Last Fall, our City leaders announced with great fanfare that Beat 06X (including the area of JAMMI south of 40th St) and another beat in East Oakland had been selected for a special focus to fight crime and improve the neighborhood. Under the direction of the Mayor, City departments were to coordinate resources and work together to solve entrenched problems with a smorgasbord of City services. A committee (which included no community members) was said to be working on implementation. After a few months, nothing more was heard of the program.
The Beat 6 Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council has initiated what Mayor Dellums and his department heads seemed unable to do. On August 14th, the NCPC led a tour of Beat 6 for staff from various agencies. Along for the ride were representatives from CalTrans, Code Compliance, Public Works, OPD, the Alameda County Probation Office, Councilmember Nadel’s office, the Oakland Housing Authority, the West Oakland Project Area Committee and West Street Watch. (The Mayor’s Office was invited to send a representative, but no-one came.) Everyone piled into a van and took a two-hour ride, block by block, through most of the beat.
The group slowed or stopped frequently to discuss problems with individual properties, including graffiti, trash, illegal uses, weeds, crime, toxic contamination, vacant and boarded up conditions, untended yards, loitering, nuisances, potholes, dumping, abandoned cars, noise, stray animals, nonfunctioning streetlights, liquor stores, homeless encampments, litter, broken sidewalks, overflowing dumpsters, theft of recyclables, and the many other characteristics that blight our neighborhood. Participants were given clipboards to take notes, in the hope that the agencies represented would start to address specific conditions under their jurisdiction.
The fact that the leadership is coming from volunteer community members rather than paid elected leaders in itself is a sad comment on the current paralysis in Oakland City government.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Eli's Mile High Club re-opens--but will it rock?
Eli’s Mile High Club, 3629 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, which closed May 1st due to a rent dispute between then-club owner Sam Marshall and the property owners, has re-opened under new management. The club is open M-Th 5 pm – 2 am and Fri-Sun from noon to 2 am. The bar boasts cheap drinks on certain nights, as well as a tasty Tillamook cheddarburger and fries.
But will the club offer live music, as it has for much of the past 34 years? The answer will depend upon the City’s response to club owner Geoffrey Melville’s application for a cabaret permit. A hearing on the application will be held on Thursday, August 28th at 3 pm in City Hall Hearing Room 2.
Several neighbors of the club are opposed to the granting of the permit. One neighbor writes, “The last thing we want is loud shows, loud patrons, no parking and all the other BS that comes with this type of venue.” However, this neighbor predicts “If the club is run well, adequately sound proofed and supplied patron parking they would have no complaints from me and most of the neighbors.”
Another neighbor near the club is taping the late-night noise from patrons’ voices, as heard in his bathroom, to demonstrate the noise impact on his privacy. Much of the neighbors’ ire references transgressions of previous club owners, who apparently ignored valid concerns and allegedly violated various city ordinances.
The club has a rich history as the “home of the West Coast blues,” and in the 1980’s was patronized by celebrities who came to hear national blues artists. It is located in the shadow of the MacArthur freeway maze, and is across the street from the BART railroad tracks. Two AC transit lines run on MLK from 6 AM until as late as midnight—it's a noisy location by any reasonable standard.
Club manager Jason is hopeful that the neighbors will choose to work with the club’s management to find satisfactory solutions to their valid concerns. When discussing these issues recently with a local resident, he pointed out thick soundproofing, said to cost $50,000, that had been installed around the stage some years back in an attempt to alleviate the noise problem. It will be augmented, Jason said, by rubber floor mats that may help to absorb the bass. Jason plans to hold a community meeting at the club in advance of the cabaret permit hearing, to air neighbors’ concerns and start a dialogue to address those issues.
A member of the West Oakland Project Area Committee has suggested that redevelopment funds could be used to further soundproof the club, if indeed noise from inside the club is a valid concern and if soundproofing would effectively resolve the noise issue. City staff responded that such improvements might be considered under the Tenant Improvement Program, but at best the City would only pay half the cost. Other ideas that community members have offered are purchase of a large lot adjacent to the club for parking, limiting hours of operation or ages of patrons, and running a shuttle to BART or another parking lot.
If the club closes, it might well result in yet another boarded-up target for copper thieves, returning neither cultural value to the community, nor business tax revenue to the City. It would seem to be in the best interest of the community to find solutions that would make this historic club a community benefit.
But will the club offer live music, as it has for much of the past 34 years? The answer will depend upon the City’s response to club owner Geoffrey Melville’s application for a cabaret permit. A hearing on the application will be held on Thursday, August 28th at 3 pm in City Hall Hearing Room 2.
Several neighbors of the club are opposed to the granting of the permit. One neighbor writes, “The last thing we want is loud shows, loud patrons, no parking and all the other BS that comes with this type of venue.” However, this neighbor predicts “If the club is run well, adequately sound proofed and supplied patron parking they would have no complaints from me and most of the neighbors.”
Another neighbor near the club is taping the late-night noise from patrons’ voices, as heard in his bathroom, to demonstrate the noise impact on his privacy. Much of the neighbors’ ire references transgressions of previous club owners, who apparently ignored valid concerns and allegedly violated various city ordinances.
The club has a rich history as the “home of the West Coast blues,” and in the 1980’s was patronized by celebrities who came to hear national blues artists. It is located in the shadow of the MacArthur freeway maze, and is across the street from the BART railroad tracks. Two AC transit lines run on MLK from 6 AM until as late as midnight—it's a noisy location by any reasonable standard.
Club manager Jason is hopeful that the neighbors will choose to work with the club’s management to find satisfactory solutions to their valid concerns. When discussing these issues recently with a local resident, he pointed out thick soundproofing, said to cost $50,000, that had been installed around the stage some years back in an attempt to alleviate the noise problem. It will be augmented, Jason said, by rubber floor mats that may help to absorb the bass. Jason plans to hold a community meeting at the club in advance of the cabaret permit hearing, to air neighbors’ concerns and start a dialogue to address those issues.
A member of the West Oakland Project Area Committee has suggested that redevelopment funds could be used to further soundproof the club, if indeed noise from inside the club is a valid concern and if soundproofing would effectively resolve the noise issue. City staff responded that such improvements might be considered under the Tenant Improvement Program, but at best the City would only pay half the cost. Other ideas that community members have offered are purchase of a large lot adjacent to the club for parking, limiting hours of operation or ages of patrons, and running a shuttle to BART or another parking lot.
If the club closes, it might well result in yet another boarded-up target for copper thieves, returning neither cultural value to the community, nor business tax revenue to the City. It would seem to be in the best interest of the community to find solutions that would make this historic club a community benefit.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Bike lanes on 40th Street--will they happen?
The City of Oakland’s Bicycle Master Plan of 2007 calls for Class 2 bike lanes on 40th Street between Adeline and MLK (among other places). This route lies within the West Oakland Redevelopment Project Area.
Currently, the street consists of a parking lane, six feet wide; a traffic lane, 12 feet wide; a second traffic lane, 14 feet wide; then the 16 foot median, then the two similar traffic lanes and parking lanes going in the other direction. The total street width, therefore, is 80 feet, not including sidewalks and curbs.
A recent MacArthur BART bicycle access study evaluated alternatives for bicycle routes to and from the BART station. In February 2008, the City of Oakland’s Transportation Services Division released results of this study funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This synopsis states “On 40th St between Market St and Webster St, the study recommends narrowing the 16-foot median by six feet to add bicycle lanes while maintaining two travel lanes in each direction.[1]”
The proposal calls for trimming the median by six feet, three feet on each side, leaving a ten foot median.
The minimum width for a travel lane on a street with buses is 11 feet; 12 feet is preferable[2]. The City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan states that “with parallel parking, the bicycle lane must be at least 5’ wide and the parking lane at least 7’ wide.”
So, the minimum street width in each direction is: 7 feet for parking, 5 feet for the bicycle lane, 11 feet each for two traffic lanes equals 34 feet in each direction.
Therefore, the plan will increase the parking lane from six feet wide to seven feet. It will add a five foot bike lane. It will trim the first car lane from 12 feet to 11 feet and the second car lane from 14 feet to 11 feet. It will trim three feet off each side of the 16 foot median.
We should support this proposal for many reasons:
The street is already an informal bicycle route to and from MacArthur BART. Striping dedicated bike lanes will make bicycle travel on the street safer.
Reducing the width of auto lanes has been demonstrated to calm traffic. People drive slower in narrower lanes.
Twelve of the 14 street trees in the median along this particular stretch should be able to be preserved. Only two trees will likely need to be removed due to shrinking the median from 16 feet to 10 feet.
Widening the parking lane and adding the bike lane will have the effect of pushing auto traffic away from the curb. It currently is dangerous to get into a parked car when traffic is flowing on the street. It will be safer if the moving cars are six feet farther away from the parked cars.
The sidewalk on much of 40th Street is absurdly narrow for the amount of pedestrian traffic on the street[3]. While this proposal does not directly address this shortcoming, it makes it safer for pedestrians to step into the street to avoid other pedestrians and to walk around cars parked in driveways[4]. It also will reduce the number of bicycles using the sidewalk.
The additional six feet of space between the curb and the first traffic lane will make it easier and safer for cars to park and to enter and exit garages.
Per Hui-Chang Li of the Community and Economic Development Agency (“CEDA”), West Oakland redevelopment funds could be used for bike lanes on the south side of 40th Street between Adeline and MLK[5], but not the north side, because the project area ends at 40th Street. Jason Patton, a Program Analyst with CEDA’s Planning and Zoning Services, estimates that some $250,000 might be needed to create the bike lane on the south side of 40th Street within the West Oakland Project Area[6].
CEDA anticipates tackling the entire project at once, not proceeding in phases. Therefore, design activities need to occur first, and construction is not likely to begin before 2010. It is anticipated that funding will come from multiple sources, including grants, redevelopment funds and BART station access funds.
Considering that the number of pedestrians using 40th Street to go to and from BART currently outnumbers the number of bicyclists, it would be prudent to ask if pedestrian improvements could or should be a part of the project as well. Undergrounding the utilities, which are on the same, heavily trafficked side of the street as the BART station, would free up sidewalk space for pedestrian movement.
(Due to the presence of utility poles, at many points on the south side of 40th Street the available sidewalk width is barely 3 feet, not the “6 to 15 feet” width that the Oakland Bicycle Master Plan trumpets as the typical sidewalk width in the City.)
Footnotes:
[1] MacArthur BART Bicycle Access Study, City of Oakland, February 2008, p. 2.
[2] (This is per the minutes of the Oakland Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, 11/17/05.) http://www.oaklandpw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=1388
[3] The sidewalk is frequently 60” in width, not counting the curb. The Oakland Bicycle Master Plan draft EIR, March 2007, states “Sidewalks and walkways generally range from 6 to 15 feet in width. . .” (p. 4.A-1) and they don’t count the curb. So why is the 40th Street sidewalk only 60” wide?
[4] “Bicycle Lanes (Class 2) provide an added buffer between the sidewalk and the motor vehicle travel lanes.” Oakland Bicycle Master Plan, p. 4.A-17
[5] Specifically, the West Oakland Project Area’s northeastern boundary is one parcel west of the intersection of 40th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. The Café Dejena building is in the Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo redevelopment area.
[6] The entire project includes, of course, the bike lane on the north side of 40th St., but also bike lanes on 41st Street to Piedmont Avenue, and bike lanes on West MacArthur Blvd. Between Highway 24 and Broadway. Total estimated cost of the project is $800,000.
Currently, the street consists of a parking lane, six feet wide; a traffic lane, 12 feet wide; a second traffic lane, 14 feet wide; then the 16 foot median, then the two similar traffic lanes and parking lanes going in the other direction. The total street width, therefore, is 80 feet, not including sidewalks and curbs.
A recent MacArthur BART bicycle access study evaluated alternatives for bicycle routes to and from the BART station. In February 2008, the City of Oakland’s Transportation Services Division released results of this study funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This synopsis states “On 40th St between Market St and Webster St, the study recommends narrowing the 16-foot median by six feet to add bicycle lanes while maintaining two travel lanes in each direction.[1]”
The proposal calls for trimming the median by six feet, three feet on each side, leaving a ten foot median.
The minimum width for a travel lane on a street with buses is 11 feet; 12 feet is preferable[2]. The City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan states that “with parallel parking, the bicycle lane must be at least 5’ wide and the parking lane at least 7’ wide.”
So, the minimum street width in each direction is: 7 feet for parking, 5 feet for the bicycle lane, 11 feet each for two traffic lanes equals 34 feet in each direction.
Therefore, the plan will increase the parking lane from six feet wide to seven feet. It will add a five foot bike lane. It will trim the first car lane from 12 feet to 11 feet and the second car lane from 14 feet to 11 feet. It will trim three feet off each side of the 16 foot median.
We should support this proposal for many reasons:
The street is already an informal bicycle route to and from MacArthur BART. Striping dedicated bike lanes will make bicycle travel on the street safer.
Reducing the width of auto lanes has been demonstrated to calm traffic. People drive slower in narrower lanes.
Twelve of the 14 street trees in the median along this particular stretch should be able to be preserved. Only two trees will likely need to be removed due to shrinking the median from 16 feet to 10 feet.
Widening the parking lane and adding the bike lane will have the effect of pushing auto traffic away from the curb. It currently is dangerous to get into a parked car when traffic is flowing on the street. It will be safer if the moving cars are six feet farther away from the parked cars.
The sidewalk on much of 40th Street is absurdly narrow for the amount of pedestrian traffic on the street[3]. While this proposal does not directly address this shortcoming, it makes it safer for pedestrians to step into the street to avoid other pedestrians and to walk around cars parked in driveways[4]. It also will reduce the number of bicycles using the sidewalk.
The additional six feet of space between the curb and the first traffic lane will make it easier and safer for cars to park and to enter and exit garages.
Per Hui-Chang Li of the Community and Economic Development Agency (“CEDA”), West Oakland redevelopment funds could be used for bike lanes on the south side of 40th Street between Adeline and MLK[5], but not the north side, because the project area ends at 40th Street. Jason Patton, a Program Analyst with CEDA’s Planning and Zoning Services, estimates that some $250,000 might be needed to create the bike lane on the south side of 40th Street within the West Oakland Project Area[6].
CEDA anticipates tackling the entire project at once, not proceeding in phases. Therefore, design activities need to occur first, and construction is not likely to begin before 2010. It is anticipated that funding will come from multiple sources, including grants, redevelopment funds and BART station access funds.
Considering that the number of pedestrians using 40th Street to go to and from BART currently outnumbers the number of bicyclists, it would be prudent to ask if pedestrian improvements could or should be a part of the project as well. Undergrounding the utilities, which are on the same, heavily trafficked side of the street as the BART station, would free up sidewalk space for pedestrian movement.
(Due to the presence of utility poles, at many points on the south side of 40th Street the available sidewalk width is barely 3 feet, not the “6 to 15 feet” width that the Oakland Bicycle Master Plan trumpets as the typical sidewalk width in the City.)
Footnotes:
[1] MacArthur BART Bicycle Access Study, City of Oakland, February 2008, p. 2.
[2] (This is per the minutes of the Oakland Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, 11/17/05.) http://www.oaklandpw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=1388
[3] The sidewalk is frequently 60” in width, not counting the curb. The Oakland Bicycle Master Plan draft EIR, March 2007, states “Sidewalks and walkways generally range from 6 to 15 feet in width. . .” (p. 4.A-1) and they don’t count the curb. So why is the 40th Street sidewalk only 60” wide?
[4] “Bicycle Lanes (Class 2) provide an added buffer between the sidewalk and the motor vehicle travel lanes.” Oakland Bicycle Master Plan, p. 4.A-17
[5] Specifically, the West Oakland Project Area’s northeastern boundary is one parcel west of the intersection of 40th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. The Café Dejena building is in the Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo redevelopment area.
[6] The entire project includes, of course, the bike lane on the north side of 40th St., but also bike lanes on 41st Street to Piedmont Avenue, and bike lanes on West MacArthur Blvd. Between Highway 24 and Broadway. Total estimated cost of the project is $800,000.
Friday, August 1, 2008
OHA's Step in the Right Direction
Greetings JAMMI!
Oakland has 254 scattered Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) public housing sites (not referring to Section 8). Many of these small public housing properties like those of your typical 4-unit complexes are strewn across all of Oakland, but especially in the flatlands. OHA recognizes the challenge of managing so many properties with limited number of staff from their OHA Police, Maintenance, and other supporting departments. As a result, many of these properties are currently blighted, crime-infested cancers that plague our communities.
West Street Watch (WSW) experienced two of these poorly managed buildings that housed and attracted significant drug and other illegal activities. Through a tedious and lengthy process, OHA was forced by WSW actions to evict the drug dealers and rehabilitate the deteriorated buildings. Our community, like all Oakland communities, deserve peace and should not need to take such extreme measures to resolve OHA problems.
WSW is encouraged to see new OHA leadership like Eric Johnson take control and move to create positive changes. One of his initiatives is to request from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to remove a restriction tied to OHA public housing properties that require that they be used solely for public housing. As reported by Mr. Johnson at the NCPC Beat 6X July 24th meeting, removing the restriction will allow OHA to consolidate the number of their properties that they would have to manage. Possibilities include demolishing some properties or selling others to developers. Furthermore, any displaced OHA public housing tenants will be provided Section 8 vouchers which can be used throughout all of the United States, excluding Hawaii.
WSW believes that OHA is taking a step in the right direction. WSW supports this innovative idea to reduce the number of scattered, uncontrollable OHA public housing properties. This will result in a manageable number of remaining properties. Please see below this post OHA's Frequently Asked Questions. A draft Application can be found at:
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/DRAFTDispositionApplication-OHA-ScatteredSites.pdf
Please provide your endorsing comments to remove the public housing requirement to Ann Dunn, OHA Senior Policy Analyst at adunn@oakha.org. Comments are due September 6, 2008 and will aid in the approval of OHA’s application to HUD.
BOARD MEMBERS
WEST STREET WATCH
OHA'S FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Regarding the Planned Disposition of Public Housing Scattered Sites
Question: What does Disposition mean?
Response: Disposition is the transfer or sale of a property from one entity to another. For the purpose of the proposed scattered site disposition, OHA plans to sell the scattered site properties to a non-profit corporation. The non-profit will be an affiliate of the Oakland Housing Authority and the Oakland Housing Authority Board of Commissioners will have a role in the decision making process with regard to the properties in the future.
Question: Why is the Oakland Housing Authority considering the disposition of its scattered site units?
Response: To increase and preserve the affordable housing opportunities for low-income families in Oakland. Over the last several years, the Oakland Housing Authority has received far less money from HUD to operate its public housing units than the actual cost of operating such units. One major goal of removing the units from the public housing program is to have enough income from Section 8 to manage, maintain and repair the properties.
Question: Why is OHA going to transfer the units to a non-profit corporation?
Response: The transfer of ownership to an affiliated non-profit organization is a necessary step to take the units out of the public housing program. The OHA Board of Commissioners will still have a role in making decisions about the properties.
Question: Why is ORA submitting a Disposition Application first and then submitting a request for vouchers only if the Disposition Application is approved? Why not ask HUD for both disposition approval and vouchers at the same time?
Response: HUD regulations require that the request for Section 8 vouchers be made only after a Disposition Application has been approved.
Question: What is the timeline for the disposition process and how soon will OHA know whether its application to HUD has been approved?
Response: There is no way to predict how long HUD may take to respond to the Disposition Application. As a very rough estimate, OHA has been advised that it may take three months or more before there is a decision. If HUD approves our application, it may be another year, or more, before vouchers are issued.
Question: What happens i f HUD does not approve the Disposition Application?
Response: If HUD does not approve of the disposition application, the units will remain in the public housing program and nothing will change.
Question: What happens if HUD does approve the Disposition Application but does not approve the request for Section 8 vouchers?
Response: OHA is making clear in its application to HUD that it will not move forward with the disposition if Section 8 vouchers are not provided. If the disposition application is approved, but the request for vouchers is not, OHA will not move forward with the disposition and the units will remain as public housing.
Question: If the disposition application is approved, and vouchers are issued, will current residents of the scattered site properties be required to move?
Response: No! No one will be required to relocate. Any family in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with their lease) who wishes to remain in their unit after vouchers have been issued may do so.
Question: Who will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the units after the disposition?
Response: The non-profit corporation will be responsible for management and maintenance of the units.
Question: What do scattered site residents need to do now to get a voucher?
Response: There is nothing that needs to be done now. There is no application to complete, nor is it necessary to get on a waiting list.
Question: What if scattered site residents missed the public meetings where the disposition application was discussed? Will this hurt their chance of getting a Section 8 voucher?
Response: The purpose of the public meetings is to share information about the planned disposition and to hear resident feedback. Attendance at the meetings is not required and missing the meetings will not affect your ability to get a voucher in the future.
Question: If a family decides to stay in their current scattered site unit after they have been issued c Section 8 voucher, will the family be responsible for additional costs?
Response: No. Currently public housing residents are responsible to pay for their PG&E bill and OHA pays for water and Waste management (trash) costs. This will not change if vouchers are issued.
Question: What resources will the Oakland Housing Authority provide to families who wish to move after vouchers are issued?
Response: For a period of time after vouchers have been issued, OHA will pay for reasonable moving expenses for any family who wishes to move.
Question: If a resident chooses to move, will OHA provide money for security deposits?
Response: OHA will not provide money for security deposits_ OHA will provide information about organizations that may help with security deposits, but residents should be aware that help with security deposits is very limited. If a family remains in their current unit, no additional security deposit will be required.
Question: If a family decides to stay in their current scattered site unit after they have been issued a Section 8 voucher will their rent increase?
Response: Like public housing, Section 8 rent is based on income. However, unlike public housing, there are no flat rents in the Section 8 program. If a family decides to stay in their current scattered site unit, OHA will continue to calculate rent utilizing the public housing formula, including using flat rents. If the family later decides to move to a non-OHA unit, the Section 8 formula will be used to determine rent, which may result in a higher or lower rent amount, depending on the family's income and the rent of the new unit.
Question: What will happen to families who are not eligible for Section 8 vouchers?
Response: Any family in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with their lease) who is not eligible for Section 8, or for whatever reason does not want to participate in the Section 8 program, will be provided the choice of moving to another public housing unit outside of the scattered site inventory or remaining in their current unit with a lease and rent amount determined under the rules of public housing. OHA will work with each family to ensure they understand all their options and make an informed decision.
Question: What are reasons a family may not be eligible for Section 8?
Response: Families in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with their lease) with income that is at or below the income limit for the Public Housing Program (80% of AMI) will be eligible for the Section 8 Voucher. The Section 8 Program is generally limited to families earning up to 50% of AMI, but because scattered site residents will be treated as "continuing participants" OHA will be able to provide vouchers up to the 80% AMI limit. A family with income above 80% of AMI will not be eligible for Section 8. If this is the case, OHA will provide the family the choice of moving to another public housing unit or remaining in their current unit with a lease and rent utilizing the public housing formula, including using flat rents. Any resident who is not in good standing (not current on their rent or not in compliance with the terms of their lease) will not be eligible for Section 8. OHA encourages any family who is not currently in good standing to work with their property manager to resolve any issues, including entering into a repayment agreement for any back rent owed to OHA.
Question: How will OHA decide who gets the vouchers first? Is there a waiting listfor the residents of the scattered site units for the vouchers?
Response: OHA does not know at this point if HUD will provide vouchers all at once or will provide vouchers over several federal budget years. If vouchers are issued over time, OHA will develop a process for implementing the program property by property, based on the number of vouchers received as well as the physical needs of the property.
Question: How will residents know if and when the disposition application is approved and if and when Section 8 vouchers are awarded by HUD?
Response: OHA will keep residents informed of the status of the application process through notices to all scattered site residents when anything significant occurs. These notices will also be posted on the OHA website.
Question: If a family is given a Section 8 voucher, will it be for the same size unit as the family lives in currently?
Response: Vouchers are issued based on the current size of the household. If you choose to move with your voucher, your new voucher will be issued for your current household size, and any over or under housing of households will be corrected then. Families will be briefed to explain that they may have some flexibility for renting different sized units under Section 8.
Question: What will happen to families who have adult children living in the unit when the vouchers are issued? Will OHA issue more than one voucher per family?
Response: OHA will only receive one voucher per household. The voucher will be available only to the head of household on the current lease.
Question: Once (and if) the vouchers are issued, will families using them have to stay in Oakland?
Response: The vouchers will be like any other Section 8 vouchers. Once received, families will be able to move anyplace where vouchers are accepted (currently, any state in the United States, except Hawaii).
Question: Is the Oakland Housing Authority reopening its waiting list for the Section 8 Program?
Response: OHA is not reopening the Section 8 waiting list at this time.
Question: After disposition, who will be eligible to live in the units once a unit becomes vacant?
Response: Currently the units are available to families earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) (currently, 80% of AMI is $66,250 for a family of four). After disposition, the units will be further restricted to families earning up to 60% of AMI. Any family currently living in the units and earning over 60% of AMI will be allowed to stay in the unit, or to transfer to another public housing unit. Once units become vacant, any future occupants will be restricted to the 60% of AMI income limit. As units become vacant, OHA will provide first priority to families with Section 8 vouchers and may utilize project-based Section 8 resources to keep the units affordable.
Question: In the long term, what does the Oakland Housing Authority plan to do with the scattered site properties?
Response: Over the next five to ten years, or perhaps longer, OHA will look at each property on an individual basis to determine what options there are to preserve, repair or replace the scattered site units. Any future planning for the scattered site units will be done through a public process and witl resident consultation. In addition, the OHA Board of Commissioners will have a role in approving any plans for the scattered site properties.
Oakland has 254 scattered Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) public housing sites (not referring to Section 8). Many of these small public housing properties like those of your typical 4-unit complexes are strewn across all of Oakland, but especially in the flatlands. OHA recognizes the challenge of managing so many properties with limited number of staff from their OHA Police, Maintenance, and other supporting departments. As a result, many of these properties are currently blighted, crime-infested cancers that plague our communities.
West Street Watch (WSW) experienced two of these poorly managed buildings that housed and attracted significant drug and other illegal activities. Through a tedious and lengthy process, OHA was forced by WSW actions to evict the drug dealers and rehabilitate the deteriorated buildings. Our community, like all Oakland communities, deserve peace and should not need to take such extreme measures to resolve OHA problems.
WSW is encouraged to see new OHA leadership like Eric Johnson take control and move to create positive changes. One of his initiatives is to request from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to remove a restriction tied to OHA public housing properties that require that they be used solely for public housing. As reported by Mr. Johnson at the NCPC Beat 6X July 24th meeting, removing the restriction will allow OHA to consolidate the number of their properties that they would have to manage. Possibilities include demolishing some properties or selling others to developers. Furthermore, any displaced OHA public housing tenants will be provided Section 8 vouchers which can be used throughout all of the United States, excluding Hawaii.
WSW believes that OHA is taking a step in the right direction. WSW supports this innovative idea to reduce the number of scattered, uncontrollable OHA public housing properties. This will result in a manageable number of remaining properties. Please see below this post OHA's Frequently Asked Questions. A draft Application can be found at:
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/DRAFTDispositionApplication-OHA-ScatteredSites.pdf
Please provide your endorsing comments to remove the public housing requirement to Ann Dunn, OHA Senior Policy Analyst at adunn@oakha.org. Comments are due September 6, 2008 and will aid in the approval of OHA’s application to HUD.
BOARD MEMBERS
WEST STREET WATCH
OHA'S FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Regarding the Planned Disposition of Public Housing Scattered Sites
Question: What does Disposition mean?
Response: Disposition is the transfer or sale of a property from one entity to another. For the purpose of the proposed scattered site disposition, OHA plans to sell the scattered site properties to a non-profit corporation. The non-profit will be an affiliate of the Oakland Housing Authority and the Oakland Housing Authority Board of Commissioners will have a role in the decision making process with regard to the properties in the future.
Question: Why is the Oakland Housing Authority considering the disposition of its scattered site units?
Response: To increase and preserve the affordable housing opportunities for low-income families in Oakland. Over the last several years, the Oakland Housing Authority has received far less money from HUD to operate its public housing units than the actual cost of operating such units. One major goal of removing the units from the public housing program is to have enough income from Section 8 to manage, maintain and repair the properties.
Question: Why is OHA going to transfer the units to a non-profit corporation?
Response: The transfer of ownership to an affiliated non-profit organization is a necessary step to take the units out of the public housing program. The OHA Board of Commissioners will still have a role in making decisions about the properties.
Question: Why is ORA submitting a Disposition Application first and then submitting a request for vouchers only if the Disposition Application is approved? Why not ask HUD for both disposition approval and vouchers at the same time?
Response: HUD regulations require that the request for Section 8 vouchers be made only after a Disposition Application has been approved.
Question: What is the timeline for the disposition process and how soon will OHA know whether its application to HUD has been approved?
Response: There is no way to predict how long HUD may take to respond to the Disposition Application. As a very rough estimate, OHA has been advised that it may take three months or more before there is a decision. If HUD approves our application, it may be another year, or more, before vouchers are issued.
Question: What happens i f HUD does not approve the Disposition Application?
Response: If HUD does not approve of the disposition application, the units will remain in the public housing program and nothing will change.
Question: What happens if HUD does approve the Disposition Application but does not approve the request for Section 8 vouchers?
Response: OHA is making clear in its application to HUD that it will not move forward with the disposition if Section 8 vouchers are not provided. If the disposition application is approved, but the request for vouchers is not, OHA will not move forward with the disposition and the units will remain as public housing.
Question: If the disposition application is approved, and vouchers are issued, will current residents of the scattered site properties be required to move?
Response: No! No one will be required to relocate. Any family in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with their lease) who wishes to remain in their unit after vouchers have been issued may do so.
Question: Who will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the units after the disposition?
Response: The non-profit corporation will be responsible for management and maintenance of the units.
Question: What do scattered site residents need to do now to get a voucher?
Response: There is nothing that needs to be done now. There is no application to complete, nor is it necessary to get on a waiting list.
Question: What if scattered site residents missed the public meetings where the disposition application was discussed? Will this hurt their chance of getting a Section 8 voucher?
Response: The purpose of the public meetings is to share information about the planned disposition and to hear resident feedback. Attendance at the meetings is not required and missing the meetings will not affect your ability to get a voucher in the future.
Question: If a family decides to stay in their current scattered site unit after they have been issued c Section 8 voucher, will the family be responsible for additional costs?
Response: No. Currently public housing residents are responsible to pay for their PG&E bill and OHA pays for water and Waste management (trash) costs. This will not change if vouchers are issued.
Question: What resources will the Oakland Housing Authority provide to families who wish to move after vouchers are issued?
Response: For a period of time after vouchers have been issued, OHA will pay for reasonable moving expenses for any family who wishes to move.
Question: If a resident chooses to move, will OHA provide money for security deposits?
Response: OHA will not provide money for security deposits_ OHA will provide information about organizations that may help with security deposits, but residents should be aware that help with security deposits is very limited. If a family remains in their current unit, no additional security deposit will be required.
Question: If a family decides to stay in their current scattered site unit after they have been issued a Section 8 voucher will their rent increase?
Response: Like public housing, Section 8 rent is based on income. However, unlike public housing, there are no flat rents in the Section 8 program. If a family decides to stay in their current scattered site unit, OHA will continue to calculate rent utilizing the public housing formula, including using flat rents. If the family later decides to move to a non-OHA unit, the Section 8 formula will be used to determine rent, which may result in a higher or lower rent amount, depending on the family's income and the rent of the new unit.
Question: What will happen to families who are not eligible for Section 8 vouchers?
Response: Any family in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with their lease) who is not eligible for Section 8, or for whatever reason does not want to participate in the Section 8 program, will be provided the choice of moving to another public housing unit outside of the scattered site inventory or remaining in their current unit with a lease and rent amount determined under the rules of public housing. OHA will work with each family to ensure they understand all their options and make an informed decision.
Question: What are reasons a family may not be eligible for Section 8?
Response: Families in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with their lease) with income that is at or below the income limit for the Public Housing Program (80% of AMI) will be eligible for the Section 8 Voucher. The Section 8 Program is generally limited to families earning up to 50% of AMI, but because scattered site residents will be treated as "continuing participants" OHA will be able to provide vouchers up to the 80% AMI limit. A family with income above 80% of AMI will not be eligible for Section 8. If this is the case, OHA will provide the family the choice of moving to another public housing unit or remaining in their current unit with a lease and rent utilizing the public housing formula, including using flat rents. Any resident who is not in good standing (not current on their rent or not in compliance with the terms of their lease) will not be eligible for Section 8. OHA encourages any family who is not currently in good standing to work with their property manager to resolve any issues, including entering into a repayment agreement for any back rent owed to OHA.
Question: How will OHA decide who gets the vouchers first? Is there a waiting listfor the residents of the scattered site units for the vouchers?
Response: OHA does not know at this point if HUD will provide vouchers all at once or will provide vouchers over several federal budget years. If vouchers are issued over time, OHA will develop a process for implementing the program property by property, based on the number of vouchers received as well as the physical needs of the property.
Question: How will residents know if and when the disposition application is approved and if and when Section 8 vouchers are awarded by HUD?
Response: OHA will keep residents informed of the status of the application process through notices to all scattered site residents when anything significant occurs. These notices will also be posted on the OHA website.
Question: If a family is given a Section 8 voucher, will it be for the same size unit as the family lives in currently?
Response: Vouchers are issued based on the current size of the household. If you choose to move with your voucher, your new voucher will be issued for your current household size, and any over or under housing of households will be corrected then. Families will be briefed to explain that they may have some flexibility for renting different sized units under Section 8.
Question: What will happen to families who have adult children living in the unit when the vouchers are issued? Will OHA issue more than one voucher per family?
Response: OHA will only receive one voucher per household. The voucher will be available only to the head of household on the current lease.
Question: Once (and if) the vouchers are issued, will families using them have to stay in Oakland?
Response: The vouchers will be like any other Section 8 vouchers. Once received, families will be able to move anyplace where vouchers are accepted (currently, any state in the United States, except Hawaii).
Question: Is the Oakland Housing Authority reopening its waiting list for the Section 8 Program?
Response: OHA is not reopening the Section 8 waiting list at this time.
Question: After disposition, who will be eligible to live in the units once a unit becomes vacant?
Response: Currently the units are available to families earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) (currently, 80% of AMI is $66,250 for a family of four). After disposition, the units will be further restricted to families earning up to 60% of AMI. Any family currently living in the units and earning over 60% of AMI will be allowed to stay in the unit, or to transfer to another public housing unit. Once units become vacant, any future occupants will be restricted to the 60% of AMI income limit. As units become vacant, OHA will provide first priority to families with Section 8 vouchers and may utilize project-based Section 8 resources to keep the units affordable.
Question: In the long term, what does the Oakland Housing Authority plan to do with the scattered site properties?
Response: Over the next five to ten years, or perhaps longer, OHA will look at each property on an individual basis to determine what options there are to preserve, repair or replace the scattered site units. Any future planning for the scattered site units will be done through a public process and witl resident consultation. In addition, the OHA Board of Commissioners will have a role in approving any plans for the scattered site properties.
Friday, July 11, 2008
OPD proposes surveillance camera system
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)