Extra
New: MacArthur BART Tower: BART Succumbs to Edifice Complex (Public Comment)
Councilperson Kalb finally got around to having a public meeting, Dec. 14 at Beebe Memorial Church, around the increasingly controversial 24-story Tower proposed for the MacArthur BART station parking lot. Expect if this ones goes through for renewed efforts to do the same at the Rockridge BART station. Councilperson Kalb just got re-elected against a little-known opponent, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise he’s ducking the issue, even if BART and the developers have colluded to turn the 5-6 story project reviewed in the 2008 EIR into a 24-story behemoth. The tower, as proposed by the Boston Properties and McGrath Properties developers, would be the second tallest building in Oakland. It is on a fast track for approval, despite neighborhood opposition and scant attempt at community buy-in. Conveniently for project sponsors, and astroturf pro-housing cheerleaders, many residents are distracted by the recent national election, and tuned out for the moment from politics.
The belated meeting was a disaster, despite the groaning board of free pizza and drinks. Planning staff, as represented by the assigned planner Catherine Payne of the renamed Bureau of Planning although Orwellian Ministry might be more accurate, was the epitome of chilly opacity—an unwillingness or inability to enlighten and inform. Her focus was simply how soon this project was going to appear before the commission—an emphasis completely upon the rushed process, and not at all on substance.
“Affordable" housing
The audience and developers in attendance, along with elected officials and others, clearly focussed upon issues of affordability. We and others raised questions about the percentage of affordable units, and the unaffordability of the “affordable” units—80% of mean income, approximately $2000./month--hardly affordable for truly needy residents.
That the questions weren’t answered indicated the affordability issue is a smokescreen for approval of a developer’s desire for maximum profit. The developer, planning staff, the BART representatives, and the Councilperson were unhelpful with clarifying specific questions about the exact square footage of “affordable” units, as opposed to a percentage of the total square footage, an unwillingness to commit to permanent, affordable, rental units, even if they were converted to for-sale units, and the location and desirability of the these units within the building. We understand the “affordable” units will have their own, presumably, lesser entrance.
Councilperson Kalb, unfortunately, channeled his predecessor, Jane Brunner, steering the conversation toward “community benefits” to be wheedled from the developer, rather than entertaining any consideration of actually scaling back the height of the project, which is the source of much of the opposition. Whatever redesign of the project the developer appears likely to agree to would be a sop. Councilperson Kalb seems unfamiliar with the stretches of logic planning staff uses to justify projects, chief among them “precedent.” He flatly denied this project would be precedent for future projects, then quickly qualified that dubious claim to add “not as far as he was concerned, anyway.”
He apparently hadn’t read the terse Aug. 10, 2016 staff report recommending some minor design changes: “The proposed tower would still set precedent and should reflect the design quality desired of a very visible precedent-setting landmark."
Of course, another consequence of allowing a 24 story tower on this postage stamp size lot is that it distorts the value of existing nearby land prices: the Manhattanization syndrome—one tower begets another.
Trumpian demagogery
The amount of demagoguery in comments by attendees was truly troubling, one participant even seriously suggesting the tower could house Syrian refugees. The rhetoric was even worse coming from elected public officials like BART Board member Robert Raburn, who implied the tower might have averted the Ghost Ship studio fire tragedy, as if somehow history and fate could be rewritten. It was unseemly and in shockingly bad taste. His suggestion that other, luckier artists might find housing at a MacArthur BART Tower, when the affordability of housing is exactly why artists crowd unsafe structures to begin with, is demagogic.
We have seen other examples of public agencies, who exploit their special status and powers, to venture into land use/development arenas. BART’s mission and purpose is mass transit. One could raise the issue of BART’s disruptive beginnings, the rough birthing that tore up neighborhoods after acquiring parcels at rock-bottom prices or eminent domain. The justification for the overwhelming footprint BART imposed upon communities to provide mass transit does NOT justify BART’s evolution into a developer, nor does Board Member Raburn’s history as a bicycle advocate qualify him to determine land-use issues.
Another example of a local body abusing its powers and wealth was the Oakland Unified School district demolishing the eminently reusable-for-housing, reinforced concrete, 9-story Montgomery Ward Building next to the Fruitvale BART station in 2000. After a costly legal battle, and over the opposition of many, the building was rapidly demolished—toxic lead paint blasted into the air and storm drains--to create two low-rise schools, the toxic soil covered over. Of course, the most fervent advocates of “smart growth,” the pro-development mantra now replaced by “affordability,” looked the other way on this flagrant violation of smart growth and housing at transit hubs. Kerry Hamill, now BART Manager for Government Relations, knows this story well—she supported the demolition while an Oakland School Board member. Ditto Mayor Libby Schaaf, at the time staff member for Councilperson Ignacio de la Fuente, the most ardent advocate for demolition.
How shallow their “core” beliefs--Schaaf’s chief of staff, Tomiquia Moss, is quoted saying in the Nov. 22, 2016 "San Francisco Chronicle" article about the MacArthur BART Tower, “There are numerous practical and environmental reasons to cluster housing and retail near transit nodes….Dense housing and commercial development near transit is the trifecta for supporting growth in neighborhoods.”
But the most flagrant misuse of power and bad planning is the mistake we’re still living with today—the destruction of the East Bay’s mass transit Key Route system in the 1950s. The creation of BART itself, of course, was an inadequate and costly "remedy” for that mistake. Unlike the Key Route system, which penetrated into many neighborhoods planned around its routes, BART was designed to take commuters—workers and shoppers—to and from San Francisco. The MacArthur BART tower developer has admitted the project is intended for commuters, not locals.
The ongoing, unfortunate Jerry Brown legacy in Oakland:
Ever since the arrival on the Oakland scene of the prototypical Development Democrat Jerry Brown, with his “10K” program to gentrify Oakland, the Bureau of Planning has become a rubber stamp for whatever the developer community thinks will turn a profit. Under previous mayors like Elihu Harris, the Planning Commission included members of the design and business community, but also community members. It is no accident that the Planning Commission is having trouble raising a quorum for this project because of the conflicts of interest of commissioners. Oakland Development Democrats might take note of the shellacking the Bates/Hancock Machine took in the last election in Berkeley, swept out of the Mayor’s office and several council seats.
The El Cerrito BART Transit Village is a classic example of a combination of Houston-style non-planning with the aesthetic of Fresno. One generic condo project after another is replacing the fabric of Temescal—this tower is part and parcel of that transformation.
The MacArthur BART Tower is yet another instance of project by project, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, planning that isn’t really “planning” at all, but developer, market-driven, projects. Oakland residents deserve better.
For more information, and to contribute to the legal effort:www.facebook.com/StopMacArthur
The authors are founders of neighborhood groups in Oakland including North Oakland Voters Alliance (NOVA) and Standing Together for Accountable Neighborhood Development (STAND), Brokl also served on the boards of Oakland Heritage Alliance and Pro Arts. and is an Oakland-based artist.
