Mixtape for Councilmember-elect Kaplan

This evening, as one of many downtown events, Councilmember-elect Rebecca Kaplan is hosting a victory party and fundraiser at her campaign HQ. Though I unfortunately can’t attend the celebration due to a longstanding civic commitment, I am giving Ms. Kaplan a mix CD of Oakland-made songs that address some of our city’s pressing challenges. If the reader would like to make his own mix, here’s the track list.

1. Trite Life, Damon and the Heathens (food insecurity)
2. Cab Fare, The Hieroglyphics (transportation)
3. My Lovin’ You’re Never Gonna Get It, En Vogue (domestic violence)
4. Oakland / San Francisco, Make Me (transportation)
5. Set Me Free, The Lovemakers (housing shortage)
6. Money In Tha Ghetto, Too $hort (underground economy)
7. Heck No I Won’t Listen to Techno, Maldroid (cultural segregation)
8. Ride My Bike, Triangle (transportation)
9. Ghetto Manifesto, The Coup (poverty)

Bonus track: Alameda County Line, Red Meat (gentrification)

Oakland transit totally screwed, as usual

Transit advocates had reason to cheer on Election Day. California voters endorsed high-speed rail, Berkeley voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure intended to halt Bus Rapid Transit, and East Bay voters ignored the noise about Van Hools and approved a transit tax to make up for state budget cuts. But as the euphoria fades, it’s increasingly clear that Oakland could be really screwed by post-election transportation decisions made by local bodies.

As I wrote before the election, the particular SF-to-LA route chosen by the High-Speed Rail Authority bypasses the largest part of the Bay Area, the East Bay, which also precludes service to Sacramento and Modesto without a costly extension. Many of my friends argued that this isn’t really a big deal for Oakland (though of course we would benefit from hosting the HSR hub), because downtown SF is just as convenient for us as the Coliseum. However, that’s not true for most East Bay residents.

Be that as it may, immediately after the bond passed, HSR Authority boardmember and former SF Supervisor Quentin Kopp said that the costs of the service may not be covered by the bond (surprise), and that service may not go to downtown SF but instead to the Fourth and Townsend Caltrain station. Aside from drawing attention to the fact that locating a regional system in San Francisco is unnecessarily expensive, this stop is far less convenient for everyone in the Bay Area outside the Caltrain corridor. East Bay trippers will now have to take BART to DTSF, then transfer to light-rail. Aside from adding a mode change, which is off-putting, the Fourth St light-rail line does not have anything close to the capacity to host the number of passengers carried by HSR. The prospect of overcrowded light-rail trains and a long schlep to a sketchy part of SF makes High-Speed Rail less appealing against the constant flights out of the Oakland Airport, a conveniently BART-available destination, especially with the forthcoming rail link.

Except the kibosh is on the OAK light-rail line. Currently BART operates a bus service between the Coliseum BART station and the airport. The bus operates in mixed-flow lanes and is often held up by traffic. The bus is extraordinarily popular, even turning a profit, and creating a rail connection between BART and the airport has been on the drawing board since at least 2001. However, the airport connector project has secured only $295m in regional transit funds, and with a significant private-sector partnership precluded by the credit crunch, BART is giving up. Meanwhile, SF continues to receive enormous regional subsidies for its airport connector, part of a $1.6b BART extension that has vastly underperformed ridership expectations and so continues to receive outsized subsidies.

Of course, with the now-probable passage of Santa Clara County’s Measure B, Oakland and the region will be on the hook for billions of dollars for a BART expansion justified by ridership projections so fantastic as to constitute lying. Combined with Governor Schwarzenegger’s push to build capital improvements while further cutting operating funds from unglamorous but cost-effective transit services like the bus, the East Bay is in for a very tough transit future.

One outlet for trapped transit users is market-based public transportation. Strangely, Oakland lacks jitneys and limousines, leaving us dependant on a taxi duopoly. With the paucity of taxi service inspiring a public outcry, city staff has reformed the taxi ordinance and will propose issuing new permits. Unfortunately, rather than issuing the 200 permits needed to make up for 30 years of a service freeze, city staff is only going to ask for 11 new permits. A San Francisco operator has said at public hearings that they would start a new service in Oakland if they can get at least 20 permits. City policy will instead maintain the duopoly, leaving Oaklanders bereft of service. At the state level, in regional transportation priorities, and even at the level of local transportation regulation, Oakland is totally screwed. As usual.

Time running out to recall Dellums

At the beginning of the summer, in response to criticisms of his productivity and his bumbling of the Deborah Edgerly affair, Mayor Ron Dellums announced a “top-to-bottom review” of the city budget, the mayor’s office, and candidates for City Administrator. Since then, he has once again turned in a late budget, produced no reports or initiatives, and failed to appoint officials crucial to the operation of the city.

It’s been 148 days since Oakland has had a permanent City Administrator, the most important job in the city (longer if you believe Dellums’ claim that Eagerly in fact agreed to resign in January), and most managers have “Interim” in their title. The Oakland Planning Commission has lacked its seventh member since May 6. This absence of leadership has made City Hall even more dysfunctional than usual. The reader need only watch one major public meeting to see how poorly staff is performing without direction or any authority.

I used to oppose a recall, but it is now clear that Dellums cannot even fulfill the most basic function of the mayor’s job, to appoint the powerful officials who run the city. Without a permanent City Administrator or a full Planning Commission, the business of city government is not accomplished. The situation is intolerable, inexcusable, and illegal – there is no provision in the Charter for a permanent Interim City Administrator! It’s time for a new mayor, because we don’t currently have one.

However, a recall campaign would take about five months from filing to an election (assuming signatures would be gathered quickly). Even if nicely timed to fit the very probable special election next June, a new mayor would get only a year-and-a-half jump on running the city, and since mayoral campaigns will begin in a year, it’s only six months before Dellums becomes an even lamer duck. Is it worth expending $100,000 or more only to move the next mayoral election up by less than a year? With every passing hour, a recall is less valuable.

Thoughts around City Hall are already turning to 2010, as Chip Johnson points out today. In the meantime, politicians, whether newly-elected or turning their eyes to a bigger prize, need to attend to the business of governing. If no-one starts a recall by the end of the year, the City Council will be the only body with any authority in 2009. Though we’re all looking forward to a future with a capable Mayor, some decisions need to be made in the present.

Voters give Oakland a new councilmember, new transit plans, and an old fight

Last Tuesday, voters set a course for Oakland’s future. Certain races have something to tell engaged Oaklanders about voters’ wishes, the effectiveness of different kinds of campaigns, and about the current and future policymaking boards that govern our city and our transit service. The passage of Measure OO (and failure of Measure NN), Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory over Kerry Hamill, and a host of pro-transit votes, were the key choices facing voters this cycle.

---

 

 

Measure OO vs the rest of the budget

My only disappointment in the local ballot measures was the narrow passage of Measure OO, also known as Kids First 2. As I wrote at the time, Measure OO did not meet the ballot deadline and the City Council was not under a legal obligation to place the measure on the November ballot. They may have been compelled to call a special election for it, but of course that would have been a better bet than the November election. Now the city is going to do a special election anyway, and they’ll be under great pressure to compromise with Kids First and give them at least some money from the strapped budget.

This potentially gigantic hit to the city budget is the City Council’s fault for not doing a special election in the first place or placing a competing measure on the ballot (not a compromise, a measure that would just do what the Council already did but trump KF2, a common legislative tactic). Now OO is in a good position, even though it wasn’t the voters’ highest priority on Election Day. Measure NN, to raise taxes to pay for police, received thousands more votes yet is a failure. Neither NN nor OO did much of a campaign: a friend of mine received a four-page glossy mailer promoting NN after Election Day, and its slogan sounded like it was translated from an Asian language (“Get Involved! Today Oakland!”). OO sent a mailer only to poll voters, and the No on OO campaign sent a mailer only to absentee voters. In such a low-energy election, the Council’s actions framing the ballot would have been decisive.

Kaplan vs. Hamill

I think a lot of Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory can be attributed to her preparation for the job of running Oakland. Ms. Kaplan outperformed Kerry Hamill at endorsement interviews and forums, and won allies in blogs and among the politically-involved people who judge endorsement interviews. This election may not prove the power of local opinion-makers, but their almost-unanimous backing of Ms. Kaplan certainly undercut the support Ms. Hamill had from elected officials. In the end, Ms. Kaplan’s impressive endorsement list made her a very safe choice for the average voter.

Of course, more voters were exposed to Rebecca Kaplan’s supporters because Kerry Hamill just didn’t do nearly enough to win the seat. She admits she only had the money to wage half a campaign, and couldn’t mobilize enough volunteers to match Kaplan’s access to the Democratic Party Headquarters. I never received mail or a call from Ms. Hamill at anytime in this year-long campaign.

Elections are not necessarily about issues, but Rebecca Kaplan did identify and articulate some priorities that are attractive to certain interest groups, like supporting dense transit-oriented development, implementing the Conley Report, sprucing up downtown, and improving public transportation and bicycling. These things can mean different things to different people: condo developers as well as medicinal marijuana dispensaries see opportunities in a more successful downtown; labor unions and businesses like her call to increase revenue with more business; and with a holistic view of transportation, there really is something for everyone.

As one wag observed, Kerry Hamill’s defeat shows that Don Perata cannot install a puppet on the City Council by not campaigning or raising money for her. It also reinforces how difficult it is to run a come-from-behind campaign in Oakland. Alone in the booth, if they had no other information, voters decided that an AC Transit Board Member was more qualified than a School Board member to be promoted to the City Council, and frankly, they’re right. Voters also endorsed AC Transit’s performance more directly on down-ballot questions.

BRT vs KK, Peeples vs Roy, Measure VV

Voters in Berkeley overwhelmingly defeated a measure that was framed as a way to stop Bus Rapid Transit service on Telegraph. A far larger majority shot down the anti-bus measure than endorsed Tom Bates or the winning incumbents and new councilmembers. 77% is almost unheard-of, and is such a sweeping majority that it cannot be interpreted as anything but a strong rejection of NIMBYism, at least as it applies to transit improvements.

I draw several conclusions from the vote. First, it shows that the angry and active minority of citizens who do not agree with most City Council decisions are not representative of many voters (Tom Bates’ reelection is more evidence of this). Second, the tactics and arguments of proponents, mainly to do with the alleged harm of Bus Rapid Transit, fell flat. I really don’t know whether most people read the Berkeley Daily Planet, but either they don’t or they don’t agree with its editorial direction. The rest of the media is fairly hostile to BRT as well, but voters clearly are not. Finally, the No on KK campaign (which I was a part of) did an excellent job shaping a simple message, getting the support of local leaders, and communicating with voters in many media. But the margin was totally unexpected, and can’t be interpreted as anything but that voters want the Berkeley City Council to move forward with BRT.

Chris Peeples also won a huge margin in his reelection effort against Joyce Roy, who had made some noise in the media. She wrote a strongly populist ballot statement criticizing AC Transit for everything imaginable, but failed to convince more than 35% of the voters. The successful passage of an additional parcel tax to compensate for state cuts to AC Transit’s funding was another endorsement of AC Transit’s recent direction.

---

Last week’s election set the tone for Oakland’s future. A new City Councilmember, a new set of budget constraints and political fights, and new opportunities to improve transit are in store for the city. And with the historic election of a very promising President, Oakland like other cities across the country can look forward to more attention and aid from the federal government. Right now I’m writing President-elect Obama a letter suggesting a way he can help Oakland and the world: appointing Ron Dellums Ambassador to South Africa.

 

Berkeley ballot a referendum on Smart Growth

Tomorrow, Berkeley voters will cast votes either for or against Smart Growth. From the candidates to the ballot measure, Bus Rapid Transit and transit-oriented development are the key issues facing Berkeley. Older divisions between progressives and moderates have fallen by the wayside, while anti-growth activists have expanded their opposition from development to transit service.

Berkeley Mayor: Bates vs. Dean

This rematch of the 2002 race confuses some local observers. Tom Bates, the progressive candidate traditionally aligned with Berkeley Citizens Action, has the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce, the Berkeley Democratic Club, and many people working the real estate industry, while moderate Shirley Dean finds herself with the support of the Berkeley Daily Planet (called “the most liberal newspaper in the Bay Area,” by the Express) and neighborhood activists. The candidates have not necessary changed positions, but the divisive issue in Berkeley has changed. When Mr. Bates, his wife Loni Hancock, and Shirley Dean were at loggerheads in the 1980s and 1990s, it was mostly about rent control. Now, that is no longer an important issue in Berkeley.

In 1990, the Searle court decision led the Rent Stabilization Board to raise rents dramatically (up to 45%) and compelled it to follow a survey of operating costs when determining rent increases. Landlords no longer seriously contest Rent Board elections, and combined with vacancy decontrol in 1996, rent control faded as Berkeley’s hot-button issue. Ms. Dean’s two terms as mayor (1994 – 2002) encompassed this period.

What now separates Tom Bates from Shirley Dean is support for non-car-oriented transportation improvements and transit-oriented development, which together constitute Smart Growth. Ms. Dean strongly opposes Bus Rapid Transit and supports Measure KK (below). At an endorsement interview I saw her say that “we have to realize that four-story buildings ruin the quality of life for the entire neighborhood,” and suggested that the shadows cast by mid-rise buildings would make it harder for people to grow their own food. Tom Bates supports high-density development in downtown Berkeley and fairly dense development along transit corridors, and is open to Bus Rapid Transit.

If I lived in Berkeley (God forbid) in 2002, I would have voted for Ms. Dean. Her priority, and decent track record, of downtown revitalization appealed to me, and regular readers know that I generally side with more moderate politicians. But Tom Bates has made some very persuasive criticisms of her record. He is right to point out that the Council was more divided and less productive under her watch than his, and that the same neighborhood activists who criticize him were just as angry in 1990s. Of course, downtown Berkeley has gone downhill, which means that Ms. Dean’s downtown policies weren’t sustainable. But the clear distinction between the two is their contrasting policies on Smart Growth. It’s not that they have switched sides, but that the issues have changed. Urban business is increasingly aligned with the environmental movement, both stressing infill growth to combat their mutual enemy, suburban sprawl. Mr. Bates and a broad consensus on the City Council increasingly subscribe to this position, with Dean and neighborhood activists (and Berkeley’s always prominent fringe, like Zachary Running Wolf) firmly placed on a different side.

 

Berkeley Council District 4: Doran vs. Arreguin

Jesse Arreguin has gathered some impressive endorsements in his quest to succeed Councilmember Dona Spring, despite his age (24) and lack of elective experience (as explained above, the Rent Stabilization Board is not an important agency any more). Terry Doran, his opponent, was School Board President, and both have served on the Zoning Adjustments Board and Downtown Area Planning Advisory Commission. In their endorsement interviews and votes on the ZAC and DAPAC, Smart Growth is a key distinction between them.

On the DAPAC, Mr. Arreguin opposed “tall buildings” while Mr. Doran supported them. Mr. Arreguin bases his anti-high-rise position on old fashioned class warfare, while Mr. Doran stresses the need for increased tax revenue, transit ridership, and a built-in customer base for downtown businesses. Jesse Arreguin, despite being a former student and a supposed environmentalist, is iffy on Bus Rapid Transit (he opposes key elements of the plan) while Terry Doran strongly supports it. Finally, there is a key vote on the ZAC that put them on opposite sides: the Trader Joe’s on MLK. Mr. Arreguin voted against it and Mr. Doran for it. In Oakland, that would be the end of the contest right there, but Berkeley voters may be looking at other things, such as political affiliations and key supporters.

Mr. Arreguin works for Councilmember Kriss Worthington, who find himself the odd man out in Berkeley’s new political alignment: with no support from NIMBYs yet never pro-business or pro-growth, Worthington is the only Councilmember who didn’t endorse a mayoral candidate. His unexpectedly poor showing in the Assembly primary in June suggests that his support for Arreguin may not be terribly helpful. Former School Board President Terry Doran enjoys the support of Bates and most of the City Council. I’m not in a position to judge their respective campaigns (I really don’t like Mr. Arreguin’s slogan, Viva Jesse – is he running for King?), but transit and transit-oriented development are the issues. Tomorrow will show how downtown Berkeley, more or less Ground Zero for Smart Growth in Berkeley, feels about their future.

 

Berkeley Measures: KK and LL

Berkeley is infamous for an anti-development Preservation Ordinance that allows a great deal of protection for “landmarks” that are deemed so by an irrational process. Thus, tumbledown cottages, retaining walls, and even surface parking lots have been saved from demolition by developers, and the City of Berkeley has more official landmarks than San Francisco and Oakland put together (though the Oakland Heritage Alliance has proposed drastically expanding protections for “historic” buildings as part of the Zoning Update). Berkeley’s process does not comply with state law and makes development in Berkeley very difficult. Measure LL is a referendum on the City Council’s decision to update the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to make it less arbitrary and to bring it into compliance with state law. A previous attempt to preserve the LPO failed two years ago; this is now the NIMBYs last stand to keep their most powerful anti-development weapon.

Measure KK, whose key supporters overlap with those against the LPO update, would delay or disrupt plans for a regional Bus Rapid Transit network by submitting it to a vote of the electorate. Eric at TransBay Blog has an excellent summary of what’s at stake and the serious problems with this measure. In its context alongside Measure LL and as a key distinction between mayoral and Council candidates, Measure KK represents another facet of the explicit Smart Growth divisions facings Berkeley voters. In Oakland, those who oppose dense development still support transportation improvements (and it’s important to note that no organized group in Oakland is opposed to tall buildings in most of downtown); in Berkeley, Smart Growth is on the ballot in its entirety.