Member since Dec 31, 2010


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Oakland Failed to Spend $2.2 Million on Anti-Displacement and Homeless Assistance

Hiring counselors and lawyers who maintain tenancy is certainly worth the cost, if that is the value proposition. Paying new staff to "counsel" (describe to tenants their impending eviction and homelessness) may not be as valuable, although it may prevent a loss of tenancy to be accompanied by an arrest. Temporary emergency rent support for those who have lost income may also be an acceptable expense--cheaper than maintaining someone on the streets.

It is pretty east to see this as "yet another example of government incompetence" but we cannot tell whether the problem has been described accurately by the eastbay express.(Although of course we appreciate the effort.) Failure to support people on the basis of language difference is inexcusable. This should include every city service. If Oakland needs to partner with neighboring communities like SF or San Leandro or Fremont or Berkeley or all of these to make it economically viable, then we should do that. This may seem like an "end around" approach, and that is exactly what it should be. We need more than one point of entry for services. Language, gender identity, ableness, are all legitimate entry points by virtue of their unique challenges. If a citizen wants to talk to an official in Cantonese or Lao or Malay or Arabic, they should have the option of calling a language hotline rather than hoping to get past a bureau's occasionally maintained answering phone tree. This can ultimately make city services much better.

Another place to spend $2.2 million that will reduce homelessness... cut the brush in the hills and dig fire lines before we are treated to what the Chronicle insinuates to be another inevitable hills fire disaster. We cannot afford to support the fire department by giving them all this work. Lets prevent the fires and send them to a ball game or a ride and picnic on a ferry instead.

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 05/23/2018 at 9:53 PM

Re: “A Second Transbay Link Is Inevitable — but Will It Be Equitable?

Viaduct? Vy not a chicken?

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 02/19/2017 at 7:53 PM

Re: “Oakland Official Working on Coal Export Plan has Significant Investments in Fossil Fuels

One wonders whether the sudden urge to ship coal through Oakland is more about using coal shipping to reclassify the Port to serve some other political interest.

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 05/08/2016 at 8:24 PM

Re: “Reverse Redlining Won't Fix Oakland's Housing Crisis

Geography-based incentive or disincentive zoning is a corrupt urban planner's dream. Write your rule without arbitrary geographic discrimination. Irrelevant regulation serves the exploiting parties.

The develeoper kickback to the city for affordable housing only sounds good if you write off the vast majority of low income renters who will never get into public housing or publicly subsidized housing. Affordability fees are peanuts. Let them keep the peanuts. Creating the faux economy of kickback subsidized units is "program" not policy. F*** the program.

Rent control that does not create separate groups of covered and un-covered low income renters will solve this problem. Its no different than Obamacare. Take the insurers out of the picture. 'Developers' and 'investors' and 'builders' do not belong in the discussion, anywhere, ever. You would not invite an undertaker, or an 'investor' to your medical appointment to have his her say or provide technical expertise, or announce their services. These people need to be gone, and discussions with them or their agents, by officials at any level needs to be reported.

Solve the rent problem for everyone or you will have solved the problem for no one.

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 04/29/2016 at 9:02 PM

Re: “Oakland Can't Afford to Wait

Mayor Libby Schaaf, de la Fuentes, et al were around for, and directly participated in the destruction of building services and related positions in the great outsourcing that took place in the eighties. Thus essentially took permanent insourced jobs and turned them into under compensated, un-unionized or poorly unionized portable hourly labor. This was the beginning of the "urban working poor" as well as the elimination of the nonprofessional fair wage job.

This is the mayor who now is suddenly discovering the undercompensated should-be retirees who have nothing after years of work and service and no rent control or ownership. These shifts in labor sourcing accompamied the mergers and acquisitions frenzy of the eighties.

I made a few dollars temping then working at ABM and Johnson Controls as a temp for managers who allocated previously local jobs like the military or correctional outsourcing. The fundamental issue was did this create efficiency or effective monopoly and disenfranchisement. It was defimitely the latter. It was about bundling services that could only be done by leveraging monopoly. Attempts to use courts and criminal. prosecution to thwart this behavior was largely squelched by Feinstein, Rice, et al. This was the same time that the charter school movement took off, not unrelated. Also, the same time that Trump turned up his unearned fortune.

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 03/21/2016 at 12:02 AM

Re: “Oakland Can't Afford to Wait

Add this to the list. Oakland should own and manage Eastmont Mall, particularly as it has had government lesees. Insource the management of rent related services which account for 90% of the rent according to the source below. I worked at Johnson Controls in SF as a temp briefly while the acquisitions and mergers and outsourcing "revolution" disemployed most of the safe working class. I lived in the Fillmore and the Mission District. My boss lived in Tiburon (He was a nice guy.)

Johnson Controls contracted banks into grocery stores and the rationalizing of work through pooled corporate janitorial and other services. What began as a work rationalizing exercise became a corporate service bundling operation which never worked for the employees. It might have made sense if it were all worker owned, but it was not. As a result of the hyper rationalized outsourcing even within the local economy, workplaces became ever more alienated, and workers rents increased more quickly than pay. These were economies of avoiding responsibility to workers and local management, not productivity and only incidentally, scale.

Janitorial workers and even low level managers no longer have any connection to their workplaces. They are brought in like brasseros or ununionized building tradesmen (even though many are unionized), and paid minimally.

How does this figure into local public ownership of retail space?

"Retailers pay around $2 per square foot, or $18 to $20 per square foot for triple net leases, which includes taxes, insurance and maintenance costs in addition to rent, said Gooding."

The triple net lease blows retail space cost through the roof, raising retail prices and rents in other sectors as well. We are getting nothing by making these minimally conributing slave drivers rich at the public expense. Only government can insource services at scale at the rate needed to reverse this policy of impoverishment.

We need to own Eastmont Mall to fix Eastmont Mall. Instead, what is the mayor doing? The new minimum wage will not be structurally differnt than the existing system. They are not enough. Short of responsible and respinsive worker ownership, public (government) ownership is preferable. Corporate rationalizing is not humanly sustainable. There is no 'app' for this, no startup substitute..

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 03/20/2016 at 4:10 PM

Re: “Oakland City Council Advances Controversial Public Land Sale Behind Closed Doors

“The Surplus Land Act states that public land intended for sale must be offered first to affordable housing developers, and that the city should prioritize proposals that offer the highest number of affordable units at the deepest levels of affordability.” That seems to unequivocally indicate that the 100% affordable rate proposal should be honored。 Congratulations to Noel Gallo。 The other high density/high rent [high vacancy, low utility] proposal mirrors Asian high rise development that goes unoccupied。These are investment sinks that optimize investment, not housing。 Affordable units should be built at reasonably maximal affordable density to get the full quality of life and health effects of true market affordable housing。These aspects of affordable building are not fungible,so using distorted market metrics and the sleazy economics of a ‘false market rate’ business plan to make the city into a bad faith partner are both dishonest。Recall that an efficient market does not guarantee price/rent increases, (as the false real estate market has。) So protecting the weakest interests is the obligation of courts and governments。The “mixed client base” model assumes equal hardship in finding housing。 Such is not the case。It assumes full affordability only after the properties deteriorate substantially(after which EBALDC or other can dispossess, remodel, and program profit, with a few token units affordable to a few token people。)

A city council that does not work to make all of Oakland affordable by making renting throughout California affordable is not working in the interest of Californians。 The City of Oakland's core business is not business--neither real estate or other。So, it should never have anything less than adversarial relations with businesses whose interest is providing products or service for the few。

It is quite obvious from touring older low income neighborhoods in Oakland that there is no widely distributed trickle down from “high” collar businesses。 So they are accepting that blue collar and no shirt Oaklanders will trickle out。This can be stopped by doing the right thing。

We welcome everone, but we are not giving the upper class our land, our ass, our heritage,or anything else we hold dear。When you like us enough to share our hardship, we will share everything。

San Mateo county has currently approved what is essentially an immigrant Asians only development project (a high end work dormitory or tax shelter, I am not sure which。) This is to take advantage of dubiously considered investor/immigrant law。This is another highly compartmentalized practice that makes a laughing stock of the term “market” and the even more removed term “market rate。”

--from my comfortable house sit of two months in the El Cerrito hills。

Posted by PaulKevinAnderson on 03/17/2016 at 8:25 PM

All Comments »

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation