City Government

OP-ED: Zoo Can Expand Without Taking Park Land from the Public

Published

11 years ago

October 6, 2014

By Norman La Force

Sometime soon, the Oakland City Council must decide whether to take 53 acres of beautiful free public parkland away from the public forever.

Many people are upset that such a painful situation would arise in the first place since it was avoidable from the beginning. Located in East Oakland, Knowland Park was given to the people of Oakland under the condition that it always remains a public park.

It’s a spectacular piece of land that many Oaklanders have never heard of. More likely, they know the Oakland Zoo, which lies at the foot of the park. The zoo’s private operator is planning a large development on the highest ridge of the park.

The tradeoff for that development is the loss of enough free public open space to fill 40 football fields.

The zoo actually has plenty of space on its own existing property to build this project. It doesn’t need to take Knowland Park away from the public and to destroy habitat for endangered species.

Moreover, the Sierra Club and other groups who want to preserve Knowland Park have offered an alternative that allows the Zoo to expand: Just not on prime parkland and habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake.

In 2011 at public hearings, planning staff told councilmembers that there would be no significant impacts of the project that couldn’t be fixed and that the project didn’t need a full Environmental Impact Report because there had been a thorough review.

The zoo’s CEO announced that the public would have all the rest of the park to use and that no new public funding would be needed to pay for the $62 million project.

Nearly four years later, none of that has proved true. In fact, the impacts to wildlife are so devastating that in order to offset the destruction, regulatory agencies are requiring dozens of acres of parkland be closed forever.

The public’s loss of parkland is even greater.

And the cost?

Despite the promise to utilize private funds for the expansion, zoo management spent $1million on a campaign to increase taxes for the project, only to lose in the end.

So now zoo management is pressuring councilmembers to accept new terms, claiming a potential financial loss otherwise and claiming that the project’s a done deal.

They also claim that the loss of public access is minor. As for who pays for the project, no one knows because zoo management isn’t talking.

There is a way of this mess. The City Council can say NO to the new terms. It can tell the zoo that it should work with the Sierra Club and the environmental community to come up with an alternative that will allow the Zoo to expand but protect Knowland Park and endangered species.

Norman La Force

The Sierra Club and California Native Plant Society have a plan that will do both. The City Council just needs to give the Win-Win solution a chance.

Norman La Force is chair of the Sierra Club’s East Bay Public Lands Committee

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:East Bay Regional Parks Norman La Force Opinion Sierra Club

Up Next

Giants Lose, Nationals Force Game Four

Don't Miss

BOOK REVIEW: “Kids Who are Changing the World”

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.