Oakland Focus Blog

Oakland got $65 million in Economic Stimulus; where's the jobs?

2009-12-08T08:39:00.001-08:00

I received this email from Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums' Oakland Community Task Force late Sunday night:

Hear Mayor Dellums report on stimulus funding (some of which will fund task force-related recommendations). Oakland has received $65 million in stimulus funding, including half from competitive grants.

A preliminary review of selected cities indicates that this makes Oakland second after Chicago (my emphasis) in the amount of competitive funding received. And Oakland is not, by any means, the second largest city. Congratulations to the Mayor, the wonderful city staff led by task force member Margaretta Lin, and other task force members who participated in the planning process and grant writing.

Ok. Great. The Mayor's giving a City Council report tonight on Economic Stimulus money to Oakland for ...$65 million? Wow.

But here's the question: where are the jobs?

Oakland is a city of just around 400,000 people; the Chicago Metro area's about 4 million. To compare Oakland to a much bigger city in terms of monies received is one thing but it also means what's done with the cash is to be questioned.

$65 million is a lot of money.

I check the City of Oakland's Economic Stimulus Website and found something disturbing: a list of program grants applied for that had not been updated in months. Under the estimate of jobs to be created most of the boxes had TBA which I guess means "To Be Added".

And for those areas where jobs were listed, the total was just over 2,500 positions. But 1,750 of those were from a block grant program that the website doesn't report the City got money for. It doesn't read that the City of Oakland was rejected either - it really doesn't tell you much of anything beyond the application due date and the program description.

Yikes.

This website has not been updated in months! Terrible!

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums is scheduled to present the Oakland Economic Stimulus report tonight, Tuesday, at 7 PM at Oakland City Hall. Ask him what happened to the $65 million.

He will tell you that most of the money has not been claimed, but how much has not? Also, when will the jobs become available? Now, or in stages over the next year? And if it's in stages will that be enough to offset projected higher unemployment rates?

And then ask him with $65 million, why does the City of Oakland gouge its residents with high parking ticket costs and overly aggressive enforcement?

Geez.

Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers? Garbage!

2009-12-06T11:32:00.003-08:00

The Associated Press' material can be a howler at times. The latest funny was this title: "Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers" which was conceived and written by a writer at the AP who presents his take on what the "Black Community" is and who represents it by turning to the old mainstream media standard, the legendary Tom Joyner.

Now, I love Tom Joyner, so it's not his fault; I'm aiming at the AP's 39-year-old Jesse Washington, who, while African American, has no idea what the "Black Community" is.

Jesse Washington

In a time when interracial dating is common, and black women with white men in commercials are more common than the opposite, its downright silly to complain about Tiger Woods' choice of female companions, blonde, brunette, or polka-dot, Rachel Uchitel, Jaimie Grubbs, Jamie Jungers, Kamile Moquin, Cori Rist, or Mindy Lawton.

Besides, why would any woman regardless of color want to be compared with or take the place of the alleged mistresses Tiger Woods has been linked to, given the PR backfire that can ensue?

Jesse Washington's AP-blasted take is a reflection of a certain part of Black America
that no longer represents the sum total of Black America: those who racially segregate themselves and hate any image of racial mixing for fear that it may result in the devaluation of their blackness.

Washington (who's background includes work in Detroit and New York City) reflects a part of the East Coast's Black Community that's far more hardened against and critical of interracial dating than on the West Coast, in San Francisco or Los Angeles or Oakland. I'm black and I'm certainly not the kind of person Washington implies "we" are. Moreover, many African Americans are not like that at all and root for Tiger Woods to overcome his problems.

What's interesting is Jesse Washington cherry-picked his sources to make the article he advanced. For example, he went to Tom Joyner as a source rather than The Root, the Washington Post-backed black blog site where Terence Samuel's blog post on Tiger Woods mentioned nothing about race.

And the study Washington references refers to adolescent interracial romance and not the adult American population. Washington should know that two studies referenced in the USA Today explain that interracial dating is so common in the Millenial Generation that the new generation "doesn't blink at interracial relationships."

And on a personal note, my mother and her friends and family, all black, still root for Tiger Woods. My African American friends who send emails and texts all want Tiger to succeed. So this idea Jesse Washington is advancing - that Tiger Woods' is in some way "alienated" from the black community - is just pure garbage with all due respect to Mr. Washington, who's overall work I enjoy.

I just disagree with my brother.

Oakland Adams Point Action Council Party December 8th

2009-12-06T07:03:00.000-08:00

The Oakland Adams Point Action Council, a group of neighbors that live in the Adams Point area next to Lake Merritt, is having its Holiday Party Tuesday, December 8th at 7 PM the Bellevue Club 525 Bellevue Avenue.

They're asking you to bring cookies and other "nibbles" to share, but come-on. It's a holiday party, so someone bring spiked egg nog and grilled chicken. There's a Kentucky Fried Chicken nearby on Lake Park, right next to the Grand Lake Theater, for goodness sakes!

April Ryan v. Robert Gibbs - does Ryan hate White House' Desiree Rogers?

2009-12-04T15:28:00.001-08:00

April Ryan, a reporter with American Urban Radio Networks, bumped the Tiger Woods scandal down Google Trends and for something I didn't think would reach the collective public media radar, an exchange with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs posted on YouTube by the conservative blog TownHall.com:

The issue that April Ryan's asking about is White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers' role in the State Dinner Partygate Scandal where Tareq and Michaele Salahi gained access to the exclusive affair without being on the White House' Official Guest List.

April Ryan of American Urban Networks

April Ryan was trying to ask Robert Gibbs why Desiree Rogers was at the dinner. Desiree Rogers is the White House Social Secretary who planned the event. But Ryan says that Washington gossip centers around the perception that Desiree Rogers is just working to advance her own interests.

What's of concern to me is Robert Gibbs' mistake of talking down to April Ryan - he should not have compared her to his kid - masks the real issue: what does April Ryan have against Desiree Rogers?

What's not reported at a number of conservative blogs is that this was the second straight day Ryan came to the White House press briefing and aggressively questioned Gibbs. I saw both exchanges on television and had the impression Ryan was fishing for information to write a "dirty" article about Desiree Rogers, who like Ryan is black.

Desiree Rogers

This exchange between Gibbs and Ryan is not important; what April Ryan wants to discover and then do with the information she gets is. Read this transcript (first posted at the DailyKos) from the first day of questions from April Ryan to Robert Gibbs:

QUESTION: Follow up. Normally in the past, before this administration came, there was always a checks and balances type of system at that gate with the Social Office, as well as the Secret Service --

MR. GIBBS: I think that's what Ed just asked.

QUESTION: That's what I'm saying. And you're saying --

MR. GIBBS: This is a follow-up or -- go ahead, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

QUESTION: Again, there's always been a series of checks and balances. And if there was a concern from the Secret Service, they would always relay it back to -- it was a back and forth between the Social Office and the Secret Service.

MR. GIBBS: What I'm saying -- what I said to Ed was --

QUESTION: But let me finish, please --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let me -- I think the question was asked, so let me reiterate my answer. Again, April, none of that relay happened, right? None of that relay happened between the Secret Service and the Social Office, whether or not the Social Office was standing at the gate or whether or not somebody was sitting in their office at the White House.

QUESTION: If you would allow me to finish, you can understand what I'm saying. The relay did not happen because that person was omitted at the gate from the Social Office. The way we understand, that person --

MR. GIBBS: Omitted?

QUESTION: That person was fired earlier in the year. So --

MR. GIBBS: But again, April, you can ask it seven ways. The answer continues to be, the relay didn't happen because somebody was or wasn't there. The relay didn't happen because nobody picked up the phone to relay the information. I mean, I appreciate the observation that somebody could or could not have been at a certain gate. But again, you could pick up the phone, just like I can pick up my phone in the office and relay you, April. You don't have to be standing in my office for me to convey information to you. I think the --

QUESTION: So are you saying that the Social Office does not have any responsibility in this at all?

MR. GIBBS: April, there's an investigation that's ongoing into the actions of what happened, and I'm going to wait for that to be completed.

QUESTION: The reason why we are questioning the Social Office and the Secret Service is because in the past, both have worked in conjunction and successfully were able to protect the President of the United States without anyone coming in. And now because the Social Office did not have that other layer of checks and balances there, this happened. And people are questioning why this White House is not putting the onus some on the Social Office, as well.

MR. GIBBS: I'm going to let the investigation put the onus on where the onus should be. But what I'm simply doing is explaining to you a series of facts that include the notion that if somebody was confused about whether or not somebody was on a list at a guard tower on the exterior perimeter of the White House, and there was a question, generally somebody could pick up the phone and ask. I'm saying that -- I'm saying that the Secret Service, in the statement that they released a few days ago, acknowledged that that didn't happen and that that was a mistake.

QUESTION: The whole process has been changed at that gate from now on. Will the Social Office be working in conjunction with the Secret Service now?

MR. GIBBS: I think first and foremost we're going to go through this investigation, and I would refer you to the Secret Service about operations that might change at that gate.

QUESTION: And the last question. People were saying that the President was never in danger, and many people have said that is not true. They got in --

MR. GIBBS: Who's "many people"?

QUESTION: People here, Secret Service. These people met with the President. They shook the President's hand. Who's to say they did not have some kind of -- granted, they didn't -- but hypothetically, what if a person had walked in and could have done something to the President? The President -- do you --

MR. GIBBS: This hasn't happened before. (Laughter.) I appreciate the opportunity to indulge in a grand hypothetical.

QUESTION: Has the President remarked on this at all?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think the President shares the concern that the director has for how this happened and how we can remedy it from happening again.

QUESTION: Is he concerned about his safety with this?

MR. GIBBS: No.

QUESTION: Have you heard him say anything, is he angry or is he as incredulous as the average American is that people could just walk right into the White House like this?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President -- look, the reason there's an investigation is the President and the White House has asked for that to happen. So I think suffice to say the President is rightly concerned about what happened last week.

QUESTION: Have you actually heard him say anything about it?

MR. GIBBS: I have not heard it, but it's been relayed to me.

QUESTION: Can you confirm whether or not charges will be filed against this couple?

MR. GIBBS: That is not a power bestowed on me as the press secretary. I know they've -- according to media reports, they've been interviewed by the Secret Service. I think that's a decision that would be made by the Secret Service and the United States Attorney in that area.

That reads like April Ryan's trying to do a media hit on Desiree Rogers. The Gibbs / Ryan "talks" are not Gibbs being disrespectful to a black woman, Ryan. They are Gibbs trying to defend Desiree Rogers from April Ryan's silly attacks.

April Ryan's questions have nothing to do with Tareq and Michaele Salahi at all. It's about Desiree Rogers' style. First, the real question is what did the Secret Service ask the Salahis at the check in desk? Second, who did the Salahis' know that helped them get into the event? Focusing on what fashion show Desiree Rogers attended in New York City has zero to do with the issue of the State Dinner.

In my view, April Ryan is being what we in the African American professional community call a "crabbarel": a black person who wants to take down another black person because the target has reached some level of fame. Mentioning that Desiree Rogers is at fashion shows and other events is not the point and calls her real intent into question. Desiree Rogers style and looks may be April Ryan's issue, but Ryan needs to get over it.

YouTube Meetup at Oakland's Lake Chalet Saturday, December 12th

2009-12-01T21:19:00.001-08:00

There have been YouTube Meetups, but never one in America's most exciting city, Oakland, California. The Oakland YouTube Meetup at Lake Chalet at 1520 Lakeside Drive in Oakland, and is on Saturday, December 12th 2009 from 2 PM to 5:30 PM.

What's the plan? To meet, eat, and video! But the idea is to meet YouTubers from all over and especially Oakland, San Francisco, and Northern California. But it's also a party for non-YouTubers to learn more about how YouTube and YouTubers can help promote their business; you learn by watching us in action and mingling!

It's also a YouTube contest with prizes for the person who uploads their video the fastest.

Join me and other YouTubers like Sarah Austin for a cool event in a really awesome place: Lake Chalet:

Visit our Facebook page here.

More information to come, but contact me Zennie62 at zennie@zennie62.com

Oakland Parkway Theater update: no new news

2009-12-01T15:19:00.001-08:00

If, like me, you're wondering what the newest information on the Parkway Theater is, well, according to the "i like the parkway" website forum, there's no news - but that's news.

If you need a refresher, this video explains what happened to The Parkway Theater:

And this video covered the first community meeting:

And this is my video interview of former Parkway owners and founders Catherine and Kyle Fisher:

This is the communication that was released recently:

Dear friends of the Parkway Theater,

We hope you're well. We've missed you. It's been a while since we've given an update on the status of the Parkway, so we'd like to share the information we have about the on-going efforts to get a new business opened there.

As we approach the time of year where friends and family are a central theme, the organizers of I Like The Parkway are reminded that we have found both in the eclectic group of movie-lovers united through the loss of the Parkway. We know that this theater will re-open because of your support, your passion, and as time has told in the 9 months since it closed, your patience. For this we are thankful. Happy Thanksgiving.

** BUSINESS OPERATOR UPDATE **

The Parkway building is still empty. Yes, yes, we know. Not cool. The Motion Picture Heritage Company is no longer looking to open a theater there - we don't have the details, but it seems the cost of building repairs has been a big hurdle.

As most of you know, the first potential operator (Motion Picture Heritage Corporation) that made a serious effort toward re-opening the Parkway did not end up signing a deal. Since then, several groups have shown interest, put together business proposals, and worked on their plans with the theater building owners and/or the city. Some have since moved on; some are still somewhere in that process. Unfortunately, nobody has gotten to the point of signing a lease on the space, so we don't anticipate the theater opening up before the year's end. From the consistent activity of potential business operators, we are optimistic about a 2010 re-opening.

Because of your collective enthusiasm for the reopening of the Parkway, potential operators have recognized the benefit of working with the community to understand our needs and concerns. To date, multiple parties have reached out to begin that dialogue with us. What has become clear is that there is no shortage of interested parties who would like to re-open the theater in the spirit of what it once was. The challenge is crafting a deal that is agreeable and fair to both the would-be operators and the building owners and in demonstrating the financial viability of such a business to banks or investors. Until the reality of a deal presents itself we will continue to act as we have, fostering relationships throughout our community and throughout Oakland that we believe will lead to a better home for all of us and the re-imagination of the Parkway. Our primary objective is to ensure that anyone who reopens the Parkway has a clear business plan that reflects the ideas and concerns of the community, while balancing the requirements of a profitable business.

** WHAT NOW? **

As I Like The Parkway continues to grow, there are still people that love the theater and have no idea what happened. If you know people that love movies (that's most people, right?) and want to bring back a great place for movies and food, send them to http://www.iliketheparkway.com this week. Forward this email to 5 of your friends for eternal good luck!

** MURAL THANKS **

Have you driven by the theater recently and noticed the mural? Thanks to Ras Terms and Desi W.O.M.E. If you're at Woody's across the street, be sure to thank Steve or Robert for coordinating with these artists.

** FOR THE DOGS... **

For those of you interested in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Parkway, there is a group of residents that recently proposed creating a fenced, off-leash dog area in the small green space bordered by Park, E. 22nd, 5th, and E. 21st (see the map here). Councilmember Pat Kernighan is soliciting feedback through a survey on her site. Please visit her survey to share your thoughts.

Until next time, we hope you have a happy holiday, get to spend time with family and friends, and, as always-

We won't give up if you don't.

Thank you for all that you do,
I Like The Parkway

Stay tuned.

Oakland Raiders and Al Davis 10 percent share worth $60 million

2009-11-30T13:41:00.001-08:00

Oakland Raiders Manager of The General Partner Al Davis recently announced that 10 percent of the organization was for sale. That news started a small set of media speculation web posts on the value of the organization based on Forbes annual blast about NFL team values. From Forbes, the Oakland Raiders are worth $797 million, which would put the 10 percent chunk at $79.7 million.

Mr. Davis, I'll give you $35 million for that 10 percent

But the Forbes estimate is wrong. Way wrong.

It's wrong because the number's based on 2008 information, yet presented in this year: 2009. Moreover, media discussion on the Raiders value mentions the credit crunch, and the national economy, but fails to include the local employment situation.

People need income to buy tickets and that money comes from jobs. In September 2008, California's unemployment was just 7.7 percent, and we thought that was terrible at the time. Now the rate is at 9.6 percent as of October, and in Oakland it's over 17 percent.

So let's do some quick figuring. If jobs are needed to buy Raiders tickets, then its reasonable to say that Raider ticket purchases are attached to the unemployment rate. It's fair to use the statewide unemployment data because the Raiders are a statewide draw - sports is Oakland's true export industry.

So we take 7.7 in 2008 and subtract it from 9.6 in 2009. That's 1.9, which when divided by 7.7 (the previous year's rate) gives us 24.67 percent. Or, the magnitude of the total increase of unemployed Californians over the previous year is 24.6 percent.

So we have to subtract that from the Oakland Raiders total value since it was based on 2008 information. That leaves us with $797 million minus $196.67 million, or $600.33 million.

So the Oakland Raiders 10 percent stake is valued at $60.33 million. Or, $60 million.

It is worth it? Well. Let's just say this: I would not buy it for more than $35 million if I could and here's why.

While my estimate's based on an adjustment to reflect current state economic conditions, it does not include what may happen in 2010.

The UCLA Anderson school projects that state unemployment will rise to 11 percent by mid-2010. So if you bought the Raiders 10 percent stake at $60 million, you'd have taken about a $20 million bath in less than one year. Since there's no guarantee things will get better by 2011 absent a massive second economic stimulus, why even spend $40 million for the team?

New stadium for the Raiders? Okay... With what money and who's political will? I don't care what Oakland City Councilman and Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority Chairman Ignacio De La Fuente says, justifying building a new baseball or football stadium in this economic climate is pure folly, and this comes from a person who's a big advocate of stadiums as economic development.

This is one time I'd agree with California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who I know would make the same statement. In the past, I'd argue with him; not today.

I'm an idealistic realist. We're in bad times and it's going to take massive levels government spending to right this national economic ship. Preesident Obama should have pushed for $2.4 trillion, not $787 billion.

And justifying stimulus spending on a football stadium alone, as opposed to part of a larger complex, is a losing political fight because for the first time such costs compete with money for basic services. I've never seen an economic climate like this before.

Folks, we're experiencing the result of 30 years of job loss to foreign economies that I estimate has cost us $976 billion in revenue wealth, over $400 billion during the last eight years alone. I don't know if the collective American population is too slow to catch on, but all of this talk of too much government spending is the mouthing of idiots.

Sorry to be so honest and to a degree sharp, but I'm trying to convey in an effective way just how much trouble we're in. We've lived off a credit system that absorbed our nations economy from these Worldwide economic structural changes until the overall increase in weight of consumer debt over the past five years was just too great for the system to bear. The result is where we are and are going to be for a few years.

So spending even $60 million for 10 percent of the Oakland Raiders is just not a good idea. Yes, by advocating one purchase it for $35 million I'm stating the organization's value will fall to just about $400 million by 2011.

And if you're saying I'm just a blogger, I will tell you this is the same report I'd write to the Mayor of Oakland if I was his economic adviser, which I was from 1995 to 1999 and all the additional institutional models and data I use only point to the same conclusion. So slam my blog post you may, but let's talk in 2011 and see where we are. I'd look forward to that conversation.

Cool Oakland video a slice of Oakland life - sort of

2009-11-30T11:11:00.001-08:00

I happened to make a cyber trip over to the Oakland blog 38thNotes.com, where the posts are always interesting, if off-beat. This one on a video called "Oakland b Mine" is certainly that.

Reportedly the video was created to be shown at the baggage claim at Oakland Airport. It's in the perfect place for out-of-town visitors to get an immediate idea of what Oakland's all about: diversity.

The video features a man who appears to be Latino chasing after an attractive African American woman he sees in Oakland's airport. While he goes through lengths that are extraordinary to say the least, it's a cute video. I would classify it of the "don't try this at home" variety. You know?

The camera takes us through many familiar spots in Oakland, including the Lake Merritt Farmer's Market, which means it was created on a Saturday.

The video is cool for the cinematography and the music. Check it out, and pass it on!

Oakland Barnes and Noble may close Jan. 31, 2010

2009-11-27T09:09:00.001-08:00

According to Sanjiv Handa of the East Bay News Service the enormous Oakland Barnes and Noble bookstore at 98 Broadway in Jack London Square may close Jan. 31, 2010. Barnes and Noble is expected to make an official disclosure next week, baring any intervention from the City of Oakland to persuade them to remain open.

Sanjiv Handa reports that the anticipated closure will cost the City of Oakland's government $125,000 in annual general fund revenue. (He forgot the additional revenue from the predatory parking ticket policy, but admits its harder to quantify.)

The closure of Barnes and Noble is a blow to Oakland but the problem of its low profitability comes as no surprise. Chain bookstores around the Bay Area and around America have closed under the weight of the transition to online sources for news and information and the growth of online booksellers like Amazon.com.

San Francisco's Stacey's Book Store on Market Street closed in 2008 for similar reasons.

This would not leave Oakland without a bookstore. The popular independent bookseller Walden Pond Books on 3316 Grand Avenue is still open; no reports of a planned closure. Just keep the Oakand parking attendants from chasing the customers away and it will do fine.

But that aside, the loss of Barnes and Noble would be a blow to the image of Jack London Square as the space the bookstore occupies is so large that it is an major anchor tenant there. What will the Port of Oakland do to replace them?

Stay tuned.

OSCAR ALERT - Screen Credits and Music Entry Form Due December 1st for Academy Awards

2009-11-27T06:18:00.001-08:00

OSCAR ALERT. You have until December 1 to get your Screen Credits and Music Entry Forms in to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) if your movie is to be considered for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards. From the press release, AMPAS explains:

For a feature film to be considered for the 2009 Awards, the film’s distributor or producer must file an OSC form with the Academy by 5 p.m. PT on December 1. If a feature film is released in 2009 and the completed OSC form is not submitted by the deadline, the film will be ineligible for Academy Awards in any year.

OSC forms may be submitted online only, at http://aiwosc.oscars.org/aiwosc/. Information about submission and feature film eligibility can be obtained by contacting Credits Coordinator Howard Loberfeld at (310) 247-3000, ext. 113, or via e-mail at hloberfeld@oscars.org.

For an achievement to be considered in the Original Score or Original Song category, the principal music writer(s) for a feature film must submit an official music submission form by 5 p.m. PT on December 1.

To request music submission materials, contact Dave Hanson at (310) 247-3000, ext. 151, or via e-mail at dhanson@oscars.org.

While the credits submission deadline is December 1, feature films have until midnight, December 31, to open in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County and begin a minimum run of seven consecutive days to be eligible for 2009 Oscar® consideration.

Entries in the foreign language, animated feature, documentary, and short film categories are subject to special rules and must meet other qualifying criteria. The entry deadlines in these categories have already passed.

The deadlines have been communicated before; it would be sad to learn that a great film missed being nominated because of paperwork issues. Hopefully those responsible will pay attention to this deadline notice.

Police beat UC Berkeley students during protest. Why?

2009-11-25T21:01:00.005-08:00

There are two issues on my mind as we approach Thanksgiving Day. One is why the great University of California at Berkeley would police to surround and beat defenseless students? The other is why we seem to applaud police brutality.

I'm chaffing a bit that some local San Francisco Bay Area columnists seem afraid to point out police misconduct, writing instead that in one case - the case of the BART Police officer who slammed the drunk BART rider's face into the window at West Oakland or at least seemed to want to do that - the police officer was "just doing his job".

The job of a police officer is dangerous, we know this. But to allow or expect police violence in that case - or in the more awful example of the police called in at Berkeley for the protest - calls the very values of our society into question.

This video set collected and presented at the blog Millicent and Carla Fran is what got me. The good news is that protesting students were only cited for trespassing but the images of clashes between police and student are jarring.

As reported in the excellent blog post, students were protesting the 32 percent increase in student fees and the custodial firings. UC Berkeley Police arrived to close off the Wheeler Hall and surrounding it. In the second video, Students are attempting to talk with police. In the third video, a female student falls under the yellow police tape, with weird results. In the final video, Professor Robert Dudley, a member of the Department of Integrative Biology at Cal joins the protest and is arrested peacefully:

All of this was happening as Cal Alums like myself who remember a time when students could afford to go to Cal, were playing touch football and just trying to have fun to balance our stressful lives. For us Cal is and has been a source of great joy and accomplishment. We were looking forward to the Big Game and the idea that someone was being harmed by police never entered our minds at the time. But I will say that's not what Cal's about. Even if it's part of Cal University History, it's not something any Cal grad is proud of.

The Cal police certainly have a hard job and have done some incredible public safety work, but it does not mean we can't question what they do when they're obviously wrong. But to put a finer point on it, many of the officer on hand were not Cal police, they were from the City of Oakland and had riot gear.

The problem of this fee increase is not going away. What's next? I hope not another protest like this one. I'm sure Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau would agree. He was happy to be able to enjoy the Big Game win Saturday:

In a closing note, one may wonder why I didn't take time to ask the Chancellor Birgeneau about the protest as were celebrating Cal's Big Game win. Well, I did think about it as we were celebrating and talking even though at the time I was unaware of the violence that took place the day before.

But frankly the reason I did not ask the Chancellor about the protest on camera was because he was kind enough to give me his time because I told him I wanted to talk about the win. We were happy and I didn't want to spoil it (in fact, not one bothered him at all). To do anything different would have been dishonest on my part.

That's not how I am.

In the past the Chancellor has been very nice to me and from my experience is a good person. I'm sure he would have liked to see a different outcome on Friday and is as upset about it and how students were treated as anyone of us.

Police brutality is not something to expect or defend. It is to be eliminated as a problem. We don't have to rubber stamp it and think that it's part of the police just 'doing their job.'

Police beat UC Berkeley students during protest. Why?

2009-11-25T21:01:00.003-08:00

There are two issues on my mind as we approach Thanksgiving Day. One is why the great University of California at Berkeley would allow its police department to surround and beat defenseless students? The other is why we seem to applaud police brutality.

I'm chaffing a bit that some local San Francisco Bay Area columnists seem afraid to point out police misconduct, writing instead that in one case - the case of the BART Police officer who slammed the drunk BART rider's face into the window at West Oakland or at least seemed to want to do that - the police officer was "just doing his job".

The job of a police officer is dangerous, we know this. But to allow or expect police violence in that case - or in the more awful example of the police called in at Berkeley for the protest - calls the very values of our society into question.

This video set collected and presented at the blog Millicent and Carla Fran is what got me. The good news is that protesting students were only cited for trespassing but the images of clashes between police and student are jarring.

As reported in the excellent blog post, students were protesting the 32 percent increase in student fees and the custodial firings. UC Berkeley Police arrived to close off the Wheeler Hall and surrounding it. In the second video, Students are attempting to talk with police. In the third video, a female student falls under the yellow police tape, with weird results. In the final video, Professor Robert Dudley, a member of the Department of Integrative Biology at Cal joins the protest and is arrested peacefully:

All of this was happening as Cal Alums like myself who remember a time when students could afford to go to Cal, were playing touch football and just trying to have fun to balance our stressful lives. For us Cal is and has been a source of great joy and accomplishment. We were looking forward to the Big Game and the idea that someone was being harmed by police never entered our minds at the time. But I will say that's not what Cal's about. Even if it's part of Cal University History, it's not something any Cal grad is proud of.

The Cal police certainly have a hard job and have done some incredible public safety work, but it does not mean we can't question what they do when they're obviously wrong. But to put a finer point on it, many of the officer on hand were not Cal police, they were from the City of Oakland and had riot gear.

The problem of this fee increase is not going away. What's next? I hope not another protest like this one. I'm sure Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau would agree. He was happy to be able to enjoy the Big Game win Saturday:

In a closing note, one may wonder why I didn't take time to ask the Chancellor Birgeneau about the protest as were celebrating Cal's Big Game win. Well, I did think about it as we were celebrating and talking even though at the time I was unaware of the violence that took place the day before.

But frankly the reason I did not ask the Chancellor about the protest on camera was because he was kind enough to give me his time because I told him I wanted to talk about the win. We were happy and I didn't want to spoil it (in fact, not one bothered him at all). To do anything different would have been dishonest on my part.

That's not how I am.

In the past the Chancellor has been very nice to me and from my experience is a good person. I'm sure he would have liked to see a different outcome on Friday and is as upset about it and how students were treated as anyone of us.

Police brutality is not something to expect or defend. It is to be eliminated as a problem. We don't have to rubber stamp it and think that it's part of the police just 'doing their job.'

Oakland Taxi Problem due to Friendly Cab monopoly

2009-11-25T13:12:00.000-08:00

Even though I pay attention to national cultural issues, I've not forgot about Oakland. I scanned the blog post on the Oakland Taxi Cab problem with a chuckle because neither the Oakland North newsite or A Better Oakland blog actually hits on the real problem.

(A momentary aside. It's time to call Oakland North what it is, a news website. It's not a blog. A blog contains opinions and adheres to a blogger's code of ethics. Oakland North is a site for journalists. I don't go there to get the views of one of their writers; I go there for the news. What's annoying is that as more journalists and journalism students discover new media, they call whatever they do online a blog. Wrong. I cry foul on this. If you're going to blog, let me know what you think, not what someone else thinks; but if not, then its a news website, period. Ok, back to the issue.)

The City of Oakland let Friendly Cab have a monopoly role in the industry in Oakland. Friendly Cab is the only active cab company in Oakland. It has all of the licenses for the city and has owned them for decades.

Oakland City Attorney John Russo tried to fix the problem 10 years ago when he was a councilmember and got nowhere. The problem still exists and there's zero political will to eliminate it.

The Oakland North blog post really focused on the parking ticket problems (which an initiative can fix) not the cab problems. But the real issue behind Oakland's Cab problems can be solved if the City of Oakland takes several steps:

1. Makes all cab companies lower the daily "gate fee" of $65 to $40 - This is a real problem and yes, I know it's $120 in San Francisco, but the Oakland fee to rent a cab from a company should be fixed by the City of Oakland. A cab driver has to buy gas and then make enough daily money to offset the cost to have the car for a day. At $40, a cab driver only needs to have four passenger pickups at $10 each per day to break even. A ride from Lake Merritt to 19th Street BART is $6.86 per day.

2. Lower the license cost to establish a cab business in Oakland to $10,000 - Why it's at reportedly $40,000 is beyond me and reads like a total racket in my view. The license cost is a barrier to entry into the cab industry at a time when people need to create employment for themselves. What the City of Oakland is doing here is just plain terrible.

3. End the Oakland Parking ticket problem - which can only be done effectively via the initiative process.

The City of Oakland should be working to help cab drivers build their business, not punish them for being in it. A better cab system will hopefully avoid incidents like the one I experienced here:

I understand that At-Large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan wants to jump in and solve the problem, but she's already behind the eight-ball because the City Council's putting her out there by herself. If she had a group of councilmembers with her, I'd say she's going to fix the problem, but there's no indication of a coalition of Oakland elected officials ready to change the state of affairs.

But it's clear from the number of cab drivers and people I've talked to that there's a perception the City of Oakland's allowed an organized scheme to keep one company - Friendly Cab - active to go too far. I'm not advocating the end of Friendly Cab, just some competition for it. That will lower fare prices and make cabs more abundant in Oakland.

Finally, I'll keep my car, thanks.

Free Thanksgving Day Luncheon in Oakland at 410 14th Street

2009-11-25T10:12:00.001-08:00

I received an email from Geoffrey Pete (the former owner of "Geoffrey's Inner Circle" Club) reporting that the Oakland Black Caucus is hosting a free Thanksgiving Day Luncheon at 410 14th Street, near Oakland City Hall, in downtown Oakland, California from 12 noon to 2 PM.

NBA stars Derrick Brown from the Charlotte Bobcats and Antonio Davis (who's retired) will be in attendance. Volunteers include Youth Uprising and The Oakland Tech Basketball Team.

The lunch event is for everyone, so come to downtown Oakland on Thanksgiving Day.

Oakland Raiders' Bruce Gradkowski can't fix awful passing game

2009-11-23T09:33:00.001-08:00

Bruce Gradkowski

Oakland Raiders' Quarterback Bruce Gradkowski has become the darling of the Bay Area mainstream media because he replaced JaMarcus Russell and the Raiders won 20 to 17. Because of this, the commonly myopic mainstream media types have fallen all over themselves in praising Bruce Gradkowski.

Time for this blogger to add a dose of much-needed sanity.

Bruce Gradkowski was 17 of 34 for 183 yards, two touchdowns and one interception and posted an awful 73.529 passer rating according to the Quarterback Passing Calculators anyone can use online. I didn't have to use it to tell you the Oakland Raiders passing game is still terrible.

Let's get down to the basic fact that this is an under-performing passing game. If Bruce Gradkowski had attempted 34 passes and completed 26 for 270 yards and 3 touchdowns with no interceptions that would have been a passer rating of 128.3, and then we could pop the corks.

But the design of the Oakland Raiders passing game, and the way it's coached, does not offer a snowball's chance in hell of a quarterback hitting that passer rating objective.

By contrast, Cal Head Coach Jeff Tedford's passing attack has produced several quarterbacks with excellent passer ratings over his career. The latest example being quarterback Kevin Riley with a 133.49 rating for the season thus far and was 17 of 31 for 235 yards and one touchdown and one interception against Stanford (he was at just 54 percent and I know why), giving him a 122.71 rating for the 27th Big Game. (And thanks to Tedford and Cal Offensive Coordinator Andy Ludwig for using the Big Game to install the short passing game surgical strike I've called for all year long.)

But I digress.

Yes, the passer rating formula does have its problems and that's another blog post, but one can't argue that throwing more completions as a percentage of attempts and for more yardage helps the achieve a solid victory, rather than a three-point win.

The Oakland Raiders must understand how to first throw short, timed passes that can be ran again and again and second, drill the passer to throw to a specific point at the receiver depending on the route, third, move the "launch point" of the pass using rollouts, sprints, and play action passes, and finally use the hashmarks and throwing points and route landmarks.

I've blogged that point again and again. So much so I'm tired of doing it. It does not matter who's placed at quarterback for the Oakland Raiders, the result - a poor or less than stellar passing attack - will always be the result.

This is nothing personal against Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett who are the passing game architects; it's professional. These two men have seen a lot of passing attacks and posted a lot of years of coaching. They must be held to a higher standard than what's being produced to date.

The Oakland Raiders' passing game is terrible. Bruce Gradkowski can't fix what's broken by design.

BART Officer breaks window with drunk's face - why? Take my poll.

2009-11-22T23:00:00.000-08:00

I'm in Georgia as I write this having flown most of the day from San Francisco to Chicago to Atlanta. So just when I think I've only got to pay attention to my Cal Stanford Big Game videos and my Oakland sim, I have this CNN-and-SFGate-reported news of a BART officer smashing the face of a drunk man by the name of Michael Joseph Gibson into a window on the West Oakland BART Station platform.

So I immediately went to YouTube and found this video:

And showed it to my mother who said "Why did he have to throw him into the window."

Exactly. Why?

Here we go again. Another predictable argument between those who justify police' violent actions and those who question it. I am tired of the dichotomy, so I decided to create a poll to learn what others think.

While the officer's action is questionable, that his presence was desired is of no question. In the video as the officer hauls Michael Joseph Gibson off the train and before he reaches the window, we can hear people clapping, so BART riders wanted this guy off the train.

That happened.

But the other action of the head against the window is to me a case of putting too much super hot mustard on a really good hot dog: it makes it hard to consume, but one can still eat it.

To BART's credit, it's not sitting on this issue; it responded rapidly, issuing a press statement and holding a press conference with in moments.

BART Spokeman Linton Johnson said to CNN's Don Lemon this evening that "We decided that we wanted to take appropriate steps and let people know about this video... We want to do a full investigation...We will look at all the facts."

Johnson went on to say that most of Michael Joseph Gibson's injuries came from his arm and not his head. It's hard to tell that from the video but I can't help but wonder if there's another video out there with another angle. There's got to be at least one more - even if it's the station video. It's out there. I know it.

BART's not releasing the officer's name. He's new to BART Police according to Linton Johnson, but Linton says he's not had any incidents while with BART Police.

But the way Linton made the statement does open a new question about the officer's past. In looking at the video it seems like the officer took a little too much action - again too much hot mustard - but overall Michael Joseph Gibson was out of line and what I go with is the people on the train were applauding the officer.

Again, whatever Michael Joseph Gibson was doing, it's obvious he didn't have a fan base on the train.

What do you think of the BART Officer's actions? Take my poll:

More fun surveys on pollsb.com

Cal 34, Stanford 28 - Golden Bears win a Big Game for the ages!

2009-11-22T22:13:00.003-08:00

Cal 34, Stanford 28; Cal Golden Bears win Big Game! Remember that because a lot of Cal alums, including me, will never forget it. When a beaming Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau roams the Stanford field after the victory, shaking hands and posing for pictures, and says "This was one of our greatest wins", you know it was a special game.

It certainly was.

It was one for Cal's football history because it marked the first time we beat Stanford to keep them out of a big game after the turn of the century. We've beat Stanford before to harm their bowl hopes - but never The Rose Bowl.

Rather than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Cal did the opposite. Moreover, it happened at Stanford. The win and the significance of it, made the song "You know it. You tell the story. You tell the whole damn World this is Bear territory!" mean more than just words. Stanford Stadium became "Bear territory" with Cal students, alums, faculty and staff storming the field, all singing that song again and again and again.

It was a beautiful moment in time that, but for a few key moments during the game, may not have come to pass.

Lining up and kicking a field goal to put Cal up 34 to 28 did not sit well with Cal fans; we wanted a touchdown purely out of respect for the yardage-chewing prowess of the Stanford Cardinal offense, which needed a touchdown and an extra point to take the game from Cal.

While the Cardinal didn't perform well enough to win, Quarterback Andrew Luck, Running Back Toby Gerhard, and the Stanford Offensive Line had put together a 1:46 second drive to score just moments before.

No Cal fan wanted to see a repeat of that process, yet because of the Cal field goal after wasting third down by lining up to have Cal Quaterback Kevin Riley run left to a point between the hashmarks at the 11 yard line, the stage was set for that to happen.

It almost did, with a game Andrew Luck working to prove one could put the game in his hands and win, teaming up with the fleet Gerhard to move the Cardinal to within the Cal 20 and then down to first and goal to win the game. The next play for me happened in slow motion: at the Cal 3-yard-line Luck dropped back to throw, had a good two seconds to read the defense and pick a receiver, but instead threw an interception.

Cal Linebacker Mike Mohamed's pick of Luck's pass in the end zone caused Cal fans to erupt in a massive outpouring of emotion: yelling, hugging, kissing, crying, and just smiling. It was a good win. No, it was a great win. A win I'll blog more about tonight after I'm off my plane to see family for the holidays back east. A lot of comments; a ton of video.

Afterward, at a raucous tailgate party thrown by my Cal buddies, someone turned on the song We are the Champions and we all sang, loudly and badly. For that moment - for that time last night - we were champions. Cal beat Stanford in what will go down as one of the greatest games in Big Game history.

GO BEARS!

OaklandSeen - Aimee Allison & Zennie Abraham on KPFA

2009-11-20T15:53:00.001-08:00

OaklandSeen is KPFA 94.1 KPFA Morning Show radio personality and twice candidate to represent Oakland City Council District Two (now-Councilmember Pat Kernighan won the race), Aimee Allison's new show where she talks about what's happening in Oakland. This was an interesting show in that it was produced at a makeshift studio within Revolution Cafe at 1612 7th Street in West Oakland, and across from the Oakland Main Post Office.

(As an aside, the cafe's real cool and has a nice collection of couches and overstuffed chairs. My only issue with Revolution Cafe is, at an 8 PM time, it closes too early. 10 PM would be great.)

Aimee Allison's 85-minute plus show featured Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners' member and 2nd Vice-President Margaret Gordon, Ronnie Stewart of the Bay Area Blues Society, Erica Torrence of People's Grocery, Aimee Allison, and me, Zennie Abraham. (The meat of the video starts about 20 minutes in; you can see and hear us set up before the actual show starts.)

The idea of this segment was to focus on problems and issues in West Oakland and Margaret Gordon , Ronnie Stewart, and Erica Torrence, who are activists in the area, were perfect. I learned a lot from them, but first and foremost I realized that the same problems we were working to solve in West Oakland during the 90s are still with us today: poor grocery stores with substandard food offerings and gentrification.

But it's also clear that in small ways West Oakland's becoming a better place to live and to be. As a result of Margaret Gordon's work, trucks must have special emissions-reduction retrofits before they can move through West Oakland. And more people like the owners of Revolution Cafe are discovering that they can do good business there. West Oakland is not, as some have said, a dumping ground any more.

We also talked about Oakland's World Cup Soccer bid and I learned that while 50,000 signatures are needed by December 4th, only about 2,500 have been collected. Margaret Gordon said that more people have to get involved in Oakland if Oakland is to improve.

While most of the time was used to talk about West Oakland, we also talked about the Oakland Parking problem and I explained that just yesterday a woman who drove down to Grand Avenue with her child watched in horror as her car was towed away for too many parking tickets; she was left to figure out how she was going to get her kid back home. (Remember, the "tow trigger" is five or more tickets and the City of Oakland's giving out more and more of them.)

I also talked about the Oakland Parking Initiative and what we were trying to do, but I didn't get enough time to talk about that more in depth.

(As a note, you should turn your speakers way up for the video.)

Sarah Palin Newsweek Cover: Palin is not Carrie Prejean

2009-11-17T19:05:00.001-08:00

Well, just one day after Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared on Oprah for what was a good interview and on the day her book "Going Rogue" was released (I have to admit I bought Star Trek on DVD instead), Newsweek helps keep Palin's name near the top of the public conversation (and makes her into Carrie Prejean) by using this cover photo:

The pict got the best of Governor Palin who took to her Facebook page to complain about it, writing:

The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness - a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context.

- Sarah Palin

Palin's post - I can see her frowning as she wrote it - sparked a powerful reaction that's bound to keep her name up in online search results for another two months. (A momentary aside. Yesterday I wrote that Palin's Internet popularity was due to Oprah and not herself; today, it's due to Newsweek and not Palin.)

The LA Times asked if Palin was really concerned that the photo was sexist and used their entertainment blog for the Academy Awards to issue the observation, leading me to believe they're saying (or at least LA Times blogger Elizabeth Snead holds) that Palin's acting.

The Kansas City Star's headline was "It just goes on and on". Blog SheKnows.co asks if Palin is really offended or just seeking press. If she is looking for media coverage, she's getting it.

But aside from what Palin thinks, I will say it certainly is sexist.

Look, I'll use a revealing photo to get the readers attention in a second, so I know what Newsweek was doing and it was a ploy to sell magazines and draw web traffic in a recession. Governor Palin's no longer, well, Governor, which makes her tanned and fit good looks the perfect target for their intentions.

But the bottom line is Newsweek didn't have to employ the Runner's World photo and could have opted to just show Palin in the suits she's generally wearing in public appearances. Instead Newsweek wanted to grab a photo that really looks like one I'd expect to see on a truck with a gun rack.

Maybe that was the point.

Whatever the case, I thought Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham's explanation was massively weak:

"We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

Sorry but that's the biggest bunch of horse manure I've ever seen. Jon Meacham obviously didn't want to explain that they realy wanted to make a real point, which is 'Sarah wants attention and this photo's the best way to make sure she gets it, focus on our point that we think she's an attention monger, and get a lot of buzz, magazine sales, and Internet traffic too.'

But all of this to me is another wound in the scaring of Sarah Palin. All of this - the book, the book tour, the Oprah Interview, etc. - is a way for Palin to heal. It's not a path to Palin 2012. No.

Sarah Palin is damaged.

Here's a young woman executive plucked from obscurity and thrust at warp-speed into the hyper-media spotlight. Then, when Senator John McCain and the GOP were done with her and lost the Presidential election to Barack Obama, they turned on Palin, cast her aside, and made her feel crappy in the process.

Remember the accusations that Palin was essentially stealing clothes given to her for use by the GOP and a lawyer had to fly to Alaska to get them back? Or how about the constant drumbeat of statements on her lack of understanding of policy from everyone including me.

Sarah's saying "You can't treat me that way and cast me aside." You know what; she's right.

Look, I don't agree with Governor Palin on a number of political issues, but in my way of living that does not mean I have to want to see her mistreated by anyone. Newsweek's actions were horrible. The Newsweek photo was totally off base and I think they should apologize for using a photo intended for an athletic publication in the way they did.

To be clear, I agree with using photos like the one of Carrie Prejean, but hey, she's a model. Ok? Sarah Palin's a government executive not far removed from office (and if she kept herself in it, this would not have happened).

Governor Palin is not Carrie Prejean nor should her image be altered to make her look that way. Again, she may be a Couch Potato Conservative, but at least let her relax on the couch in peace. Now, she's scarred all over again and we're not going to hear or see the last of her until she's healed and that's going to take a long time.

Count on it.

Niners Candlestick Point stadium looks better with Santa Clara problems

2009-11-17T15:12:00.001-08:00

Candlestick Point

An interesting development occurred over the past few days and virtually under the radar of much of the media in the Bay Area. Two environmental impacts reports were released at almost the same time: one for the Candlestick Point / San Francisco 49ers Stadium development and the other for the SF Niners stadium proposed for Santa Clara.

I also must explain that I'm biased toward the idea of keeping the 49ers in San Francisco, but I'm not beyond telling it like it is with respect to how the enviromental impact reports are presented.

I've read both EIRs (it was part of my role as Economic Advisor to The Mayor of Oakland when Elihu Harris was Mayor and for Robert Bobb before I worked to try to bring the 2005 Super Bowl to Oakland) and while at 3,000 pages (I didn't read all of the pages), the Candlestick Point includes comments and a detailed and well-organized list of anticipated impacts and ways to work to dampen or eliminate them (called "mitagations"), the Santa Clara DEIR is not so well-written.

I've got to say the Santa Clara EIR's not very good at all. In fact, some of the responses to comments are irresponsible and don't show that the project's impacts are being well considered.

Many of the Santa Clara EIR answers to comments are defensive rather than technical and call into question to what degree this document was rushed into production to beat the City of San Francisco's Candlestick effort.

There's a threat of comments regarding the anticipated transit use that would be generated from a new stadium in Santa Clara. The problem with the Santa Clara DEIR is that it bases future estimates of use of cars, buses, and trains on the existing Candlestick Park stadium, which the Candlestick Point DEIR seeks to replace with a new stadium.

In other words, the use of trains versus cars is dependent on the design of the streets, roads, and buildings with respect to each other. The Santa Clara DEIR does not seem to reflect that.

Take this comment / response example:

Comment B-2: Table 15 indicates tbe modal split at the existing stadium is: 82% auto, 10% charter bus, and 8% transit for attendees; 90% auto and 10% transit for employees. For the proposed stadium, modal split is 74% auto, 7% cbarter bus and 19% transit for attendees; 80% auto and 20% transit for employees. Since Candlestick Park is situated within a rich public transportation network, it should have higher charter bus and transit modal splits compared to the proposed stadium. On the contrary, the proposed stadium shows higher charter bus and transit modal splits. What are the underlying assumptions to justify these modal splits tor the proposed 4gers Santa Clara Stadium?

Response B-2: While the City of San Francisco overall has a good public transportation network, the area where Candlestick Park is located does not. There is no rail transit of any kind available to Candlestick Park attendees. The only transit currently used is chatter and municipal buses. As explained in the EIR (pages 176-178), an extensive multi-modal transit system serves north Santa Clara. The assumptions for each type of available transit are described on pages 177-178, including subsections labeled "Bus and Light Rail" and "Heavy
Rail Service".

The Santa Clara DEIR states:

There is no rail transit of any kind available to Candlestick Park attendees.

Hmm....

If that's the case, why is it I can take either BART, Caltrain, or Muni Metro rail and step on the Candlestick Express bus? Yes, it's not direct to the stadium's front door, but its rail and its not far away. Moreover, an EIR is a technical report that's supposed to be devoid of such errors in wording. It's the one place where detailed, accurate description is expected and vital to the success of the project.

The Santa Clara EIR was written as if by a snickering, snipping bureaucrat who had no patience with questions from, well, other bureaucrats from Bay Area agencies, which are in abundance in the document.

By contrast, the Candlestick Point DEIR, while it does concern a much larger 700-acre development, does in detail explain transit impacts and professionally lists the answers to anticipated impacts. There's not the hint of schoolmarm whining that dominates the comment responses in the Santa Clara document.

All of this should make former San Francisco 49ers President Carmen Policy more excited over the prospects for the successful construction of a new 49ers Stadium at Candlestick Point in San Francisco.

But regarding Santa Clara, the San Francisco 49ers should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such a substandard EIR to be produced. I've seen a lot of EIRs in my time and this one's just plain terrible.

If this is an example of what we're to expect, 49ers owner John York should jettison his Santa Clara stadium efforts and work with the more professional team over the Candlestick Point development. Yeah, I'm biased, but it's not without justification.

Free Chipotle burrito at Chipotle Mexican Grill for Halloween - viral?

2009-10-31T14:48:00.003-07:00

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

Ok, Chipotle Mexican Grill offering a free Chipotle burrito is nice and great for Halloween. If you walk in with a costume, you get a free burrito. But how did this message, this keyword, go viral?

As I write this, it's the number 2 most searched Google Trend. I'm not kidding. The source city for this search was Minneapolis, MN, with five percent of total traffic.

But think about what that means.

It means that in some way Chipotle Mexican Grill was able to send press releases and activate a small number of blogs to push that result and then once it hits Google News, the other newssites will pick it up.

Of course, one has to have some kind of national event to be able to trigger such a search, as well as a national brand. Chipotle Mexican Grill qualifies here.

This is no small event folks. Anyone who pays attention to online marketing trends should look at this development. Because now, you're probably thinking "Shut up, Zennie, and just tell me where I can go to get a free burrito in my costume!"

Ok.

In the Bay Area, there's no Oakland Chipotle Mexican Grill - and how many things do we want in Oakland, but still don't have? - but there's one in Berkeley on 1050 Gilman Street and a bunch in San Francisco and Walnut Creek. In Atlanta there's one in Buckhead and four more in the metro area. But since you may be partying in Buckhead, go over to 3424 Piedmont Rd NE.

But I really am impressed at the 21st Century Marketing effort. It's cheap, fast, and efficient. BRAVO!

But does it change the idea and face of what news is? Yes, and while we should be concerned, the answer is not to kill the approach but for news outlets to copy it.

Stay Tuned

Oakland parking problem: Noel Pinto, Susan Bergmann's upset with you!

2009-10-30T14:24:00.001-07:00

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

I got the email below from Susan Bergmann, who's a very upset Oakland small business owner, and especially with Oakland Parking Director Noel Pinto.

Susan Bergmann gave me permission to present the email in full to you and she wants Noel Pinto to see it. (I'm telling you, she's really pissed). I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's really in a lather about the City of Oakland's "misery industry."

If you have a problem with Oakland parking you want to share with the World, send it to me at zennie@zennie62.com with the words, "please print for your blogs" in the subject heading.

Hi Zennie,

I am engaged in a battle with Noel Pinto, new head of parking. He insists on giving me parking tickets on MacArthur Blvd, in front of my office, for violation of 2 hour parking, despite the fact that I come and go all day long. After 11 months, I finally got my "hearing" yesterday and it was very humorous (if its not your life). I would love to get publicity for what has happened. Eventually, I will prevail in small claims court, because what the city is doing to me is outrageous. But I have to jump through many, many hoops before I can see a real judge.
Here is my story of yesterday's hearing:

My Day in Court

Today, I went to the Parking Bureau in downtown Oakland to fight a series of parking tickets I have received in the past eleven months. One ticket has disappeared from the system, one had a wrong address on it, so I think it will be thrown out. One has not yet been processed. So that left just one of the four.

My first question to the "Administrative Hearing Officer" (Rudy Villegas):

"How is this the same and different from a court?"

Hearing Officer: "It's just the same."

Me: "Is there the presumption of innocence?"

Hearing Officer: "What's that?"

Me: "It means the burden of proof is on the City to prove I violated a law."

Hearing Officer: "Oh, of course not. I have the file from the parking bureau right here, and you have to convince me that you're not guilty."

Me: "Then this is not like a court of law. In court, you are innocent until proven guilty."

Hearing Officer: "Well, not in traffic court. You have to prove that you didn't do it."

It was an inauspicious start. We got to the ticket in question, a violation of the two hour parking limit.

Me: "I came to my office at 11:00 am. I left at 12:00 noon to go to swim team. I returned at 1:30 pm, parking at a different spot. I got a ticket for violating 2 hour parking at 2:00. The total time I was parked was one and a half hours."

Hearing Officer: "It says on the ticket that your car was parked there at 11:43 am. But I don't see that verified."

Me: "I was parked there at 11:43. I'll stipulate to that. I was also parked in front of my office, at a different place, at 2:00 pm. But I was not there for a large part of the time in between."

Hearing Officer: "Well, that doesn't matter. Because the way the system works, they just record whether your car was there or not."

It reminded me of Alice in Wonderland. I would present the facts, and the White Rabbit across the desk from me would sing "La la la la".

At the end of the hearing, the officer asked me, "Why don't you just park someplace else?"

When I was in the bathroom, Mr. Villegas told my husband, "I just took this job to get the money for greens fees {golfing]. I thought it would be easy, no stress. Then, I get cases like today."

When I got home from court, a notice was in the mail saying my latest parking ticket has been sent to a collections agency.

Zennie, I do have other outrageous details, particularly relating to Jean Quan's office (that is the district where my office is located).

Might you be interested in any of these details? If not, any ideas about how to publicize any of this?
Thanks! Keep fighting the good fight.

Susan Bergmann

Bay Bridge Closure - Caltrans should not rush repairs to bridge

2009-10-28T17:20:00.001-07:00

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

The latest news in the Bay Bridge Cable Collapse Disaster is that CalTrans spokesperson Bart Ney told KRON-TV that the Bay Bridge could reopen under a "best-case scenario" Thursday if repairs and bridge testing were completed in time.

My response: please don't rush this. Let's get it right.

In fact, it's not even a good idea to put out the message that this process could be done in a jiffy because if it is, the bridge is re-opened, and we have another Bay Bridge Cable Collapse Disaster, it will be a life-changing event for drivers, passengers, and California.

Everyone would call for the heads of the people ruining CalTrans, and the next "F-U" letter sent by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be to Caltrans Director Randy Iwasaki.

The quality problems my blogging friend Yobie Benjamin points to should be adressed as part of this repair and evaluation process and a public report issued. This should not be considered a problem that needs a "band-aid, quick-fix" solution. Please, no.

In fairness to CalTrans' Ney, he did say that officially there's no timetable and that's the response he should stick with.

CalTrans needs to take its time with this and make sure the Bay Bridge Cable Collapse Disaster does not happen again.

Bay Bridge Closure - BART must offer 24-hour service

2009-10-28T13:05:00.003-07:00

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

Kudos to BART for offering "beefed-up" service with extra trains in the wake of the Bay Bridge Cable Collapse, according to BART spokesperson Linton Johnson, but what's really needed, and we don't have, is a 24-hour BART schedule.

There's no real idea when the bridge is going to be fit to be opened and Henry K. Lee's SFGate.com article explains that it could be days before that happens, especially with these high winds impacting the bridge not to mention making sure this accident does not happen again regardless of conditions, so a major part of what (even with this recession) still is our economic engine is crippled.

Some Oaklanders, for example, work in San Francisco and don't get off until midnight or later - just when BART has stopped running at midnight even with this closure.

So what we face is a period from midnight to 4 am when we can't travel from Oakland or the East Bay to San Francisco or much of the West Bay. So if you work in one place and live in the other, you're stuck.

And God help you if your flight arrives at SFO at 11:30 PM, because by the time you get your bags and head to BART, not only will it have stopped running but there will be no other way to get to the East Bay if that's where you need to go.

That's just plain horrible.

BART must employ the 24-hour schedule that was used during the Labor Day Weekend Bay Bridge Closure. But what surprises me is that BART didn't automatically do this. It should not take a blog or any hue and cry for BART to implement all night service to help in any disaster, which is what this is regardless of its scale.

Adding more train operators is great, but the 24-hour service plan is needed, starting tonight.

Does Oakland Councilmember Jean Quan care more about Oakland or being Mayor?

2009-10-25T22:04:00.001-07:00

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

Yesterday I received an email from Oakland City Councilmember Jean Quan (District 4 - Oakland Hills, Montclair) regarding her decision to run for Mayor of Oakland. Here's the text from that email:

You are receiving this because you are a subscriber to my newsletter. A few times a year I send out separate political blasts. You may know by now, I have launched a run for Mayor for November 2010. We've formed an Exploratory Committee and have met with hundreds of Oakland residents in house parties and other events to hear what they want the next Mayor to do and to share my vision and passion for the Oakland we love.
My family has lived in Oakland for over a 100 years; I've raised my family here and love this city. For more than 20 years I've fought for Oakland, working with people at the grassroots to rebuild our schools, save our libraries and the arts, protect our environment, revitalize our business districts, and to make our neighborhoods safer. I've worked with Oaklanders in every neighborhood and have taken on tough, complex issues. As Mayor working with you, block by block, school by school, neighborhood by neighborhood...I know together we can realize Oakland's great promise.

Councilmember Jean Quan

I will stand-up for Oakland with undivided loyalty. I am not looking for a resting spot because I am termed out of office. I am not looking for a spring board for another office. I want the job of Mayor. I will be a full-time, accessible, hands-on Mayor who will make sure that City programs are working on the street. I'll hold town hall meetings in every district and continue my weekly newsletter so you'll know what is happening.

I hope you will consider attending or hosting a house party and joining our campaign as a supporter, volunteer or donor. It will be an opportunity to meet many of the wonderful neighborhood activists who are joining us around the city to make Oakland a city that works for all of us.

I have a busy schedule of house meetings, community outreach and fundraisers. Right now our focus is on two important milestones:
Raising the first $100,000 of the $380,000 maximum under Oakland Campaign Limits.
Recruiting the first 250 volunteers.

Now Councilmember Quan's newsletters generally contain positive Oakland news, or information about events or concern for some issue. But when it came to writing her first message to explain why she wants to be Mayor of Oakland, she included no issue of concern that was driving her desire, save for her.

That's right. Councilmember Quan's mayor's race message used the word "I" eleven times! By contrast, Former State Senator Don Perata, who's also running for Mayor, explains that his motivation for the decision on the death of four Oakland police officers this year and his contention that Oakland lacks leadership.

Say what you will about the popular Perata, at least Don's always started a reason for being beyond himself. No, this isn't an endorsement...yet.

So the question I have for Councilmember Quan is simple: is the push to run for Mayor really about her ego? Look, everyone in politics has a large ego so if she says "yes" I give her massive points for the guts to admit it.

But if she says "no" then the other question is "What does she stand for?" There's nothing in the message to address that question. It's not enough to listen to the needs of Oaklanders because if Quan doesn't actually have each one as a priority then she's not engaging in what really motivates her.

While I disagree with Councilmember Nancy Nadel (District 3 - West Oakland, Downtown) on some decisions as well as her overall style, I know where she's coming from and what drives her. She's concerned about the poor and minority and elderly in West Oakland and how to make sure they're not pushed out due to a wave of gentrification. She's concerned about environmental pollution from development.

While she's not the best candidate for Mayor, I can see and feel what drives her.

I can't see and feel anything from Jean Quan. I'm not being mean, just honest. And also picking up on a new theme that the City of Oakland does not care about Oaklanders, it cares about itself.

It's doing everything it can to survive and at the literal expense of the people its suppose to serve. Hey, I just talked to another friend of mine who got their car towed and talked to someone on BART today who also lost their car the same way.

This is not Oakland caring about Oaklanders. Councilmember Quan's message seems to reflect that self-centered ethic.

Sad.

We need mayoral candidates driven to help Oaklanders, not themselves. I hope I'm wrong about Councilmember Quan; but if I am she's got to explain that email message as soon as possible.