Bay Area
After Geoffrey’s Challenges, Fight to Save Historic Venue Still Mired in City Council Conflict
The fight to save Geoffrey’s Inner Circle, a longtime entertainment venue and cultural institution at 410 14th St. and an anchor of the Black Arts Movement and Business District in downtown Oakland, has finally reached the Oakland City Council after working its way through the city’s planning process for several years.
Council rejects one development proposal, while another remains undecided.
By Ken Epstein
The fight to save Geoffrey’s Inner Circle, a longtime entertainment venue and cultural institution at 410 14th St. and an anchor of the Black Arts Movement and Business District in downtown Oakland, has finally reached the Oakland City Council after working its way through the city’s planning process for several years.
The Planning Commission had approved two alternative development proposals submitted for the same site by San Francisco-based developer Tidewater Corporation, one for an apartment tower and another for a residential tower.
At the Council meeting Tuesday, following hours of debate and many speakers — most of whom were strongly in favor of Geoffrey’s and its owner Geoffrey Pete and opposed Tidewater’s proposals — council members voted unanimously to uphold Geoffrey’s first challenge, rejecting the proposal to allow the developer to build an office tower at the site of a parking lot next to Geoffrey’s historic club.
Ultimately, the vote to deny Tidewater’s application won 6-0, with two council members absent. Voting against the company’s proposal were Dan Kalb, Nikki Bas, Rebecca Kaplan, Carroll Fife, Noel Gallo, and Kevin Jenkins. Janani Ramachandran and Treva Reid were excused.
However, the second vote, whether to approve the proposal to build a residential tower, was a more contentious decision for council members. It was argued that state law requires them to pass nearly all residential construction or face severe penalties that include loss of funding for affordable housing.
A motion proposed by Councilmember Fife to approve the Tidewater development, along with many amendments designed to safeguard Geoffrey’s building and business, failed to pass. Voting in favor were Kalb, Kaplan, Bas and Fife. Voting against was Councilmember Gallo, while Councilmember Jenkins abstained.
The city attorney’s office ruled that there was in effect a tie vote, four who voted in favor and four opposed, which included the “no” vote, the abstention, plus the two absences. Therefore, according to the attorney, Mayor Sheng Thao was eligible but not required to break the tie at the next council meeting.
Tina Muriel, speaking on behalf of Geoffrey’s, presented a series of flaws in Tidewater’s proposal for the development. She explained that Geoffrey’s is identified as a national historic resource, with a designation similar to Coit Tower and the Painted Ladies in San Francisco. The city is supposed to protect and preserve such historic resources, which Oakland has not done. She also demonstrated that part of Tidewater’s proposal would require making alterations to Geoffrey’s building, which he has not agreed to do.
Speaking to the council, Nina Moore, a third-generation owner of Everett and Jones Barbecue, emphasized that Geoffrey’s Inner Circle, with 30 years in Oakland, and Everett & Jones, with 50 years, are part of the historic legacy of African American institutions that are still holding on in the city.
“When Geoffrey got that area (in downtown Oakland), nobody wanted to be over there. And now it’s up and its popping, the gentrification wants to come. They always want to be there and take from us, rather than supporting us.”
Based on her experiences as a businesswoman, she said she can foresee problems with the affluent neighbors who would move next to Geoffrey’s, and their complaints would not be limited to noise issues.
Neighbors would be “discriminating (against) the way patrons look, writing letters to the City Council,” she said. “It is so hard for Black people to build up something.”
Kenneth Session of Session Real Estate, in business for 29 years and past president of the California Association of Real Estate Brokers, said that based on his decades of real estate experience, “I oppose this building. I know that is not good for our community.”
Prominent Oakland businessman Ray Bobbitt said, “In 2020, (people) talked a lot about economic equality and social justice, (but) that narrative is gone; now we’re back to business as usual.”
He said that Geoffrey has been an economic mainstay in the community. He has provided countless college scholarships and opened his doors to hold wedding receptions, so low-income African American families, as well as Latinos and other people of color, can host their celebrations free of charge.
“(However), gentrification is about more than economics. This is about preservation of culture and heritage,” Bobbitt added, pointing out that Geoffrey has always given back to the community.
“Oakland’s new generation of African American businessmen were all mentored by Geoffrey Pete, every single one of us,” Bobbitt said.
Kitty Kelly Epstein, professor of education and urban studies, called for dramatic reforms in the city’s planning department and Planning Commission. “They have treated Geoffrey and his business in a deplorable fashion.”
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of May 29 – June 4, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 29 – June 4, 2024
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of May 22 – 28, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May May 22 – 28, 2024
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Alameda County
District Attorney Pamela Price Will Face Recall Election on November General Election Ballot
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election. The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.
By Magaly Muñoz
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election.
The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.
Recall proponents submitted 123,374 signatures before the March 5 deadline, which resulted in 74,757 valid signatures counted by the Registrar of Voters (ROV).
The recall election will cost Alameda County $4 million and will require them to hire hundreds of new election workers to manage the demand of keeping up with the federal, state and local elections and measures.
Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE), one of the two recall campaigns against Price, held a press conference minutes before the Board’s special meeting asking for the Supervisors to schedule the election in August instead of consolidating with the November election.
Supporters of the recall have said they were not concerned with the $20 million price tag the special election would’ve cost the county if they had put it on the ballot in the summer. Many have stated that the lives of their loved ones are worth more than that number.
“What is the cost of a life?” recall supporters have asked time and time again.
Opponents of the recall election have been vehemently against a special date to vote, stating it would cost taxpayers too much money that could be reinvested into social programs to help struggling residents.
A special election could’ve cost the county’s budget to exceed its current deficit of $68 million, which was a driving factor in the three supervisors who voted for a consolidated election.
“Bottom line is, I can’t in good conscience support a special election that is going to cost the county $20 million,” Board President Nate Miley said.
Many speakers asked Miley and Keith Carson to recuse themselves from the vote, claiming that they have had improper involvement with either the recall proponents or Price herself.
Both supervisors addressed the concerns stating that regardless of who they associate themselves with or what their political beliefs are, they have to do their jobs, no matter the outcome.
Carson noted that although he’s neither supporting nor opposing Price as district attorney, he believes that whoever is elected next to take that position should have a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the job before recalls are considered.
Reports of recall attempts started as soon as April 2023 when Price had only been in office three months.
Price and her campaign team Protect the Win have been adamant that the voters who elected her to office will not fall for the “undemocratic” practices from the recall campaign and they are prepared to put all efforts forward to guarantee she stays in office.
-
City Government4 weeks ago
Court Throws Out Law That Allowed Californians to Build Duplexes, Triplexes and RDUs on Their Properties
-
Activism4 weeks ago
S.F. Black Leaders Rally to Protest, Discuss ‘Epidemic’ of Racial Slurs Against Black Students in SF Public School System
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
An Oakland Homeless Shelter Is Showing How a Housing and Healthcare First Approach Can Work: Part 1
-
Community4 weeks ago
Opening Soon: Vibe Bistro Is Richmond’s New Hub for Coffee, Cuisine, Community and Culture
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 8 – 14, 2024
-
Community4 weeks ago
Gov. Newsom, Attorney General Bonta Back Bill to Allow California to Host Arizona Abortion Care
-
City Government4 weeks ago
Vallejo Continues to Accept Applications for Boards, Committees and Commissions
-
Bay Area4 weeks ago
Mayor Breed Proposes Waiving City Fees for Night Markets, Block Parties, Farmers’ Markets, Other Outdoor Community Events