Oakland Politics Week in Review 4/17/2023

Oakland Politics Week in Review 4/17/2023: A's Leaving for Las Vegas, but Door on Oakland is Still Ajar; CMs Pass Eviction Moratorium Ending Legislation in Raucous Meeting; Tuesday CED Meeting Focuses on Three Significant Development Projects

Thao Says She’s Ending Negotiations with A’s as Fisher Signs Land Deal in Vegas, But the Door Isn't Closed Yet

In what appears to be an abrupt end to the Howard Terminal Stadium saga, the A’s told Las Vegas media Wednesday that the corporation has signed a deal in Las Vegas for a potential stadium site there. Mayor Sheng Thao reacted quickly to the news releasing a statement by Wednesday evening, castigating the A’s for bad faith negotiation, and vowing that the City is leaving the tattered negotiations structure for good, seeking out another developer for the site:

"...it is clear to me that the A’s have no intention of staying in Oakland and have simply been using this process to try to extract a better deal out of Las Vegas. I am not interested in continuing to play that game - the fans and our residents deserve better."

In a press conference and interviews on the break-up on Thursday, the Thao administration gave more background on Wednesday's events. Thao told reporters that the City had hired a mediator to jump-start negotiations with the A’s again shortly after she’d assumed office. But on Wednesday evening, shortly before Thao claims she would have presented the City’s offer and plan for a summer vote timeline, Kaval called to alert her that the Review Journal article detailing the Las Vegas purchase was imminent.

At the press conference, Thao doubled down on the criticism of the A's and the claim that the City was done with the A’s negotiations:

“I want to be clear, this announcement happened mid-negotiations, and it shows that [the A’s] had no interest in reaching a deal with Oakland at all … we will not continue negotiations under these circumstances and will instead work for a development deal that actually creates opportunities for Oaklanders… ”

Alpha and Omega

The apparent end of the Howard Terminal negotiation saga mirrored the beginning, with A’s President Dave Kaval blindsiding the City in a similar way as when he unilaterally published the A’s one-sided “term sheet” for the ballpark project nearly two years ago. Kaval broke free of City negotiations, canceling several meetings with the City in April 2021 and performatively responding to a letter from the City Administrator’s office that suggested the A’s were behind on their tasks to bring a ballpark into existence any time soon.

Kaval spent several months brow-beating the City into accepting the Fisher-favoring terms–terms it was clear very early on that City would never actually be able to satisfy. What followed was a two-year performance by the City under Mayor Libby Schaaf's leadership and A’s of fake deadlines and milestones. These included a non-binding Council vote to follow the City’s own term sheet and find funding for the A’s infrastructure; and a County vote on joining a potential tax district for the ballpark, an effort that never got further than observing that the City did not yet have one. By mid-2022 it became increasingly clear that the A’s hadn’t changed their demands on the City bearing the brunt of infrastructure while accepting as little affordable housing as possible. The A's position hadn't changed substantially since 2020. City project staff clearly telegraphed a deal was not imminent when they admitted at a live council meeting that they would not be able to meet a legislative ask for a deal-analysis by September, 2022.

For several months between Summer and Fall, supply chain issues, rising fuel and construction costs and inflation made it clear that any estimates of the expensive project were already woefully optimistic and outdated. There had always been serious doubts that the City was capable of gathering the state and federal funds necessary to fulfill Fisher's asks, but by late December with the news that the City had been passed over for its one big hope for infrastructure grant funding for the project, the MEGA grant, it was clear the City was unlikely to find the funding any time soon.

Throughout the process, the City did its best to obscure the fact that Kaval and Fisher were not negotiating in good faith, abetted by Schaaf, who invented a new horizon for the project each time an old deadline passed without any movement on the deal. This week, when Fisher’s baseball corporation walked away from the table, it was again unilaterally–Thao and her staff say it was barely an hour ahead of a negotiation meeting with the City’s team.

Council Member for the District, Carroll Fife, Vindicated

Throughout the process, the Council person for the District, Carrol Fife has often been harshly criticized by sports entertainment voices and in online fan conversations. But after several years of being vilified as the anti-A’s villain, CM Carrol Fife told this publication that her demand for strong commitments, benefits and a transparent process had been vindicated.

“Kaval said we are getting a better return on investment in Las Vegas … so this whole idea about rooted in Oakland was the biggest ruse that so many people fell for because they wanted to. [the A's] were scheduled for negotiations all week, and so it felt like an intentional slight that during their scheduled negotiations the A’s put out a media alert in Las Vegas … I don’t know how much crappier you can get,” said Fife of the A’s abrupt exit.

Fife said that she spoke to City negotiations staff, ahead of Thursday's press conference, who were visibly emotional about A's sudden pivot, after years of “bending over backward to make this deal work.”

Community Stakeholders Suppport Thao

Community stakeholders involved in the process over the past several years were largely supportive of Thao’s actions, and issued statements this week upholding her decision.

Isaiah Toney, Deputy Director of Campaigns at East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy [EBASE], one of the community groups that had been heavily involved in the ultimately stalled community benefits process, stated:

“We are deeply disappointed in billionaire owner John Fisher's refusal to land a fair deal in Oakland that would continue the team's legacy at home and contribute to a shared prosperity for Oakland workers and residents. We look forward to the continued leadership of Mayor Thao and Council President Bas in helping Oakland secure equitable development projects that improve the lives of everyday residents and workers.”

East Bay Housing Organizations, one of the main developers of the affordable housing structure the City proposed for the development, issued a statement lauding Thao.

"East Bay Housing Organizations supports Mayor Sheng Thao’s decision to end negotiations with the A’s. We appreciate Mayor Thao’s resolve to ensure that Oakland gets the affordable housing and community benefits we deserve.”

Door Closing, But Still Ajar

Though the divide between Oakland and the A's has never seemed wider or more permanent, those who’ve followed the process over the past several years may be forgiven for believing this all sounds familiar. And despite her stern tone, Thao left a sliver of hope in her press conference, when she said she’d take a call from the A’s anytime. The road to a new publicly subsidized stadium in Las Vegas is long, and the Nevada public money Fisher is seeking to pad his profits is as yet nonexistent. But there are also several factors ignored by mainstream reports that suggest the conclusion for the A's in Oakland may be yet to be written.

ENA Could be Renewed Upon Expiration; A's Currently Negotiating with Port

The A’s Exclusive Negotiating Agreement [ENA] with the Port will expire in mid-May, but current Port agendas show ongoing negotiations scheduled with the A’s all the way up to the end of the ENA. There’s still a possibility the A’s could ask–or the Port could offer–to renew the ENA. An extension of the ENA would mean the A’s, at least, are not done with a potential Howard Terminal ballpark for whatever reason [The SF Chronicle's Scott Ostler is pushing a theory that Fisher is "pumping and dumping" the team for sale]

A's Still Party in Interest to EOSA Suit Against BCDC on Port Priority Use Designation

The East Oakland Stadium Alliance, a coalition of Port industry and labor groups opposing the Howard Terminal stadium, is still suing the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development District over its vote to remove the Port Priority Use designation from the Howard Terminal site, one of the key steps before any development could happen there. The A’s remain a real party in interest in the suit and just filed a joint motion with BCDC a little over a week ago. If the A’s don’t walk away from the suit in the coming weeks, there’s obviously an open question about how seriously they’ve bid farewell to Oakland.

BCDC Decision Doesn't Transfer to Other Projects, Long Road for Many Benchmarks if City Wants to Shop HT to Other Devs

Thao’s vow to continue with another developer at Howard Terminal may also be premature. The release of the Port Priority Use designation for the site by the Bay Conservation and Development District [BCDC] doesn’t transfer to other developers. By law, the priority use designation will revert back to the Port if the A’s haven’t inked a deal with the City by 2025. The City would have to start this process again.

Having once voted to remove the designation with a substantive report laying out the case, it seems likely the BCDC would again grant the release for another developer, given that the metrics were focused on Port capacity, not project specific worthiness. But the fact that the BCDC vote itself reversed a working committee’s previous decision–after much pressure from the City of Oakland, the A’s and even state, union and corporate actors–raises questions about the durability of the findings [Thao even highlighted the pressure in her press conference as a positive achievement from Oakland]. Without that pressure, the body, many members of which are local electeds, could waver again.

The new BCDC track would be added to several other processes that would need to begin anew for another developer, including the elaboration of an entirely new environmental impact report. The City and a potential developer would also face the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s covenant over residential use of Howard Terminal, as well as rising sea level issues. And the City may still face the deeply unpopular prospect of providing public subsidies for a developer to make a project pencil out.

No Word on Fisher 50% Ownership Stake in Coliseum Site

All that being said, one basic reason the City may not be done haggling with the A’s lies in Fisher’s 50% ownership stake in the Coliseum property. That may create problems for the African American Sports & Entertainment Group [AASEG], the City’s chosen developer for the site. It’s not likely any development will work on Coliseum property without Fisher’s nod, and so far, it doesn’t seem as if there’s been much diplomacy on the matter. Fisher’s A’s haven’t mentioned selling their stake yet, raising questions about whether the Coliseum could be a failsafe in case things go awry in Las Vegas or if the team is sold after an unfavorable path there. Or it could be that Fisher simply holds on to the property for reasons of his own, completely inured to its impact on Oakland.

The next few weeks may be more revelatory on all these issues and give a final answer about whether the A's are truly leaving.

Council Passes Compromise Eviction Moratorium Exit With Reduced Just Cause Protections; Landlord Groups Shout Down Fife’s Racism Complaint

The City Council passed an amended end to Oakland’s eviction moratorium at April 18th's regular meeting. It was a nearly unanimous vote, with the only vote against coming from CM Noel Gallo, who’d presented a raft of amendments that would have removed all additional protections and ended the moratorium on May 30. Gallo’s proposal, likely designed as a symbolic nod to East Bay Rental Housing Association [EBRHA] lobbying, received no discussion at the meeting, likely because Gallo hadn’t followed Council procedure in getting the amendments vetted by the City Attorney’s office.

Tuesday’s final legislation differs considerably from the initial proposal by Council President Nikki Bas and Community and Economic Development [CED] Committee Chair Dan Kalb. Initially, Bas and Kalb proposed a staged ramp down of the moratorium that would have preserved protections until September for tenants who’d experienced Covid-related impediments to rent payment. The moratorium-ender passed by the Council now closes the EM for all tenants on July 15.

Tenant Advocates Push Back as “Substantial Damage” Clause Disappears

A set of Just Cause Ordinance amendments that would have created a higher bar to evicting tenants for breach of lease was removed from the legislation by the time it was published to the agenda last Thursday night, despite significant advocacy from tenants’ rights groups and tenants. The amendments would have required landlords to show that there had been substantial damage to themselves or other tenants before they could evict for breach of lease–the breach would have to be a substantial and real cause of harm or damage.

Tenant advocates have long argued that the legislation was needed to limit evictions after the moratorium is over. Jackie Zaneri, an attorney with ACCE, described the vulnerability of tenants to frivolous evictions, given lengthy lease rules.

“To give us an example of what this is like on the ground, I am looking at a 16-page rules document that an out-of-town landlord gave to a bunch of his tenants in Deep East Oakland. I can’t read you all the rules, but I’m going to give you a preview:

–tenants are required to inform the landlord within five days of a change of phone number or email address;

–tenants can’t throw a party in the yard without registering it with the landlord first and having it approved;

–all adult visitors must provide ID to the landlord; all overnight visitors must register with the landlord in advance, no more than two guests in your apartment at a time,”

Monique Berlanga, the Executive Director of Centro Legal de la Raza, told Council Centro is already receiving 200 calls a day from tenants being harassed on lease violations. She listed frivolous evictions she has defended tenants from because of the lack of codified language on substantial damage.

Eviction for leaving a toolbox in the parking lot; using a barbecue grill after hours because the landlord won’t fix the oven; using a space heater, because the landlord won’t fix the heater; putting plants on the balcony; storing a bike in the hallway; talking too loudly; having a fishtank; letting your partner sleep over; having your kids visit on your custody weekend; planting a garden; having a birthday party for your kids … or a popular one, in Fruitvale: if you have a carne asada after church on Sunday, people don’t like that; planting corn in your yard, because it's unsightly; hanging laundry in your yard because it’s unsightly and people don’t like it…”

Berlanga noted that some of the examples she’d listed were actually the basis for evictions brought by landlords in the chambers who’d given testimony the same night.

Awkward Silences as CMs Give Ramachandran and Jenkins Several Chance to Replace Amendments

Councilmembers Janani Ramachandran and Kevin Jenkins, along with CM Treva Reid, sought the “compromise” changes that removed the “substantial damage” clause. After an initial negative reaction to the changes by tenant groups last week when they were introduced, Jenkins told this publication that he would pursue the potential of bringing the original amendments back with other councilmembers ahead of the meeting. But whether or not those conversations occurred, after hours of public comment it was clear that few Council people were in the mood to discuss the package before voting on it. Council President Bas offered the opportunity for more dialogue on the issue of the “substantial damage” amendment after public comment, but neither Jenkins nor Ramachandran spoke.

CM Carroll Fife also offered a chance for colleagues to address the amendments, to applause from attendees. Bas reiterated Fife’s offer, but only Gallo spoke, a rambling defense of his own amendments with YIMBY notes. At the end of Gallo’s soliloquy, Bas again gave another chance for CMs to comment on the substantial damage clause and offered Kalb the opportunity to second the motion.

Kalb in his comments gave CMs yet another shot at commentary, and although Reid and Kaplan made some ancillary comments, Ramachandran and Jenkins were silent again.

“I’m happy to make the motion, but I did want to follow up with Councilmember Fife’s question about that one section to all of us here on the dais; is there interest in reinstating that? …I’m seconding the motion, but I wanted to pause to see if there’s any desire to follow up on CM Fife’s question,” Kalb said.

Bas responded, closing out the awkward exchanges with a fourth opportunity to address the amendments before calling the vote.

“I hear silence here, so I don’t see the will tonight to do that,” Bas said.

Ramachandran and Jenkins made no comments during the deliberation.

Racial Tensions

The legislative discussion was ironically short, given over four hours of public comment that, for the first time since deliberations began, produced clashes between an evenly divided crowd of tenants and their backers, and self-proclaimed “housing providers”. Some of the back and forth showed landlord advocates in a poor light, calling into question the public relations campaign portraying opposition to tenant protections as emerging from besieged Black and Brown small landlords.

During one portion of the meeting, Fife criticized the landlord organizers for carelessly appropriating the word “slaves” and referring to the moratorium as “slavery.” About a dozen attendees stood in front of the dais as Fife spoke with enlarged photos of horrors visited upon African Americans throughout US history. But the gravity of the moment failed to move the attending landlords, who instead shouted at Fife.

At one point, an Asian American member from the EBRHA contingent called a Black attendee a slave, and shouted over CM Carroll Fife during her criticism of the cavalier use of the term, insisting that even one day under the moratorium was as bad as the slavery of African Americans she was referencing. Her disruption was loud and sustained enough to prompt her removal by security, according to the San Franisco Chronicle.

Several white members of the crowd shouted over Fife’s remarks, including a wealthy white developer, Frederick Lewis, who according to the anti-eviction map, is a notorious evictor and flipper of residential apartment buildings in low-income areas of Oakland and other cities. Lewis can be seen at the 47 second mark in this video yelling while Fife is discussing anti-Black racism.

Earlier in the meeting, Tuan Ngo, a self-described leader of "In it Together" a landlord group under EBRHA's umbrella stated that he thought the Covid state of emergency had been unnecessary, and claimed, wrongly, that fentanyl had cost more lives during the pandemic than Covid. Ngo also said that he believed so many OUSD students had parents unable to fulfill basic parental duties because they are addicted to Fentanyl that teachers have to carry food in their pockets to feed them.

Unlike at previous meetings, a sizable contingent of tenants and tenant advocates attended the meeting, contributing to the unusually high number of comments, according to the City Clerk.

Highlights of the legislation:

–Unpaid rent due to Covid-related issues from the start of moratorium March 2020 to its end on July 15 can’t be used as a predicate for eviction by landlords going forward.

–Unpaid rent from that date onward can serve as the predicate for eviction, whatever the reason.

–Landlords will be unable to pursue eviction for unpaid rent if the unpaid rent is less than a HUD market average rental payment for a unit of the same size. Practically, owing only one month of rent or less can’t be grounds for eviction after July 15.

–The rent increase moratorium will continue until July 2024.

CED Meeting Will Consider Several Significant Development Projects

Tuesday's CED Committee meeting will consider several significant developments on public lands.

--Expansion of Brooklyn Basin by 600 units, and the repositioning of a proposed residential tower

The initial proposal called for a marina expansion, but that has been eliminated from the project, though the "water taxi port" remains. The project, which is still in the process of being completed, would eventually total 3700 units, instead of 3100. The CED committee will review, revise and vote on a revision of the EIR, the Estuary General Plan, a zoning change, a DDA amendment among other changes necessary for the proposed revisions.

The proposed changes to the project on public land would add 600 new units.

--ENA to Satellite Housing for the second portion of the E 12th city-owned site

This half would have gone to developer Urban Core, currently infamous for failing affordable housing residents at Coliseum Connections after a flood there in January. UC failed to start construction at the site for several years and eventually lost its Disposition and Development Agreement. SAHA will now move forward on the site with a proposal for affordable housing there.

--ENA with Eagle Environmental Construction for "Barcelona" Parcel at Oak Knoll

The Barcelona parcel is City land adjacent to the former naval base designated to become the Oak Knoll development that was originally excluded from the deal by the developer there. CM Kaplan introduced legislation when the Oak Knoll project was greenlit to eventually pursue affordable housing on the site. The ENA currently envisions 93 units at the site. 25% are planned to be affordable to those making 80% of AMI; the remaining 75% would be affordable for those earning up to 120% AMI. The peculiar metrics of such classifications suggest that the entire project will be referred to as 100% affordable during the meeting, despite the obvious slant toward the more affluent.