Is Libby Schaaf about to crash Oakland's take-off?

[SocSciProf]

This dialogue is going nowhere, it seems. So, how about this:

1)Jade408, you write:

Originally Posted by jade408

As a mentioned, the "take-off" will remain fragile as long as it is difficult to get projects funded in Oakland. This would add .01% on top of the project cost, if even that much. If you can't get $100M for your project, it matters little if it costs $100,000,000 or $101,000,000.

So, the implication of your conclusion is that if you were a home buyer, looking to buy in one of two communities, and the advantage of one is that it has a slightly lower cost--this is balanced by having slightly lower amenities, but, well, there's no such thing as a free lunch--your purchase decision would be unaffected if the cheaper community raised its costs enough to wipe out their cost advantage. I applaud (or mourn) your reasoning, but, alas, most successful businesspeople do not reason this way. So, even though you won't be affected by an alleged .01% increase in costs, we can be sure others will.

So, I ask you--what do YOU say to those businesspeople who do not think like you claim to think?

2)Jade408 writes:

Originally Posted by jade408

The article itself is fear-mongering. Impact fees are not a new thing.

No one said impact fees are new. Indeed, I voiced support for them in my original post. Why the mis-attribution?

3)Jade408 writes:

Originally Posted by jade408

Oakland already required similar concessions with most of the Uptown projects. It is just getting a new name. The Kaiser Building, the Uptown Apartments and everywhere had a similar "issue."

Do you see no difference between one-off issues in the writing of an RFP (Request for Proposal) versus a blanket policy (even if the blanket is not the full size of the "bed)? I, and I submit most others, do. In the former, some projects get site-specific specs written, and developers are invited to apply. In the second, developers who approach the city with ideas will have to include those costs in their initial budgeting. Consequently, many developers will not initiate ideas because Oakland will have taken away one of the unexamined advantages--no impact fees.

An analogy will make the point. UC-Berkeley is about to raise tuition. The plan is to raise tuition but then offer more financial aid. The hope is that this model will make the school have as many low- and moderate-income applicants as before. The problem, however, is that this assumption does not work--many low-income kids jut don't apply, because they see the sticker cost.

While you and I may wish people would cost out (Oakland/college), I admit no one can cost-out every option. Thus, what options get attention are those that, prior to cost-out, look promising. Adding a new fee to Oakland, raising tuition of Cal, both have the same effect--fewer applicants.

4)Finally, Jade408 writes:

Originally Posted by jade408

I think Quan was a terrible mayor, but it is naive to think that impact fees will be the downfall of development in Oakland. The downfall of Oakland development is rooted in stereotyping, prejudice and lingering racism.

See above. To you .01% may mean nothing. To others, it is just another good reason to invest elsewhere, to invest places that lack the real challenges Oakland faces.

And, to you, stereotyping, prejudice, and lingering racism may be reasons Oakland should do whatever the hell it wants. To me, even though I may agree, this is reason Oakland needs to be savvy. Maybe it isn't wise to have the highest minimum wage in the region. Maybe it isn't savvy to have administrative building costs in Oakland equal or exceed those of other places. And maybe, just maybe, by being savvy Oakland can extricate itself from the dynamics of stereotyping, prejudice, and lingering racism.

Maybe.

If so, Schaaf's move is a step in the wrong direction.

[jade408]

I recently attended an event with a panel disussing develpment in Oakland. There were 2 real estate developers on the panel, one large one small.

The discussion was wide reaching but the biggest issue to development was funding. There were plenty of people interested in Oakland but could not get a loan approved. Oakland + mixed used development is nearly an insurmountable challenge as the big banks are not funding those projects (which are the types impact be the fees).

Worrying about the few cents (on the scheme of things) is like worrying about a hang nail when your arm is falling off: misplaced concern.

Developers are not even getting the opportunity to get the red tape phase.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by jade408

I recently attended an event with a panel disussing develpment in Oakland. There were 2 real estate developers on the panel, one large one small.

The discussion was wide reaching but the biggest issue to development was funding. There were plenty of people interested in Oakland but could not get a loan approved. Oakland + mixed used development is nearly an insurmountable challenge as the big banks are not funding those projects (which are the types impact be the fees).

Worrying about the few cents (on the scheme of things) is like worrying about a hang nail when your arm is falling off: misplaced concern.

Developers are not even getting the opportunity to get the red tape phase.

It is sad that you answered none of my questions. I really was interested in what you'd tell someone who finds additional costs a problem. For all I knew, you had a good response that would have persuaded them (and perhaps even me). Now, I am not so optimistic. Instead of answering my question, you told me some developers claimed they couldn't get loans to do projects. I don't dispute that. Some people can't get loans for houses. Some people can't get loans for cars. Some people can't get loans for school. The inability to get loans is a given, else banks would be automatic lenders. So, this is not news, and no one disputes this.

You then assert that, therefore, no need to worry about additional costs being added. It is nice that you don't care about rising costs of something you can't afford but want to have. But, if you are so quick to quote the developers as affirming your point (that they can't get loans), a point no one has disputed, why don't we consider what they say about additional costs being added. Sadly, you did not report what they said, you reported what you'd say. But, despite your claim, I still wonder would they say, "Hey, I can't get a loan to do Oakland projects as it is, so, go ahead, add more costs to development in Oakland, so even if I were to somehow get a loan for what it costs now, I'd still be unable to do the project." Yeah, I'm sure they'd say that. Totally sure.

So, I ask you in a different way, Jade408, at what cost point would you (or they) be concerned about developer impact fees--.01%? 1%? 10%? Something else? I'm happy to read any other comments you have, but it'd be really respectful if you could answer my question.

Thanks a bunch!

Respectfully yours.

[baybook]

I'd prefer to limit development in Oakland.

[Ultrarunner]

I followed several projects for years that never got off the ground on funding was not a problem.

One was the old abandoned Berkeley Farms complex that was an eyesore.

A local Developer bought it and made several presentations to the city and got no where... council wanted to know how many locals would be hired, what concessions would be offered and some almost made it sound as it was pay to play.

Note, this firm has done many local projects and all have been quality projects... this was the first foray into Oakland and the last...

Walnut Creek has had little trouble attracting quality development and increasing the tax base... the same firm wanted to show it could be done in Oakland without subsidy and left after 10 years with nothing to show...

By the way, I'm 4th generation Oakland