Activism

OPINION: Review by Planning Commission on Jan. 19 does not give citizens enough time to review

Oaklanders said they did not want this development to be built at the Port because the Port is Oakland’s biggest economic asset, and Port businesses will be harmed by having luxury residences adjacent to a 24/7 working seaport. The city staff report essentially says this will not be figured out in environmental impact. Both Port businesses and the most affected union workers say they will be harmed. And, while there have been some conversations between Port representatives and Port businesses, the issues raised have not been resolved.

Published

3 years ago

January 6, 2022

Oakland Post

Port of Oakland area that would be turned into a stadium and luxury housing. Public domain image.

In Pre-Christmas Surprise, Oakland Mayor, City Staff Quietly Release 3,500 Page Report on Port Stadium Project

By Kitty Kelly Epstein

Six days before Christmas, Oakland City staff issued a 3,500-page document on billionaire John Fisher’s luxury housing project at Howard Terminal and scheduled a vote on it by the Planning Commission three weeks after Christmas.

Obviously, few of us can read 3,500 pages in that amount of time. So, the mayor and city staff who work for her have made it pretty clear that they don’t care whether the public has meaningful input.

I’m one of the people who can’t read 3,500 pages in a couple of days. So, in this column I simply point out a very few of the issues raised by 400 Oakland residents who critiqued Fisher’s real estate development on Port land and that are still not solved. Read the report here: www.oaklandca.gov/documents/response-to-comments-final-eir-for-the-oakland-as-waterfront-ballpark-district-project-chapters-and-appendices. Oaklanders said they did not want to have thousands of people running across busy Southern Pacific railroad tracks every time a ball game is played at the proposed stadium, because people already die crossing those tracks, and the numbers would likely increase. There are no realistic new solutions to this problem proposed. One overcrossing is proposed, which is completely insufficient (p. 4-8 and 7-3).

Oaklanders said the project would create massive traffic and parking problems, particularly for the residents of West Oakland. The document essentially agrees that these problems are real but says that the city has fulfilled its responsibility under the law by acknowledging the problems (4-184). And I can find nowhere else in the report that the tiny number of parking spaces provided by the project has in any way been realistically mitigated in its effect on West Oakland parking and traffic given the thousands of new residents, workers, and game attendees involved.

Most important of all, perhaps, is the fact that Oaklanders do not want to pay for the project with public funds. The city says it is paying $350 million of infrastructure with state, federal, and regional transportation dollars.

Those are tax dollars, and nobody in Oakland decided that’s how we would want $350 million in transportation funds to be spent. Most of our residents (and the planet) need for us to have expanded, excellent, cheap, fast public transportation more than we need to help a billionaire with infrastructure funding for his private project.

There is an additional proposed financing plan for this project that also involves public funding. While not addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), it certainly has an ‘environmental’ impact on those of us who are not rich and whose quality of life is impacted by the ways that our public property and funding is used.

And there is a lot of research on the impact of stadiums on the local economy. One, by Stanford economist Roger Null, for example, says that “sports stadiums do not generate significant economic growth” (https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/). And he isn’t even discussing a project like Oakland’s which will actually harm the local economy by hurting Port business.

So why is this project still being discussed at all? It will harm current residents in a dozen different ways. Essentially, this deal creates an exclusive enclave, a new Piedmont, in the center of Oakland on our publicly owned Port property that we will pay for decades. Although no one has asked Oakland residents directly what we think, my impression is that a majority of residents would not support it, given the public costs, the damage to the Port, and the displacement caused to current residents.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Center Holds Life and Legacy Academy

Don't Miss

IN MEMORIAM: Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa Dies at 90

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

Published

17 hours ago

June 20, 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

Activism

Juneteenth: Celebrating Our History, Honoring Our Shared Spaces

It’s been empowering to watch Juneteenth blossom into a widely celebrated holiday, filled with vibrant outdoor events like cookouts, festivals, parades, and more. It’s inspiring to see the community embrace our history—showing up in droves to celebrate freedom, a freedom delayed for some enslaved Americans more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

Published

2 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans

By Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans

Juneteenth marks an important moment in our shared history—a time to reflect on the legacy of our ancestors who, even in the face of injustice, chose freedom, unity, and community over fear, anger, and hopelessness. We honor their resilience and the paths they paved so future generations can continue to walk with pride.

As we head into the weekend full of festivities and summer celebrations, I want to offer a friendly reminder about who is not invited to the cookout: litter.

At Clean California, we believe the places where we gather—parks, parade routes, street corners, and church lots—should reflect the pride and beauty of the people who fill them. Our mission is to restore and beautify public spaces, transforming areas impacted by trash and neglect into spaces that reflect the strength and spirit of the communities who use them.

Too often, after the music fades and the grills cool, our public spaces are left littered with trash. Just as our ancestors took pride in their communities, we honor their legacy when we clean up after ourselves, teach our children to do the same, and care for our shared spaces.

Small acts can inspire big change. Since 2021, Clean California and its partners have collected and removed over 2.9 million cubic yards of litter. We did this by partnering with local nonprofits and community organizations to organize grassroots cleanup events and beautification projects across California.

Now, we invite all California communities to continue the incredible momentum and take the pledge toward building a cleaner community through our Clean California Community Designation Program. This recognizes cities and neighborhoods committed to long-term cleanliness and civic pride.

This Juneteenth, let’s not only celebrate our history—but also contribute to its legacy. By picking up after ourselves and by leaving no litter behind after celebrations, we have an opportunity to honor our past and shape a cleaner, safer, more vibrant future.

Visit CleanCA.com to learn more about Clean California.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

2 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.