Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-15-2015, 02:09 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,225 posts, read 36,675,422 times
Reputation: 28550

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110 View Post
Exactly. Which is why the activists and community groups are shooting themselves in the foot by opposing the lake merritt tower.
I oppose the Lake Merritt tower because the city broke the rule and didn't follow city policies. If feels like a back door deal and doesn't incite trust in leadership.

In principle, I want housing there. But when you are dealing with the transfer of city land, the process needs to be 100% transparent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2015, 10:29 AM
 
758 posts, read 545,044 times
Reputation: 2291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I oppose the Lake Merritt tower because the city broke the rule and didn't follow city policies. If feels like a back door deal and doesn't incite trust in leadership.

In principle, I want housing there. But when you are dealing with the transfer of city land, the process needs to be 100% transparent.
I agree, Jade408.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2015, 11:44 PM
 
Location: East Bay Area
1,986 posts, read 3,587,222 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I oppose the Lake Merritt tower because the city broke the rule and didn't follow city policies. If feels like a back door deal and doesn't incite trust in leadership.

In principle, I want housing there. But when you are dealing with the transfer of city land, the process needs to be 100% transparent.
Regarding the transfer of city land, is the problem whether or not affordable housing developers were prioritized for the land negotiation back in 2012, or is the problem with the project not being 100% affordable housing?

Affordable housing developers struggle to attract financial investment, then and now. Which is why I said it was a shot in the foot, because Urbancore committed to providing 10% of the units as workforce housing units + $1 million for offsite affordable housing + $700k in community benefits. They then later committed to $8 million in offsite affordable housing + $700k in community benefits. Now there may be the possibility of zero affordable housing financed on the site and in the coffers for other sites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2015, 01:02 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,225 posts, read 36,675,422 times
Reputation: 28550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110 View Post
Regarding the transfer of city land, is the problem whether or not affordable housing developers were prioritized for the land negotiation back in 2012, or is the problem with the project not being 100% affordable housing?

Affordable housing developers struggle to attract financial investment, then and now. Which is why I said it was a shot in the foot, because Urbancore committed to providing 10% of the units as workforce housing units + $1 million for offsite affordable housing + $700k in community benefits. They then later committed to $8 million in offsite affordable housing + $700k in community benefits. Now there may be the possibility of zero affordable housing financed on the site and in the coffers for other sites.
Actually neither. My beef is that the city has gone out of their way, through the entire process to hide this deal. It feels really shady, like some sort of backdoor deal. This has been a problem for a long time in Oakland, and this starts the new administration on the wrong foot. They were not transparent enough about he entire process and how decisions were made. When it comes to the sale of public land you need to be over communicative to build and keep the community's trust. The city didn't do that and now they have lost the faith and trust people had that things would change. And yes, it doesn't even look like anyone was listing to the concerns of the community. The whole interaction and process was suspect. It felt like the city said "shut up activists and community members, we already decided, we have already arranged to get our own personal benefits. Go home, we don't care about you."

Generally speaking I think big projects should include affordable housing on site. And I am worried about displacement in Eastlake because the new buildings that have opened or are almost done are very very expensive. And that was the last affordable-ish neighborhood near BART that is full-service and 7 days a week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 10:50 AM
 
343 posts, read 442,610 times
Reputation: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Generally speaking I think big projects should include affordable housing on site. And I am worried about displacement in Eastlake because the new buildings that have opened or are almost done are very very expensive. And that was the last affordable-ish neighborhood near BART that is full-service and 7 days a week.
How many buildings have been built in Eastlake in the past 30 years? The one built recently is affordable senior housing. That's about it I think. The E 12th building would obviously not displace anyone - it's a dirt lot right now that used to be road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,225 posts, read 36,675,422 times
Reputation: 28550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obamadon1 View Post
How many buildings have been built in Eastlake in the past 30 years? The one built recently is affordable senior housing. That's about it I think. The E 12th building would obviously not displace anyone - it's a dirt lot right now that used to be road.
There are a few new ones on International-ish.

Here is one of the pricy ones!
Apartments for rent in Oakland, CA | Merritt on 3rd Apartments
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 03:34 PM
 
343 posts, read 442,610 times
Reputation: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
There are a few new ones on International-ish.

Here is one of the pricy ones!
Apartments for rent in Oakland, CA | Merritt on 3rd Apartments
And that is a 30+ year old building
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,225 posts, read 36,675,422 times
Reputation: 28550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obamadon1 View Post
And that is a 30+ year old building
It is undergoing extensive remodeling, and the new pricing is way above market. I assume it used to be a fairly affordable building, and now the average price is well above $2000. Several other similar things happening over there. I am sure they are renovating that place enough so they can get a rent control exemption!

Since the prices have basically doubled over there in the last 5ish years, on existing housing stock, it is causing displacement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 05:13 PM
 
Location: East Bay Area
1,986 posts, read 3,587,222 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It felt like the city said "shut up activists and community members, we already decided, we have already arranged to get our own personal benefits. Go home, we don't care about you."

Generally speaking I think big projects should include affordable housing on site. And I am worried about displacement in Eastlake because the new buildings that have opened or are almost done are very very expensive. And that was the last affordable-ish neighborhood near BART that is full-service and 7 days a week.
Maybe it's the result of the city wanting to be more development friendly - removing development hurdles and lengthy review processes for example - to attract more developers and investors, especially non-local ones. Oakland doesn't want to miss out on this economic boom.

I agree. But not only do I think big projects should include affordable housing, I feel that it's the only realistic way to get affordable housing built and slow displacement. No supply just exacerbates rents and displacement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 05:19 PM
 
Location: East Bay Area
1,986 posts, read 3,587,222 times
Reputation: 911
Oakland lands two big downtown leases, adding 330 jobs
Quote:
Downtown Oakland has landed two high-profile health-related tenants -- Brown & Toland Physicians and the state's stem-cell institute
Oakland lands two big downtown leases, adding 330 jobs - ContraCostaTimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:57 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top