City Government

Bonds for the 385 Drake Development Halted

In a ruling that marks a major milestone for affirming the concerns of Marin City residents, a Marin County judge has issued a preliminary injunction to halt public funding for the construction of a 5-story, 74-unit housing development at 825 Drake Avenue in Marin City, a historically Black community that already holds a disproportionate number of public and affordable housing in the wealthy enclave of Marin County.

Published

1 year ago

October 4, 2023

Oakland Post

Pastor Rondall Leggett, of First Missionary Baptist Church, speaking at a Sept. 9 demonstration to stop the building project there at 825 Drake Avenue (Facebook photo by Scott Clark).

By Godfrey Lee

Below is a summary of the recent Save Our City press release.

Because the 825 Drake development was approved under SB 35, a law intended to fast-track affordable housing projects without public notice or hearings, the residents of Marin City were not given notice of the development until after it was approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors.

While SB 35 was adopted to sideline wealthy enclaves that have historically stonewalled affordable housing projects in their communities, it has been used in Marin City to create even more housing density in the County’s most racially diverse, economically disadvantaged, and politically disempowered community.

The well-intentioned law failed to carve out adequate protections for low-income California communities that already have a grossly disproportionate share of their region’s affordable and public housing options, and it has failed to ensure that the term “affordable” takes into account low-income communities like Marin City that are embedded within regions with the highest Average Median Income levels in the state.

On Sept. 6, Marin County Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Freccero entered a Limited Preliminary Injunction on behalf of a Marin City organization, Save Our City (SOC), temporarily halting public funding approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors (Board) for the construction of a 5-story, 74-unit housing development at 825 Drake Avenue in Marin City.

SOC had filed suit on May 18 to invalidate the Board’s approval of the bonds, arguing that the Board had improperly failed to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to approve the bonds. Transcripts of Board proceedings showed that Board members erroneously believed that a recent state law allowing expedited approval for certain housing developments had stripped the Board of the power to decide whether funding such a development was in the community and County’s best interests.

The Court agreed with SOC, finding that Board approval of the bonds did require that “the [local authority] decide the matter [at issue] after considering local residents’ views, and by clear implication requires the [local authority] to consider city priorities and housing needs, the wisdom of preferential financing for the project, and all other relevant considerations to which elected representatives normally give weight in executing their office.”

Given these considerations, the Court stated that the Board’s refusal “to consider or exercise its lawful discretion may be grounds to invalidate the resolution.”

Save Our City was formed to stop this large-scale development from being forced on the small, historically Black community of Marin City, which is already densely saturated with affordable housing and has only one park in the entire city. The proposed development would encroach on that limited open space available to Marin City residents and block sunlight, particularly from the seniors living in existing affordable housing directly next to the proposed site.

Meanwhile, the wealthy and predominantly white surrounding communities in Marin County offer little to no affordable housing options for Marin County residents and have ample open green and recreational spaces for their community.

The Marin County Board of Supervisors is responsible for overseeing affordable and public housing options in unincorporated Marin. To address the housing shortages in California, state law requires each region to supply housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The RHNA is intended to promote several objectives including: (1) increase housing supply and the mix of housing types in an equitable manner; (2) discourage housing development patterns that segment communities, (3) affirmatively further fair housing. Marin County’s approval of the 825 Drake project in Marin City violates all of these principles:

The 825 Drake Development will not be affordable for Marin City residents. Because Marin County has one of the nation’s highest Average Median Income (AMIs), the “affordable” 825 Drake housing development will not be affordable to the vast majority of the residents in Marin City and will perpetuate further gentrification of this community.

Marin County has repeatedly denied Marin City residents the courtesy of notice or an opportunity to be heard concerning the County’s approval of the 825 Drake project. During the County’s March 21 hearing to consider approval of $40 million in non-taxable bonds to support developer Caleb Roope’s construction of 825 Drake, the residents raised their concerns about inequity and the project’s impacts on the community. Upon five days posted notice for the hearing, community members scrambled to provide substantive feedback during the limited minutes of public comment. However, their comments fell upon deaf ears.

SOC co-founder Bettie Hodges observed that “The County has failed to represent Marin City throughout this process. First, we are told that they were not legally required to give us notice of 825 Drake’s approval, then in the bond hearing they tell us that they did not have discretion to consider our comments.

“We have been completely silenced at every turn. Our elected representatives could and should have given us the courtesy of notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially given the inequities in Marin City that are a direct result of Marin County’s history of discriminatory housing practices.”

Marilyn Mackel, co-founder of SOC, stated that “I was disappointed to see that even in the preliminary injunction hearing, the County stood silent. They did not defend their approval of the bonds, but also did not have the moral fortitude to concede that they failed to consider our concerns when they approved the bonds. Their repeated choice to stand silent is not just an abdication of responsibility, it is a perpetuation of economic and racial segregation in Marin County.”

Save Our City’s lawsuit seeks to preserve this small piece of open space in Marin City. Marin County is known for its green and open spaces, including hiking trails, streams, open fields and waterways. While the rest of unincorporated Marin County is characterized by these copious green spaces, Marin City has only one small park that is made of concrete and astro-turf.

For more information, please contact: Bettie Hodges at bettie@hannahprograms.org, or Marilyn Mackel at mmackel@gmail.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

California Legislative Black Caucus Endorses Sandré R Swanson for State Senate

Don't Miss

Community Healing Festival on October 7

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024

Published

21 hours ago

November 1, 2024

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Evidence Appears to Show Cover-Up of Previous Charges of Discrimination Against Jewish and Black Jurors, D.A. Says

Today, District Attorney Pamela Price announced that attorneys assigned to review the office’s death penalty cases found evidence revealing that instead of investigating claims of prosecutorial misconduct—excluding Jewish and Black residents from juries — a former senior Alameda County District Attorney’s Office prosecutor who is now a sitting judge in Alameda County, Morris Jacobson, and a team of investigators appeared to have taken part in covering it up.

Published

5 days ago

October 28, 2024

Oakland Post

A handwritten note by an employee under a previous administration appears to show plans for a cover-up of jury discrimination in a death penalty case. Courtesy image.

Special to The Post

During a press conference, Price presented a copy of a handwritten note by a former DA office employee who attended a meeting with employees from the office.

Jacobson, a deputy district attorney at the time, led the meeting in preparation for an evidentiary hearing ordered in the Fred Freeman case.

That hearing was ordered after former capital trial prosecutor Jack Quatman, the prosecutor in People v. Freeman, signed a declaration revealing that he and other capital case prosecutors routinely struck Black women and Jewish jurors in death penalty cases.

Jacobson was assigned by former district attorneys Tom Orloff and Nancy O’Malley to coordinate the ACDAO’s response during the evidentiary hearing.

In that capacity, he and others assigned to the capital case team went to great lengths to distract the courts from the substantive legal allegations by besmirching the whistleblower Quatman’s character and credibility—a strategy that succeeded.

Key sections of the note include, “left it w/ Morris saying he would give us direction. Wants to find dirt on Quatman,” and “How good are your memories? His point was he doesn’t want any documentation of what we do unless it is agreed upon???”

“This note provides the public some of the missing clues regarding who appeared to be involved during previous administrations in covering up prosecutorial misconduct at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office,” said Price. “The note from this meeting in 2004 gives insight into why prosecutors’ notes containing evidence of discrimination against potential Jewish and Black jurors may not have been subjected to a comprehensive review and were not disclosed to the Court in most of the cases until my office was ordered by Honorable Judge Vince Chhabria to review death penalty cases.

“What the public should know is that prosecutors have special duties as ministers of justice to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and to be judged by a jury of one’s peers, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation,” she said.

United States District Court Judge Chhabria determined earlier this year that there was “strong evidence that, in prior decades, prosecutors from the office were … excluding Jewish and African American jurors in death penalty cases.”

He subsequently issued an order directing ACDAO to disclose jury selection files in all Alameda County cases which resulted in a death sentence.

The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office is the source of this story.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

In the City Attorney Race, Ryan Richardson Is Better for Oakland

It’s been two years since negotiations broke down between the City of Oakland and a developer who wants to build a coal terminal here, and the issue has reappeared, quietly, in the upcoming race for Oakland City attorney. Two candidates are running for the position of Oakland City Attorney in November: current Assistant Chief City Attorney Ryan Richardson and retired judge Brenda Harbin-Forte.

Published

5 days ago

October 28, 2024

Oakland Post

Members of Oaklanders Defending Democracy political action committee with Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, center. Courtesy photo.

By Margaret Rossoff

Special to The Post

OPINION

Two candidates are running for the position of Oakland City Attorney in November: current Assistant Chief City Attorney Ryan Richardson and retired judge Brenda Harbin-Forte.

Richardson has worked in the Office of the City Attorney since 2014 and is likely to continue current City Attorney Barbara Parker’s policies managing the department. He has committed not to accept campaign contributions from developers who want to store and handle coal at a proposed marine terminal in Oakland.

Retired Judge Harbin-Forte launched and has played a leading role in the campaign to recall Mayor Sheng Thao, which is also on the November ballot. She has stepped back from the recall campaign to focus on her candidacy. The East Bay Times noted, “Harbin-Forte’s decision to lead the recall campaign against a potential future client is … troubling — and is likely to undermine her ability, if she were to win, to work effectively.”

Harbin-Forte has refused to rule out accepting campaign support from coal terminal interests or their agents. Coal terminal lobbyist Greg McConnell’s Independent Expenditure Committee “SOS Oakland” is backing her campaign.

In the 2022 mayor’s race, parties hoping to build a coal terminal made $600,000 in contributions to another of McConnell’s Independent Expenditure Committees.

In a recent interview, Harbin-Forte said she is open to “listening to both sides” and will be “fair.” However, the City Attorney’s job is not to judge fairly between the City and its legal opponents – it is to represent the City against its opponents.

She thought that the 2022 settlement negotiations ended because the City “rejected a ‘no coal’ settlement.” This is lobbyist McConnell’s narrative, in contrast to the report by City Attorney Barbara Parker. Parker has explained that the City continued to negotiate in good faith for a settlement with no “loopholes” that could have allowed coal to ship through Oakland – until would-be coal developer Phil Tagami broke off negotiations.

One of Harbin-Forte’s main priorities, listed on her website, is “reducing reliance on outside law firms,” and instead use the lawyers working in the City Attorney’s office.

However, sometimes this office doesn’t have the extensive expertise available that outside firms can provide in major litigation. In the ongoing, high stakes coal litigation, the City has benefited from collaborating with experienced, specialized attorneys who could take on the nationally prominent firms representing the City’s opponents.

The City will continue to need this expertise as it pursues an appeal of the judge’s decision that restored the developer’s lease and defends against a billion-dollar lawsuit brought by the hedge fund operator who holds the sublease on the property.

Harbin-Forte’s unwillingness to refuse campaign contributions from coal terminal interests, her opposition to using outside resources when needed, as well as her uncritical repetition of coal lobbyist McConnell’s claim that the City sabotaged the settlement talks of 2022 all raise serious concerns about how well she would represent the best interests of Oakland and Oaklanders if she is elected City Attorney.