Oakland Politics Week in Review 5/8/2023

Oakland Politics Week in Review 5/8/2023: Sideshow Ordinance Arrives at Council; Thao City Administrator Pick Chaired Body that Recommended "Cop City" Location; A's ENA for Howard Terminal Ends; Public Ethics Enforcement Arm Critically Under-Staffed; Notable Legsilation at Council Tuesday

Public Safety Committee Forwards Sideshow Ordinance to Full Council Next Week, But With Reduced Scope from Original

An ordinance that outlaws promoting and facilitating sideshows was unanimously forwarded to City Council for consideration on Tuesday. The legislation began its journey at the City last fall; at that time it was a boilerplate copy of San Jose legislation that included misdemeanor-level penalties for simply being within 200 feet of a sideshow. That legislation originally made it through the Public Safety Committee and on to Council last December with unsubstantiated claims from Assistant City Administrator Joe DeVries that police would avoid ticketing or detaining anyone for simple presence at a sideshow, despite the unambiguous blanket language in the ordinance. CM Dan Kalb halted the legislation’s progress at a Council meeting in December in order to remove the bystander language completely, and added a clause that specifically excludes spectators. But when the legislation returned to Council at the last meeting of the year in December, it was pulled again by CM Carroll Fife, who wanted to give more time for efforts to create a legal sideshow alternative.

The legislation didn’t resurface again until late April, when Noel Gallo–who has co-sponsored the legislation but has had little to do with writing it–scheduled it at Rules on April 27 for review at Public Safety on Tuesday. In the meantime, two high-profile stories put sideshows back in the headlines–the relentless beatdown of a man who’d thrown objects at a sideshow-performing vehicle in West Oakland and a huge conflagratory Cinco de Mayo sideshow event with gunfire and a flame-engulfed vehicle. Some local media organizations incorrectly described the legislation as responding to these recent events, and claimed it would criminalize being a bystander in the days leading up to the committee meeting.

Over a brief discussion, Public Safety Committee members were largely supportive of the legislation on Tuesday. CM Fife said that she’d used the time to discuss legalized sideshows with stakeholders, and there were promising developments, though she did not elaborate further. Public Safety Chair Rebecca Kaplan argued that the legislation would be one component to end unsafe and illegal sideshows, noting that assaults like the one that went viral are already illegal, as is unsafe driving.

“Sometimes we talk about that one component is the right one and the other one is the wrong one. And that’s not true, we need all the components. We do need the positive alternatives to encourage people and we need to deal with the folks who are profiting by selling risk and danger into our communities,” said Kaplan.

Kaplan also supports physical and environmental designs that would make sideshows more challenging to hold, she said.

The committee voted unanimously to forward the legislation to the full Council, which means the item will go onto the Consent Calendar, where items are voted on in bulk and generally not discussed individually.

Questions on Implementation

How the legislation will work remains relatively unexplained, however. At the committee meeting, Oakland Police Department Lt. William Febel, who confirmed OPD supports the legislation in its current form, outlined one route to enforce the ordinance’s criminalization of sideshow promotion and facilitation. Febel said that through on-site surveillance and background intelligence gathering, OPD could identify habitual enablers of sideshows covered under the ordinance (those who are blocking streets for the events, for example), gather an evidentiary record and pursue a “complaint warrant” from the District Attorney at a later time.

Assistant City Administrator Joe DeVries, who has been the primary City exponent of the legislation, highlighted the other route for enforcing the legislation–civil injunctions, which he claimed would be effective because of the weight of law they carry if violated.

“If those penalties have been assessed by a judge, a judge’s order being violated is a violation of a different law altogether. It’s really a one-two punch … if they violate that order, that would translate to immediate jail time,” said DeVries.

Though the OPD can directly take its evidentiary findings to the DA to seek a warrant, the department would need to rely on the Oakland Office of the City Attorney [OCA] to bring civil actions like injunctions. In a follow-up conversation, DeVries told the Oakland Observer that there is currently no set process for liaising with the OCA for the ordinance in the run-up to the passage of the legislation. Though the OCA has been mentioned regularly at the meetings as the body that would move the civil actions, no OCA representative has spoken on the proposed activity during the deliberation at meetings. In the past, the OCA’s Neighborhood Law Corps has pursued civil measures against blight, nuisance and other quality-of-life matters through civil courts, and DeVries noted that a similar process could fill the role for the ordinance. But DeVries admitted there is no current plan to do so in support of the ordinance.

“We haven't contemplated that yet with the ordinance not being passed. Until Council actually adopts an ordinance there’s no implementation plan,”  DeVries told this publication.

Though the ordinance appears to target visible actions at the ground level at sideshows, the other enforcement aspect that the City has been pushing in its support of the legislation has been pursuing promoters who use social media, apparently through the civil process. But the term “social media” doesn’t appear in the law, and it’s unclear how that aspect of the strategy would effectively use the ordinance.

Council will vote on the legislation on Tuesday,  but it may not be discussed if a CM doesn't pull it out of the non-consent agenda.

Thao Pick for City Administrator Position Chaired Advisory Council That Recommended Atlanta “Cop City” Site

Jestin Johnson, Mayor Sheng Thao’s pick for City Administrator, was the chair of an advisory council that played a role in choosing Atlanta’s Police/Fire training facility site (often referred to as “Cop City”) when he was the Deputy Chief of Operations for the City of Atlanta, according to public documents and mayoral office statements.

Johnson's curriculum vitae identifies him as the former Chair of the City of Atlanta Public Safety Center Task Force*. That body’s recommendation report lists Johnson as one of 13 members of the body, which included police and fire department representatives and other government officials, including Johnson's boss–as well as Atlanta Police Foundation [APF] and Atlanta Fire Rescue Foundation, separate nonprofit bodies that fund public safety initiatives in Atlanta.

The body Johnson chaired recommended the location, funding model and preliminary budget for the controversial project, foregoing two other candidate sites. But the site the commission chose was the years-long favorite for the center, as the report acknowledges. The City of Atlanta’s Department of Enterprise Asset Management (DEAM), which manages City real estate, began planning for the site prior to Johnson’s term along with the APF, though the plans were not made public then. The commission essentially confirmed DEAM and the APF's plans and recommendations for the site and project, according to its own report, which states:

In early 2017, APF facilitated a meeting of the Chiefs of APD, AFRD and Corrections. The goal of the meeting was to understand at a high-level the deficiencies, challenges and needs of the respective public safety training facilities. Following this initial meeting, each chief appointed a member of their leadership team to serve on a working group that would further examine and explore options for a consolidated training center [...] Through these working sessions with leadership from all city public safety agencies and these experts, the work began [...] The Advisory Council built upon the prior work done by APF to reconfirm the appropriate scope and phasing of the facility and construction based upon needs and priorities.

Johnson was also appointed to serve on an ill-fated community advisory council after the project passed Council, and he apparently attended at least two such meetings before leaving his position in Atlanta City government. An email from Johnson to an Atlanta Police Foundation representative is cited in an influential article in MainlineZine on the 'Cop City' project. According to the reporting, Johnson refused to go along with an apparent attempt by the APF to portray the project as having garnered unanimous public support during one of its outreach meetings, according to the email exchange. Johnson left his position at the City of Atlanta soon after the City Council’s September 2021 passage of the project on 85 acres of the 300-acre site.

In a response to an email query sent by the Oakland Observer about Johnson’s role Friday, mayoral spokesperson Pati Navalta wrote:

"As part of his responsibilities as Atlanta’s deputy chief operations officer, Mr. Johnson served on an advisory committee led by the Atlanta Police Foundation to identify a new site for a public safety training center that could accommodate both the police and fire departments. The committee recommended the site of the Old Atlanta Prison Farm, where land behind a prison complex had been cleared for farming. The City-owned property stayed dormant for roughly three decades after the complex closed around 1990. Mr. Johnson moved on from his role as Deputy COO in December of 2021 and did not participate in any further discussions or decisions regarding the site."

The legislation to appoint Johnson to the City Administrator's position will be heard by Council on Tuesday.

A’s Exclusive Negotiating Agreement/Term Sheet for Howard Terminal Expires

The A’s Exclusive Negotiating Agreement [ENA] on Howard Terminal with the Port of Oakland ended Friday at midnight. The end date was expected, and had been enshrined in the agreement when it was executed in 2019. Although Port Commission agendas regularly listed closed-session negotiations with the A’s over the property for the past several months, even for Thursday's meeting, the penultimate day of the agreement, no extension legislation was ever scheduled. Extensions are a typical legislative move when a city agency plans to continue in serious negotiations as an ENA's expiration date comes due. The lack of action signal that the Port itself and the A's had no intention of continuing the ENA.

As of now, any organization or company could request to enter negotiations for the land or request an ENA. It’s not clear whether the Port or the City will actively pursue development of the land, however, as Port industries still insist it’s needed for Port activity.

The end of the ENA signals the removal of one of the last supports for the HT concept. The A's are still a party of interest in a lawsuit by Port industries fighting the SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The removal of Port priority use for Howard Terminal by the SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 2022, which allows the property to be used for other uses, expires in 2025 if the A’s have not signed an agreement to purchase the land, and it is not transferable to other parties. The SF BCDC would be required to take another vote to remove the port priority use for another developer or permanently–although the findings behind the decision were not developer-specific. The A's participation in the lawsuit is the last vestige of its involvement with Howard Terminal.

The A's remain half-owner of the Coliseum property.

Public Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Arm is Critically Short-Staffed

A report from Oakland Public Ethics Commission Investigations Chief Simon Russell reveals that the PEC’s enforcement and investigative arm has only one investigator: Russell himself. In the report, Russell notes that the investigations division has been budgeted for only two staff, a chief and an investigator, since 2016. Prior to 2016, under Schaaf, the Enforcement division had no additional investigators, according to the report.

Russell filled the investigator role until late 2022, when he assumed the Chief position upon the ascension of former Enforcement Chief Kelly Johnson to the PEC executive director role. Johnson left the executive director role about three months later. A temporary investigator that could bridge the investigator position while the lengthy hiring process concludes has been delayed, according to the report.

Until the investigator position is filled, Russell’s report states that the enforcement division will put half of its 70-case load on hold using criteria that weigh critical importance, staff resources and other issues.

The enforcement investigator position is not frozen in the FY 23-25 PEC budget, and the PEC’s funding and funded staffing levels remain the same throughout the body according to the FY 23-25 budget, and the investigator position may be filled in the current budget period. But Thao's budget retains the status quo, with no additional staff budgeted for enforcement or any other PEC division.

Thao’s budget will also use the discretionary stipulation in Measure W to forego funding most of the Democracy Dollars program for the 2024 election cycle outside of a minor investment in neccesary software. The Democracy Dollars program was meant to replace the City’s public financing, so the legislation deleted the City’s own public financing program while simultaneously lowering contribution limits. The lack of a replacement for the public financing could mean an unintended cut to campaign-related funding unless Council or the Mayor intervene. The program is on hold until at least 2025-26 absent any further efforts at Council on the budget.

Notable at Council This Tuesday:

• Oaknoll Adjacent Barcelona Parcel, Affordable Housing [with Generous Upper Income Inclusion]
• ENA with SAHA for Affordable Housing Phase 2 of 12th Remainder Parcel
• Ransomware Emergency Declaration Renewal
• $150k Contract for BluSummers/Mason Tilman Associates for Racial Disparity Impact Study for “Black New Deal” Recommendations

*Though Johnson calls the body “task force” it was apparently officially known as “council.”

Thanks to Rachel Beck for Copy Editing!