Bay Area

City Council Commits to Adopting Policies to Protect and Enhance Geoffrey’s Inner Circle and the Black Arts District

The Oakland City Council adopted a motion this week potentially resolving the ongoing fight between the many backers of Geoffrey’s Inner Circle and San Francisco-based Tidewater Capital’s proposed 40-story luxury apartment tower, which city planning staff greenlighted to be built inches away from the Geoffrey’s venue in what has been designated the downtown Black Arts Movement and Business District.

Published

3 years ago

January 23, 2024

Oakland Post

Geoffrey Pete, owner of Geoffrey’s Inner Circle, at Oakland City Hall. Photo by Jonathan ‘Fitness’ Jones.

By Ken Epstein

Proposed by Councilmember Carroll Fife and seconded by Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, the city council unanimously approved a scheduling motion to place the matter on the Feb. 27 meeting agenda of the council’s Community and Economic Development (CED) committee, pledging to write new policies to strengthen the Black Arts district and ensure the long-term viability of Geoffrey’s Inner Circle, named after its owner, Geoffrey Pete.

Speaking at Tuesday meeting, Mr. Pete withdrew his appeal challenging the planning commission’s approval of the Tidewater project and thanked his many community backers for their tenacious and vocal support.

“We have entered into an agreement with the City of Oakland in which we have decided to withdraw our appeal,” he said. “This was an unprecedented appeal … against the unjust decision by the city planners and the planning commission of the City of Oakland.”

Cautiously optimistic, he said “It is our sincere hope (that) making good on this agreement … your supportive efforts will not be in vain.”

He emphasized this resolution could not have been achieved without the many community members who raised their voices to support him and his club.

“Thank you for your seemingly undying support,” he said. “You have revitalized our community in one fell swoop … I never knew you could have the kind of impact you’ve had on this situation.”

Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., he said, “A man is a fool if he doesn’t realize that his wealth is a part of the commonwealth. No matter where you are, somebody helped you get there. Thank you for helping us get there.”

Councilmember Fife introduced the scheduling motion, which was worked out in discussions with community members prior to the meeting.

“Thank you, Mr. Pete. You’ve had an amazing amount of patience and also been a teacher and a leader throughout this entire endeavor,” she said, emphasizing that she has pledged to do what it takes to strengthen the Black Arts district.

“I made that commitment, and I’ve made it in writing,” she said.

Continuing, Councilmember Fife said, “I’d like to schedule this strengthening of existing legislation, which is (currently) the Black Arts Movement and Business District in name only. I think it was a noble effort that was passed by (former) councilmember (Lynette) McElhaney (in 2016), but it didn’t give the City of Oakland the tools necessary to really enforce what it means to be a cultural district in the (city).”

According to the scheduling motion, the Feb. 27 CED committee meeting would create city policies to:

“Implement a series of public streetscape improvements, including public banners, along Oakland’s Fourteenth Street corridor, to honor, uplift, commemorate, and increase public awareness of important Black cultural, sports, arts, and historical people and institutions.”
“Use available funds including available art funds. and to pursue grants and other funding sources to support arts, music, comedy, and cultural institutions in the district; including the preservation and financial support to ensure ongoing viability of its historic, cornerstone African American institutions, including Geoffrey’s Inner Circle.”
“To make resources available to businesses” for tenant improvements and to work with the planning and building departments to “strengthen the district and ensure long-term vitality.”

Looking ahead, in the wake of recent conflicts over market-rate real estate developments, supported by city planning staff and the Planning Commission, many community activists have begun to challenge the pro-gentrification biases that appear baked into the planning process.

These activists are raising the alarm over the lack of ordinary Oakland residents, who are unconnected to real estate development, on the Planning Commission and the readiness of planners to place the interests of developers over residents’ needs and concerns.