A couple weeks ago, I started a new series about rules for running for Mayor of Oakland. Today I’ll share the third rule and will continue with this series in the coming weeks and months.

Rule #3: Do not do anything that is or appears to be illegal or unethical

Sounds pretty obvious, right? I thought so too, until both candidates and/or their supporters broke this rule.

Jean Quan made a huge mistake by using her City email list to announce her candidacy and ask for support and funding. Why is this problematic? The accumulation of email addresses and the maintenance of that list is done by her council staffers, who are paid by the City. Though I doubt that City staff time was used to write her mayoral announcement, hours of staff time were spent on the email list, and the law makes it clear that this is illegal.

What’s worse is that in her attempt to explain that her Council office and campaign are separate, she violated the law again. In her weekly newsletter following the campaign announcement, she wrote this:

Reminder: In our office we need to keep our City Council work separate from campaign activities for Mayor.  Please do not contact our City Hall office or city email for those communications, please use our temporary website or Facebook for those communications.

By linking to her websites, she again used a list cultivated through staff time to promote her campaign.

Don Perata and his supporters have also undertaken questionable actions in the past several weeks. As I mentioned last week, Perata is trying to stop instant runoff voting (IRV) from being implemented in 2010. I don’t know what his real reasoning is behind this – maybe he thinks IRV is a terrible idea or has valid concerns about the 2010 implementation plan. But the appearance of his actions is that he’s trying to make it more difficult for Jean Quan or anyone else to run against him, since he has an advantage in a June election, both in name recognition and funding. Perata and other candidates should think twice next time before taking an action that appears to be so self-serving.

Then, last week, Perata’s supporters made a similar mistake to the one Jean Quan made, by using an event that was promoted through City staff time to publicly endorse Perata. At the Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) meeting with Chief Anthony Batts, the Oakland Police Officers Association (OPOA) announced its endorsement of Perata. Flyers for the meeting were produced by City staff and many staff members were there. Several of the event organizers and attendees were understandably disturbed that a community meeting had been turned into a campaign event. Perata said he did not know that the OPOA had planned to endorse him that evening, but the OPOA should have known better.

Via the Oakland Tribune, the City is looking into whether violations were made:

“It is a violation of city policy and state law to use city resources or city work time for political purposes,” City Administrator Dan Lindheim said in a statement. “While any group has the right to endorse whomever they choose for political office, the Oakland Police Officers Association decision to co-opt a city-sponsored community event and use it for political purposes raises serious concerns.”

Lindheim said he would conduct an investigation to determine “whether disciplinary or other action is appropriate.” He did not have figures on how much money was spent by the city on the event and said he did not know how long the investigation would take.

I’m glad Lindheim is following up on this, but he should also launch a similar investigation into Jean Quan’s campaign email and her follow-up “clarification” in her newsletter. And Quan and Perata should make sure that incidents like this do not happen again.

Monday, November 9th – Town Hall with Mayor Dellums and Police Chief Batts

Come hear Mayor Dellums and Chief Batts share their vision of public safety. Topics include:

• Mayor Dellums — public safety strategy: PIES (Prevention, Intervention, Enforcement, Sustainability)
• Chief Batts — vision for the Oakland Police Department
• Crime statistics: crime is down double digits citywide,but more must be done
• Community policing: how can OPD work with the community to enhance public safety?

The meeting will be held from 6:30-8 pm at Cesar Chavez Educational Center, 2825 International Blvd. An additional meeting is set for  Wednesday, November 18, 6:30-8 pm, Tassafaronga Recreation Center, 975 85th Avenue. For details, call the Oaklanders Assistance Center at 444-CITY (2489) or OAC@oaklandnet.com. You can read a review of last week’s town hall at A Better Oakland.

Monday, November 9th – Citywide Zoning Update Meeting for Historic Preservation Issues

As part of the Citywide Zoning Update Staff will be giving a presentation at the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) meeting. Staff will present some background on existing issues of zoning and historic preservation and how the Citywide Zoning Update will work towards implementing the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. Staff invites you to attend to gain knowledge about historic preservation methods being considered for incorporation in the Citywide Zoning Update.  Your feedback will be incorporated into the overall Citywide Zoning Update process. The meeting takes place at 6pm at Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Hearing Room One. You can also watch it on KTOP. For more information, read the staff report on this item.

Tuesday, November 10th – East Bay Democracy for America Meetup

At their November meeting, Democracy for America will be focusing the marijuana taxation ballot initiative and higher education. The two featured speakers are both East Bay Young Democrats and good friends of mine. Abraham Kniesley from Oaksterdam University will give the status on what the next steps will be to make The Control, Regulate and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 a reality and what we can do to help out. Edie Irons is the communications director for the Institute for College Access and Success. She’ll be talking about funding for higher education here in California and what impact California’s decisions are having on students. There will be an action item that will give you a chance to walk out after the meeting feeling like you’ve done more than just get some information on education funding, you’ll know that you’ve done something to help frame that debate. The meeting will be held at 7:00 at St. John’s Presbyterian Church, 2727 College Ave, Berkeley. RSVP here.

Thursday, November 12th – State Legislature Joint Select Committee on Government Reform Hearing

This year’s state budget set the record for being the latest, and probably the worst, in California’s history. This disastrous process has demonstrated loudly and clearly that the current system is not working and that major change is needed to make the Legislature more responsive to the needs of Californians. Because of this, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg recently established a new special legislative committee – the Joint Select Committee on Government Reform – which our State Senator Loni Hancock been appointed to as a member. This fall, the Committee, comprised of 10 Senators and 10 Assemblymembers, is hosting a series of hearings throughout the state and is expected to deliver a legislative reform package by January 15, 2010. The next scheduled Joint Select Committee hearing will focus on the topic of ballot box budgeting and initiative reform. They will be hearing from experts about the problems created by our current initiative process and finding real solutions to these obstacles to create better governance in California, as well as a more educated and informed electorate. The hearing will be held from 2:00pm – 7:00 pm, at the Elihu Harris State Building, 1515 Clay Street, in Oakland.

Thursday, November 12th – Community Workshops (Round 3): Zoning Draft Proposals

Are you an Oakland Resident, Property Owner, Business Owner, or Developer? Learn about and discuss proposed zoning changes for Oakland’s residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors! Planning staff will be hosting its third round of Community Workshops. This workshop will be held from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the Fruitvale-San Antonio Senior Center, 3301 E. 12 St., Suite 2001 (Meeting room is on the 2nd floor). For more info, read John Gatewood’s guest post on the zoning update.

Thursday, November 12th – 2nd Annual Wellstone Club Award Reception Honoring Debra Bowen

The Wellstone Club is excited to present its second “Wellstone Award” to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, our state leader in the fight to ensure that every citizen gets to vote, and every voter’s ballot is counted. She has set a national standard in the battle against voter suppression and illegal efforts to manipulate our democratic process. Paul and Sheila Wellstone’s oldest son, David Wellstone, will present this year’s award. Event co-hosts include Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Senator Loni Hancock, Assemblymembers Sandre Swanson and Nancy Skinner, Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson. This reception will take place from 5:30-7:30 PM at the Silver Dragon Restaurant, 835 Webster Street. Tickets are $50. Find more info at the Wellstone Club’s website.

Thursday, November 12th – Mix It Up East Bay

Join us for a monthly happy hour bringing together young activists, organizers and leaders in the East Bay. California voting is an art and a science, but we’re here to help! Come out and hear (brief) presentations on proposed ballot measure initiatives by:

• Abraham Kneisley, Tax Cannabis 2010
• Courage Campaign [invited]
• Repair California [invited]

Mix It Up East Bay is held every 2nd Thursday of the month from 6-9pm at Shashamane at 2507 Broadway. It’s accessible by 19th Street BART station or by AC Transit lines 1/1R, 51, 59.

Saturday, November 14th - Central Estuary Plan Community Workshop #6

The sixth public workshop will focus on identifying a preferred alternative for the Plan Area.  At this workshop, you will be asked to consider which alternative, or pieces of various alternatives speak to your vision for the Central Estuary Area.  Please familiarize yourself with the draft alternatives and come to the next community workshop to participate in hands-on mapping exercises in the very important task of developing a preferred alternative! Three draft alternatives for the Plan Area were presented at Workshop #5.  Information about these alternatives and all meeting materials can be found on the CEDA website in the Schedule+Meeting section. This workshop will be held from 9:00 am-12:00 pm at Beacon Day School, 2101 Livingston Street, 2nd Floor Auditorium.

Last night, Alameda County Registrar of Voters Dave MacDonald came to the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee meeting to discuss instant runoff voting (IRV), which is a hot topic in Oakland right now.

MacDonald started off by making it very clear that he wasn’t taking sides on IRV, but that the Registrar was just implementing what the cities (Oakland and Berkeley, and possibly soon San Leandro) had voted for. He then spent a while explaining how IRV would work, when implemented. Ballots would have all candidates for Oakland offices listed, but they’d be listed three times – under 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice heading. It would look something like this:

My sample above only features three candidates, but no matter how many candidates there are, you will only get three choices. So the voter would then choose their first, second, and third choices. When the Registrar tallies votes, they would first tally all first choice votes. If someone had received more than 50% of the vote, that person would win. If not, the Registrar would take the last place vote getter out of the running and count the second choice votes of voters who voted for that person, adding those votes in addition to the first choice votes. If someone had then reached more than 50% of the vote, that person would win. This cycle continues until one person reaches 50% of the vote.

Got it? Well, if not, that’s ok because the Registrar and Oakland plan to do significant voter education before IRV is implemented. There’s a plan for an educational mailing to all voters and for education of poll workers so that they can help voters at the polls. According to MacDonald, educational materials will be made available at least in English, Spanish, and Chinese, and potentially in other languages.

This robust educational effort, unfortunately, will not be cheap. IRV supporters claimed in 2006 that implementation would cost $400,000, though I’ve heard that the current estimates are upward of $1 million (I couldn’t find confirmation of this so if anyone knows, please share). This cost is luckily a one-time cost, but it’s a one-time cost that could come in a year when Oakland is looking at slashing its budget by $19 million. Of course, once this cost is incurred, Oakland will save money in the long-term, as we will no longer have to pay for June elections. (June elections will still happen, for statewide primaries, and county measures, but Oakland won’t have to pay.) Though MacDonald mentioned that these savings disappear if the Council places measures on June ballots.

Confused or torn yet? Well, it gets even more convoluted. Right now, the reason this is such a burning topic is because Oakland is waiting to hear from the California Secretary of State on administrative approval of our IRV system. San Francisco’s system was approved last month (they have to seek approval for every election, even though they’ve been using IRV for a while now), and MacDonald said that he had assumed Oakland’s IRV would be approved at the same time as San Francisco’s, especially since we’re proposing to use the same system.

What’s the delay? Well, no one really knows, and worse yet, no one knows when we’ll hear whether it’s approved or not. It might be this month or next, or it might not be until January, which would really be pushing it for being able to do enough voter education and for candidates gearing up to run.

You’ve probably read that Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente and Don Perata sent letters to the Secretary of State, urging her not to approve IRV for the 2010 elections. They claim that Oakland is not ready to do significant educational outreach and are concerned that voting problems would occur.

But others are pushing for IRV to be implemented next year, including Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. She came to the Central Committee meeting last night and voiced strong support for IRV. Kaplan said that IRV has overwhelming support – it was passed by 69% of Oakland voters and 80% of Berkeley voters. She then explained why she supports IRV – the current system puts the local election in June, when there is a much lower turnout. As an example, she shared the voting numbers from the June vs November 2008 elections (which are admittedly a bit skewed because of Obama but the trend holds for other years). In June, 62,000 (38% of voters) voted, while in November 161,000 (79%) voted. For people of color and youth, the difference is even more stark. In June, only 15% of voters aged 40 or younger voted, while in November 74% of them voted. Kaplan explained that IRV would enfranchise a huge portion of voters.

Kaplan later reminded the Committee that the Democratic Party (which is essentially equivalent to the Committee) had endorsed Measure O, the 2006 IRV initiative, along with the MGO Democratic Club and several other local Democratic groups. She asked if the Committee would send a letter to the Secretary of State, asking for the immediate implementation of IRV. A motion was made and unanimously supported so the Committee will soon be sending a letter.

So that’s where things stand now. At this point, we wait and hopefully will hear soon whether IRV will happen next year or not. Either way, IRV will be implemented some day, and if it’s delayed for too much longer, it seems likely that IRV advocates will sue.

After years of maintaining a small garden on our apartment balcony, we finally decided to ask our apartment manager if we could move our garden to the benches at the back of our garage, which we can see from our balcony. He of course said yes so we moved most of our edible plants out there a month ago. They’ve been greatly enjoying the extra sunlight and most of them enjoyed the rainstorm last month (though that killed a couple lettuce plants). Here’s what things are looking like now.

Our benches are mostly covered with lettuce, greens, and herbs. I planted this lettuce yesterday:

And this lettuce was planted about a month ago, right after we made the garden move. It looks like it will be ready to start harvesting next week:

I also planted radicchio, chard, and beet greens yesterday, all purchased from Kassenhoff Growers at the Temescal Farmers Market. We buy most of our starters there, as their quality is always incredible and they’re very helpful with gardening advice. Here’s the tiny radicchio:

And here’s the first crop of chard that we planted a month ago:

For cooking, nothing beats walking outside to pick basil, parsley, marjoram, and thyme:

But the thing I’m most excited about is my pepper plant. Peppers are usually annual plants, but in the mild Bay Area weather, they become perennials. We planted this pepper last year, but it only produced one pepper, last November, which quickly died because it got too cold. We kept the plant because it’s pretty, and this year, after we moved it out to the benches, it produced five peppers!

We’ve filled in the space quite nicely so far…

But there’s also lots of room for expansion, including this table that our manager found in the garbage room and brought to us to use. We plan to fill this space with carrots, potatoes, garlic, and onions.

Previous balcony garden updates:

• 3/18/09: Balcony garden harvest
• 12/8/08: Monday Morning Distractions – Balcony Garden Update
• 9/17/08: Distractions for Your Monday Morning
• 7/22/08: Apartment Gardening

Remember about a month and a half ago when I asked you if you wanted more City Council coverage and promised I would provide it? Well, things got busy for me after that, and then I took a couple week break from blogging, so I’ve yet to follow through on my promise to cover some Council items in-depth before the Council meeting.

I’ve thought about it a lot and last night started working on a post for tonight’s Council meeting, and I realized that this is going to be harder than I thought, especially since I haven’t watched most of the committee meetings for the past month. I looked at the agenda and realized that I didn’t even know where to begin, since few of the items stood out as particularly controversial and many of them are very important.

I slept on it, and this morning I woke up and decided that I was just going to dive in. I’m picking a few agenda items and will cover them in some detail. If I don’t pick the most important items, oh well. If I miss some nuances of an item, hopefully a reader will catch that and weigh in. So as you read this, remember that it is a work in progress, and as I do these more regularly, they’ll get better with your input.

Item 16: World Cup Host City

Council meetings have been overall pretty depressing this year, as the budget crisis has hung over so many decisions. But sometimes the Council discusses exciting new projects, and tonight is one of those times. The City is applying to be one of the US cities to host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022.

I’m not going to cover this item in too much detail because V Smoothe already did such a thorough job of it at In Oakland, and you should really read her post. But the short story is that Oakland is one of the 27 finalists chose by the USA Bid Committee, and the committee will ultimately choose 18 host cities. Even if Oakland is chosen as one of the 18 though, the US would still need to be chosen over several other countries to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. V Smoothe thinks that’s likely, “based on our large stadium capacities and the tremendous success of the US-hosted 1994 World Cup, which set financial and attendance records for the event that still stand today.”

The great thing about this opportunity is that it costs the City very little to apply (about $20,000) and we could reap huge benefits if chosen. The staff report, citing another study, states that “the total economic impact projected for any one Host City range from approximately $300-$500 million using 2009 dollars. It is also expected that between 5,000 and 8,000 new jobs would be created by the preparation and operation of the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup.”

Oakland, if chosen, would also have to host a “Fanfest” event to show all 64 World Cup games on large screens. This would be done at Jack London Square or Lake Merritt and could be incredibly fun. I was lucky enough to be in Salvador, Brazil in 2002 when Brazil won the World Cup, and the City showed the game on large screens in the center of the city. It was a phenomenal experience that I will never forget, and the thought of having a similar experience here in Oakland is enough to convince me that Oakland should do whatever it can to become a Host City.

Tonight, the Council will be voting on entering into a Host City Agreement. Assuming that vote passes, the USA Bid Committee will choose the 18 cities in December 2009, and FIFA will decide on Host Nations for 2018 and 2022 in December 2010.

Item 18: Clear Channel Outdoor – Billboard Agreement

Normally this item wouldn’t be of much interest to me, but I looked into it because at first I thought it was the billboard agreement that had been proposed to close the budget gap that was opened up by rolling the meter times back from 8pm to 6pm. At the time, it had been proposed that nearly half a million in revenue, which was half of the missing revenue left by the meter roll back, would be gained through future billboard agreements, and if I remember correctly, a billboard was supposed to be built on our side of the Bay Bridge.

Well, this item does involve a billboard at the toll plaza, but it’s a different billboard and doesn’t bring the City of Oakland any revenue. But it does bring revenue to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and it doesn’t hurt Oakland financially. In exchange for approving this agreement, Clear Channel will remove 16 billboards throughout the city (the full list can be found in the staff report). Apparently, it is fairly common for Clear Channel to get new billboard space in exchange for getting rid of other billboards, as this was done in 2003 and 2007, though the City did receive revenue out of both of those agreements.

If only the City could make its approval of this agreement contingent upon EBMUD not building a new dam and instead forcing suburban customers to conserve water or pay their fair share…

Item 20: Citywide Performance Measures Tracking

I think we can all agree that the City, overall, could do better. The City could improve on its interactions with constituents, on communication between departments, on data collection… ugh, the City could do better on pretty much everything. Tonight, the Council will not discuss how to improve on actual performance but how to improve the tracking of performance because it’s pretty difficult to know what or how to improve if you don’t know how you’re doing in the first place.

Via the staff report, here are some of the ideas for improving performance measure tracking that will be presented tonight:

• Strengthening the focus on continuous improvement by following the cycle of planning, measuring, monitoring/managing and reporting on progress internally and externally;
• Convening a Task Force representing departments and elected offices to review and further define departmental performance measures and select indicators for Council and community reporting;
• Re-launching systematic citywide data gathering and reporting of the performance measures in an online system;
• Implementing OakStat, a performance-based leadership strategy that involves monthly reviews of departmental performance by management to focus attention on improving operational effectiveness and efficiency and delivering outcomes of importance to policy makers and the public; and
• Re-launching an annual citizen survey to assess resident satisfaction with government service provision and provide input for program and process improvement.

These improvements, if fully implemented, sound like they could make a difference, and the price tag on them, at less than $20,000 is already included in the 2009-11 budget. But some of the stuff in the staff report sounds so basic that it’s frightening that it hasn’t already been implemented, like a monthly meeting between department heads to review performance data.

I guess it’s better late than never though and data from the internal reviews and the citizen survey could make the City much more effective and efficient if changes are made based on this data. Unfortunately, I’m a bit skeptical of that, though I hope for the best.

If I was on the task force, my first recommendation would be to stop printing out every damn staff report and then scanning it in to put on the website! It’s a huge waste of time and paper and makes the files less useful because you can’t search them or copy and paste (which made writing this blog post take nearly twice as long). I’m sure there are many other simple inefficiencies like this that could be easily fixed and the above plans could be a good start for finding them.

The Rest of the Agenda…

There’s no way I can get to everything else, but the rest of the agenda includes park improvement projects, the Oakland Community Land Trust, and amending the CalPERS firefighter contract. Watch the Council meeting tonight to see what happens. And for the next Council meeting, email me at oaklandbecks at gmail dot com if you have an input on what I should cover.

Monday, November 2nd – Town Hall with Mayor Dellums and Police Chief Batts

Come hear Mayor Dellums and Chief Batts share their vision of public safety. Topics include:

• Mayor Dellums — public safety strategy: PIES (Prevention, Intervention, Enforcement, Sustainability)
• Chief Batts — vision for the Oakland Police Department
• Crime statistics: crime is down double digits citywide,but more must be done
• Community policing: how can OPD work with the community to enhance public safety?

The meeting will be held from 6:30-8 pm at Prescott Elementary School, 920 Campbell Street in West Oakland. Additional meetings are set for Monday, November 9, 6:30-8 pm, Cesar Chavez Educational Center, 2825 International Blvd. and Wednesday, November 18, 6:30-8 pm, Tassafaronga Recreation Center, 975 85th Avenue. For details, call the Oaklanders Assistance Center at 444-CITY (2489) or OAC@oaklandnet.com.

Monday, November 2nd – Keeping the Faith for Equality

For anyone who commutes between Oakland and San Francisco, I’m guessing this has been a bit of a chaotic week. And at some point, if not every day during the closure, you probably took BART across the Bay. And I have no doubt that it was beyond crowded in the stations and on the trains. I heard from several people who had to let a couple trains pass by before finding a train that had room, during the morning and evening commute.

But this was an emergency. The Bay Bridge had to be repaired immediately, and though it was probably very stressful to deal with the chaos at BART, there was probably a comforting thought at the back of your head during this experience – “It will soon be over.” You figured that once the bridge was fixed, BART would go back to a “normal” level of ridership – morning transbay ridership would go back to 50,000 instead of nearly 80,000. You’d be able to relax at the station and hop on the first train that arrived. If you were lucky, you might even find somewhere to sit.

For the next few years, these assumptions will hold, but during these record-breaking ridership days, it’s a good opportunity to remember what BART ridership was like before the economy tanked (or even as the economy started tanking) and what it will likely be like as again as the economy recovers.

So try to think back to 2008. BART was crowded everyday during the commute hours. I remember this time well – at one point I stopped taking BART if I could avoid it at all during commute hours because of how uncomfortable it was. I started taking a bus if that was at all an option. It started to become such a problem that BART held special meetings on the issue and talked about possible ways to deal with the capacity problem. As recently as September 2008, they started floating the idea of congestion pricing – charging more at peak hours to encourage riders to change work schedules and to ease congestion during commute hours.

But then the economy tanked, and BART’s ridership dropped along with it. Without jobs to get to, people weren’t flooding the BART system during commute hours. And it seems that most people forgot the capacity crisis that was only narrowly averted by the onset of the recession.

This crisis has not been averted entirely though. As Daniel at 21st Century Urban Solutions explains:

The overcrowding this week is not a freak occurrence; rather, it is a preview for what Bart will regularly face 10 years (or less?) down the road.  Population growth, climate change, peak oil, and traffic congestion are not simply going to go away, and until Bart/MTC can find the $10 billion that it’s going to take to build a second tube (probably in the next 50 years), Bart needs to invest in ways to maximize the efficiency of its current system through better station design, vehicle layout, parking management, transit and bicycle access, and train control.  We need to reinvest in Bart for a sustainable future.

Daniel is exactly right. The problem is that the BART Board has been so focused on geographical expansion of the system, that it has neglected the most urgent capital need – expanding transbay capacity. And these extensions, particularly BART to San Jose, are only going to exacerbate the problem. As new riders from the San Jose corridor put increasing pressure on the transbay tube and as the economy recovers, the tube and trains will reach capacity.

And who is this going to effect most? Oakland riders.

You might have noticed this week that news articles talked about riders at West Oakland having to wait for an uncrowded train, but you probably never read that about an Orinda or Pleasanton rider. Suburban riders will be able to catch a train (and probably a seat) every morning, while Oaklanders will barely squeeze in or have to pass up trains all together.

The good news is that something can be done. Ideally, BART would scrap some of its extensions and build another transbay tube. But that’s probably not going to happen, until we replace nearly every current BART Board member.

The other option to increase capacity is to get a new train set and to focus on increased train capacity. BART has been working on this – the problem is that the project is not fully funded and hasn’t seemed to be a funding priority of BART.

Well it sure sounds like Oakland’s screwed then (maybe dto510 was right after all), but there’s another hope, which might be our best one. Besides BART, there’s another excellent way to cross the Bay via transit – AC Transit’s transbay buses. I must admit that I’ve never ridden the commuter transbay buses, but I’ve heard they’re very comfortable, and they even have wi-fi. So as BART reaches capacity, AC Transit will increasingly be a place to turn to get across the Bay, unless of course you’ve enjoyed the Manhattan like conditions this week on BART.

I know I announced a few weeks ago that I was taking a break from blogging, but I expected to be back in the full swing of things this week. Little did I know how difficult it was to start blogging once you’ve stopped! I have a couple posts I’m working on, but they involve research and I’m just not up to that this week so those will have to wait until next week.

For now, I thought I’d start a new series – rules for running for Mayor of Oakland. Before you ask what I know about running for Mayor, I’ll admit that I’ve never run for Mayor and never even coordinated a mayoral campaign. I actually thought I didn’t know too much about running a mayoral race and that everything I knew must be common knowledge among those who are involved in Oakland politics (or really politics at all). But one of the two announced candidates has proven that this knowledge apparently isn’t as widespread as I had thought.

So I thought I’d offer these rules as a guide to this election and a guide to anyone who’s considering running for Mayor of Oakland.

Rule #1: Do not announce your candidacy at 1 am on a Saturday morning

So you know when a public official or agency announces something at 5pm on a Friday? It’s usually because they hope it gets buried in the Saturday news when nobody’s paying attention. Friday evenings are the time to announce sex scandals, controversial bill signings, and money mismanagement.

But Friday nights, much less Saturday mornings, are not the time to announce a candidacy.

Imagine how surprised I was then, when I woke up on Saturday morning to an email sent from Jean Quan at 12:42 am that all but announced that she was running for Mayor. Even for those of my friends who did bother to open the email on Saturday morning, most didn’t really read it or click through. It was a near total waste of an announcement.

Maybe Quan has some genius strategy that I don’t understand. Maybe she was trying to hide her candidacy from Don Perata or other potential candidates. But if you ever decide to run for Mayor, don’t follow her lead – announce in the actual morning (not the middle of the night) on a weekday for the best results.

Rule #2: Buy your own domain name

There are lots of times when it’s ok not to buy your own domain name. Like if you’re a blogger for example. Or if you’re a local group that’s just getting off the ground. Or if you’re running for Mayor symbolically, to have a platform from which to criticize the current state of the City (by the way, does anyone have any idea what happened to Paulette Hogan?).

But if you’re running a serious campaign for any elected position – school board, AC Transit board, City Council, whatever – take 5 minutes and $15 and buy a domain name, please!

It’s totally fine to build a website, especially a start up website, on blogging software. Actually, I think that’s what most local candidates do now and it makes it much easier to maintain the site down the road. But it is not ok for that blog page to be found at blogspot.com or wordpress.com.

Unfortunately, nobody mentioned this to Jean Quan. Not only is her site located at jeanquanforoakland.blogspot.com, but it appears that she has not purchased jeanquanforoakland.com, even though it’s available.

That’s all the rules for now, but check back next week for some more.

This guest post was written by John Gatewood, one of the co-founders of ULTRA (Urbanists for a Livable Temescal Rockridge Area), which supports higher density mixed-use development along the major transit corridors of north Oakland. John works in the Graphic Arts Industry and is a resident of Temescal.

Oakland is a rust belt city that just happens to be on the west coast. In some respects we have more in common with Detroit than we do with San Francisco. For example, our city is about 20% larger than San Francisco, so on a fundamental level we have greater infrastructure needs than SF – more miles of streets to maintain, greater amounts of parks and public spaces to maintain, greater fire and police protection needs, greater lengths of sewer and water service infrastructure to maintain, etc. Yet we have slightly less than half the population of SF and nowhere near the commercial and retail tax base that SF has. Furthermore, like Detroit, our industrial base has faded away over the decades. And according to the US Census Bureau American Community Survey estimates, our population today has dropped about 7% from what it was in the 2000 census. It is unsustainable how we have let Oakland develop over the last few decades.

As some of you know the city has finally started the Zoning Update for the commercial and residential areas of Oakland. This process should have started in 1998 when the city adopted its latest General Plan but, for a number of reasons, it did not. This lack of agreement between the General Plan and the Zoning is what has led to so many conflicts over new developments in Oakland. Our existing zoning is patchwork created over decades to respond to immediate concerns rather than long-term goals. The 1998 General Plan spells out where the city wants to focus growth in Oakland. To their credit the writers of the 1998 General Plan focused this “growth and change” on the major transit corridors in Oakland.

The Zoning Update is our opportunity to bring zoning, the details of what can be built where, in alignment with the vision of the General Plan. Updating the zoning to allow for the higher density envisioned in the General Plan will be one step in turning Oakland away from the path Detroit is on. Our city is at the heart of the East Bay. We already have the public transit infrastructure to support more residents using it. We were once a denser, more walkable city. We now need to update our land-use rules so that we can build higher density housing on our transit corridors to respond to how we live today so that we can rekindle the walkability and vibrancy we had 60 years ago.

Please come to the next zoning update community meetings scheduled for -

Saturday, November 7, 2009
10 am – noon
Peralta Elementary School
460 63rd St.

OR -

Thursday, November 12, 2009
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Fruitvale-San Antonio Senior Center
3301 E. 12 St., Suite 2001 (Meeting room is on the 2nd floor)

Find out more about the zoning update process at the City’s website.

Tuesday, October 20th – Oakland City Council Meeting

Tuesday, October 13th – Final Vote on EBMUD Water Supply Management Plan 2040

Note: I am no longer working for TransForm, and as always, the thoughts below are my own.

Tuesday night was a bit devastating for me. I’ve been working with so many others since February to defeat the OAC, and I had always hoped that if all else failed, the Oakland City Council would come through for us. Certainly, Oakland’s elected representatives would see that this project would cause more harm than good to our city. But back in February I could have never imagined how seriously the other side would have taken our fight. So seriously that they lobbied the Council for weeks, sent heads of agencies to speak at a meeting and stay there past 1 a.m, and of course, so seriously that they felt the need to distort facts and basically threaten the Council.

Still, the loss was difficult, even knowing that it was a basically impossible fight. So I took the past couple of days to relax and reflect. I didn’t check email or blogs and barely picked up my cell phone.

I decided to face the world again last night, and went to Rebecca Kaplan’s birthday party. It was great to see everyone and commiserate about our loss but also to reflect on the powerful fight we had fought. Rebecca told me she’d do it all over again, even knowing the eventual outcome, and I agreed with her.

This morning I read V Smoothe’s excellent post about why people should stay engaged, despite this disappointing loss:

The entire reason I devote basically all my spare time to this blog is because I want people to understand and become engaged with their local government. If you are unsatisfied with how your City is run, you can and should do more than yell at the TV or the newspaper, or bitch about your frustrations to your neighbors. You can change things. It is not something that is going to get done overnight, or in a week, or in a month. It is hard and it takes persistence and fortitude and the willingness to keep trying in the face of often seemingly overwhelming obstacles and frequent disappointment.

But it is worth it. Oakland is a wonderful city full of amazing, generous people. It also, like everything and everyone, has many flaws. That’s not a reason to throw your hands in the air and give up hope. It’s a reason to work hard to make it better.

I couldn’t agree more – I don’t intend to throw my hands in the air and I hope you won’t either. Instead, I want to shift focus and work on some proactive campaigns in Oakland, instead of reactive. I want to work to get more taxi stands, especially in Uptown, Jack London Square, and Temescal. I want to see more public art, especially art from Burning Man artists. I want to do whatever I can to help with the City’s awesome plans for a shuttle between Uptown and Jack London Square. And of course, I want to help make sure BRT becomes a reality.

But before that, I need a bit of a break from Oakland politics, and this is perfect timing for me. I recently left my full time job, after four and a half wonderful years there, and my contract with TransForm is now over. I also got engaged recently and I need some time to start planning the wedding. And next weekend, my sister’s getting married and I’ll be spending the entire next week in San Diego.

My break from Oakland politics will include a short break from blogging. I’ll still try to put together the weekly events listing, but otherwise, I don’t intend to post next week, and I might not post the following week either. I’ll be back to blogging before the end of October though.

In the meantime, I’d love to share some guest posts here, particularly non-political ones, so email me at OaklandBecks at gmail dot com if you’re interested. And if you’re still feeling down about the OAC and haven’t done so yet, please read V Smoothe’s post and all the comments in response. It made me feel better, and I’m sure it will make you feel better too.

Disclosure: I am working on a part-time, short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.

So I really didn’t think I’d get to this today, but I have a few minutes of down time so I thought I’d take some time to break down the misinformation that the Chamber of Commerce is spreading about the OAC. Unfortunately, I won’t have the chance to write about the other issues coming before the Council tonight, as I had promised, so that feature will have to wait until the next Council meeting.

Since it’s simplest, I’m going to use Joseph Haraburda’s piece on SFGate as a launching point:

Myth: The connector is too expensive.

Fact: After decades of planning, BART is currently reviewing multiple bids, expected to be far below estimate. Other projects have seen bids 20 to 40 percent below estimate. Lower project costs should result in lower rider fares.

Well, first off, the bids are still private so we have no idea what they’ll come in at. But yes, everyone does expect them to come in below initial estimates. My response – so what!? Let’s just imagine that bids come in at $400 million, instead of the expected $550 million. Though it’s less money, $400 million is still a ton and really all that would mean is that BART would not have to take out a $150 million loan. That means they’d still be using up the stimulus funds, Port funds, ACTIA funds, RM2 funds, etc. Also, bids are initial estimates – most projects run up further costs.

Myth: The connector does not serve Oakland.

Fact: A reliable, fast connection will keep the airport competitive by linking the regional transit network to the Oakland International Airport, which welcomes 10 million passengers each year, employs thousands in Oakland, and generates millions in tax revenue for the city. Also, intermediate stations are part of the design to serve the Hegenberger corridor. This project is good for residents and businesses.

Nobody’s arguing about the value of the airport – it’s clear that it’s hugely important to Oakland’s economy. But by BART’s own admission in the 2002 EIR, the OAC will not draw more passengers to the airport. As for airport workers, it’s laughable to claim that they’ll be able to afford the $12 round trip fare.

The idea that an intermediate station will ever be built is almost as laughable. BART has made it abundantly clear that if a station is ever to be built, the City of Oakland would have to pay for its design and construction. And you know, Oakland’s just rolling in money. If the City is struggling to close a $1 million budget gap right now, how is it ever going to afford to build this multi-million dollar station? Without the intermediate station, the OAC flies over East Oakland and does not serve the Hegenberger corridor.

Myth: A clean bus will be free and faster.

Fact: The train-to-plane connector will run on clean, electric power for a 99 percent reliable ride. There is no transit agency ready to design, fund, and operate an alternative solution. ACTransit is already planning service cuts and scaling back bus rapid transit elsewhere.

He doesn’t address this, but advocates have not been claiming that a bus would be free (we did claim that it could be free). Our main claim here has been that a bus would have a much cheaper fare than the OAC – we estimate $2.

This idea that the OAC will be super clean and the bus is dirty is absurd. First, the overhead guideway of the OAC is going to be built with concrete – which itself pollutes the environment greatly. Second, buses can be run in just as clean a way as trains. They do not need to be run off of diesel.

My favorite line here though is this: “ACTransit is already planning service cuts and scaling back bus rapid transit elsewhere.” Um, yes, AC Transit would not have to implement as many service cuts and might not be considering swapping money from BRT if they had received the $6.7 million additional stimulus funds that would have come to them if they hadn’t gone to the OAC.

Myth: The project takes away jobs.

Fact: BART estimates the project will create 2,542 jobs. Half of the workers will come from BART’s district, and 25 percent are guaranteed to Oakland workers, specifically. Half the apprentice jobs will go to Oakland trainees. Without this project, Oakland will lose $70 million of federal stimulus money.

OMG! Lies, lies, lies!

Lie #1: “BART estimates the project will create 2,542 jobs.” Wrong. As V Smoothe pointed out this morning, BART in it’s TIGER application to the FTA claims that the OAC would create “689 direct and indirect jobs during the construction period.” The bigger numbers that they’ve been throwing around are generic stimulus job numbers but are not directly related to the project.

Lie #2: “25 percent are guaranteed to Oakland workers.” Well, not exactly. BART’s PLA is weak and only sets hiring goals. There are no repercussions if these goals aren’t met. But even if we assume that 25% of the jobs will go to Oaklanders, that’s only 172 jobs!

Lie #3: “Without this project, Oakland will lose $70 million of federal stimulus money.” This claim makes me crazy! The stimulus money cannot be lost. If it does not go to the OAC, it will be redistributed based on a formula to all the Bay Area transit agencies – BART, AC Transit, Muni, etc.

Well, that’s all for now – I hope that many of you will join me at the Council meeting tonight to speak out against this misinformation.

Disclosure: I am working on a part-time, short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.

Tomorrow night, the Oakland City Council will be voting on a resolution opposing the Oakland Airport Connector. I know many of you plan to attend, and if you haven’t RSVPed yet, please do so on Facebook.

But I have one last request, and it’s important. Several councilmembers are on the fence or not yet decided. The supporters of the OAC are generating phone calls to these offices and it’s important that we do the same. Please take 10 minutes today to call these four councilmembers and to send an email to the entire Council. To make an impact, please call and email today (Monday) or early tomorrow (Tuesday).

It’s simple – here’s what you should do:

1. Call the following councilmembers:

Council President Jane Brunner, District 1 – 510-238-7001
Patricia Kernighan, District 2 – 510-238-7002
Jean Quan, District 4 – 510-238-7004
Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5 – 510-238-7005

When you call, you will likely talk to either the councilmembers’ staffers or answering machines. Use the following script as a guide:

Hi, my name is ________ and I’m an Oakland resident calling to urge Councilmember _________ to support the resolution opposing the Oakland Airport Connector. This half billion project does not benefit Oakland, and it would suck funding from several Oakland transit projects. The Connector will not provide economic development to East Oakland, and many Oakland residents will not be able to afford the $6 fare.

[If speaking to a staffer]: Can you tell me how Councilmember ________ plans to vote on this resolution?

Thank you for your time.

2. Email the full Council:

Rebecca Kaplan <rkaplan@oaklandnet.com>, Jane Brunner <jbrunner@oaklandnet.com>, Pat Kernighan <pkernighan@oaklandnet.com>, Nancy Nadel <nnadel@oaklandnet.com>,
Jean Quan <jquan@oaklandnet.com>, Ignacio De La Fuente <idelafuente@oaklandnet.com>, Desley Brooks <dbrooks@oaklandnet.com>, Larry Reid <lreid@oaklandnet.com>

Use the following template as a guide:

Dear Oakland City Councilmembers,

I am writing to urge you to support the resolution opposing the Oakland Airport Connector.

This half billion project does not benefit Oakland, and it would suck funding from several Oakland transit projects. The Connector will not provide economic development to East Oakland, and many Oakland residents will not be able to afford the $6 fare.

A vote against the Airport Connector is a vote for:

A Stronger Economy: A bus rapid transit connector would have intermediate stops and would be affordable to all Oakland residents.
More Jobs: Reverting OAC funds back to transit agencies would create more jobs than building the OAC.
Better Transit: A bus rapid transit connector could be as fast as the OAC, AND the money saved would stop transit service cuts throughout the Bay Area.

Please vote for the resolution opposing the Oakland Airport Connector.

Sincerely,

_____________

3. Ask anybody and everybody you know who opposes the Connector to do the same.

Thanks, and I’ll see you tomorrow!