behind campaign in Oakland. Alone in the booth, if they had no other information, voters decided that an AC Transit Board Member was more qualified than a School Board member to be promoted to the City Council, and frankly, they’re right. Voters also endorsed AC Transit’s performance more directly on down-ballot questions.

BRT vs KK, Peeples vs Roy, Measure VV

Voters in Berkeley overwhelmingly defeated a measure that was framed as a way to stop Bus Rapid Transit service on Telegraph. A far larger majority shot down the anti-bus measure than endorsed Tom Bates or the winning incumbents and new councilmembers. 77% is almost unheard-of, and is such a sweeping majority that it cannot be interpreted as anything but a strong rejection of NIMBYism, at least as it applies to transit improvements.

I draw several conclusions from the vote. First, it shows that the angry and active minority of citizens who do not agree with most City Council decisions are not representative of many voters (Tom Bates’ reelection is more evidence of this). Second, the tactics and arguments of proponents, mainly to do with the alleged harm of Bus Rapid Transit, fell flat. I really don’t know whether most people read the Berkeley Daily Planet, but either they don’t or they don’t agree with its editorial direction. The rest of the media is fairly hostile to BRT as well, but voters clearly are not. Finally, the No on KK campaign (which I was a part of) did an excellent job shaping a simple message, getting the support of local leaders, and communicating with voters in many media. But the margin was totally unexpected, and can’t be interpreted as anything but that voters want the Berkeley City Council to move forward with BRT.

Chris Peeples also won a huge margin in his reelection effort against Joyce Roy, who had made some noise in the media. She wrote a strongly populist ballot statement criticizing AC Transit for everything imaginable, but failed to convince more than 35% of the voters. The successful passage of an additional parcel tax to compensate for state cuts to AC Transit’s funding was another endorsement of AC Transit’s recent direction.

Tomorrow, Berkeley voters will cast votes either for or against Smart Growth. From the candidates to the ballot measure, Bus Rapid Transit and transit-oriented development are the key issues facing Berkeley. Older divisions between progressives and moderates have fallen by the wayside, while anti-growth activists have expanded their opposition from development to transit service.

Berkeley Mayor: Bates vs. Dean

This rematch of the 2002 race confuses some local observers. Tom Bates, the progressive candidate traditionally aligned with Berkeley Citizens Action, has the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce, the Berkeley Democratic Club, and many people working the real estate industry, while moderate Shirley Dean finds herself with the support of the Berkeley Daily Planet (called “the most liberal newspaper in the Bay Area,” by the Express) and neighborhood activists. The candidates have not necessary changed positions, but the divisive issue in Berkeley has changed. When Mr. Bates, his wife Loni Hancock, and Shirley Dean were at loggerheads in the 1980s and 1990s, it was mostly about rent control. Now, that is no longer an important issue in Berkeley.

In 1990, the Searle court decision led the Rent Stabilization Board to raise rents dramatically (up to 45%) and compelled it to follow a survey of operating costs when determining rent increases. Landlords no longer seriously contest Rent Board elections, and combined with vacancy decontrol in 1996, rent control faded as Berkeley’s hot-button issue. Ms. Dean’s two terms as mayor (1994 – 2002) encompassed this period.

What now separates Tom Bates from Shirley Dean is support for non-car-oriented transportation improvements and transit-oriented development, which together constitute Smart Growth. Ms. Dean strongly opposes Bus Rapid Transit and supports Measure KK (below). At an endorsement interview I saw her say that “we have to realize that four-story buildings ruin the quality of life for the entire neighborhood,” and suggested that the shadows cast by mid-rise buildings would make it harder for people to grow their own food. Tom Bates supports high-density development in downtown Berkeley and fairly dense development along transit corridors, and is open to Bus Rapid Transit.

If I lived in Berkeley (God forbid) in 2002, I would have voted for Ms. Dean. Her priority, and decent track record, of downtown revitalization appealed to me, and regular readers know that I generally side with more moderate politicians. But Tom Bates has made some very persuasive criticisms of her record. He is right to point out that the Council was more divided and less productive under her watch than his, and that the same neighborhood activists who criticize him were just as angry in 1990s. Of course, downtown Berkeley has gone downhill, which means that Ms. Dean’s downtown policies weren’t sustainable. But the clear distinction between the two is their contrasting policies on Smart Growth. It’s not that they have switched sides, but that the issues have changed. Urban business is increasingly aligned with the environmental movement, both stressing infill growth to combat their mutual enemy, suburban sprawl. Mr. Bates and a broad consensus on the City Council increasingly subscribe to this position, with Dean and neighborhood activists (and Berkeley’s always prominent fringe, like Zachary Running Wolf) firmly placed on a different side.

Berkeley Council District 4: Doran vs. Arreguin

Jesse Arreguin has gathered some impressive endorsements in his quest to succeed Councilmember Dona Spring, despite his age (24) and lack of elective experience (as explained above, the Rent Stabilization Board is not an important agency any more). Terry Doran, his opponent, was School Board President, and both have served on the Zoning Adjustments Board and Downtown Area Planning Advisory Commission. In their endorsement interviews and votes on the ZAC and DAPAC, Smart Growth is a key distinction between them.

On the DAPAC, Mr. Arreguin opposed “tall buildings” while Mr. Doran supported them. Mr. Arreguin bases his anti-high-rise position on old fashioned class warfare, while Mr. Doran stresses the need for increased tax revenue, transit ridership, and a built-in customer base for downtown businesses. Jesse Arreguin, despite being a former student and a supposed environmentalist, is iffy on Bus Rapid Transit (he opposes key elements of the plan) while Terry Doran strongly supports it. Finally, there is a key vote on the ZAC that put them on opposite sides: the Trader Joe’s on MLK. Mr. Arreguin voted against it and Mr. Doran for it. In Oakland, that would be the end of the contest right there, but Berkeley voters may be looking at other things, such as political affiliations and key supporters.

Mr. Arreguin works for Councilmember Kriss Worthington, who find himself the odd man out in Berkeley’s new political alignment: with no support from NIMBYs yet never pro-business or pro-growth, Worthington is the only Councilmember who didn’t endorse a mayoral candidate. His unexpectedly poor showing in the Assembly primary in June suggests that his support for Arreguin may not be terribly helpful. Former School Board President Terry Doran enjoys the support of Bates and most of the City Council. I’m not in a position to judge their respective campaigns (I really don’t like Mr. Arreguin’s slogan, Viva Jesse – is he running for King?), but transit and transit-oriented development are the issues. Tomorrow will show how downtown Berkeley, more or less Ground Zero for Smart Growth in Berkeley, feels about their future.

Berkeley Measures: KK and LL

Berkeley is infamous for an anti-development Preservation Ordinance that allows a great deal of protection for “landmarks” that are deemed so by an irrational process. Thus, tumbledown cottages, retaining walls, and even surface parking lots have been saved from demolition by developers, and the City of Berkeley has more official landmarks than San Francisco and Oakland put together (though the Oakland Heritage Alliance has proposed drastically expanding protections for “historic” buildings as part of the Zoning Update). Berkeley’s process does not comply with state law and makes development in Berkeley very difficult. Measure LL is a referendum on the City Council’s decision to update the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to make it less arbitrary and to bring it into compliance with state law. A previous attempt to preserve the LPO failed two years ago; this is now the NIMBYs last stand to keep their most powerful anti-development weapon.

Measure KK, whose key supporters overlap with those against the LPO update, would delay or disrupt plans for a regional Bus Rapid Transit network by submitting it to a vote of the electorate. Eric at TransBay Blog has an excellent summary of what’s at stake and the serious problems with this measure. In its context alongside Measure LL and as a key distinction between mayoral and Council candidates, Measure KK represents another facet of the explicit Smart Growth divisions facings Berkeley voters. In Oakland, those who oppose dense development still support transportation improvements (and it’s important to note that no organized group in Oakland is opposed to tall buildings in most of downtown); in Berkeley, Smart Growth is on the ballot in its entirety.

Today’s blog is critical of recent news. No, I’m not yet ready to comment on Mayor Dellums’ attempt to take the Second Start program away from destitute, illiterate mothers of small children, or put an end to community gardens, or reduce library service by a quarter. No, the surprisingly tiny savings from eliminating such direct services are not the focus of this blog, and neither is the evidence that Oakland’s city workers are the highest-paid in the entire country and are significantly overpaid by several measures. This blog is not about the bad budget. It’s about the bad media.

The SF Weekly publishes parts of former Berkeley Daily Planet reporter Judith Scherr’s email to colleagues explaining that she quit the NIMBY mouthpiece because she could not longer stand editor Becky O’Malley’s constant meddling to make articles more ideologically bent. The Weekly’s comments are hilariously dismissive of the Planet. BeyondChron, which occasionally swaps articles with the Planet, rises to Ms. O’Malley’s defense, but doesn’t address the issue of altering articles to be more one-sided (for example, this article about a Berkeley hearing on BRT is so different from what a friend at the meeting reported to constitute disinformation).

The always-relevant SF Bay Guardian, in a pioneering work of political journalism, reveals that former Don Perata Chief of Staff Kerry Hamill enjoys the support of Senator Perata in her bid for the Oakland City Council. The article also handily summarizes all the relationships between Councilmembers and interest groups in a single phrase, which is quite illuminating. Not!

The Chronicle’s popular urban design critic John King discusses the new Cathedral of Christ the Light, but completely neglects its unfortunate pedestrian presence that is the talk of downtown and Westlake. That, and the, um, yonic design concept. Also, he thinks the building is modest?

That lazy blogger from The DTO finally posts something.

The New York Times shows some love for Oakland’s ambitious office developers, but kinda skips the issue of who exactly will occupy these new commercial highrises. Meanwhile, a prominent North Oaklander calls for exorbitant business taxes to balance the budget on a neighborhood listserv.

After running biased articles in favor of the city’s “industrial preservation” policy adopted this Spring, the Trib now criticizes industrial pollution and thinks that converting industrial land to housing helps revitalize neighborhoods. Confusing!

When I’m disappointed in the MSM, I can go directly to the primary source or just make my own news through activism. Tomorrow (Thursday), there’s an opportunity to do both. Rather than read analysis of the pundits’ analysis of public reaction to the Vice Presidential debate, you can watch it yourself with a crowd of energetic young Democrats at downtown’s Geoffrey’s Inner Circle. The event is a fundraiser for not-quite-so-establishment Council candidate Rebecca Kaplan, whose election would be big news. See you newsmakers there!

This week, everyone but the Trib is making endorsements in the many competitive elections in Oakland and the East Bay. So, like Robert Kennedy, I thought Why not? Here are my endorsements for who will make decision affecting the future of Oakland, from a transit and Smart Growth perspective.

City Council District One: Jane Brunner

I have a lot of problems with Ms. Brunner, so this endorsement comes with serious caveats. I think that she is often illprepared for meetings, as V-Smoothe pointed out, and seems to vote however the last person who got to her wants her to vote, but her staff is not as scattered as she is. I’ve already decried using Inclusionary Zoning, a rare ideological split on the Council, as a litmus test, so I’ll forgive her decade-long quest to impose price caps on condos. The real housing issue is that District One builds no affordable housing, and very little entry-level housing. I grew up in Rockridge and I’ve been forced out by the lack of development! There are fewer apartments now than there were in 1987, when Market Hall opened, and no newly-built condos. Ms. Brunner has offered little leadership on development in Temescal, instead exacerbating the neighborhood’s battles by meddling in projects (with the full consent of the rest of the Council). However, Mr. McCullough has no position on development.

The hot issue is crime, but Ms. Brunner hasn’t been particularly worse than anyone else on the Council; unlike Jean Quan and Nancy Nadel, she’s not a ringleader of the anti-cops brigade. Her shameful refusal to condemn Black Uhuru’s slander of Mr. McCullough is disturbing, but she does listen to crime concerns and is belatedly pushing for the high-tech crime-reduction strategies championed by Sean Sullivan. Honestly, I don’t see Mr. McCullough offering much in the way of crime but attention. Unlike Sean Sullivan, he doesn’t have detailed plans or a clear policy direction. I think Mr. Pine has the same problem except that he talks about the number of police relentlessly. Mr. McCullough also has no support from other councilmembers or institutions so he would probably be an ineffective councilmember.

And effectiveness is exactly what Jane Brunner offers. IZ wouldn’t have a chance if it were pushed by Nancy Nadel, but Jane Brunner knows how to work the system. For her constituents she’s delivered bicycle lanes and bike parking, the only successful Measure DD project (Studio One), and a dog park at Mosswood (which Ms. Nadel took credit for). Her staff is involved in the negotiations with CalTrans over the Caldecott Tunnel, which is entirely appropriate. She makes noises about Smart Growth and will deliver the MacArthur BART project, even if has taken fifteen years. Without an experienced opponent with a clear alternative vision, Jane Brunner deserves reelection.

City Council District Three: Sean Sullivan

This is easy. V-Smoothe wrote an excellent essay entitled Nancy Nadel Has to Go. Now., and I have little to add. Sean Sullivan has impressed many people with his well-organized, aggressive campaign and positive, detailed vision for the future of the District (I’m part of his campaign). Greg Hodge barely got on the ballot, and has run an invisible campaign that is short on specifics. Sean Sullivan offers energetic, hands-on leadership at exactly the time Oakland needs it most, and his record delivering a multimillion-dollar youth center and effective violence prevention programs is the experience City Hall needs. He is endorsed by Desley Brooks and Pat Kernighan, the two swing votes on the Council who are also the most junior. The ranks of newer councilmembers, not beholden to the old power structure, deserve more members.

City Council District Five: Ignacio de la Fuente

Ignacio is the best member of the Oakland City Council. He is the most respectful and attentive to public speakers, his staff are the most open to new ideas and new activists, and he has been there for public transit and Smart Growth every time. He attempted to lobby the MTC for an East Bay HSR alignment (but was thwarted by Nadel), which is perhaps the biggest single transit issue of the decade. Under his leadership, Fruitvale has become a charming, thriving district. In the mid-nineties, when I lived in Rockridge, nobody thought of going to Fruitvale for dinner or shopping. Now many people do, and the Transit Village is a model for the entire region. Jingletown exists because of Ignacio’s vision of reclaiming industrial land and creating access to the waterfront. Even if his leading opponent wasn’t an inexperienced businessman with a checkered past, Ignacio de la Fuente would deserve reelection.

City Council Seven: Larry Reid

Larry Reid is good. He stands up for what’s right, not what’s politically correct, like with plastic bags or industrial zoning. He does a great job attracting retail and residential development to his economically depressed district. I hear his constituent services aren’t very good, but I don’t see Clifford Gilmore offering anything better. Running a terrible campaign doesn’t help matters. This is a great example of the Guardian’s endorsements revealing themselves to be utterly irrational.

City Council At-large: Clinton Killian

This is a crowded field but honestly the choice wasn’t that hard. Charles Pine is one-note and wouldn’t be effective on the Council. Frank Rose is awesome but he gives so much to the community without being on the Council, so I don’t think he really brings much to this particular role. Kerry Hamill doesn’t bother to campaign downtown at all, is nowhere on transportation and development (though the big developers love her for some reason), has no credibility on the crime issue that she’s pushing, and says annoying things that are obviously political, like we need fewer political staff, even though she is political staff (she was Don Perata’s Chief of Staff and is now a Policy Analyst for BART). Rebecca Kaplan is appealingly energetic, and says a lot of the right things, but she doesn’t really have a track record of clear positions. I need to know more about her.

Clinton Killian, despite some minor business troubles years back, offers a great mix of experience for the City Council. He’s been on the AC Transit Board, the Planning Commission, and serves on the Paramount Board. His commitment to downtown, smart growth, transportation and the arts is unquestionable, and those are my priorities. I also appreciate how he brings together two often-squabbling sectors of the business community, the mainstream businesses and the ethnic businesses. His campaign has a clear message and is well-targeted, and he has a great shot at the runoff despite being outspent. That’s a good sign.

School Board District One: Brian Rogers

Who cares that he’s a Republican? At least he has something to say about education that’s relevant. Jody London, who just oozes politician, managed to squeeze green-collar jobs, energy independence and Save The Bay into the School Board debate, and said that she had no position on charter schools but is against them. Her entire campaign appears to be based around the fact that Mr. Rogers is a Republican. I think the race is pretty clear-cut: Rogers represents reform, London the status quo. She’s endorsed by the outgoing Boardmember, the Teachers’ Union and all the usual suspects. Brian Rogers supports educational innovation and charters, involvement from business, and continuing the Expect Success reforms opposed by Jody London and the Teachers’ Union.

AD 14: Tony Thurmond

I agree with the Express, the Chronicle and the Trib that the Richmond Councilmember is best to represent the district, rather than a Berkeley politician. His resume, running a successful nonprofit serving at-risk youth, reminds me of Sean Sullivan. Kris Worthington and Nancy Skinner are awful, the perfect embodiment of everything that’s wrong with the Berkeley City Council (NIMBYism meets Communism). I worry that Phil Polakoff will take too many moderate North Oakland / Berkeley votes and hand the race to Nancy Skinner, unfortunately. No runoffs in a partisan primary! But if you live in this district, which I don’t, please vote Tony Thurmond.

State Senate: Wilma Chan

Since we’re all getting two pieces of mail a day about Loni Hancock and Wilma Chan, many people may have made up their minds. I think the mail itself is a pretty good way to judge the candidates: Ms. Chan has a clear argument, that she accomplished more when she was in the Assembly than Ms. Hancock did (that’s true). Ms. Hancock, on the other hand, is all over the place, bragging about big-time endorsements one day and then bashing Wilma Chan for not having enough endorsements the next. Her mailers are full of stupid quotes like “the courage to lead” and dumb photos of her staring over the Berkeley Marina or talking to college students. Anyway, this one is easy: Wilma Chan represented Oakland and Alameda, Loni Hancock Berkeley and points north. Gotta go with the home team.

Predictions:

City Council: all the incumbents win outright except Nancy Nadel. Nadel may be bested by Sean Sullivan, who has reached out to people his opponents haven’t contacted, and seems to have the momentum heading into the final weekend when the undecideds are making up their minds. As for the at-large, Rebecca Kaplan will make the runoff with either Hamill or Killian in second place.

School Board: Incumbents in D5 and D7, Olu in D3 (Jumoke Hodge will do as poorly as her husband, because they didn’t campaign very much). There will probably be a runoff in D1, since Tennessee Reed has some name recognition and Rogers and London seem to be dueling it out pretty evenly. Rogers has a clear message so he could win, though I may be overestimating the voters’ willingness to overlook party registration.

Assembly: Thurmond could make it, otherwise Skinner. Polakoff’s base is too narrow but he’s probably done lots of mailers. Thurmond’s mailers contain typos but the demographics are on his side (everyone else is from Berkeley, he’s from the other half of the district).

State Senate: Wilma Chan will pull it off. The endorsements Hancock’s touting aren’t going to matter all that much, since Ms. Chan has great name recognition. Ms. Hancock is a divisive figure in her own Assembly district, so she can’t count on her half of the Senate district serving as a base. Chan’s mailers have a clearer message, as I said before, and so are more effective. I guess we’ll see on June Third!