Brown Sugar Kitchen
If you can grab a chance to head to work late, I highly recommend a stop at the Brown Sugar Kitchen on Mandela to grab some breakfast. BSK is also open on Saturdays from 7am-3pm, but with a different menu. I've also heard that it is crazy busy from open to close on Saturdays.

Today I got to head over to BSK, which is owned by Tanya Holland who used to live in the Jack London District. Some of you may remember when she had her book (New Soul Cooking) signing at Barnes & Noble.

BSK is awesome. I'm not a huge fan of waffles, but I swear the one I had this morning was the lightest I've ever had. It melts in your mouth! And fried chicken? Also not a favorite of mine - it was divine! The space is a bit unassuming on the outside, but incredibly welcoming on the inside. Tanya has done an awesome job with the decor, food, and ambiance.

We are so lucky here in Oakland to have so many great new (& newish) restaurants popping up - MoNO, Wood Tavern, Flora, Camino, B Restaurant & Bar, Levende East, etc. Not to mention all of the old favorites here in the District.

Support these independently owned restaurants - the economy and time of year is hard on them.

More info on Brown Suguar Kitchen here. Check it out!
Posted 6/27/2008

Legally Defining 4-Hour Parking
I've had at least a half dozen people stop by to complain that they have gotten tickets within the 4-hour zone, even though they moved their car before the 4-hour time limit had passed. Some have moved their cars across the street from where they were initially parked, while others have moved their vehicle to a completely different block.

Dan at Monohan Paper was nice enough to do more research (well, he's the latest one to get a ticket).

The violation number on the tickets that I have seen is 10.44.120 - it is a $70 ticket.

Here is the applicable text of 10.44.120:

A. It is unlawful and shall constitute a violation of this chapter for any person to stand or park a motor vehicle, without a current residential parking permit properly displayed, at a curb within a residential permit parking area for a period of time exceeding the time limitation established by the City Council for such area. Motor vehicles identified as used by disabled persons meeting the requirements of Section 22511.5 of the California Vehicle Code shall be exempt from this subsection.

Ouch! That completely goes against what the Parking Committee was told. On the other hand, a case could be made that this is not a RESIDENTIAL permit area.

I'm passing this info on to the current members of the Parking Committe & the JLDA Board for them to follow up with City Staff. If/when I hear more, I will pass along that information.

In the meantime, it appears that moving your car is not an option. (cringe - please, no hate mail! Or at least not directed at me.)

UPDATE 6/25/08 1:47pm PST:

Gary Knecht of JLDA informs me that 10.45.120 Violations & Penalty says, "The violations and penalty provision set forth in Chapter 10.44.120 shall apply to the Jack London District mixed use parking permit program. He also says that when he has asked parking enforcement about this, he has been told that it IS okay to move and you won't get a ticket. That goes against the above law and what two different parking enforcement officers told me and Dan today.

That answers that question, but here's another:

What about the 2-hour parking spots that are not open to permit parking? Can you move your car within those spaces without getting a ticket?
Posted 6/25/2008

Committee Approves Increased Fees; Holds Boundary Decision
Today City Council members approved the increase of visitor parking fees. It will still go to full council for final approval. I caught KTOP just as they were trying to decide what to do.

On the plus side, Council Members agreed that Staff should meet with JLDA in the next week to discuss increasing the boundaries. This has to happen before they can bring it to Council. At best, they're looking at Sept 16th for a second reading at council before the ordinance can be ammended.

If you need visitor permits, get them now before they go up in price!
Posted 6/24/2008

One Reason the City Hasn't Sold More Permits
I've gotten several comments in the last few days from people who want to get a permit, but have questions. It seems that they've been trying to contact someone (who?) in the City who can answer their questions, but they aren't getting a call back when they leave a phone number.

Hmmm, another argument for not passing the amendment on today's Finance Committee schedule....

If the City wants to sell more permits, perhaps they could return calls.
Posted 6/24/2008

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

City Administrator On Her Way Out?
I've never made it a secret that I do not care for Oakland's City Administor, Deborah Edgerly.

I think the first time I got a really bad feeling about her was at a Women in Business (Oakland) gathering where she was a guest speaker. She kept rah-rah'ing about how she'd raised this fee and that fee and how she'd moved her way up the ranks by making her bosses look good and by finding more ways to make money. It seemed to me, at the time, that she wasn't saying anything that was pro the small business owner. What's funny is that all these other women were clapping and cheering her on, not thinking about all the fees that have been raised since Edgerly became City Administrator. I kept looking around wondering why all these women in business were clapping. More fees typically means less money left at the end to pay ourselves as small business owners. And the funnier thing was that of the 6-7 other women business owners I spoke with that day, all complained about fees for permits, etc. Uh, hello? Were you the same women just clapping and cheering on Ms. Edgerly?

Then, there was the whole mixed-use parking permit plan. When Edgerly first met with members of the Jack London District Ad Hoc On-Street Parking Improvement Committee (JLDA did not exist back then), she was the one to come out and provide the parameters as to what we could do since the majority were against blanketing the neighborhood with parking meters. Her main criteria was that any proposal would not make money, and that it would be revenue neutral. A few years later when the mixed-use permit plan went to Council, she opposed it because she wanted it to make money and she touted how much money parking meters would have made for the City. She and Desley Brooks were pushing for $600/year. I personally believe that if you only focus on funds from meters (which is one reason I quit the parking task force), that you are not helping businesses - businesses that could bring in more money if their customers could park or get there more easily... chicken or the egg syndrome.

Okay, so move time forward to the second Mingles cabaret license hearing. Ms. Edgerly did not attend the first cabaret license hearing, which had about a dozen or so people. The second hearing had at least 50 people, including Ms. Edgerly, and was much more... um, tense. I was threatened by someone on my way out and it was not comfortable. Ms. Edgerly appeared in support of Mingles as an African-American establishment. She refused to shut down the club, even though OPD could not handle the issues surrounding the club, nor would club owners abide by the terms set by the City. Instead, they were given yet another chance. It would take the death of a pregnant club goer to finally end the Mingles drama.

So today, SFGate has this story and the Tribune has this story. It seems likely that Ms. Edgerly will probably retire with bennies come Monday.

No idea who is next in line for the position. I hope that the City conducts a serious search for a seasoned pro.
Posted 6/20/2008

Nadel's Office Weighs In
Here's an email I received from Marisa Arrona in Nancy Nadel's office:

Dear “Feedback At Jack London News” ~

I am Councilmember Nadel’s Policy Analyst. I wrote the Staff Report recommending we amend the permit parking boundaries.

You are misinformed. The Amtrak parking lot, which will take three years to complete, will be for Amtrak commuters – not for Social Services employees who work more than 6 blocks away, nor “tenants of Jack London Square”. The permit parking program was proposed specifically to deal with COMMUTERS who park in the District all day for free, and to address the fact that the Amtrak parking lot will be closed for three years. In fact, the permit parking program will sunset in three years, when the garage opens.

Moreover, you are woefully and alarmingly misinformed when you state:
We've always been told that they wanted nothing to do with the parking permit plan - until it was implemented, and now suddenly they want the benefit.

The merchants south of Water Street NEVER said they “wanted nothing to do with the parking permit plan”(!) In fact, several of those merchants spoke with Gary Knect and other JLDA representatives, who REBUFFED the requests of the merchants to be included in the program.

The program must sell at least 1,100 permits to be “cost neutral.” So far we have sold *364* permits. In a deficit year, you can be sure the Council would END this program because the City is subsidizing it. Out of fairness, and indeed common business sense, we will include the merchants south of Embarcadero and the Social Services employees, most of whom are Oakland residents and deserve the same consideration given to the other merchants, employees, and residents of JLS.

Please forward THIS accurate email to everyone you know, to correct the absolute misinformation your previously included in your unnecessarily vitriolic email.
~ Marisa Arrona

and my response:

Marisa,

And you are woefully wrong as well.

The County and the Port had no parking to offer up, so why should they receive the priviledge? We had asked them time and time again to get involved in this and have never gotten any support. They have nothing to bring to the table.

Secondly, the parking garage is NOT for Amtrak commuters - that is the most false thing I've ever heard out of Nancy Nadel's office. That parking garage is specifically for Jack London Square as a source for parking for their tenants. Current tenants are to use the Washington Street Garage. Amtrak riders may choose to park in the Site G parking structure, but that is certainly not what it is being built for. Merchants/tenants in the square were rebuffed by Gary because they needed to talk to their landlord.

364 permits in SIX weeks is GREAT! If you didn't have the permit plan that would be $54,600 that the City wouldn't have because we'd still have free on-street parking. Oh, and then there's the $70 tickets - which have at least netted the city $28,000 (20 days of enforcement at a low estimation of 20 tickets at $70/ea). So in this deficit year, you should be thanking JLDA for helping you to pass the permit plan.

And when you tell us that the JLDA Mixed-Use Permit Plan needs to be revenue neutral - well, answer me the following questions:

1. Is the residential permit plan revenue neutral? In that revenue neutrality calculation be sure to include all the same costs that are included in the costs for the mixed-use plan?
2. Has the City hired an additional parking enforcement officer?
3. Has the City purchased an additional parking enforcement vehicle?
Posted 6/17/2008

Permit Plan Article Angers Port Tenants
I've already gotten quite a few angry emails from people who work in the Square/Port.

Let me just say it publicly. Your anger should not be focused towards me, but towards your landlord. Your landlord wanted NOTHING to do with the parking permit plan. Nothing. So why should they be included? And what do they have to give back? Parking on Water Street? The on-street parking permits are for people that live or work on the streets that are giving up parking. They give nothing, they get nothing. Pretty simple.

Remember that it was a choice between meters and permits. With permits you get FOUR WHOLE HOURS OF FREE PARKING! FOUR!! FREE!! If you company has a client come to visit, instead of paying to park in the garage, they can now park for free nearby. More diners are also more likely to visit the local restaurants because they can - wait for it - PARK FOR FREE! Shoot, all of the workers in the Square could figure it out - just move your car to another street at lunch and then YOU too get to park for free. Would meters have made you happier?

Trust me. We didn't want the fees to be $150/yr. I have a feeling that this is why they haven't sold so many. But City Council was unwilling to budge. At one point they wanted $600/mo. If it comes to meters or permits, I'm thinking it was a win-win for all.

But to add Water Street and the County Buildings to the pool that can get permits when they wanted nothing to do with the plan and have no parking to give to the plan seems wrong. I'm sorry you feel differently, but that's an arguement that I feel you should have with your landlord whether your landlord is the Port of Oakland, Jack London Square, or Alameda County.
Posted 6/17/2008

Mixed-Use Parking Permit Plan CHANGED
On Tuesday, June 24th at 1:30pm the City Council Finance Committee Meeting will hear a request from Council Member Nancy Nadel to make some serious changes to the Mixed-Use Parking Permit Plan. The meeting will be held in Hearing Room 1 at City Hall. You can see the agenda for the meeting here. Item #7 on the agenda (bottom of page 2) is of serious concern.

Ms. Nadel has requested that the Committee "Adopt The Following Pieces of Legislation:

(1) An Orindance Amending Ordinance No. 12864 C.M.S., To Modify The Boundaries Of The Jack London District Interim Mixed-Use Permit Parking Program Area, As Follows: (A) Move The Southern Boundary Of The Permit Parking Area South One Block From Embarcadero West, Between Franklin Street And Washington Street Only, To Include The Businesses On Water Street; (B) Move The Northern Boundary Of The Permit Parking Area North One Block From Fourth Street, Between Washington Street And Broadway Only, To Include The Southern Side Of Fifth Street Only, And (07-1440)

(2) An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 12809 C.M.S. (Master Fee Schedule), As Amended, To Modify Permit Fees Assessed By The Parking Division For The "Interim Mixed-Use Parking Permit Program For The Jack London District," As Follows: (A) Modify The Cost Of One-Day Permits From One Dollar ($1) To Ten Dollars ($10); And (B) Modify The Cost Of Two-Week Permits From Five Dollars ($5) To Fifty Dollars ($50), In Order To Matain [sp] The Program's Cost-Neutrality (07-1440-1)

This, my neighbors, is CRAP.

First off, the program has been in existence for all of six weeks and only enforced for four weeks. Why are we changing it before even getting settled?! The concern of the City is that they have not sold enough permits. Of course they haven't! It's the very beginning of something new. Never mind, they say, that the City has collected a huge amount of revenue from parking tickets. (no amount was available from the City) One parking enforcement person said that he had been writing between 20-30 tickets a day. At $70 per ticket that's $1400-2100 per day that the City wasn't getting prior to this permit plan.

Secondly, the businesses that this District has lost over the last 5-10 years because of parking woes are not going to be replaced overnight. It may take years to replace these businesses. How can you expect immediate turnaround for parking to be full with permit holders? Never mind the improvement existing businesses are experiencing because they can finally have clients, customers, and visitors to their businesses. That's what the plan was all about in the first place - getting Chinatown, train, and BART users to park elsewhere so that the parking in this neighborhood could be used by this neighborhood. It was the goal of this plan that businesses would have a better chance of survival and interest in the area if there was a parking permit plan.

Third, that the City - and especially Nancy Nadel's office - failed to contact the Jack London District Association prior to requesting this change is REDICULOUS. It affects the District, so the District Association should have been included in the discussions leading up to this prospective change in legislation.

Fourth, that the City is adding the availability for permits to be purchased by tennants of Jack London Square (Water Street) and the County buildings is preposterous! That's the whole reason the Parking Garage is being built in the Amtrak lot - to serve the tenants of Jack London Square. We've always been told that they wanted nothing to do with the parking permit plan - until it was implemented, and now suddenly they want the benefit. Sorry - go to the parking garage. Same story as the County Services buildings. We've been told time and time again that they don't take up hardly any parking and that they don't park for more than a few hours at a time. Okay, so then the 4-hour parking limits should work just fine.

Fifth, the City says that the ticket monies ($1400-$2100 per day!) go to the General Fund, whereas the Parking Permit Fees go to the Parking Division. But the expenses of creating the parking permit plan are to be covered in the permit costs. Well, do we have a new full time parking enforcement officer dedicated to our neighborhood? No. Is there a new vehicle? No. And honestly, it's a bad arguement because the City gets the money either way you look at it.

Sixth, the increase in costs for the visitor one-day and two-week permits by 90%? Give me a break! Raise the residential permit fees so that their program is also cost neutral by the same standards and I'll buy into this crap.

I hope that people in the District can go to this meeting and let their feelings on the subject be heard. I'm tempted to close my store - that's how important I think this is. (ride your bike)
Posted 6/17/2008

Fireworks Return to Jack London Square
Color me surprised, but happily so! Fireworks are back this 4th of July to Jack London Square. Considering that there is more construction going on this year than last, and last year "construction" was the excuse for not having fireworks, this is really surprising. Great, though!

From their website:

Visit Jack London Square on the 4th of July to enjoy Oakland's free community fireworks display and five hours of live music and entertainment for the family. This years fireworks display begins at 9:15pm

Music Entertainment Schedule
Basic Black 4-5:30
Amigos 6:00 -7:30
House of David 8:00 – 9:30
Ben Oni Orchestra 8:00 -9:30
Posted 6/09/2008

"Get over it."
I'm having a hard time with other blogs posting things like this.

Here's my response:

Okay, so is living in JLD for over 10 years "new to the neighborhood"? I don't think so.
Let me list the top 5 things I would have liked to have seen when she was elected the last time around - a time when I'm almost embarassed to say I voted for her. My goal of 5 simple things was:

1. Mixed-use parking permit plan. She didn't get us the permit plan. Brunner and Kernighan were WAY more supportive. And why did it take over 5 years? Why does it cost so much more than the residential permits? ($150 vs $50)

2. Neighborhood park. At one point we could have bought the lot where 288 Third now stands for $3 million. Obviously that didn't happen and now there are no empty lots left in the neighborhood for a park. I don't consider Estuary Park to be a neighborhood park.

3. Grocery store. Why did she just start contacting grocery stores during her campaign and not before then?

4. A better Jack London Square redevelopment plan. I've written about this at great length and my concern is that it will all be office space. She made lots of noise having supposed "issues", but still voted 5 minutes later in favor of the project without asking for it to be better.

5. Air quality testing.
Catering to West Oakland at the 100% cost of ignoring the rest of your district is because of race? No it isn't. At some point people down here pay taxes and don't feel that they're getting their monies worth. Obviously they thought that others would vote for them, so shame on them for not voting.

We have plenty of African-Americans, Asians, and even Latinos in our neighborhood, so please don't offend the Jack London District in saying that it's about race. Besides, a Council Member should represent their WHOLE district, not just one bit.

My goals for the next go-around?

1. Continuation of the Mixed-Use Parking Permit Plan. (it appears to be on shaky ground at the moment all because not enough people have signed up in the first month)

2. Grocery store. Work TOGETHER with JLS to get a grocery store in the area.

3. Dog park.

4. Webster Street Green. She mentioned this during the JLD District 3 Candidate Forum and I want people to hold her to it.

5. More neighborhood serving businesses in the District. Good luck with this one, because at this point I'm not planning on renewing my retail space lease in [Nov]2010. [anyone want to buy a mail and parcel store?]

Joanna Adler
Jack London Mail
Jack London News
Posted 6/09/2008

Sad day for District 3
Well, I must say that I am shocked that so many people voted for Nancy Nadel, but since the people have spoken, it's just another reason for me to be even less involved in my community. I see no point in continuing to bang my head against the wall for another four years.

So I'm going to sit back and laugh for the next four years and watch as absolutely nothing happens. Don't expect a grocery store unless the folks at JLS or Doug Boxer make it happen. Don't expect a dog park unless an ad-hoc group does it. Let's see if the JLD Parking Permit Plan is still around at the end of the four years. Don't expect anything other than the status quo of JLS being the ugly stepchild in District 3 to the Council Member's own backyard of West Oakland. She's even admitted that she feels this way. "It's a matter of race" or so she says.

Go ahead, Ms. Nadel. Prove me wrong. I dare you. Please prove me wrong.

Because just like with Jack London Square project*, I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

*My prediction for the Jack London Square project is that it will be all office space and that little of the retail space will actually be filled, much less vibrant. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted 6/04/2008