Features

Plans for a new 800-acre North Oakland redevelopment district just south of the Berkeley border have been put on hold. 

Kathy Kleinbaum, project manager for the existing, smaller two-parcel redevelopment project that flanks the proposed new district, made the announcement in an e-mail to North Oakland activists. 

First District Councilmember Jane Brunner said Monday she had already asked for the proposal to be removed from the City Council’s agenda before the plan was presented to area residents on May 9. 

“When I learned about it, I said you can’t go forward without going to the community first,” Brunner said. “Redevelopment is a big deal and you can’t do it without engaging the community in a conversation.” 

Hundreds of concerned residents packed the North Oakland Senior Center on May 9 to hear project plans and register their opposition. 

In her e-mail, Kleinbaum said, “In response to the concerns raised by the community ... the Redevelopment Agency has suspended all action items relating to moving forward with the redevelopment plan amendment.” 

City officials had proposed merging the proposed new 800-acre district with the smaller 600-acre Broadway/MacArthur/ San Pablo Redevelopment Project. 

Kleinbaum said the proposed project had been pulled from the City Council agenda and the requests for proposals for various aspects of project development had been suspended. 

“Staff will only move forward with the proposed redevelopment plan amendment if there is clear community support in this area,” she wrote. 

The project had been fast-tracked for approval. Calls for proposals from consultants and others had been issued and interviews with candidates had already commenced well before the project was unveiled at the May 9 community meeting. 

Many of those who attended the session voiced fears that, despite assurances from Kleinbaum and others, the project might entail the eminent domain seizures of their homes. City officials promised that eminent domain would be only exercised against blighted commercial properties, but many speakers indicated they weren’t convinced. 

Others contended that the project area was anything but blighted—a necessary finding before redevelopment can be implemented. 

Brunner said that she considered creation of a redevelopment district because it was the easiest way to obtain funds for projects individual neighborhoods have been seeking. 

“Other council districts have redevelopment zones, so when they want to do, say, $500,000 in streetscape improvements they have a source of funding. That’s the only reason to consider creating a district,” Brunner said. 

The councilmember said that about a year and a half ago she had divided her district into seven areas and held meetings with community members to see what sort of projects they wanted in their neighborhoods. 

“San Pablo Avenue wanted lighting, Telegraph Avenue wanted streetscape improvements, Shattuck Avenue wanted frontage improvements at Bushrod Park and College Avenue wanted streetscape improvements and benches,” she said. “We were able to provide a little funding, about $50,000 each. But Telegraph Avenue alone was proposing between $1 million and $2 million in improvements, and the city simply doesn’t have that kind of money.” 

Brunner said, “If that’s what the community wants, the question becomes, how do we fund it? That’s when we began considering redevelopment.”  

Other sources of state and federal funding are highly competitive, pitting city against city and district against district. Redevelopment offers tax increment funding, drawing funds out of increased property values with the state making up on any losses to schools. 

The councilmember acknowledged that redevelopment has a troubled history, “and there’re lots of reasons to be concerned.” 

Before the proposal is reintroduced, Brunner said, there will be more discussions with community members. 

“There’s not going to be 100 percent consensus,” she said. “But in any case, there will be no eminent domain exercised against residential properties.”