Activism

COMMENTARY: Having Our Say on Howard Terminal

Why are most of our city council elected representatives afraid to hear from those whom they represent on this “once in a generation project”? Is it because most Oaklanders have a different set of priorities? Is it because residents are more interested in making improvements in our pothole ridden streets, investing in more public safety interventions and other elements that make up our city’s economic and social infrastructure? Is it because many believe that the Oakland Coliseum and arena provide an ideal opportunity for redeveloping a critical part of East Oakland while keeping a major sports franchise in Oakland?

Published

2 years ago

July 20, 2022

Oakland Post

Greg Hodge is a long-time West Oakland resident and a candidate for Mayor. Photo by Jonathan “Fitness” Jones.

By Greg Hodge

Voters in a democracy should always get the final say. A recent poll indicates that 76% of those asked believed that the voters should have been allowed to weigh in on whether public dollars should be spent on the Howard Terminal project that would create a new home for the Oakland A’s. Twelve thousand people signed a petition to encourage our City Council to put the question to the voters as to whether any public monies — local, state or federal — should be used to build the stadium, affordable housing or to finance infrastructure in an around the Howard Terminal site. The City Council rejected this reasonable request, and it makes us wonder, “Why?”

Why would the Mayor and the City Council be reluctant to hear from the voters, even if it was a “non-binding” vote? A representative democracy requires that we listen to the will of the people.

Lots of measures have been approved by the Council for voter approval over the years — a set aside for youth services, a progressive business tax, publicly financed elections, bond measures to finance improvements at Lake Merritt — just to name a few examples.

Some argued that it would be confusing for voters. Some argued that the extra time required would delay the project to the point that it might not happen.

When the San Francisco Giants franchise wanted to build what became AT&T park, the question was put to San Francisco voters.

During the fall of 1996, an initiative was on the ballot introducing a new stadium to be located in the China Basin/South Beach part of the city. Voters in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Jose all rejected measures to help finance the construction of a new stadium, likely recalling the controversy surrounding Candlestick Park. The new owner bought the team with the hope of keeping the team in SF; eventually finding a way to finance construction privately.

As part of the financing of the new stadium, the Giants received a $10 million tax abatement, and $80 million worth of infrastructures upgrades were installed by the city to serve the new stadium. This included the 280N ramp that landed adjacent to the stadium, as well as extending MUNI train lines to the front door of the stadium.

The point is that voters were asked, and elected officials were compelled to listen.

Lots of questions remain about the proposed project. How many units of desperately needed affordable housing will be built and who pays for them? What sustained economic benefits will go to the residents of Oakland while MLB owners make their profits? What jobs and small business opportunities, beyond the initial construction, will remain once the project is built? What will happen with the Oakland Coliseum and will the investment group there receive the same enthusiastic support that the A’s owners have enjoyed from some of our elected officials and baseball fans?

There are some who are afraid to hear the will of the voters. The voters will get the final say at the ballot box in November on who they believe represents their best interests. There is one thing we know for sure — the voters of Oakland are not in a mood to get played.

Greg Hodge is a long-time West Oakland resident and a candidate for Mayor. www.hodgeforoakland.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Gov. Gavin Newsom Appoints Joe Stephenshaw as State’s Director of Finance

Don't Miss

PRESS ROOM: High School Students Nationwide Now Applying for Popular Disney Dreamers Academy Mentorship Program

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

‘Respect Our Vote’ Mass Meeting Rejects Oakland, Alameda County Recalls

The mass meeting, attended mostly by members of local Asian American communities, was held in a large banquet room in a Chinese restaurant in Alameda. The Respect Our Vote (ROV) coalition, consisting of concerned community members and groups, is organizing meetings in Oakland and around Alameda County leading up to the November election.

Published

7 days ago

September 28, 2024

Oakland Post

Some of the leaders who spoke at the Respect Our Vote – No Recalls!” mass meeting were (left to right): Elaine Peng, Mariano Contreras, Pastor Servant B.K. Woodson, and Stewart Chen. Photo by Ken Epstein.

By Ken Epstein

A recently organized coalition, “Respect Our Vote – No Recalls!,” held a standing-room only mass meeting on Sept. 14, urging residents to vote ‘No’ on the two East Bay recalls funded by conservative billionaires and millionaires with the help of corporate media and instead to support the campaign to protect residents’ democratic right to choose their representatives.

The mass meeting, attended mostly by members of local Asian American communities, was held in a large banquet room in a Chinese restaurant in Alameda.

The Respect Our Vote (ROV) coalition, consisting of concerned community members and groups, is organizing meetings in Oakland and around Alameda County leading up to the November election.

Speaking at the meeting, prominent East Bay leader Stewart Chen said that local leaders, like Alameda County D.A. Pamela Price and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, worked hard to get elected, and our system says they get four years to carry out their policies and campaign promises. But rich people have “broken” that system.

Within two months after they took office, they were facing recalls paid for by billionaires, he said. “(Billionaires’) candidate did not get elected, so they want to change the system.”

“(Our elected leaders) were elected through the process, and the people spoke,” said Chen. “It’s the entire system that the billionaires are trying to (overturn).”

“If a candidate does something wrong or enacts a policy that we do not like, we let it play out, and in four years, we do not have to vote for them.

“The democratic system that we have had in place for a couple of hundred years, it needs our help,” said Chen.

Pastor Servant B.K. Woodson, a leader of the coalition, emphasized the diversity and solidarity needed to defend democracy. “We need each other’s wisdom to make our nation great, to make it safe. We are deliberately African American, English-speaking, Latino American, Spanish-speaking, and all the wonderful dialects in the Asian communities. We want to be together, grow together, and have a good world together.”

Mariano Contreras of the Latino Task Force said that people need to understand what is at stake now.

The recall leaders are connected to conservative forces that will undermine public education, and bilingual education, he said. “The people behind (the recalls) are being used by outside dark money,” he said. The spokespeople of these recalls are themselves conservatives “who are wearing a mask that says they are progressives.”

In 2017, Oakland passed an ordinance that gave teeth to its “Sanctuary City” policy, which was brought to the City Council and passed because it was supported by progressive members on the council.

“That would not be possible anymore if the progressive alliance – Sheng Thao, Nikki Fortunato Bas, and Carroll Fife – if they are pushed out,” he said.

Elaine Peng, president of Asian Americans for Progressive America, said, “I strongly oppose the recalls of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.”

Citing statistics, she said Alameda County’s murder rate was higher when Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley was in office, before Pamela Price was elected to that position.

“The recall campaign has been misleading the public,” said Peng.

She said Oakland is making progress under Thao. “Crime rates are falling in Oakland,” and the City is building more affordable housing than ever before and is creating more jobs.

Attorney Victor Ochoa said, this recall is “not by accident in Oakland – it is a political strategy.”

“There is a strategy that has been launched nationwide. What we’re seeing is oligarchs, (such as Phillip Dreyfuss from Piedmont), right wingers, conservatives, who can write a check for $400,000 like some of us can write a check for $10.”

“They aligned themselves with so-called moderate forces, but they’re not moderates. They align themselves with the money, and that’s what we have seen in Oakland.”

Ochoa continued, “You got to put up signs, you’ve got to talk to your neighbors, volunteer whatever hours you can, have a house meeting. That’s the way progressives win.”

Pecolia Manigo of Oakland Rising Action spoke about what it will take to defeat the recalls. “This is the time when you are not only deputized to go out and do outreach, we need to make sure that people actually vote.

“We need everyone to vote not just for the president, but all the way down the ballot to where these questions will be. Remind people to fill out their ballot, and mail it back.”

Former Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who had herself faced a recall attempt, said, “In this recall, they used a lot of money, had paid signature gatherers, and they moved very fast. I talked to many of the people gathering signatures. They didn’t know what was going on. Many of them didn’t live in Oakland. It was just money for them.”

“Sam Singer, the guy who is their spokesperson, is a paid PR guy. He has media ties, so they’ve swamped the media against Sheng,” Quan said.

‘Oakland is… a city that implemented some of the first rent control protections in the country. So, developers and big apartment owners would love to get rid of rent control,” said Quan.

“We also established ranked-choice voting, which allows people with less money to coalesce and win elections,” she said. “That’s too democratic for people with big money. They would rather have elections the way they were.”