Business

Council Approves Plan to Hire Staff for Fisher’s Howard Terminal Project

Explaining her compromise, Kaplan said the city needs more staff and more effort “to serve transportation projects throughout the City of Oakland, including traffic calming measures, speed bumps and ways to reduce speeding… which have been waiting for some time… When the word equity is thrown around, we have to be sure that it’s made real.”

Published

3 years ago

March 6, 2022

Oakland Post

“East and West Oakland are in a state of emergency,” and need resources from the city, said Councilmember Noel Gallo, who is shown here cleaning up illegal dumping during one of his weekly cleanups in District 5, which he represents. Photo courtesy of Noel Gallo’s office.

Schaaf’s plan includes $150 million in funding that would require local taxes

By Ken Epstein

Oakland City Council members had to make a tough decision this week, under pressure to decide whether to approve Mayor Libby Schaaf’s proposal to commit nearly $450 million in public funds to begin planning the infrastructure to support billionaire John Fisher’s Howard Terminal development on public land at the Port of Oakland.

On one hand, many Oakland residents are strongly opposed to the deal. Nearly every public speaker at Tuesday’s Zoom City Council meeting spoke against the proposal. Many oppose the privatization of public land at Howard Terminal.

Others are critical of the mayor’s “Town for All” plan to divert public funding for years to come to create infrastructure to support Fisher’s new city by the Bay, while starving East Oakland and West Oakland neighborhoods that desperately need speed bumps, traffic safety upgrades and cleanup of mountains of out-of-control trash dumping.

Many people are also concerned that this resolution looks like an end run around democratic processes, allowing hiring and planning on Howard Terminal to start now without public input, before all necessary studies and evaluations are completed, and before the entire project receives a go-ahead by the City Council.

On the other hand, council members are under pressure from building trades unions, which are on board with the Fisher project and have a history of raising massive amounts of money and fielding campaign workers to unseat elected officials who fail to support their agenda.

In addition, there is pressure from state Democratic legislators who have paved the way for Fisher’s deal, granting the city hundreds of millions of dollars that can only be used for Howard Terminal-related infrastructure projects.

Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan

Seeking a compromise, Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan proposed a motion to change the wording of the resolution, including dropping the name ‘Town for All,’ which she referred to as Orwellian. Her proposal modified the original resolution on the council agenda, which was to hire 13 staff for as much as $11 million to start planning the Howard Terminal infrastructure project, utilizing the $431 million fund already created by the mayor, which is still short by $104 million in funding.

Schaaf’s plan also includes $150 million in funding that would require local taxes.

In Kaplan’s proposal, the new staff would be used not just for Howard Terminal but also for smaller neighborhood safe streets and neighborhood improvement projects. Of course, it is not clear where the money for neighborhood projects would be located if staff time, funding and other resources are concentrated for six years or more on Howard Terminal-related construction.

Councilmember Sheng Thao

On the first vote, Kaplan’s compromise failed, falling one short of the needed five votes. Councilmembers Carroll Fife and Noel Gallo voted no, and expressing serious concerns, Councilmember Sheng Thao and Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas abstained. The others — Kaplan, Dan Kalb, Treva Reid and Loren Taylor — voted yes.

Only a few minutes after the vote, President Bas called for a re-vote, saying she wanted to change her position. This time she voted yes, giving Kaplan’s motion the five votes it needed to pass. Unchanged, Councilmember Thao abstained, and Fife and Gallo voted no.

Fife explained her opposition, “I don’t think what was stated today was sufficient. When it comes to traffic safety, this money is being concentrated in one area, (rather than throughout the city); it seems like public comment is irrelevant, it is not (considered) necessary. I’m very disappointed how this process is rolling out,” how all this money will be spent, she said.

Gallo said he was concerned about providing all the hundreds of millions of dollars for one small part of the city, to benefit one individual real estate developer. It’s what the state legislators did, arranging the funding specifically to support a billionaire’s Howard Terminal deal, he said.

Before reversing her vote, Bas said, “I have a lot of concerns from the community… about the need for traffic safety, traffic calming, street lighting. I’m extremely frustrated,” she said, that she and other councilmembers cannot tell people when the city will respond to their needs.

“We need equity, we need flatland communities being served,” she said.

Concerned about long standing racial disparities in the city’s hiring of contractors and consultants, the council voted down a companion resolution to hire a consulting firm to kick off the Howard Terminal work.

“There needs to be a fairer process,” said Thao. “It’s just racism.”