The Oakland Police Department plans to pilot a new surveillance camera system in West Oakland. But the cameras will be part of a closed network that the community will not be able to access.
Nearly a year ago, the West Oakland Project Area Committee (“WOPAC”), an elected body of community volunteers who advise the city on redevelopment matters, recommended the City fund ten cameras for a year with $200,000 of redevelopment funds. The cameras, which had been requested by police lieutenant Paul Berlin, were envisioned as being movable cameras that could be used by both the police and civilians to view “hot-spot” intersections within the West Oakland project area and monitor possible criminal activity there. Lt. Berlin subsequently retired, the proposal disappeared into the bureaucracy for “evaluation,” and the funding remained earmarked but not approved by the City Council.
On July 9, 2008, Lt. Freddie Hamilton and Sgt. Ron Elders of OPD, Andrew Hopkins of Finance & Management and an OPD technician approached the WOPAC to present OPD’s new vision for use of security cameras. Declaring the previously proposed system as ineffective due to the lack of funding for staff to monitor the cameras, poor resolution on the cameras that had been proposed, and experiences in other communities, the team proposed an alternate system modeled on systems used in Philadelphia, New York and Chicago. The proposed system would use very high resolution cameras to facilitate identification of suspects, ability to read license plates, and positive recognition of drugs and weapons. The cameras would be able to be controlled by police officers remotely, without lag or delay. Two types of cameras would be used: some fixed, others easily moveable. The cameras would record images that would be stored for seven to 14 days. Four staff members would be funded who would be dedicated to monitoring the cameras. The goal is to implement the pilot by March 2009.
The cameras, however, would not be accessible by community groups or the general public. They would be part of a dedicated wireless network, not the internet. In Sgt. Elders’ words, “DOJ would cut us off” if the public had access to the cameras. Merchants would be encouraged to sponsor other cameras, but could not control them.
If the pilot is successful and the program is implemented city-wide, the cost will be $5.8MM, with $800,000 in annual recurring costs. $2.5MM would be spent to turn the Eastmont Police Station into an electronic monitoring center. A WiMax network would be built to transmit the video at an initial cost of $3.0MM and an annual cost of $300,000. The four new staff required to monitor the system would cost $330,189 per year.
WOPAC members expressed concern that public input should be encouraged to determine placement of the security cameras. The proposed locations, marked by yellow “C”s, appear on a map provided by OPD. Lt. Hamilton volunteered to return to the WOPAC regularly with updates on the camera deployment, location and effectiveness. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the system would be formally conducted a year following implementation.
On a motion by Bruce Beasley, the WOPAC voted unanimously to support OPD’s proposal, with an invitation to OPD to return quarterly or as needed to report on progress of the initiative.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Is housing really becoming less affordable?
Is housing in JAMMI less affordable than it used to be?
No-one questions how unaffordable housing has become, and now food prices are skyrocketing. We are told that people are being priced out of Oakland. But is life really less affordable than it was, say, 25 years ago?
The US census tells us that, in 1979, the median income in Oakland for a household was $13,780. The City’s official median income in 2006, for a family of four, was $82,200. If we trust these figures, incomes are now six times what they were 27 years ago.
To see if prices have really outpaced incomes, I checked locally advertised food prices, rental listings, and property sales in Oakland in May of 2008 compared to 1983. To get the 1983 figures, I reviewed microfilm of the Oakland Tribune for various weeks in 1983. For the 2008 prices, I scoured the Oakland Tribune as well as online sources. Here’s what I found:
For-sale property: prices of residential property, prices have risen 5 to 6 times in 25 years.
Rental property: rents are three times what they were 25 years ago.
Food: Groceries are about double what they were back then.
The obvious conclusion is that we are living better and more cheaply now than we did in 1983. Prices in all categories have risen less than incomes!
Don’t believe me? I could hardly believe it myself. No wonder, the media and politicians have been beating the drum of affordable housing for so long, we forget to say “show me.” Well, here are the details from my own little study.
For housing, I concentrated on North Oakland and West Oakland, to the extent possible. Back in 1983, the Tribune was the place to look for previously occupied houses for sale, and North and West Oakland were lumped into the category “west of Broadway.”
For Sale................. 1983........... 2008...... Increase
2 bdrm (avg of 5) $82,100... $416,970...... 508%
Duplex (avg of 4) $96,875... $560,000...... 578%
For rental units, a good current source is the OHA website listings for Section 8, where “market rate” rents are shown. I was able to easily identify properties in our neighborhood. The source for 1983 rents, again, was the Tribune.
Rental Units..................... 1983.......... 2008....... Increase
studio rental (avg of 5) $268.00..... $701.00....... 262%
1 bdrm rental (avg of 7) $302.86.... $812.00....... 268%
2 bdrm rental (avg of 5) $433.00. $1,234.50 .......285%
Groceries were fun because I compared the advertised sale prices in newspaper inserts from 1983 and 2008. In many cases, the identical item was shown. One glaring example: Safeway recently had Yoplait yoghurt on sale for 50 cents each. In 1983, a sale advertised the same product for 49 cents each. Yoghurt lovers are doing well these days.
Item ..................................................1983.......... 2008...... Increase
Tomatoes, 1 lb............................ $0.59........... $0.77...... 131%
Navel oranges, 1 lb..................... $0.40........... $0.69..... 173%
Crest toothpaste, per ounce...... $0.18............ $0.71...... 393%
AA Energizer batteries, 4 pack.. $2.19.... ....$2.90..... 132%
Kingsford charcoal, per pound. $0.28.......... $0.59...... 212%
Bacon (1 lb)................................ $1.59........... $3.00 ......189%
Yoplait yoghurt (6 oz).............. $0.49........... $0.50 .......102%
Pineapple................................. $1.69 .............$2.99 .......177%
Doritos Tortilla chips (per oz). $0.12 ...........$0.24...... 194%
Ground chuck (per pound)...... $1.89........... $1.60 ........85% (a decrease!)
Welch's grape juice (64 oz)...... $2.38........... $3.00..... 126%
MJB coffee (1 lb)....................... $1.99........... $5.99..... 301%
Post cereal ....................................$1.57........... $4.99 ........318%
Yes, my survey was unscientific and the housing samples were small. But I made no attempt to skew the numbers. I was as surprised as you are!
So, the next time someone tells you how unaffordable anything is these days, ask for corroboration. Yes, prices have shot up in recent years. But maybe that is just a correction because we had it so good in the Clinton era.
No-one questions how unaffordable housing has become, and now food prices are skyrocketing. We are told that people are being priced out of Oakland. But is life really less affordable than it was, say, 25 years ago?
The US census tells us that, in 1979, the median income in Oakland for a household was $13,780. The City’s official median income in 2006, for a family of four, was $82,200. If we trust these figures, incomes are now six times what they were 27 years ago.
To see if prices have really outpaced incomes, I checked locally advertised food prices, rental listings, and property sales in Oakland in May of 2008 compared to 1983. To get the 1983 figures, I reviewed microfilm of the Oakland Tribune for various weeks in 1983. For the 2008 prices, I scoured the Oakland Tribune as well as online sources. Here’s what I found:
For-sale property: prices of residential property, prices have risen 5 to 6 times in 25 years.
Rental property: rents are three times what they were 25 years ago.
Food: Groceries are about double what they were back then.
The obvious conclusion is that we are living better and more cheaply now than we did in 1983. Prices in all categories have risen less than incomes!
Don’t believe me? I could hardly believe it myself. No wonder, the media and politicians have been beating the drum of affordable housing for so long, we forget to say “show me.” Well, here are the details from my own little study.
For housing, I concentrated on North Oakland and West Oakland, to the extent possible. Back in 1983, the Tribune was the place to look for previously occupied houses for sale, and North and West Oakland were lumped into the category “west of Broadway.”
For Sale................. 1983........... 2008...... Increase
2 bdrm (avg of 5) $82,100... $416,970...... 508%
Duplex (avg of 4) $96,875... $560,000...... 578%
For rental units, a good current source is the OHA website listings for Section 8, where “market rate” rents are shown. I was able to easily identify properties in our neighborhood. The source for 1983 rents, again, was the Tribune.
Rental Units..................... 1983.......... 2008....... Increase
studio rental (avg of 5) $268.00..... $701.00....... 262%
1 bdrm rental (avg of 7) $302.86.... $812.00....... 268%
2 bdrm rental (avg of 5) $433.00. $1,234.50 .......285%
Groceries were fun because I compared the advertised sale prices in newspaper inserts from 1983 and 2008. In many cases, the identical item was shown. One glaring example: Safeway recently had Yoplait yoghurt on sale for 50 cents each. In 1983, a sale advertised the same product for 49 cents each. Yoghurt lovers are doing well these days.
Item ..................................................1983.......... 2008...... Increase
Tomatoes, 1 lb............................ $0.59........... $0.77...... 131%
Navel oranges, 1 lb..................... $0.40........... $0.69..... 173%
Crest toothpaste, per ounce...... $0.18............ $0.71...... 393%
AA Energizer batteries, 4 pack.. $2.19.... ....$2.90..... 132%
Kingsford charcoal, per pound. $0.28.......... $0.59...... 212%
Bacon (1 lb)................................ $1.59........... $3.00 ......189%
Yoplait yoghurt (6 oz).............. $0.49........... $0.50 .......102%
Pineapple................................. $1.69 .............$2.99 .......177%
Doritos Tortilla chips (per oz). $0.12 ...........$0.24...... 194%
Ground chuck (per pound)...... $1.89........... $1.60 ........85% (a decrease!)
Welch's grape juice (64 oz)...... $2.38........... $3.00..... 126%
MJB coffee (1 lb)....................... $1.99........... $5.99..... 301%
Post cereal ....................................$1.57........... $4.99 ........318%
Yes, my survey was unscientific and the housing samples were small. But I made no attempt to skew the numbers. I was as surprised as you are!
So, the next time someone tells you how unaffordable anything is these days, ask for corroboration. Yes, prices have shot up in recent years. But maybe that is just a correction because we had it so good in the Clinton era.
Friday, June 13, 2008
WOPAC goes "all in" with millions for empty lot
In a local version of funding the Bridge to Nowhere, the WOPAC approved spending $3,900,000 of your tax dollars to support a project many believe will never be built.
The project in question would erect 109 units of housing for persons of moderate income at 1396 5th Street, near the West Oakland BART station. The project site is significant to some WOPAC members because it is the former site of Red Star Yeast, a business that emitted foul odors for decades, limiting development possibilities nearby. It is a small patch of dirt – less than one acre – next to the freeway, and is known to have toxic issues. But additional funding for the $48MM project, while essential, is extremely problematic. The plan calls for an additional $18MM from the City’s NOFA funds. Marge Gladman of the Housing Department informed the WOPAC prior to their vote that total Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) funds available in the coming year, for all housing projects citywide, would total only $16MM. $18MM for this one project will not be available from that source.
The project has already failed to win funding from the State of California’s Transit-Oriented Development Housing Program, on May 9th, and also was turned down by the State’s Infill Infrastructure Grant Program on May 23rd. While the developer has positioned his request for WOPAC support as necessary for appealing those decisions, the deadlines for filing documented appeals has passed, and the NOFA was heavily oversubscribed and highly competitive. The LLC that owns the land has gone bankrupt, and their former plan to build market-rate housing has been shelved. A new LLC was created to rescue the developers’ investments by constructing affordable housing at public expense. Few on the WOPAC expect, or even want, this affordable housing to be built. The WOPAC’s underlying intent is to purchase the site in order to control whatever eventually is constructed there. But there is no actual plan other than the affordable housing currently on the table.
A key motivation for several WOPAC members was the developer’s assertion that a builder from L.A. had offered $3.9MM for the property, with the intention of building low-income senior housing on the site. Members felt a site near a BART station was more suited to market-rate housing. WOPAC member Jabari Herbert stated that, as a developer, he had interests in multiple projects in the vicinity of the project site, and that a low-income housing project would have an adverse effect on those other projects. Mr. Herbert did not recuse himself, however, due to conflict of interest. Instead, Mr. Herbert voted with the WOPAC to purchase the property.
WOPAC co-chair Larry Rice was the only member to vote against the proposal.
The WOPAC currently has only $1,246,805 at their disposal. The bulk of the $3,900,000 would come from anticipated tax revenues for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In other words, the WOPAC is going “all in” and committing most of your available redevelopment tax dollars for the coming year to purchase a Brownfields site for housing that won’t be built.
The land must be appraised and the City Council must approve the funding before money is actually spent.
The project in question would erect 109 units of housing for persons of moderate income at 1396 5th Street, near the West Oakland BART station. The project site is significant to some WOPAC members because it is the former site of Red Star Yeast, a business that emitted foul odors for decades, limiting development possibilities nearby. It is a small patch of dirt – less than one acre – next to the freeway, and is known to have toxic issues. But additional funding for the $48MM project, while essential, is extremely problematic. The plan calls for an additional $18MM from the City’s NOFA funds. Marge Gladman of the Housing Department informed the WOPAC prior to their vote that total Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) funds available in the coming year, for all housing projects citywide, would total only $16MM. $18MM for this one project will not be available from that source.
The project has already failed to win funding from the State of California’s Transit-Oriented Development Housing Program, on May 9th, and also was turned down by the State’s Infill Infrastructure Grant Program on May 23rd. While the developer has positioned his request for WOPAC support as necessary for appealing those decisions, the deadlines for filing documented appeals has passed, and the NOFA was heavily oversubscribed and highly competitive. The LLC that owns the land has gone bankrupt, and their former plan to build market-rate housing has been shelved. A new LLC was created to rescue the developers’ investments by constructing affordable housing at public expense. Few on the WOPAC expect, or even want, this affordable housing to be built. The WOPAC’s underlying intent is to purchase the site in order to control whatever eventually is constructed there. But there is no actual plan other than the affordable housing currently on the table.
A key motivation for several WOPAC members was the developer’s assertion that a builder from L.A. had offered $3.9MM for the property, with the intention of building low-income senior housing on the site. Members felt a site near a BART station was more suited to market-rate housing. WOPAC member Jabari Herbert stated that, as a developer, he had interests in multiple projects in the vicinity of the project site, and that a low-income housing project would have an adverse effect on those other projects. Mr. Herbert did not recuse himself, however, due to conflict of interest. Instead, Mr. Herbert voted with the WOPAC to purchase the property.
WOPAC co-chair Larry Rice was the only member to vote against the proposal.
The WOPAC currently has only $1,246,805 at their disposal. The bulk of the $3,900,000 would come from anticipated tax revenues for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In other words, the WOPAC is going “all in” and committing most of your available redevelopment tax dollars for the coming year to purchase a Brownfields site for housing that won’t be built.
The land must be appraised and the City Council must approve the funding before money is actually spent.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
ProArts Open Studios event spotlights local artists
For the annual ProArts “Open Studio” event, several JAMMI artists have opened their doors and let the public in to view their work. The event continues Saturdays and Sundays through June 15th.
Jamie Treacy, at 733 37th Street near West, works in acrylic and watercolor. I was confused at first how to enter—it’s the ground level apartment with door in front, not up the stairs. Jamie graciously welcomed me into his apartment and studio. Originally from Michigan, Jamie came to Oakland to get his Master’s at California College of the Arts. Following that, he spent six months in Oaxaca, Mexico, an experience which has influenced his work. His paintings are dense gardens of images derived from settings captured digitally, then embellished with fanciful additions. One series presents objects and arrangements found in junkyards, again filtered through his imagination. Jamie teaches art at Unity High School near Seminary Avenue in East Oakland.
A visit to Alba Studios, at 4219 Martin Luther King Jr Way, was a potpourri of different presentations. Upon entering through the big wooden door, I was greeted by the voice of Benny Alba behind a wall of black plastic dropcloth. By the time I had signed in, Jennifer Downey had emerged to show me her self-portraits in acrylic against vague, foggy landscapes from Point Reyes. Jennifer is from Sonoma originally, which was reflected in the golden hills and foggy trees that formed a backdrop to repeated perspectives of a woman’s head (usually her own). Jennifer takes figure drawing classes, which helps to explain the focus of her work.
I entered the next area through a slit in the black plastic dropcloth and found myself in a pitch-black space with Benny Alba and someone else. Benny handed me a flashlight and instructed me to shine it around the walls. Doing so revealed various quotations under murky paintings of trees and moonlit nights. Benny offered that the exhibit was really meant to be seen with the lights on, but I did not take her up on her offer, instead moving on to a lit area where a display case contained glass enamel-on-copper doubloons and pieces of 8.
The studio then opened up into a cavernous area with huge, unpainted wooden beams and some natural light. To the right were bright-eyed, colorful paintings by Lynda Hickox Robinson. Toward the back were more examples of glass enamel on copper by Benny Alba, this time squares and rectangles with depictions of birds or abstracts. Up a solidly constructed wooden stairs, I found delicate jewelry, glass beads and colorful glass-enameled copper dishes by Miriam Jewell.
Many other artists have exhibits during this time. Read the full listing at the ProArts website. http://www.proartsgallery.org/ebos/pdfs/directory2008.pdf
Jamie Treacy, at 733 37th Street near West, works in acrylic and watercolor. I was confused at first how to enter—it’s the ground level apartment with door in front, not up the stairs. Jamie graciously welcomed me into his apartment and studio. Originally from Michigan, Jamie came to Oakland to get his Master’s at California College of the Arts. Following that, he spent six months in Oaxaca, Mexico, an experience which has influenced his work. His paintings are dense gardens of images derived from settings captured digitally, then embellished with fanciful additions. One series presents objects and arrangements found in junkyards, again filtered through his imagination. Jamie teaches art at Unity High School near Seminary Avenue in East Oakland.
A visit to Alba Studios, at 4219 Martin Luther King Jr Way, was a potpourri of different presentations. Upon entering through the big wooden door, I was greeted by the voice of Benny Alba behind a wall of black plastic dropcloth. By the time I had signed in, Jennifer Downey had emerged to show me her self-portraits in acrylic against vague, foggy landscapes from Point Reyes. Jennifer is from Sonoma originally, which was reflected in the golden hills and foggy trees that formed a backdrop to repeated perspectives of a woman’s head (usually her own). Jennifer takes figure drawing classes, which helps to explain the focus of her work.
I entered the next area through a slit in the black plastic dropcloth and found myself in a pitch-black space with Benny Alba and someone else. Benny handed me a flashlight and instructed me to shine it around the walls. Doing so revealed various quotations under murky paintings of trees and moonlit nights. Benny offered that the exhibit was really meant to be seen with the lights on, but I did not take her up on her offer, instead moving on to a lit area where a display case contained glass enamel-on-copper doubloons and pieces of 8.
The studio then opened up into a cavernous area with huge, unpainted wooden beams and some natural light. To the right were bright-eyed, colorful paintings by Lynda Hickox Robinson. Toward the back were more examples of glass enamel on copper by Benny Alba, this time squares and rectangles with depictions of birds or abstracts. Up a solidly constructed wooden stairs, I found delicate jewelry, glass beads and colorful glass-enameled copper dishes by Miriam Jewell.
Many other artists have exhibits during this time. Read the full listing at the ProArts website. http://www.proartsgallery.org/ebos/pdfs/directory2008.pdf
MacArthur BART Transit Village developers bow to neighborhood concerns
As recently proposed, the MacArthur BART Transit Village would have eliminated 300 of the 600 parking spaces currently available to BART patrons. Neighbors feared that commuters would park in surrounding neighborhoods, reducing available parking for residents and increasing traffic congestion.
In response to those concerns, the plan has been modified to construct at least 100 additional parking spaces in the planned BART garage. Additionally, parking in one of the four residential structures will be “unbundled” freeing 30 spaces for use by BART patrons. And, for up to five years, valet parking to an offsite location will be offered for an additional 50 vehicles.
The number of parking spaces available to carshare programs will be doubled, from four to eight. The developer will work with local transit agencies to explore providing free shuttle service on the 40th Street corridor to Emeryville.
The developer will commit up to $150,000 to establish a residential parking permit program within a half-mile radius of the transit village. On-street parking by non-residents would be limited to two hours during weekdays.
Bicyclists will benefit from 40 short-term and 160 long-term bicycle parking spaces, as well as an on-site bicycle repair facility. A feasibility study will be conducted to explore creating a long-term bicycle parking facility in the commercial space or the parking garage.
In response to those concerns, the plan has been modified to construct at least 100 additional parking spaces in the planned BART garage. Additionally, parking in one of the four residential structures will be “unbundled” freeing 30 spaces for use by BART patrons. And, for up to five years, valet parking to an offsite location will be offered for an additional 50 vehicles.
The number of parking spaces available to carshare programs will be doubled, from four to eight. The developer will work with local transit agencies to explore providing free shuttle service on the 40th Street corridor to Emeryville.
The developer will commit up to $150,000 to establish a residential parking permit program within a half-mile radius of the transit village. On-street parking by non-residents would be limited to two hours during weekdays.
Bicyclists will benefit from 40 short-term and 160 long-term bicycle parking spaces, as well as an on-site bicycle repair facility. A feasibility study will be conducted to explore creating a long-term bicycle parking facility in the commercial space or the parking garage.
Shown: the MacArthur BART parking lot, where the Transit Village will be built.Sunday, May 25, 2008
City seeks to bail out fat-cat developer
The City of Oakland is negotiating with a fat-cat developer, who defaulted on an $800,000 city loan, to pay the developer up to $740,000 more to acquire a parcel valued at $950,000.
The City is willing to pay a premium to preserve the land for affordable housing. Neighborhood residents are not all thrilled with the idea. The root problem is that City rules concerning subsidies of affordable housing render viable only projects that are massive, cheaply constructed and high-density. Not many parcels are large enough and cheap enough to support housing under these restrictions; not many neighborhoods welcome such projects.
Rather than bail out developers who have City Hall contacts, isn’t a better solution to fix the funding restrictions so they support small-scale, well-designed affordable housing in a variety of neighborhoods?
Here’s the story: 3801-3807 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, corner of West MacArthur, used to house “Terry’s Sound House,” a TV repair shop, with apartments above and an old house nearby. Some years back the store closed – a long-time resident states it was because Terry allegedly murdered his wife – and the property lay vacant for awhile.
Along came the Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo redevelopment area (“BMSP”), created in 2000. In the eyes of housing staff, the site was perfect for affordable housing: the land was relatively cheap, it was on the very edge of the redevelopment area, and in a neglected neighborhood of empty lots, drug dealers and run-down properties. Several iterations of housing proposals targeted the site, in combination with two adjacent empty parcels, one of which was City-owned and the other owned by Larry Taylor’s Community Development Corporation of Oakland ("CDCO").
In 2003, 53 units of senior housing were proposed, but were rejected for funding under the annual Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”). Enter Oakland Community Housing Inc. (“OCHI”), a non-profit that the City had previously funded $4,860,000 to for management of the California Hotel (residents of which sued OCHI in 2005 about rats and bedbugs). CDCO and OCHI proposed 33 units of senior housing on the two adjacent empty lots; 3801 MLK was left out of the proposal, which depended upon funding by HUD. The BMSP project area committee (“PAC”) approved the proposal.
The MLK Senior Homes project was denied funding in the 2004 NOFA, despite a letter of support from the PAC. In 2005, City NOFA funding was awarded but HUD would not fund the project.
In September 2006, OCHI and CDCO joined forces with mammoth regional developer AF Evans to form Grove Park LLC. In the red-hot housing market that prevailed at that time, this development team proposed building 60 units of affordable, for-sale housing on the three parcels. The City subsequently loaned the developers $800,000 under the “VHARP” program, to purchase the 3801 MLK site. At that time, the parcel owner was asking over $1,000,000 for the property, but the City did not have enough VHARP funds to cover the entire asking price. In January 2007, the MBSP PAC approved a project of 58 for-sale affordable units. Grove Park LLC borrowed an additional $740,000 from private sources to cover remaining acquisition and predevelopment costs. The City agreed that the private lender would have the first lien on the property and the City would have only a second lien.
By this time, the housing market was in a downward spiral. In March 2007 City staff did not recommend the project for NOFA funding, stating that it did not meet NOFA criteria. On March 20th, 2007, the City Council Rules Committee sweetened the pot by recommending that CDCO get $141,000 as a “forgivable loan” and that the City’s subsidy of the affordable units be increased from 40% to 50%. However, in May it was announced that the City Council did not approve the project for NOFA funding.
Subsequently, Grove Park LLC did not reapply for NOFA funding, and defaulted on the $800,000 City loan they had been given only months earlier. CDCO, meanwhile, stopped making timely payments, according to Housing staff, on a $52,000 site acquisition loan they had been given earlier to purchase the adjacent parcel. OCHI went bankrupt. CDCO is attempting to raise cash by selling a nearby parcel at 3881 MLK.
In January of 2008, the MBSP PAC voted to authorize staff to offer Grove Park LLC up to $740,000 more taxpayer funds to pay off the bank loan and, therefore, allow the City, as second lien holder, to take possession of the 3801-07 MLK parcel. In effect, therefore, taxpayers would be paying as much as $1,540,000 (the $800,000 original loan plus $740,000 more in cash) for a parcel whose market value had fallen to $950,000. The development team would walk with no loss whatsoever from the failed venture. Staff justified this proposal by stating that it was necessary to keep the three parcels assembled in order for future affordable housing at the site to be viable. The individual parcels were “too small to develop as a project on their own but would allow for a feasible project if combined with 3801-3807 MLK.” Staff separately opined that “small-scale affordable housing projects with less than 40 units are not very feasible to finance.”
Even Terry’s TV repair could tell us that there’s something wrong with this picture. Massive, cheaply-built low-income developments have been proven to be a disaster: witness the social problems associated with Acorn, Campbell Village and Cypress Gardens. City policy should be geared toward making small-scale, high-quality, affordable and inclusionary housing a success. Affordable projects should be architecturally noteworthy and built to last, gracing, rather than blemishing, their surrounding communities.
The City is willing to pay a premium to preserve the land for affordable housing. Neighborhood residents are not all thrilled with the idea. The root problem is that City rules concerning subsidies of affordable housing render viable only projects that are massive, cheaply constructed and high-density. Not many parcels are large enough and cheap enough to support housing under these restrictions; not many neighborhoods welcome such projects.
Rather than bail out developers who have City Hall contacts, isn’t a better solution to fix the funding restrictions so they support small-scale, well-designed affordable housing in a variety of neighborhoods?
Here’s the story: 3801-3807 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, corner of West MacArthur, used to house “Terry’s Sound House,” a TV repair shop, with apartments above and an old house nearby. Some years back the store closed – a long-time resident states it was because Terry allegedly murdered his wife – and the property lay vacant for awhile.
Along came the Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo redevelopment area (“BMSP”), created in 2000. In the eyes of housing staff, the site was perfect for affordable housing: the land was relatively cheap, it was on the very edge of the redevelopment area, and in a neglected neighborhood of empty lots, drug dealers and run-down properties. Several iterations of housing proposals targeted the site, in combination with two adjacent empty parcels, one of which was City-owned and the other owned by Larry Taylor’s Community Development Corporation of Oakland ("CDCO").
In 2003, 53 units of senior housing were proposed, but were rejected for funding under the annual Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”). Enter Oakland Community Housing Inc. (“OCHI”), a non-profit that the City had previously funded $4,860,000 to for management of the California Hotel (residents of which sued OCHI in 2005 about rats and bedbugs). CDCO and OCHI proposed 33 units of senior housing on the two adjacent empty lots; 3801 MLK was left out of the proposal, which depended upon funding by HUD. The BMSP project area committee (“PAC”) approved the proposal.
The MLK Senior Homes project was denied funding in the 2004 NOFA, despite a letter of support from the PAC. In 2005, City NOFA funding was awarded but HUD would not fund the project.
In September 2006, OCHI and CDCO joined forces with mammoth regional developer AF Evans to form Grove Park LLC. In the red-hot housing market that prevailed at that time, this development team proposed building 60 units of affordable, for-sale housing on the three parcels. The City subsequently loaned the developers $800,000 under the “VHARP” program, to purchase the 3801 MLK site. At that time, the parcel owner was asking over $1,000,000 for the property, but the City did not have enough VHARP funds to cover the entire asking price. In January 2007, the MBSP PAC approved a project of 58 for-sale affordable units. Grove Park LLC borrowed an additional $740,000 from private sources to cover remaining acquisition and predevelopment costs. The City agreed that the private lender would have the first lien on the property and the City would have only a second lien.
By this time, the housing market was in a downward spiral. In March 2007 City staff did not recommend the project for NOFA funding, stating that it did not meet NOFA criteria. On March 20th, 2007, the City Council Rules Committee sweetened the pot by recommending that CDCO get $141,000 as a “forgivable loan” and that the City’s subsidy of the affordable units be increased from 40% to 50%. However, in May it was announced that the City Council did not approve the project for NOFA funding.
Subsequently, Grove Park LLC did not reapply for NOFA funding, and defaulted on the $800,000 City loan they had been given only months earlier. CDCO, meanwhile, stopped making timely payments, according to Housing staff, on a $52,000 site acquisition loan they had been given earlier to purchase the adjacent parcel. OCHI went bankrupt. CDCO is attempting to raise cash by selling a nearby parcel at 3881 MLK.
In January of 2008, the MBSP PAC voted to authorize staff to offer Grove Park LLC up to $740,000 more taxpayer funds to pay off the bank loan and, therefore, allow the City, as second lien holder, to take possession of the 3801-07 MLK parcel. In effect, therefore, taxpayers would be paying as much as $1,540,000 (the $800,000 original loan plus $740,000 more in cash) for a parcel whose market value had fallen to $950,000. The development team would walk with no loss whatsoever from the failed venture. Staff justified this proposal by stating that it was necessary to keep the three parcels assembled in order for future affordable housing at the site to be viable. The individual parcels were “too small to develop as a project on their own but would allow for a feasible project if combined with 3801-3807 MLK.” Staff separately opined that “small-scale affordable housing projects with less than 40 units are not very feasible to finance.”
Even Terry’s TV repair could tell us that there’s something wrong with this picture. Massive, cheaply-built low-income developments have been proven to be a disaster: witness the social problems associated with Acorn, Campbell Village and Cypress Gardens. City policy should be geared toward making small-scale, high-quality, affordable and inclusionary housing a success. Affordable projects should be architecturally noteworthy and built to last, gracing, rather than blemishing, their surrounding communities.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
MacArthur BART Transit Village: Boon or Bane?
The final environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the MacArthur BART Transit Village has just been released. For those recently paroled or emerging from comas, the transit village is expected to be built on the BART parking lot between Telegraph, Highway 24, 40th Street and West MacArthur, in the Temescal neighborhood. It will create some 675 dwelling units as well as commercial space. What the project will not include is any open space or parkland.
Two basic questions emerge: Is increased density beneficial and, if so, whom does it benefit? And, for whom is a transit village a benefit at that location?
The responses to the EIR comprise much of the document. Respondents fall into four categories: public agencies, people directly affected by the project, people from the area not directly affected, and others with an axe to grind. The people directly affected express concern over loss of light, trees, parking. Residents a bit further away, not directly affected, offer support for the project. Several of the responses perpetuate myths that obfuscate honest answers to the two questions posed above.
Is increased density beneficial? Frequently, proponents of inner-city urban density decry the loss of farmland and “greenbelt” open space as urban areas sprawl ever farther from their core. Freeway congestion and resulting pollution, we are told, will be alleviated by developing high-density projects at transit hubs. And the stress on wildlife and natural resources would be lessened if we all just stayed inside the anthill.
I do not know where such proponents live, so I have no justification for my suspicion that they reside in comfortable homes on quiet, low-density side-streets in communities like Berkeley, Piedmont or Palo Alto. But wouldn’t it seem that the main beneficiaries of preventing further development at the edges of suburbia would be the current residents of those suburbs? It is their views that would be paved over, their tranquility that would get ruffled by new construction. If sprawl should be limited, isn’t the obvious place to increase density the least dense urban areas, not the most dense? Shouldn’t the suburbs be re-engineered to carry their weight of the burden of increased population in the Bay Area?
Those attempting to sell the transit village to local residents tell us that the development will “bring the neighborhood up.” The increased density will benefit us, they claim, by changing the economic base of the neighborhood. The new residents will, by their critical mass, attract neighborhood-serving businesses, somehow drive out drug dealers and criminals, and result in a more upscale community.
As is frequently the case in such assertions, there is some truth there, but it is overstated. Transit village residents are unlikely to mix into the surrounding community to a high degree. Many of their needs will be met onsite. A transit village, by its nature, draws singles, not families who would mix at PTA functions. We currently have thousands of honest, hard-working people living in the community, and their presence has not driven away the criminal element. People from new developments in Emeryville walk constantly up and down 40th Street now, unlike years ago, but no drug dealers have fled as a result. Telegraph Avenue already has many businesses; there are not many empty storefronts. The new development will simply mean more people in our neighborhood.
The new units are not being built to house local families. They will house singles and couples from other communities, who have a need, and the resources, to travel to and from San Francisco on a daily basis. The beneficiaries of the project will be the developers, yuppies who can’t quite afford to live in San Francisco condos, and the owners of commercial properties close to the project site.
Project proponents also embrace a fantasy that transit village occupants will have little need for cars; some even suggest that parking spaces be eliminated, or be sold separately, to force residents to abandon the motor vehicle. Again, there is some truth here, but not enough. If one wants to commute to San Francisco, or go to the airport, BART is an efficient, convenient and cost-effective method. The Emery-go-round will take you to the movies in Emeryville and back, for free. But what if you need to buy groceries? BART does not service any large grocery stores. What if you need to pick up one child from school, take another to baseball practice, get the dog to the vet, see your doctor or just plain want to go to a park? What if you need to bring home plywood from Home Depot, or a dresser from IKEA?
The nearest grocery to a BART station is the Trader Joe’s in Rockridge. To my knowledge, there is no other grocery store near a BART station in Oakland. A typical local resident might be a single mother with two children. Okay, let's assume the mother takes her two kids from MacArthur to Rockridge and back (can’t leave them alone at home), and somehow they manage to lug a week’s worth of groceries on BART, in those tiny plastic bags that always tear, or in paper bags that get soaked in the rain. (Have you EVER seen anyone carrying groceries on BART? I have ridden BART frequently for 24 years. I never see anyone with groceries on BART). How much did it cost our hypothetical family to ride BART? $9.00 round trip. Just to go to Rockridge and back. Not too many will plunk down nine bucks for the opportunity to visit a Trader Joe's.
At one time JAMMI was farmland. Then, it became a “garden apartment” community of modest bungalows with beautiful back yards. More recently, the back yards have dwindled as speculators built additional “in-fill” units. The newest paradigm is to pile people on top of each other in condos with no open space at all.
If one listens to recordings of old Italian residents telling what the community was like 80 or 100 years ago, one finds there was a strong sense of community. Everyone knew each other. Children played in Temescal Creek. People sat on front porches in the evening. Neighbors would play accordions, drink homemade wine, and dance in the street until dark. The tiny bungalows were bearable to large families because people lived outside. The street, the yard, the sidewalk were part of the living space.
Today’s society is different. People hunch in front of computers instead of sitting on porches. To socialize, people go to online communities like FaceBook or MySpace. We may not know who lives next door. Temescal Creek has been buried underground. The neighborhood has been scarred by a huge, concrete freeway. Open space has dwindled.
But things always change. Tomorrow’s generation may value parks and open space even more than we do. What will they do? Once open space is gone, how do you get it back? Wouldn’t it be great if the MacArthur BART parking lot became a huge, beautiful park? We have plenty of housing in this neighborhood already. Is more housing for displaced San Franciscans the “highest and best use” of one of the few large parcels left here? We have as much density as we can bear. What don’t we have?
Two basic questions emerge: Is increased density beneficial and, if so, whom does it benefit? And, for whom is a transit village a benefit at that location?
The responses to the EIR comprise much of the document. Respondents fall into four categories: public agencies, people directly affected by the project, people from the area not directly affected, and others with an axe to grind. The people directly affected express concern over loss of light, trees, parking. Residents a bit further away, not directly affected, offer support for the project. Several of the responses perpetuate myths that obfuscate honest answers to the two questions posed above.
Is increased density beneficial? Frequently, proponents of inner-city urban density decry the loss of farmland and “greenbelt” open space as urban areas sprawl ever farther from their core. Freeway congestion and resulting pollution, we are told, will be alleviated by developing high-density projects at transit hubs. And the stress on wildlife and natural resources would be lessened if we all just stayed inside the anthill.
I do not know where such proponents live, so I have no justification for my suspicion that they reside in comfortable homes on quiet, low-density side-streets in communities like Berkeley, Piedmont or Palo Alto. But wouldn’t it seem that the main beneficiaries of preventing further development at the edges of suburbia would be the current residents of those suburbs? It is their views that would be paved over, their tranquility that would get ruffled by new construction. If sprawl should be limited, isn’t the obvious place to increase density the least dense urban areas, not the most dense? Shouldn’t the suburbs be re-engineered to carry their weight of the burden of increased population in the Bay Area?
Those attempting to sell the transit village to local residents tell us that the development will “bring the neighborhood up.” The increased density will benefit us, they claim, by changing the economic base of the neighborhood. The new residents will, by their critical mass, attract neighborhood-serving businesses, somehow drive out drug dealers and criminals, and result in a more upscale community.
As is frequently the case in such assertions, there is some truth there, but it is overstated. Transit village residents are unlikely to mix into the surrounding community to a high degree. Many of their needs will be met onsite. A transit village, by its nature, draws singles, not families who would mix at PTA functions. We currently have thousands of honest, hard-working people living in the community, and their presence has not driven away the criminal element. People from new developments in Emeryville walk constantly up and down 40th Street now, unlike years ago, but no drug dealers have fled as a result. Telegraph Avenue already has many businesses; there are not many empty storefronts. The new development will simply mean more people in our neighborhood.
The new units are not being built to house local families. They will house singles and couples from other communities, who have a need, and the resources, to travel to and from San Francisco on a daily basis. The beneficiaries of the project will be the developers, yuppies who can’t quite afford to live in San Francisco condos, and the owners of commercial properties close to the project site.
Project proponents also embrace a fantasy that transit village occupants will have little need for cars; some even suggest that parking spaces be eliminated, or be sold separately, to force residents to abandon the motor vehicle. Again, there is some truth here, but not enough. If one wants to commute to San Francisco, or go to the airport, BART is an efficient, convenient and cost-effective method. The Emery-go-round will take you to the movies in Emeryville and back, for free. But what if you need to buy groceries? BART does not service any large grocery stores. What if you need to pick up one child from school, take another to baseball practice, get the dog to the vet, see your doctor or just plain want to go to a park? What if you need to bring home plywood from Home Depot, or a dresser from IKEA?
The nearest grocery to a BART station is the Trader Joe’s in Rockridge. To my knowledge, there is no other grocery store near a BART station in Oakland. A typical local resident might be a single mother with two children. Okay, let's assume the mother takes her two kids from MacArthur to Rockridge and back (can’t leave them alone at home), and somehow they manage to lug a week’s worth of groceries on BART, in those tiny plastic bags that always tear, or in paper bags that get soaked in the rain. (Have you EVER seen anyone carrying groceries on BART? I have ridden BART frequently for 24 years. I never see anyone with groceries on BART). How much did it cost our hypothetical family to ride BART? $9.00 round trip. Just to go to Rockridge and back. Not too many will plunk down nine bucks for the opportunity to visit a Trader Joe's.
At one time JAMMI was farmland. Then, it became a “garden apartment” community of modest bungalows with beautiful back yards. More recently, the back yards have dwindled as speculators built additional “in-fill” units. The newest paradigm is to pile people on top of each other in condos with no open space at all.
If one listens to recordings of old Italian residents telling what the community was like 80 or 100 years ago, one finds there was a strong sense of community. Everyone knew each other. Children played in Temescal Creek. People sat on front porches in the evening. Neighbors would play accordions, drink homemade wine, and dance in the street until dark. The tiny bungalows were bearable to large families because people lived outside. The street, the yard, the sidewalk were part of the living space.
Today’s society is different. People hunch in front of computers instead of sitting on porches. To socialize, people go to online communities like FaceBook or MySpace. We may not know who lives next door. Temescal Creek has been buried underground. The neighborhood has been scarred by a huge, concrete freeway. Open space has dwindled.
But things always change. Tomorrow’s generation may value parks and open space even more than we do. What will they do? Once open space is gone, how do you get it back? Wouldn’t it be great if the MacArthur BART parking lot became a huge, beautiful park? We have plenty of housing in this neighborhood already. Is more housing for displaced San Franciscans the “highest and best use” of one of the few large parcels left here? We have as much density as we can bear. What don’t we have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)