The “Buy American” resolution passed by the Board (PDF) was proposed by Director Elsa Ortiz (East Oakland – Alameda) and strongly supported by new Director Joel Young (at-large). In her statement proposing the resolution, Director Ortiz called complaints about Van Hool buses “exaggerated” and made it clear that her resolution is an attempt to support local jobs rather than to stop buying European buses (“American-made” buses are actually made abroad anyway). The resolution is also non-binding. That did not stop Berkeley Daily Planet reporter Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor from declaring that the resolution, which is not a policy, “would be the death knell for AC Transit’s recent practice of buying buses exclusively from Belgian bus manufacturer Van Hool.” East Bay Express reporter Robert Gammon says that “the board voted to effectively end the agency’s controversial relationship with Belgian bus maker, Van Hool.” Those statements are simply wrong: no contracts were changed, though obviously staff is being directed to look at alternative sources for buses. Since AC Transit has no immediate plans to buy new buses, the effect of the nonbinding resolution is unclear. And for the record, AC Transit does not buy buses “exclusively” from Van Hool, but continues to purchase other manufacturer’s buses for what is a pretty diverse fleet (ACT does not source from Hayward bus manufacturer Gillig).

Rick Fernandez proposed swapping capital funds for operating funds to stave off 15% service cuts that had been proposed and discussed in a months-long public outreach process that the agency could undertake because it had ample cash reserves (by contrast, BART cut off-peak service 20% with no outreach). The Board rejected Fernandez’s recommendation to seek a funding swap with BART for Regional Measure 2 funds, and instead only asked that CMAQ funds, already dedicated to the organization, be reprogrammed from capital to operating. Because a big source of BRT funding, the state’s STIP contribution, is already in doubt, and there is no date certain for starting construction, it made sense to take some funds away from BRT because the agency will have to rethink the funding plan anyway. This was misinterpreted by people who don’t seem to like the BRT plan, with Mr. Allen-Taylor writing that it means “at least a one-year delay in construction of AC Transit’s long-planned Bus Rapid Transit line, with a possible scaling down of the proposal or even abandonment of BRT altogether.” That is claim is wishful thinking on behalf of the anti-transit Berkeley Daily Planet.

One statement in particular, from the East Bay Express’s Mr. Gammon (who, we cannot forget, penned a wildly inaccurate article about Van Hool and AC Transit last year), stands out for its falsehood. He writes:

AC Transit has repeatedly slashed service and raised fares in recent years, while requiring loans from other agencies to stay solvent and growing increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds to keep its buses running.

Not a single phrase in that statement is true. AC Transit hasn’t substantially cut service since the last recession, in 2003, which is not a recent year. Fares went up this year for the first time since 2005, but service has not yet been cut. AC Transit has not taken out a loan from other agencies, and has no plans to do so (he must be confusing AC Transit with BART), and is not “increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds.” AC Transit did successfully seek a parcel tax hike to make up for some of the state budget cuts it and other agencies suffered, but again unlike BART, AC Transit has not received any net increase in taxpayer support. (BART has also raised fares repeatedly. Come to think of it, if you replace AC Transit with BART in the statement, it becomes true.)

Finally, the departure of Rick Fernandez was used by these media outlets, who generally don’t like AC Transit, as validation of their positions. Mr. Allen-Taylor even interviewed leading BRT and Van Hool critic Joyce Roy about it. However, had he bothered to ask any of the pro-BRT activists that have been going to public meetings and organizing to support the agency, he would have found that they are also displeased by Mr. Fernandez’s job performance. Mr. Gammon says that Mr. Fernandez “resigned abruptly,” yet two paragraphs below writes that he “came to the Board several months ago, seeking a lucrative severance package.” Rick Fernandez’s departure could just as easily be interpreted as a statement of support for BRT, since Mr. Fernandez sought to reprogram much more money away from it than the Board approved.

It is disappointing that the East Bay Express and the Berkeley Daily Planet, leading reporters of the East Bay’s largest transit agency, are so blinded by their own biases about bus service that they report remote possibilities or questionable interpretations as settled fact. AC Transit is the lifeline of the East Bay, and though it certainly needs critical oversight, the resistance to its mission that local weeklies sometimes display is inappropriate for community-based papers. BART, on the other hand, regularly screws Oakland over, but the weeklies only pay attention when something rises to the level of a riot or a billion-dollar boondoggle. Unfortunately, it’s only going to get worse: Mr. Allen-Taylor will not longer report on AC Transit, Oakland government or anything else – the Planet has laid off its reporting staff. Commentaries will continue, of course. Though the Planet’s firm editorial stances certainly colored their reporting, the loss of coverage of local issues will just make it harder for people to understand what’s going on at AC Transit or other public agencies.

While blogging by nature is an art rooted firmly in the present, this blog is called FutureOakland because it covers current controversies that shape the future. Yet to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, a knowledge of history is necessary. As 2008 draws to a close, the year that Oakland’s blogosphere broke through to the mainstream also saw bloggers put aside media criticism, and begin to use their unique platform to write and to build Oakland’s history.

Food security emerged as a major issue in 2008, thanks to local activists and political campaigns, and also because elite foodies finally found a sympathetic cause. Brahm’s Blog recording the travails of the People’s Grocery, the Inadvertent Gardener’s quest to get space in a community garden, and Urban Farmer raising animals and vegetables in the heart of Ghost Town, explore today’s local urban agricultural and food access issues. But as A Dish A Day lovingly documents, the present is played out against Oakland’s past: its legacy of historic fast-food joints.

Other subjects of public discussion explicitly seek legitimacy in history. Oakland’s identity is always a furiously debated topic, whether the subject is gentrification, “East” Oakland, or negative media portrayals. But since highways displaced and divided nearly every part of the city, Oaklanders have searched for and contested neighborhood names, from Lower Bottoms (vs. Prescott / Oakland Point) to Rockridge (vs. Temescal) to Jingletown (vs. Kennedy Tract or just Fruitvale). A skilled researcher goes to the source, and that’s exactly what City Homestead did in her excellent rendition and map of historic neighborhood names gleaned by reading a century’s worth of Trib articles, including real estate listings and society columns. She also pieced together a complete history of her own home in the Westlake district. Some highlights: Auto Row has been named so since 1913, the Planning Commission quit en masse in the 1920s, high-density housing was once restricted narrowly to the Lakefront, and proximity to rapid transit as well as having a chicken coop were a Realtor’s favorite amenities.

A good grasp of the past can inform debates about the future, but it’s also necessary to understand conditions of the present. Unfortunately, that’s often missing from debates over transportation. Even as the Planning Commission routinely rejects NIMBY arguments that a less car-oriented future is wishful thinking, their Zoning Update Committee expressed amazement when I told them that I don’t have a car and in fact most of my friends rarely use a personal car. Similarly, when MediaNews published a casually-written editorial in favor of a multi-billion-dollar public investment in electric-car charging stations, championed by all three Bay Area big-city mayors, they failed to note that electric cars do not exist. Bike/ped/transit advocates may squabble with each other over sidewalk bulbouts versus bike lanes versus Bus Rapid Transit versus light rail, but those entrenched in car culture will continue to fight all alternatives. Oakland’s past and much of its present is built around mass transit and walkable neighborhoods: rediscovering this history, for example by watching a digitized pedestrian safety film from 1948, illuminates the shared goals of bike, ped, and transit advocates.

This blog is not meant to be a roundup of the best posts of 2008, but certainly there were many excellent entries about Oakland’s past, present and future. This year, the blogoaksphere expanded several times over: my favorite new blogs include City Homestead, 38th Notes, Oakland Space Academy, Oakland Streets, We Fight Blight, and Brooklyn Avenue. Some blogs met their demise in 2008, including Beautiful West Oakland, Dogtown Commons, and The Grand Lake Guardian. A Better Oakland once wrote that much of Oakland’s “news” is something that also happened many times before, so after writing enough blogs, she can just begin to repost them. With an ever-expanding blogosphere allowing for the presentation of in-depth research and an ever-lengthening record of debate, there are more opportunities than ever to know Oakland’s history, and so avoid being doomed to repeat its sorrier episodes.

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!

Edgerly’s letter to council members also questioned whether Dellums had the authority to name Dan Lindheim, the former head of the Community and Economic Development Agency, as acting city administrator. Her letter said that under the city’s charter it was her responsibility to appoint an acting city administrator in her absence, and that she had already appointed Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Thompson to the post.

Monday, however, agencies and departments were reporting to Lindheim, said Dellums spokesman Paul Rose.

City Attorney John Russo could not be reached for comment Monday evening, but the letter Dellums sent appointing Lindheim included language from Russo’s office saying, “the Mayor has the authority to authorize Mr. Lindheim or another City employee to serve in an ‘acting’ capacity” as city administrator.

The argument is that Dellums does not have the authority to appoint an acting administrator. Edgerly’s letter points out that the charter says that an acting administrator is to be named by City Administrator in the advance of an absence. The charter’s definition of Acting City Administrator, first published by OaklandFocus:

Section 502. Acting City Administrator. The City Administrator shall designate two or more of his assistants or department heads, in the sequence in which they are to serve, as Acting City Administrator to serve as City Administrator in the temporary absence or disability of the City Administrator. (Amended by: Stats. November 1988 and March 2004.)

In a relatively daring new-media move, the Trib’s online article (headlined: Edgerly Aims to Postpone Retirement”) includes a poll asking its readers whether Ms. Edgerly can “run the city” (which seems moot). Polls hint at not only the sentiment of the online community but how many readers a site has.

In other news, The DTO ♥ DeLauer’s.

“We’re aware of the allegations. We take them very seriously. They’re very serious allegations, and as we speak, we’re looking into them,” said Mayor Dellums. When asked if Edgerly still had her job, the mayor replied “That is to be determined.”

Ms. Edgerly revealed that she wrote a Request For Proposal to executive search firms for her replacement. She made herself available to stay on after July 31st to ease the transition, though “there are some cruises” she wants to take. Her resignation letter, whose “integrity” Mayor Dellums “agreed to maintain,” discussed a “90 – 120 day employment period” to ensure a “seamless transition.”

The City Administrator runs the entire city, including the police department (though the chief will now report directly to Mayor Dellums). The City Council is mandated by the charter to go through her if they want to do anything. The administrator “shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor,” meaning that he can fire her without cause but the City Council cannot even with cause. Alongside writing ordinances and spending money, the City Council’s authority rests in ordering the Administrator (or the department heads that report to her) to implement motions. The administrator and department heads are then in turn dependent on lower-level bureaucrats to perform the work.

It is therefore integral to the functioning of Oakland’s government that the City Administrator have the full confidence of her 5000-person staff and all elected officials. Deborah Edgerly does not, and Dellums has done a terrible job communicating the situation with city employees. The Council should be frustrated, and the public should question whether the Mayor values their faith and confidence in local government. Not only did he decline to remove Ms. Edgerly from office, but he is allowing her to guide the search for her replacement. Ms. Edgerly issued RFPs for a search team Monday Friday, she said, though she did not instruct the assembled press and onlookers how to find the documents.

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!

The Trib editorializes against returning local control to the Oakland school board. In the Berkeley Daily Planet, Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor responds, and Sandre Swanson responds in the Trib.

A letter to the Montclarion assails Dellums’ lack of vision, while strident Jerry Brown critic and Dellums supporter Ishmael Reed declares “The number one issue in Oakland is crime, and until that’s dealt with, all these visionary ideas should be set aside.”

Berkeley and Oakland are considering suing CalTrans over the EIR for the Caldecott tunnel bore.

The TransBay blog points out that retail is a great use for Broadway, while auto dealerships deserve the isolated, transit-inaccessible Army Base. Even Mr. Allen-Taylor seems to be tiring of the Wayanses’ broken promises.

An Oakland blogger is asking Dellums to cancel the city’s bottled-water contracts.

Everyone from BeyondChron to Chinatown condo-owners complain about Inclusionary Zoning.

An Oakland umbrella “progressive” group issues a City Council report card. Despite their support for IZ, Kernighan and Brunner still get Ds.

V Smoothe makes media-criticism hay from a widely-repeated error in a press release. Nobody seems to notice that the Chronicle erroneously asserted that the Franklin Square Wine Bar, by the owner of Luka’s, will be in Broadway Grand, instead of on Franklin Square (across the street).

At the design review committee meeting, all four speakers (besides Sanjiv Handa, who bemoaned downtown Oakland’s lack of parking and dumped on the Art & Soul Festival) lived in the 102-unit condo complex across the street from Shorenstein’s property. One speaker (who also represented Old Oakland Neighbors, a new community group founded by merchants) expressed concern over the character of the retail portion. Another asked for a shadow study (which was completed in 2000, actually), and several were concerned about the traffic impact of the loading dock located on MLK. Nobody complained about the size or scale of the tower, perhaps because its massing is concentrated as far from MLK as possible.

The commissioners supported staff’s call to make the building more distinctive in style from the other 12th street skyscrapers, all designed by the same architect as this project. Shorenstein unveiled a new design, with a more articulated wedge-top, and a green glass curtain-wall. Commissioner Doug Boxer suggested they make the entire facade glass, and implied that a more drawn-out, Art Deco-style top treatment would be better. Commissioner Madeleine Zayas-Mart repeatedly asserted that the building would look better if it were taller. Not only would a taller structure make the form slimmer and more distinctive than the surrounding towers of approximately the same height (555 12th and the Dellums Federal Building), but it would look more exciting on the skyline. However, Shorenstein representatives responded that the 25ksf floorplates (whose layout was praised by Committee Chair Suzy Lee) were optimal from a marketing perspective, and that they were constrained by density limits.

Ron Dellums took the time to trumpet Shorenstein’s proposal, not because he thought he would take credit for it, but because it represents hundreds if not thousands of jobs and lots of redevelopment tax revenue for the city. Given that nobody thinks a City Center skyscraper can be too big (especially since each floor houses 100 jobs), why should Oakland limit Shorenstein to 10.5 FAR? In fact, the General Plan calls for a FAR of 20 for the block, which would allow a building twice the height of what is proposed (approximately as high as SF’s tallest towers). While it would require a Conditional Use Permit and perhaps a new Environmental Impact Report (ouch), I think Shorenstein should ask for a few more floors.

UPDATE: Here’s a color rendering:

The most recent police investigation of the bakery was sparked by incidents of alleged kidnapping, robbery and torture in November 2006 and in May. After two killings outside the bakery within four days last month, Oakland police sought help from other departments.
…
On Monday, police decided that the most feasible time for a coordinated effort would be Friday morning, with officers from San Leandro, Hayward, Fremont and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department scheduled to converge on the bakery before 5 a.m.

When Bailey was killed Thursday, officers were distraught, realizing that the planned raids may have been a day too late to save his life, (Assistant Chief Howard) Jordan said.

Because the OPD is dependent on neighboring police departments for manpower, they have to schedule raids not based on community safety, but on coordination between various agencies. Moreover, the utter absence of police presence in even Oakland’s busiest neighborhoods (like downtown) certainly emboldens an assassin. As much as the local media would like to avoid this sorry but salient fact, our desperate shortage of police officers is directly responsible for the terrible tragedy of last Thursday morning.

Last Friday, the Berkeley Daily Planet’s irrepressible Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor wrote an unthinking summary of progress on the Wayans Brothers project. JDA-T writes the following:

The purchase price for the property has yet to be determined and, unlike many recent developers coming to Oakland, the Wayans have not requested any city subsidies for their proposed project.

Sorry to be so direct, but this is bullshit. Exactly who has asked for city subsidies? There are few developers coming into Oakland right now (due to the hostile political climate), and nobody has asked for any subsidies. Little lies like this reveal JDA-T’s socialist worldview and do a great disservice to debate. How are we supposed to discuss the merits of a pro-development or anti-development approach when completely incorrect assertions are spewed by local journalists?

Speaking of which, Trib fossil Cecily Burt outdid herself with her article about the Zoning Update Committee’s acceptance of a politically-directed staff report encouraging so-called “industrial preservation.” I put that in quotes since there is no industry to preserve. If anti-development activists don’t curtail investment altogether (with inclusionary zoning, “community impact report” requirements, or uneconomical height limits), we are certain to face a city-wide debate over the direction of our languishing industrial tracts. From slanted headlines (“Panel picks jobs over housing”) to outright lies, the Trib and Burt continue to do their best to avoid a rational discussion. Let’s go through the lies.

The revised recommendation, approved by the Oakland Planning Commission’s zoning update committee Wednesday, makes industrial zoning and good-paying jobs the priority, not housing.

First, this just didn’t happen – the commission can’t zone salaries. Second, industrial jobs no longer pay well. My anecdotal understanding (I have friends who work in food, garment, and robotics factories) is that they generally pay the same as retail jobs and less than office jobs. Many industrial jobs pay far worse than retail, but those won’t locate here (like the canvas bag manufacturer Nancy Nadel hoped to snag by banning certain plastic grocery bags). Housing of course generates jobs, from high-paying temporary construction jobs to permanent service jobs spanning a range of pay rates. Furthermore, Oakland’s housing boom has attracted investment from office builders eager to be near employees. Since the dot-bomb, Oakland’s office occupancy rate has been much healthier than SF’s, even though SF recruited biotech and other manufacturers to its city with enormous tax breaks.

(Residential) speculation drove up costs for industrial properties. The uncertainty about the city’s industrial future caused some Oakland businesses to leave for more business-friendly climates. Some businesses that tried to find space in Oakland ended up going somewhere else.

… like Tennessee or China. Note that there is not one shred of evidence or quotes backing up this wide-ranging assertion (which absurdly implies that we had a thriving industrial sector before the housing boom). There is no suitable industrial space in Oakland, period. All of our industrial buildings are “antiquated,” to use Burt’s term, and rehabilitation costs far exceed the cost of simply erecting a new building. But new construction is expensive, and industrial users cannot afford it. I love how the decade-long failure of Nancy Nadel and her ilk to lure industry to Oakland is now being cited as evidence of why we can’t have any mixed-use development. Of course, she thinks the city should just cough up millions of dollars of subsidies, but that’s too ridiculous to address.

“Part of the reason that people are attracted the Mandela Grand project is because they think there is (no other option for the property),” Nadel said. “But we have to show them there is another there there.”

Yes, the longstanding lack of use for the buildings is why the project is popular! The Pacific Pipe building is a century-old factory made of wood. The idea that it can be reused is laughable. The Mandela Grand project will in fact include newly-built industrial space, that the developers say should house more jobs than were there fifty years ago at the height of factory employment. This newly-built space, with modern amenities like electricity, is what’s needed, but only the high-rise housing towers can afford the huge costs of steel and concrete. By placing industrial space in the platforms that support the towers, Mandela Grand shows how mixed-use can both create jobs and housing. Without newly-built industrial space, there will be no jobs, just like now.

Burt of course doesn’t quote any West Oakland residents or community leaders, and dismisses Mandela Grand’s overwhelming local support as “religious.” But her conclusion is telling. The owner of an art-moving company, employing 30 people, doesn’t think there should be any housing so that his land costs stay low. Even the smaller developments in Oakland have 50 residents in them, and West Oakland’s condo complexes are big. The art-moving company may have solar power (many new apartments do too), but it’s auto-oriented and a poor use of urban land (30 employees on a site that could probably accommodate 100 residents). Even leaving diesel exhaust aside (how is he moving his art?), condos are greener than so-called green industry.

Without newly-built industrial space, Nancy Nadel will continue to fail in her efforts to recruit “leading-edge” industries. Without housing, there isn’t the investment return necessary to afford construction, nor is there the population density to increase bus service or encourage healthy retail. The Mandela Grand project is the best of both worlds – housing and industry. Segregated legacy buildings will never be part of a vibrant industrial market. Burt, Nadel, the Trib’s editors, and everyone else who’s living in the past will figure this out either when Mandela Grand is built and is successful, or when their reactionary restricted zoning fails as miserably as it has in other cities.