Gentrification is a big issue in Oakland nowdays. Rents are skyrocketing and the demands for new housing are ear-shattering. Landlords would love to remove every tenant in every rent-controlled apartment (rents can be reset to market value when a tenant leaves), and often find, shall we say, creative ways to induce the poor and those unable to fight back to vacate. Developers can't wait to build towering condominium projects, attractive to the highly-paid employees of booming tech companies and those pushed out of San Francisco by even higher rents and home prices.
The Oakland City Council has had on its plate the sale and/or development of a prime piece of City-owned real estate near Lake Merritt, refered to as the 12th St. parcel. The development proposal originated in 2012, but only in the last few months came into the spotlight. The developer negotiated a sweetheart deal, agreeing to buy the land for $5.1M when most estimates now make the parcel worth at least $1M more - and some people say it could be worth twice as much.
In addition, the California Surplus Land Act requires that land sold by a city to be developed for residential use set aside 15% of the units for affordable housing. The development proposal had none.
All of this had been called to the attention of the City Council, and yet everyone expected the sales proposal to pass. As the Oakland Post put it before the vote
City Council Set to Approve Sale of City Land for Luxury Apartment Tower
and again after it
Before Tuesday night's City Council meeting, the proposal to sell a city parcel to build a luxury apartment tower at Lake Merritt seemed like a done deal.
But it did not.
On June 2nd, with the Oakland City Council doors blockaded and the upper galleries closed off, 90+ speakers' names were called on the proposal to sell the 12th St. parcel at its fire sale price, every one of them in opposition to the sale of public land not for public good. Well, except for the owner of the development company himself.
The speakers list was not extinguished until after June 3rd began. At that point a pall of resignation fell over the audience as Councilperson Guillen, in whose district the parcel was located, and who had not been in office during most of the project's existence, reconstructed the history of the project, the compromises he had wrested out of the developer in the last few weeks, and finally indicated his intention to vote for the sale.
Council President McElhaney spoke next, damning with faint praise the speakers for their spirit, then saying that she expected the measure to pass and would be voting for it.
Councilperson Kalb, as is his wont, took a few minutes to get to the point but finally said he would abstain on the basis that he was not convinced the deal was not in violation of the Surplus Lands Act.
The gallery began, subtly, to stir.
Councilperson Brooks came out against the plan, noting the meager community benefits package.
The stirring grew as some in the audience realized that one more nay or abstain would kill the deal; five votes are need to pass measures and Councilperson Kaplan had recused herself. With seven members present there could be no tie for the Mayor to break in favor of the one percent.
All ears went to Councilperson Gallo as he began to speak. Most people, I believe, had expected him to support the sale, as did I. Within about thirty seconds many realized that he might well not support the measure. The buzz became distinctly audible. Then he made it obvious, saying:
"I was not for selling public land at the school district, and I will not be for it at City Hall."
The gallery exploded; Guillen ultimately withdrew his motion, Brooks got a motion passed to renegotiate the deal, and a very surprised crowd, at first stunned but ultimately exuberant, marched down the City Hall marble and out.
This would not have happened if, on May 5th, activists had not shut down the City Council meeting, forestalling a vote that day. Those activists, by braving arrest, demonstrated with crystal clarity that the Oakland City Council does not listen to the will of the people - until and unless forced to. They were going to pass this in the face of clear community opposition, and in the face of the plain meaning of the Surplus Lands Act. Called out by Public Advocates to this illegality days before the May 5th shutdown, they were apparently not the least interested in following the law, snookered perhaps by dubious legal advice that claimed that with enough reinterpretation, redefinition and attorney mumbo-jumbo they could get around it.
Let's repeat this: This defeat would not have happened unless the City Council had been shut down.
This was a bad deal from the time it was proposed; this was a bad deal when the sales price was negotiated, and it was a bad deal when it first came before the City Council.
Selling public land is a bad idea. Selling public land at a fire sale price is a terrible idea. Selling public land for development and not ensuring that a large portion of the development is affordable housing is an ethically challenged idea. And selling public land in violation of the Surplus Lands Act, not to mention possibly in violation of Oakland law, is an illegal idea.
And yet: this only didn't happen because of direct action civil disobedience.
Somewhere the leaders of the Tea Party, Henry, Susan and Alice, Martin and Rosa, and Russell, to mention just a few, are smiling.