As V Smoothe pointed out earlier today, there’s no shortage of policies about improved transportation and land use, from the General Plan to various downtown and transit-first plans. However, the Council does not stand up for those plans when confronted with a dozen upset NIMBYs or business owners – from downtown zoning to development in Temescal to parking issues, the Council almost always backs off of its stated commitments to the environment in deference to Oakland’s ingrained car-first suburban mentality. This attitude extends to City Planning and Redevelopment staff, who are obsessed with building parking while limiting high-rise development. While City planners trudge out proposal after proposal designed to set land-use backwards, City transportation planners are divided among different departments and shockingly understaffed, City needs come last regionally, and important transportation decisions are made without any public review. But the ECAP offers the opportunity to institutionalize better transportation and more progressive land-use planning.

Radical change is necessary. Oakland simply cannot continue down the current path of transportation planning. From city planners using community gardens as a flimsy cover for a pro-parking lot agenda to Building Services seizing Measure DD’s widened sidewalks to provide parking for the Lake Chalet, Oakland’s transportation decision-making is a disaster apparent to even the most unconcerned citizen. Everyone who goes out on the town in Uptown has to navigate past Pican’s rude fence (approved administratively by City Planning), deal with an utter lack of parking or transit signage (thanks to the Redevelopment Agency), and step gingerly over rotting sidewalks while crossing potholed streets devoid of bike lanes, during a traffic signal that appears to be timed to kill pedestrians. And this is our showcase downtown district?

A reading of data behind the Energy and Climate Action Plan puts the focus clearly on transportation. With few clear policy demands beyond setting aggressive goals, the Climate Action Coalition is calling for a Transportation Commission to ensure action on these important issues. With the overwhelming majority of our emissions coming from cars, even small changes to mode-share will make huge differences in emissions. This requires not just a commitment, but real follow-through, and institutional changes to allow public and consistent transportation decision-making. A Transportation Commission with real authority would go a long way, but leadership is necessary too. We need elected leadership on land-use so that developers aren’t forced out of our transit corridors by Oakland’s band of increasingly aggressive NIMBYs, we need a unified (and informed) voice on regional transportation funding boards, and we need articulate and risk-taking leaders who are willing to get yelled at in order to create a better future for Oakland. Can Oakland have the leadership we need in order to create a greener, healthier, and more prosperous city? Collectively, that’s our decision.

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).

City staff are presenting this important, and hopefully long-term, planning policy during an uncertain climate. Though many development projects are on hold, others are in progress, and downtown is seeing an uptick in retail businesses. Inclusionary Zoning, a controversial policy that has been a touchstone in Oakland’s development politics for a decade, is in legal limbo after a Los Angeles developer successfully challenged an affordability mandate as a violation of Costa-Hawkins, the state law that banned vacancy control and restricted rent control to pre-1980 buildings. With the State Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal of what is being called the Palmer decision, it seems like a major potential barrier to new development is no longer an option.

On Monday, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board will be discussing the citywide rezoning as well, but within their subject area. If you’re interested in how rezoning may impact historic preservation, check out the agenda and the staff report. There are three opportunities to attend meetings about rezoning, so a student of Oakland’s future has no excuse but to attend!

After I graduated high school in 1997, my father took me and my sister on a photo-tour of Oakland’s most endangered landmarks, as published by the Oakland Heritage Alliance. We photographed the moldering Cox Cadillac Building, the abandoned Floral Depot Building, and, of course, the hulking ruin of the Fox Theater. I expected every one of these structures to be torn down by the time I returned to Oakland from my out-of-state liberal-arts college, assuming the economy remained decent enough to employ a demolition crew in the DTO.

My first job out of college was working for Forest City Residential West. I cold-called every developer on Oakland’s Major Projects List in 2002, and during that economic downtown they were the only one interested in an intern. I spent most of my time compiling evidence of why a ballpark should not be shoe-horned into Uptown, and I mapped the project area. It was the first, and mercifully the last, time I would work in downtown San Francisco. I witnessed my first affordable-housing candlelight vigil, and met the stylish and infamous Lily Hu. Along the way I learned how the project would transform an enormous parking lot into urban transit-accessible housing, a critical need in the Bay Area. The project prospectus that I helped write included the then-fantastic vision of surrounding retail and entertainment venues spurred by this unprecedented investment. Unbelievers attacked everything about the proposal, from its demolition of historic warehouses to its public subsidy.

It’s true that the Forest City Uptown project is subsidized – or, more precisely, may be subsidized. Unlike Oak-To-Ninth, Uptown’s financial deal with Oakland’s Redevelopment Agency pays for more than environmental remediation and affordable housing. Forest City received a payment for executing its development agreement, and may not pay all their property taxes depending on their profit margins. This subsidy, which will disappear if the project is successful over 20 years, was ratified by then-Mayor Jerry Brown and the City Council (unanimously) in order to soak up acres of wasted central space and spur the revitalization of downtown. Many people don’t remember that the entire Uptown project area was surface parking dotted with a few auto-repair businesses. Some people quibble with the architectural style and the site plan, but it is inarguably an enormous improvement over what was there before.

I am happy to defend Uptown because Forest City’s project accomplished Jerry Brown’s stated goal: it revitalized an entire district. The Façade Improvement Program helped restore a handful of Art Deco buildings along Telegraph, and the RDA helped build a parking lot. Without unusual subsidy, businesses like Café Van Kleef, the Uptown nightclub, and EntreZ opened up. I worked for Brog Properties for two years, during which time the company converted the Cathedral Building to mixed-use, created the Marquee Lofts from a trashed commercial mid-rise, and purchased the Latham Square Building. Even though Thomas Berkley Square is going into foreclosure, it is still a completed building in the area. The Fox Theater could not have successfully acquired $70m in grant funds for its full restoration had there not been so much public and private redevelopment in the immediate area.

Jerry Brown announced he was abandoning long-held retail plans for Uptown in favor of a residential project almost immediately after he was elected in 1998. The Forest City Uptown Disposition and Development Agreement was signed in 2003. Leasing began in 2007. By then, investors and foundations had committed over $200m in the surrounding area’s residential and commercial developments and businesses.

Of course, everything is not turning up roses, beyond the economic downtown that is hurting local condo sales (though retail/entertainment is so far unaffected). While private foundations, developers, and businesses have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in Uptown, Oakland’s Redevelopment Agency has failed to deliver the streetscape plan it promised investors and the public in 2004. Telegraph Avenue is to be cut off at 16th St, recreating Latham Square, and narrowed to accommodate bike lanes and widened sidewalks. But three years after this plan was finalized, nothing but the Fox’s sidewalk has been completed.

Every one of the endangered buildings I photographed in 1997 is now restored: the Cox Cadillac building is Whole Foods, the Floral Depot is Flora, and the Fox is becoming the Bay Area’s premier music venue.

I often hear Oaklanders complain about developers and their supposed subsidies. I hear Oaklanders complain that historic buildings aren’t respected, and that developers make promises they can’t deliver. But in Uptown, a subsidized development that involved eminent domain has spurred a renaissance of historic proportions, in historic buildings, by encouraging hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment. I am so excited to celebrate the Fox’s grand opening tonight, a direct result of the Uptown strategy I had a small part in aiding, and the only sour note is the city’s failure to deliver decent sidewalks.

The downtown zoning as currently proposed has two parts: a height and form map, and a use map. The two parts aren’t completely separated: the use map contains FAR maximums that interact somewhat confusingly with the different height areas allowed by the form map. Remaining topics of public controversy have to do with the height map: should tall buildings be further restricted from the lakefront, and should the height map be more specific to “protect” pockets of historic structures? Otherwise, there is broad agreement over the use map.

The use map does not strictly separate uses such as residential and commercial, and rightly accepts that uses downtown can and will be varied and intensive. The most restrictive element is the CBD-P (Pedestrian Retail) zone. It forces new construction on designated streets to meet design requirements for ground-floor space, and limits ground-floor uses to pedestrian-serving retail and restaurants. There is broad agreement among all parties in the zoning process that CBD-P zone is good to go (some say it should extend a bit deeper toward the Lake along and above 19th, and I think all signage should be permitted outright). Staff did an excellent job identifying the active and potential retail corridors, and the design requirements come straight from the Conley Report and the city’s new Broadway Retail Interim Zoning. Yet the use map is being held up along with the rest of zoning. Unfortunately, this is allowing undesirable uses to come into downtown.

While the downtown pedestrian zoning is strict in design and use, it only applies to specific streets. Currently, ground-floor commercial is required everywhere downtown, resulting in poorly-designed and isolated ground floors spaces that are unsuitable for retail and restaurants (Jack London Square and Old Oakland contain excellent examples of this). Focusing retail in specific areas, such as 14th St to the Lake or the core of Old Oakland, creates a destination that allows for transportation and marketing synergies. Yet without the zoning in effect, some developers are ignoring retail in potentially disastrous ways. A proposed senior housing project on the corner of 17th and Harrison contains no retail space. 17th Street, while fairly successful, is limited to the block between Franklin and Webster because of the surface parking lot at Harrison, to be replaced by this project, killing the pedestrian experience (also, that horrible American Cancer Society building at Webster). Building nice retail along 17th in the next block, combined with street trees, would allow the SOBO shopping district to expand by one block, increasing its potential by double or more. But because the developers’ application has already been submitted, the 17th St proposal is not required to contain retail spaces, just a “community space” with no design standards.

Construction is one part of retail zoning: use is another. In the CBD-P zone, not only would ground-floor spaces have to design for retail (high ceilings, high-quality materials, storefront windows, prominent entrances), but they would have to contain retail as well. Old Oakland’s main barrier to success is that most of the beautiful Victorian storefronts on 9th St are occupied by offices. The neighborhood is hoping, and the CBD-P zone is intending, to transition the street from office to retail. But in the absence of new zoning, a real estate office has moved into a Washington St space formerly occupied by a store that sold, among other things, discount designer sunglasses. Not only is the lack of updated zoning preventing the transition to retail, it has allowed a step backwards.

The entire proposed DTO use map, following the General Plan’s designation of downtown as a uniquely transit and pedestrian-oriented district, explicitly bans surface parking lots and auto-oriented uses from all of downtown (except gas stations, which are conditionally permitted). However, since it’s not yet in effect, someone just built a new surface parking lot on Franklin between 11th and 12th! Surface parking is exactly what we don’t want downtown, not only because it’s a terrible use of land but also because it creates pedestrian dangers by cars crossing the sidewalk, by killing the continuity of street frontage, and by creating dead zones that criminals can  hide in (Chauncey Bailey was assassinated in a downtown surface parking lot, where a friend of mine was mugged the year before). Because of the zoning update’s delay, we’ll have one more dangerous and deleterious downtown lot. Every day the zoning isn’t passed is one more day undesirable uses can come to the DTO: the retail-free 17th St project, the delay in bringing retail to Old Oakland, and the new surface parking lot may not be the last developments to undermine Downtown’s goals.

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.

When confronting the pages, planners and paperwork intended to shape downtown Oakland for the next generation, the technical nature of the regulations and the tediousness of the process make it easy to lose sight of the values and desires we all share for urban areas. Fun is not something usually associated with the planning process, but certainly structures and neighborhoods are meant to be usable and beautiful. With a deep breath and some careful analysis, downtown zoning can be seen as a tool to encourage beauty and whimsy through architecture and urban design.

The clearest architectural guidelines from the current zoning proposal are the tower-and-base form code (cleverly adapted by the Encinal Tower) and an admonition to break up building form. They share one aim: to make big buildings look smaller. What we should ask is, what can make big buildings look cooler? Perhaps a distinctive structural shape or a brash color scheme could exempt a project from the tower-and-base requirement. Perhaps condos in historic residential districts should indulge in false historicism like in downtown Berkeley. Perhaps there should be a public art requirement. These aesthetic encouragements are par for the course in other cities, but are strangely absent from Oakland’s discussion.

The General Plan introduces further regulation as a means to reflect “existing and desired district character.” There are different downtown districts, and it’s not too late to enhance their distinctiveness. A clear example is the profusion of neon signs in Uptown. Downtown zoning could encourage this by requiring or at least outright permitting lighted exterior signs on buildings on Broadway and Telegraph above 16th. The Old Oakland commercial district on Broadway and Washington, on the other hand, should have no exterior lighted signs, but non-lighted signage (like ads painted on walls) could be permitted. I say this so confidently because people are doing this already – using regulations to enhance these attributes isn’t stifling and helps create cohesion.

After all, it’s the outside of a building that matters to people. Unfortunately, the current proposal places to much emphasis on the inside of buildings, by limiting FAR beyond the General Plan and even limiting floorplates! Worse, in my opinion, is maintaining the residential open-space requirements that guide all mid-rise residential construction, creating courtyards unseen by the public. Instead of providing a large courtyard for building residents, newly constructed buildings could pay a fee that supports downtown parks, helping to improve open space for everyone and encouraging community interaction.

Without private open-space requirements, condos don’t have to be built as a big box surrounding a courtyard. Instead, more compact stuctures with narrow spaces around them could provide code-required light and ventilation around windows, creating alleys or street-facing courtyards that would more enliven the street (they could still be gated). SPUR’s July newsletter turned me on to the possiblities of alleys. In Mexico City, one is called the Callejon de los besos (alley of kisses), so narrow that lovers can lean across from apartment windows to kiss.

Street presence and livelihood is mentioned over and over in the downtown portion of the General Plan. These days many talk about “eyes on the street” to assure pedestrian safety. But “eyes on the street” is a grim phrase, implying that your neighbors are staring down on you like so many Kerry Hamill posters. I much prefer Mexico City’s besos on the street: kissing is more active than watching, and more fun (unless you’re a voyeur, I suppose).

How can Oakland design for more besos on the street? Encouraging alleys, arcades, window-box planters or street-facing courtyards over internal courtyards would be a step. Following the retail survey’s design suggestions is a great step, and the Commission should solicit an opinion from Conley Consultants. But there is more in the LUTE than shopping and condos. Nightclubs are currently struggling in Oakland, partially because of structural constraints: let’s get some input from the city’s nightclub regulator on the DTO’s zoning. AC Transit and BART should share their long-term plans for downtown, as well. If the Zoning Update is going to continue far beyond the deadline set by the City Council, decision-makers should seek more information and advice to fulfill the many goals of the General Plan.

But of course, the overarching goal of the the General Plan’s vision for downtown is creating a thriving regional center that is globally competitive and a “premier destination” for shopping, entertainment, and “urban residential living.” It envisions a lot of growth. Even though downtown is big, large developable lots appropriate for skyscraper construction are dwindling. When walking back downtown from the crowded Art Murmur last Friday, I noticed that the area immediately north of downtown (above Grand) has a lot of big parking lots, is adjacent to downtown’s tallest buildings, and is already developing similarly to downtown. Expanding the boundaries of downtown above Grand to 25th or even 27th would ensure a supply of sites for continuing growth without encroaching on low-rise neighborhoods.

Repeal the zoning ordinance

An important first step for the city to take is to completely eliminate the zoning ordinance. City staff is wasting enormous amounts of time and resources on the so-called “Zoning Update,” and the process is regarded as a complete failure by folks on both sides of the development divide. Now the staff is putting the process on hold (again), waiting two years for traffic studies in Temescal. But the issue isn’t traffic, the issue is the complexity of translating outdated 1960s zoning into something that makes sense today.

The zoning cannot be updated. Oakland is simply not big enough to justify fifty-plus zoning types. Conditional use permits for General Plan-authorized density, discretionary review over businesses like restaurants, and bizarre legacy regulations like mining and quarrying in medium-density housing, need to be stripped entirely from city law. Arbitrary distinctions between commercial and residential zoning are confusing to a lay audience, the names of the zones don’t jibe with today’s construction types, and too-specific zoning categories yield obscurantist maps and waste staff time. Since we’re supposed to bring zoning into compliance with the General Plan, the General Plan should be the basis of the new law, not the old ordinance it explicitly aims to replace.

Use the General Plan

Some local politicians call the General Plan “broad” (meaning vague). It is not. Though easy to comprehend (which planners regard suspiciously), the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) actually creates a new regulatory framework for land-use regulation. By designating certain areas to “Grow and Change,” establishing broad density limits based on units/acre, and creating ten distinct “classifications,” the General Plan provides a clear, actionable framework for guiding land-use decisions. Rather than attempting to squeeze the plan’s designations into existing C- and R-based zoning designations, the city should move from throwing away the old zoning to creating an entirely new system based on the plan.

The plan creates ten “classifications,” based on three categories: neighborhood, corridor mixed-use, and commercial/industrial/institutional. (There are also three “special mixed-use” districts, including downtown.) Residential has three zones: Mixed Housing Type (think most flatlands neighborhoods, with a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and small apartments), Detached-unit Residential (single-family homes), and Hillside Residential (large-lot single-family homes). The vast majority of the city is mapped one of those three areas. Major streets are marked one of three mixed-use types: Urban Residential, Neighborhood Center, and Community Commercial. All of these categories allow ground-floor retail, and the latter two are unconcerned with use. Adopting these three mixed-use categories as zoning rules (eg, UR, NCX, CCX, along the lines of HBX) eliminates the necessity of having multiple overlay zones to accommodate mixed-use development.

The General Plan maps the city to these zones, and defines residential units/acre or commercial FAR for each one (LUTE, pp 143-159). Those are the rules needed to constitute a zoning ordinance. New categories along the lines of the General Plan would be a dozen zoning types that can accommodate the entire city, eliminating the fifty-plus zoning regulations that choke Oakland’s planning today. It is also an opportunity to reduce or eliminate legacy rules that are often called “exclusionary zoning,” as I wrote two weeks ago – setbacks, open-space, and parking requirements all drive up the cost of housing by reducing the number of units that can fit on a lot, or making lots unbuildable. Creating a new zoning ordinance based on the General Plan can take advantage of a recent revolution in zoning, and allow Oakland to adopt the best practices of 21st-century urban planning.

Form-Based Zoning

As opposed to use-based zoning, form-based zoning is a set of regulations based not on abstract ideas like use and FAR, but instead on the height of construction and its relationship to the street. Form-based zoning generally emphasizes minimum and maximum heights, street frontage and lot width minimums, and frenestration minimums. Without (arbitrary) setbacks, open-space requirements, or abstract FAR guidelines, form-based zoning creates a predictable urban form. Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sonoma and Hercules all have form-based codes. Wikipedia’s entry on Form-Based Zoning is an excellent introduction to this new regulatory concept, invented by the Plater-Zyberk/Duany team behind New Urbanism.

By focusing on the end result rather than the process, form-based zoning allows people to better understand what is planned for their neighborhood. Because it is straightforward, small or inexperienced developers are better able to meet its mandates. Regulating what people can actually see and experience (ie, the street curtain) makes it easier to bring community input into zoning regulations, since their input does not have to be retranslated into plannerese. This simple, modern approach to zoning could potentially reduce the need for project planners as well, helping slim Oakland’s bloated bureaucracy and concentrate planning resources on things other than quotidian developments.

The 1960s use-based zoning ordinance now in effect cannot meet the needs of the twenty-first century. It is needlessly complex, lowering public confidence in the planning process and discouraging small-time developers. Its focus on abstract guidelines has no relationship with urban form, leading to unpredictable buildings or allowing too much architectural discretion over the public sphere (is a ten-story building on half a lot the same as a five-story building on an entire lot? Absolutely not!). Finally, the outdated zoning code requires too much reliance on discretionary design review to make up for its failure to adequately regulate form, and the General Plan calls for radically reducing discretionary review. Form-based zoning is the best tool to achieve that mandate, and to move away from regulating uses to allowing the mixed-use approach of the General Plan.

Councilwoman Nadel –

I am writing to you because I am unable to attend your district 3 townhall, “housing vs. jobs,” but I wanted to give you my input on the subject.

I won’t be able to attend your forum because I’ll be at work. When I got my first downtown position in my profession, 2 years ago, there was literally only one employer in this field, and it was incredibly lucky that I was able to secure this job. At that time, we were struggling to survive. We operated with what can only be described as a skeleton staff.

As downtown has become more vibrant, and more residents have moved here and into the Jack London Square area, I am pleased to tell you that we are consistently busy, and stay open 2 hours later than we used to. We have doubled our nightly staff. We have grown successful and saw a profit for the first time last year. We are employing more people, for longer hours, and paying everyone more. In addition, if I wanted to leave, I now have other options. Where before there was no other place for me to work, I now have 4 or 5 other options where I could find a job in my profession downtown and I personally know of several more that will be opening within a year.

Many of my friends work in the service industry, and have similarly benefited from the explosion of opportunity downtown has seen in the past 2 years. Development downtown has created opportunities for them to open businesses of their own, and given them jobs to support themselves while they work to realize their dreams. Furthermore, the renewed vibrancy of this area has created a market for the work of the many artists I know who contribute so much excitement and creativity to this city.

Your juxtaposition is ludicrous, and as someone who has seen firsthand the benefits of increased residents in the area, I can attest to the fact that housing creates jobs. You claim on your website that entrepreneur opportunities are one of your top 3 priorities for Oakland. But how do you propose do offer a market for the businesses those entrepreneurs dream of starting without providing residents to support them?

The new housing being built is not replacing active industrial space. Surface parking lots and long-shuttered warehouses and factories are a blight on this city, and I applaud efforts to restore life to spaces that sat vacant for years. And empty warehouse provides no jobs, but a new housing project in that space offers construction work to many people, and augments the market that small business owners need to support their work when it is finished.

I would also like to tell you that, as someone who earns below median income, I am strongly opposed to your proposals about inclusionary zoning. I have witnessed the effect of such policies in neighboring cities like San Francisco, where the “affordable” housing goes to a lucky few, and in order to subsidize those below-market units, all other housing becomes prohibitively expensive, pricing many would-be residents out of the city. I fear that your inclusionary zoning plan would have this same effect in Oakland.

Furthermore, as industrial land preservation and inclusionary zoning are the foundations of your Mayoral platform, this event strikes me as much more of a campaign rally than a townhall, and I find it inappropriate for you to be marketing it as such.

V Smoothe
District 3 resident and worker

Technorati Tags: oakland, oakland politics, politics, inclusionary zoning, jobs, industrial preservation zonr, nadel, nancy nadel, oakland mayor