Letter to the Finance Committee
Dear Council Members,

I am unable to attend the Finance Committee meeting on 6/24/08 because I run a business here in the Jack London District of Oakland and cannot get away during the day. It is my hope that you will take the following comments into consideration despite my not being there.

I strongly urge you to push item #7, an amendment request to the Jack London District Mixed-Use Parking Permit Plan back to Staff to work with the neighborhood association, JLDA, to find a resolution.

I was an original member of the Ad Hoc Jack London District On-Street Parking Improvement Committee (AHJLDOSPIC). AHJLDOSPIC came to life as a result of the City wanting to blanket the entire district with parking meters. Since this was not acceptable to the majority of those that attended the meter proposal meeting, the City put the task back in our own lap to resolve. Hence, the birth of the Ad Hoc Committee. Later, this resulted in the birth of the Jack London District Association.

As part of that committee, we were told that any plan we were to come up with should not make money, but nor should it cost the City money.

At last the Plan was approved by Council and implemented in May 2008. Now, a mere six or seven weeks after implementation and four weeks after enforcement, Ms. Nadel's office is suggesting that the plan be amended to allow more people to be eligible for the permits.

I first have issue with how the amendment has arrived at the Finance Committee without first having been discussed with the Jack London District Association (JLDA) - and primary go to group for creating the mixed-use permit plan. Isn't that the point of having a neighborhood association? To work with the neighborhood to find compromise and resolution? As a simple courtesy, this should have been done.

I also have issue with making changes to this plan before it's even settled into existence. Six or seven weeks is not enough to see if it is working. To say, as Ms. Arrona has said to me, that the plan is losing money is not a fair statement. If the costs of the plan include hiring a new parking enforcement officer, as well as purchasing a new vehicle, and neither of those things has happened, how is this mixed-use permit program failing? The City has raised over $80,000 just in the first six weeks - $80,000 it wouldn't have received without the plan. If anything, the plan is profitable, and not revenue neutral at this point.

Ms. Arrona called me last week to yell at me. She kept asking why I cared - why I take the changes personally. I was interrupted so many times that I never got to answer that question, nor was I able to get Ms. Arrona to speak to me in a civil manner. In the end I was forced to hang up and hope that other members of the Committee would listen to what I have to say. Is it so wrong to personally care about the very neighborhood you live and work in?

You have already heard from a few employees that work in Jack London Square - I've seen the emails. While I can feel sympathy with those who work in the Square, Port of Oakland, or Alameda County buildings, I do not feel that we should include them in the current plan without changes. What changes? I have a few ideas, but I feel that they should be discussed offline with JLDA - the Jack London District Association. Unfortunately for tenants in the Square, the Port, and the County Buildings they are at a disadvantage because of their landlord. In all three cases - Jack London Square, the Port of Oakland, and the Alameda County buildings - the land owners were all asked to come to the table to discuss the permit plan MANY times over the years. Every time, they declined. In the case of the Square and the Port, it was quite clear that the intention was for their workers to park in the Washington Street Garage or they wanted to encourage publictransportation. In the case of the Alameda County building, it wasn't clear - several times we were told that they didn't need parking because they came in and out. That was also mentioned by Ms. Arrona last week. For the Square employees of tenants that do not have 100% parking provided by their lease, I do feel that they have a right to be angry. The plan is certainly not a perfect fit for all. It was and is a COMPROMISE as it exists. Giving in to the these other entities, none of whom have any parking to give back, is unfair.

If changes to the plan are approved to increase the eligibility for the permits, then I would hope that other concessions could be made in exchange. Perhaps the City could require JLS, the Port, and the County to fund some portion of the plan. Another idea would be to add unrestricted on-street parking areas in the District to the plan. Yet another idea would be to lower the price of the permits for others in exchange for allowing these other areas being proposed to be added to the eligibility.

The goal in creating the plan in the first place was to bring more business to the area. That doesn't happen overnight. It is going to take some marketing from the City to let potential businesses know that things have changed and that this area that was once hostile to the existing businesses has changed. Let's not rush changes to the plan without giving it a chance to succeed.

I thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. I hope that you will push back the request so that Staff can involve JLDA in coming up with a solution.

Sincerely,
Joanna Adler
Posted 6/23/2008