Legally Speaking With Pamela Price

Pamela Y. Price, Attorney at Law

Tag: Oakland City Council

Post Op-Ed: Stop The Sale

Oakland Coliseum, Credit: Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group

Keep the A’s at the Coliseum

The Oakland City Council is considering whether to sell its half interest in the Oakland Coliseum property to the A’s at the below‑market rate of $85 million.  The Coliseum is some of the most valuable land in the entire Bay Area. This public land should not be handed over without full, public deliberation – especially when the sale would be at a discounted price. At a minimum, the City must require that, if the A’s buy the land, they must actually build their stadium at the Coliseum site.

Oakland Always Gets the Short End of the Deal

Among American cities with major‑league sports franchises, Oakland has ended up on the short end of the stick more than any other – at least financially speaking. The Raiders moved to Las Vegas, leaving behind a $65 million tab for Oakland taxpayers. When the Warriors left for San Francisco, they left us on the hook for $40 million in arena improvements.

The A’s claim their stadium and the proposed gondola-in-the-sky will be privately-financed. The truth is Oakland taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $200 million. That is what the A’s and Mayor Schaaf have said it will cost to upgrade the roads and bridges for the stadium and the environmental clean-up at the Port.

The A’s say that Howard Terminal is an “underutilized” essentially abandoned site that can be partitioned off from the Port. The truth is Howard Terminal is part of the third largest port on the West Coast and the ninth largest port in the country.  It is actively utilized for Port activities, such as trucking, shipping and storage. Fifty railroad trains a day run across Howard Terminal.

Additionally, the Howard Terminal project threatens jobs at the Port which are primarily held by African American residents and union members. The ILWU has a long and treasured history of economic empowerment for Black workers and their families.

East Oakland Is The Best Option

Unlike Howard Terminal, the Coliseum site requires no additional review, has minimal red tape, offers plentiful public transportation options, already has $40 million available for upgrading the BART Station and sits in a part of Oakland that is long overdue for economic stimulus. A recent poll found that 62% of us want the A’s to stay and build a new stadium at the Coliseum.

Keeping the A’s in East Oakland and using a new ballpark as a magnet for a fully realized housing, entertainment and sports complex that benefits the community is the only thing that makes sense.

The A’s claim they will “deliver a bold vision and real benefits specifically tailored to the goals and needs of East Oakland” and “revitalize the Coliseum with new economic, cultural, and recreational programming.”  They say they plan to “accelerate the redevelopment of the Coliseum.”

As a resident of East Oakland for decades, I have not seen the A’s commitment to uplifting East Oakland.  In fact, they have consistently tried to relocate to other places. The A’s have been at the Coliseum since 1968 and billionaire John Fisher has owned the A’s since 2005.  What real benefits “tailored to the goals and needs of East Oakland” have they already provided? Is there a written plan to “accelerate the redevelopment of the Coliseum?”

After a long history of broken promises to East Oakland, how can residents benefit from more empty words and pretty pictures that do not include a new ballpark to anchor revitalization of this community?

The A’s have brought home multiple championships to Oakland during their decades in the Town and have a dedicated fan base here. The City Council should absolutely work to keep the team in Oakland – but not by recklessly giving away public land or millions of taxpayer dollars.

What Can You Do?

If you want to oppose the backroom sale of public land to billionaire John Fisher, e‑mail the Oakland City Council at council@oaklandca.gov.

Op-Ed: Oakland Coliseum Sale

Public Land should not be handed over to a billionaire family without full transparency – especially when selling at a discounted price

Oakland Coliseum Credit: Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group

Municipalities everywhere are grappling with the economic fallout of COVID-19. Oakland is no exception. The city is understandably looking everywhere for ways to fill the budget hole.

But it is gravely concerning that the City Council met behind closed doors last week to hammer out a plan to sell the city’s half of the Oakland Coliseum property to the A’s at the below-market rate of $85 million.

The Coliseum is some of the most valuable land in the entire Bay Area. This public land should not be handed over without full, public deliberation – especially when the sale would be at a discounted price. At a minimum, the city must require that, if the A’s buy the land, they must actually build their stadium at the Coliseum site.

Anything less would be a slap in the face to Oakland residents who do not want their community simply used as a developer’s piggy bank so the team can finance a ballpark and luxury condos on the waterfront or elsewhere. A recent poll found that 62% of us want the A’s to stay and build a new stadium at the Coliseum.

Oakland Always Gets the Short End of the Deal

Among American cities with multiple major-league sports franchises, Oakland has ended up on the short end of the stick more than any other – at least financially speaking. The Raiders were touch-and-go with the city for many years before finally departing for Las Vegas and leaving behind a $65 million tab for Oakland taxpayers. When the Warriors left for San Francisco, they left us on the hook for $40 million in arena improvements.

The A’s have brought home multiple championships to Oakland during their decades in town and have a dedicated fan base here. The City Council should absolutely work to keep the team in Oakland – but not by recklessly giving away millions of taxpayer dollars.

The amount the A’s are offering is far below market value; some are estimating Oakland’s half-interest in the Coliseum site is actually worth as much as $150 million. Having the team buy it to alleviate the city’s financial woes could be a positive move for the city, but only if done right.

In order for this sale to make sense for Oakland, it must include a requirement that the team meet community-driven, minimum-development standards, including a new ballpark at the site to help make up the lost income to the city.

East Oakland Is the Best Option

Unlike the team’s proposed waterfront complex, the Coliseum site requires no additional review, has minimal red tape, offers plentiful public transportation options and sits in a part of Oakland that is long overdue for economic stimulus.

Keeping the A’s in East Oakland and using a new ballpark as a magnet for a fully realized housing, retail and sports complex that benefits the community and those who have stood by the team for so many years is the only thing that makes sense.

As a resident of East Oakland for decades, I have witnessed the glory of sports championships fail to translate to economic growth. After a long history of broken promises to this long-forgotten part of the city, how can residents benefit from more empty words about proposed plans that do not include a new ballpark to anchor revitalization of this community?

It is also critical to recognize that too many jobs at the Port of Oakland, which are primarily held by African American residents and union members, would be lost if the A’s pursue a stadium at the Port of Oakland. It makes no sense to move an economic driver from one neighborhood to a different part of the city – and ruin another economic engine there.

It would be a mistake for the City Council to use the pandemic as an impetus for a rushed backroom deal with no guarantees to this community. We need transparency and equity as well as meaningful contractual requirements to keep the A’s in East Oakland. 

Postscript: If you want to voice your opposition to the backroom sale of public land to billionaire John Fisher, e-mail the Oakland City Council at council@oaklandca.gov.

Stop The Violence Now

A Department of Violence Prevention in Oakland

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017, starting at 5:30 p.m. the Oakland City Council will decide a question of urgent priority. The question is whether to establish a Department of Violence Prevention (DVP).

Or whether to accept Mayor Libby Schaaf‘s goal to reduce violent crime by a mere 10% using the same old failed methods. A coalition of community groups along with Councilmembers Lynette McElhaney, Larry Reid and Rebecca Kaplan are calling for people to show up at the Oakland City Council meeting. If you cannot make the meeting, you should contact Councilmembers Dan Kalb, Abel Guillen, Annie Campbell, Noel Gallo and Desley Brooks.

Why This, Why Now?

It’s 1999.  I’m standing in front of City Hall with my two young grandsons. Both of them are still in elementary school. We are part of the Acts Full Gospel Church‘s weekly rallies against gun violence in Oakland. The faith community wants the killings in Oakland to stop. We want City Hall to take action to stop the violence in Oakland.

In 2001-2002, there is a rash of killings of young Black men in a part of Oakland known as “Ghost Town.” I sue the City on behalf of the family of 21-year-old Chance Grundy. A man murdered Chance because Chance witnessed a murder and cooperated with the police. The police let it be known that Chance was a cooperating witness. The murderer let it be known that he wanted Chance to “sleep with the fishes.” We lose the case. It turns out that (in real life, not like in the movies) the police have no duty to protect witnesses even when they know the witness is in danger.

Fast forward to January 11, 2013.  My friend Brenda Harbin‘s beloved grandson, Ken Harbin, Jr. is shot and killed. Four people are killed that day in Oakland. In the wake of Ken’s murder, we stand on street corners with Soldiers Against Violence Everywhere (S.A.V.E.). Once again, we ask the City to take action to stop the violence in Oakland.

Every grandmother and mother’s nightmare, the loss of a beloved child.  A dream struck down and unfulfilled by a senseless act of violence.

America’s Gun Violence Problem

America’s “gun culture” is totally unique. We own way more guns privately than other countries, and we have the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world. Gun violence has long been deemed a public health crisis. A March 2016 study in the American Journal of Medicine found that 90% of all women, 91% of children under 14 , 92% of youth aged 15 to 24 years, and 82% of all people killed by firearms in the world were from the United States.

In 2010, the number of homicides by guns in the U.S. was at least 9,960. The Centers for Disease Control reported 11,078 firearm-related homicides that year. By comparison, there were only 173 gun homicides in Canada, 155 in the United Kingdom, 158 in Germany and 142 in France. Sweden had only 30 homicides by gun. Japan had only 11 people killed with guns.

Credit: Ma’ayan Rosenzweig/ABC News

Currently, the U.S. is ranked 4th out of 34 developed nations for the incidence of homicides committed with a firearm.  A young man here aged 15–24 is 70 times more likely to be killed with a gun than his counterpart in the eight largest industrialized nations in the world. These include the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy and Russia.

In 2015, there were 372 mass shootings and 33,636 deaths due to firearms in the U.S. That same year, guns were used to kill only about 50 people in the U.K. More people are killed with guns in the U.S. in a day (about 85) than in the U.K. in a year.

The Race-Based Rationale for Guns

Efforts to control guns in America have stumbled on the “right to bear arms” clause in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. What is often overlooked is the history of the Second Amendment. It was added as a compromise to protect the slave patrols in the South. The Founders knew the militias were necessary to keep the slaves under control. The Supreme Court has interpreted and protected the Second Amendment regardless of the consequences.

In 2002, Michael Moore wrote, produced, directed and narrated Bowling for Columbine.  The film highlighted the racist underpinnings of the Second Amendment. However, the Film’s main point, that our violent crime rate is substantially higher than other nations, seems to have been lost over time.

Support the Department of Violence Prevention

Gun violence in Oakland has remained steady.  In 1999, the County Board of Supervisors passed a strong gun control law. The Board reacted to a “rash of gun-related violence” in Alameda County. The Board found that “gunshot fatalities are of epidemic proportions in Alameda County.” That law was immediately attacked based on Supreme Court decisions. While the case was pending, the County retreated and announced that gun shows would be allowed on County property.

Our Mayor opposes the proposal to create a Department of Violence Prevention (DVP). We need to support the goal to reduce homicides by 80% and achieve an 80% clearance rate within 3 years. The Mayor wants to increase funding for law enforcement,  but “budgets are statements of priorities.” Our priority has to be to reduce gun violence, domestic violence and commercial sexual exploitation of our children.

We need the DVP. Let’s make 2017 the year that we cure the disease of preventable violence and death in Oakland. We cannot expect different results by doing the same thing over and over again.

A Crisis of Corruption: How Long Has It Been Like This!

SEX TRAFFICKINGA Crisis of Corruption: How Long Has it Been Like This!?! We are shocked by the recent news that police officers have engaged in sex trafficking of a teenager across 6 jurisdictions. In fact, the current crisis of corruption is the latest in a history of corruption within the Oakland Police Department. Here are a few examples.

From the Archives

Between 2006 and 2008, Oakland settled two lawsuits brought on behalf of Asian-American women targeted by Oakland police officer Richard Valerga. Officer Valerga would pull women over for traffic misdemeanors and hit on them. Most of the women were recent immigrants.  They included teenagers to women in their 40s.  In 2006, the City agreed to pay $190,000 to two Asian-American women.  In 2008 it agreed to pay an additional $2 million to 16 other Asian-American women targeted by Valerga. Officer Valerga was arrested and charged in 2005. His plea deal in 2006 got him three years probation and six months in jail.  Attorney John Burris who represented the plaintiffs called it “a slap on the hand.”

The Oliver Case

In July 2010, the Oakland City Council approved a $6.5 million settlement in a case which exposed the routine use of false or misleading information for  search warrants. There, the department’s own records allegedly showed that more than 57% of all search warrants in drug cases involving a confidential informant between 2001 and 2008 were based on false information. Eleven officers were fired. Most were later reinstated. Despite the large payout of our tax dollars, none of the officers accused of creating false police reports were ever prosecuted. Some of them still work for Oakland police.

The Amaro Case

In October 2011, Oakland agreed to pay $1.7 million to the family of Jerry Amaro. Oakland police beat Mr. Amaro while arresting him on suspicion of trying to buy drugs from undercover police officers. They broke five of his ribs and lacerated one of his lungs. He died a month later of pneumonia caused by his fractured ribs. None of the officers involved documented the use of force. His mother was told that her son “died in the street” following a gang dispute over drugs. None of the officers who were accused of concealing the beating by filing false police reports were ever prosecuted. Some of them still work for Oakland police.

The Blueford Case

In June 2014, Oakland agreed to pay $110,000 to the family of Alan Blueford, an 18-year-old Skyline High School student shot by Oakland police officer Miguel Masso. Masso was a former NYPD officer who had been accused of excessive force in New York in 2007 before he was hired in Oakland. Masso and 3 other officers were accused of beating, macing, and tasering Rafael Santiago, a prisoner in a holding cell at the 52nd Precinct station house in the Central Bronx. Medical records confirmed that Santiago had a black eye and six serious burns on his back from the electronic shocks. Santiago was put back in his cell and denied medical attention. NYPD investigators identified Miguel Masso as the officer who refused Santiago’s requests for treatment.

Fast forward to May 2012 in East Oakland. Officer Masso and his partner detain Alan Blueford and two friends. While he is being questioned, Alan gets up and runs away. Oakland police initially said that Alan was shot in an exchange of gunfire with Officer Masso. They later acknowledged that Alan did not fire a gun and admitted that Masso had shot himself in the foot with his own gun. A gun was found at the scene that police claimed belonged to Alan. That gun had not been fired. The District Attorney’s office declined to prosecute Officer Masso. He now works for a different police department.

Do we want to hold police officers accountable for lying under oath and filing false police reports? I believe that public safety requires public trust. What do you think? Feel free to post your comment here or at my Facebook page.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén