Uncategorized

Black Elected Officials and Faith-Based Leaders Challenge Audit Report – Open Letter

Published

13 years ago

March 31, 2013

The Black Elected Officials and Faith-Based Leaders of the East Bay have grave concerns regarding the authority, scope and jurisdiction of your recent performance audit issued on March 21, entitled Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs Audit FY 2009-10 – FY 2011-12.
The audit is deficient in that it fails to comply with the generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) by asserting conclusions in the absence of sufficient appropriate evidence evaluated against established criteria.
The audit does not identify a compliance standard objectively applied to Oakland City Councilmembers uniformly, nor does it establish criteria for testing the competency of the evidence supposedly buttressing the conclusions stated therein.
The performance audit alleges violations in city contracting and operations by two Oakland Councilmembers and a Council Aide. It also repeatedly cites, what we believe, is a likely misinterpretation of Oakland City Charter, Section 218: Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs.
The audit does not substantiate any of the “67 hotline and interview tips,” as stated in page 6 of the report, with material evidence to support the Key Findings outlined on page 1 of the audit. In order to understand fully, the allegations outlined in the unsubstantiated audit, BEO&FBL requests that you clarify the following discrepancies within the audit report:
1)   Identify the criteria for testing the credibility of the evidence on which the audit findings are based.
2)   Identify the basis of the City Auditor’s authority to determine what constitutes actions rising to the level of a violation of Section 218 as opposed to actions constituting a “Culture of Interference in City Hall”?
3)   Presuming that the City Auditor is not in a position to determine what actions constitute a violation of law, please explain the authority supporting forfeiture of a City Councilperson’s liberty interest without due process. Section 218 reads, “Violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the Council shall be a misdemeanor, conviction of which shall immediately forfeit the office of the convicted member.”
A misdemeanor, or crime, is determined by a judge or jury. Within the scope of the City Auditor’s office, where did the authority to address the alleged violations reside? Common due process rights include: a) the right to a hearing, b) presumption of innocence until proven guilty, c) right to confront and cross-examine their accusers; and d) charges proved by sufficient showing of competent evidence.
4)   Per the scope and methodology, where is the material evidence (auditor notes, names and notes of those interviewed or other pertinent data) that supports the findings identified in the audit?
5)   Page 2 of the report states, Councilmembers should “not be involved in administrative actions such as negotiating, establishing terms, or drafting contracts or grants on behalf of the City.” This work transpires regularly in committee and Council meetings between Councilmembers, City departments and staff and the public. Based on your audit, where should this dialogue take place to ensure the appropriate use and oversight of taxpayer resources?
6)   Page 21 addresses “A Culture of Interference”, and states “audit found that the culture of interference appears to be felt across many City departments and is perceived to come from multiple Councilmembers.” Please share the identity of the other Councilmembers that where identified by City departments and staff within the audit. Only Councilmembers Brooks, Reid and Council Aide Iris Merriounius were specified. This appeared contradictory to the statement that of “multiple Councilmembers.”
BEO&FBL awaits your expeditious response to the matters outlined above. As stewards of the public trust, we understand the importance of having ALL of the facts without rushing to judgment. We want to ensure that ALL Elected Officials and their staff are treated fairly, provided due process and not subjected to unfounded public or media scrutiny based on bias or personal opinions.
Thanks in advance, and we look forward to your response.
Black Elected Officials and Faith Based Leaders

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Uncategorized

Oakland Housing and Community Development Department Awards $80.5 Million to Affordable Housing Developments

Published

8 months ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Special to The Post

The City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) announced its awardees for the 2024-2025 New Construction of Multifamily Affordable Housing Notice of Funding Availability (New Construction NOFA) today Five permanently affordable housing developments received awards out of 24 applications received by the Department, with award amounts ranging from $7 million to $28 million.

In a statement released on Jan. 16, Oakland’s HCD stated, “Five New Construction Multifamily Affordable Housing Development projects awarded a total of $80.5 million to develop 583 affordable rental homes throughout Oakland. Awardees will leverage the City’s investments to apply for funding from the state and private entities.”

In December, the office of Rebecca Kaplan, interim District 2 City Councilmember, worked with HCD to allocate an additional $10 Million from Measure U to the funding pool. The legislation also readopted various capital improvement projects including street paving and upgrades to public facilities.

The following Oakland affordable housing developments have been awarded in the current round:

Mandela Station Affordable

238 Affordable Units including 60 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $15 million + previously awarded $18 million
Developer: Mandela Station LP (Pacific West Communities, Inc. and Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 1451 7th St.

Liberation Park Residences

118 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $28 million
Developer: Eden Housing and Black Cultural Zone
City Council District: 6
Address: 7101 Foothill Blvd.

34th & San Pablo

59 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $7 million
Developer: 34SP Development LP (EBALDC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 3419-3431 San Pablo Ave.

The Eliza

96 Affordable Units including 20 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $20 million
Developer: Mercy Housing California
City Council District: 3
Address: 2125 Telegraph Ave.

3135 San Pablo

72 Affordable Units including 36 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $10.5 million
Developer: SAHA and St. Mary’s Center
City Council District: 3
Address: 3515 San Pablo Ave.

The source of this story is the media reltations office of District 2 City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Housing and Community Development Department Awards $80.5 Million to Affordable Housing Developments

Published

12 months ago

January 30, 2025

Oakland Post

Rebecca Kaplan, interim District 2 city councilmember. File photo.

Special to The Post

The following Oakland affordable housing developments have been awarded in the current round:

Mandela Station Affordable

238 Affordable Units including 60 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $15 million + previously awarded $18 million
Developer: Mandela Station LP (Pacific West Communities, Inc. and Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 1451 7th St.

Liberation Park Residences

118 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $28 million
Developer: Eden Housing and Black Cultural Zone
City Council District: 6
Address: 7101 Foothill Blvd.

34th & San Pablo

59 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $7 million
Developer: 34SP Development LP (EBALDC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 3419-3431 San Pablo Ave.

The Eliza

96 Affordable Units, including 20 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $20 million
Developer: Mercy Housing California
City Council District: 3
Address: 2125 Telegraph Ave.

3135 San Pablo

72 Affordable Units including 36 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $10.5 million
Developer: SAHA and St. Mary’s Center
City Council District: 3
Address: 3515 San Pablo Ave.

The source of this story is media reltations office of District 2 City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Acquisition Company’s Acquisition of County’s Interest in Coliseum Property on the Verge of Completion

The Board of Supervisors is committed to closing the deal expeditiously, and County staff have worked tirelessly to move the deal forward on mutually agreeable terms. The parties are down to the final details and, with the cooperation of OAC and Coliseum Way Partners, LLC, the Board will take a public vote at an upcoming meeting to seal this transaction.

Published

1 year ago

January 11, 2025

Oakland Post

Alameda County Board of Supervisors Chairman David Haubert. Official photo.

Special to The Post

The County of Alameda announced this week that a deal allowing the Oakland Acquisition Company, LLC, (“OAC”) to acquire the County’s 50% undivided interest in the Oakland- Alameda County Coliseum complex is in the final stages of completion.

Oakland has already finalized a purchase and sale agreement with OAC for its interest in the property. OAC’s acquisition of the County’s property interest will achieve two longstanding goals of the County:

The Oakland-Alameda Coliseum complex will finally be under the control of a sole owner with capacity to make unilateral decisions regarding the property; and
The County will be out of the sports and entertainment business, free to focus and rededicate resources to its core safety net

In an October 2024 press release from the City of Oakland, the former Oakland mayor described the sale of its 50% interest in the property as an “historic achievement” stating that the transaction will “continue to pay dividends for generations to come.”

The Board of Supervisors is pleased to facilitate single-entity ownership of this property uniquely centered in a corridor of East Oakland that has amazing potential.

“The County is committed to bringing its negotiations with OAC to a close,” said Board President David Haubert.