East Bay Express Weighs in on Mingles
Rachel Swan of the East Bay Express wrote this nice, long article... my only complaint is that in the beginning she touches on the white-black conflict, but never points out that most of the neighborhood instead see it as a good-bad behavior issue. (Sigh.) I got a few letters to the editor in the past month on the subject which I'll be printing in the July 7th print edition of Jack London News.
Posted 6/28/2006

Cell Antenna Moratorium Passed Early This Morning
Local residents Paul Kuroda and Simon Waddington were the only ones to stay awake through the night and into the wee hours of the morning to hear City Council discuss the proposed moratorium on cell phone antenna sites. Just after midnight the item finally came up on the agenda and of course many representatives from T-Mobile to speak as well as a few others from the cell phone industry.

But Kuroda and Waddington made their points and City Council passed the moratorium unanimously - despite some concern from Council President De la Fuente that anything more than 45 days would be unfair. The cell phone industry speakers all spoke to the issue of emergency services, but I failed to make the connection as to how cell towers would help in the event of a major catastrophe and major power outages. But I'm blonde, so I'm sure I just missed that connection.

The good thing about the moratorium is that it allows City Staff to figure out how other cities regulate cell towers and it allows proper measures to be put into place. The issue with one site in Larry Reid's district was in regards to residents merely wanting the site properly fenced. The good/bad news is that this hearing got the cell company to acquiesce and they put up a fence. Why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place?! Oh yeah, that costs MONEY...

There were other fun tidbits watching the Council Meeting all those hours last night. Did you know that you can watch online (I listen while playing Spider Solitaire) at http://oaklandnet.com/government/streaming-video/city-council-new.cfm. I can hiss as loud as I want while watching the circus play out without fear of removal for bad behavior. :)
Posted 6/28/2006

Cell Antenna Update in Today's Tribune
Today's Oakland Tribune has an article on the proposed moratorium on cell towers being placed in Oakland. Local resident Paul Kuroda is quoted. Doesn't sound optimistic that the tower in New Market will be prevented, but as Paul says, it's a reminder to read those CC&R's and disclosures extremely carefully before purchasing any loft, condo, or home.

p.s. - the Trib's website seems to go down quite a bit these days for unknown reasons. Have patience...
Posted 6/27/2006

Oak to Ninth Avenue: Does Anyone Care?
3100 units, 65 acres, 3 ways in or out, and buildings that start at 65 feet and go to 310 feet. The traffic implications alone for the Jack London District are awful. Is that what you want? Does anyone care that people spent a good deal of time creating the Estuary Policy Plan, that was ratified by the people of Oakland, and that this project will disregard that plan? Do you care that the land currently belongs to the City and is being sold off at bargain basement prices? Do you know that if the Oak to 9th project doesn't happen, that Measure DD would provide the funds to build a world-class destination park on that land FOR THE PEOPLE OF OAKLAND?

Actually, I want Oak to 9th to get built, but at a lesser density that makes more sense. Usually, when developers ask for a number of units or massing, they know that there will be negotiations and that the number will come down. In this case the number hasn't changed AT ALL. When Signature first got the right to bid on this project, the number being talked about was closer to 1400-1600 units, no where near the 3100 units being proposed.

There's no school, no fire station, no more ways to get into and out of the area.

Here's what I asked the council members to think about prior to the June 20th meeting:

Dear Council Members,

I am going to be a neighbor of the Oak to 9th Avenueproject and while on the one hand I want to see thatarea developed and made "nice", I am concerned that the specific project submitted has missed it's mark. I'm hoping that on June 20th, you'll reconsider and put this project on hold - or better yet, send it to a city vote. Let the people have their say oneway or another.I don't think Oak to 9th shouldn't happen, I just think there's been a rush to get this project passed while Mayor Brown is in office, and that we've tipped the scales to being so pro-developer, that's we've lost sight of some middle ground.

The voters told you how they feel with Measure DD! They wanted a destination park. While I wish Middle Harbor Park could have been that, it's simply too cold, too inaccessable, and too windy to be "The Destination".

I've been to over 30 meetings on this project and at each project I hear new people say that they've never heard the details before now (their own fault, but a significant problem none the less) and those who don't understand that if Oak to 9th isn't built, SOMETHING will be done with the land because of Measure DD. The perception is that if we don't get Oak to 9th, the people of Oakland will get nothing and that's simply not true.

The same issues regarding traffic flow, parking, building massing, and the Ninth Avenue Terminal came up meeting after meeting, and the developer nods his head, but doesn't address the real problems facing this project. The mitigation measures are completely inadequate and I want to make sure that our city protects itself from future legal action that may result if this project is built the way that it is currently planned.

A year and a half ago at the start of the scoping sessions for the EIR, and throughout the 30+ meetings I have attended regarding this project, the question has been asked why the developer was asking for 3100 units, versus the years prior mentioned number that was closer to 1400-1600 units. Quietly comments were made - none on the record, of course - that the developer was asking for a higher number so that they could negotiate and bring that number down. Unfortunately that number hasn't changed one bit. Iused to explain it to people that asked me as this: The developers ask for Mars, and they end up with the Moon. In this case, they're getting Mars on a platter! So what if there are problems, they're not aproblem.

The Ninth Avenue Terminal is a great opportunity for the City to have a waterfront building of historic value that could be turned into something really cool. Many ideas have been given. Why do we want to replace that with grass on a pier that will be used as a dog poop zone, just as the grass behind the Jack London Landing Apartments is. Yes, it's pretty, but is it a destination? I think you can have something so much better and I hate to see us sell off the land for peanuts. Do you want to explain to your children or your children's children why Oakland has such a lackluster waterfront?

EXPECT MORE, don't settle!!! Oakland is a desirable place to live. Developers aren't going to walk away. We certainly shouldn't be dangling pallets of carrots for them, when really, they need Oakland.

Thank you,
Joanna Adler
Editor, Jack London News
Board Member, Jack London District Association
Owner, Jack London Mail
Resident, Jack London District

I urge you to tell the members of the Council what you think - good or bad.

Jane Brunner - jbrunner@oaklandnet.com
Nancy Nadel - nnadel@oaklandnet.com
Pat Kernighan - pkernighan@oaklandnet.com
Ignacio de La Fuente - idelafuente@oaklandnet.com
Jean Quan - jquan@oaklandnet.com
Larry Reid - lreid@oaklandnet.com
Desley Brooks - dbrooks@oaklandnet.com
Henry Chang - cityochang@aol.com
Posted 6/13/2006