City Government

OP-ED: Oakland billboards–five on the way, more to come?

Published

12 years ago

August 3, 2013

By Sierra Club Yodeler

How many huge, bright LED-illuminated electronic billboards does Oakland need (see February Yodeler, page 8)?

Currently, three billboards stand close to the Bay Bridge, west of the toll plaza, and five more are planned on the Oakland Army Base property (all along the I-80 corridor). The light pollution affects residents, drivers and wildlife.

We understand Oakland’s need for revenue, and the temptation of the offers of the billboard companys. The process of gathering input for the reuse plan for the Oakland Army Base was long and complicated, involving community stakeholders (primarily social-justice advocates and organized labor) and developers. The five approved billboards were sold to the public as a funding mechanism for youth job training.

The billboards are on a 66-year lease to Foster Media, with little oversight over revenue streams and income. Some of the advertising revenues will go to Prologis, the development corporation headed by Phil Tagami, who then is expected to allocate a certain amount each year to the job training center.

Unfortunately, the environmental community did not participate in the process. While we all agree on the importance of youth job training, we do not believe that billboards are the way to fund it. It is too late to pursue a legal challenge at the city level against the already-approved billboards, even though there is an Oakland ordinance which bans freeway billboards and Caltrans has oversight.

We are now working to prevent any more billboards from being approved by the City Planning and Zoning Department (and the City Council). Scenic East Bay, a loose coalition of local activists, is trying to organize public opposition, to let the City Council know that selling billboards is not the way for Oakland to pay for needed public services.

We have heard that 7 to 14 additional billboards are in the works, though we don’t have official confirmation or details. The Sierra Club has written a letter opposing billboards near the proposed new park at the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, and will continue to advocate against light-polluting billboards that are harmful to wildlife and pedestrians.

What You Can Do

For more information see www.makeoaklandbeautiful.org. In particular, sign the petition there to let your elected leaders know that you oppose light-polluting billboards as a way to pay for needed public services.

Kent Lewandowski, Executive Committee, Sierra Club Northern Alameda County Group

This article is republished from the Yodeler, the newspaper of the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter.

**Cross posting from Oakland Local**

Editor’s Note: This piece reflects an individual opinion and is not a reported story from the Oakland Post or Oakland Local. Both news sites invites community residents to share their views about events and issues in Oakland.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

A’s even series with win over Rangers

Don't Miss

Rangers win, close gap on A’s in first

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

January 2, 2026

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

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

3 weeks ago

December 25, 2025

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

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

3 weeks ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.