District 2 City Council Race

KEY FACTS

Last Date to Register: May 2

Election Date:  Mail-in Ballots due May 17

Ballots mailed to voters between April 18 and May 7

Registered voters in District 2:  27,109

For more information about the election: http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/05/17/ca/alm/race/1/

On February 28, 2005, all nine candidates for the District 2 Council vacancy created by the resignation of Danny Wan participated in a Candidates' Forum, moderated by the League of Women Voters of Oakland held at the Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church. The debate was videotaped and over the next several weeks, we will be gradually uploading it to this site beginning with the candidates' opening and closing statements. In addition, the candidates are being asked to submit in-depth answers to two questions posed each week through mid-April. We do have a list of prospective questions turned in at two of the previous debates, but would welcome additional input. Please send your queries to info@greatergrandlake.org.

(We are providing the raw answers from the candidates, unedited or modified in any way. The text has been formatted for the web.)

March 07, 2005. Question 1 - How would you seek to guarantee that development in Oakland benefits current residents, not just outside developers and businesses?

March 07, 2005. Question 2 - Please comment on the Oakland City Business Tax and how it has been recently applied?

March 11, 2005. Question 3 - What is your position on property owner/tenant rights issues including the rent control ordinance?

March 11, 2005. Question 4 - Please comment on the homeless population and possible solutions.

March 18, 2005. Question 5 - Should the City of Oakland require additional revenues from the Port and should it, in general, exercise greater control over Port operations? If so, how?

March 18, 2005. Question 6 - How can the "Smart Growth" principles advocated by environmentalists be applied in District 2?

March 25, 2005. Question 7 - How would you minimize the negative impact on City of Oakland services posed by the upcoming budget crunch?

March 25, 2005. Question 8 - What changes, if any, would you advocate to reduce the use of fossil fuels in city-operated buildings and vehicles?

April 2, 2005. Question 9 - Please describe and give an example of your experience working with community residents and organizations on issues affecting the community.

April 2, 2005. Question 10 - What is your answer to the one question you've been eagerly anticipating, but have not yet been asked?

April 15, 2005. Question 11 - Please describe and give an example of your experience working with community residents and organizations on issues affecting the community.

April 15, 2005. Question 12 - What is your answer to the one question you've been eagerly anticipating, but have not yet been asked?

---

Question 11: Regarding the Oak to Ninth Project, please comment on the overall differences between the Estuary Plan and what has been proposed by Oakland Harbor Partners and also very specifically on the fate of the Ninth Avenue Terminal.

 

David Kakishiba

The Estuary Policy plan envisions Oak-to-Ninth to be a major new open space and recreation asset that will be of regional scale and significance. This vision would be achieved by converting much of the land used now for limited industrial purposes into a network of waterfront parks, trails, and aquatic-based recreational operations. The Plan also envisions restoring and re-using the historic 9th Avenue Terminal building (or portion thereof) for related and complementary recreational and cultural purposes.

Oakland Harbor Partners proposes to build on the 63 acre Oak-to-Ninth property:

• 3,100 of market-rate condominiums, some of which will be constructed as 20-story high-rise towers;
• 200,000 square feet of commercial retail space;
• few large open space parks and limited public access to the waterfront;
• little to no preservation of the 9th Avenue Terminal

Oakland Harbor Partners originally proposed to build 1700 housing units, of which 200 were to be affordable. This project scope was the basis for the appraisal of the 62 acres of Port of Oakland property.

As it stands now, the proposed OHP project fundamentally overturns the Estuary Policy Plan. In order to move forward with construction, the City Council will have to amend the city's General Plan and grant OHP significant planning variances.

I envision Oak-to-Ninth to include a reasonable level of housing, particularly family housing that is affordable to households living in nearby San Antonio, Eastlake, and Chinatown neighborhoods, that would not compromise the basic concept of a regional recreation asset and open space. I envision the 9th Avenue Terminal as a restored structure serving as a vibrant hub for cultural and recreational activities.

I will continue to work to strengthen an active alliance between flatland neighbors, open space advocates, environmentalists, and labor to transform Oak-to-Ninth into a waterfront jewel that all of Oakland's residents will be proud.

 

Shirley Gee

As I have consistently stated during this campaign, the Estuary Plan is the end product of a long and extensive review by the citizens of Oakland on how "they" would like to see the waterfront of Oakland developed. If we are to respect the wishes of citizens of Oakland and the process which took well over 5 years to conduct and complete, we need to hold the Estuary Plan "sacred" and require developers to design their projects within the context of the Estuary Plan.

For this to happen, the citizens of District 2 will need a leader who understands the term, "public trust". I do. Tangentially, the General Plan, which determines the zoning of land in Oakland , took well over 10 years to achieve after hundreds of public meetings involving engaged citizens of Oakland . These two Plans, delivered to the City Council, as the embodiment of the citizen's vision for their City must be used as the contextual basis for any development within Oakland and the leadership of this City needs to deliver on the citizens' vision for Oakland .

Those who are trying to wiggle out of following the Estuary Plan and the General Plan are disingenuous when they say that these two plans are "outdated" and inconsistent with the needs of Oakland today. If this were true, then there would be no point to any of the current public meetings underway to discuss the Oak to Ninth project. Why? Because our local politicians would set aside any input from the community anyway when it becomes expedite to accommodate developers down the road.

Consider. If public input is merely a perfunctory task to be set aside by politicians at will, what is the point of public input? To provide political cover to politicians who can say there was a public process (i.e., just so politicians can say there was public input)? Are citizens merely a prop for the convenience of politicians? As a local, concerned citizen with a long history here in Oakland and an even longer corporate memory, I think not. The difference between a politician and a public servant is that the former consider citizen involvement a burden to overcome and the latter considers citizen involvement an absolute essential part of the public dialogue to find solutions that actually meets the needs of citizens in District 2. I would be a public servant.

If the public process is to have real meaning, there must be political leaders who will act as the trustee for Plans that come forward from the community. Anything less is clearly not acting in the best interest of the "public trust". I, for one, understand this notion.

On the Ninth Avenue Terminal, I would like to see it preserved and to find an appropriate re-use of the facilities. A produce market, marinetime museum, art colony, exhibition center are just a few of the ideas that should be explored. A major difference between me and the other candidates is that I have a shared history with the City of Oakland and as such have a long memory of things that were and a hope for what things can be again. Because it is part of my heritage and can be a part of my children's legacy, I want to preserve as much of what Oakland use to be about even as we reach for the future. The Ninth Avenue Terminal was the original Port of Call for the Port of Oakland and is a part of our collective history. In the same way that we should honor our elders; we should be respectful of those things old and historic and treat them with the respect that they deserve.

With respect to the Oakland Harbor Partners design, I'm not impressed. Most especially I am disturbed by the 18 story towers and the density of condos that would require the public to wind through a "mouse maze" to get to the water. Although the Estuary Plan does not provide for private use of public lands, the Port of Oakland has clearly signaled that they will ignore the Estuary Plan and convert it from public to private use anyway. There is blame to share, however, with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), who did the citizens of Oakland a grave injustice when they permitted the Port to take waterfront land out of Trust and make it available for development. The citizens of Oakland have a fight on their hands and will need sustained leadership to take on these corporate interest and the political power structure who has already decided that "this is the way it is going to be".

I have said throughout this campaign; "beware of the 5th vote". This reiterates the importance of this Special Election in District 2 as we will be deciding who the "fifth vote" on the Council will be. If the existing players get a hold of that "fifth vote"; all of these discussions about the Estuary Plan; what we are going to do with the Ninth Avenue Terminal; use of the waterfront land, etc. will be moot because the citizens will be rendered irrelevant. A Strong Mayor format and the 5 votes on the Council is a virtual bloc against citizen participation.

 

Paul Garrison

The basic difference between the Estuary Plan and the Oak to Ninth Project is the fact that the Estuary Plan required more green and open space to be preserved than under the Oakland Harbors Partners' proposed plan. I attended the Community forum and spoke with the developers and reviewed the information that was provided to the attendees. However, the existing plan does have some good attributes. For example, the proposed plan will do the following:

1. the toxic waste will be cleaned up;
2. brownfield areas will turned into parks;
3. housing, including affordable and commercial space will be created where none exists;
4. Lake Merritt , the Estuary and the waterfront will be more closely linked together as part of a comprehensive plan;
5. the artists' enclave will not be removed or harmed in any way; and
6. historical part of the terminal will be preserved.

I consider myself to be a lay environmentalist and a preservationist. I have been an active member in Oakland Heritage Alliance in the past and I support many of their events. Having said that, this project does provide for cleaning up the environment and preservation of the most historically significant part of the Ninth Avenue terminal, the front facade. Given my environmentalist and preservationist bent, I like these aspects of the plan.

I would like to ensure that the plan include the following:

1. as much green space preserved as feasible;
2. preservation of natural wildlife habitats along the Estuary and waterfront;
3. preservation of as much of the 9th Avenue terminal as possible - can it be reused in its entirety?
4. affordable housing component as part of a mixed use development of moderate and luxury housing;
5. seamless link between Lake Merritt , the Estuary and the waterfront where walkers, bird-watchers, and runners can go from Lake Merritt to the waterfront safely. That will mean that we must find creative ways to move people over or under the railroad tracks and I-880.

Although it is not perfect, I believe the development will be good for Oakland . Take a look for yourself at the place where the development is proposed. Not only is it unattractive and underutilized, it is filled with environmental hazards! We can do better!

It's a good plan, but not a great plan - yet! With more good faith negotiation between the community and the developers, we can achieve a sustainable and economically feasible plan with enormous benefit to the community. I would like to see a plan that would ultimately allow Oaklanders of all socio-economic levels to enjoy the waterfront. Inclusion of all Oaklanders is a necessary component of all development and a significant component of my vision for a new Oakland . For more information concerning my vision for Oakland , please visit my website at www.peopleforpaulgarrison.org. I hope to help shepard a comprehensive plan into reality as the next Council member representing District 2.

 

Pat Kernighan

The Estuary Policy Plan for Oak to Ninth recommends transforming this area from a contaminated industrial backwater into a recreational centerpiece of the city, by creating a series of large open spaces connected by a waterfront trail.   The Plan also recommends some commercial development, but did not include housing.  The overarching concept of the EPP is to create a variety of recreational experiences for the public on open space uniquely situated next to the shoreline.  I definitely will insist that any proposed development on the Oak to Ninth site adhere to the basic mission of creating waterfront open space that is well-used by the general public, and offers a variety of recreational experiences.

The proposal by Signature Properties would create a mixed use development including 3,100 units of high density housing surrounded by significant amounts of public open space, but the total amount of open space is reduced by about a third from what was proposed in the Estuary Policy Plan.  I am not opposed to amending the EPP to allow housing instead of just other types of commercial uses, as Oakland needs more housing, both market rate as well as affordable.  However, I want to see the amount of  open space increased to what is recommended in the Estuary Policy Plan.

There are also a variety of other issues such as open sight lines to the waterfront and how the open space maintenance is to be paid for that will impact the actual public use of the spaces created.  I want to see these issues adequately addressed in alternative proposals by Signature.

The Estuary Policy Plan calls for retention of at least a portion of the Ninth Avenue Terminal as an historic asset.  I support retention of a portion of the old part of the building and creating a museum inside about its former use as a marine terminal.  Though in general I am in favor of historic preservation of old buildings and am a lover of beautiful architecture of all eras, I think that the public interest in creating usable waterfront open space outweighs the public interest in  preserving the entire Terminal.  The Terminal building, though historic, is not particularly attractive architecture, and  currently cuts off access and views of a large part of the shoreline and also would be extremely expensive to preserve.  I am open to ideas for adaptive reuse of old buildings, but at this point, I think the goal of creating usable waterfront open space is more compelling that retaining the entire Terminal.

In weighing the pros and cons of this project, the public should take into account the very real benefit of having this new open space paid for by private dollars, rather than by public dollars.  At present the only public funds available for open space creation along Oakland ’s waterfront are from Measure DD.  Those bond funds of about $100 million are substantially less than what will be needed to acquire land and create a bay trail and open space along the entire waterfront.  If the City waits until public money is available to develop the open space at Oak to Ninth envisioned by the Estuary Policy Plan, it is likely to be many decades before the Plan is realized.  This is not to say that the City should jump to accept any proposal put forth on Oak to Ninth, but merely to say the merits and shortcomings of any development proposal need to be weighed against the option of having no change whatsoever on the site.  Currently most of the site is blighted and affords no public access or benefits at all.  I am optimistic that a mixed use project can be negotiated which includes substantially the amount and type of open space recommended in the Estuary Policy Plan and still is economically feasible for the developer.

 

---

 

Question 12: On KQED's This Week in Northern California, Lewis Wolff, the new owner of the Oakland A's, implied that the Forest City Development is in trouble and he indicated his own interest in a downtown stadium. Please comment.

 

Pat Kernighan

I am encouraged that Lewis Wolff has the potential wherewithal to finance a new baseball stadium without need of public money.  A new A’s ballpark would make a lot of Oaklanders happy, but I am adamantly opposed to spending public dollars to build one when there are so many other unfunded public needs of much higher priority.

I have been unable to confirm that the Forest City project is in trouble.  I certainly hope not, as it will bring a well-designed mixed use development to Uptown Oakland which includes 1,100 units of housing above ground-floor retail.  This project will be the catalyst for further private investment in Uptown which is desperately needed.  I will work hard to attract retail business to Uptown under any circumstances, but having the Forest City project underway will be a great advantage.

I have spoken to many residents who think that downtown would be the best location for a new ballpark because the spin-off development would be most likely to take place there.  I agree that downtown would be a great site, also because of the proximity to BART.  The question is whether there is enough real estate available, assuming that Forest City goes forward.  I hope Lewis Wolff will also consider the several other sites previously studied.  Having public transportation nearby is essential for any site.

 

Justin Horner

I have not personally heard that the Forest City Development is in trouble, and the project has not come to the City Council for discussion for some time.  There are also no plans that I know of to scrap the Forest City project and begin exploring a downtown baseball stadium.  Forest City and the City of Oakland are in a contractual relationship regarding the development, so it's not something we can just bail out on whenever we want to.  Forest City has invested a considerable amount of time and money into the project, as has the City of Oakland , so any departure from the project approved by City Council would involve a considerable amount of discussion and deliberation.  Personally, I think downtown is the best possible place for a new stadium, but I also know that the City Council had that debate, and the residential project won out.  Specific performance benchmarks were set for the project and as long as they are being met, Forest City is holding up its end of the deal.  Like any contract, it can only be dissolved through mutual agreement or through a finding of noncompliance.  Even if the project is not ideal, the City does need to honor its agreements. 

However, if Forest City were to return to the Council to request even more assistance for their project, an adjustment to their benchmarks, or other change in the agreement, I would push for the Council to reconsider whether this is the direction we need to go at this time.

 

David Kakishiba

A downtown baseball stadium has the potential of providing a economic boost to downtown/uptown revitalization - but it cannot be funded at taxpayer's expense. I do not support public financing of a new sports stadium, whether it is sited downtown or the Coliseum area.

 

Shirley Gee

We are a long ways from the completion of either project so I will not comment on either projects until the citizens have an opportunity to consider (or re-consider) the wisdom of both projects. Suffice to say that I have stated over and over in my campaign that "no public money" will be used for sports-related projects or to subsidize developers. The ONLY exception is if the citizens themselves tell me personally that they regard the projects as essential to their future and feel there are tangible benefits that are directly relevant to them and would want me to represent their interest along these lines.

Whether we build condos or a stadium downtown is only the tip of the iceberg. Fundamentally there is more at stake than a project here or there that should concern citizens.

As most citizens already know, the political will in Oakland is fleeting at best because it operates on political cycles. Perhaps the citizens of Oakland need to stop electing "career" politicians whose interest is for higher and higher office (or for a higher paid job) and their decision-making and policies reflect this transitional mindset. When the long term plans of politicians do not include the citizens of Oakland , it is reflected in their policy making. Afterall, they will not be here to have to live with the results of their policy making; we who stay in Oakland have to live with it.

So whether we are talking about the 10K plan or a downtown stadium, the process is the same. Who is going to set a plan in motion and be here to see it through? Who is going to go beyond the sound bites that get you elected, but won't be there to do the hard work of realizing the sound bite?

For a long time now, we have had to pay for the politicians' "attention deficit" and have had to suffer a long "lame duck" session when politicians cannot make a commitment to the long term welfare of the citizens they promised to serve. Every time an elected official leaves office in mid-term, the citizens have to pay for holding special elections (the current election will cost the citizens well over $150,000) to replace them. This would be true for City Council AND for School Board. Do we want to continue to give creditability to those who cannot fulfill their commitment to voters even for four years? I hope not.

What is the alternative? The alternative is to start electing citizens who are NOT part of the political machine or who are part of the system that got us in this mess to begin with. We need a fresh individual, who is independent and not encumbered by the corrosive influence of money and power. Someone who has a strong moral center and who has already demonstrated that she is a doer and has already made a difference in the City of Oakland . Someone quite literally that will not only work on "good" public policy, but will also be sure to be there to help implement it or stick around long enough to see if the public policy is actually benefitting "real people".

How about someone local whose work would begin and end with the citizens of District 2? A local citizen for local issues.

Someone who has been here for well over 50 years and like you, has grown up here in the neighborhoods, gone through the public school system, raised children in Oakland and has deep roots already in Oakland and want nothing more than to make a better Oakland for her family, friends, neighbors and community.

Next time you consider a public servant, think of Shirley Gee. Twenty years from now, I'll still be here.--

 

Paul Garrison

Assuming that the downtown housing development plan is in trouble, and I don't know that to be a fact, I would whole-heartedly support a downtown ball park in its place. I have been canvassing door-to-door as a regular part of my campaign. Many of the neighbors have expressed interest in a downtown ball park and thus as their representative, I would support it also.

To be totally honest, I would like to explore a way to bring about downtown housing, that includes affordable to moderate to luxury housing AND a downtown ballpark. The plan for housing and the ballpark need not be mutually exclusive. This way we could create a sustainable entertainment zone with the Paramount and Fox theaters. I suspect that many restaurants would fill in the gaps to support the people who live downtown and those who visit downtown for entertainment. A comprehensive plan that would allow people to live and be entertained in the same area would allow Oakland to capture more revenue.

However, I will not support public financing of the ball park. The ball park must be financed privately. I would support using public money to:

1. ensure that the streets are well maintained and well-lighted;
2. secure public safety in and around the ball park;and
3. support the small businesses that wish to open up in the Uptown Entertainment zone.

The role of our municipal government to provide full service to the community it serves. In order to do this, we must create a sustainable, economic plan to provide for the progressive things that Oakland wants like affordable housing, improved park maintenance; regular street maintenance and support for our schools. We have to be able to pay for the things that we care about and this is a way that we might be able to do it. We only need to look across the Bay to see how San Francisco 's new ball park transformed a neighborhood and created jobs and revenue for the City. I want to see Oakland do the same. For more information about my vision for Oakland as a five star, full service City, please visit my website at www.peopleforpaulgarrison.org.