Activism
OPINION: Let the Voters Vote! Citizens Should Decide on Proposal to Build New Ballpark for Oakland A’s
When the Raiders asked the city to close a $400 million funding gap for additional renovations at the Coliseum in 2015, Mayor Libby Schaaf said no way. In 2015, she told SFGate “we could spend (that money) on police, parks and libraries.” Oakland’s need to address citywide problems is even more dire now than it was seven years ago. How then, can the city consider spending twice as much public money today than was unthinkable seven years ago?
By Paul Cobb, Post Publisher
We applaud Councilmember Carroll Fife’s decision to honor the wishes of Oakland residents and let the voters determine whether it is appropriate to use public funds to support building the Oakland A’s privately owned baseball park and 3,000 luxury condominiums at Howard Terminal.
Oakland faces many challenges including school closures, an ever-increasing homelessness crisis, spiking crime, desperately needed infrastructure repairs of roads, and fire safety investment. Voters should be given the opportunity to decide whether this is the right time to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds on billionaire John Fisher’s privately owned luxury project.
For the past several years, the Oakland A’s have pursued building a new stadium. A strong contingent of Oakland residents wants the stadium to be built at the existing Oakland Coliseum site. For decades, the Coliseum was home to the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors. Each of these teams had great success, sellout crowds, and championship seasons at the Coliseum site.
They also argue that the Coliseum site is shovel-ready, accessible by public transportation, and bordered by two major freeways. It does not have the huge infrastructure costs, estimated at over $800 million, that Howard Terminal requires. But the A’s reject the Coliseum site without good justification, prompting many residents to believe that their objection is really based on not wanting to have a baseball park in a Black neighborhood.
The A’s have set their sights on Howard Terminal, located in West Oakland’s industrial zone, and the heart of the Port of Oakland. Many critics complain that building at Howard Terminal would threaten the viability of the Port of Oakland, and good-paying union jobs.
These complaints were validated when the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) — a committee of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) — said that it was inappropriate to transition lands that are essential for maritime purposes to private use. To support their position, they stated that under the law, if maritime property is needed for current or future maritime use, it cannot be transferred to private non-maritime use.
As well, the International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union (ILWU), Oakland’s largely Black union at the port, convened a work stoppage to protest giving valuable port land to the A’s because it could lead to the loss of hundreds of union jobs, and disrupt port activities at a time where the entire nation is reeling from supply chain issues.
Nobody wants to lose the A’s, but Oakland taxpayers are still smarting from the $200 million debt they will be paying until 2026 for Oakland Coliseum renovations in the 1990s, when Oakland lured the Raiders back from Los Angeles.
When the Raiders asked the city to close a $400 million funding gap for additional renovations at the Coliseum in 2015, Mayor Libby Schaaf said no way. In 2015, she told SFGate “we could spend (that money) on police, parks and libraries.”
Oakland’s need to address citywide problems is even more dire now than it was seven years ago. How then, can the city consider spending twice as much public money today than was unthinkable seven years ago?
This is one of the most divisive issues Oakland will face. It puts the needs of the city against the desires of a wealthy businessman to build luxury housing and a baseball field at a location that will hurt workers and the Port.
Councilmember Noel Gallo is also concerned about the cost and impact of the proposed project to the city and its residents. On March 24, he introduced legislation to require the A’s to provide the City Council with a full and complete economic analysis of the benefits and risks associated with the project. He insisted that this analysis be presented at a public City Council meeting, so the information will be available to all Oakland residents.
We think that Councilmembers Fife’s and Gallo’s proposals are complementary. Every member of the Council should support Councilmember Fife’s call to let the voters decide whether to use public funds to help build the baseball stadium and luxury condominiums at Howard Terminal. They should also support Councilmember Gallo’s legislation requesting a full and complete publicly disclosed economic analysis.
Some opponents argue that this is too complex an issue for the voters to consider. That is wrong for many reasons, but the two most important are these.
Oakland voters have considered and voted on major financial issues in many elections. More importantly, if the voters are smart enough to elect a mayor and City Council members, they are smart enough to evaluate whether it is appropriate to spend public funds on a billionaire’s folly when the city has so many other needs.
We urge the voters of Oakland to demand that the City Council place the question of whether to spend public funds on baseball and luxury housing before the voters on the November 2022 ballot.
We also urge the City Council to schedule a public meeting for a full and complete economic analysis of the benefits and risks of the project to the city. If the City Council refuses to do so, the voters should assess whether people running for office, who refuse to let the voters vote, should be elected.
Thank you, Councilmembers Fife and Gallo, for bringing these issues to the attention of the voters.
Let the voter’s vote.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of March 13 – 19, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of March 13 – 19, 2024
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of March 6 – 12, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of March 6 – 12, 2024
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Who are the Alameda County District 4 Supervisor Candidates’ Top Campaign Contributors?
Below, we’ve listed each candidate’s 10 highest campaign contributors. For Miley, two of his top campaign donors also bought their own advertisements to support him and/or oppose Esteen through independent expenditures. Such expenditures, though separate from campaign donations, are also public record, and we listed them. Additionally, the National Organization of Realtors has spent about $70,500 on their own independent expenditures to support Miley.
By Zack Haber
Nate Miley, who has served on Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors since 2000, is running for reelection to the District 4 supervisor seat.
Jennifer Esteen, a nurse and activist, is seeking to unseat him and become one of the five members of the powerful board that sets the county’s budget, governs its unincorporated areas, and oversees the sheriff, Alameda Health System, and mental health system.
District 4 includes most of East Oakland’s hills and flatlands beyond Fruitvale, part of Pleasanton and unincorporated areas south of San Leandro like Ashland and Castro Valley.
Voting is open and will remain open until March 5.
In California, campaign donations of $100 or more are public record. The records show that Miley has received about $550,000 in total campaign donations since he won the previous District 4 election in March 2020. Esteen has raised about $255,000 in total campaign donations since she started collecting them last July. All figures are accurate through Feb. 20.
While Miley has raised more money, Esteen has received donations from more sources. Miley received donations of $100 or more from 439 different sources. Esteen received such donations from 507 different sources.
Below, we’ve listed each candidate’s 10 highest campaign contributors. For Miley, two of his top campaign donors also bought their own advertisements to support him and/or oppose Esteen through independent expenditures. Such expenditures, though separate from campaign donations, are also public record, and we listed them. Additionally, the National Organization of Realtors has spent about $70,500 on their own independent expenditures to support Miley.
Nate Miley’s top campaign contributors:
The California Apartment Association, a trade group representing landlords and investors in California’s rental housing business, has spent about $129,500 supporting Miley’s election bid through about $59,500 in ads against Esteen, $55,000 in ads supporting Miley, and $15,000 in campaign donations.
The independent expenditure committee Preserve Agriculture in Alameda County has spent about $46,025 supporting Miley through about $27,200 in their own ads, and $18,825 in donations to his campaign. Preserve Agriculture has supported reelection efforts for former Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley, and Sheriff Greg Ahern, a republican. It’s received funding from Chevron, PG&E, and a the California Apartment Association.
Organizations associated with the Laborers’ International Union of North America, or LiUNA, have donated about $35,000 in total. Construction and General Laborers Local 304, a local chapter of the union representing which represents over 4,000 workers, donated $20,000.
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition, which represents 70,000 LiUNA members in Arizona, California, Hawaii and New Mexico, donated $15,000.
William ‘Bill’ Crotinger and the East Oakland-based company Argent Materials have donated $26,000. Crotinger is the president and founder of Argent, a concrete and asphalt recycling yard. Argent’s website says it is an eco-friendly company that diverts materials from landfills. In 2018, Argent paid the EPA $27,000 under a settlement for committing Clean Water Act violations.
Michael Morgan of Hayward, owner of We Are Hemp, a marijuana dispensary in Ashland, has donated $21,500.
Alameda County District 1 Supervisor David Haubert has donated $21,250 from his 2024 reelection campaign. He’s running unopposed for the District 1 seat.
SEIU 1021, which represents over 60,000 workers in local governments, non-profit agencies, healthcare programs, and schools in Northern California, has donated $20,000.
UA Local 342, which represents around 4,000 pipe trades industry workers in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, donated $20,000.
The union representing the county’s deputy sheriffs, Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Alameda County, has donated $17,000.
Becton Healthcare Resources and its managers have donated $14,625. Becton’s mission statement says it provides “behavioral health management services to organizations and groups that serve the serious and persistent mentally ill population.”
Jennifer Esteen’s top campaign contributors:
Mary Quinn Delaney of Piedmont, founder of Akonadi Foundation, has donated $20,000. Akonadi Foundation gives grants to nonprofit organizations, especially focusing on racial justice organizing,
Bridget Galli of Castro Valley has donated $7,000. Galli is a yoga instructor and a co-owner of Castro Valley Yoga.
Rachel Gelman of Oakland has donated $5,000. Gelman is an activist who has vowed to redistribute her inherited wealth to working class, Indigenous and Black communities.
California Worker Families Party has donated $5,000. The organization’s website describes itself as a “grassroots party for the multiracial working class.”
David Stern of Albany has donated $5,000. Stern is a retired UC Berkeley Professor of Education.
Oakland Rising Committee—a collaborative of racial, economic, and environmental justice organizations—has donated about $3,050.
Fredeke Von Bothmer-Goodyear, an unemployed resident of San Francisco, has donated $2,600.
Robert Britton of Castro Valley has donated $2,500. Britton is retired and worked in the labor movement for decades.
Progressive Era PAC has donated about $2,400. Its mission statement says it “exists to elect governing majorities of leaders in California committed to building a progressive era for people of color.”
East Bay Stonewall Democrats Club has donated $2,250. The club was founded in 1982 to give voice to the East Bay LGBTQIA+ communities.
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Opponents of San Francisco’s Prop E Hold Rally in Front of City Hall
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Nigerian Bank Chief Killed in Helicopter Crash on Way to Superbowl XVIII
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Inheriting the Mantle: Who Will Carry the Legacy of John George?
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Who Are the Top Donors in the Alameda County District 5 Supervisor’s Race?
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
Michael P. Johnson Garners Major Support in Run for Alameda County Superior Court Judge
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Berkeley Considers New Law to Help Tenants Buy Where They Rent
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
S.F. Board of Supervisors OKs Mayor Breed’s Streamlining Legislation to Speed Up New Residential Treatment, Care Beds
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of February 28 – March 5, 2024