Question 1: How would you seek to guarantee that development in Oakland benefits current residents, not just outside developers and businesses?

Justin Horner

Oakland needs development--nobody argues with that. Creative, responsible development makes our neighborhoods interesting, creates good jobs and increases our tax base.

At the same time it's essential to ensure that when investment is made in Oakland , the whole community derives benefit. State law requires that major developments go through extensive environmental review. I want to see the community impacts of development similarly reviewed: how will this development impact rents for surrounding residents? Are the jobs created by this development good jobs or dead-end jobs? Will local businesses be given a fair shot at participating in the project? I will push to make sure we understand the overall cost of projects in the context of the whole city, instead of just taking each project on a case-by-case basis.

To guarantee benefits to the whole community, a Community Benefits Agreement must be a part of any major development project. Such an agreement would be an enforceable contract. It could include the total number of jobs from the project, the type of jobs provided, affordable housing opportunities for nearby residents, or job training and apprenticeship opportunities. In some cities, community benefits even include things like fire engines! That should all be spelled out.

As Councilmember, I will push to require both Community Impact Reports and Community Benefits Agreements for all major developments.

Aimee Allison

Oakland ’s assets should be leveraged to create affordable housing, good jobs, parks, and services for people in Oakland .  There are three ways to guarantee that development in Oakland benefits current residents:  make community benefits agreements a required step in the development process, expand and enforce a “hire Oaklanders first” policy for projects that utilize city resources, and stringently follow adopted long-term plans, that have been carefully thought out and crafted to include community input.  The Oak to Ninth Project, for example, ignores the Estuary plan that calls for open space, parks, and access to the shoreline.

Pamela Drake

No development should even be permitted without first ascertaining that it actually fits into the General Plan and that it benefits the community as a good project. Any project built with with public funds or on public land should be required to employ Oaklanders, use local contractors, incorporate local business, and work with the surrounding neighborhood to ensure that the design enhances their community. Measures should also be taken to prevent gentrification such as giving preferences to existing business and nearby residents to be incorporated into the project. I would promote decentralized projects developed by local entrepreneurial residents, business groups, and artists over big top down projects that are imposed on communities where the tax dollars often flow out of the communities rather than circulate within them.

David Kakishiba

I would seek to establish (through both city ordinance and project-by-project agreements) required standards for "sensible development". These standards would include project labor agreements guaranteeing local hiring for both short and long-term jobs; minimum of 25% of all new housing units are affordable to households earning less than $50,000.00 a year; and design and construction of project is environmentally sustainable and is integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.

Shirley Gee

The only way to "guarantee" that development benefits current residents is to insert a "community benefits" clause in all proposed contracts. This clause should be coupled with a "community impact" clause as well.

On the benefits side, we are looking for:

1) financial gains that would help finance direct services back to citizens;
2) increased commerce and jobs for local economy, and
3) long term as well as short term benefits and benefits which would produce multiple returns from different fronts.
4) benefits that would reach citizens throughout District and have a far reaching list of returns over time after initial investment.

On the impact side, we are looking at:

1) impact on small, local businesses
2) impact on traffic patterns and congestion
3) impact on ecology and environment
4) impact on existing neighborhoods
5) pre-existing plans formulated by citizens (e.g., General Plan, Waterfront and Estuary Plans)

Positive benefits must be balanced with negative impact before accepting a proposal or executing a contract.

A significant number of citizens throughout Oakland must be the beneficiary and a minimal number of citizens impacted. All benefits and negative impacts must be "critically reviewed" through factual analysis (not just assertions of benefits).

I would propose that all future contracts have these two clauses and require that no major contracts (threshold to be determined through public discussion and forums) be let out until an community benefit and impact analysis is done by "both" the City (in cooperation with citizens and local businesses) and the developer or business entity.

Another way to guarantee development benefits current residents is to set a "upper limit" to what City Council can approve in terms of development projects or require a 2/3's vote on projects beyond a particular monetary threshold. Anything beyond upper limit or which fail a 2/3's vote has to come back to citizens to decide. The idea being if the project is that gigantic (monetarily and scope), there will be major impact and/or benefits to current residents anyway and they should have a role in that decision before it goes forward.

The "Raider Deal" is a perfect example of the corrosive effect of political influence peddling and a business plan which was not "vetted" by the citizens of Oakland for benefits and impact before it was "walked through" by our politicians and approved by our City Council. The citizens are now stuck with $20M annually with an expectation of an even higher burden when the PSL's expire. The Ninth to Oak Project is another project that has some of the same elements as the Raider project with politicans (and their aides) "walking developers" through the process. The net potential result is citizens will lose open space and access to their own waterfront and ultimately only the affluent and influential will enjoy the waterfront. Already the Estuary Plan is being violated (see reduction of open space proposed). The General Plan is next. ("spot zoning" to accommodate developers).

Oaklanders will need a strong guardian of our assets and resources and a citizen who is politically astute enough to fend off special interest from those assets. More importantly, Oaklanders need a Council person who is NOT beholden to that special interest (e.g., politically financed) and who is independent enough to focus on the people's business and evaluate what is really in their best interest.

Todd Plate

There are many factors that assist the pressure to give way to outside developers and businesses, not the least of which is that Oakland has been asking for more development for some time. In the effort to offer new development and in order to overcome the stigma of living in San Francisco ’s shadow, Oakland has granted come-one come-all access to the city. Unfortunately, the result, or maybe even the goal, is a Gentrification of Oakland’s neighborhoods. This is not the fault of the developers, as they are in business to earn a profit. Responsibility should fall on the leaders of this city to change the focus of the city away from develop at any cost and toward sustainable neighborhood growth.

We need to be encouraging resident and neighborhood participation in the planning process. We need to encourage reinvestment in the neighborhood. We need to be looking to small businesses, developers and community-based organizations that will grow our neighborhoods in socially responsible and economically vibrant ways. It is the role of the City Council to make sure that the city is not selling off its residents’ futures for short-term gains that will have long term repercussions on the neighborhoods.

District 2 has an enormous variety of cultures. By focusing on maintaining the cultural identity of each neighborhood, the city will move forward in a way that preserves all that is positive with this District and attacks only those issues that are an impediment to its continued growth, namely dilapidated housing and unimproved business districts.

Paul Garrison

 I would guarantee that development in Oakland benefits current residents by signing a community benefits agreement that:

• Supports the hiring of local contractors
• Supports MWBEs access to bidding and evaluation
• Ensure that it is environmentally friendly
• Protective of public access to Lake Merritt , estuary and the waterfront, if applicable
• Contains affordable housing component, if applicable

Pat Kernighan

Every proposed development in Oakland should receive careful review to make sure that it is beneficial to current Oakland residents. Beyond general issues of good urban planning,(which are already regulated by Oakland's General Plan and Planning Code*) we need also to be concerned with the issues of providing a larger stock of affordable housing, encouraging developers to hire Oakland residents as part of the construction workforce and permanent jobs created by the development, providing needed neighborhood retail and services, and encouraging the developer to share or bear the cost of other public amenities such as parks and improved infrastructure. It is important that new development share in the cost of providing these community benefits, but we also need to be reasonable in how much we require, so that the City requirements are not so onerous that they kill an otherwise beneficial project.

I support requiring developers of large projects to negotiate with the community and the City over such community benefits and to enter into a binding agreement with the City which guarantees the agreed upon community benefits, such as a percentage of units being affordable to low and moderate residents.

Given the great need for housing affordable to our current residents, including teachers, nurses, and service sector workers, I also support passing an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that would set a uniform minimum standard for inclusion of affordable units in every development.

*(Oakland's General Plan and Planning Code already provide requirements for basic issues of good urban planning, such as appropriate design, height, density, context with neighborhood, historical preservation, parking needs, required open space, proximity to public transit, etc. The California Environmental Quality Act also provides extensive review of environmental impacts.)

Visit: www.greatergrandlake.org