City Government

Mayor’s Brooklyn Basin Project Shortchanges Black Workers, Taxpayers and Minority Contractors

Published

10 years ago

March 4, 2016

Brooklyn Basin, a $1.5 billion waterfront condominium project now being built near downtown Oakland, may be a great deal for developers but not so good for local construction workers, taxpayers or local companies that want to do business with the city.

Historically, a major issue facing Oakland’s flatland communities has been whether private developer projects built on city-owned land will yield jobs for local residents.

Especially questionable is whether African American residents will acquire any of the well-paying construction jobs that are generally funneled to non-Oakland residents.

Most recently, Oaklanders waged a hard-fought battle to obtain a promise from the city for 50 percent local hire at the Oakland Army Base development.

But the city council set the Brooklyn Basin project’s local jobs requirement low at 6 percent of the project hours, and only for entry-level apprentices who live in Oakland.

The project has no requirement to hire locally for higher-paying journeyman jobs, including truck drivers or heavy equipment operators.

According to a city report, local entry-level apprentices as of Feb. 24 worked a total of 1,031 hours (or 4.95 percent) of the 20,762 hours worked on the project.

Most telling are the wages that Oakland residents have received – $22,817.17 (or 1.84 percent) of the total $1,239,617.64 that was paid to the project’s workers.

Oaklanders have also been raising concerns about whether city staff and the council are transparent in their dealings with big developers in real estate deals that involve public property.

At present, the city has picked the developer for the 465 units of proposed affordable housing at the Brooklyn Basin – MidPen Housing Corporation – with no concern about whether local-, minority- or women-owned businesses had an opportunity to bid on the project.

A number of people are complaining that the city is currently violating a promise that was implied when the city’s Department of Race & Equity was unanimously voted into existence by the City Council.

According to the City Administrator, the Brooklyn Basin’s development agreement with Michael Ghielmetti and his Signature Housing Group provides that the developer is responsible for proposing the affordable housing developer.

The city reviewed the developer’s affordable housing proposal for MidPen and decided to go with it, according to Karen Boyd, spokesperson for the City Administrator.

The city had no answers to the Post’s questions about the racial composition of MidPen’s workforce, making it questionable whether racial equity was relevant to its decision on awarding a contract.

“The city does not have access to the personnel records of MidPen Housing’s staffing information,” said Boyd in response to the Post’s question.

“While the city’s real estate laws generally require a competitive process in order to dispose of city real estate property, the City Council can waive that requirement if it’s in the best interests of the city,” said Boyd.

“The fact that the development agreement requiresa process that places the responsibility to select the affordable housing developer on the Brooklyn Basin developer would be sufficient to waive the competitive process when the project goes to council for approval,” she said.

Last week, the Post reported on the lack of an affordable housing pledge from the Brooklyn Basin developer, making another issue for taxpayers whether the city is generating all the potential income from the project that could have been used for expanded city services and affordable housing.

The developer paid the city $18 million for 64 acres and agreed to perform the toxic clean up of the site. The city then bought back 4.5 acres of the parcel adjacent to the freeway and opposite the waterfront for affordable housing and paid $22.5 million –following a 2014 appraisal.

If the entire 64 acres were appraised at the same amount as the 4.5 acres the city bought, the selling price for the entire property would have been worth at least $320 million – about $302 million more than the developer originally paid for the property.

Based on the city council’s 2006 deal with Signature Housing Group, the city is hoping to come up with $225 million to build 465 units of the only affordable housing that would be in the 3,100-unit development.

The Oakland Post mistakenly reported last week that Mayor Libby Schaaf was on the city council in 2006 when the project was originally approved. Yet, she has been involved in the deal since she was a city councilmember in 2010 and as mayor in 2014.

Before serving on the council, Schaaf worked as chief of staff for City Council President Ignacio de la Fuente and as a top aide for Mayor Jerry Brown.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Oakland City Council Will Vote April 5 on Temporary Freeze of Rents and Evictions

Don't Miss

Carol Lee Tolbert, A Civic Leader Raising Oakland’s Pride

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

3 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”