Community designers' aspirations for the E. 12th St. Parcel in Oakland, Calif.

Originally posted on Facebook, drafted by Amy Vanderwarker, E. 12th Coalition.

On March 15th, literally behind a closed door in the Mayor’s conference room, Oakland City Council voted 6-1 to approve moving forward with the luxury tower proposal from UrbanCore/EBALDC for the E 12th parcel, over the community-driven proposal from Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA), or “A People’s Proposal." The City had a clear choice between prioritizing more affordable housing for families in crisis and standing with the constituents of Oakland. Unfortunately, they chose more luxury housing and private development on public land. We commend Council Member Gallo for opposing the resolution and his strong support for truly prioritizing affordable housing on public lands at the meeting.

While the City Council has voted once again to enter into negotiations with UrbanCore to build a luxury tower on public land, this project is still a long way from gaining final approval.

In his remarks after the vote, Council Member Guillen, who represents District 2 where the E 12th parcel is located, said we must “use our hearts in policy matters, but we must also use our heads.” This condescending rhetoric – that community residents and organizers have not “looked at the facts” – dismisses the very real issues, derived from personal experiences and data that politicians conveniently do not want to look at, as ancillary to the decision at hand. In reality, the concerns community residents outside of the political machinery raise are the real-world manifestations of policies passed and ignored and back room deals being cut. Our analysis is not invalid just because it is outside City Hall’s framework or desired outcome. Council Members would do well to remember that community concerns are in fact critical pieces of information in any policy decision when they come looking for votes in November, or in 2018.

But since you mention it, we do have some data to share…

Council Member Guillen urged us to “look at the facts,” and we have done just that. Starting with the premise that the City has an ethical and legal obligation to maximize affordability on public land, here is an objective comparison of the affordability levels of the two proposals.

By the numbers: A People’s Proposal in comparison to the UrbanCore/EBALDC proposal

A People’s Proposal vs. UrbanCore/EBALDC

Affordable units: 133 vs. 109

Affordable bedrooms: 269 vs. 133

Low to moderate income people that can be housed: 404 vs. 246

Affordable, family sized housing (2-3 bedroom units): 96 vs. 44

Units in the 30-50% Area Median Income range (low and very low income): 106 vs. 30

Units available to people making 100% AMI: 9 vs. 12

Units available to people making 120% AMI (which UrbanCore erroneously labels ‘affordable’): 0 vs. 12

Number of market rate units: 0 vs. 252

Without a doubt, A People’s Proposal has the most affordable units at the deepest levels of affordability, while being capable of housing many more working families.

Note: Using HUD's max occupancy guidelines A People's Proposal can house approximately 700 people. Using the City of Oakland’s occupancy guidelines, 404 people can be housed in a People's Proposal

Political expediency vs political courage

In Council Member Guillen’s remarks after the vote, he said “the most politically expedient option for me is to vote for the SAHA proposal,” but “Councilmembers have a fiduciary responsibility to protect and maintain the City’s assets,” and “we must consider what is in the best interest of the entire city.”

Let’s be clear: Voting for the UrbanCore/EBALDC proposal was the politically expedient thing to do. It maintained ties with developers and the business community, and preserved relationships amongst City Council Members and the President, a strong backer of the proposal. Voting for A People’s Proposal is the courageous thing to do, and only Council Member Gallo showed that courage.

The logic of “the greater good” has been used to sacrifice working class communities of color for years, from demolishing thriving parts of West Oakland to build BART or housing decisions that drive up rent costs in a particular neighborhood while creating a modest increase in total affordable units somewhere else, often unidentified. Decisions that benefit higher income, and predominately white, residents have been made on the backs of working class people of color for years, and the E 12th decision repeats that pattern.

Countering the political spin

Defending the right of long-time residents to stay in Oakland is far from advocating for a halt to all building in Oakland. By putting forward an alternative development that is dense yet appropriate to the neighborhood, we are being proactive in envisioning a development that works for the community. Our visions are rooted in deeper concerns of gentrification and protection of existing residents. As Oakland literally changes everyday, to accuse community groups of not standing up for what is best for all of Oakland is true political sleight-of-hand.

Another incredible spin is the rhetoric from both City Council President McElhaney and Guillen, who have stated concerns about “economic diversity” and the range of people across the economic spectrum “feeling the affordability crisis.” Roughly half of Oakland’s households are living in a state of persistent financial insecurity, and lack savings to make it even three months at the poverty level if they were to lose a job. To make policy and housing decisions geared towards the wealthy while claiming to be watching out for “all of Oakland” is continuing the historic trends of favoring those with political clout and money to spend and leaving Oakland’s most vulnerable residents – the very people who have made our city what it is today - to a market that does not and will not address their needs.

Don’t forget the City’s legal issues and general failure of good governance

Any response to the recent E 12th decision would be remiss if we did not address the serious failures of our City Council to behave in a transparent and legal manner. The leaked memo from the City Attorney was the first proof that the City Council was intent on pushing through the E 12th deal, even though it was illegal under the Surplus Lands Act. The City Council has yet to be held accountable for knowingly and willingly violating state law, the only law that requires the prioritization of affordable housing on public land.

Even after the City issued a revised notice of intent, it was a battle to ensure a transparent process. The scoring criteria for proposals were biased and failed to meet the spirit of the Surplus Lands Act, favoring market-rate development when the law requires the prioritization of the greatest number of affordable units at the deepest levels of affordability. The city was reluctant to host a public hearing, and did so only after significant community pressure. Unfortunately, when they advanced a resolution approximately 24 hours after the hearing to support the UrbanCore/EBALDC proposal, it revealed the complete lack of authentic public process. In addition to a basic failure of public participation and transparency, failure to comply with the Surplus Lands Act raises major ethical and legal questions.

Finally, there was the unethical vote behind closed doors on Tuesday March 15th, not only a visual and literal display of how City Council makes decisions, but also legally questionable under the Brown Act. We have a City Council that brings in police and runs into private quarters to deliberate on how they will use our public lands. Truly shameful.

Public lands should not be a model for private development

The logic that the City must sell the E 12th parcel to get revenue is regressive and faulty on many levels. Not only is the City not in deficit and has many other options available for addressing budget concerns, selling public assets to pay for public services is fundamentally bad policy. Public lands represent unique opportunities to ensure affordable housing is built, especially at a time when prices are skyrocketing. If the City is serious about addressing the housing crisis, maximizing affordability on one of the few public parcels suitable for dense residential development should be a priority.

Unfortunately, the City has been squandering our public lands. City Council has approved a range of majority market rate developments on public land: 1911 Telegraph, 11th and Clay, and Brooklyn Basin, displaying a near sighted approach to development that flies in the face of their own public land policy.

Development on public land should NOT be a model for private development; it should be used to meet the biggest community need. To use public lands to further the disastrous trend of displacement is a violation of public trust and perpetuates discriminatory housing development patterns through the city.

We want racial and economic justice, not discriminatory development

The City Council has consistently ignored our fundamental concern: to build luxury housing development on public lands, even with a token amount of affordable housing, will have a negative local impact on a diverse, working class neighborhood that is rapidly gentrifying. We purposely label the market rate component of the UrbanCore/EBALDC proposal as “luxury” to emphasize the reality that in this housing market, market-rate IS luxury.

Majority market-rate developments on public land are a fundamentally discriminatory approach to development because the vast majority of the benefit goes to developers, investors and higher income, disproportionately white renters and future condo owners. Furthermore, prioritizing luxury developments for the sake of “transit oriented development,” coupled with Guillen's call for A People's Proposal to be built "off-site," sends the message that low-income residents and people of color do not deserve to live within the vicinity of transit and also near great amenities like Lake Merritt.

Oakland is losing our economic and racial diversity. The city’s Black population has been steadily declining, hit hard by the foreclosure crisis and now pushed out because of high housing costs. Luxury developments like the UrbanCore/EBALDC one will also increase racial profiling; the tragic death of Alex Nieto in San Francisco is a perfect example of how long-time residents become targets for newcomers. The E 12th Coalition has been standing up not just for community-driven development, but also for racial and economic justice in Oakland.

Community-led development

We have responded to the concept of development on E 12th with incredible creativity, bringing together residents from across Oakland to create a visionary project. Our proposal reflects a bigger vision for development of a different kind, one that helps residents own land and housing in new forms that build their assets, not the assets of developers. Our proposal was derived from an authentic engagement process, has the support of hundreds of residents, and 26 community based organizations throughout the city. Instead of embracing this visionary project, we have been met by City officials and staff with the same old development dogma that is failing working class communities of color across the Bay Area.

Stop the financing double standard

In their scrutiny of the financing for A People’s Proposal, City Council and staff hypocritically hold a double standard that has not applied across all developments. A People’s Proposal does NOT require City dollars as a subsidy. The only “subsidy” in A People’s Proposal is a lower up-front payment for land. We have been extremely transparent with our financing, but have yet to hear what entity is financing the market rate development of UrbanCore/EBALDC’s proposal. Meanwhile, the City recently approved an $11.8 million dollar “non-repayable loan” to UrbanCore for the Oakland Coliseum Transit Village on a public parcel next to a BART Station. The City’s own analysis of the funding found that the project “depends heavily on public subsidies,” indicating approval of subsidies when it is politically convenient.

The City of Oakland is still failing to address housing affordability in a meaningful way

Oakland now has the 2nd fastest rising rents in the country and the fourth most expensive rental market. Instead of developing and implementing an urgent strategy to address the housing crisis, our City Council and Mayor continues to push the same old failed housing policies the privilege market-rate housing. Of the roughly 15,000 residential and commercial projects at various stages of development in Oakland as of August 2015, only 8% are affordable. This is on top of a decade and a half of building majority market-rate or moderate income housing. And Mayor Schaaf’s recently announced housing strategy is just not good enough. Setting a goal of 28% affordable housing is not only insufficient; the plan doesn’t even bother to figure out how they will construct this 5000 units, only identifying strategies to build about 2200.

….and we can’t build our way out of the housing crisis, anyway

In a housing market like we have in the Bay Area right now, the wealthy will continue to drive up housing prices and create even more demand for high end housing. The vast majority of all planned housing is market-rate. San Francisco, which has avidly pursued this strategy of building more, now has some of the most extreme income inequality and is on track to be one of the least diverse cities in the entire country. We are in a booming market that does not need to be politically facilitated even further.

As long time affordable housing advocate James Vann said in a letter to the City: “Oakland’s critical need is not “maximizing density,” nor the highest tax revenue, nor the smallest subsidy, nor the best financial return. The city’s pressing unmet need is to stem evictions and displacement of present Oakland residents. Such urgent ethical and social need cannot rationally compete with market developments, which have the major purpose of maximizing profits through the highest feasible rents.”

While we are deeply disappointed in the E 12th vote, we continue to be inspired by the vision and support of Oakland residents and know that we are fighting for Oakland’s heart and soul. We look forward to the day when we have elected officials who join us. Public Land for Public Good - Save E 12th!