Caught!
From the NCPC Beat 1X newsgroup comes this message from local resident Simon Waddington:

I'm pleased to report that a suspect in at least two of these [288 Third St] burglaries was apprehended this afternoon after being seen trying to break into a car outside 288 3rd at around 3pm.

After the suspect got on his bike to circle the block he was followed by two people - including the owner of the unit at 288 3rd that was burglarized. The owner then recognized the suspect was carry the bag for his laptop that was stolen Saturday and they continued to follow him until OPD showed up (which took several calls and an hour delay, apparently because of an attempted or actual bank robbery at Citibankin Chinatown ). Apparently other evidence was found on the suspect, including a garage clicker that may connect him with other break-ins. Unfortunately the laptop was no longer in his possession.

This goes to show that people working our area may return again and again - and operate in broad daylight. The mode of operation - riding around on a bike checking out cars was exactly as OPD officers had described at the last NCPC meeting.

***************************
Now that's something to be thankful for! But just remember, just because one person has been caught doesn't mean a whole 'nother group isn't out there ready and willing to replace this thief. (sorry!)

Oh, and beware - it seems we have a new load of homeless folks wandering the neighborhood. Three times in two days I've seen three different people standing in the middle of the street with seemingly no clue as to the oncoming traffic. One was even pretending to direct traffic...
Posted 11/27/2007

Burglary at 288 Third St
Yesterday I ran into our Problem Solving Officer, TK Lewis, in Jack London Square. He mentioned that a purse had been reported stolen at a business located at 288 Third St. The suspect was an African-American riding a bicycle. Turns out that the purse was stolen from the sales office...

Today one of the ground floor units at 288 Third Street was burglarized, and a laptop was stolen amongst other things. The victim says that the perpetrator had to have used keys to get in, so it seems like keys may also have been stolen yesterday.

Peerless Coffee at 3rd & Oak Streets was also burglarized Thursday night. The suspect(s) broke a window to gain entry, but other than an empty cash drawer, nothing was taken.

Prime Smoked Meats had some serious graffitti over Thanksgiving - already painted over thanks to the prompt response from owner Steve Sacks and his crew.

Keep your eyes on alert and use a buddy system. As the holidays approach darkness comes earlier, it gets colder, and people seem to be getting more desperate...
Posted 11/24/2007

Hearing on Cabaret License Requirements
Check out this story in the Oakland Tribune. It talks about night clubs in Oakland and mentions (at the very end) a hearing on the amendment to the Oakland Municipal Code regarding cabaret permits to be discussed at the Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, 7:30 p.m., City Hall.

A few rumors might make you consider going to this hearing... first, that a "gentleman's club" might be going in to the Oakland Metro space at 2nd Street and Broadway. Also, rumors persist that the Ivey family (of Mingles fame) may be doing something at the On Broadway space on 4th Street and Broadway.

And kudos to the Trib. It seems they're putting a few more Oakland stories in the paper these days...
Posted 11/14/2007

Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee Drops Suit
The Oakland Tribune is reporting that the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee has agreed to drop their lawsuit against the City regarding the City's refusal to count the signatures of the referendum petition because of "incorrect" documents attached to the petition.

Whether or not you're for or against the Oak to Ninth project of 3100 units on the waterfront, the issue here is how our City Government handled the PEOPLE's request for a vote on the issue. Why is/was the City so afraid of a vote by the PEOPLE? And why is it the Referendum Committee's fault that the City provided the wrong documents?

Last time I checked "Democracy" meant government for the people, by the people. If enough people wanted a vote on the issue, why was our very own government so against it? Oh, because they don't want it to get to a vote. Because Oakland isn't really a government for the PEOPLE - just select People.

For me, another key issue is which documents were truly approved by City Council? I was there that night and it was not at all clear. Obviously it wasn't a few days later when the Referendum Committee received the documents from the City. Were the staffers fired that provided the incorrect documents? Why did they provide the incorrect documents? Most likely not because they meant to screw things up for the Referendum Committee, but more likely because no one was quite sure what the correct documents were until the Developer provided them. But wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?!

And why did the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee give up the battle? MONEY. With the economy as crap as it is, who can afford to keep bank rolling a legal battle against a Developer with seemingly unlimited coffers. And yes, the Developer indemnified the City and has bankrolled all of the legal action. The City isn't out any money, just it's soul that it sold...

Let's look at it another way. Let's say a doctor gives you a prescription. You think you know what you are being prescribed and when you get the written prescription and have it filled, you then are permanently disabled as a result of taking the wrong medication. Oh, but wait, you took the wrong medication because you had the wrong prescription. You know the one that is now correct in your file. Too bad! It's your own fault that you took the wrong prescription because you didn't get the proper prescription. You sue the doctor, right? And that's what the Oak to Ninth Referendum did in suing the City, but who has deeper pockets?

I know lots of people here in the Jack London District are for the Oak to Ninth Project and I can't say that I'm 100% against it. But just the like the Jack London Square Redevelopment Project, I want to make sure that the people of Oakland and of California are getting a fair deal for giving up this public waterfront land that was supposed to belong to the PEOPLE. The same land that the public voted in a landslide vote to give money (Measure DD) to rehabilitate.
Posted 11/12/2007