The Oakland Bulk And Oversized Terminal, the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Project that was won by Phil Tagami and California Capital Investment Group (CCIG) in 2009, is the focus of a 39 minute interview of Oakland Jobs and Housing Coalition Executive Director Greg McConnell by Zennie Abraham of Zennie62Media.
Here’s the video from that livestream talk:
Zennie Abraham note: this document (converted from PDF to .doc file and then inserted into the Zennie62Media Oakland News Online blog) is Elaine Brown’s account of what happened during an argument between she and Oakland Councilmember that happened on October 30th 2015. One that resulted in a civil court judgment against Brooks and the City of Oakland to the cost of just over $3 million.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
*********
ELAINE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs. NO. RG16811619
CITY OF OAKLAND, DESLEY BROOKS, ESQ., In her Individual Capacity and In Her Official Capacity and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
February 1, 2017
TAKEN BEFORE DEANNE M. GOYKE
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
C.S.R. LICENSE NO. 11413
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF EXAMINATION
EXAMINATION BY:
PAGE
Mr. McGee
8
Mr. Siegel
178
*********
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
2
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2
PLAINTIFF’S NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
3
1
Printout of one color photograph
80
4
2
Printout of one color photograph
80
5
3
Printout of one color photograph
80
6
4
Printout of one color photograph
80
7
5
Printout of one color photograph
80
8
6
Printout of one color photograph
80
9
7
Printout of one color photograph
80
10
8
Printout of one color photograph
80
11
9
Printout of one color photograph
80
12
10
Printout of one color photograph
80
13
11
Printout of one color photograph
80
14
12
Printout of one color photograph
80
15
13
Photocopy of two receipts
80
14 “Housing Development Financing
Application Checklist”
80
17
APrintout of one color photograph
83
18
BPrintout of one color photograph
83
19
CPrintout of one color photograph
83
20
DPrintout of one color photograph
83
21
EPrintout of one color photograph
83
22
FPrintout of one color photograph
83
23
24
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
3
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2
DEFENDANT’S NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
0 AGroup exhibit of color photographs
4
marked A-1 through A-12
109
BGroup exhibit of color photographs
153
5
marked B-A through B-F
6
C”Claim Against the City of Oakland”
153
7
D”Complaint for Damages”
155
8
9
10
11
12
INDEX OF MARKED QUESTIONS
13
PAGE 91, LINE 5
14
15
16
17
18
19
**********
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
4
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
2
3
Pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition, and
0 on Wednesday, February 1, 2017, commencing at the hour
1 of 10:07 a.m., at Oakland City Attorney’s Office, One
2 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor, Oakland, California,
3 94612, before me, DEANNE M. GOYKE, a duly qualified
4 Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of
5 California, personally appeared ELAINE BROWN, produced
0 as a witness in the above-entitled action, who, being
1 first placed under oath, was thereupon examined as a
2 witness in said action.
*********
CHARLES A. BONNER, Attorney at Law, of the
0 LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER, 475 Gate Five Road,
1 #212, Sausalito, California, 94965, was present on
2 behalf of the Plaintiff.
19
20
OTIS McGEE, JR., Attorney at Law, and SELIA
0 M. WARREN, Attorney at Law of the OAKLAND CITY
1 ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor,
2 Oakland, California, 94612, was present on behalf of
3 the Defendant City of Oakland and Desley Brooks.
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
5
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 DAN SIEGEL, Attorney at Law, of the LAW
0 OFFICES OF SIEGEL & LEE, 499 14th Street, Suite 300,
1 Oakland, California, 94612, was present on behalf of
2 the Defendant Desley Brooks.
5
6
STEPHEN STATLER, on behalf of EUREKA STREET
0 LEGAL VIDEO, was present.
8
9 Also present: Desley Brooks
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
6
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
3
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins video number
0 one of the deposition of Elaine Brown in the matter of
1 Elaine Brown versus the City of Oakland, venued in the
2 Superior Court of the State of California for the
3 County of Alameda. The case number is RG16811619.
4 Today’s date is February 1st, 2017, and the time on the
5 video monitor is 10:07 a.m.
10 The video operator today is Stephen Statler
0 representing Eureka Street Legal Video, telephone (415)
1 215-2041. This video deposition is taking place at One
2 Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland and was noticed by the
3 Oakland City Attorney’s Office.
15 Counsel, please voice identify yourselves
0 and state whom you represent.
17 MR. BONNER: Charles Bonner of The law
0 Offices of Bonner & Bonner on behalf of Ms. Brown.
19 MR. McGEE: Otis McGee representing the City
0 of Oakland and Desley Brooks.
21 MR. SIEGEL: Dan Siegel representing Desley
0 Brooks.
23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter today
0 is Deanne Goyke representing Pizzotti & Jarnagin.
25
Would all others please state their name for
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
7
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 the record.
2
MS. BROOKS: My name is Desley Brooks.
3
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. And would the
0 report please administer the oath.
5
ELAINE BROWN
6
Called as a Witness and after being
7
first placed under oath by a Certified
8
Shorthand Reporter, testified as
9
follows:
10
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Please begin.
11
EXAMINATION BY MR. McGEE
0 BY MR. McGEE:
1 Q. GoodQ. morning, Ms. Brown.
0 A.Good morning.
1 Q.We met briefly outside. My name is Otis
2 McGee. I represent the City of Oakland and Desley
3 Brooks in this lawsuit.
18 I’m going to be asking you questions today.
0 The questions that I ask of you as well as the
1 responses that you give are going to be taken down
2 verbatim by the court reporter, who is seated to your
3 left. At the conclusion of the deposition she’ll
4 prepare a booklet we call a transcript that you will
5 have an opportunity to review, and if you believe it’s
6 necessary and appropriate you can make changes or
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
8
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 corrections to your testimony at that time.
2 You should be aware, however, that if you
0 make any such changes or corrections to your testimony
1 the attorneys who are involved in this action will have
2 an opportunity to comment on those changes in the event
3 this matter goes to trial. So if I were to ask you a
4 question today and you give an answer to a question
5 that says “No” and you later change it to “Yes,” we’ll
6 be able to comment on the fact that you changed your —
0 changed your testimony. So it’s important that before
1 you give a response to a question that you be certain
2 that you understand it. If you don’t, just let me know
3 and I’ll be happy to rephrase it.
14 It’s also important in order to keep clarity
0 in the deposition that only one of us talk at a time.
1 Please be sure to allow me to complete my question
2 before you start to give a response, and I will do the
3 same. I’ll make sure that you’ve completed your
4 response before I ask another question. If at any time
5 you want to take a break, just let me know. This isn’t
6 an endurance contest. The only thing I would ask is
7 that if there’s a question pending that you give a
8 response to that question before you take a break. If
9 you want to go talk to your attorney, go for a walk,
10 whatever, we’ll be happy to — to accommodate you in
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
9
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 that event.
2 There may be times that I’ll ask a question
0 for which you don’t have a specific response. I might
1 ask you, for example, about a distance or a time of day
2 that something took place, and if you don’t have a
3 specific response to that question I’m entitled to
4 probe that question to get you to narrow it down. For
5 example, if I ask you a question about distance and you
6 don’t know what the distance was, I may ask you further
0 to try to narrow down the frame so we can try to get a
1 good estimate of your — of the distance from you.
12 I’m not asking you to guess. If at any time
0 you can’t answer a question without guessing, just let
1 me know because we don’t want guesses. We do want good
2 estimates, though, if you have — you have anything you
3 can give in that regard.
17 Have I gone over anything that you didn’t
0 understand — don’t understand?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. Excuse me.
4 Q. Would you — let me comment there as well.
5 There — it’s important for the court reporter to keep
6 a good record to make sure that all of your responses
7 are audible. Nods of the head, shrugs of the shoulder
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
10
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 sometimes get confused in a transcript, so we will ask
1 that you make sure that all your responses are audible.
3 What is your — your full name, please?
0 A. Elaine Dorothy Brown.
1 Q. And, Ms. Brown, what’s your date of birth?
2 A. March 2, 1943.
3 Q. Where were you born?
4 A. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5 Q. How long did you live in Philadelphia?
0 A. 21 years.
1 Q. And did you attend elementary school in
2 Philadelphia?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Secondary school?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And after second — where did — where did
7 you finish secondary school?
8 A. Philadelphia High School For Girls.
9 Q. When was that?
10 A. 1961.
11 Q. Did you have any further formal education
12 after leaving Philadelphia High School For Girls?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Where?
15 A. Temple University.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
11
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Q. When did you first attend Temple University?
1 A. 1961.
2 Q. And how long did you attend Temple
3 University?
4 A. One year.
5 Q. Did you pursue a particular field of study
6 at Temple University?
7 A. I was an English major.
8 Q. Did you leave Temple sometime in 1962?
0 A. No.
1 Q. Was it later in 1961 that you left there?
2 A. No.
3 Q. When did you leave? When did you last
4 attend school at Temple University?
5 A. Oh, 1962. I’m sorry.
6 Q. And since leaving Temple University have you
7 had any other formal education?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Where?
10 A. I attended UCLA, Mills College and
11 Southwestern University School of Law.
12 Q. Let’s start with UCLA. Was that the first
13 school you attended after Temple University?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Okay. When did you begin attending UCLA?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
12
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 A. 1968.
1 Q. ’68 you said?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. And how long did you attend UCLA?
4 A. One year.
5 Q. Until 1969?
6 A. That’s correct, sir.
7 Q. And did you pursue a major course of study
8 at UCLA?
0 A. English major.
1 Q. Did you receive a degree or certificate from
2 UCLA?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And you next attended Mills College; is that
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. When did you begin attending Mills College?
8 A. 1972.
9 Q. How long did you go to Mills College?
10 A. About a year.
11 Q. Until sometime in 1973 or so?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And what course of study did you
14 pursue there?
15 A. English major.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
13
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Q. Okay. Did you receive a degree or
1 certificate from Mills College?
2 A. No.
3 Q. What school did you next attend?
4 A. Southwestern University School of Law.
5 Q. When did you begin attending Southwestern
6 school of law?
7 A. I’m trying to determine the exact year. In
8 1980.
0 Q. How long did you attend Southwestern School
1 of Law?
2 A. Three years.
3 Q. Until sometime in 1983?
4 A. Yes, sir. Pardon me.
5 Q. Did you complete your course of study at
6 Southwestern School of Law?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Since leaving — strike that.
19 Did you receive a degree or certificate from
0 Southwestern?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Have you ever taken the California bar exam?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And you’re not admitted to practice law in
5 California?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
14
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 A. No.
1 Q. And you never have been?
2 A. No, sir.
3 Q. Okay. Since leaving — strike that.
5 Is Southwestern School of Law in Los
0 Angeles?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. Okay. Since leaving Southwestern School of
3 Law in approximately 1983, have you received any
0 further formal education?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now, after leaving Temple University in
3 1962, what was the first job that you had?
4 A. At the Philadelphia Electric Company.
5 Q. When did you go to work for Philadelphia
6 Electric Company?
7 A. The same year, 1962.
8 Q. How long did you work there?
9 A. Two years.
10 Q. And what was your last job for the
11 Philadelphia Electric Company?
12 A. Customer service representative.
13 Q. Was that in Philadelphia?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And after leaving the Philadelphia Electric
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
15
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Company in approximately 1964, what was your next job?
1 A. I moved to California, and my next job was
2 as a door-to-door salesperson.
3 Q. I’m sorry?
4 A. Door-to-door salesperson.
5 Q. Who were you working for?
6 A. Parents Magazine Encyclopedia.
7 Q. How long did you do that?
8 A. Approximately one year.
0 Q. Does that take us to sometime around 1965?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was your next job after leaving Parents
3 Magazine and Encyclopedia?
4 A. I was a cocktail waitress.
5 Q. Where?
6 A. I’m sorry?
7 Q. Where?
8 A. At a club called The Pink Pussycat in Los
9 Angeles.
10 Q. How long did you work for The Pink Pussycat
11 in Los Angeles?
12 A. Approximately six months.
13 Q. And what was your next job after that?
14 A. I worked at UCLA.
15 Q. Is this also sometime in 1965?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
16
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 A. No.
1 Q. When? When is this?
2 A. 1967.
3 Q. Was there a time — period of time between
4 you last working for The Pink Pussycat in Los Angeles
5 and you going to work for UCLA that you were not
6 working?
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. What were you — what period of time was
0 that?
1 A. Approximately a year and a half to two
2 years.
3 Q. What were you doing during that time?
4 A. Writing songs and — writing songs.
5 Q. Were any of them published?
6 A. Ultimately.
7 Q. Okay. How many were published?
8 A. Of those songs I would say ten.
9 Q. Do you remember what label they were
10 published on?
11 A. Vault Music.
12 Q. Bulk?
13 A. Vault, V-a-u-l-t.
14 Q. Okay. You went to work for UCLA in
15 approximately 1967. What did you do for UCLA at that
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
17
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 time?
1 A. General clerical work.
2 Q. Why did you stop working for Parents
3 Magazine and Encyclopedia?
4 A. It was a very difficult job to — it was all
5 commission, 100 percent commission, so I was not doing
6 well at a certain period. I was evicted.
7 Q. You were what?
8 A. I was evicted from the place where I lived,
0 so I wasn’t making any money.
1 Q. Was this in Los Angeles?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And why did you stop working for The Pink
4 Pussycat in Los Angeles?
5 A. Because I had — I was cohabiting with
6 someone who was taking care of my daily life.
7 Q. And as a result of that relationship did
8 that make it unnecessary for you to work at The Pink
9 Pussycat or was there some other reason you left there?
10 A. That was the reason.
11 Q. When you began working for UCLA doing
12 general clerical work, what department were you working
13 in?
14 A. I really can’t recall.
15 Q. Okay. How long did you do that general
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
18
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 clerical work?
1 A. I would say six months.
2 Q. And after that six-month period did you
3 continue working for UCLA?
4 A. No.
5 Q. What did you do — what did you do next?
6 A. I had a job at a poverty program in Watts,
7 California.
8 Q. What did you do for the poverty program?
0 A. Clerical work.
1 Q. How long did you do that?
2 A. Probably six months.
3 Q. Why did you leave UCLA?
4 A. I really can’t recall. Maybe just took
5 another job.
6 Q. And what was your next job after working for
7 the poverty program in Watts?
8 A. I didn’t have a job for a very long time
9 after that.
10 Q. What period — how long a period of time?
11 A. Ten years.
12 Q. Why did you leave the poverty program?
13 A. I joined the Black Panther Party.
14 Q. And when you joined the Black Panther Party,
15 did you join in a particular — particular role?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
19
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 A. No.
1 Q. In what way did joining the Black Panther
2 Party interfere or impede your ability to work for the
3 poverty program in Watts?
5 MR. BONNER: I’m going to object as assuming
0 a fact that hasn’t been established, namely that there
1 was this interference.
8
But you can answer the question if you —
9
MR. McGEE: I’m sorry, that was the what?
10
MR. BONNER: That there was that
0 interference with her position at Watts.
12
But you can answer that — that question.
13
MR. McGEE: Okay.
14
THE WITNESS: Would you mind repeating the
0 question?
1 BY MR. McGEE:
2 Q. Yeah. Sure. Let me rephrase it because I
3 asked that question because of an earlier response you
4 gave. I asked why you left the poverty program in
5 Watts.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And you said it was because you joined — or
8 it was at the time you joined the Black Panther Party.
9 My question is whether there was — joining the Black
10 Panther Party impeded your ability to work for the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
20
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 poverty program in Watts?
1 A. Impeded is not the characterization I would
2 give it.
3 Q. What characterization would you give?
4 A. I would say that I was now fully committed
5 to being a member of the Black Panther Party and there
6 was no time to work at a — at the poverty program.
7 Q. And in what way did the Black — your
8 involvement with the Black Panther Party consume your
0 time so that you were unable to work for the poverty
1 program in Watts?
12 MR. BONNER: Again, I’m going to object as
0 assuming facts not established, lacks foundation. And
1 I think you understand the foundational objection, so
2 without having a speaking objection I will articulate
3 it if you’d like.
17 MR. McGEE: Yeah, I wouldn’t mind you doing
0 so because —
19 MR. BONNER: Okay. Well, can we have the
0 question read back, please.
21
(Whereupon, the record was read.)
22
MR. BONNER: The objection is that consuming
0 the time made her unable to work for the Black
1 Panther — to work for the poverty program. Those
2 things are not necessarily related.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
21
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
But you can answer the question.
2
THE WITNESS: Well, would you mind repeating
0 the question again.
1 BY MR. McGEE:
2 Q. I’ll ask —
3 A. I’m really sorry.
4 Q. I’ll ask a different question.
5 A. All right.
6 Q. When you began working with the Black
0 Panther Party what was your role?
1 A. I was what we would call a rank-and-file
2 member.
3 Q. What did that entail?
4 A. Performing whatever tasks were asked of me
5 by those above me.
6 Q. When you say those above you, were you —
7 when you went into the Black Panther Party were you
8 assigned a particular role whereby there were
9 individuals above you that you reported to?
10 A. Not a particular role.
11 Q. Then how was it that you came to know that
12 there were others who might assign you tasks?
13 A. I was told what section I would work in and
14 who the people were to whom I would report.
15 Q. You were told what section you would work
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
22
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 in?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What section was that?
3 A. In — in Los Angeles. At that time I want
4 to say the west side as we called it.
5 Q. The west side of Los Angeles?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Did that include Watts?
8 A. No.
0 Q. What — what area did it — geographical
1 area did it include?
2 A. Well, what was deemed the west side was an
3 area you could call the Crenshaw area.
4 Q. And to whom did you report when you worked
5 on the west side of Los Angeles for the Black Panther
6 Party?
7 A. Ericka Huggins.
8 Q. And what was Ericka Huggins’ role?
9 A. At that time captain.
10 Q. Was captain a rank that Ericka Huggins held
11 within the Black Panther Party?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Did you at the time you went
14 into the Black Panther Party have a rank?
15 A. No.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
23
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Q. Did you ever have a rank?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When did you first have a rank within the
3 Black Panther Party?
4 A. I would say 1969.
5 Q. And what rank was that?
6 A. Deputy minister of information.
7 Q. Okay. And as the deputy minister of
8 information, what was your responsibility?
0 A. I would like to add for the Southern
1 California chapter. My primary responsibility was to
2 write articles and other materials that we would
3 publish from the Southern California chapter.
4 BY MR. McGEE:
5 Q. And did you in fact write articles and
6 materials for publication?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How long did you hold the rank of deputy
9 minister of information for the Southern California
10 chapter within the Black Panther Party?
11 A. I would say until 1971.
12 Q. And what happened at that time?
13 A. I was ordered to move to Oakland,
14 California, to edit the Black Panther Party national
15 newspaper.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
24
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Q. And did you in fact move to Oakland at that
1 time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And did — when you moved to Oakland — and
4 that would be sometime around 1971, correct?
5 A. That’s correct.
6 Q. Did you continue in your role as deputy
7 minister of information?
8 A. No.
0 Q. What was your rank or role at that time?
1 A. My role was editor of the Black Panther
2 Party Newspaper.
3 Q. I may not have asked this or you may have
4 answered and I didn’t hear it. During the time that
5 you were deputy minister of information for the
6 Southern California chapter, who did you report to?
7 A. I reported to Geronimo Pratt.
8 Q. I’m sorry?
9 A. Geronimo Pratt. I’m sorry.
10 Q. And did you continue reporting to Geronimo
11 Pratt until 1971?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And when you moved to Oakland and
14 became the editor of the Black Panther Party News, to
15 whom did you report?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
25
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 A. The central committee.
1 Q. Was there anyone in particular on the
2 central committee that you reported to?
3 A. No.
4 Q. How long did you continue in your role as
5 editor of the Black Panther Party News?
6 A. Until 1972.
7 Q. And what happened at that time?
8 A. I was — I became the minister of
0 information in the Black Panther Party.
1 Q. Minister of information?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what were — what did your duties become
4 when you assumed the role of minister of information
5 for the Black Panther Party?
6 A. Well, I oversaw all of the publications of
7 materials that the Party made, including the newspaper
8 and the other materials that were — that were issued
9 by the Party nationally.
10 Q. Did you actually author any of those
11 publications and materials?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How long did you work in that capacity?
14 A. Until 1974.
15 Q. And during the two years that you served as
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
26
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 the minister of information for the Black Panther
1 Party, did you continue reporting to the central
2 committee?
3 A. I was a member of the central committee, and
4 I did report to the committee.
5 Q. Okay. And what happened in 1974?
6 A. I was — I became the chairman of the Black
7 Panther Party.
8 Q. How did you become the chairman of the Black
0 Panther Party? And by that I mean was this a position
1 to which you were appointed, elected or what was the
2 process by which you became chairman?
3 A. Appointed.
4 Q. Appointed by whom?
5 A. I was appointed.
6 Q. By whom?
7 A. By the leader of the Black Panther Party,
8 Huey P. Newton.
9 Q. And with your appointment as the chair of
10 the Black Panther Party, what did your duties become?
11 What did your role become in the party?
12 A. I was the highest ranking leader of the
13 Black Panther Party.
14 Q. Have you ever told anyone that — and I’ll
15 quote it. Have you ever told anyone, quote, I start
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
27
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 shit wherever I go, close quote?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Anything that you recall having said to that
3 effect, that you, quote, start —
4 A. I do not recall.
5 Q. Pardon me?
6 A. I’m sorry. Excuse me.
7 Q. Yeah. Let me just finish the question.
8 A. Yes, sir.
0 Q. Your answer may not be any different. But
1 do you recall having ever told anyone — let me — let
2 me strike that and ask a different question.
13 Do you recall having ever told a reporter
0 that, quote, you start shit wherever you go, close
1 quote?
16 MR. BONNER: And I’m going to object, asked
0 and answered. She indicated she didn’t recall, but
1 that’s a slightly different question.
19 Do you recall ever saying that to a
0 reporter?
21 THE WITNESS: No.
0 BY MR. McGEE:
1 Q. Okay. Let me ask it in a more specific
2 context. Do you recall having a discussion with anyone
3 in which you were discussing raising your child — let
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
28
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 me — let me ask a foundational question.
2 Do you have any children?
0 A. I do.
1 Q. How many children do you have?
2 A. One.
3 Q. You have a daughter, correct?
4 A. That’s right.
5 Q. All right. Do you have — recall having
6 ever had a discussion with a news reporter or a
0 reporter writing an article talking about raising your
1 daughter that, one, you never spanked your daughter but
2 you think your daughter fears you because, quote, you
3 start shit wherever you go, close quote?
4 A. Well, that’s a lot of different questions.
5 So —
16 MR. BONNER: Do you recall any aspect of
0 that?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall part of it, but
0 some part of it is not true.
20 MR. BONNER: Okay.
0 BY MR. McGEE:
1 Q. What part of it do you recall?
2 A. That I never spanked my daughter.
3 Q. All right.
4 A. I’ve said that widely. And that —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
29
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. BONNER: I think you’ve answered the
0 question, unless there’s some other part of it —
3
THE WITNESS: No.
4
MR. BONNER: — that’s true. Okay.
5
THE WITNESS: It was —
6
MR. BONNER: Well, there’s no question
0 pending just —
8
THE WITNESS: Okay.
9
MR. BONNER: It’s all question and answer.
10
MR. McGEE: I’ll come back to it.
0 BY MR. McGEE:
1 Q. How long did you continue your role as chair
2 of the Black Panther Party?
3 A. For three years.
4 Q. Until sometime around 1977?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what happened at that time?
7 A. I left the Black Panther Party.
8 Q. Why?
9 A. I felt it was not going in a direction that
10 I could continue to adhere to.
11 Q. Can you describe generally the direction
12 that the party had been going in prior to you making
13 the decision to leave?
25 (Whereupon, Ms. Warren entered the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
30
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 proceedings.)
2 THE WITNESS: We had been trying to create a
0 revolutionary base in the City of Oakland.
1 BY MR. McGEE:
2 Q. And was there a time when during your tenure
3 as chair of the Black Panther Party that you believe
4 the party was going in that direction?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. And what happened to change
0 that?
1 A. Any number of things happened to change it.
2 I don’t know how to answer that question with a
3 specific one word or one — one answer.
4 Q. Okay. Can you give me some examples of what
5 cha — the changes in that direction?
6 A. Yes. There was a refocus on activities that
7 did not go to where we were. We had successfully
8 gotten a black mayor elected and had other
9 opportunities to continue to build our base, and I felt
10 they were being undermined by other activities.
21 MR. McGEE: Would you read back the last
0 response, please.
23 (Whereupon, the record was read.)
0 BY MR. McGEE:
1 Q. The black mayor you’re referring to is
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
31
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Lionel Wilson, correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. What were the activities that
3 took place following Lionel Wilson’s election that you
4 believe were not going in the direction that you
5 believe the Black Panther Party should be moving in?
6 A. There were — when — there were men who
7 were doing dysfunctional things with our facilities.
8 For example, we had a club called The Lamp Post. It
0 was a nightclub or a place where people ate and drank
1 and what-have-you, and they were just abusing the
2 privilege by drinking after hours and basically
3 becoming very uncontrollable.
4 Q. When did you first meet Desley Brooks?
5 A. I would say I met Ms. Brooks with David
6 Hilliard. It could have been ten years ago. I don’t
7 know.
8 Q. Do you remember the circumstances?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. What were they?
11 A. Mr. Hilliard had formed the Dr. Huey P.
12 Newton Foundation, and I was a participant in that,
13 even though I didn’t live in California, and he was
14 trying to secure a building to perhaps create an
15 institution for the study of the Black Panther Party,
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
32
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 and he advised me that Ms. Brooks was trying to help
1 him locate a facility.
2 Q. You said you were living in — somewhere
3 outside of the area at that time?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Where were you living then?
6 A. I was living in Atlanta, Georgia.
7 Q. So David Hilliard contacted you, told you
8 that he was trying to form some organization or entity
0 related to Huey P. Newton and he contacted you to let
1 you know that he was engaged in those efforts?
2 A. No, that’s not correct.
3 Q. What — I may have misunderstood what the —
4 what the role was.
5 A. David Hilliard and Fredrika Newton, who is
6 the widow of Huey P. Newton, began forming something
7 called the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation right after
8 Huey was killed in 1989. I was helping them. I lived
9 at that time somewhere else, and from a long distance
10 we were organizing getting the building of — building
11 an archive and building up materials for — that were
12 about the Black Panther Party but the foundation was
13 called Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation.
24 And at some point much later than the origin
0 of that foundation Mr. Hilliard was engaged apparently
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
33
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 in conversations with Ms. Brooks about getting a
1 physical building where we could put our materials and
2 have an institution where people could come and — and
3 study the history of the Black Panther Party.
4 Q. And Mr. Hilliard told you that he had met
5 with Desley Brooks, who was assisting him in locating
6 or acquiring such building?
7 A. They were talking about a building, as I
8 understood it.
0 Q. So as part of this project that Mr. Hilliard
1 was working on, did he introduce you to Desley Brooks?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. Where did you meet her?
4 A. I want to say somewhere in East Oakland.
5 Q. Okay. And when was this? You said about
6 ten years ago from today’s date?
7 A. It may have been longer ago.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. I’m really sorry. I cannot be very precise.
10 I’m estimating that.
11 Q. Well, Huey Newton was killed in 1989?
12 A. That’s correct.
13 Q. Do you remember how long after Huey Newton
14 was killed that this discussion took place?
15 A. I — I want to say maybe 1999, 2000.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
34
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Q. Okay.
1 A. So maybe it’s longer than ten years.
2 Q. And how would you describe the introduction
3 of you to Desley Brooks in or about 1999 or 2000?
4 A. I can’t really describe it. I can’t recall
5 very much, other than meeting her.
6 Q. All right. Did you have some — did the two
7 of you engage each other regarding this project that
8 Mr. Hilliard was working on? I mean, did you have
0 discussions with her —
1 A. No.
2 Q. — about it?
3 A. Excuse me.
4 Q. Pardon me?
5 A. I said excuse me.
6 Q. Okay. I’m — did you have some dialogue
7 with Ms. Brooks as a result of the introduction that
8 had been made to you by Mr. Brooks — by Mr. Hilliard?
9 A. I don’t recall any conversation.
10 Q. After meeting Desley Brooks in 1999 or 2000,
11 did you form some relationship with her?
12 A. No.
13 Q. All right. Did you see her anymore? Did
14 you have any opportunity to interface with her after
15 this project that Mr. Hilliard was working on?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
35
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 A. I’m sorry, what —
1 Q. Let me — let me ask it this way: During
2 the years between 1999 or 2000 and October of 2015 were
3 there occasions in which you interfaced with Desley
4 Brooks?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Can you tell us when those
7 interfaces or interactions began after meeting her in
8 1999 or 2000?
0 A. I would say when I returned to live in
1 Oakland in 2010.
2 Q. All right. Let’s go back to you leaving the
3 Black Panther Party in 1977.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What did you do next? And by that I mean
6 did you have an occupation? Did you get a job after
7 that or what did you do after 1977 to occupy your
8 working days?
9 A. I worked for Motown Records.
10 Q. Where?
11 A. Los Angeles.
12 Q. What did you do for Motown?
13 A. I worked in the office of Suzanne de Passe
14 as a creative consultant.
15 Q. Suzanne de Passe at that time was one of
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
36
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 Berry Gordy’s assistants?
1 A. She was vice president of Motown.
2 Q. Did you have a specific title when you
3 worked for Suzanne de Passe at Motown?
4 A. No.
5 Q. How long did you work for Motown?
6 A. Two years.
7 Q. And during that entire two-year period did
8 you work as Suzanne de Passe’s assistant?
0 A. No.
1 Q. What else did you do?
2 A. I’m sorry, I worked on editing scripts that
3 were coming into the film division as it was evolving
4 under Susan.
5 Q. During the entire time that you worked for
6 Motown did you essentially report to Suzanne de Passe?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Why did you leave there?
9 A. The — there was a funding or financial
10 problem where employees — some employees were being
11 asked to defer salaries, and I could not afford that.
12 Q. Were you asked to defer your salary?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What did you do next after leaving Motown?
15 A. I enrolled in night classes at Southwestern
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
37
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
0 University School of Law, and I took a job during the
1 day as an advertising salesperson for the I want to say
2 Los Angeles Herald Examiner, whatever the competitor
3 newspaper was for the Los Angeles Times at the time.
4 Q. How long did you do that?
5 A. Work at the Herald Examiner?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I would say eight or nine months.
8 Q. And what did you do after leaving the Herald
Examiner?
A. I took some temporary clerical jobs through
a temporary agency.
Q. And how long did you work through that temp
agency?
A. Approximately six months until I got a
permanent job.
Q. And were you working in the Los Angeles area
this entire time?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the permanent job that you got
after leaving the temp agency?
A. I was working as a legal secretary.
Q. For whom?
A. I cannot recall the name of this firm, but I
remember one of the partners that I ultimately worked
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
38
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
for.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mark Moskowitz.
Q. Mark Moskowitz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this in Los Angeles?
A. Beverly Hills.
Q. And how long did you work at that law firm?
A. I want to say a year and a half.
Q. What does that take us to? You worked —
you left Motown in 1979 so —
A. Excuse me.
Q. — when is it that you were working for the
Beverly Hills law firm?
A. I left Motown in 1980 when I started law
school. So at this point we’re probably in 1984 or ‘5.
Q. And what did you do after leaving the
Beverly Hills law firm?
A. I worked at another Beverly Hills law firm.
Q. Which one is that?
A. I can recall the attorney I worked for.
Q. Who is that?
A. His name is Jim Barrall, B-a-r-r-a-l-l I
believe.
Q. B?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
39
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. B, like boy, a-r-r-a-l-l or e-l-l. I can’t
recall.
Q. What type of work did he do?
A. Jim Barrall was a — did pensions for large
corporations.
Q. How long did you work for him?
A. Almost three years.
Q. Why did you stop working for the law firm
where Mr. Moskowitz was a partner?
A. He was really quite mean spirited to just
about everybody, and I couldn’t take it so I left.
Q. What sorts of things did he do that
demonstrated that mean spirit?
A. Screamed and hollered and cursed people out
a lot.
Q. Were there occasions in which he screamed or
hollered at you?
A. Absolutely.
Q. You worked for the next firm for about three
years you said?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so that takes us to sometime around
1988?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. And why did you leave that firm?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
40
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I can’t recall why I left, but I — I really
can’t recall why I left. I’m sorry. There was no
acrimony or anything, but I took another law job that
was actually a little bit better.
Q. Where did you go next?
A. I worked for a man named Dan Stormer.
Q. S-t-o-r-m-e-r?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he a partner in the firm that you went
to?
A. Yes. Storm — I think it was Litt and
Stormer. Litt. I’m sorry Litt, L-i-t-t, and Stormer.
Q. And what type of work did Mr. Stormer do?
A. He — civil — civil cases, tort cases.
Q. Was he a litigator?
A. I believe you would say that.
Q. And how long did you work for Mr. Stormer?
A. Until the end of 1980 — toward the end of
1989.
Q. So a year or so you worked for Mr. Stormer?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you leave there?
A. I moved out of the country.
Q. Did you move to France then?
A. I did.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
41
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. When was that?
A. I moved to France in November of 1989.
Q. What brought that about?
A. I had someone in my life that I moved to
live with.
Q. How long did you live in France?
A. Almost seven years.
Q. Prior to moving to France did you speak
French?
A. No.
Q. During your seven years in France did you
learn how to speak French?
A. I learned to speak French not very well but
certainly sufficiently.
Q. Okay. I was going to ask if you were fluent
in French.
A. I can live in France without too much
trouble.
Q. Okay. All right. And I’m sorry, you said
you lived there seven years?
A. Nearly seven years.
Q. During the time that you were in France did
you work?
A. No.
Q. Where in France did you live?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
42
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Well, we had a place in three different
spots in France. A village called Groffliers,
G-r-o-f-f-l-i-e-r-s, which is in the north of France,
also in Paris and also in a place that was very near
Saint Tropez.
Q. And where did you move after leaving France?
And this would take us to, I guess, sometime around
1996?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. Where did you move then?
A. Atlanta, Georgia.
Q. What brought that about?
A. I parted company with the man I was living
with.
Q. In France?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you end up moving to Atlanta?
A. My daughter lived there.
Q. Did you live with her for a while?
A. No.
Q. Did you work when you moved to Atlanta?
A. I took some jobs in Atlanta.
Q. What types of jobs?
A. Temporary clerical jobs.
Q. During the years that bring us up to your
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
43
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
move to Atlanta, did you earn income from sources other
than having a job?
A. Yes.
Q. For example, did you earn money from
writing, from writing music, writing books or other —
other sources?
A. Yes.
Q. What — what types of things did you do for
income during those years?
A. Well, for my own earned income I had a book
that was published during that time, and I began doing
some lecturing at colleges. I would go back and forth
to the U.S. to do that.
Q. And you were paid for those lectures?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was the book that you had
published that you referred to?
A. The title?
Q. Yes.
A. Is “A Taste of Power.”
Q. When — when did you publish that?
A. 1992.
Q. So as of 1996 had you published more than
one book, that book being “A Taste of Power” that was
published in 1992?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
44
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No.
Q. Have you published any other books since
then?
A. Yes.
Q. Which other — which books have you
published to date?
A. A book called “The Condemnation of Little
B.”
Q. Any others?
A. I’m engaged to finish two books.
Q. Okay. When was the “Condemnation of
Little” —
A. B, the letter B, as in boy.
Q. — “Little B,” when was that published?
A. 2002.
Q. Okay. And what are the other books that
you’re presently working on for publication?
A. The “Biography of Jamil Al-Amin,” and a
non-fiction book called “Melba and Al, the Story of
Black Love in Jim Crow America.”
Q. Ms. Brown, have you —
22 Actually, why don’t we go off the record.
We’ve been going now for about an hour, so, why don’t
we take — why don’t we take a ten-minute or so break?
25 MR. BONNER: Okay. Good idea.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
45
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER:. Going off the record.
The time on the monitor is 11:06.
3
(Whereupon, a break was taken.)
4
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Coming back on the
record. The time on the monitor is 11:20 a.m. Please
begin.
7 MR. McGEE: Would you read back the last
question and response, please.
9 (Whereupon, the record was read.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Ms. Brown, have you ever had your deposition
taken before today?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the — how many times?
A. Once that I know of — that I recall,
rather.
Q. And what was the nature of the proceeding in
which your deposition was previously taken?
A. It was a criminal procedure.
Q. And were you a witness to an alleged
criminal event or were you a party to it?
A. Witness.
Q. Why was your deposition taken?
A. I was a witness.
Q. Okay. Do you remember the nature of the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
46
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
proceeding?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?
A. It was a murder case.
Q. Do you remember when that was?
A. 1969, ’70. 1969.
Q. Do you remember who it was that took your
deposition?
A. The district attorney of Los Angeles County.
Q. Prior to this lawsuit, the one you’ve
brought against Desley Brooks and the City of Oakland,
have you been a party to other litigation? By party I
mean as a plaintiff, defendant or another related party
to any litigation?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were you previously involved in any
litigation?
A. In we can say 2004. I’m estimating.
Q. And what was the nature of the litigation
that you were involved in in 2004?
A. I was suing Kathleen Cleaver for defamation.
Q. And did — had Kathleen Cleaver made some
comment about you that you thought was defamatory?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that comment?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
47
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. That I was an agent of the FBI.
Q. Where was that litigation?
A. In Atlanta, Georgia.
Q. How was it resolved?
A. The case never went forward because I didn’t
have the money to pursue it, and so once she was
deposed and admitted that she was wrong I was
satisfied.
Q. Did you attend her deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. That deposition took place in Atlanta,
Georgia?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember who took it?
A. I can’t remember my attorney’s name.
Q. So after Kathleen Cleaver’s deposition was
taken during which she admitted having made the
statement that you sued her for, you dismissed the
suit?
20 MR. BONNER: That misstates her testimony.
She said after she admitted she was wrong she dismissed
the suit.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Is that — as —
A. What Mr. Bonner just —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
48
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Hold on just a second.
2 As Mr. Bonner has amplified on my question,
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Were you paid anything by Kathleen
Cleaver for that lawsuit?
A. No.
Q. Did you receive compensation from anywhere
other than Ms. Cleaver for dismissing that lawsuit?
A. No.
Q. Other than the prior litigation in
approximately 2004 against Kathleen Cleaver, have you
been a party to any other lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. What other lawsuits have you been a party
to?
A. Against the Waterfront Hotel in Oakland,
California.
Q. When was that?
A. I’m thinking. 2013, ’14.
Q. What was that for?
A. So some — an employee of the hotel
assaulted me.
Q. Do you remember the name of the employee?
A. No.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
49
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. And how did that lawsuit — how was it
resolved?
A. It was settled.
Q. Were you paid anything for that settlement?
A. Yes.
Q. By whom?
A. The — a combination of the Waterfront Hotel
and whoever — whatever entity had then bought it is
the best I can do with how to phrase that.
Q. And do you remember how much you were paid
for that settlement?
12 MR. BONNER: Is that confidential? Is
that — was that a confidential settlement?
14
THE WITNESS: I believe it was.
15
MR. BONNER: Okay. Well, then I instruct
you not to answer that until we can actually get that
information, understand the terms of that. We will
supply that with you after I review the settlement
agreement and see — look at the terms of the
confidentiality provision.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Can you describe what the circumstances were
which resulted in you being assaulted by I think you
said an employee of the Waterfront Hotel?
A. Yes. My friend, Mae Gentry, and her fiance
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
50
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
were coming through Oakland and stayed at the
Waterfront, and we had dinner that night and because
they were just moving on I drove them back and forth to
the restaurant, back to the hotel. This employee told
— we were saying good-bye and this employee told
Ms. Gentry and her fiance and me that we were being too
loud and we would have to move from in front of the
hotel.
9 She, as a reporter for the Atlanta Journal
Constitution, and her fiance, who was a — was the
publisher of the San Jose Mercury News immediately
launched into a — an argument with him about his right
to speak to them in that way. They were guests there.
They were angry and so forth, and they insisted on
seeing the manager. The manager was not available.
And after say approximately ten minutes of arguing they
just said they would see the manager in the morning.
And they went to the hotel elevator, and I went to get
into my car, which was parked directly in front of the
door, front door.
21 And this — this employee, who was — I
thought he had been the valet parking guy, but maybe he
was — I don’t really know what his role was. He was a
greeter, who knows, I have no idea, walked out behind
me and said — oh, he took a picture of my — of my
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
51
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
license plate, and I asked him, Did you just take a
picture of my license plate, because I became very
concerned that someone would take a picture of my
license plate. And he took another one with a cell
phone. I saw the flash. And I said, Let me see that.
And he said nothing, and he walked back into the hotel.
I said, I want you to erase that picture. I don’t want
you to have my license plate number. And he turned
around and knocked me down, which was videotaped.
Q. As a result of him knocking you down were
you injured?
A. Yes.
Q. What injury did you sustain as a result of
him knocking you down?
A. Well, my head hit the floor pretty hard and
my glasses were broken and so forth.
Q. Your head hit the floor pretty hard, your
glasses were knocked off?
A. Broken, yes.
Q. And did you injure any other part of your
body, other than your head hitting the ground?
A. No.
Q. Did you injure your tailbone as a result of
that fall?
A. I was probably in some pain. I cannot
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
52
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
recall all of the — all of it.
Q. Do you recall whether the employee with whom
you — who knocked you down gave a statement regarding
his recollection of the incident?
A. Yes, I think he did.
Q. Do you remember what he said?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Do you remember him saying — strike that.
9 Did anyone call the police as a result of
that incident?
A. Yes, my friends, Mae and her fiance.
Q. Do you remember her fiance’s name?
A. Why can’t — he was a publisher of the San
Jose Mercury News, and I cannot remember. Had been the
publisher.
Q. And your friend’s name was Mae?
A. Gentry, G-e-n-t-r-y.
Q. And she lives in Atlanta?
A. She did.
Q. Okay. Where does she live now?
A. I believe in the State of Washington.
Q. Okay. And did you talk to the police that
evening?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did this — this occur, anyway?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
53
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I would say 11:00, 11:30 in the evening.
Excuse me.
Q. And you gave a statement to the police,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you tell the police essentially
the same thing you’ve testified to here today regarding
how this event took place?
A. Probably so.
Q. And you said you are aware that this event
was videotaped?
A. Yes.
Q. And who videotaped the incident?
A. Apparently it was a videotape in the hotel
lobby, camera, security camera.
Q. Have you ever seen that video?
A. No.
Q. So when this employee knocked you down was
he approaching you to do that or how was it that the
two of you came into contact?
A. I asked him to erase the photograph that he
took of my driver’s license from his cell phone.
Q. All right. And was he standing in front of
you when you asked him that?
A. He was — he was walking into the hotel
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
54
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
having taken the two photographs, and I walked behind
him.
Q. So was he physically walking when you had
this discussion with him and told him to erase the tape
— or erase the video?
A. He was clutching his cell phone, and I asked
him to let me see if he took a picture, and when he
turned he pushed me down.
Q. So he was walking away from you at the time
that you told him that you wanted to see what he had
taken with the — his cell phone camera, correct?
12 MR. BONNER: Object, that misstates her
testimony.
14
MR. McGEE: I wasn’t finished.
15
MR. BONNER: I understand.
16
MR. McGEE: Okay.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Let me just ask you about that particular
sequence. I want to try to do this frame by frame if
possible. At the time you asked him or told him to
remove or erase what was on his camera, was he walking
away from you?
A. I didn’t tell him to erase what was on his
camera.
Q. What did you tell him?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
55
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I told — I asked him if he took a picture
of my driver’s license and I wanted him to erase that
picture.
Q. All right. And was he at the time you had
that — said those words, was he walking away from you?
Standing still? Facing you? Just what? What — where
was he in relation to you?
A. He was standing in the back of my car, and I
looked right at him and I said, Did you just take a
picture of my driver’s license? And he took another
one with his hand down, and when he took that picture I
said, You have to erase those pictures. And —
Q. Okay. At that — at that time, if we can
just hold that thought right there. At the time you
told him that he had to erase those photos was he
facing you? Walking away from you? Just what was he
doing?
A. Facing me when —
Q. He was facing you. Was he walking towards
you at that time?
21 MR. BONNER: Object, that’s been asked and
answered. He — she had testified that he was standing
still at the back of her car.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Is that correct? Was he standing still —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
56
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. — at the back of your car?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. How long after you told him
to — that he had to erase it that he ends up knocking
you down?
A. Perhaps a minute.
Q. And what happens during the frame of that
minute? And I’m going to be kind of precise here, if
you don’t mind, because when you say a minute I assume
you’re talking about 60 seconds; is that correct?
A. That’s my estimate.
Q. All right. So in the 60 seconds between the
time you tell him he has to erase that, what does he
do?
A. He turns away and goes and puts the phone —
turns his back and brings his phone to his chest or
something and walks away.
Q. All right. So after you tell him he’s got
to erase what’s on his camera or his phone, he turns
and walks away from you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How is it that he ended up pushing you to
the ground?
A. Because I asked him again and I walked after
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
57
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
him talking to him and I asked him again to erase the
photograph that he had taken or show it to me.
Q. And at that time is he continuing to walk
away from you?
A. No.
Q. What’s he doing at that point?
A. He’s turning and pushing me.
Q. All right. So at some point after he walks
away from you he turns and pushes you?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. What does he push you with?
A. His hands.
Q. Both hands or one hand?
A. I recall both hands.
Q. All right. Did he still have the camera or
phone in one hand?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You don’t recall that?
A. No.
Q. You do recall him pushing you?
A. Of course.
Q. All right. And at the time he pushed you
was he moving towards you?
A. Absolutely.
Q. All right. And the next thing you know
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
58
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
you’re on the ground?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. Did anyone ever tell you that
there was a — that the video that was taken in the
hotel lobby showed that at the time you went on the
ground he was walking away from you?
A. No.
Q. The police never told you that?
A. No.
Q. No. After the date of this incident do you
ever have any further discussion with this individual
that pushed you to the ground?
A. No.
Q. All right. How is it that the case was
settled?
16 MR. BONNER: Object, that’s vague. What do
you mean by that?
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Well, was this — was the settlement — Pam
Price represented you in that action that you brought
against the Waterfront, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did she handle the negotiations for the
settlement?
A. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
59
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Did you have any further face-to-face
discussion with anyone who was present at the time of
this — of the incident?
A. No.
Q. Had you — on the night of this incident at
the Waterfront Hotel had you been drinking?
A. Yes.
Q. What had you been drinking that night?
A. I probably had a glass or two of wine.
Q. Where?
A. At the Lake Chalet restaurant.
Q. And other than the lawsuit that you brought
against Kathleen Cleaver and the one you brought
against the Waterfront Hotel, have you been involved in
any other litigation before this action?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any other claims against
anyone, other than the matters that you’ve also —
already testified to?
A. No.
Q. Ms. Brown, have you ever been told that you
are — were diagnosed as being alcoholic?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever undergone any treatment for a
condition related to alcohol use?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
60
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No.
Q. Ever been arrested for drunk driving?
A. Yes.
Q. Has your driver’s license ever been
suspended for an alcohol-related offense?
A. DUI is what it was called, yes.
Q. But was your driver’s license suspended for
that incident?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Do you recall an occasion in
which — or — or strike that.
12 Was the arrest for DUI did that follow an
occasion in which you drove your car off the end of the
road near the Bay Bridge?
A. That’s not an exact characterization, no.
Q. Okay. How would you characterize it?
A. I was — I took a detour because there was a
detour at my exit off of the freeway and I drove to
what was called the last exit before the toll bridge,
and one could go either left or right. I thought by
choosing the right side I would go closer to where I
lived, and it was a road that ended up being called
Radio Road. So I did not drive off of anything. I
drove onto a road called Radio Road, but I wasn’t
familiar with it and as I drove further I noticed there
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
61
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
was some water ahead of me and apparently there is a
tide that rises there that there’s no markings for. So
in trying to turn around to get away from the water I
got stuck on the embankment, and I called 911. And
when I called 911 the Highway Patrol came out and asked
me had I been drinking and arrested me.
Q. What did you tell the officer after — when
he asked you whether you’d been drinking?
A. I told him I had been — had a drink.
Q. Now, at the time that incident took place
where you drove to the last exit off of the Bay Bridge
onto Radio Road was your driver’s license suspended?
A. At the time that I was driving?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Your driver’s license was in good standing
at that time?
A. As far as I can recall.
Q. Have you ever run for public office?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first run for public office?
A. 1973.
Q. And what — what did you run for in 1973?
A. City Council of Oakland.
Q. Do you remember who you ran against, who
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
62
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
else was on the ticket?
A. Whom I ran against?
Q. Yeah. Who else was on the ticket at the
same time for the same district that you were running
in?
A. There were no districts at that — I mean,
it wasn’t a district election. I cannot recall who my
opponent was in 1973 quite frankly.
Q. Okay. Did you win?
A. No.
Q. Okay. After the 1973 election for City
Council have you run for any other office?
A. Yes.
Q. What — what did you next run for?
A. City Council of Oakland.
Q. When?
A. 1975.
Q. And what happened then?
A. I did not win the election.
Q. And after 1975 did you run for public office
again?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. I want to say 2005.
Q. What did you run for at that time?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
63
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Mayor of Brunswick, Georgia.
Q. Were you at that time living in Brunswick,
Georgia?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what happened then?
A. I was disqualified.
Q. Why?
A. On the technical — pardon me. On a
technicality regarding residency.
Q. Regarding what?
A. Residency.
Q. What — what was the argument against you at
that time?
A. The argument was that I had not lived for
the entire 12 months, I’d only lived 11 months and two
weeks or something, in Brunswick.
Q. And other than those three political
campaigns, City Council of Oakland in 1973 and ’75 and
in 2005 for mayor of Brunswick, Georgia, have you run
for public office?
A. I have engaged in a campaign to get the
nomination from the Green Party for president.
Q. When was that?
A. Not long after Brunswick, so I would say
2007 it could have been.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
64
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. And did you get the Green Party’s
nomination?
A. No.
Q. Are there any other campaigns for public
office that you ran?
A. No.
Q. Did you as a result of these campaigns that
you’ve described, the two for Oakland City Council, the
one for mayor of Brunswick, Georgia, and the campaign
for the Green Party’s nomination for president, did you
become frustrated with public office or your efforts at
public office?
A. No.
14 MR. BONNER: I ask that — object that
that’s a compounded question. I know you don’t mean to
have it compounded. It just ends up being that way.
So you want to rephrase it, perhaps make it not
disjunctive.
19 MR. McGEE: I’m happy to do so. I think she
already answered, but I’m happy to — I’m happy to
ask the —
22 MR. BONNER: Well, you will accept the “No”
answer as to each of the two parts on either side,
that’s fine. We can move forward.
25
MR. McGEE: Yeah, let’s move forward.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
65
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. BONNER: That’s good.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Have you at some point formed a belief as to
Desley Brooks that you don’t like her politics?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it about her politics that you
dislike?
A. Some of the actions that she has taken,
positions that she has taken, and that I have concluded
that she is disingenuous in representing herself as
concerned with the interest of black people when taking
positions that I believe serve the disinterest of black
people.
Q. When did you form that belief?
A. I think when I returned to Oakland in 19 —
in 2010.
Q. And when you say when you returned to
Oakland is that returned to Oakland from Georgia?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there some matter or issue that was
pending after you returned from Georgia in 2010 that
caused you to form this belief or attitude regarding
Ms. Brooks’s politics?
A. Yes.
Q. What?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
66
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. This was during the so-called Occupy period
in around 2011.
Q. And what happened in 2011 that caused you to
form this belief?
A. Ms. Brooks was in the Oakland City Council
meeting sitting in her chair as a City Council person,
and when I got up to speak she asked me what I was
doing with all these white people.
Q. She asked you that in a public meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what the issue was
that was being discussed?
A. The issue in general — excuse me. That
night there was just a general discussion about Occupy.
I cannot remember everything that took place. It was a
very, very crowded and loud City Council meeting with
people all — you know, packing the house as it were.
Q. And did you respond to Ms. Brooks when she
asked you that question?
A. Yeah.
Q. What did you tell her?
A. My recollection is that I reminded her and
everyone else sitting on that council of how most of
the black, brown and women got onto the council was
because of the Black Panther Party that I had been a
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
67
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
part of and that the whole notion of occupying had been
a tradition or had been a — an action established by
Dr. King himself so that it was certainly in keeping
with our general agenda for black and poor people
speaking of the poor people’s campaign.
6 There may have been a resolution or an
ordinance that was being passed, I don’t know if it was
that night or later on, but that she was supporting to
allow for police to be called in from other police
agencies in the area in the event that there was an
attempt to shut down the Port of Oakland as the Occupy
people had done.
Q. Okay. And this was a response that you gave
to the council and to the public at this City Council
meeting?
A. As to — yes.
Q. Okay. Since that City Council meeting
have — what was your next public — strike that.
19 What was your next interaction with Desley
Brooks?
A. I would say that there was a women’s group
that Pamela Price attempted to organize, and it was
supposedly about trying to create economic independence
for black women. The meetings were somewhat casual and
they were pretty much open-ended at — and taking place
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
68
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
at Everett & Jones. And at one point there was a
discussion about what specific economic activity this
group could engage in, and I suggested there might be a
way to secure the train station in West Oakland, the —
that has been out of commission I believe since the
earthquake of 1989. It’s a beautiful building, and I
felt that we could together maybe pool our resources
and acquire, which so many other people wanted to, and
Ms. Brooks stated that — that I was lying to the
people who were there, there was no ability to get that
property, and some other comments to that effect.
Q. And did the dialogue — this is a dialogue
that took place between you and Ms. Brooks at one of
these meetings at Everett & Jones?
A. I wouldn’t say it was a dialogue.
Q. How would you describe it?
A. I would describe her having characterized my
remarks as not being truthful.
Q. Okay.
A. We didn’t have a dialogue after that.
Q. Well, during that particular meeting did you
say something to which Ms. Brooks responded?
A. Yes. I said I thought we could get the
train station.
Q. And she said something to the effect that
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
69
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
you weren’t being truthful about the ability to get the
train station?
A. And that I didn’t know what I was talking
about.
Q. Okay. When did that meeting take place at
Everett & Jones?
A. Well, I’m going to estimate it was after
Pamela Price lost the election, which would be State
Assembly Woman, and when — that election was in
perhaps 2015 so we can — we can — I will estimate it
was sometime in 2015.
Q. And, again, the City Council meeting related
to the Occupy issue was a meeting that took place
sometime in 2011?
A. That’s what I believe.
Q. Did you during the period between 2011 —
2011 when the City Council meeting took place and the
meeting at Everett & Jones sometime in 2015, did you
have any interaction with Desley Brooks?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you have any discussions with her during
that period of time?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Going back for a moment to the Waterfront
Hotel incident. Do you recall there being any name
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
70
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
calling that evening? Someone calling you or the
individual who pushed you, did you call him out of his
name or did he call you out of your name?
A. No, I don’t recall anything like that.
Q. Did you ever call him a little bitch?
A. Oh, no, I did not.
Q. And if anyone says that they heard you that
evening calling him a little bitch, they wouldn’t be
telling the truth; is that correct?
10 MR. BONNER: I’ll object to that as
argumentative. It lacks foundation what that person’s
motivation may have been for making such a statement.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. You can answer the question.
15 MR. BONNER: If you want to answer the
question, go right ahead.
17
THE WITNESS: Would you mind repeating it.
18
MR. McGEE: Would you read it back, please.
19
(Whereupon, the record was read.)
20
THE WITNESS: That’s correct, as far as I
can recall. I don’t — yeah, correct.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. During the occasion when you had the
interface with the California Highway Patrol officers,
would it be fair to characterize that event as you
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
71
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
getting stuck in the mud, your car getting stuck in the
mud?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. During the occasion in which the
Highway Patrol came when your car was stuck in the mud
on Radio Road near the Bay Bridge, was there any name
calling that evening? Did the Highway Patrol, for
example, ever call you out of your name?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever call them any of the Highway
Patrol officers out of their names?
A. No.
Q. Did you call them white assholes who only
wanted to harass you because you were, quote, an old
black woman?
A. No.
Q. Did you undergo a blood alcohol test that
evening?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what the results were?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember whether you were .13, your
blood alcohol level was .13 that evening?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Okay. Were you taken to Santa Rita that
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
72
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
night?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. Overnight.
Q. Have you ever been to Luka’s Taproom?
A. Yes.
Q. When’s the last time you’ve been to Luka’s
Taproom?
A. Maybe six months ago.
Q. Did you ever get into an altercation with a
customer at Luka’s Taproom?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe the circumstances that led
to that altercation?
A. I was a representative for Kaiser workers
with SEIU United Healthcare Workers, and we had just
finished a big campaign against a opposing group, and
apparently one of the opposing group people — we had
won the campaign as it were, and one of the opposing
group people approached the table I was sitting at with
another person and asked me what it felt like to be a
scab. And I just couldn’t believe it.
23 And so the young man I was with we were
about to leave and I said, I can’t believe this woman
is saying this. And I was waiting for my credit card
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
73
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
to be brought back to me because I had paid my portion.
He paid in cash. And I turned around and my friend had
poured a glass of water over this woman’s head, but the
manager seemed to think I had poured the glass of water
over her head, but I had not. And so then we left, and
when I went back they said that I could not return
because I had poured a glass of water over this woman’s
head.
Q. Have you been back since?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you resolve — strike that.
12 Who was it that said you couldn’t return?
A. It was — no, that — it was later when I
went back one time and they said, You poured this water
over this woman’s head so you cannot come in, we
don’t — you’re not welcome here.
Q. Did you resolve that issue with someone at
Luka’s Taproom whether —
A. I left.
Q. — or not — whether or not you could come
back?
A. I simply left.
Q. Okay. Have you returned since you were
advised that —
A. Yes. Yes, that was about —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
74
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. BONNER: Take a breath. Let him finish
the question.
3
THE WITNESS: Okay.
4
MR. BONNER: Because she can’t — she can
only take down one at a time.
6
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. Excuse me.
7
MR. BONNER: Okay.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. I’m trying to get the sequence of events.
This incident takes place in which one of your friends
or colleagues pours water on another patron, correct?
A. Patron who had come to our table to —
Q. As you’ve described —
A. Right.
Q. — someone who had called you a scab.
16 You return to Luka’s Taproom on — at some
point after that incident took place, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you returned someone at Luka’s
Taproom said essentially you’re no longer welcome
because of this water pouring incident, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you resolve that issue with someone from
Luka’s Taproom so that you could again return to their
facility?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
75
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No, I just walked away.
Q. Have you since returned to Luka’s Taproom?
A. Yes.
Q. And did anyone say anything to you about
returning after that when you’d been told that you were
no longer welcome?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone that you believe
that Desley Brooks has a certain attitude about you
because you are, quote, more famous than she is, close
quote?
A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Did you make that statement to one of the
police officers who interviewed you regarding the
incident which brings us here today?
16 MR. BONNER: She just indicated she didn’t
recall it.
18 MR. McGEE: I’m trying to help her recall
it.
20 MR. BONNER: Well, does that refresh your
recollection?
22
THE WITNESS: No.
23
MR. BONNER: Okay.
24
THE WITNESS: I’m trying to seriously think.
Just give me a minute, if you don’t mind. I can’t
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
76
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
recall anything like that.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Do you know who Officer Hardy is?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Officer Hardy one of the officers that
interviewed you?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did you tell Officer Hardy,
quote, We don’t agree on a lot of things and we don’t
get along but I think — I contend if I were to just
make a personal assessment that she has a certain
attitude about me because I’m more famous than she is
just to put it bluntly?
14 MR. BONNER: And the question is does she
remember making that statement?
16
MR. McGEE: That’s correct.
17
THE WITNESS: You’ve refreshed my memory. I
might have made that statement. I said I didn’t recall
making the statement.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Do you believe that Desley Brooks has a
certain attitude about you because, quote, you’re more
famous than she is?
A. I don’t think that’s a complete statement
that I would make.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
77
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Did I leave something out of that statement
which would make it correct?
A. As to what I think now?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, you did.
Q. What did I leave out?
A. I think that Ms. Brooks does have an
attitude toward me because we have tremendous political
differences, in my opinion, and that she doesn’t agree
with me on a lot of things.
Q. How long have you felt that way?
A. Since I returned and saw her on City
Council.
Q. As you testified to regarding the City
Council meeting sometime in 2011?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
18 Let’s go off the record. I think this would
probably be a good time for a lunch break.
20
MR. BONNER: Sure.
21
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. This concludes
video number one of the deposition of Elaine Brown.
Going off the record. The time on the monitor is 12:11
p.m.
25
(Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken from
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
78
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
12:11 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins video number
two of the deposition of Elaine Brown. Coming back on
the record. The time on the monitor is 1:30. Please
begin.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Ms. Brown, did you review any documents to
prepare for your deposition today?
A. I did, yes.
Q. Pardon me?
A. Yes.
Q. What — what did you look at?
A. The complaint, the responses that we
received, some photographs. Yeah.
Q. Anything else?
A. Well, could be, but I just can’t remember
everything. If you told me did I see this, I might say
yes. I haven’t remembered it. I’m sorry.
Q. Fair enough.
20 MR. BONNER: And you mentioned a photograph.
I do want to supplement our disclosure with photographs
that she just made reference to, so you will have a
copy of that. Unfortunately, I only have one set, so
you and Dan will share this set of photographs.
25 The record will reflect that I’m giving
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
79
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Mr. McGee what should be 12 photographs of Everett &
Jones, and they’re numbered on the back 1 through 12, I
believe. And there’s another document that I’d like to
supplement our disclosures from the document production
request, and that is this document. I suppose we can
mark those as maybe Plaintiff’s 1 through 12 so we’ll
have a record of them. And this document is a receipt
from Everett & Jones. We’ll mark that as Plaintiff’s
13 to this deposition, and there’s — and the last
document, which will be Plaintiff’s 14, which is the
front page of the note — of notice of funding
application, which will be Exhibit 14. We can have
those marked and you can make a copy for Mr. Siegel.
14 (Whereupon, Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 through
14 were marked for identification.)
16 MR. McGEE: All right. Let me — thanks
very much for producing these and for the explanation.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Let me ask a few questions about them. The
first group of these are photographs — colored
photographs which appear to be of the interior and
exterior of Everett & Jones; is that correct?
A. You’re asking me? I’m sorry.
Q. Yes. I’m going to ask you about the —
A. Okay. You want me to —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
80
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. — photographs if you don’t mind. Take a
look at those. They were just produced by Mr. Bonner.
A. Okay.
Q. Have you ever seen those before?
A. I’ve seen these photographs, yes.
Q. If you need to go through them as I’m asking
the questions, feel free to do so. But do you know who
took those photos?
9
MR. BONNER: I took those photographs.
10
MR. McGEE: Okay.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. And do these photos, Ms. Brown — why don’t
you tell me what they depict.
A. This first photograph shows the main es —
pardon me, the main entrance of Everett & Jones
restaurant on Broadway.
Q. And would you — would you just look at the
backs of those photos and confirm that they are
numbered —
A. Yes.
Q. — 1 through 12?
A. Yes, they’re numbered 1 through 12.
Q. I’m going to ask you questions about those
in due course and in doing so I will refer to them
specifically, but the numbers that are on the backs.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
81
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Okay.
Q. Why don’t I take those back from you for the
time being.
4 And I’m going to show you the next group of
photos, and these appear to be copies of photographs
and they are lettered on the back A through F. A, as
in Adam, through F, as in Frank. And would you see if
you know what these show?
A. I don’t see B. That says F. This says E.
This says C. Oh, here’s B. I was looking for B.
Okay. Sorry to take so long. Okay. I see them.
Q. And do you know what those photographs
depict?
A. I do.
Q. What — what are they?
A. These were photographs that I took of my
body the day after the assault.
Q. Okay. And these are photographs that you
took with, what, a cell phone or camera or what?
A. Yes, with a cell phone camera.
Q. Okay. And you took each of those pictures
yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. I may ask you about those as
well. Can I get them —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
82
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. BONNER: And they can be marked as
Plaintiff’s — what did you say —
3
MR. McGEE: A through F.
4
MR. BONNER: A through F. Okay.
5
(Whereupon, Plaintiff’s Exhibits A through F
were marked for identification.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. I’m next going to show you a document that
Mr. Bonner produced, which is entitled on the first
page “Housing Development Financing Application
Checklist” and ask if you’ve ever seen this before?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it?
A. It’s a copy of the date and time stamped
application that Oakland and the World Enterprises
submitted to the City of Oakland Housing Department for
funding under a notice of funding availability.
Q. Is this the — the first page of the NOFA
that was filed on October 30th, 2015?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And, finally, I’m going to show you a
document which appears to be a copy of receipts, two
different receipts, but it makes reference to something
having to do with NOFA on the first page, and ask if
you know what this is?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
83
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I do know.
Q. And what — what does this show?
A. It’s two receipts, copy of two receipts for
— two receipts.
Q. Two receipts for what?
A. One was to a restaurant called the Jolly
Rogers, and I wrote this because I wanted to — you
know, when we file our tax returns these are things
that we file for Oakland and The World, so this was a
lunch that I paid for out of Oakland and The World
money.
Q. And why is that being produced?
A. It just happens to be on the same page, but
it does show that I was at the — this was the people
that I had — that we were buying lunch for while we
were preparing the NOFA that day.
Q. Okay. So there are two receipts on that
page —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. — what’s the other one?
A. The other one is a the receipt for Everett &
Jones for that evening at Everett & Jones that I paid
for my dinner.
Q. Okay. Thank you very much. I’ll have
copies of those made, then we can use them accordingly.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
84
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 And are the documents that we’ve just gone
over that Mr. Bonner produced for us copies of some of
the materials that you reviewed in preparation for your
deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You referred in your testimony before
we took the lunch break to a women’s group. I think
you said it was formed by Pam Price that met on at
least one occasion at Everett & Jones. Do you recall
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that group meet more than once, to your
knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attend more than one meeting at
Everett & Jones that was called by that particular
group before October 30th, 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else attended those meetings?
A. Well, the only people I remember are Pamela
Price. It was — and Dorothy King was there, and I
cannot tell you — I can think of some of the other
people and suddenly I’ve drawn a blank on some of their
names. Peggy Moore attended one of them. I can’t
remember. There might — I honestly don’t remember all
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
85
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
the names because I really didn’t know all of them.
Pamela Price was inviting people there and most of them
I met in that gathering.
Q. Approximately how many individuals would
attend these meetings?
A. Between, say, 15 and 20.
Q. Were these all women?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was Desley Brooks one of the
individuals who attended these meetings?
A. I only recall her being at that one meeting.
Q. And the one meeting that you recall was when
there was discussion about the train station in West
Oakland?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And other — and you — it’s
your recollection that she did not attend the others or
you just don’t have any recollection one way or the
other?
A. I don’t recall her being at any other
meetings, but I — that may be wrong.
Q. Okay. Did your daughter attend any of these
meetings?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall a discussion that you had with
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
86
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Ms. Brooks at one of these meetings during which the
name of your daughter came up in the discussion?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Do you recall having a disagreement
regarding something that your daughter had said and
Ms. Brooks kind of sided or took the same position as
your daughter?
A. I have no recollection of anything like
that.
Q. You don’t recall one way or the other
whether it took place?
A. I don’t recall that it ever took place.
Q. Do you recall having an argument with
Ms. Brooks regarding Ms. Brooks having taken the side
of your daughter during the course of one of these
meetings?
A. Not at all.
Q. Pardon me?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. Did Dorothy King’s daughter attend
any of these meetings?
A. Yes, now that you mention it.
Q. Do you recall a discussion taking place
between you and Ms. Brooks about Ms. Brooks taking the
same side as Dorothy King’s daughter?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
87
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I remember there was a discussion with
Dorothy King’s daughter, her youngest daughter, and
some back and forth, but I — I really don’t have a
clear memory of it.
Q. Uh-huh. Would it be fair to say that —
A. Sorry.
Q. — you and Ms. Brooks were not really
friends at that time?
A. Not ever.
Q. And you never have been friends?
A. No.
Q. Have you been cordial to each other?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you offered to do favors for Ms. Brooks
on any occasion?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Has she ever offered to do you a favor on
any occasion?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. All right. Was there a time — and I’m
focusing on the period between 2011 when there was some
dialogue between you and Ms. Brooks at a City Council
meeting regarding Occupy Oakland and the October 30th,
2015 incident that brings us here today. Was there an
occasion during that time span that you were undergoing
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
88
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
evaluation or some other medical analysis regarding
whether or not you had cancer?
3
MR. BONNER: Objection.
4
Don’t answer that.
5
That invades the privacy regarding her
medical condition. That is way off —
7 MR. McGEE: Well, let me ask it a different
way.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Was there an occasion during that time frame
that you had any analysis taking place regarding any
doctor for any condition?
13 MR. BONNER: Objection. Unless it’s
regarding some conditions pertaining to the injuries
that she sustained in this lawsuit, it’s irrelevant.
16 MR. McGEE: Well, I can assure you that it
is directly relevant to a question that she just
answered.
19 MR. BONNER: No. I can assure you that you
won’t be able to assure me anything in that regard.
No, this is medical privacy, HIPAA, Fourth Amendment.
She has all the privacy rights —
23
MR. McGEE: Let me ask it another way.
24
MR. BONNER: Okay. Good.
25
MR. McGEE: Let me ask it another way, which
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
89
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
goes directly to relevance.
2 MR. BONNER: Okay.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Did Ms. Brooks ever offer to give you rides
to and from your doctor’s office during that time
frame?
7 MR. BONNER: And that’s between 2011 and
October 2015?
9
MR. McGEE: That’s correct.
10
THE WITNESS: I spoke with her about Alice
Spearman, who was a mutual friend, and I may have
talked to her about my own condition because it was
occurring at that same time period.
14 MR. BONNER: No. But the question is did
she ever offer to give you —
16
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall.
17
MR. BONNER: — a ride? Okay. Then that’s
your answer.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. You don’t recall one way or the other
whether you had a discussion regarding Ms. Brooks
offering to give you a ride to your doctor’s office?
A. I do not recall.
Q. You’re not denying that that took place, are
you?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
90
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. BONNER: Objection. That’s
argumentative. She just told you she didn’t recall.
3 Don’t answer that. That’s argumentative.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. *** Between the same time frame, 2011 and
2015, October 30th, 2015, were you ever diagnosed with
arthritis?
8 MR. BONNER: Don’t answer that. Objection.
That’s private medical information. It’s — it’s
private under HIPAA, private under the Fourth
Amendment, private under all the laws of the United
States going back to the Magna Carta. She’s not going
to answer that.
14 MR. McGEE: So you’re not going to allow her
to answer questions regarding her prior medical
condition, which may have a direct bearing on the
damages she’s claiming in this action?
18 MR. BONNER: Well, that’s a different
question. If — if you want to ask her about the
injuries that she sustained in this incident and
whether she had any prior injuries to that same part of
her body, then that certainly is permissible.
23 MR. McGEE: Okay. I think I’m entitled to
ask the question that I believe is most probative, and
I can assure you it’s directly related to whether or
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
91
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
not she had any prior medical condition.
2 MR. BONNER: And I understand we have a
disagreement, so let’s move on.
4 MR. McGEE: So you’re not going to allow her
to answer that question?
6 MR. BONNER: I’m not going to allow her to
answer that question.
8 MR. McGEE: Okay. Would you mark that one,
please.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. At — there was a time during your
involvement with the Black Panther Party that one of
the individuals you reported to was Geronimo Pratt; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you get along with Mr. Pratt?
A. I —
18 MR. BONNER: Do you understand the question?
Okay.
20
THE WITNESS: How did I get along?
21
MR. BONNER: Yeah. Okay.
22
THE WITNESS: Fine.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Do you recall ever having had any
disagreements with Mr. Pratt regarding your role with
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
92
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
the Black Panther Party?
A. Are you speaking of the same time period
because you’re — you’re asking me a question about
when I reported to him.
Q. Well, how about during — at any point
during your — during the time that you were active
with the Black Panther Party did you have any
disagreements with him that you recall?
A. The party had disagreements, and I was part
of the Black Panther Party.
Q. The party had disagreements regarding what?
A. His — his role in opposition to the Black
Panther Party.
Q. One of your claimed damages in this action
is that you have suffered some form of emotional
distress; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to October 2015 did you suffer a
mental breakdown, nervous breakdown?
A. No.
Q. You never suffered a nervous breakdown?
A. No. I mean, if that is a clinical term I’m
not sure what that term is, but based on the generic
meaning I would say no.
Q. You’ve never used that term personally to
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
93
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
say, quote, I, meaning you, have had a nervous
breakdown?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ms. Brown, I’m going to show you a book
entitled “A Taste of Power” and ask if you’ve ever seen
that before.
A. Well, as you know, I wrote that book.
Q. That is your —
A. Yes.
Q. — book?
11 Did you have any assistance in writing that
book?
A. No.
Q. Would you turn to page 210 and between
page — pages 211 and 213 there are a series of
photographs, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And going to the — I need to get the book
back because the pages aren’t numbered.
20 MR. BONNER: Okay.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. 12 pages after number 211 there are a series
of photos, and if you’d read to yourself the captions
below those photos and let me know when you have
because I’m going to ask you questions about some of
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
94
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
the wording of those photo captions. Actually, let me
ask you to do this: Since you got the first one right
in front of you, can you just read the first caption on
that page.
A. Are you speaking the top left?
Q. Yes, top left.
A. “Returning with Huey from my second trip to
China. I was named the party’s new minister of
information replacing Eldridge Cleaver.”
Q. Are those your words?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is the “I” that’s being referred to
there?
A. Myself, Elaine Brown.
Q. Would you read the caption on the lower left
page?
A. “Early former” — “formal school for Panther
children soon developed into the well-regarded Oakland
Community School. Among the students pictured here are
Ericka Brown, bottom row, far right; Geronimo Clark,
left of Ericka Brown, the son of Joan Kelley and
Nathaniel Clark; John and Ericka Huggins’ daughter Mai,
same row, far left; Al and Norma Armour’s son, Al Jr.,
second row, far right; Gwen Fontaine’s daughter,
Jessica, second row, second from right, and son,
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
95
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Ronnie, third row, second from left.”
Q. All right. It doesn’t refer to “I” in that
one. Can you refer to the caption for the upper
right-hand photo.
A. “I found it difficult to be a real mother to
Ericka Brown, whose love for me remained constant
nevertheless.”
Q. Those are your words, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And who is the “I” that’s being referred to?
A. Elaine Brown, me.
Q. All right. The lower right-hand photo,
would you read that one please?
A. “Stealing time together just before Huey
would go into exile. Here with Gwen Fontaine, second
from right, and Darron Perkins, far left, an unsung
hero whose sharp witticisms always reduced me to a
helpless state of laughter.”
Q. Who is the “me” that’s being referred to
there?
A. I don’t see the word “me.”
22
MR. BONNER: Right here.
23
THE WITNESS: Oh. Me, Elaine Brown. Sorry.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. And you wrote that.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
96
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Would you turn to the next page,
please. Read the caption on the left-hand page.
A. “After Bobby Seale’s expulsion from the
party and Huey’s designation of me as chairman in 1974,
I ran for Oakland political office alone.”
Q. And the “I” that’s being referred to is you,
Elaine Brown, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Those are your words?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Would you turn to the next page,
please. The page — just turn the page.
A. Oh, turn the page?
Q. Yeah.
A. Not the opposite side?
Q. There you go. And would you read the
upper — the caption on the upper left.
A. “Huey and I spent the days alone together
during my one visit with him in Cuba in 1975, though he
lived in exile with Gwen Fontaine. It was there I
learned to appreciate that Gwen was not so much his
woman as she was my sister.”
Q. That’s your writing, your words?
A. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
97
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. And the “I” that’s being referred to is you,
Elaine Brown, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you read the lower left-hand caption?
A. “Only months after Huey returned from three
years of exile in Cuba, I suffered a nervous breakdown
and was forced to reexamine my commitment to him and
his party.”
Q. Those are your words, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is the “I” that’s being referred to as
having had a nervous breakdown, is that you, Elaine
Brown?
A. Yes.
15 MR. BONNER: And I’ll move to strike any
reference to nervous breakdown as part of her medical
history that is irrelevant, if and indeed it was a
clinical nervous breakdown as opposed to a colloquial
reference to a state of mind that she had at the time.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Let me direct your attention to October
30th, 2000 — 2015. Was there a filing of a NOFA by
you and your colleagues on that date? Did — did the
application or request for funding pursuant to the
NOFA, was that filed that day?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
98
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. It was filed on behalf of Oakland and The
World Enterprises.
Q. What is a NOFA, N-O-F-A?
A. It’s acronym for Notice of Funding
Availability.
Q. What does that mean?
A. It means that some agency, in this case of
the City, has said that it has a certain amount of
funds for a particular purpose that one can apply for
and see if you can be qualified to be funded for a
project that you may have.
Q. And how did you learn of the availability of
these funds?
A. Our project manager, who was our interim
co-developer, Ali Kashani, K-a-s-h-a-n-i.
Q. So did Mr. Kashani advise you that he had
learned about this — these NOFA funds possibly being
available?
A. It was public knowledge and he reminded us.
Q. And you and a team of individuals at your
organization submitted an application for that funding,
correct?
A. Our organization submitted the application.
Q. And it was timely submitted at 4:00 p.m. on
the date that it was due, correct?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
99
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. What is the status of that application?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Have you heard anything from the individuals
to whom that application was submitted since October
30th of 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. What have you heard?
A. The Housing Department staff advised us that
the Housing Department did not have the immediate
funding for the entire NOFA. Other people had applied
for money.
Q. Other people had applied for the same funds
or from funds from the same pot that you had submitted
application to as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you advised that because there were
other individuals who had submitted applications for
the same funds that your fund — your application
wasn’t being processed or what? What — what
happened — what was the impact of other organizations
having applied for the same fund?
23 MR. BONNER: Well, assuming facts that
hasn’t been established and you have about three
questions there. I understand what you’re trying to
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
100
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
get to. Why don’t you rephrase it. It assumes there
was some kind of impact, and that’s a fact that hasn’t
been established yet.
4 MR. McGEE: Fair enough.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Who — who did you first talk to at —
strike that.
8 What was the organization to whom you
submitted the application?
A. The Department of Housing of the City of
Oakland.
Q. And did someone from your organization
contact that organization, that agency, to find out the
status of the application?
A. I’m sure we — we did, yes, someone did.
Q. Did you contact them?
A. I don’t — no. Pardon me. I was contacted.
Q. Someone from the Office of Housing contacted
you?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. Who was that that contacted you?
A. Norma Thompson.
Q. Pardon me?
A. Norma Thompson.
Q. Do you remember when it was that Norma
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
101
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Thompson contacted you?
A. With respect to the funds being available?
Q. After you submitted the application or after
someone submitted the application on your behalf on
October 30th of 2015, you were contacted by Norma
Thompson, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When did Norma Thompson contact you first?
A. It might have been a month or so later.
Q. A month or so later?
A. After October 30th of 2015.
Q. So sometime towards the end of November or
early December of 2015?
A. As late as maybe the early part of 2016.
I’m really sorry.
Q. How did Ms. Thompson call — contact you?
A. She at one point called me.
Q. Is that the manner by which she first
contacted you?
A. I’m sure she called me.
Q. What did she tell you when she called you?
A. She said that the seven-million-dollar NOFA
that the Department did not have the funds but it would
go to the City Council and make a recommendation that
all — that when the funding became available these
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
102
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
would be the projects that would be funded so that they
wouldn’t have to keep coming back and forth and that if
we fulfilled certain other — crossed a few T’s we
would probably at least get into the pipeline for that
money when — and assuming when it would become
available.
Q. So to paraphrase that, Ms. Thompson told you
that the NOFA would not be funded to the full
seven-million-dollar limit?
A. No.
Q. That’s not what she told you?
A. No.
Q. I thought I understood you to say that she
contacted you telling you, one, that the NOFA would not
be funded to the full extent of the seven million but
that they would go to see about getting additional
funds and that your organization might receive some
part of that if you dotted a few I’s and crossed a few
T’s.
20 MR. BONNER: I’m — I’m going to object.
That misstates her testimony. Why don’t you re-ask her
what did she — what did Ms. Thompson tell her so we
can have a clear record as to what she said.
24 MR. McGEE: Okay. Would you read back,
please, the answer that Ms. Brown gave to my prior
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
103
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
question, not the most immediate one but the one before
that.
3
MR. BONNER: Fair enough.
4
MR. McGEE: Pertaining to her discussion
with Ms. Thompson.
6
MR. BONNER: Yeah.
7
(Whereupon, the record was read.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Did you understand by that discussion with
Ms. Thompson that the project that your organization
submitted would be funded to some extent when the
Office of Housing received the funding it would need?
A. No.
Q. What did you understand?
A. That we would be in the pipeline.
Q. What did you understand being in the
pipeline to mean?
A. Now that the NOFA was timely submitted we
were among those seven or so applicants for the total
of seven million. Some people asked for three million.
Some people asked for four. I don’t know. We asked
for 2.1 million. And that we would be in the pipeline,
meaning we would be among those considered for
recommendation, once they got the money assuming we
dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s and assuming
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
104
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
that the City Council would accept this group
recommendation so they would not have to return for
each individual application as the money came in.
Q. Ms. Thompson did not give you any assurance
regarding the amount that your organization would be
considered for once it was placed in the pipeline; is
that correct?
A. That was not the issue. Yes, she did not
give me any assurance.
Q. Did she tell you what the I’s were that
needed to be dotted and the T’s were that needed to be
crossed?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they?
A. It involved the question of our CEQA
approval. CEQA is C-E-Q-A.
Q. Were you satisfied at the time you have this
discussion with Ms. Thompson that no one had taken
steps — between the time that your application for
this funding was submitted and the time you had this
phone call with Ms. Thompson, no one had taken steps to
interfere with your organization’s ability to be
considered for these funds?
A. No. I had no way of having any idea about
it, so the answer is no.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
105
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. To your knowledge, as of the time you had
this discussion with Ms. Thompson had Desley Brooks
done anything to interfere with your organization’s
ability to be considered for this funding?
A. I would have no idea about that.
Q. You don’t have any reason to believe that
she did during that time frame, do you?
A. I just answered it as clearly as I can. I
would have no idea.
Q. Okay. So at some point after the
application for the NOFA is filed — I guess it was by
Lynn — Lynn Turner, correct?
A. It was delivered by Lynn Turner.
Q. And so at some point after it was delivered
for filing by Lynn Turner, you talked to him and
arranged to celebrate the filing at Everett & Jones,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you at that time, at the time you
had the discussion with Mr. Turner regarding
celebrating at Everett & Jones?
A. At his company office.
Q. All right. And did you leave his company
office and go directly to Everett & Jones?
A. At what point? I’m sorry.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
106
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. After you spoke to him and said —
A. No, not right away.
Q. — let’s go cel —
4 Okay. How — what did you do in between
that discussion and going to Everett & Jones?
A. I made copies — we made copies of the NOFA.
Q. Did you do anything else?
A. No.
Q. So how long after your discussion with
Mr. Turner regarding the filing did you actually go to
the Everett & Jones location?
A. I like to just add that I did call Ali
Kashani and tell him that we had timely filed. We had
gotten the bid on time.
Q. And after talking to Mr. Kashani did you go
to Everett & Jones?
A. Yes.
Q. About what time did you get there?
A. It could have been 5:30.
Q. And once you arrived at Everett & Jones —
you — you drove to that location, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And once you got there did you find a
parking place?
A. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
107
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Where did you park?
A. Directly in front of one of the doors on
Broadway.
Q. Were you by yourself at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. You drove from Mr. Turner’s offices to
Everett & Jones by yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. And once you drove — once you arrived at
that location, who’s the first person that you recall
seeing?
A. Lynn Turner.
Q. Was he inside or outside?
A. Inside.
Q. Where was he inside the — Everett & Jones?
A. Sitting at a table in the bar area, front
bar.
Q. Pardon me?
A. The front bar. Excuse me.
20
MR. McGEE: Selia, can I get the photos?
21
MS. WARREN: Yes.
22
MR. McGEE: I’m going to ask that the court
reporter mark as a group exhibit the 12 photo — well,
this is not only the 12. Yeah, the 12 photographs that
you produced a short while ago.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
108
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the
record.)
3
MR. BONNER: Go off the record.
4
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record.
The time on the monitor is 2:12 p.m.
6 (Whereupon, Defendant’s Exhibit A was marked
for identification.)
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Coming back on the
record. The time on the monitor is 2:14. Please
begin.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Ms. Brown, showing you group Exhibit A-1
through 12, do any of those photographs depict where it
was generally that you parked on the — when you
arrived at Everett & Jones on October 30th, 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. The first one does, does it not? Does
that —
A. This —
Q. Does that show the vantage point from where
you parked looking at Everett & Jones?
A. It’s one of the two doors I was in front of.
I’m really —
Q. Fair —
A. I want to say it was the door to the right.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
109
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Okay.
2 MR. BONNER: And which photograph are you
referring to?
4
THE WITNESS: Well, they’re not numbered.
5
MR. BONNER: Yeah, let’s number them.
6
THE WITNESS: They’re not numbered, so I
don’t know. I’m assuming we’re looking at the same.
8 MR. BONNER: They’re numbered on the back.
It’s just very faint.
10
THE WITNESS: Oh, I see.
11
MR. BONNER. This is one, and this is two.
12
THE WITNESS: All right. I see. Fine.
Excuse me. I didn’t see it.
14 MR. BONNER: Yeah.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Let me direct your attention to photograph
A2, the second one —
A. Okay. Thank you.
Q. — shows two doors, correct?
A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. And is it fair to say that you were parked
near one of those two doors?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Which one do you recall being
parked closest to, the one on the left or —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
110
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. The one on the right.
Q. The one on the right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And let me ask you to go through
those photographs until you get to the ones that show
the inside of Everett & Jones, and I think the first of
those is number five.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, does photograph A-5 —
A. Excuse me.
Q. — show where it was that you saw Mr.
Turner when you came into the — the restaurant?
A. It shows the location but not the tables.
Q. The specific table that he was sitting at —
A. I mean the type of tables.
Q. Okay. Can you continue looking through
those photographs and see if the type of table that
Mr. Turner was sitting at is reflected in here?
A. I looked at these, and I haven’t — it
doesn’t appear to be that table.
Q. That table doesn’t appear to be shown —
A. No.
Q. — in the photograph?
24 So in any event, you saw Mr. Turner when you
came into Everett & Jones?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
111
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he sitting with anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. He as was sitting with Dorothy King and
Desley Brooks.
Q. Okay. And as you walked in the door and
looked at this table where he was sitting, was he
sitting to the left, directly in front of you or to the
right?
A. He was sitting directly in front of me.
Q. Okay. And did that mean that Ms. King was
sitting to his left or his right and Ms. Brooks was
sitting to the opposite left or right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Was Ms. King on Mr. Turner’s
left or his right?
A. On his left.
Q. Okay. As he was sitting down —
A. Yes.
Q. — Ms. King was sitting to his left?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And where was Ms. Brooks sitting?
A. To his right.
Q. And was there an empty chair at that table?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
112
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No.
Q. So when you came in was it necessary for
someone to get another chair so you would have a place
to sit?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And who got the chair?
A. I can’t recall.
Q. All right. But someone got a chair and you
sat down?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I said to Lynn, “I can’t believe you did
it.”
Q. Was there any other discussion between any
of you other than telling Lynn “I can’t believe that
you did it”?
A. He produced a copy of the — a folded piece
of paper and said, “Here it is.”
Q. All right. Back up — let’s back up a
little bit.
21 Were there any greetings made when you first
came in? Did anyone say, Hi, how you doing to you or
vice versa?
A. Probably something perfunctory that I don’t
really recall.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
113
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. All right. And was that perfunctory
greetings was that between all of you or just between
Mr. Turner and you, Ms. King and you? Who —
A. It —
Q. — did — it was between who?
A. It was among everyone. Among everyone with
me.
Q. So Ms. Brooks said hello to you as well?
A. I imagine she did.
Q. And did you say hello to her?
A. I’m sure I did.
Q. Okay. What do you next recall about this
discussion?
A. After Lynn presented the paper to me —
Q. Yes.
A. — I look — I unfolded it. It was
unfolded in four parts, and I unfolded it and looked at
that date stamp of 4 o’clock and said “I just can’t
believe it” again.
Q. What was the next discussion that you
recall?
A. Ms. Brooks asked, “Is that that NOFA.”
Q. So after you and Mr. Turner have an exchange
during which he gives you a copy of the — showing that
the document had been filed, you tell him that “I can’t
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
114
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
believe it”?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And the next thing you recall anyone
saying after that is Ms. Brooks saying, “Is that that
NOFA”?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Had you and Mr. Turner discussed this
document, this filing being a, quote, NOFA up to that
point at this — at the table?
A. No.
Q. You hadn’t?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any idea how Ms. Brooks would
have known that it was the NOFA that you were
discussing?
A. Perhaps they had discussed it before I got
there.
Q. What’s — what’s the next thing you recall
being said?
A. Well, both Lynn and I said, “Yes, it’s the
NOFA.”
Q. Who said anything after that? What was the
next person to say something?
A. Ms. Brooks.
Q. What did she say?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
115
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. “That NOFA should have never gone out. It’s
not good for black people.”
Q. Did she explain what she meant by it?
A. Not at that moment.
Q. Did you know what she meant by that comment?
A. I did not.
Q. What was the next thing said at the table?
A. I responded that — I asked her, “What are
you talking about that it’s not good for black people?”
Q. What did she say in response?
A. She said that we needed to own our own homes
and we needed to find funding to get people back into
foreclosed homes and we didn’t need these kinds of
affordable housing rental properties for our people.
Q. What was her tone of voice when she said
that?
A. I would characterize it as sarcastic.
Q. Was she yelling?
A. No.
Q. Was she name calling?
A. No.
Q. What did — what was the next thing said?
A. I said there was no conflict between renting
a place to live and owning a place and that she knew
that our project was deep in the black community and so
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
116
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
there couldn’t be any issue about what served black
people’s interests, adding that I didn’t think that she
was qualified to talk what was in the interest of black
people.
5 MR. McGEE: Could you read back the last
response, please.
7 (Whereupon, the record was read.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. At the time you had that exchange with
Ms. Brooks were you yelling?
A. No.
Q. Were you name calling?
A. No.
Q. What was the next verbal exchange?
A. She said that she should have never let that
NOFA go out and that she was going to look into having
it withdrawn.
Q. Did she raise her voice when she said that?
A. No.
Q. Pardon me?
A. No.
Q. Did she call you out of your name when she
had that exchange?
A. No.
Q. What was the next verbal exchange?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
117
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I looked at Lynn and said, “Are you
listening to this?”
Q. Did Lynn respond?
A. He smiled.
Q. He smiled?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you remember him saying anything?
A. No.
Q. And when you asked Lynn if he was listening
to this, were you yelling?
A. No.
Q. And were you calling anyone out of their
name?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What was the next verbal exchange?
A. I remember Ms. Brooks saying, “As a matter
of fact on Monday I’m going to find out how to withdraw
this NOFA.”
Q. Was she yelling when she said that?
A. No.
Q. Did she call you out of your name during
that exchange?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What was the next verbal exchange?
A. I recall saying — responding, “Are you out
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
118
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
of your mind?”
Q. When you said that, did you yell it?
A. I was intense. Yelling, I don’t — wouldn’t
characterize myself as yelling. I would just say that
I was pretty serious and pretty upset.
Q. But you don’t recall yelling at Ms. Brooks
at the time you said that?
A. No.
Q. And did you call her out of her name —
A. No.
Q. — when you said that?
A. Sorry.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. What was the next verbal exchange?
A. I turned away from Ms. Brooks because I felt
that there was nothing else to talk about and asked
Dorothy King about the book that she had contacted me
about writing about her life story.
Q. So you engaged in a discussion with Ms. King
at that point to discuss a book that Ms. King was
writing?
A. She wanted to have written for her about
her, an autobiography she wanted to have help writing.
Q. And in doing so, in turning away from
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
119
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Ms. Brooks and directing your question is Ms. King, did
you cut off the discussion, dialogue with Ms. Brooks at
that point?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you have any further discussion
with Ms. Brooks?
A. No.
Q. So from the time that you turned away from
her — let me withdraw that question.
10 You had — you made a comment “Are you out
of your mind” during which you were pretty intense —
you were intense and pretty upset, at that point you
turned away from Ms. Brooks and engaged in a discussion
with Ms. King, correct?
A. That’s my recollection. Yes.
Q. Did you have any further discussion that day
with Ms. Brooks?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. What was the next dialogue
between you and Ms. Brooks after you turned away from
her at the table?
A. The next dialogue was walking down the
hallway discussing — with a heat — in a heated
discussion.
Q. A heated discussion with Ms. Brooks?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
120
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. That’s correct.
Q. When did the dialogue start again between
you and Ms. Brooks after you turned away from her at
the table?
A. After I returned to Everett & Jones having
left it.
Q. I’m missing a few steps. After you turned
away from Ms. Brooks and started a discussion with
Ms. King about the book she wanted assistance writing,
did you leave the restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. When does that take place?
A. Are you asking me what time?
Q. Well, how — I realize you may not have been
looking at your watch. But how much time had elapsed
from the time that you last had an exchange with
Ms. Brooks before you leave the restaurant?
A. 15 or 20 minutes.
Q. Okay. So you’re having a discussion with
Ms. King and others at the same table for 15 or 20
minutes before you leave?
A. And I’m eating.
Q. Pardon me?
A. And I’m eating.
Q. All right. But you’re not having a
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
121
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
discussion with Ms. Brooks?
A. That is correct.
Q. And she’s not having a discussion with you?
A. No.
Q. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. What did you have to eat?
A. Two chicken thighs and some collared greens.
Q. Did you have anything to drink?
A. I did.
Q. What did you have?
A. A shot of vodka on ice and water.
Q. What kind of vodka?
A. Grey Goose.
Q. Grey Goose water back?
A. No, over ice.
Q. Okay. So you’re involved in a dialogue with
Dorothy King for 15 or 20 minutes while you’re eating
your — eating your meal, drinking your drink before
you leave; is that correct?
A. And Lynn. In other words —
Q. But not with Dorothy — not with Desley
Brooks, correct?
A. No.
Q. I’m sorry. The way I asked the question may
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
122
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
not have gotten the answer that I intended.
2 Were you having a discussion with Desley
Brooks during this same time?
A. No.
Q. All right. She’s not saying anything to
you, you’re not saying anything to her?
A. She said she intended to go on Monday and
look into withdrawing —
Q. But that —
A. — the NOFA.
Q. That was the last thing she said before you
turned to Ms. King, correct?
A. Yes, but it was repeated.
Q. Even after you turned to Ms. King?
A. I can’t recall that sequence exactly, but I
know that it was said more than once.
Q. All right. In any event, you finish your
meal?
A. Most of it.
Q. Finish your drink?
A. Most of it.
Q. And you got up and left?
A. Yeah, I paid my bill at the bar.
Q. Okay. And you went out to your car?
A. Yes, I did.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
123
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. But you went back into the — to the
restaurant?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And how did you decide to go back in?
A. As I was about to get into my car Shelli
Garza, who is a — an employee of Turner Group
Construction, Lynn Turner’s company, who had been
helping us put together the binder for the NOFA and who
had made all the copies that I had waited to get
earlier, came up to the front of — to where I was
about to get into my car.
Q. And did you talk to her for a while?
A. Yes. She was there for the same purpose I
had originally gone there, which was to celebrate with
Lynn our little victory.
Q. And did you have a discussion with Shelli
before you went back inside?
A. Yes. I told her —
Q. What —
A. Yes.
Q. What — what did you talk about?
A. I told her that I was leaving because I
could not stand to sit another minute with Desley
Brooks and I wanted her to know that Desley was there,
even though I know that Lynn had sent her a text to
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
124
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
forewarn her that Desley Brooks was in the — sitting
with us.
Q. And why do you say that you knew Lynn had
sent a text to warn Shelli Garza?
A. Because he did because we had previously
discussed at some point, not maybe that day, that
Ms. Garza had worked for Ms. Brooks and there had been
an acrimonious separation.
Q. And how did you know that Lynn Turner had
sent Shelli Garza a text to that effect?
A. He sent me a text telling me that while
sitting at the table.
Q. Okay. Did he send you a copy of the text
that he had sent to Shelli Garza?
A. No.
Q. He sent you a separate one?
A. Yes.
Q. And in his separate text to you did he say,
I sent Shelli a text to warn her that Desley is here?
A. I don’t think he was that explicit. He
said, I let Shelli know who was here, words to that
effect.
Q. Okay. In any event, did you talk with
Ms. Garza about your reluctance to go back inside?
A. No. I talked to her about leaving.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
125
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Okay. And what did she say in response?
A. She said, Why don’t you just come back in
and you and Lynn and I will sit together and have a
drink together.
Q. And did you do so?
A. Yes. I went back in.
Q. And when you went back in were Lynn Turner,
Dorothy King and Desley Brooks still sitting at the
same place?
A. No.
Q. And what was different when you went back
in?
A. When Ms. Garza and I entered the rest —
entered that same bar area, Ms. Brooks was sitting at
that same table alone.
Q. And did you and Shelli Garza find a seat?
A. No, we walked toward the back.
Q. Okay. You didn’t go back to the same table
where Desley Brooks was sitting by herself, right?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You walked towards the back. And can
you see on any of the photographs anything that shows
the path that you and Shelli Garza took to walk towards
the back?
A. I can.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
126
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Yeah. Which — which photograph are you
referring to?
A. Number 6, A-6.
Q. Okay A-6 is the one that shows the walkway
with the Budweiser sign above it?
A. Yes, it shows it. Yes.
Q. That’s the one — that’s the photograph that
you’re referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. This shows the path that you walked. Does
it show any of the tables at which anyone in your group
was sitting?
13
MR. BONNER: Go ahead.
14
THE WITNESS: As I indicated, the tables are
different, one. And, two, this was — the door would
have been at our back, so I didn’t mean that we were
walking down that pathway. I meant we were walking
from the door to that pathway.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. And that pathway would be the hallway that
has the word “Budweiser” above the door?
A. No.
Q. You were —
A. We were walking toward that pathway.
Q. In that — in that direction?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
127
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. In that direction, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And did you have any discussion —
did you — in that pathway that you — that you
traversed, did you walk past the table where Desley
Brooks was sitting?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any discussion with Shelli
Garza as you passed that table?
A. I did.
Q. Do you remember what you said walking past
it?
A. I very well remember that I said, “I’m glad
Dorothy has opened up the back because we won’t have to
put up with any of this bullshit.”
Q. What did you mean by that comment?
A. I meant that Shelli and I, and myself in
particular, would no longer have to be at a table where
Desley Brooks was sitting making all of these
threatening comments about our project.
Q. Okay. And did you make that comment
specifically to be heard only by Shelli Garza?
A. No.
Q. Did you make that comment — did you utter
those words in such a manner that they could be heard
by Desley Brooks?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
128
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make those comments in a manner that
they were intended to be overheard by Desley Brooks?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Why?
A. Because I was very angry and I wanted her to
know that I felt that what she was saying was just that
worthless and enraging, but I did not want to engage
her in any conversation about it anymore.
Q. What happens after that, after you walk past
her and say, I’m glad that Dorothy opened up the back
so we don’t have to put up with any more bullshit from
Desley?
14
MR. BONNER: No, that misstates —
15
THE WITNESS: Yeah, it —
16
MR. BONNER: It misstates the testimony. I
know you didn’t intend to in trying to paraphrase it.
18 MR. McGEE: You’re right, so let me rephrase
it.
20 MR. BONNER: Yes.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Was the, quote, unquote, bullshit that you
were referring to the dialogue that you had engaged in
with Desley Brooks?
A. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
129
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. And when you said you didn’t — wouldn’t
have to put up with any more bullshit, you were
referring to any more dialogue from Desley Brooks,
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. So what happens next after that?
A. Ms. Brooks got out of the — it was a high
chair. She got down from the chair and said, “The only
bullshit in here is you.”
Q. Did you respond?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your response?
A. I just said something to the effect of,
Please, you need to stop, words to this effect and
kept — kept it moving.
Q. Going back to the comment that you say
Desley Brooks made that, quote, The only bullshit in
here is you, close quote, was she yelling at you?
A. She was not speaking softly. I wouldn’t
call it — I mean, yelling is, you know — I don’t know
how to characterize yelling.
Q. Did she raise the volume of her voice over
what volume it had been when you’d had the earlier
discussions with her that day?
A. I’m sure.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
130
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. When you made — when you responded, quote,
Please, you need to stop, were you yelling?
A. At about the same level.
Q. The same level as her voice had been when
she said, “The only bullshit in here is you”?
A. I would say so, yes.
Q. All right. What — who says what after
that?
A. We’re walking down the hall. She’s right on
my heels, and I said, you know, For all the things that
you’ve done, for you to say anything about the black
community, you are an INS prosecutor, you have
supported a police state in Oakland and on the down-low
you’re supporting the transport of coal through West
Oakland, you have nothing to say to me about black
people or anything else.
17 MR. McGEE: Would you read back the last
response, please.
19 (Whereupon, the record was read.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. During this discussion walking down the
hall, did you raise your voice?
A. I would say I wasn’t speaking in a whisper.
I was speaking over my shoulder to her because she was
right behind me.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
131
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Did you call Ms. Brooks out of her name
during the time you were walking down the hall?
A. I didn’t curse — say — call her a curse
word, if that’s what you’re saying.
Q. Did you call her a bitch —
A. Oh —
Q. — while walking down the hall?
A. — no. I’m sorry. No. Excuse me.
Q. Did you at any time on October 30th, 2015
call Ms. Brooks a boot-licking, black ass, prosecuting
bitch?
A. No.
Q. Have you read the statements of the
individuals who were interviewed by the Oakland Police
Department because they were witnesses to this
incident?
A. I’ve read — I’ve read the summaries and
I’ve seen the videos.
Q. Did you see in the videos — or I should say
did you hear in the videos the statement of any of the
witnesses who recalled you calling Ms. Brooks, quote, a
boot-licking, black ass, prosecuting bitch?
A. I think there was a transcription that
Ms. Garza said that, but I don’t recall seeing that on
the video in those exact words.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
132
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. So you do recall seeing a transcript of
Ms. Garza’s statement in which she said that she heard
you call Ms. Brooks a boot-licking, black ass,
prosecuting bitch?
A. It was not a transcript. It was a summary.
Q. Okay. And you saw that in the summary?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see in the summary of Ms. Garza’s
statement where she said that you made that statement
calling Ms. Brooks a boot-licking, black ass,
prosecuting bitch more than once?
A. No, I didn’t see that.
Q. Did you ever call her that?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. What else — you — you said that
you’re walking down the hall, you do tell Ms. Brooks
that you understand she was an INS prosecutor?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said something to the effect of on
the down-low you’ve learned that she supports coal in
West Oakland or something to that effect?
A. I didn’t say that I learned it on the
down-low.
Q. Well, how did you — how did you learn that?
A. I — I watched her behavior in the City
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
133
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Council meetings during the coal transport. I watched
her hostility toward the people who were against the
transport of the coal and her support of people some of
whom were from her district who were supporting the
transport of coal, and other people in the community of
people who were opposing the transport of coal have —
they have stated that she was supporting Phil Tagami’s
effort to transport coal through West Oakland and other
places.
Q. This dialogue that you had with Ms. Brooks
where you told her that you are aware that she was an
INS prosecutor, was that while the two of — that’s
while you’re walking towards the back area, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. Can you tell me what the order
of procession is going to the back, by that I mean were
you following Dorothy King to the back?
A. I was right behind or — Dorothy was just
ahead of me because she was — yes.
Q. And so immediately behind Dorothy King is
you?
A. Not immediately but —
Q. Well —
A. — within a distance.
Q. The next person in line, if you will, after
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
134
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
you — after Dorothy King was you?
A. This is correct.
Q. And the next person after you was Desley
Brooks, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And in the rear of this procession is Shelli
Garza, right?
A. I have no idea where Shelli Garza was.
Q. Okay. But do you know that Desley Brooks is
behind you?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And as you were walking down the hall did
you have your back to Desley — Desley Brooks?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that you made the comment to her
about having heard she was an INS prosecutor, are you
still walking with your back to Desley Brooks?
A. Yes.
Q. At any point did you turn and face Desley
Brooks?
A. Yes.
Q. When — how does that come about?
A. When we reached the opening to the next room
where I was intending to see Lynn where he usually sat
with his family and friends, we both stopped. Dorothy
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
135
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
stopped to tell us that she was upset with both of us
because we were disturbing her customers, and so
everybody just stopped at that entrance to the main —
next room.
Q. Do you know why Dorothy said that you were
disturbing her customers?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because she felt that we were yelling and
she didn’t — this is how she put it, and that her
customers were getting upset.
Q. Were — was anybody in your procession
yelling?
A. Not in my opinion because the place was
noisy anyway, and I don’t think it was yelling. I just
think she didn’t want to see this kind of argument in
her club.
Q. Did Dorothy King tell you that you were
yelling?
A. No. She didn’t say, You’re — you’re
yelling, Elaine. She said, “Stop it.”
Q. And what did you understand her to mean by
that?
A. Stop all this bickering and arguing.
Q. Okay. Now, looking again at the photograph
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
136
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
that’s shown in Exhibit A-6, is the entrance to the
back room shown on that photo?
A. Yes.
Q. It’s the — it’s the darkened area that is
at the end of the hallway that has the doorway with the
name “Budweiser” over it, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. So was it in front of that door
at the end of the hallway that you turned around?
A. No, once we got into the room.
Q. Once you got into the room at the very back?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was there further dialogue between
you and Desley Brooks at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the further dialogue?
A. She said to me, You’re all talk. I’m sick
of your bullshit, you’re only — all you are is talk,
you’re not going to do nothing, and plus you’re old. I
haven’t moved on you or touched you because you’re old.
Bam, she hits me in the chest.
22 MR. McGEE: Would you read that back,
please.
24 (Whereupon, the record was read.)
BY MR. McGEE:
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
137
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Now, at the time this happened, the time you
have this discussion leading up to her hitting you in
the chest, you’re facing her, correct?
A. We’re facing each other.
Q. Facing each other. She was walking behind
you when you had your back turned to her but —
A. That is correct.
Q. But when you get to the entrance to or right
inside the room in back you turn to face her?
A. She and I turned to face each other.
Dorothy was screaming at us, and it was a moment where
Dorothy was trying to put a halt to everything now that
we had a space in which to sort of stop walking down
this narrow corridor.
Q. All right. I’m only focusing now on which
way you and Ms. Brooks were facing. When you were
walking down the hall you have your back to Ms. Brooks,
correct?
A. She’s walking behind me. That’s correct.
Q. You’re facing the open door and she is as
well, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. When you get through the door you turn and
face Ms. Brooks, correct?
A. No. I just stopped at the other — in the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
138
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
open part.
Q. Did you ever face her?
A. Yes, because she came around and faced me.
She came from behind me and —
Q. So —
A. — and stepped into that same space and
faced me.
Q. And what happens after she faces you, she
walks around you and faces you?
A. Yeah.
11 MR. BONNER: You mean what happened other
than what she just testified happened?
13 MR. McGEE: Yes.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. What next — as you walked into the room in
the back, Ms. Brooks walks around you and faces you?
A. And puts her purse on the floor.
Q. What hand was her purse in?
A. I don’t know. Could have been her left hand
because she had — I think they had Dorothy’s glass of
wine in her right hand because she doesn’t drink and
Dorothy always drinks a glass of red wine.
Q. So Ms. Brooks may have been carrying Dorothy
King’s glass of wine —
A. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
139
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. — in one hand and she had her purse in the
other?
A. That’s my general — that’s my recollection,
yes.
Q. And whatever hand she was carrying the purse
in she sets the purse down?
A. On the floor.
Q. On the floor. And is — what happens next?
Is that when she hits you in the chest?
A. No. Then she says all the things that I
just recounted and then she hits me in the chest.
Q. All right. And what does she hit you with?
A. Her fist.
Q. With the same fist that she had — was
carrying her purse in?
A. No. Her purse was in her hand. It wasn’t
necessarily in her fist. She put the glass of wine —
there was a table right there and I remember that.
Q. So which hand was the glass of wine in?
A. I’m not sure, sir. It could have been right
hand with the wine and left hand had the purse, but
both things were put down.
Q. All right. But you don’t remember what hand
she had which in?
A. No.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
140
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. So she puts the glass of wine down and the
purse?
A. Yes. She puts her purse on the floor, the
wine on the table.
Q. And then she hits you where?
A. In the chest.
Q. Where in the chest? Can you demonstrate on
yourself where she hit you?
A. Right here (indicating).
Q. Okay. With both hands? One hand? How —
A. Both hands.
Q. With both hands. Were fists balled up?
A. Yes.
Q. So she punches you in the chest?
A. She pummels me, punches me, strikes me.
Q. Well —
A. However you want to characterize it, I’m
giving you the gesture that I remember.
Q. Okay. I really don’t want to characterize
it at all. I really want your recollection of what
happened.
22 MR. BONNER: Why don’t you demonstrate it
for him.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Please.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
141
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. On whom, you?
2 MR. BONNER: No, just to the jury what she
did to you.
4 THE WITNESS: (Witness indicating.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. And when she extended her arms like you just
showed, she hit you in the chest?
A. Yes. Well, she moved toward me to do that
because we weren’t eye to eye or nose to nose at the
moment.
Q. And —
A. So she stepped forward, had to step forward.
I was against something and I didn’t have anywhere to
go, and she punches me in the chest.
Q. All right. Did she hit you more than once?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So she hit you and what happens?
A. I was knocked over some chairs and table or
something, chairs and table.
Q. All right. And where were those chairs and
tables?
A. They were right along that entrance way,
apparently on the inside of the big room.
Q. So as you walked inside — and by big room
you mean the one in the back?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
142
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. The middle room. There are actually two
rooms behind the main restaurant.
Q. So the — past this doorway that’s shown on
Exhibit A-6 —
A. Uh-huh.
Q. — there’s a door in the back?
A. Yes.
Q. This is the entrance to the middle room?
A. A very big cavernous room, yes.
Q. All right. And the chairs that you
described were on the inside of this room that’s —
that you’re looking at going through this door?
A. Yes.
Q. And they’re on the wall or —
A. I can’t tell you because I didn’t see them
in the first place.
Q. Okay. And what happens after that?
A. I’m entangled in these chairs. I hit my
head very hard. I could not get out of those —
whatever I was entangled in, I could not get out of it.
And eventually is my recollection — I don’t know if I
blanked out for a minute or what, but I was down there
and I just remember seeing her hovering over me and —
and looking like she was ready for a fight for the next
blow. And Lynn Turner and Maurice Stevenson — I DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
143
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
always thought it was Maurice but Lynn said he helped
to pull me up too, but two people helped me up as far
as I know.
4
MR. BONNER: Should we —
5
MR. McGEE: I apologize. We’ve been going
for —
7
MR. BONNER: For an hour and a half. Yeah.
8
MR. McGEE: — little over an hour.
9
MR. BONNER: Okay. Let’s take a break.
10
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes video
number two of the deposition of Elaine Brown. Going
off the record. The time on the monitor is 3:03 p.m.
13
(Whereupon, a break was taken.)
14
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins video number
three of the deposition of Elaine Brown. Coming back
on the record. The time on the monitor is 3:14.
Please begin.
18 MR. McGEE: Would you read back the last
question and response, please.
20 (Whereupon, the record was read.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Who were the two people that helped you up?
A. As I said, Lynn Turner and Maurice
Stevenson.
Q. Did Desley Brooks help you up?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
144
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No.
Q. You’re sure of that?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. You said that — you testified that
you saw her hovering over you. What did you mean by
that?
A. She was standing there looking down at me
and people were gathering near her and she was looking
like, Get up, let’s fight. That was my impression.
Q. When you saw her hovering over you, did she
have her fist balled up?
A. I — I don’t — no, I think she — she was
just — she was — yes, she was standing there.
Q. Did you see her standing over you with her
arms extended to help you up?
A. Oh, absolutely not.
Q. All right. What happens next?
A. I asked — I — when I get up, I asked
Dorothy to call the police.
Q. Did she?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. And you said that because you didn’t —
A. The police didn’t show up.
Q. You didn’t see the police show up. Okay.
What did you do next after you were helped up?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
145
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I asked about someone to call the police and
at this point the security guard came over and told me
I had to leave.
Q. The security guard came over and did what?
A. And — and sort of stood in front of me
because people were holding Desley back — Ms. Brooks,
excuse me, and he came and said, It’s time for you to
leave.
Q. Time for you to leave —
A. Yes.
Q. — referring to Elaine Brown?
A. Directly. Very directly.
Q. Okay. You said you saw someone holding
Ms. Brooks back?
A. I saw several people around her.
Q. Who?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Why do you say they were holding her back?
A. That was my impression.
Q. All right. Did you see them physically
holding her?
A. They were blocking her from getting near me.
Q. You saw Dorothy Brooks — Desley Brooks
being blocked from you, but the security guard came to
you and said that you had to leave, correct?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
146
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you do at that point?
A. I was very upset. I said, “You’re asking me
to leave?” I asked about the police, and then I gave
up.
6 MR. BONNER: So the question was what did
you do is what he’s asking.
8 THE WITNESS: I left.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Did you go directly to your car at that
point?
A. I went — yes, I went back toward my car.
Yes.
Q. Okay. Anyone go with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Maurice and I believe Shelli — and Shelli
Garza.
Q. And once you got to your car, what did you
do?
A. I stood and talked to Maurice and Shelli.
Q. What did you talk about?
A. I was upset. They were trying to comfort
me, Maurice was, and I didn’t feel that I was — I was
really afraid and angry and hurt and a bunch of stuff,
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
147
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
and so I was out there talking to them about my
feelings and they were trying to be comforting.
Q. Did you do anything other than talk to
Shelli and Maurice once you got to your car?
A. Yes.
Q. What else did you do?
A. I looked for a pipe that had been given to
me by Dwayne Wiggins.
Q. Where did you look for the pipe that had
been given to you by Dwayne Wiggins?
A. In my trunk.
Q. Who’s Dwayne Wiggins?
A. He’s a well-known local, rather well-known
musician. Used to be a leader of a group called Tony!
Toni! Tone!
Q. Do you know why he gave you that pipe?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. He said, Here, you need something to take
care of yourself. We were somewhere in West Oakland,
and he said, you know, this is something to defend
yourself with.
Q. When did Dwayne Wiggins give you the pipe to
defend yourself with?
A. Six months before that.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
148
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Do you remember the — what the
circumstances were leading to Dwayne Wiggins giving you
the pipe to defend yourself with?
A. Yes.
Q. What?
A. We were — he has people that take care of
his musical discs, CDs on, Wood Street in West Oakland
and we were there. Dwayne is a member of my advisory
board for Oakland and The World Enterprises, and we
were there and we were talking. And he said, You’re —
you shouldn’t be rolling around here so much by
yourself. And so he had this pipe that was there that
this woman had made apparently. It was just a — that
kind of conversation. There was no specific issue that
led up to his handing me that. And I took it.
Q. Okay. And you — when you took it — took
the pipe from Dwayne Wiggins, you put it in your trunk?
A. Well, I had another car at the time, so I
put it somewhere but I probably put it in the trunk,
yes.
Q. So you said that once you left the inside of
Everett & Jones with Mo and Shelli you went out to your
car and one of the things you did was look for the
pipe?
25
MR. BONNER: No, that — that misstates the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
149
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
testimony. Your summary — I think her testimony is
very clear what it is. If you want it read back, we
can have it read back. Your summary is not an accurate
description of her testimony.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. What was your purpose in looking for the
pipe?
A. I was afraid.
Q. You were afraid of what?
A. Afraid of Ms. Brooks coming outside.
Q. Did she follow you outside from where you
were in the back room of Everett & Jones?
A. No.
Q. And did you tell either Shelli or Mo that
you were going back inside with this pipe?
A. No.
Q. Did you put the pipe down?
A. No. I held it.
Q. Did one of them tell you to put the pipe
back in your trunk and leave it there?
A. Both of them told me.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I got in my car and left.
Q. And did you at some point report this
incident to the Oakland Police Department?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
150
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. Couple of weeks later.
Q. And why did you wait two weeks to report it?
A. I didn’t know how I wanted to resolve this.
This was a well-known person here in Oakland, meaning
Ms. Brooks. I have certain notoriety here, or fame,
whatever you want to call it. I didn’t think it would
be good. I was thinking that if she would have
apologized, we might have talked about it. She has my
cell number. So I was debating what I should do, if
anything, until I started having more and more pain in
my shoulder, and I was getting more and more frustrated
and depressed over the — the news reports and the
gossip that was in the street, and I felt that I had a
right to do something. I attempted to file a civil
claim with the City, with your office, and I was told I
could not file that claim until I had filed a police
report. And that is the reason and the only reason I
went and filed a police report.
Q. You said that Desley Brooks had your cell
number?
A. Yes.
Q. How did she get it?
A. Presumably I gave it to her.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
151
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. When did you give it to her?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Do you know why you gave it to her?
A. No, I really don’t. It could have been
during the time I mentioned about Alice Spearman, who
died, who was our mutual friend. It could have been
during that period.
Q. Now, after this incident at Everett & Jones
on October 30th, 2015, did you seek medical treatment?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first seek medical treatment?
A. The next day, October 31.
Q. Where?
A. At Kaiser Oakland.
Q. And what were your physical complaints at
that time?
A. My head had a big bump on it about the size
of a boiled egg and it was hurting, and I had bruises.
My shoulders were hurting, both of them, especially my
right shoulder. I had a bruise on my legs and my back
hurt. I was just generally miserable. And so people
said to me, my friends said, You need to go and get it
checked out.
24 MR. McGEE: I’m going to ask the court
reporter to mark as a group exhibit the copies of the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
152
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
photographs that you provided which are — this is
going to be group Exhibit B, dash, A through F.
3 (Whereupon, Defendant’s Exhibit B was marked
for identification.)
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. And I’m going to ask you if you would,
Ms. Brown, to take a look at that group exhibit and
point out if it’s in there any photographs of the
injury that you sustained to your head as a result of
this incident?
A. No, it’s not in there.
Q. You didn’t take a picture?
A. I couldn’t take a picture of the back of my
head, plus my hair was there.
Q. Okay. Did you ask anyone if they would take
a picture of the bruise that you had on the back of
your head?
A. No.
19 MR. McGEE: Okay. Would you mark this next
in order marked for identification C.
21
MR. BONNER: Thank you.
22
MR. McGEE: This is Exhibit C.
23
(Whereupon, Defendant’s Exhibit C was marked
for identification.)
BY MR. McGEE:
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
153
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Ms. Brooks, you’ve been — I’m sorry.
2 Ms. Brown, you’ve been handed a document
that’s been marked Exhibit C. It’s entitled “Claim
Against City of Oakland,” and I’d ask that you take a
look at it and confirm that the statements at the very
back were signed by you?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this — first directing your
attention to the first page. Does your signature
appear on this page?
A. Yes.
Q. And is all the information on the form
itself in your handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it all true?
A. Yes.
Q. The third page of this exhibit is something
called a “Citizen’s Crime Report.” And did you
complete this form on or about November 16, 2015?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Is the information on this page in your
handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it all true?
A. Well, a little bit of the left is missing,
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
154
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
but I’m assuming it’s true. It’s what I wrote.
Q. This appears to be — that part of it that
you can read appears to be something you wrote,
correct?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And would you turn to the last page, and
I’ve got the same questions. Did you sign this — this
page on or about November 16th, 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it all in your handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it all true?
A. Yes.
14
MR. McGEE: Okay. Next in order.
15
(Whereupon, Defendant’s Exhibit D was marked
for identification.)
17 THE WITNESS: Do these go back to her? He’s
just showing them to me?
19 MR. BONNER: He’s going to ask you
questions. She gets to keep them.
21
THE WITNESS: I got it.
22
MR. BONNER: They get attached to the depo.
23
THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Ms. Brown, you’ve been handed a document
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
155
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
entitled “Complaint for Damages.” It’s been marked as
Exhibit D to the deposition.
3 Have you seen this document before?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember when it was that you first
reviewed it?
A. I think right after it was filed. I don’t
know when that was. Months ago.
Q. Pardon me?
A. I’m sorry. I believe after it was filed
months ago.
Q. Okay. At the time you reviewed it did you
notice anything in it that was inconsistent with your
recollection of the events?
A. No.
Q. Let me direct your attention to paragraph 26
on page six of the complaint. And I’d ask that you —
A. Excuse me.
Q. — read that paragraph to yourself and let
me know when you have, please.
A. Oh, I’m sorry. I’m looking at line 26.
Q. No, page —
A. No, I got it.
Q. Page six, paragraph 26.
A. Paragraph 26, not line. I’m sorry. Excuse
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
156
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
me.
2 MR. BONNER: You can let him know when you
finish reading it.
4 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. I finished reading
it. I’m sorry.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Ms. Brown, reading this paragraph do you
agree with the statement where it says that Defendant
Brooks, in a hostile, confrontational manner, demanded
from you, Say it again, say it again, close quote?
A. Yes.
Q. What was she referring to when she said “Say
it again, say it again”?
A. Say — passing her by talking about
bullshit.
Q. And what do you mean — or strike that.
17 Do you agree that the manner in which
Ms. Brooks made that — that statement was hostile and
confrontational?
A. No doubt about it.
Q. In what way was it hostile and
confrontational?
A. It had a street tone to it, what we would
call a street tone. And I can only say this is how one
interprets things, and that’s how I interpreted it.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
157
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. I’d like to direct your attention to
paragraph number 29 and would you read — just read the
first sentence of that paragraph and let me know when
you have.
A. I have.
Q. Was Ms. Brooks yelling at you during any of
your discussions at Everett & Jones?
A. This is one of those where it’s, again,
yelling. Yes, if someone is being confrontational, it
doesn’t mean they’re necessarily yelling at the top of
their lungs. So we would have to talk about what does
yelling mean. But, yes, she yelled from my
perspective.
Q. Would you read to yourself paragraph number
27 and let me know when you have.
A. I’ve read it.
Q. And is that paragraph accurate?
A. Well, it’s accurate to the degree that it
says I turned and she had moved around so I could face
her, but it doesn’t indicate that she had moved into
that other position.
Q. So let me read the sentence that you’re
referring to where it says, quote, Apprehensive about
the escalation, Ms. Brown turned to face her at the
entrance to the second bar area, period, close quote.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
158
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Is that sentence accurate?
2 MR. BONNER: It’s asked and answered. She
just explained it.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Let me ask this specific question. Does
that sentence refresh your recollection that at the
entrance to the second bar area you turned to face
Desley Brooks?
9 MR. BONNER: I’m going to object. There’s
no foundation that she lacked any recollection. She
told you exactly what she recalled.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. You can answer the question.
14
MR. BONNER: You can answer.
15
THE WITNESS: As I say, the — the missing
piece is simply that by this time she was inside the
same doorway that I was on the other — we were both on
the other side of that doorway by then. In other
words — and I want to be very clear because I
understand that — that you’re — it’s not clear what
I’m saying. She was no longer walking behind me. She
had turned and was now — Dorothy was here to my left
and Desley — Ms. Brooks had turned and was facing and
I turned to face her.
BY MR. McGEE:
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
159
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. So did you — when you contacted the doctors
at Kaiser did they — did you tell them what parts of
your body were bothering you?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell them?
A. What I recall is I told them that my head
hurt, my shoulders, my thighs, my buttocks, my back. I
was in general body pain.
Q. Did they examine you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what parts of your body did they
examine?
A. They looked at my head especially. I don’t
recall. They took an X-ray of my chest area, I
believe, or back. But the medical records will reflect
what they did. I can’t recall everything. I was
pretty emotionally distraught, so I can’t recall every
single thing that happened at that moment, but I can
assure you that they did some tests or some examination
because the focus was on my head. At the time everyone
thought that I might have had a concussion.
Q. And let me assure you, Ms. Brown, I only am
asking about your recollection of what they examined,
what you talked about.
A. Okay.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
160
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. If you don’t recall, that’s — that’s fine.
2 Did they examine your shoulders?
A. I think they looked at the bruises, as I
recall.
Q. Did you have a bruise on your shoulder?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one?
A. I had a bruise on both shoulders, as I
recall.
Q. And is it your recollection that you injured
both of your shoulders on October 30th, 2015?
A. My recollection is that I was — I fell and
I hit a lot of places on my body. So I wouldn’t say I
injured this or that. I say I — I was — I fell and I
hit almost every single place on my body.
Q. Did you hit both of your shoulders?
A. I’m pretty sure I did.
Q. Okay. Did you — and what treatment, if
any, did the doctors at Kaiser prescribe for you?
A. At that first ER encounter they gave me some
pain medication, some — a sling to wear my arm — my
arm in — put my arm in and didn’t seem to do much else
that I can recall.
Q. Did they tell you why they were giving you
the sling?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
161
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Keep pressure off my arm.
Q. Off of your arm?
A. Yeah.
Q. Or off of your shoulders?
A. Well, I’m not a doctor, so in my mind it was
something to hold up my arm.
Q. What — what was hurting at that time, the
time they gave you the sling?
A. As I’ve said, just about everything on my
body.
Q. Were your shoulders, both of them, bothering
you?
A. I don’t know that they were bothering me in
the manner in which you’re trying to elicit from me. I
was in pain. I couldn’t really describe all of that
pain.
Q. What I’m trying to find is when they gave
you a sling were they giving you a sling because of
your complaint of pain in one shoulder or the other or
both of them?
A. They were giving me a sling because of my
complaint of pain.
Q. Your complaint of pain where?
A. In my shoulder.
Q. Which one?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
162
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Probably the right shoulder.
Q. You’re not — you don’t recall whether it
was the right or the left?
A. Not at that moment, I do not.
Q. What did you do next in terms of medical
treatment?
A. I think it was only a couple of days later
that I went back to the ER because I was having more
pain in my shoulder now.
Q. Still in the right shoulder?
A. Now very focused in the right shoulder.
Q. Okay. And when is this that you start
focusing or your — you’ve identified clearly that it’s
your right shoulder that’s bothering you?
A. Several days later.
Q. Several days from what?
A. After the 31st of October when I went to the
ER the first time.
Q. All right. And what happens then? What do
the doctors tell you then?
A. I think they gave me some more pain
medication and said I should see an orthopedist.
Q. An orthopedist at Kaiser?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you in fact see an orthopedist at
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
163
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Kaiser?
A. I did.
Q. Who?
A. Dr. Gon, G-o-n.
Q. And what did Dr. Gon do regarding your
condition?
A. He had a doctor who was an intern that was
with him give me a cortizone shot in my shoulder, my
right shoulder.
Q. Can you identify where it was in your right
shoulder that you got this cortizone shot?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you point it out?
A. At the top of my shoulder right about here
(indicating).
Q. And it was right at the point that you just
indicated that you actually received the injection?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay. And did that help?
A. It only made matters worse.
Q. In — in what way?
A. I was still in pain.
Q. What — what further treatment did or
diagnosis did the doctors do at that point?
A. Well, I went back to Dr. Gon and said the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
164
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
cortizone shot is not helping, and he gave me a second
cortizone shot but he gave it himself because he
thought perhaps the young intern had put it in the
wrong space.
Q. And was the shot that Dr. Gon gave you in
the same location that you just identified?
A. No, somewhere in that area.
Q. Can you —
A. In other words, you’d have to look at the
record to see whether it was in the two inches from the
whatever. I — in other words, they were in a matter
of inches of each other —
Q. It was generally in the same location?
A. — at the top of the shoulder. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you said this was a couple days
after the first one?
A. Maybe not a couple of days, but not — I
called him a couple of days later. It could have been
a week after.
Q. And did the second injection help?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What happens after that?
A. He ordered an MRI.
Q. Okay. And do you remember when that was
that he ordered the MRI? Was it sometime around
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
165
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
December of 2015?
A. Could have been December or January.
Q. All right. And did you undergo the MRI?
A. Not the first one.
Q. Why?
A. I became very claustrophobic in the MRI
machine, and I asked to — I asked them to stop.
Q. Where was it that you were undergoing — or
went to undergo the MRI?
A. In Kaiser Oakland.
Q. Okay. On Broadway, Broadway and —
A. Yes.
Q. — 40th or so?
A. Yes. There’s two there, but I can’t
remember.
Q. So you didn’t undergo it the first time
because you were claustrophobic. Did you ultimately
undergo the MRI?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember when that was?
A. Maybe two weeks later. I don’t know.
Q. And were you advised what the results of the
MRI showed?
A. Yes.
Q. What?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
166
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. That I had a torn rotator cuff and that the
tendon was severed in that shoulder.
Q. Had you prior to October 30th, 2015
experienced any pain in your right shoulder?
A. No.
Q. And what, if anything, did the Kaiser
doctors prescribe for you after you received the
results of the MRI?
A. That the best treatment for me at this point
was surgery.
Q. Did they tell you why you needed surgery?
A. Yes, to prepare the tendon that was sev —
severed and in that the only way that I would have any
— if I allowed it to continue that I might not ever be
able to use the arm again.
Q. Did any doctor tell you how it was that you
sustained this injury to your right shoulder?
A. Tell me?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did any — did any doctor ever tell you that
you likely incurred this injury as a result of
something that had happened on October 30th?
A. Did they tell me that?
Q. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
167
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No, that — not that I know of. I’m
confused by the question quite frankly.
Q. Well, let me ask it in a fashion that may
clear up the confusion.
5 Did you tell any doctor that you injured
your shoulder in October of 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of the incident that took place
at the Everett & Jones on October 30th, 2015?
A. I did.
Q. All right. My question is whether any
doctor told you that he or she agreed with your
assessment that you sustained this injury on that date?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Which doctors told you that?
A. Probably Dr. Hatch, the surgeon. There was
another doctor who attempted to say that you couldn’t
say what it was, but he — this is before the MRI, and
so he didn’t think there was a rotator cuff tear at
all. And it wasn’t until the MRI was — the results
were made known that his diagnosis or his thought or
his theory was dismissed because he didn’t think I had
a rotator cuff tear or anything else.
Q. Which doctor was that?
A. I can’t remember his name. It was someone
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
168
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
in between Gon and Hatch. Oh, wait a minute if you —
well, if you were to tell me I would remember. I would
agree if I — if you repeated his name.
Q. Was that Dr. Aptaker?
A. Yes.
Q. A-p-t-a-k-e-r?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s who told you that?
A. But he ultimately ordered the MRI.
Q. Okay. So you underwent surgery to repair
your shoulder when?
A. Oh, did you ask me when?
Q. Yes.
A. I’m sorry. March 30, 2016.
Q. And did that resolve the problems of the
pain, first of all, that you were experiencing?
A. We can say that I have some use of my arm,
but I am always having some pain from that shoulder.
Q. In addition to the work that you do for your
own organization, have you been employed by anyone else
in the last five years?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else have you been employed by?
A. In the last five years?
Q. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
169
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I — let me see, what is this, 2017? So up
until 2013, that gives us one year, I was employed by
the labor union SEIU United Healthcare Workers as a
union rep — representative.
Q. I’m sorry. What was your position at SEIU?
A. I was union — I represented the union
members at Kaiser facilities.
Q. And when did you stop working for SEIU?
A. In May of 2013.
Q. And have you worked since then for anyone
else?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you go to work for after the SEIU?
A. I’m employed — I went to — I took up
employment with Alameda County Supervisor, Keith
Carson.
Q. When did you begin working for Keith Carson?
A. Around September of 2013.
Q. What do you do for him?
A. I’m a member of his staff, and my main focus
is the project that I started talking to him about in
the first place, which is why he asked me to join his
staff, which is dealing with reentry of formerly-
incarcerated people.
Q. Do you still work for Supervisor Carson?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
170
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. Do you do anything other than work related
to the reentry of incarcerated individuals for
Supervisor Carson?
A. Yes.
Q. What else do you do?
A. Well, I’ve been asked to — and I have put
up certain forums, youth forums, regarding questions of
self-determination in West Oakland. I have
participated — I write — he’s asked me now to
overlook the agenda of the Black Elected Officials
Organization that he oversees at this time, and so
basically I’m sort of a community person in the office.
Q. Okay. Have you spoken to Supervisor Carson
about the incident that took place on October 30th,
2015?
A. Yes.
Q. What have the two of you discussed in that
regard?
A. Not very much because he’s not very happy
about publicity of any kind, and so he just said, you
know, he’s sorry to hear what happened. And that’s
about his opinion about it, but we have — we don’t
talk about it.
25
MR. McGEE: Let’s take a short break and let
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
171
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
me look over my notes —
2
MR. BONNER: Okay.
3
MR. McGEE: — and see if I have anything
else.
5 MR. BONNER: Dan, are you going to have
questions?
7
MR. SIEGEL: Not sure.
8
MR. BONNER: Okay.
9
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Going off the
record. The time on the monitor is 3:57 p.m.
11
(Whereupon, a break was taken.)
12
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Coming back on the
record. The time on the monitor is 4:06. Please
begin.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Ms. Brown, you began working for Keith
Carson in September 2013?
A. September or October perhaps.
Q. Okay. And what is your relationship with
Supervisor Carson regarding your hours? Are you — you
work a 40-hour week, some abbreviated schedule or what?
A. I work at a 40-hour week, but not on regular
hours, 9:00 to 5:00, for example.
Q. Okay. Do you receive benefits for
working — working for Supervisor Carson?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
172
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I have a salary, yes.
Q. Do you also receive holidays — so many
holidays per year?
A. Yes.
Q. So much sick leave per year?
A. Yes.
Q. And other usual benefits of county
employees?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. How has your attendance record been
working for Supervisor Carson?
A. Generally speaking, I work all the time,
even on days that I’m not — Saturdays, but during that
period I had a lull in attendance.
Q. All right. Have you taken vacations since
you’ve been working for him?
A. No.
Q. You have not?
A. No.
Q. Have you taken any time off for sick leave
or medical purposes?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you taken off such time before October
of 2015?
25
MR. BONNER: You mean had she taken off sick
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
173
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
leave time —
2
MR. McGEE: Yes, sick leave time.
3
MR. BONNER: — before the date of this
incident?
5
MR. McGEE: Yes.
6
THE WITNESS: Yes, I had taken off some sick
leave time.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. Do you know how much time you had taken off
for sick leave during 2015?
A. 2015?
Q. Same year as this —
A. I know. I’m just trying to think. Maybe a
total of a couple of weeks. I don’t know.
Q. Couple of weeks?
A. Yes.
Q. Was any of the time that you took off in
2015 before October 30th for anything related to your
shoulder?
A. No.
Q. On October 30th of 2015 how many drinks did
you have?
A. One.
Q. And that was the drink that you had at
Everett & Jones?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
174
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. Yes.
Q. The Grey Goose vodka with ice?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you only had one of those?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. Do you ever drink more than one shot
of vodka in a day?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. When I go out sometimes with friends. It
depends on the — the circumstances.
Q. What’s the most vodka you’ve consumed in any
one day in the last five years?
14
MR. BONNER: Objection, that’s irrelevant.
15
Don’t answer that.
16
That invades her privacy. That is totally
irrelevant here. First of all, she had not even had
the drink before this whole issue erupted so there was
a time sequence, so it’s totally irrelevant. Move on
to something else. She has a right to privacy and her
private affairs are totally irrelevant here.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. On the date of the incident at the
Waterfront Hotel had you been drinking vodka that day?
25
MR. BONNER: Objection, that’s been asked
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
175
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
and answered. You’ve already asked that.
2 MR. McGEE: Are you instructing her not to
answer?
4 MR. BONNER: Yeah, I’m instructing her not
to repeat the answer.
6
MR. McGEE: Let me remind you —
7
MR. BONNER: Yeah.
8
MR. McGEE: — she talked about wine that
she drank that day. I’m asking her a totally different
question.
11 MR. BONNER: I understand. But she told you
she drank wine.
13 MR. McGEE: And you’re going to instruct her
not to answer as to whether she drank vodka that day?
15 MR. BONNER: You asked the question what she
had drank — what she had drunk, and she had told you
she had drunk wine.
18 MR. McGEE: Sorry. I’m asking a different
question.
20
MR. BONNER: Okay.
21
MR. McGEE: I just want to make sure —
22
MR. BONNER: That’s fine. You want to ask
her.
24
Did you drink vodka that day?
25
THE WITNESS: Are you —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
176
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
MR. BONNER: You can answer.
2
THE WITNESS: No.
3
MR. BONNER: Okay. Good. End of story.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. On the day you were arrested for drunk
driving near the Radio Road at the Bay Bridge, had you
been drinking vodka that day?
8 MR. BONNER: I’m going to object. That’s
totally irrelevant.
10
You can answer if, if you’d like.
11
THE WITNESS: If I like? Yes, I had had a
drink, as I said to the police.
13 MR. BONNER: The question is did you — it’s
only one question. Did you drink vodka that day,
period.
16 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure. I told them I’d
something to drink at the restaurant with dinner.
BY MR. McGEE:
Q. And you’re just not sure whether it was
vodka or something else?
A. I’m not sure about that specific thing.
22 MR. McGEE: Okay. Now, I want to make sure
I’m clear regarding a prior instruction you gave
Ms. Brown not to answer a question whether she’s ever
been diagnosed with arthritis.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
177
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1
MR. BONNER: Okay.
2
MR. McGEE: Because we will ask for a law
and motion ruling on that if you —
4
MR. BONNER: That’s fine.
5
MR. McGEE: Okay.
6
MR. BONNER: That’s fine.
7
MR. McGEE: Then I have no other questions
other than what may be necessary if we’re given
authorization to probe that area.
10
MR. BONNER: No problem.
11
MR. SIEGEL: I have a few questions. You
want to pass me your microphone.
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I don’t think it will
reach. We might need to switch places if that’s okay.
15 MR. McGEE: Happy to do so. If you look at
my notes and find something I didn’t ask, feel free to
ask.
18
MR. SIEGEL: Thank you.
19
EXAMINATION BY MR. SIEGEL
BY MR. SIEGEL:
Q. All right. So I just hopefully have a few
minutes of questions.
23 So, Ms. Brown, you had mentioned earlier
that you had had an interchange with Desley Brooks
at — was it a City Council meeting where Occupy was
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
178
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
being discussed?
A. Yes.
Q. And what’s your best recollection as to the
month and year of that meeting?
A. As I said, I thought it was 2011. That’s
the best I can do with it.
Q. Do you recall whether it was before or after
the police had cleared the Plaza in terms of the people
who were staying there?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. You don’t recall. Was that the first time
you had any conversation with Desley Brooks?
A. No.
Q. What’s your best recollection as to the
first time you had an interaction of any kind with
Desley Brooks?
A. As I mentioned, it was because of David
Hilliard. It was some time ago before that. I didn’t
live here so I didn’t have any reason, but I came here.
It could have been early 2000, something like this. I
don’t really remember because I can’t remember the
circumstances — I mean, I can’t remember the timing
because — but I remember the fact that, as I
indicated, Mr. Hilliard wanted to try — was looking
for a property. He mentioned, Oh, you know, Desley
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
179
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Brooks is helping me and at some point I met her during
that brief period of time.
Q. Okay. And was there anything unpleasant
about the interchange you had with her at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you walk away from that exchange
thinking that Desley Brooks did not like you?
A. Oh, no.
Q. Okay. What’s your recollection as to the
next time you had any interaction with her?
A. The meeting around Occupy.
Q. And was that a City Council meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said she spoke to you at that
meeting?
A. She asked me openly what was I doing with
all those white people.
Q. Okay. When you say “openly,” was she
sitting at the dais in City Hall?
A. Yes.
Q. And she asked you this over the — over the
microphone?
A. Yes.
Q. And what were you doing at the time she
asked you this question?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
180
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. I was there as one of the speakers for the
Occupy group that was there to speak about my
recollection is an ordinance that was being proposed to
bring in more police to make sure the Port of Oakland
did not get shut down — to prevent the shutdown of the
Port of Oakland that apparently had just occurred. I
cannot tell you the date, but that’s my recollection.
Q. Okay. And did she interrupt your speaking
to the Council or was it after you finished speaking?
A. I don’t think she interrupted me. She made
a comment prior to my speaking.
Q. Prior to your speaking?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So the clerk called your name and you
went up to the microphone, and she made a comment?
A. I don’t know that the clerk was calling
names. It was a pretty wild moment and people were
just arbitrarily stepping up, and I was one of the
people that stepped up. So I’m not sure we had the
usual orderly cards that were filled out and so forth.
People were just passing the mic and doing whatever
they felt like doing almost.
Q. Did someone pass the mic to you?
A. Well, they didn’t pass me the mic. The mic
was stationary.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
181
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. So you went up to the mic?
A. Yes.
Q. And before you could start speaking,
Ms. Brooks made this comment to you, what are you doing
with all those white people?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you say?
A. My answer was that they was the only ones
doing anything and that everyone on the Council — she
couldn’t question me anymore than anyone else on the
Council, you know, who were — all people of color were
woman because all of them had gotten their positions
through the blood of the Black Panther Party.
Q. So you brought up the Black Panther Party?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did she say to you?
A. I don’t recall her saying anything else.
Q. Were there a lot of people at that Council
meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the chambers full?
A. To the rafters I think.
Q. Okay. Were — were you the only
African-American person there?
A. No. Ms. Brooks was there.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
182
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Were there any other African-American
persons who addressed the Council?
A. I’m sure.
Q. Okay. Do you recall whether Ms. Brooks said
anything to any of them?
A. I don’t.
Q. I assume that after you had this interchange
with Ms. Brooks about what you were doing with white
people, you continued with whatever remarks you were
going to make that evening?
A. I did.
Q. And then what happened?
A. Nothing that I can recall in terms of
Ms. Brooks. People made their statements. We all went
home. The ordinance was not passed because of a vote
of the Council.
Q. Okay. At the time of this incident were you
working with UHW?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Okay. And was this incident at the Council
before or after the incident that occurred in Luka’s
Taproom that you were asked about earlier?
A. I would say before. Well before.
Q. Was the event at Luka’s Taproom after the
NLRB had completed its counting of the ballots in the
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
183
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
election?
A. I can’t say.
Q. Who is the person you were with at Luka’s
that night?
A. A young man named Jan. Jan something. I
cannot recall his last name. All of a sudden I’m blank
on his last name. It’s a D. Something with a D.
Q. Jan D?
A. With something with a D.
Q. And was he also staff of UHW?
A. Communications.
Q. Okay. And do you know — you were — you
were temporary staff for UHW, correct?
A. No. At that time I was permanent staff.
Q. You’d become permanent. Okay. And how long
did you work with UHW?
A. From 2010 to 2013.
Q. Why did you leave that job?
A. They — we had a disagreement about my — my
representation of some of our workers.
Q. Okay. What was the disagreement?
A. They felt that there was a labor management
agreement that I was overstepping my hand on behalf of
the — of the worker and that I didn’t get that Kaiser
was also a partner and that this was a partnership and
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
184
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
not, you know, oppositional.
Q. So they asked you to leave?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was it who asked you to leave?
A. One person was Rachel — Rachel someone. I
can’t remember. I’m sorry, I’m not remembering
people’s last names all of a sudden. And the young —
the man who was the head of the union — not the head.
That was Dave Regan. But someone who was sort of the
chief of staff, that was his title.
Q. And did the event at Luka’s — did you know
the person who came up to you and made the comment to
you about being ashamed or whatever it was?
A. A scab. No, I did not know her.
Q. Had you seen that person before?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if she was a Kaiser employee?
A. Oh, no, she was not.
Q. Do you know if she was an NUHW staff person?
A. That was my impression. Not necessarily
staff, but a supporter.
Q. Can you give us a physical description of
her?
A. She was a relatively young white woman of
about five-two, small with brownish hair.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
185
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Thin build? Heavy build? Medium build?
A. She was small, thin. Not fat, not — no,
she was probably thin.
Q. Did she indicate to you how she knew who you
were?
A. Well, no, but that night two other people
had just come up to me and said they had read my book,
so I thought she was the third person that was saying
“Hi, aren’t you Elaine Brown?” I had no idea how she
knew who I was.
Q. So between the date of the City Council
meeting that you’ve described and the incident that
underlies this case on October 30, 2015, had you had
any other conversations with Desley Brooks?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. Who can say? I mentioned some and there was
some conversation, as I mentioned, around the illness
that ended in death of our mutual friend Alice
Spearman.
Q. In any of those communications that you had
with Desley Brooks between the City Council meeting in
2011 and the event on October 30, 2015, were there any
disagreements between you?
A. I would say so.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
186
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. And what do you recall of those
disagreements?
A. They were political in nature.
Q. Okay. And can you describe them a little
bit for us?
A. Well, as I said, she seemed to be taking a
position on coal, the transport of coal. She seemed to
be undermining the issues with the — the women’s group
that I was a part of to the point where there was
discussion about everybody signing a confidentiality
agreement because of her behavior and — which she
refused to do. And so, I mean, there was — we don’t
talk, so there’s not going to be a lot of did we talk
about this or that because I don’t — we don’t talk.
The only one-on-one conversation that I can recall is
Alice Spearman and saying hello in the hallway here at
City Hall.
Q. Okay. On the coal issue do you recall
having any one-on-one conversations with Ms. Brooks
about the coal issue?
A. Not other than the accusation I made that
day on the 30th of October.
Q. Okay. And do you recall when the resolution
on coal came up before the Oakland City Council?
A. Well, there were many meetings, so I don’t
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
187
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
know what you mean specifically. There were a lot of
meetings around coal.
3 MR. BONNER: He just wants to know if you
recall the date. That’s yes or no.
5 THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. SIEGEL:
Q. Do you recall at some point the City Council
passed a resolution or ordinance or something saying
that it did not want coal in Oakland?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall when that occurred?
A. 2016. I don’t know.
Q. Okay. But it’s your recollection that the
coal issue was a live issue in terms of City Council
discussions prior to October 30, 2015?
A. I don’t know how you’re characterizing live
issue, so I’m not sure. Yes, it was certainly being
discussed by then.
Q. And you recall it being discussed at City
Council meetings?
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. And you recall Ms. Brooks saying that she
was in favor of coal?
A. No.
Q. No?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
188
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. No, I do not recall her saying that.
Q. Okay. Well, it seems from the way you’ve
reported on what occurred on October 30, 2015 that as
of that date you believed that Ms. Brooks supported the
idea of transporting coal through Oakland; is that
right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And what was it that led you to believe
prior to October 30, 2015 that she supported the
transport of coal in Oakland?
A. She was not opposed to it; whereas, other
Council members were already clearly opposed to it and
taking positions, including the Mayor. She was — she
reached a point of being so brutal in her interrogation
of some of the people opposing coal that several people
had to get up and ask her was she cross-examining them.
They used their time to actually address that. She
had — there were several ministers who were supporting
coal, still are, who were friendly with her. And in
general everyone who was opposing coal believed that
she would be a vote — or that she would support the
coal.
Q. Okay. And that’s why you made the comments
about coal at the event on October 30?
A. Yes.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
189
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. Okay. But in terms of interactions
one-on-one between you and Ms. Brooks, you’ve mentioned
some having to do with the demise of Alice Spearman.
You mentioned the incident at the City Council meeting
in 2011. Do you have any recollection of any other
situations in which you and she had actually had a
conversation prior to October 30, 2015?
A. Yes. I mentioned the women’s group.
Q. So there were conversations between the two
of you at the women’s group?
A. Not just between the two of us, but there
was a — there was a — there was dialogue that was
oppositional.
Q. Okay. And do you recall the subject of that
dialogue?
A. Yes. It was the train station that I
mentioned earlier.
Q. The Wood Street station?
A. Wood Street.
Q. Okay. And the two of you disagreed on that?
A. No. She merely asserted that I didn’t know
what I was talking about and that nobody should believe
me.
Q. Okay. And did she explain why she said
that?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
190
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
A. She had some what I considered rather arcane
statement about I didn’t understand what the ownership
policies were or what had to happen or something that
had to do with City ordinances, something to this
effect, that I felt was — was meaningless.
Q. Okay. And when she made that comment, what
did you say?
A. I said, Don’t sit here and tell these people
I’m not telling the truth because you’re wrong, I do
know what I’m talking about.
Q. I mean, you would agree that as a person
your habit and custom is to not suffer fools silently;
is that a fair characterization?
14 MR. BONNER: Do you understand what he’s
referring to?
16 THE WITNESS: Are you asking me about my
whole life’s character?
18 MR. BONNER: No. No. No. He’s citing a
common kind of statement, suffering fools lightly.
Have you heard that phrase before?
21
THE WITNESS: I have.
22
MR. BONNER: Okay. Do you have any
understanding what he’s intending by the phrase?
24
THE WITNESS: No.
25
MR. BONNER: Okay. Wait for —
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
191
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
BY MR. SIEGEL:
Q. Let me break it down. I’m not trying to be
confusing here. Isn’t it true that it’s your practice
when you feel that someone has insulted you to speak
back to them?
A. It’s my practice —
Q. Yeah.
A. — when someone has insulted me? I would
say that it depends on many circumstances as to what I
would do.
Q. Okay. Would you say that it’s your practice
or custom to suffer silently when you feel that people
are insulting you?
14 MR. BONNER: It lacks foundation that she
has any such practice or custom.
16
Do you have an answer for that?
17
THE WITNESS: I’m not clear about that
question.
19 MR. BONNER: Okay. You’ve answered it.
BY MR. SIEGEL:
Q. Okay. In your experience let’s just say
over the last five years — we don’t have to go through
your whole life — but when you hear something that you
feel to be disrespectful to you, isn’t it true that
it’s your practice to speak up and let people know that
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
192
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
you don’t like what’s being said?
2 MR. BONNER: And that’s asked and answered.
She just indicated that it depends on the circumstances
and it’s no one response. So that’s —
5 MR. SIEGEL: Okay. Let’s just try to stick
with objections.
7 MR. BONNER: The objection is asked and
answered, but I want you to know why I’m objecting to
the same question again.
BY MR. SIEGEL:
Q. Okay. You can answer.
12 MR. BONNER: Well, she can’t because she’s
already answered it, so we don’t need to answer it
again. It’s been answered.
15 MR. SIEGEL: You know, that’s not a basis
under the law to instruct the witness not to answer.
17 MR. BONNER: Neither is it a basis under the
law to keep asking the same question over and over
again.
20
MR. SIEGEL: I haven’t answering it —
21
MR. BONNER: Huh?
22
MR. SIEGEL: I haven’t kept asking the same
question. I have rephrased it from the first time I
asked it, and I’m entitled to an answer.
25
MR. BONNER: Okay. Do you have any answer
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
193
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
different than the one you’ve already given to this
question?
3 THE WITNESS: Not as to personal insults,
no.
5 MR. BONNER: Okay.
BY MR. SIEGEL:
Q. Okay. On October 30, 2015 did you have any
physical touching of Ms. Brooks either by yourself or
by her before where as you’ve described she hit you in
the chest with both hands?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever point your finger at her?
A. I doubt it.
Q. You didn’t point — recall point —
A. Because I don’t point my fingers.
Q. Okay. You — so you never touched her
indicating that you were unhappy with some of the
things that she was saying?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You didn’t make the comment about not
wanting to hear this bullshit again; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. And what do you recall that
Ms. Brooks said in response to that?
A. “The only bullshit here is you.”
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
194
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
Q. And what was your response to that?
A. “Please stop it.” I kept moving.
Q. Okay. When you heard her say “The only
bullshit here is you,” did that make you angry?
A. No. I was already angry.
Q. Okay. So you were angry starting when?
A. I was angry about her political statement
that she was using her office to try and take down a
project that I felt was important for the black
community. That is the source and only source.
Q. Okay. Did you think that her statement that
she wanted to stop this project that you felt was
important to the black community was made to spite you
personally?
A. No.
Q. So do you think it was then just a — just a
disagreement that you had with her?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Then what did you think?
A. I thought that she was in what I considered
typically using her power to undermine something that
she didn’t particularly care about or had no hand in.
Q. Okay. Had you had any interaction with her
prior to October 30, 2015 regarding the particular NOFA
for which your group submitted an application on that
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
195
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
date?
A. No.
Q. Had you heard her say anything regarding her
opinions about that NOFA?
A. No.
Q. Prior to October 30, 2015 had there been any
occasion in which you felt that she was seeking to harm
you as an individual?
A. No.
Q. Prior to October 30, 2015 did you think that
she had some kind of grudge against you or — yeah, a
grudge against you?
A. A grudge, no.
Q. Okay. So would you agree that before that
interaction on October 30, 2015 the differences that
you and Ms. Brooks had had not become personal between
you?
A. I don’t agree.
Q. So you think they had become personal?
A. Not on my part.
Q. You thought it become personal on her part?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you think that?
A. Because, as I said, in the meeting with the
women she took umbrage and made it very personal to me.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
196
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
I’ve seen her behave in ways or plot in ways when Lynn
Turner is around. For example, I’ve seen her show
signs that she just didn’t like me in the mix, so to
speak. This is my impression. There was no
manifestation of it, other than maybe facial
expressions and, you know, as people do we’re human
beings we look at each other and we assume things about
each other.
Q. Okay. Did you know that she was also a
friend of Lynn Turner’s?
A. Oh, I know that very well.
Q. Okay. So did you think that she was
competitive with you in terms of friendship with Lynn
Turner?
A. That’s a possibility.
Q. Did you think that on October 30, 2015?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. This morning you were asked about the DUI
arrest that occurred near the Bay Bridge near the Radio
Station?
A. Radio Road.
Q. Radio Road. Right. Is that your only DUI
arrest?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Have you ever had any other arrests
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
197
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
relating to use of alcohol?
2
MR. BONNER: Objection.
3
Don’t answer that. She’s not going to
answer that. It’s an improper question.
5
MR. SIEGEL: Well —
6
MR. BONNER: She’s not going to answer,
Counsel. Move on. She’s told you the arrests she had.
No other arrests.
9
MR. SIEGEL: No other DUI arrest.
10
MR. BONNER: Yeah. Improper question
leading to general arrests.
12
MR. SIEGEL: Okay.
13
MR. BONNER: Has she ever been convicted —
arrested for a felony, you can ask her that —
15
MR. SIEGEL: No. No. No.
16
MR. BONNER: — convicted of a felony but
that’s —
18 MR. SIEGEL: Excuse me. Charles, this case
at least from the defense point of view has a lot to do
with alcohol, as you know.
21 MR. BONNER: Yeah, that’s just the defense
position. It happens to be a wrongful position.
23 MR. SIEGEL: Whether it’s wrongful or not,
you know that’s the position —
25 MR. BONNER: I understand.
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
198
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. SIEGEL: — and we have a right to
conduct discovery regarding that.
3
MR. BONNER: And — and you just did.
4
MR. SIEGEL: My question I just want to say
it for the record, and if you’re going to interrupt or
obstruct the deposition, you can do that. But the
question was asking Ms. Brown whether in addition to
the one DUI arrest whether she had suffered any other
arrests regarding alcohol consumption, whether it’s
intoxicated in public, disorderly conduct or anything
of that nature.
12 MR. BONNER: And she’s answered that she’s
only had one DUI arrest, period. And that’s the only
question she’s going to ask — answer.
15 MR. SIEGEL: Okay. Well, I think that’s
improper.
17
MR. BONNER: I understand.
18
MR. SIEGEL: I got it.
19
MR. BONNER: We disagree.
20
MR. SIEGEL: Okay. I have no further
questions. Thank you.
22
MR. BONNER: Okay.
23
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Anybody else?
Should we go off the record?
25 MR. SIEGEL: Anything else?
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
199
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
1 MR. McGEE: The only question I have is
whether you’ll stipulate to Ms. Brown undergoing an
IME.
4
MR. BONNER: Sure. Sure.
5
THE WITNESS: What is it?
6
MR. BONNER: Just a medical examination.
7
She’ll go. It’s no problem.
8
THE WITNESS: What’s —
9
MR. BONNER: I’ll explain it. It stands for
independent. It’s anything but independent, but that’s
okay. It’s affectionately referred to as an
independent medical examination.
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Shall we go off
the record?
15
MR. BONNER: Yeah.
16
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. This concludes
video three of the deposition of Elaine Brown. Going
off — sorry.
19 MR. BONNER: And just for the record, the
stipulation for the IME, of course, is for those areas
of her body that was injured in this incident. Yes.
That’s so stipulated?
23
MR. McGEE: Okay.
24
MR. BONNER: Okay.
25
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. This concludes
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
200
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
video number three of the deposition of Elaine Brown.
Going off the record. The time on the monitor is 4:38
p.m.
4 (The deposition proceedings were adjourned
at 4:38 p.m.)
6
__________________________
7
Signature of Witness
8
*********
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
201
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
REPORTER CERTIFICATE
I, Deanne M. Goyke, hereby certify that the
witness in the foregoing deposition was by me placed
under oath to testify to the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth in the within-entitled cause;
that said deposition was taken at the time and place
therein named; that the testimony of said witness was
reported by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a
disinterested person, and thereafter transcribed into
typewriting.
14 And I further certify that I am not of
counsel or attorney for either or any of the parties to
said deposition, nor in any way interested in the
outcome of the cause named in said caption.
18
19
In Witness Whereof, I Have
20
Hereunto Set My Hand This
21
12th day of February 2017.
22
____________________________
Deanne M. Goyke
23
Certified Shorthand Reporter
State of California
24
License No. 11413
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
202
Pizzotti & Jarnagin
925-416-1800
PIZZOTTI & JARNAGIN CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, SUITE 298
2 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 416-1800
3
4
Elaine Brown
c/o Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
475 Gate Five Road, #212
Sausalito, California 94965
Re: Brown vs. City of Oakland
Dear Ms. Brown:
9 This is to inform you that your deposition conducted on Wednesday, February 1, 2017, has been
transcribed into booklet form. You have the right to review and sign the transcript of your testimony to
insure that it is true and correct. If you wish to avail yourself of this opportunity, it is necessary
that you follow the instructions below. If you do not sign your deposition or forward a letter of corrections
and/or changes to my office within the time period prescribed below, please be advised that it may be used
at the time of trial with the same force and effect as
though it had been signed.
15
The original transcript of your deposition
shall be held in our offices for your review for not more than 30 days. It would be best to call our office
before your arrival so that the transcript can be
readily available.
18
If you should have any questions regarding
this information, please do telephone our staff to
assist you.
20
Very Truly Yours,
21
22
Certified Shorthand Reporter
23
CC: All Counsel
25
DEPOSITION OF ELAINE BROWN
Brown vs. City of Oakland Elaine Brown
203
Zennie Abraham note: this document (converted from PDF to .doc file and then inserted into the Zennie62Media Oakland News Online blog) is Councilmember Brook’s account of what happened during an argument between she and former Oakland Black Panther Party Member Elaine Brown that happened on October 30th 2015. One that resulted in a civil court judgment against Brooks and the City of Oakland to the cost of just over $3 million. This version of the incident has not seen the public light of day prior to this publishing of it. Note the date. I was informed that Oakland City Councilmembers have seen this. Since that’s the case, why did some elect to believe Elaine Brown’s account of what happened, even though the focus of her anger, in both versions, was her issue with Brook’s negative position on her housing project that was before the Oakland City Council? One could think that Brown may have an incentive to fashion a story that gets Councilmember Brooks into trouble.
April 25, 2016
Manuela Albuquerque
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Brown v. Brooks
Dear Ms. Albuquerque:
I am sending you the following statement to support my request that the City of Oakland provide me with a defense and indemnification in Elaine Brown’s lawsuit against me and the City of Oakland. As I explain, I was on City business on October 30, 2015, meeting with members of the public, when Elaine Brown confronted me on an issue of City business and engaged in the actions that led to this litigation.
Over the years Everett & Jones has been an informal venue where I have hosted a number of meetings regarding City business. On October 30, 2015, I went to Everett & Jones, Jack London Square, to meet, among others, Dorothy King and Len Turner. I was co-‐sponsoring a Speakers Series with Everett & Jones on issues confronting residents in the City of Oakland. I was also meeting Len Turner to discuss his plans for properties he owns in District 6.
When I arrived at the restaurant Dorothy King and Len Turner were sitting at a table in the front bar. I joined them. Dorothy was drinking wine, Len had a beverage, and I ordered lemonade as I do not drink alcoholic beverages. We proceeded to talk; shortly thereafter we were joined by Ms. Elaine Brown. Upon joining us, Ms. Brown ordered her first, of what would be a series of, alcoholic beverages. Although I understand that Ms. Brown is an alcoholic who attended alcohol rehabilitation programs in 1999 and 2006, I believe that she continues to consume alcoholic beverages quite heavily.
Ms. Brown injected herself into the conversation between Ms. King, Mr. Turner and me. Ms. Brown said she had applied for the N.O.F.A. (Notice of Funding Availability) with the City. To which I made a general statement that I had been expressing for over a year – “to address the immediate housing crisis of existing Oakland residents, the City should use the N.O.F.A. monies to buy existing buildings rather than wait three to five years for new construction. Once the buildings were purchased the City could cap the rents. This would allow existing residents to remain in place and stave off some of the displacement.” Ms. Brown became angry at my statement and said that she needed money for her project. I reiterated that we were in a housing crisis and that working class families and communities of color could not wait three to five years before we addressed the affordability issue. Ms. Brown said something about her “mother fucking project,” to which I replied, “I thought you were supposed to be for the people.”
Manuela Albuquerque
April 25, 2016
Page 2
My conversation with Ms. Brown lasted just a couple of minutes. It was clear we disagreed on how the N.O.F.A. monies should be spent. As such I terminated any conversation with her. I proceeded to have a conversation with Mr. Turner only.
Ms. King left the table shortly after the conversation between Ms. Brown and me. Mr. Turner remained seated to my left and Ms. Brown was seated to my right. Ms. Brown remained at the table. Ms. Brown ordered two or three additional alcoholic beverages. Despite no-‐one saying anything to her, the more she drank the angrier she became. She proceeded to make a phone call to someone. She told the person on the phone she had come to celebrate but that wasn’t going to happen because “this bitch” was ruining her celebration. Although she was on the phone, and I was seated at the table, she continued to make loud disparaging remarks about me. I ignored her and continued to talk with Mr. Turner. I had no further dialogue with Ms. Brown for the remainder of her time at the table.
About a half an hour into her drinking, cussing and fussing, I heard Ms. Brown tell the waitress “I need my mother fucking bill because I got to get the fuck up out of here.” Within minutes of her bill being settled Ms. Brown got up from the table. She walked past me, turned, and walked past Mr. Turner. When she got to the far side of the table facing me she yelled, “You bitch! I’m going to kick your mother fucking ass. Messing with my mother fucking project. I’m going to kick your mother fucking ass. Come on step outside so I can kick your mother fucking ass.” Ms. Brown was yelling, cussing and fussing in the middle of the restaurant. I looked at her in disbelief. I did not respond to Ms. Brown’s belligerent behavior.
Dorothy King came back into the front bar area. She told Ms. Brown to stop making a scene in the restaurant. Ms. Brown continued to yell profanities and vulgar statements directed at me. Despite Ms. Brown’s refusal to cease her behavior, neither Ms. King nor any security attempted to address Ms. Brown further or remove her from the restaurant. I still did not respond to Ms. Brown’s belligerent behavior.
Ms. King proceeded to walk to Q’s Lounge in the back of the restaurant, which had yet to open for business. When she walked past the table where I was sitting she said, “come to the back.” Ms. Brown, Ms. King and I began walking towards the back. Ms. King was first, Ms. Brown second and I was third.
Ms. Brown again began yelling, cussing and threatening to “kick my ass” and did not stop. She became more and more agitated, belligerent, and hostile. It seemed that nothing would stop her. She kept yelling at me to “go outside” so she could “kick my ass.”
When we got into the hallway leading to Q’s Lounge, Ms. Brown came up to me and made a weird poking movement towards my chest and stomach area. She continued to yell profanities and threatening to “kick my ass.” We walked a little further down the hall, and Ms. Brown
Manuela Albuquerque
April 25, 2016
Page 3
walked back to me and repeated the poking movement and continued ranting. She said “come outside cause I’m not going to get a case. I’m not going to get a case.”
When we got to the doorway of Q’s lounge -‐-‐ Ms. Brown, still yelling, belligerent, cussing and threatening to “kick my ass” while saying she’s “not going to get a case” – turned to me and again made a poking motion towards my stomach and chest area. I had come to Everett & Jones by myself. It became clear to me that no one in the restaurant was going to stop Ms. Brown in her self-‐induced drunken rage towards me. The last time Ms. Brown made her poking movement to my stomach and chest area, to protect myself I pushed her away from me. I did nothing more. I never punched, or attempted to punch, Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown has told people that when I pushed her she lost her footing. She landed on her back over a row of chairs at the entrance to Q’s Lounge. I grabbed her and held onto her so she wouldn’t fall to the floor. Others finally came around to help Ms. Brown back to her feet. When she stood up she immediately started yelling profanities all over again.
Someone finally took Ms. Brown outside. I sat at a table in Q’s Lounge with Ms. King, Mr. Turner and some other people. While we were at the table Ms. Brown was outside still in a rage. She sent a note to Mr. Turner telling him if he were her friend he would not sit at the table with me. She sent another note saying that she didn’t want to be a guest of Mr. Turner’s at the Raiders game that Sunday if he continued to sit at the table with me. She returned her Raiders ticket to him. Ms. Brown finally went to the seating area outside Everett & Jones on Broadway and proceeded to get even drunker.
I remained in Q’s Lounge for approximately an hour after Ms. Brown’s scene talking with Ms. King and her husband. When I left to go home, Ms. Brown was still sitting in the front of the restaurant drinking.
Ms. Brown is a known alcoholic. I have heard Ms. Brown speak about perpetrating violence on individuals and entities with whom she disagrees. I have heard that couple of weeks earlier during a conversation Ms. Brown indicated that she had a gun. I did not know what Ms. Brown was capable of doing in her drunken rage. I was left with no choice but to defend myself.
Please contact my attorney, Dan Siegel, if you have further questions about this matter.
Very truly yours,
DESLEY BROOKS
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is the one I back for re-election as our leader, but that’s not going to stop me from making some very pointed criticisms of the way she’s handled the topic of sports in Oakland.
As I write this, she’s about to annouce her new point-person for the Oakland A’s Stadium. Ok, but one person will not solve the problem and she certainly didn’t ask for my input. A giant mistake. That person’s not going to be Oakland Coliseum JPA Executive Director Scott McKibben, nor will it be former Oakland City Manager and public builder of the Washington Nationals Stadium Robert Bobb, nor will it be Former Oakland City Manager and local development wiz Kofi Bonner (whom I put Libby in touch with two years ago). She’s ran out of capable names who are locally known and can get this problem of not having a stadium plan done out of the doldrums. The reason is one I will explain later in this column.
Indeed, what I’m about to explain that focuses on her could be applied to most of the Oakland City Council, but she’s the Mayor, so I’ll start there.
First, let’s take stock of where we are right now, January 28th, 2019:
• The City of Oakland has lost the Golden State Warriors to San Francisco, and after an aggressive economic development campaign led by the late San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, and with no real challenge from either former Oakland Mayor Jean Quan or current Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf.
• The Oakland Raiders are attempting a move to Las Vegas, but that effort is as of this writing five months behind where it should be, and that gap could widen with the latest political dispute around minority stadium construction jobs. Still, the NFL granted a conditional relocation, dependent on the Raiders ability to actually get it done.
• The Raiders have a lease that extends to 2019, but are working to have it extended to 2020 or perhaps longer, and based on a set of conditions of need. In other words, “if you don’t have that new stadium in Las Vegas finished and open, the Oakland Coliseum’s your home.” It’s also worth noting that the extension has the same wording in it, not removed: that is the parties, Oakland and The Oakland Raiders can enter talks toward a new stadium at the Coliseum. Anyone surprised here should not be: the Raiders always leave an out for themselves.
• The Oakland A’s, getting no active help from Mayor Schasf or the Oakland City Council, on their own tried to work a deal with Peralta Community College, only to be rebuffed by the board. The A’s are setting up the situation so they can indeed say they were committed to Oakland – and move if the current situation of complete lack of leadership continues. And here’s where we get into the problems Libby has created.
Second, Mayor Schaaf, my friend of 30-plus years and who’s really smart enough to know better, failed to and still has not, established a sports task force – really, it should be called the M.I.C.E task force, but that would not ring a bell with anyone, save for economic development specialists. M.I.C.E stands for “Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, and Exhibitions”, and it’s an industry folks. An industry that Oakland, because of it’s completely baseless and personal way of looking at economic development, is all but non-extentent in.
That task force could form a plan for the retention of sports in Oakland, and its future growth, and in the process solve the problem of not having enough space for meetings (like for electrical engineers), conventions (like for comic books), incentives (like a Pharell concert) or exhibitions (like an auto show). A really good sports stadium district has, by design, space for all of that. We have that in the Coliseum and with Oracle Arena and the current Raiders / A’s Stadium. We also have a deficiency of over 800,000 square feet of convention and meeting space – adding that equals more events and more jobs.
Second, Libby has had something like four years to establish a sports task force, and did nothing- she points to her staff of people as that group. That action flies in the face of all of the task forces assembled in history: each one consists of leaders in the community, both business and non-business, and who represent what I call a “value chain” of actors that can help solve specific problems associated with a development project, from permits to media and public relations. I tried to get Libby to set that up years ago, but I got this stuff both from her and from Oakland and Alameda County Consultant Pat Cashman talking about the task forces that didn’t work. Look, in Oakland, we need a task force. I solved the problem of lack of cooperation when I formed the Oakland Downtown Coalition in 1997 – that got us the 14th and Broadway Transit Cooridor for AC Transit’s large buses. If I can do, it, I can do it again. If Libby would ask me – which brings me to my next point.
Between Oakland’s now deep list of people who are experienced enough in many ways related to sports stadiums and the M.I.C.E industry, and Libby’s relationships with those Oaklanders, like me, you’d think she’d form a task force to call on her friends, right? Not done. And that’s because Libby’s taking bad advice from her political consultants, and is afraid to take bold action. Mainly because she and the other Oakland City Council members are completely freaked out by the homeless problem.
And on that, I take this aside:
The City Of Oakland’s Homeless Problem is there because we don’t have a good fund to pay for the construction of afforable housing. The equation is simple: government investment via subsidy can help make a development project pay for itself with lower rent. We need tas increment financing to do that, which means we need a district, and that means we need and have legislation that allows it in California: SB 628, called Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts.
SB 628 specifically allows Oakland to finance affordable housing construction. It can be used with the A’s Stadium Plan to generate up to $80 million in financing assistance ear-marked for housing, in that case. We can use it in the case of Oak Knoll, or the Coliseum City project. When I talk about this with Oakland Councilmembers, they just tell me “redevelopment is dead” – as if they’re resigned to do nothing, let alone avoid using government policy tools that can solve the problem.
But for the homeless, the City can create a grant program that gives up to $3,000 per homeless person to get them housing – times the estimated 4,000 homeless in Oakland, and that calls for $12 million. Give them the grants – help them get into housing, and then that gives us time to rebuild our stock of both affordable and cheap homes.
The problem, it seems to me, is that Democrats seem to want people who need help to exist, rather that doing everything it takes to invest in those same people and eliminate their problems. Giving money, at the end of the day, is the solution – but Oakland’s Democrats don’t want to do that because it means no one to look down on and say “oh those poor people need our help.” I’m a Democrat, but that’s the way our party has turned, and Oakland’s ran by Dems. Time to call it as I see it. Back to the main point: sports and Mayor Schaaf.
Mayor Schaaf needs to do the following: 1) make a sports task force, 2) stop fooling around and call the one person with the nerve to really solve this problem fast, me, 3) let me stock the task force with capable Oaklanders and SF Bay Area experts in development and sports specialists, 4) ask Oaklanders to vote on what land they want used for the A’s, 5) work with the A’s to form a development plan for the stadium, 6) set a list of goals and objectives with respect to the M.I.C.E industry, 7) develop an overall finacing plan for structures, and 8) work on a plan for the development of the Oakland Coliseum of the future, which includes a review of change in the very nature of sports – for example, we now have E-Sports.
In closing, Mayor Schaaf and the Oakland City Council, and many Oaklanders, must change what their view of sports is. For example, a couple of people interrupted my interview with an Oakland A’s fan at FanFest to tell us they didn’t want a stadium at Jack London Square. One reason one of the persons gave was the idea that it added low wage jobs at $13 per hour! Wrong! The average stadium worker makes $68,000 a year – that’s on a par with nurses according to Simply Hired – and that’s the average and well above $13 an hour – it’s $32 an hour.
We also have to stop making the conversation about economic development and sports one about personalities, like Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis, and Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval, and make it about financing, land, goals, and objectives. Historically, whenever we talked about tech economid development, it was about just that, not about personalties like Steve Jobs or Jack Dorsey. You see? Our approach to sports in Oakland has been parochial and more often than not nasty and personal.
We have to stop that, and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf can and should lead the charge to do so.
Anyone is welcome to join or attend a DSA event – look for DSA signs at the Women’s March in Oakland tomorrow and come say hi!
A few weeks ago, I found myself wandering around Grand Avenue, looking for a panel discussion on single-payer healthcare with the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America. The area around the Cathedral of Light is always pretty quiet at night, so I didn’t see any signs of life that would point the way….until I saw this sign:
“The worker must have bread but she must have roses too.” – Rose Schneiderman.
I knew I was in the right place. I found the door, the sign-in table, and the warm, bright room with 100+ people and a panel discussion on the future of healthcare.
Like so many of my peers, I’ve spent the last decade struggling with student and medical debt. I’m fortunate that bread has never been an issue for me, but roses, and the idea of thriving, is seen more and more as a luxury for my generation. What would you do if you weren’t weighed down by debt and financial insecurity? So many people I know just want to enhance their education, or start a business, or visit another country. How can we change our reality if we’re kept uneducated, inexperienced and sheltered from the rest of the world? Not to mention suffering from anxiety and depression because we’re still told that our worth is tied to our financial stability?
These are the questions my friends at the DSA are asking, and the fact that the East Bay chapter is one of the fastest growing in the country gives me up. I think Oakland knows what’s up. It isn’t hard to see that our country has the resources to responsibility for the health and education of its people.
DSA events happen every week or so, whether they’re happy hours, neighborhood canvasses for single-payer healthcare, watch parties, workshops or panels. I enjoy having unusually meaningful conversations with strangers at every event. You don’t have to exchange small talk before diving into politics, housing, healthcare and labor. The people I meet are issue-driven and care deeply about Oakland. At the last happy hour I learned about the brake light initiative, which was started in New Orleans and offers free brake light repair to get rid of just one of the excuses police use to pull over and harass people of color. It’s not just that these chapters are full of people committed to intersectional solidarity work, but they operate independently enough that they have the agility to take on a variety of meaningful projects that benefit their communities the most. It’s an exciting movement to be a part of.
Upcoming events:
Tuesday, January 23rd
Bernie Medicare For All Town Hall Watch Party
Temescal Brewing (4115 Telegraph Ave)
4pm-5:30pm
Facebook Event
Saturday, January 27th
East Bay DSA Bimonthly Informational Meeting
East Bay Community Space (507 55th St, Oakland)
1pm-3pm
Facebook Event
Tuesday, February 13th
West Oakland/Uptown/Adam’s Point Social
Telegraph Beer Garden (2318 Telegraph Ave)
7pm-9pm
Facebook Event
Saturday, February 17th
Adam’s Point Single-Pare Canvass
12pm-4pm
Facebook Event
The Oakland Police Commission’s second meeting was not as well attended as the inaugural one. Here’s Oakland’s John Jones with a take he posted on Facebook, and included here, both in text and as an embed:
My thoughts on the second Police Commission meeting last night:
1) Once again it was poorly attended. I am not concerned with pointing fingers, but rather how can we as a City, that voted 83% in support of Measure LL ensure that the Commission has all the support it needs from the People.
2) Clearly the Commission is being impacted by undue, and I would even argue, inappropriate behavior from other City departments. This will not be tolerated.
3) Those who attended were incensed that both alternates (who are women) were asked to not join the dais last night, relegating them to some subservient second-class status. I firmly stated for the record that both Andrea Dooly and Maureen Benson are not only intelligent and competent- they should be full Commissioners. After much pleading from the public, Commissioners Dooley and Benson were allowed to join the dais.
4) Finally, I do not know Commissioner Andrew Smith personally, yet I remain insistent that he steps down as the Chair. In addition to being a mayoral appointee, in my opinion the Chair sets the tone and must lead valiantly to do what is right and not what is easy. There were missed opportunities that the Chair failed to act upon in order to assert the Commission as a fully independent body. Regina Jackson is a mayoral appointee and I have much respect for her, so I am not throwing shots simply because of who picked whom. I shared that I fought valiantly for the omission of criminal background checks, not because it was easy, but rather because it was the right thing to do. In the course of doing so, I was the subject of pushback from even some of my fellow Selection Panel members, City Council and even a nasty op-ed written by the OPOA president. Nevertheless we prevailed and won. This is the type of leadership needed from the Chair of the most powerful Police Commission in the nation, if indeed, it is to be powerful.
A study released in July of 2017 focused on information drawn from Oakland Police body cameras and determined that Oakland Police Officers behaved “less respectfully” toward blacks than other racial and etbic groups. Basically, it’s called “racism”, which is defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”
And then another study of Oakland Police Officers in 2016, this one from Stanford, concluded, as reported by PBS’ Jackie Judd “Researchers at nearby Stanford University spent two years analyzing vast amounts of data, field reports from 28,000 stops officers made on the streets and roads during a 13-month period, and body-cam video from 2,000 of those encounters. They expected to find about 7,800 stops of African-Americans. In fact, there were more than double, almost 17,000 stops. What surprised everyone involved even more was the huge gap in handcuffing.”
According to researcher Rebecca Hetey as told to PBS’ Judd “We found a significant pattern of racial disparities in who was stopped, in who was handcuffed, in who was searched, and in who was arrested. Even when we took out stops that resulted in arrests, we found that one in four black men, for example, were handcuffed, compared to one in 15 white men. ”
Still, nothing has been done to stop the pattern of racism uncovered in those research projects. How many of these studes do we need before real, significant change happens?
One may believe that these differences have to do with economics and class, right? Not according to Ms. Hetey, who told PBS’s Jackie Judd last year “More importantly, these disparities remained significant after we took into account a wide range of factors that we would expect to influence police decision-making, like crime rate, like neighborhood demographics.” Later, she added “Even when we took out stops that resulted in arrests, we found that one in four black men, for example, were handcuffed, compared to one in 15 white men.”
While its true that one silver lining in all of this can be that Oakland, itself, had its police department studied for racist tendencies, given the response of the former police chief Sean Whent, who said in the same PBS report that “Racial profiling, in and of itself, obviously is prohibited by our policy. I mean, it would be a misconduct issue. The fact that people are impacted by implicit bias, that’s a different issue. I don’t know how I could credibly say that, no, no racial profiling is ever — ever occurs here, although what I don’t believe necessarily is that these findings show that there’s systemic racial profiling going on. I just think it’s much more complex than that.”
If the former Oakland Police Chief can’t call out racism for what it is, and then stop it, and the current Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick wasn’t brought in to deal with racism, but as a kind of balm against the anger around the Oakland Police Sex Scandal, how can we say OPD has improved in this area? Absent the installation of a true program to remove racist Oakland police actions, we can’t.
That said, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has stated she’s determined to rid the police department of this problem: “I believe that, at the end of my term, people will be able to say that this city really grappled honestly with some very difficult issues, like race, like oppression, like class differences.” she told PBS.
But the reality shows a different picture. If you want a taste of the fact that the problem is still with us, just watch the exchange between Oakland community leaders and Oakland police representatives during a screening of the documentary “The Force”, held earlier this year and featured on Zennie62 on YouTube.
Or ask this: when a black person, like myself, is stopped by the Oakland police, do they always run the license to check for a record, and do they do this for white people, too? How often is someone white just given a warning and let go without running their license for a background check? And, does the justice system work to make sure that blacks who have been legally cleared of any accusation of wrong-doing in a case, have their record accurately reflect that, or does the wrong information that the person committed a crime just sit on the law enforcement computers unchanged? I can say no because it’s happened to me (though not by OPD and was cleared up) and to others – but according to these studies, it happens to way too many black folks in Oakland. It has to stop. Now.
There is a law enforcement system that has grown off the process of jailing black men, and the idea that because you’re black and male you had to do something wrong – and many times using a process that’s slanted toward illegally charging them with a crime: racial profilling in what police do is supposed to be illegal and against policy, but it’s done. Shouldn’t we erase all of the police records of not just black men, but people who have been victimized by Oakland Police and law enforcement racism both in treatment and in record-keeping? It’s past time we did.
Stay tuned.
Oakland, CA (Press Release) — During this season of holiday giving, the plight of our unsheltered neighbors is likely in the hearts and minds of Oaklanders, many of whom will make charitable donations and contributions of various kinds to reduce the suffering of those on our streets.
Acknowledging the generosity and compassion of our community, the City of Oakland offers suggestions about what kinds of donations–and where–can make the most positive impacts to alleviate the hunger and discomfort of people living without shelter, and provides reminders about well-intended donations and assistance that end up causing more challenges, and in some cases harm, to the unsheltered community. While seemingly well-intentioned, dropping off perishable food at homeless encampments can become a health and safety issue for the campers, who lack adequate refrigeration, cooking facilities and sanitation options.
When food spoils, it attracts rodents and insects, which creates additional health and sanitation problems for the unsheltered residents. Consider donating non-perishable food, which doesn’t spoil, or making a difference with some of the many options for holiday giving are listed below. Please consider donating your time or resources throughout the year. Often the non-holiday times of the year are when agencies could use your help the most:
• East Oakland Community Project is a multi-service organization offering emergency and transitional housing in Oakland. http://www.eocp.net/donate/invest-in-eocp/
• Operation Dignity provides emergency, transitional and permanent housing for homeless veterans and their families in Alameda County. Operation Dignity also provides homeless street outreach in Oakland. https://operationdignity.org/our-wish-list/
• First Place for Youth serves foster kids who have the greatest needs in our community, helping them find their way as adults and building a foundation for a bright future https://www.firstplaceforyouth.org/how-you-can-help/donate/
• St. Vincent de Paul of Alameda County provides relief and support to those in need through person-to-person assistance and collective action. They are the primary provider of winter shelter in the City of Oakland. https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1406603?code=Website%202017
• Bay Area Community Services provides a variety of programs to assist people in increasing wellness and ending homelessness
https://www.bayareacs.org/donate/
• Covenant House Oakland provides sanctuary and support for homeless and trafficked youth, ages 18-24.
https://covenanthousecalifornia.org/donate-now/
• St. Mary’s Center provides services for low-income individuals aged 55 and older, who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
http://stmaryscenter.org/
• Building Futures with Women and Children provides resources, programs and services to help Alameda County residents build futures free from homelessness and family violence. http://www.bfwc.org/donate.php
With respect to furniture/appliances, a reminder that it is illegal to drop off these items on any city streets, be it at an encampment or otherwise. Oaklanders should consider donating them to community service organizations that collect and redistribute or raise charitable funds through resale, etc.
Rashidah Grinage, one of the community activists who called for and helped create the Oakland Police Commission, notes it’s first meeting on Facebook. The agenda is posted at the City of Oakland’s website, here: OPC Agenda December 13th, 2017.
She writes:
Thanks to the many community members who participated in the first meeting of Oakland’s Police Commission last night. We must continue to be engaged if we intend for this body to represent our community and hold our police department accountable. The next meeting will be on December 27th; the Commission showed their commitment by scheduling this meeting during the holiday week. A good start!
Peralta Video Explains Decision To Stop Laney College Oakland A’s Ballpark Negotiations via IFTTT
OAKLAND, CA – Tonight, Oakland City Council unanimously voted to advance adult use cannabis, with amendments authored by Councilmember Kaplan to ensure effective implementation. Councilmember Kaplan’s amendments include: the community request to make sure approvals don’t get stuck in Revenue and Planning departments due to cross-departmental delays, and protecting applicant information from the Federal government.
Oakland Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, who has been a leader in regulating and taxing cannabis, authored the nation’s first cannabis tax in 2009, which was placed on the ballot by the Council and passed overwhelmingly by Oakland voters.
https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Oakland_Marijuana_Tax,_Measure_F_(July_2009)
Under Proposition 64, California will allow the sale of cannabis to Californians age 21 and over, but businesses can’t actually sell cannabis unless they get permits from their local city. By passing this legislation, Oakland cannabis businesses can now qualify for state and local authorization.
Kaplan says: “By permitting and taxing cannabis manufacturing, cultivation, and sales, Oakland will be better positioned to fund expansion of vital public services, including homeless solutions, and to remedy illegal dumping which threatens public health. Tonight’s vote made clear that Oakland will not miss the opportunity to bring in vitally needed tax dollars, by harnessing California’s coming legalization of cannabis for adult use. The people of Oakland voted overwhelmingly to support the legalization, taxation, and regulation of cannabis, and our city has successfully provided permitted medical cannabis dispensaries for over a decade — leading the nation in this effort. Now, as Adult Use cannabis sales are about to become legal in California, Oakland has built on this work by providing for adult use sales, in compliance with state and local laws.”
As many California cities have chosen to ban cannabis facilities, and others are enmeshed in lengthy ongoing debates, tonight’s action means that Oakland has now passed our revised cannabis ordinance, and is positioned to be one of the few cities in California prepared to have licensed adult-use sales by January 2018, when the State law allowing them goes into effect.
Oakland Unified School District Budget Town Hall Meeting Livestream Video 11-20-2017
Posted by Kim Davis on Monday, November 20, 2017
And if you have not done so, please take my Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Performance Survey.
Survey: https://survey.zohopublic.com/zs/4xB57l
About the survey: https://oaklandnewsonline.com/2017/10/19/oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-report-card-based-on-her-stated-positions-priorities-oakland-sharing-the-vision/
According to a number of friends who were there, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told members of the Oakland Jobs and Housing Coalition that the city service problems they identified were indefensible.
The setting was the Thursday November 16th morning meeting where Mayor Schaaf was the main guest, and to present her proposed ballot initiative to expand housing affordability and to improve the quality of pre-school education for Oakland students.
After her presentation, a number of members of the Jobs and Housing Coalition expressed disappointment with various city departments, and in areas like the permitting process, and in the lack of direct accountability for failures that occur. My sources said that Mayor Schaaf responded that some of the problems they mentioned were “indefensible.”
The real question is does Mayor Schaaf regard the problems as reparable, and if so, how?
One way to tell the Mayor where she and the City of Oakland are going well, and not, is to take my Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Performamce Survey. It’s a 60 question online active list of questions taken directly from the Mayor’s own list of priorities and positions, as presented on her original website for her 2014 campaign run.
As of this writing, there are 304 completed responses and 2,367 survey visits. Check it out: https://survey.zohopublic.com/zs/4xB57l
15.07
63.72
21.21
What those numbers represent are the percentage of people who, overall, answered yes, no, or not sure to a set of 59 questions on Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s Performance Survey designed by me, Zennie Abraham and for my new Oakland News Online .com blog. The questions were taken directly from her 2014 list of “positions and priorities.” The objective was to determine if Oaklanders believed the Mayor did the job she told the public she would do, and by laying out that list of “positions and priorities.”
My overall concern was the formation of a performance evaluation that was unbiased. By using the Mayor’s own list of objectives, and just placing the words “Did the Mayor:” in from of each one, and then a “?” after each one, a question was formed. For example, the priority of “Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing” became “Did The Mayor: Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing?” – and so on.
Thus formed what I contend is the best evaluation system for an incumbent ever created, and something that can form a model for future efforts. Every candidate has a set of such “positions and priorities” – why not form a way for residents of a city to evaluate if that person did what they, themselves, said they were going to do.
Not A Push Poll
This is not a “push poll.” A push poll is, as political observer and blogger Taegan Goddard put it, “a seemingly unbiased survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate that intends to disseminate negative or misleading information about an opponent. Its intent is primarily to distribute propaganda rather than to understand the views and opinions of the public.”
By providing simple question responses “yes”, “no”, or “not sure”, the Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Performance Survey provides the Oakland voter with a chance to give their opinion on if the mayor attended to the priorities and maintained the positions she created a list of in 2014. There is no pre-survey negative information or positive information on Mayor Schaaf or any other candidate for the Oakland’s Mayor’s Race for 2018. Thus, it is not a push poll, and any claims to the contrary are from the uninformed.
Results for November 12th
To the date and time of this download of survey data, which was November 12th 2017 at 7 PM EST, there were 135 responses and 1,885 overall survey visits. I created one formula set that formed an average response for the categories “yes”, “no”, or “not sure” combining each of the 59 questions.
This way, over the life of the survey, we can track change in overall response: the more Oaklanders who respond to the poll, the more likely we are to obtain a true picture of how the electorate views Mayor’s Schaaf’s performance in meeting her own barometer of success.
Where we are today is that the Mayor has not attended to most of the priorities or maintained most of the positions she established in 2014. The survey’s overall opinion is that she has misfired 63.72 percent of the time (a note vote) or scored positively 15.07 percent of the time (a yes vote), with respondents to questions saying that 21.21 percent of the they were “not sure” if the Mayor attended to most of the priorities or maintained most of the positions she established in 2014.
Where The Mayor Did Well
The area the Mayor received the best score in was for “Did The Mayor: Grow Bikesharing and Safe Cycling Routes Across Oakland?” Here, the scores were “yes” 56 percent, “no” 30 percent, and “not sure” 14 percent. As reported here, before, the highly visible Ford-sponsored blue bike rental racks around town helped a lot. In fact, it’s fair to say that without them, the Mayor would have scored a “not sure” or “no” reflecting a lack of other visible evidence that the Mayor was working to grow bikesharing and safe cycling in Oakland.
Mayor Schaaf also scored well with the question “Did The Mayor: Fund Street and Pothole Repair?”. 41 percent said she did, whereas 50 percent said she did not, and just nine percent were not sure. This, as I’ve said before, points to a clear communications problem, as the City of Oakland and the Mayor via social media have worked to get the word out about the massive, multi-year effort to improve Oakland’s streets via repaving. But the methods used have employed more of a traditional media approach, where a more comprehensive 21st Century media approach would work better.
Where The Mayor Did Not Do Well
Given the massive problem with affordable housing and the homeless, it should surprise no one that Libby had the highest “no” votes for the question “Did The Mayor: Bring Down the Cost of Living?” – 87 percent said no, with 7 percent yes, and 6 percent not sure. And remember, that question was based on a priority Mayor Schaaf established before she was elected in 2014, and the problem of lack of affordable housing started spiraling to massive proportions.
Indeed, the vast majority of Mayor Schaaf’s poorest scores were in areas concerning cost of living related issues.
Scores Updated Weekly
These scores will be updated once a week between now and the 2018 Election Day. That way, as the number of respondents grows, we will get a better view of how the total electorate feels about how Mayor Schaaf has done. Moreover, it will give Mayor Schaaf a chance to go out and tell her story to Oaklanders who may not have got the message.
Of course the best way to for the Mayor to focus on better quality of life cost of living responses is by bringing in more new, and ideally low-skilled but well-paying jobs and not just tech positions, and aggressively reducing housing costs – by any means necessary. And fast: the November 2018 Election will be hear before we know it.
Here’s the full list of questions and statistics for November 12th 2017:
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Performance Survey Scores For Nov 12th 2017
What follows are the raw numbers, and next to them, the percentage representation for “yes”, “no”, and “not sure”.
1 Did The Mayor: Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing? Average Main Scores
Yes 14 0.10 15.07%
No 107 0.79 63.72%
Not sure 14 0.10 21.21%
100.00% 100.00%
2 Did The Mayor: Strengthen Police Force –maintain a baseline of 800 officers and a goal of 925?
Yes 17 0.13
No 78 0.58
Not sure. 40 0.30
100.00%
3 Did The Mayor: Hire More Civilian OPD Employees?
Yes 17 0.13
No 59 0.44
Not sure 59 0.44
100.00%
4 Did The Mayor Speed Up Police and Emergency Response with an Improved 911 System?
Yes 13 0.10
No 98 0.73
Not sure 23 0.17
100.00%
5 Did The Mayor Get Maximum Benefit from Violence Prevention and Intervention Programs?
Yes. 14 0.11
No. 83 0.63
Not sure. 34 0.26
100.00%
6 Did The Mayor Keep Youth Out of Prison?
Yes 11 0.08
No 100 0.75
Not sure 23 0.17
100.00%
7 Did The Mayor: Focus on Root Causes of Crime, Starting with Jobs, Better Wages and Education?
Yes 19 0.14
No 106 0.78
Not sure 11 0.08
100.00%
8 Did The Mayor: Will Appoint a Vice Mayor for Community Safety?
Yes 16 0.12
No 71 0.53
Not sure 48 0.36
100.00%
9 Did The Mayor: Learn from Successes and Failures of Other Cities?
Yes 15 0.11
No 97 0.72
Not sure 22 0.16
100.00%
10 Did The Mayor: Work with City Attorney to Reduce Payments of Claims for Police Misconduct by Half?
Yes 12 0.09
No 82 0.62
Not sure 39 0.29
100.00%
11 Did The Mayor: End Federal Supervision on OPD saving $2M per year?
Yes 17 0.13
No 83 0.62
Not sure 34 0.25
100.00%
12 Did The Mayor: Expand Access to High-Quality Education for All Oakland Students?
Yes 20 0.15
No 96 0.72
Not sure 17 0.13
100.00%
13 Did The Mayor: Expand Student Access to Personalized Learning and Technology?
Yes 17 0.13
No 86 0.64
Not sure 31 0.23
100.00%
14 Did The Mayor: Strengthen and Expand Pathways to College and Career?
Yes 29 0.22
No 84 0.63
Not sure 20 0.15
100.00%
15 Did The Mayor: Develop Restorative Practices for Youth Across City Agencies?
Yes 18 0.14
No 87 0.65
Not sure 28 0.21
100.00%
16 Did The Mayor: Make Oakland “Teacher Town USA”?
Yes 13 0.10
No 103 0.77
Not sure 18 0.13
100.00%
17 Did The Mayor: Implement 311 System for Better Service Delivery?
Yes 16 0.12
No 62 0.47
Not sure 54 0.41
100.00%
18 Did The Mayor: Implement CityStat Performance Accountability System for City Employees?
Yes 10 0.08
No 77 0.58
Not sure 46 0.35
100.00%
19 Did The Mayor: Embrace Public-Private Partnerships?
Yes 34 0.26
No 60 0.45
Not sure 38 0.29
100.00%
20 Did The Mayor: Combat the “Digital Divide” and Engage Residents?
Yes 17 0.13
No 95 0.71
Not sure 21 0.16
100.00%
21 Did The Mayor: Innovation Fellowships for City Employees?
Yes 13 0.10
No 68 0.51
Not sure 52 0.39
100.00%
22 Did The Mayor: Invest in Infrastructure, Use Bonding Against Future Revenue?
Yes 21 0.16
No 75 0.57
Not sure 35 0.27
100.00%
23 Did The Mayor: Create a 5- and 10-year Capital Planning Program?
Yes 14 0.11
No 68 0.52
Not sure 48 0.37
100.00%
24 Did The Mayor: Fund Street and Pothole Repair?
Yes 56 0.41
No 67 0.50
Not sure 12 0.09
100.00%
25 Did The Mayor: Pursue State Funding for Streets?
Yes 28 0.21
No 59 0.45
Not sure 45 0.34
100.00%
26 Did The Mayor: Assess the Value of City-Owned Assets?
Yes 13 0.10
No 68 0.52
Not sure 49 0.38
100.00%
27 Did The Mayor: Save Money and Hassles on Repaving Projects?
Yes 16 0.12
No 79 0.61
Not sure 35 0.27
100.00%
28 Did The Mayor: Make Oakland Responsible and Collaborative About Deferred Liabilities?
Yes 14 0.11
No 70 0.53
Not sure 47 0.36
100.00%
29 Did The Mayor: Cultivate Additional Revenues and Cost-Savings?
Yes 15 0.11
No 83 0.62
Not sure 35 0.26
100.00%
30 Did The Mayor: Capture Value from Real Estate and New Growth?
Yes 25 0.19
No 78 0.60
Not sure 28 0.21
100.00%
31 Did The Mayor: Respond Strategically to the Dissolution of Redevelopment?
Yes 14 0.10
No 97 0.72
Not sure 24 0.18
100.00%
32 Did The Mayor: Speed Up the Transformation of Parks and Open Spaces?
Yes 13 0.10
No 104 0.79
Not sure 15 0.11
100.00%
33 Did The Mayor: Care for Our Libraries, Community, Sports and Cultural Facilities?
Yes 16 0.12
No 104 0.78
Not sure 13 0.10
100.00%
34 Did The Mayor: Make Transportation a Priority in City Hall?
Yes 27 0.20
No 75 0.57
Not sure 30 0.23
100.00%
35 Did The Mayor: Slow Down Neighborhood Streets?
Yes 24 0.19
No 83 0.64
Not sure 22 0.17
100.00%
36 Did The Mayor: Grow Bikesharing and Safe Cycling Routes Across Oakland?
Yes 74 0.56
No 40 0.30
Not sure 18 0.14
100.00%
37 Did The Mayor: Make Transit a Great Option?
Yes 20 0.15
No 90 0.67
Not sure 24 0.18
100.00%
38 Did The Mayor: Make Streets Good Places for People?
Yes 13 0.10
No 104 0.79
Not sure 15 0.11
100.00%
39 Did The Mayor: Make Parking Make Sense?
Yes 11 0.08
No 97 0.74
Not sure 23 0.18
100.00%
40 Did The Mayor: Plan Our Neighborhoods for Appropriate Development?
Yes 12 0.09
No 103 0.77
Not sure 19 0.14
100.00%
41 Did The Mayor: Help Get New Housing Built?
Yes 31 0.23
No 75 0.56
Not sure 27 0.20
100.00%
42 Did The Mayor: Look for New Housing Funds and Use Affordable Housing Funding Strategies That Work?
Yes 22 0.17
No 85 0.64
Not sure 25 0.19
100.00%
43 Did The Mayor: Pursue Additional Sources of Funding for Affordable Housing?
Yes 23 0.17
No 77 0.58
Not sure 33 0.25
100.00%
44 Did The Mayor: Prioritize Protection of Current Rentals?
Yes 23 0.17
No 93 0.70
Not sure 17 0.13
100.00%
45 Did The Mayor: Incentivize the Creation of Affordable Units?
Yes 21 0.16
No 94 0.71
Not sure 17 0.13
100.00%
46 Did The Mayor: Get Tough on Bad Landlords?
Yes 15 0.11
No 97 0.73
Not sure 20 0.15
100.00%
47 Did The Mayor: Fight for Oakland’s Fair Share?
Yes 17 0.13
No 95 0.73
Not sure 19 0.15
100.00%
48 Did The Mayor: Raise the Minimum Wage to a Livable Wage?
Yes 28 0.21
No 89 0.67
Not sure 16 0.12
100.00%
49 Did The Mayor: Bring Down the Cost of Living?
Yes 9 0.07
No 117 0.87
Not sure 8 0.06
100.00%
50 Did The Mayor: Support New Business Formation?
Yes 31 0.23
No 74 0.55
Not sure 30 0.22
100.00%
51 Did The Mayor: Retain and Expand Existing Businesses?
Yes 18 0.14
No 88 0.67
Not sure 26 0.20
100.00%
52 Did The Mayor: Market Oakland as a Great Place for Business?
Yes 40 0.30
No 69 0.52
Not sure 24 0.18
100.00%
53 Did The Mayor: Partner with Businesses to Create Training?
Yes 17 0.13
No 78 0.59
Not sure 38 0.29
100.00%
54 Did The Mayor: Help Workers Secure Jobs and Prepare for Careers?
Yes 16 0.12
No 92 0.69
Not sure 25 0.19
100.00%
55 Did The Mayor: Lift Up Our Small Businesses?
Yes 21 0.16
No 88 0.67
Not sure 22 0.17
100.00%
56 Did The Mayor: Make “Made in Oakland” a Reality?
Yes 16 0.12
No 96 0.73
Not sure 20 0.15
100.00%
57 Did The Mayor: Attract New Employers?
Yes 30 0.22
No 77 0.57
Not sure 29 0.21
100.00%
58 Did The Mayor: Cut Red Tape for New and Expanding Businesses?
Yes 12 0.09
No 85 0.65
Not sure 33 0.25
100.00%
59 Did The Mayor: Make Neighborhoods with the Highest Unemployment “Job Creation Zones”?
Yes 13 0.10
No 98 0.74
Not sure 22 0.17
100.00%
60 What Oakland City Council District Do You Live In?
District One (North Oakland-Rockridge) 4
District Two (East Lake Merritt – Chinatown) 4
District Three (Adams Point – Downtown – West Oakland) 3
District Four (Montclair – Oakland Hills – Central Oakland Laurel Heights ) 2
District Five (Fruitvale / San Antonio to Central East Oakland ) 3
District Six (Central East Oakland) 3
District Seven (East Oakland) 7
In 2015, I went through a restorative justice training in Oakland with RJOY (Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth), and I learned that it takes a community to heal a community.
When I found out that restorative justice was starting to replace suspensions and expulsions in Oakland schools, it made so much sense. Young people obviously benefit more from being called in to their communities than being shamed or exiled. By then I also understood that making sense is a kind of resistance, because our current policies aren’t designed to reduce harm. They actively destroy communities and perpetuate cycles of trauma.
What if a young person who caused harm was told that they matter, that they have it in them to make better choices, and that they’ll be supported? That’s what a restorative justice circle does, and the investment that Oakland schools have put into RJ practices has resulted in more than just a symbolic showing of care for students.
The Oakland Public Schools Restorative Justice effort has employed staff in schools whose sole purpose is to promote social and emotional health. It has created safe places for students to express themselves without shame or judgement. It has even trained and empowered students to practice calling in their peers when they face conflict, without any intervention. I wish my classmates and I had had that kind of education in school.
As a young person, I learned that punishing people and banning things were the way to solve problems in society. I wasn’t really challenged to think outside of that box. I wasn’t shown an alternative, or taught about indigenous practices, like restorative justice. It took a lot of learning and unlearning to become a harm reduction enthusiast.
Another organization I’ve trained with is the SEEDS Community Resolution Center in Berkeley. There I learned the basics of mediation, which is another restorative practice that is becoming a more popular way of settling disputes outside of court. The beauty of mediation is that it doesn’t involve an external judge or expensive lawyer – it is at its heart a safe container for a conflict to be resolved by the people affected. Mediators are trained to create and maintain this space, and it’s not an easy task. Often there are differences in power that haven’t been addressed, and painful histories, traumas, and emotions that emerge.
Like restorative justice, mediation empowers people by getting to the heart of the conflict, rather than escalating, isolating, or punishing. I see the rise in popularity of these models as extremely promising for the East Bay and any community in need of justice that empowers and heals.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s staff for some reason used this Facebook page to post her State of The City Speech, even though the result was not used to be distributed via other social media. Sad.
The City’s residents needs to have a look at The Islamic Cultural Center, located at 1433 Madison, Steet. This gives them that chance – and it’s one reason why I reposted the speech here.
Sit back and watch and listen – and click on this link to hear the speech:
Stay tuned.
As Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf prepares to deliver her State of The City Address on Thursday, and just before the 2018 Election Season unofficially starts in November, this blogger designed a unique online survey of her performance that you can see and answer at this link, here. The first respondents to the survey posted at Oakland News Online, the newest blog in the 96-blog Zennie62Media Network that features Zennie62.com, show that the vast majority don’t believe the Mayor has done what she herself said she was going to do when she ran for the office and won in 2014.
We know this because of the way I formed the questionaire: it’s based entirely on the Mayor’s priorities list from her 2014 election website. What I did was take a priority like “Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing”, put “Did The Mayor:” in front of it, and a question mark behind it, and we get the survey question “Did The Mayor: Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing?”
Finally, I used a simple set of three responses to each question: “yes”, “no”, and “not sure”. Overall, my objective was to avoid any accusation of bias. Plus, we can get a true reading on what people think of how Mayor Schaaf has performed to date.
I used that approach for each of the 59 listed positions and priorities that were listed, and which I have posted at the end of this blog entry.
Most Respondents Say Mayor Did Not Meet Priorities
The survey I developed employed the Zoho Survey “Software As Service” Platform. With this, entries are scored automatically and a report is created in a PDF format. That PDF report gives summary answers for each question. In other words, if 32 people answer one question, the most frequently picked answer is posted as the final answer in the PDF report, for that individual question.
But what the Zoho Platform does not do is give one a fully summary tally: or one answer that combines the statistics of all of the questions. To get that, I had to make a spreadsheet of the percentage answers for each question. (As a note, because some respondents skipped a question here or there, the final percentages add up to just over 100 percent, rather than 100 percent.)
The spreadsheet, which I also posted at Scribd.com, reported this summary tally:
Yes: 10
No: 69
Not Sure: 22
In other words, just less than 70 percent of of time in the survey, respondents reported that the Mayor did not meet her priorities. Where Mayor Schaaf did do so was in the area of biking, and with this question: Did The Mayor: Grow Bikesharing and Safe Cycling Routes Across Oakland?
For that question, 52 percent answered “yes”, whereas 29 percent answered “no”, and 19 percent reported that they were “not sure”.
A Visible Oakland Bike Presence, Thanks To The Ford Motor Company
Why did Libby score so well in the bike question, and so poorly in the question about road repair, even though the City of Oakland has embarked on a pot hole elimination program? I think it’s because of the bike rental stations set up by The Ford Motor Company, and very visible in many areas of the City. Here’s an example from a video-blog I made July 27th 2017: this a station on Grand Avenue near Perkins in Adams Point:
By contrast, there’s no visible, on-the-street evidence that Oakland’s streets and roads are better, even if they may be. There’s no sign that says “this road repaired by Oakland Public Works”, so no one has a visual that can be connected back to Mayor Schaaf.
The Mayor Hasn’t Reported Her, Or Oakland’s, Good Works, And That Other Issue…
The basic problem for Mayor Schaaf is she hasn’t reported on her, or the City of Oakland’s, good works. The major reason here is a complete lack of a true communications strategy to get the word out, and when any outreach is done, it’s to traditional, and dying, forms of media. In addition to that, the Mayor’s social media approach, as is true for the City of Oakland and the Oakland City Council, is haphazzard and uncoordinated.
And then, there’s that other issue about how some regard Mayor Schaaf. It’s a view I completely disagree with, but its a perception that Mayor Schaaf does not score well with minority and millenial communities. Again, this is a function of people not really knowing Libby, the horribly bad affordable housing problem, the giant homeless problem it’s created, and the afforementioned communications issue.
On top of that, Mayor Schaaf has not formed an organizational and procedural replacement for the terminated Oakland Redevelopment Agency – this, as California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law provisions that, taken together, allow for the creation of a new type of redevelopment agency that can focus on the creation of affordable housing. So, the affordablity crisis worsens, with only a slowing economy to stop it – and that does not benefit Mayor Schaaf, either.
The Ongoing Mayor Schaaf Survey
To close, this blog post constitutes a preliminary report. I have just 32 respondents, and have not yet done a giant email send campaign for the survey. But what prompted me to make a report this early was the completely lopsided pattern of the responses and the upcoming “State of The City” speech this Thursday at the Islamic Cultural Center at 1455 Madison. Since the focus is on the Mayor, and this pattern of “no’s” was so obvious, so early, I had to reported it before her event.
As for the priorities list that formed the basis for the survey, here’s it is from a file I saved sometime ago:
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf – Stated Positions and Priorities
Public Safety
Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing
Strengthen Police Force –maintain a baseline of 800 officers and a goal of 925
Hire More Civilian OPD Employees
Speed Up Police and Emergency Response with an Improved 911 System
Get Maximum Benefit from Violence Prevention and Intervention Programs
Keep Youth Out of Prison
Focus on Root Causes of Crime, Starting with Jobs, Better Wages and Education
Will Appoint a Vice Mayor for Community Safety
Learn from Successes and Failures of Other Cities
Work with City Attorney to Reduce Payments of Claims for Police Misconduct by Half
End Federal Supervision on OPD saving $2M per year
Education
Expand Access to High-Quality Education for All Oakland Students
Expand Student Access to Personalized Learning and Technology
Strengthen and Expand Pathways to College and Career
Develop Restorative Practices for Youth Across City Agencies
Make Oakland “Teacher Town USA”
21st Century Government
Implement 311 System for Better Service Delivery
Implement CityStat Performance Accountability System for City Employees
Embrace Public-Private Partnerships
Combat the “Digital Divide” and Engage Residents
Innovation Fellowships for City Employees
Finances
Invest in Infrastructure, Use Bonding Against Future Revenue
Create a 5- and 10-year Capital Planning Program
Fund Street and Pothole Repair
Pursue State Funding for Streets
Assess the Value of City-Owned Assets
Saving Money and Hassles on Repaving Projects
Be Responsible and Collaborative About Deferred Liabilities
Cultivate Additional Revenues and Cost-Savings
Capture Value from Real Estate and New Growth
Respond Strategically to the Dissolution of Redevelopment
Livable Neighborhoods and Sustainable Transportation
Speed Up the Transformation of Parks and Open Spaces
Care for Our Libraries, Community, Sports and Cultural Facilities
Make Transportation a Priority in City Hall
Slow Down Neighborhood Streets
Grow Bikesharing and Safe Cycling Routes Across Oakland
Make Transit a Great Option
Make Streets Good Places for People
Make Parking Make Sense
Plan Our Neighborhoods for Appropriate Development
Preserving Affordability and Cultural Identity
Help Get New Housing Built
Look for New Housing Funds and Use Affordable Housing Funding Strategies That Work
Pursue Additional Sources of Funding for Affordable Housing
Prioritize Protection of Current Rentals
Incentivize the Creation of Affordable Units
Get Tough on Bad Landlords
Fight for Oakland’s Fair Share
Raise the Minimum Wage to a Livable Wage
Bring Down the Cost of Living
Economic Revitalization
Support New Business Formation
Retain and Expand Existing Businesses
Market Oakland as a Great Place for Business
Partner with Businesses to Create Training
Help Workers Secure Jobs and Prepare for Careers
Lift Up Our Small Businesses
Make “Made in Oakland” a Reality
Attract New Employers
Cut Red Tape for New and Expanding Businesses
Make Neighborhoods with the Highest Unemployment “Job Creation Zones”
Stay tuned.
Reports Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Survey Report Card Preliminary PDF File by Zennie Abraham on Scribd
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Preliminary Survey Tally by Zennie Abraham by Zennie Abraham on Scribd
As part of what’s called The Oakland Disparity Study, Mason Tillman Associates held a poorly publicized meeting to interested members of the Oakland Minority Business Community on October 24th at Oakland City Hall, that featured a speech by Oakland Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney. Here’s the link and embed of her talk, but click on the link here, because the embed will not play her speech from the start of her talk due to Periscope’s crappy coding.
.@MasonTillmanHQ Councilwoman Lynette Gibson McElhaney – District 3 #oaklanddisparitystudy #sup… https://t.co/Q21yt6eKSO
— Zennie Abraham (@zennie62) October 31, 2017
Now, what is the “Oakland Disparity Study”? Well, according to Mason Tillman Associates it…
was commissioned in June 2017. The Study will determine how many contracts and contract dollars the City and its prime contractors have awarded to businesses that are owned by people of color and women. In the Study process, input will be solicited from business owners who have contracted with the City or who have tried to contract with the City. Policy and administrative recommendations based on the Study’s findings will be provided to the City.
The Study will be conducted by Oakland-based firm, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. Mason Tillman is a nationally recognized disparity study expert. Mason Tillman will analyze construction, professional services, and goods and services contracts and grants that were awarded from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2016. As a key component of the Study, Mason Tillman will identify ready, willing and able local businesses, including businesses owned by people of color and women, in the City’s market area.
The success of the Study requires the involvement of the local business community. You are invited to participate in the Study by:
Attending a business outreach meeting and providing public comment
Submitting a business information survey to affirm your willingness and ability to contract with the City: Oakland Disparity Study Business Survey
Agreeing to be interviewed regarding your contracting experiences
Providing membership lists and directories from local business and professional organizations
They did a crappy job of letting people know about these meetings in Oakland – the social media outreach was laughable at best. Heck, they could have contracted with me to do this! I’m a local black small business in Zennie62Media with a huge reach.
Right?
But, I digress.
Here’s the website: http://oaklanddisparitystudy.com/
Stay tuned.
The problem of guns stored in some Oakland homes in a way that can cause loss of life has been a problem for some time. A concerned Oakland City Council and Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley have taken steps to reduce the problem.
Take January 5th 2016 for example, the Oakland City Council, led by Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan (At Large), Dan Kalb (District One), and Anne Campbell Washington (District Four) passed an ordinance to ban all high capacity weapons magazines and require gun owners to safely store their guns in lock boxes both at home and in automobiles.
And take this month, where Oakland electeds have embarked on a campaign to remind you to store your weapons safely. Here’s Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley, from her website:
““The message is strong and clear and it will save lives,” says DA O’Malley. If there are children living in or visiting your home, your gun must be secured and locked in a place that no child can access. This is the law in our state. When gun owners follow this law, lives are saved and tragedies are prevented.”
As these public service announcements were in final production, the nation witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in our country’s modern history in Las Vegas, Nevada. While the messaging of this public service campaign is devoted to the safe storage of firearms, it is clearly a part of a much broader campaign centered on reducing gun violence and its tragic consequences.
Children are naturally curious and love nothing more than looking into hiding places. When an adult’s negligent gun storage is combined with a child’s interest in exploration, deadly consequences are far too common.The tragedies are seemingly never-ending. Within just the past several weeks, the media reported stories from around the country of little children shooting themselves or others with guns they found. In late September, a 4-year-old boy in Parma, Ohio, got his hands on a gun in the family car and died after shooting himself in the head. Earlier in the month, a 4-year-old Florida girl put her hand into her grandmother’s purse looking for candy, came upon a handgun, and accidentally shot and killed herself. News reports in St. Louis describe a 4-year-old boy who shot himself in the face with a gun he had found in his home, and, in a separate incident the same week, a 2-year-old boy shot and killed his father while playing with a handgun he found in the home. Had the guns been locked away, inaccessible to children, lives would not have been lost nor children seriously injured.
California is one of several states in the nation that has laws prohibiting ‘criminal storage’ of firearms. These laws are aimed at preventing teens and children from gaining access to loaded guns and shooting themselves or others. This campaign aims to inform every gun owner of his or her legal responsibility to ensure that no child can access the firearm.
A study published in June of 2017 in the American Journal of Pediatrics reports that on average, 19 U.S. children per day are killed by or receive emergency treatment for gunshot wounds, and that among injury-related deaths, firearms are the second leading cause behind car accidents for children aged 1-17.
In the months ahead, the District Attorney’s Office will continue the campaign to address gun violence, highlighting important messages such as safe storage to reduce the theft of firearms that are often then used in violent crimes.
So, be sure to store your guns in a way that’s safe and lawful.
Stay tuned.
Oakland At-Large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan has authored a proposed tenant protection ordinance that passed the City’s Community and Economic Development Committee on Tuesday and is headed for the full City Council for discussion and possible action November 7th.
The short version of what this will do if passed is allow rental unit tenants who are being kicked out by bad landlords the chance to receive what are called “relocation payments” from that same bad landlord!
It adresses a major problem in Oakland and the SF Bay Area where an owner of a rental unit suddenly decides they want to give it to a relative. So, the bad landlord has been able to kick out the powerless tenant. That would stop if Kaplan’s law is approved by the Oakland City Council, November 7th.
Here’s the full staff report and ordinance, converted ‘as is’ without editorial changes:
CITY OF OAKLAND
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Colleagues on the City Council and
Members of the Public
FROM: Councilmember At-Large
Rebecca Kaplan
Ordinance to Enact the Uniform
Residential Tenant Relocation
Ordinance
DATE: October 4, 2017
RECOMMENDATION
Councilmember Kaplan recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to enact the
Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance to: 1) establish a uniform schedule of
relocation payments; 2) extend relocation payments to tenants displaced by owner move-in
evictions; 3) extend relocation payments to tenants displaced by condominium conversions; and
4) conform existing Ellis Act and code compliance relocation amounts to those in the uniform
schedule.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This proposed legislation would add Article VII, the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation
Ordinance, and Article VIII, Relocation Payments for Owner or Relative Move-Ins, to Chapter
8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC). The purpose of Article VII and Article VIII is to
. establish a uniform amount of relocation payments for tenants displaced by no-fault evictions.
This proposed Ordinance extends relocation payments to tenants displaced for owner or relative
move-ins, as well as tenants who are displaced by condominium conversions. It sets notice
requirements, and the time and manner by.which the relocation payments must be made
It also creates a Uniform Schedule of Relocation Payments, and conforms existing Ellis Act and
code compliance1 relocation amounts to those in the uniform schedule. For a Qualifying
Relocation Event, this proposed Ordinance sets the relocation amount per tenant household as
follows:
•
•
•
$6,500 per studio/one bedroom units
$8,000 per two bedroom units
$9,875 per three or more bedroom units
1 This
proposed legislation conforms code compliance relocation amounts for permanent displacements
to the uniform schedule. The relocation amounts in the proposed uniform schedule represent the highest
amounts a tenant household can receive for temporary displacement (which is based on actual moving
and temporary housing expenses during the expected displacement period). (See OMC Section
15.60.110.)
Item:
CED Committee
October 24, 2017
Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan
Subject: Ordinance to Enact the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance
Date: October 4, 2017
Page 2 of 4
Tenant households in rental units that include lower income, elderly or disabled tenants, and/or
minor children shall be entitled to a single additional relocation payment of two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500.00) per unit from the owner.
Under this proposed Ordinance, the relocation payments specified above shall increase
annually on July 1st in accordance with the CPI Adjustment as calculated in OMC subsection
8.22.070(B)(3).2 The first CPI adjustment (at 2.3%) took effect on July 1, 2017 (not reflected in
the numbers above).
This proposed Ordinance would impose criminal, administrative, and civil penalties for violating,
or attempting to violate, the provisions of the Chapter, and includes civil remedies.
BACKGROUND I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Under Oakland’s Just Cause Ordinance, a landlord may not evict a tenant without cause, but
may evict a tenant who is not at fault if: the owner (or owner’s relative) seeks to move in to the
property (OMC Sections 8.22.360(A)(8 & 9)); the owner seeks to make code compliance repairs
(OMC Section 8.22.360(A)(10)); or, the owner seeks to remove the property from the market in
accordance with the Ellis Act (OMC Sections 8.22.360(A)(11)).
Currently, the City of Oakland requires relocation payments for Ellis and code compliance
displacements. OMC Section 8.22.450 provides for relocation payments for tenants displaced
because of an owner’s withdrawal from the rental market in accordance with the Ellis Act. OMC
Section 15.60 provides for relocation payments for tenants displaced because of code
compliance repairs.
This proposed Ordinance would extend relocation payments to the final category of no-fault
evictions under the Just Cause Ordinance: owner move-ins. Like tenants displaced under Ellis
or for code compliance repairs, tenants displaced due to owner move-ins, who are not at fault,
will be forced to incur substantial costs to relocate to new housing, and deserve assistance.
This proposed Ordinance would also extend relocation payments to tenants displaced by
condominium conversions. For this category of relocation payments, tenants who are displaced
for code compliance repairs shall be paid relocation payments at no less than the amounts
pursuant to OMC Section 15.60. The reason for this is because OMC Section 15.60 governs
tenant displacement due to code compliance repairs, and makes a distinction between
permanent displacement and temporary displacement. The relocation payment amount for
permanent displacement is governed by the uniform relocation payment schedule created by
this proposed legislation (see OMC Section 15.60.110(A)). The relocation payment amount for
temporary displacement is based on actual moving and temporary housing expenses during the
expected displacement period (see OMC Section 15.60.110(B)), up to the amounts listed in the
uniform relocation payment schedule.
2 The
CPI adjustment increase applies to all the relocation payment amounts except for the enhanced
$2,500.00 payment for tenant households that include lower income, elderly or disabled tenants, and/or
minor children, which is not indexed for inflation.
Item:
CED Committee
October 24, 2017
Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan
Subject: Ordinance to Enact the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance
Date: October 4, 2017
Page 3 of 4
Tenants displaced by condominium conversions for any other reason (other than code
compliance repairs), unless evicted for tenant fault, shall be paid relocation payments at not less
than the amounts pursuant to the uniform relocation payment schedule created by this proposed
legislation (OMC Section 8.22.820). As with tenants displaced due to owner move-ins, tenants
displaced due to condominium conversions, who are not at fault, will be forced to incur
substantial costs to relocate to new housing, and deserve assistance.
As stated above, this proposed Ordinance also creates a uniform schedule of relocation
payments for no-fault evictions, set at the amounts established by the Ellis Act Ordinance,
previously approved by the City. The reason for this uniformity is to streamline the process for
tenants and landlords alike, and because tenants displaced for any type of no-fault eviction face
the same challenges associated with finding new temporary or permanent housing.
ANALYSIS
Rationale for Extending Relocation Payments to Tenants Displaced Due to Owner/Relative
Move-Ins and Condominium Conversions
Just like tenants who are displaced for Ellis or code compliance evictions, tenants who are
displaced in Oakland due to owner/relative move-ins and condominium conversions will be
forced to incur substantial costs to relocate to new housing. These costs include, but are not
limited to, move-in costs to a new unit, actual moving costs, new utility hookups, payment for
temporary housing while new permanent housing is sought, and lost work time seeking housing.
According to a 2017 Mid-Year Rent Trends Report from Abodo, an apartment listings website,
Oakland ranks the seventh costliest rental market in the country, with one-bedroom apartments
typically renting for $2,025.00. Due to Oakland’s exorbitant housing prices, many displaced
tenants would be unable to relocate in the City if relocation payments are not authorized, and
face an increased risk of homelessness. The impacts of these no-fault evictions are particularly
difficult for senior, disabled, and low-income tenants and tenants with minor children.
Because tenants displaced for no-fault evictions suffer similar hardships, including an increased
risk of homelessness, they should all be eligible for relocation payments designed to mitigate
these hardships, and keep Oakland residents safe and sheltered.
Rationale for Establishing a Uniform Schedule of Relocation Payments
Currently, tenants are eligible for relocation payments for Ellis Act and code compliance
displacements. This proposed legislation would extend relocation payments to tenants
displaced by owner/relative move-ins and condominium conversions.
With four categories of relocation payments, it is helpful for landlords and tenants to be able to
refer to a uniform schedule. Having information about relocation payments in one place is more
accessible, clear, and instructive for all parties. Moreover, it makes sense that the payments
would be uniform, because each tenant household displaced by no fault of their own faces the
same hardships associated with relocation.
Item:
CED Committee
October 24, 2017
Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan
Subject: Ordinance to Enact the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance
Date: October 4, 2017
Page 4 of 4
For example, tenants who find acceptable new housing commonly find themselves required to
pay substantial expenses including moving costs, move-in costs, new utility hook-ups, payments
for temporary housing, lost work time seeking housing, and increased rent due to vacancy
decontrol. Regardless of the reason for the displacement, these no-fault tenants will be facing
similar expenses, which the proposed uniform schedule of relocation payments has been
designed to address.
COORDINATION
The legislation was created by the Office of Councilmember Kaplan in coordination with the City
Attorney’s Office.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: This ordinance intends to help tenants manage the economic burdens associated
with displacement due to no-fault evictions.
Social Equity: This ordinance intends to promote social equity by helping impacted Oakland
tenants afford new housing and avoid displacement.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Adopt an Ordinance to enact the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance to: 1)
establish a uniform schedule of relocation payments; 2) extend relocation payments to tenants
displaced by owner move-in evictions; 3) extend relocation payments to tenants displaced by
condominium conversions; and 4) conform existing Ellis Act and code compliance relocation
amounts to those in the uniform schedule.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Laura Holtan, Policy and Legislative Director
for Councilmember Kaplan, at 510-238-7081.
Respectfully submitted,
Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan
Reviewed by:
Richard lllgen, Supervising Deputy City
Attorney and Kent Qian, Deputy City Attorney
Prepared by:
Laura Holtan, Policy and Legislative Director
Office of Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan
Item:
CED Committee
October 24, 2017
fr OCT-ifr PM g;||
APPROVED AS TO FORIVh^ND LEGALITY
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN
i
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFI’
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
C.M.S.
AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT THE UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL
TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE TO (1) ESTABLISH AN
UNIFORM SCHEDULE OF RELOCATION PAYMENTS; (2) TO
EXTEND RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO TENANTS DISPLACED BY
OWNER MOVE-IN EVICTIONS; (3) TO EXTEND RELOCATION
PAYMENTS TO TENANTS DISPLACED BY CONDOMINIUM
CONVERSIONS; AND (4) CONFORM EXISTING ELLIS ACT AND
CODE COMPLIANCE RELOCATION AMOUNTS TO THOSE IN THE
UNIFORM SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, all major California rent-controlled jurisdictions surveyed (including
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood) require
relocation payments for no-fault evictions, such as owner move-in evictions and
condominium conversions; and
WHEREAS, tenants who do not have adequate funds to move and who are
forced to move pursuant to no-fault eviction notice face displacement and great
hardship; and
WHEREAS, tenants evicted in Oakland are forced to incur substantial costs
related to new housing including, but not limited to, move-in costs to a new home,
moving costs, new utility hook-ups, payments for temporary housing, and lost work
time seeking housing; and
WHEREAS, the impacts of these no-fault evictions are particularly significant
on elderly, disabled, and low-income tenants and tenants with minor children,
justifying an additional payment for households with these tenants; and
WHEREAS, tenants who find acceptable new housing commonly find
themselves required to pay substantial costs related to new housing including, but not
limited to, move-in costs to a new home, moving costs, new utility hook-ups, payments
for temporary housing, lost work time seeking housing, and increased rent due to
vacancy decontrol; and
WHEREAS, tenants who find acceptable new housing commonly find
themselves required to pay substantial move-in costs of first and last month’s rent plus
a security deposit equal to one month’s rent; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recently approved these same relocation fee
amounts for evictions pursuant to the Ellis Act, another type of no-fault eviction, and
establish a schedule for relocation payments according to unit size; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed expansion in coverage of
the relocation payments for no-fault evictions is justified and necessary for impacted
Tenants to find new housing and avoid displacement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the relocation amounts for owner moveins and condominium conversions should be set at the amounts establish by the Ellis
Act Ordinance approved by the City; and
WHEREAS, with the expansion in coverage of relocation payments, the City
Council finds it justified to establish an uniform schedule of relocation payments for nofault evictions; and
WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to, but not limited to, the following CEQA Guidelines: § 15378
(regulatory actions), § 15061 (b)(3) (no significant environmental impact), and § 15183
(consistent with the general plan and zoning); and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Addition of Article VII to Chapter 8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code.
That the City Council hereby adopts the addition of Section 8.22.800 et. seq. as Article VII
of Chapter 8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code, as follows.
Article VII – Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance
8.22.800 – Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish an uniform amount for relocation payments
for tenants displaced by no-fault evictions.
8.22.810 – Definitions
“Disabled” means a person with a disability, as defined in Section 12955.3 of the
Government Code.
“Elderly” means a person sixty-two (62) years old or older.
-2-
“Lower-income Tenant Household” means Tenant Households whose income is not
more than that permitted for lower income households, as defined by California Health
and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
“Minor child(ren)” means a person(s) who is eighteen (18) years or younger at the time
the notice of withdrawal of accommodations is served on the program.
“Owner” means an owner of record of the real property on which the rent units to be
withdrawn are located.
“Qualifying Relocation Event” means any event or vacancy that triggers a Tenant’s right
to relocation payments under the Oakland Municipal Code.
“Rental Unit” means a dwelling space in the city containing a separate bathroom,
kitchen, and living area, including a single-family dwelling or unit in a multifamily or
multipurpose dwelling, or a unit in a condominium or cooperative housing project, or a
unit in a structure that is being used for residential uses whether or not the residential
use is a conforming use permitted under the Oakland Municipal Code or Oakland
Planning Code, which is hired, rented, or leased to a household within the meaning of
California Civil Code Section 1940. This definition applies to any dwelling space that is
actually used for residential purposes, including live-work spaces, whether or not the
residential use is legally permitted.
“Room” means an unsubdivided portion of the interior of a residential building in the city
which is used for the purpose of sleeping, and is occupied by a Tenant Household for at
least thirty (30) consecutive days. This includes, but is not limited to, a single room
occupancy (SRO) living space.a rooming unit or efficiency unit located in a residential
hotel, as that term is defined in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
Section 50519. This definition applies to any space that is actually used for residential
purposes whether or not the residential use is legally permitted. For purposes of
determining the amount of relocation payments, a room is the equivalent of a studio
apartment.
“Tenant” means a Tenant as that term is defined in O.M.C. 8.22.020 and also includes a
lessee.
“Tenant Household” means one or more individuals Tenants who rent or lease a Rental
Unit or Room as their primary residence and who share living expenses
accommodations. In the case where an individual Room is rented to multiple Tenants
under separate agreements, each individual Tenant of such Room shall constitute a
“Tenant Household” for purposes of this article.
8.22.820 Amount of relocation payments
A. Tenant Households who are required to move as a result of a Qualifying Relocation
Event shall be entitled to a relocation payment from the Owner in the sum of six
thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500.00) per unit for studios and one-bedroom
apartments; eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) per unit for two-bedroom apartments;
-3-
and nine thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars ($9,875.00) per unit for units
with three or more bedrooms. The payment shall be divided equally among all
Tenants occupying the Rental Unit at the time of service on the Tenants of the notice
of termination of tenancy.
B. Tenant Households in Rental Units that include lower income, elderly or disabled
Tenants, and/or minor children shall be entitled to a single additional relocation
payment of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) per unit from the Owner. If
a household qualifies for this additional payment, the payment shall be divided
equally among eligible (lower-income, elderly, disabled, parents/guardians of minor
children) Tenants.
C. In the case of temporary relocations under O.M.C. 15.60.110(B), the amounts in
paragraphs A-B shall be a cap on relocation payments.
D. The relocation payments specified in subsection 8.22.820(A) shall increase annually
on July 1 in accordance with the CPI Adjustment as calculated in OMC subsection
8.22.070(B)(3). The first increase shall take place on July 1, 2017.
SECTION 2. Addition of Article VStl to Chapter 8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code.
That the City Council hereby adopts the addition of Section 8.22.850 et. seq. as Article VIII
of Chapter 8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code, as follows.
Article VIII – Relocation Payments for Owner or Relative Move-Iras
8.22.850 – Relocation Payments for Owner or Relative Move-Ins
A. Applicability. An Owner who evicts a Tenant pursuant to O.M.C. Section
8.22.360(A)(8)-(9) or where a Tenant vacates following a notice or other
communication stating the Owner’s intent to seek recovery of possession of the unit
under any of these O.M.C. Sections must provide relocation payment under this
Section. Relocation payment procedures pursuant to code compliance or Ellis Act
evictions will be governed by the Code Compliance Relocation Ordinance and the
Ellis Act Ordinance.
B. The property Owner shall be responsible for providing relocation payments, in the
amounts specified in Section 8.22.820, to an eligible Tenant Household in the form
and manner prescribed under this article and any rules and regulations adopted
under this article.
C. Time for payment
1. The Owner must pay the Tenant half of the relocation payment provided for in
Section 8.22.820(A) when the termination notice is given to the household and
the remaining half when the Tenant vacates the unit provided that the Tenant
agrees, in writing, not to contest an unlawful detainer based on the notice to
terminate tenancy for the Owner or relative moving in to the Tenant’s Rental Unit.
If the Tenant does not so agree, then the entirety of the relocation payment is not
due unless the Owner prevails in the unlawful detainer. If the Owner prevails in
the unlawful detainer, the relocation payment must be paid to the Tenant prior to
the Owner seeking a writ of possession for the Tenant to vacate the withdrawn
unit.
-4-
2. The Owner must pay the Tenant the additional payment provided for in Section
8.22.820(B) within fifteen (15) days of the Tenant’s notice of eligibility or the
Tenant supplying documentation of the Tenant’s eligibility.
D. Failure to make the relocation payments in the manner and within such times as
prescribed in this Section is not a defense to an unlawful detainer action. However, if an
Owner fails to make the relocation payment as prescribed, the Tenant may file an action
against the Owner and, if the Tenant is found eligible for the relocation payments, the
Tenant will be entitled to recover the amount of the relocation payments plus an equal
amount as damages and the Tenant’s attorney’s fees. Should the Owner’s failure to
make the payments as prescribed be found to be in bad faith, the Tenant shall be
entitled to the relocation payments plus an additional amount of three times the amount
of the relocation payments and the Tenant’s attorney’s fees.
8.22.860 – Violation – Penalty.
A.
Criminal Penalties
1.
Infraction. Any property Owner violating any provision or failing to comply with
any requirements of this article shall be guilty of an infraction for the first offense.
2.
Misdemeanor. Any property Owner violating any provision or failing to comply
with any requirements of this article multiple times shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B.
Administrative Penalties
1.
Administrative citation. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply
with any requirements of this article may be assessed an administrative citation
pursuant to O.M.C. Chapter 1.12 for the first offense.
2.
Civil penalties. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any
requirements of this article multiple times may be assessed a civil penalty for each
violation pursuant to O.M.C. Chapter 1.08.
C.
Violation includes attempted violation. In addition to failing to comply with this
article, it is also violation to attempt to have a Tenant accept terms that fail to comply
with this article, including any of the following actions:
1.
Asking the Tenant to accept an agreement that pays less than the required
relocation payments;
2.
Asking the Tenant to accept an agreement that waives the Tenant’s rights; or
3.
Upon a return to the unit, asking the Tenant to pay a higher rent than is permitted
under this article or O.M.C. Chapter 8.22.
8.22.870 – Civil Remedies.
A.
Any person or organization who believes that a property Owner or Tenant
Household has violated provisions of this article or the program rules and regulations
adopted pursuant to this article shall have the right to file an action for injunctive relief
and/or actual damages against such party. Whoever is found to have violated this article
shall be subject to appropriate injunctive relief and shall be liable for damages, costs
and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Treble damages shall be awarded for a property
Owner’s willful failure to comply with the payment obligation established under this
article.
-5-
B.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to interfere with the right of a property Owner to
file an action against a Tenant or non-Tenant third party for the damage done to said
Owner’s property. Nothing herein is intended to limit the damages recoverable by any
party through a private action.
C.
The city attorney may bring an action against a property Owner that the city
attorney believes has violated provisions of this article or any program rules and
regulations adopted pursuant to this article. Such an action may include injunctive relief
and recovery of damages, penalties– including any administrative citations or civil
penalties- treble damages, and costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The city attorney
has sole discretion to determine whether to bring such an action.
SECTION 3. Modification of Section 8.22.450 of the Oakland Municipal Code.
Section 8.22.450 of the Oakland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(additions are shown as double underline and deletions are shown as stfikethrough):
8.22.450 – Relocation payments.
A. Tenant Households who are required to move as a result of the Owner’s withdrawal
of the accommodation from rent or lease shall be entitled to a relocation payment
from the Owner equal to Relocation Payment amounts set forth in O.M.C.
8.22.820(A). in the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6.500.001 per unit for
studios and one-bedroom apartments; eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) per unit for
two-bedroom apartments; and nine thousand eight hundred seventy five dollars
($9,875.00) per unit for units with three or more bedrooms. The payment shall be
divided equally among all Tenants occupying the Rental Unit at the time of service
on the Tenants of the notice of intent to withdraw the unit from rent or lease. Once
notice of withdrawal of the accommodation from rent or lease has been given to the
Tenant, the Owner is obligated to make the relocation payments.
B. Tenant Households in Rental Units withdrawn from the residential market that
include lower income, elderly or disabled Tenants, and/or minor children shall be
entitled to a single additional relocation payment equal to the additionaTReTocation
Payment amounts set forth in O.M.C. 8.22.820CBV of two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500.00) per unit from the owner. If a household qualifies for this
additional payment, the payment shall be divided equally among eligible (lowerincome, elderly, disabled, parents/guardians of minor children) Tenants.
C. A Tenant whose household qualifies for the additional payment may request it from
the Owner, provided the Tenant gives written notice of his or her entitlement to such
payments to the Owner within sixty (60) days of the date of delivery to the Rent
Adjustment Program of the Withdrawal Documents.
D. An Owner who, reasonably and in good faith, believes that a Tenant does not qualify
for the additional payment may request documentation from the Tenant
demonstrating the Tenant’s income qualification. Such documentation may not
include any document that is protected as private or confidential under any state,
local, or federal law. The Owner’s request must be made within fifteen (15) days
after receipt of the Tenant’s notification of eligibility for the additional payment. The
Tenant has thirty (30) days following receipt of the Owner’s request for
documentation to submit documentation. The Owner must keep the documents
submitted by the Tenant confidential unless there is litigation or administrative
-6-
proceedings regarding the Tenant’s eligibility for relocation payments or the
documents must be produced in response to a subpoena or court order, in which
case the Tenant may seek an order from the court or administrative body to keep the
documents confidential. Examples of the types of evidence that may be used to
present a claim that a household is entitled to an extra payment based on a Tenant’s
disability status include evidence that a Tenant has a qualifying disability may be in
the form of a statement from a treating physician or other appropriate health care
provider authorized to provide treatment, such as a psychologist. A Tenant may also
submit evidence of a medical determination from another forum, such as Social
Security or worker’s compensation, so long as it includes the fact that the Tenant
has a disability and its probable duration.
E. Time for payment.
1. The Owner must pay the Tenant half of the relocation payment provided for in
Section 8.22.450(A) when the termination notice is given to the household and
the remaining half when the Tenant vacates the unit provided that the Tenant
agrees, in writing, not to contest an unlawful detainer based on the notice to
terminate tenancy for the withdrawal of the Tenant’s Rental Unit. If the Tenant
does not so agree, then the entirety of the relocation payment is not due unless
the Owner prevails in the unlawful detainer. If the Owner prevails in the unlawful
detainer, the relocation payment must be paid to the Tenant prior to the Owner
seeking a writ of possession for the Tenant to vacate the withdrawn unit.
2. The Owner must pay the Tenant the additional payment provided for in Section
8.22.450(B) within fifteen (15) days of the Tenant’s notice of eligibility or the
Tenant supplying documentation of the Tenant’s eligibility.
F. Failure to make the relocation payments in the manner and within such times as
prescribed in this Section 8.22.450 is not a defense to an unlawful detainer action.
However, if an Owner fails to make the relocation payment as prescribed, the
Tenant may file an action against the Owner and, if the Tenant is found eligible for
the relocation payments, the Tenant will be entitled to recover the amount of the
relocation payments plus an equal amount as damages and the Tenant’s attorney’s
fees. Should the Owner’s failure to make the payments as prescribed be found to be
in bad faith, the Tenant shall be entitled to the relocation payments plus an
additional amount of three times the amount of the relocation payments and the
Tenant’s attorney’s fees.
G. A Tenant who is eligible for relocation payments under state or federal law, is not
also entitled to relocation under this section. A Tenant who is also eligible for
relocation under the City of Oakland’s code enforcement relocation program (O.M.C.
Chapter 15.60), must elect for either relocation payments under this section or
O.M.C. Chapter 15.60, and may not collect relocation payments under both.
H. The regulations may provide procedures for escrowing disputed relocation funds.
—The relocation payments specified in subsection 8.22.450(A) shall increase annually
on July 1 in accordance with the CPI Adjustment as calculated in OMC subsection
8.22.070(B)(3).
-7-
SECTION 4. Modification off Section 15.60.110 of the Oakland Municipal
Code. Section 15.60.110 of the Oakland Municipal Code are hereby amended to read
as follows (additions are shown as double underline and deletions are shown as
strikethrough):
15.60.110 – Amount of relocation payments.
A.
Permanent Displacement. An eligible Tenant Household who will experience permanent
displacement as defined above shall receive a monetary relocation payment from the
property Owner equal to the Relocation Payment amounts set forth in O.M.C.
8.22.450820, including the additional payments for Tenant Households that include
lower income, elderly or disabled Tenants, and/or minor children as set forth in O.M.C.
8.22.4§0S2Q(B).
a.
A Tenant whose household qualifies for the additional payment as set forth iri O.M.C.
8.22.450820(B) may request it from the Owner, provided the Tenant gives written notice
of his or her entitlement to such payments to the Owner within thirty (30) days following
the Tenant Household’s actual vacation of the unit or room.
b.
An Owner who, reasonably and in good faith, believes that a Tenant does not qualify for
the additional payment, may request documentation from the Tenant demonstrating the
Tenant’s qualification. Such documentation may not include any document that is
protected as private or confidential under and state, local or federal law. The Owner’s
request must be made within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Tenant’s notification of
eligibiIity for the additional payment. The Tenant has thirty (30) days following receipt of
the Owner’s request for documentation to submit documentation. The Owner must keep
the documents submitted by the Tenant confidential unless there is litigation or
administrative proceedings regarding the Tenant’s eligibility for relocation payments or
the documents must be produced in response to a subpoena or court order, in which
case the Tenant may seek an order from the court or administrative body to keep the
documents confidential. Examples of the types of evidence that may be used to present
a claim that a household is entitled to an extra payment based on a Tenant’s disability
status may be in the form of a statement from a treating physician or other appropriate
health care provided authorized to provide treatment, such as a psychologist. A Tenant
may also submit evidence of a medical determination from another forum, such as
Social Security or worker’s compensation, so long as it includes the fact that the Tenant
has a disability and its probable duration.
B.
Temporary displacement. An eligible Tenant Household who will experience temporarily
displacement as defined above shall receive monetary relocation payment or payments
-8-
from the property Owner to cover the Tenant Household’s actual and reasonable
moving expenses and temporary housing accommodations costs directly incurred as a
result of the temporary displacement. “Moving expenses” shall include the cost of
removing, transporting, and/or storing the Tenant Household’s personal property during
the displacement period, and “temporary housing accommodations costs” shall include
the cost of rental payments and hotel or motel payments during the displacement
period. In no event shall the property Owner be liable for making payments in excess of
the amount the Tenant Household would receive in the case of permanent displacement
as set forth in subsection A of this section.
C.
Immediate Vacation. When the condition of a Room or Rental Unit is a danger to the
public health and safety such that the city requires immediate vacation, i.e., vacation
with less than thirty (30) days advance notice either from the city or from the property
Owner to the Tenant Household of the need to vacate, an eligible Tenant Household
displaced from such a room or unit shall be entitled to an additional payment from the
property Owner in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00), in addition to the
amounts set forth above. Such additional payment is intended to compensate the
Tenant Household for the additional costs associated with short-notice moves and the
added inconvenience of such moves.
D.
Payments for relocation shall not be considered by the city as income or assets for any
government benefits program.
SECTION 5. Modification of Sections 16.36.030 and 16.36.050 of the
Oakland Municipal Code. Sections 16.36.030 and 16.36.050 of the Oakland Municipal
Code are hereby amended to read as follows (additions are shown as double underline
and deletions are shown as strikethrough):
16.36.030 – NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE TENANTS.
Commencing at a date not less than sixty (60) days prior to the filing of a tentative map
or tentative parcel map, the subdivider shall give notice of such filing, in the form shown
below, to each person applying after such date for rental of a unit in the building to be
converted. This notice must be given to the prospective Tenant prior to the acceptance
of any rent or deposit from said prospective Tenant.
The notice shall read as follows:
To the prospective occupant(s) of
(Address)
-9-
The owner(s) of this building, at (address), has filed or plans to file an application
for a (tentative map or tentative parcel map) with the city to convert this building
to a (condominium, community apartment, or stock cooperative project). No units
may be sold in this building unless the conversion is approved by the City efof
Oakland and, if five or more units are involved, until after a public report is issued
by the DepartmentBureau of Real Estate. If you become a Tenant of this
building, you shall be given notice of each hearing for which notice is required
pursuant to Government Code Sections 66451.3 and 66452.5 of the Government
Code, and you have the right to appear and the right to be heard at any such
hearing.
(signature of owner or owner’s agent)
(date)
I have received this notice on:
(date)
(prospective Tenant’s signature)
Prospective Tenants shall also receive all accompanying documents described in
Section 16.36.020 and all documents set forth in Sections 16.36.040 and 16.36.050.
If the subdivider fails to give timely notice pursuant to this section, he or she shall pay to
each prospective Tenant (1) who becomes a Tenant and who was entitled to such
notices and (2) who does not purchase his or her unit pursuant to Section 16.36.040
and vacates, an amount equal to the amounts set forth below:
a. Tenants who vacate for Code Compliance repairs shall be paid relocation
payments pursuant to O.M.C. chapter 15.60.
b. Tenants who vacate for anv other reason, unless evicted for Tenant faultshall be paid relocation payments in amounts pursuant to O.M.C. Section
8.22.820. The owner shall make the payment directly to an eligible Tenant
Household no later than ten davs before the expected vacation date. If
less than ten davs’ advance notice of vacation is given, then the payment
bv the owner to the Tenant Household is due no later than the actual time
of vacation.
c. A Tenant who is also eligible for relocation under the Citv of Oakland’s
code compliance relocation program (O.M.C. Chapter 15.60V must elect
-10-
for either relocation payments under this section or O.M.C. Chapter 15.60.
and mav not receive relocation payments under both.
d. A Tenant who is also eligible for relocation assistance under Section
16.36.050 (Preliminary Tenant Assistance Program^ must elect for either
relocation payments under this section or Section 16.36.050. and mav not
receive relocation payments under both.
sum-ef the followm^A. Actual-moviftg-expeflses-ifrnwred when moving-ffem-tfre subject property, but not4o
exeeed a maximum-amount, if any, that-is specified in thermal Tenant assistance
ftfogfam, as set fofth-ift-Seetiofl-4^-.^§TQ80, or five hwdfe4-4ollars ($500.00), whiokever
is-greater; and
Br-The first month’s rent on the-Tenant’s new rentaUmiMf-any, immediately after
fflovmg-from the subject propeftyr-kut not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).
16.36.050 – Tenant rights and the preliminary Tenant assistance program
With regard to any conversion as defined in Section 16.36.010, each Tenant shall have
the following minimum rights which shall be set forth in a notice of Tenant rights.
1. After receipt of this notice, each Tenant will be entitled to terminate his or her lease
or rental agreement without any penalty upon notifying the subdivider in writing thirty
(30) days in advance of such termination; provided, however, that this requirement
shall cease upon notice to the Tenant of the abandonment of subdivided efforts to
—convert thebuilding^
2. No Tenant’s rent will be increased from the date of issuance of this notice until at
least twelve (12) months after the date subdivider files the tentative map or tentative
parcel map with the city; provided, however, that this requirement shall cease upon
abandonment of subdivider’s efforts to convert the building.
3. No remodeling of the interior of Tenant-occupied units shall begin until at least thirty
(30) days after issuance of the final subdivision public report or, if one is not issued,
after the start of subdivider’s sales program. (For purposes of this chapter, the start
of subdivider’s sales program shall be defined as the start of Tenants’ ninety (90)
days first-right-of-refusal period set forth below.)
4. Each Tenant shall have an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her
unit or, at the Tenant’s option, any other available unit in the building upon the same
or more favorable terms and conditions that such units will be initially offered to the
general public, such right to run for at least ninety (90) days from the issuance of the
final subdivision public report or, if one is not issued, from the start of subdivider’s
sales program.
5. Each Tenant shall have a right of occupancy of at least one hundred eighty (180)
days from the issuance of the final subdivision public report or, if one is not issued,
-11-
from the start of subdivider’s sales program, prior to termination of tenancy due to
conversion.
6. Tenants in units containing a Tenant sixty-two (62) years or older shall be provided a
lifetime lease on their unit or, at Tenant’s option, on any other available unit in the
building. Such leases, to commence no later than the date of issuance of the final
subdivision public report, or, if one is not issued, no later than the start of
subdivider’s sales program, shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Tenants shall have the option of cancelling the lease at any time upon thirty
(30) days’ written notice to the owner.
b. Tenants cannot be evicted except for just cause.
c. Right of occupancy shall be nontransferable.
d. The first year’s base monthly rent for the unit shall be set at no more than the
rent existing on the unit one year prior to the filing of the tentative map or
tentative parcel map increased by no more than seventy-five (75) percent of
the percentage increase in the residential rent component of the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland
Metropolitan Area (Bay Area Rental CPI) from the date one year prior to the
filing of the tentative map or tentative parcel map to the effective date of the
lifetime lease.
e. Subsequent rent adjustments, if any, may be made no sooner than one year
from the effective date of the lifetime lease, shall be limited to no more than
one per year, and the percentage increase in the Bay Area Rental CPI for the
most recent twelve (12) month period.
f. Notwithstanding the above, no rent increase shall exceed any rent increase
guidelines adopted by the city.
g. Except as provided hereinabove, terms and conditions of the lifetime lease
shall be the same as those contained in Tenant’s current lease or rental
agreement.
The preliminary Tenant assistance program, as set forth in subsection B of this
section, shall make provision for the above minimum rights on the terms set forth
above or on terms more favorable to the Tenant.
B. The subdivider’s Preliminary Tenant Assistance Program (PTAP) shall consist of
at least two parts: efforts to minimize Tenant displacement, and Tenant relocation
assistance.
1. In the first part of the PTAP, subdivider shall describe those incentives and
inducements that would increase the potential for, and ability of, Tenants to become
owners in the conversion. Subdivider shall also include actions and procedures to
enable hard-to-relocate Tenants to remain as Tenants.
2. The second part of the PTAP shall include all relocation and moving assistance
and information to be provided to each Tenant and all steps the subdivider will take
to ensure the successful relocation of each Tenant in the event that conversion
takes place and the Tenant chooses not to purchase a unit or remain as a Tenant.
-12-
a. Tenants who resided in the unit prior to the filing of the tentative map or tentative
parcel map and who vacate for Code Compliance repairs shall be paid relocation
payments at no less than the amounts pursuant to O.M.C. chapter 15.60.
b. Tenants who resided in the unit prior to the filing of the tentative map or tentative
parcel map and vacate for any other reason, unless evicted for Tenant fault, shall be
paid relocation payments at not less than the amounts pursuant to O.M.C. Section
8.22.820. The Owner shall make the payment directly to an eligible Tenant
Household no later than ten davs before the expected vacation date. If less than ten
davs’ advance notice of vacation is given, then the payment bv the Owner to the
Tenant Household is due no later than the actual time of vacation.
For the purpose of this paragraph, the Tenant is not evicted for Tenant fault if (1) the
Tenant vacates within 120 davs after the effective date of a rent increase notice of
more than 10 percent: and (2) the rent increase notice is issued within one year after
the issuance of the final subdivision public report on the conversion of a building with
five or more units or the start of the sales program in a building of four units or less.
c. A Tenant who is also eligible for relocation assistance under Section 16.36.030
must elect for either relocation payments under this section or Section 16.36.030.
and mav not receive relocation payments under both.
In both parts of the PTAP, subdivider shall give particular attention to specific steps
that will be taken to assist the elderly, disabled, and other Tenants who may
encounter difficulty in finding new quarters.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of the Chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof
irrespective of the fact that one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases
may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective
immediately on final adoption if it receives six or more affirmative votes; otherwise it
shall become effective upon the seventh day after final adoption.
SECTION 8. This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) pursuant to, but not limited to, the following CEQA Guidelines: § 15378
(regulatory actions), § 15061(b)(3) (no significant environmental impact), and § 15183
(consistent with the general plan and zoning).
SECTION 9. Grandparented relocation payments. The Ordinance
amendments provided for in this Ordinance shall not apply to any relocation payments
-13-
for which a unit was vacated, or for which a notice to vacate was issued to Tenant, prior
to adoption of the Ordinance by City Council.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES – BROOKS, CAMPBELL-WASHINGTON, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, GUILLEN, KALB, KAPLAN AND
PRESIDENT REID
NOESABSENT ABSTENTION ATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
Date of Attestation:
-14-
NOTICE AND DIGEST
AN
ORDINANCE
TO
ENACT
THE
UNIFORMS
RESIDENTIAL TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE TO
(1) ESTABLISH AN UNIFORM SCHEDULE OF
RELOCATION
PAYMENTS;
(2)
TO
EXTEND
RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO TENANTS DISPLACED BY
OWNER MOVE-IN EVICTIONS; (3) TO EXTEND
RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO TENANTS DISPLACED BY
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS; AND (4) CONFORM
EXISTING ELLIS ACT AND CODE COMPLIANCE
RELOCATION AMOUNTS TO THOSE IN THE UNIFORM
SCHEDULE
The Ordinance enacts the Uniform Residential Tenant
Relocation Ordinance to establish an uniform schedule of
relocation payments for no-fault evictions; extend relocation
payments to tenants displaced by owner or relative move-in
evictions; and extend relocation payments to tenants
displaced by condominium conversions.
Chester “Chet” McGuire Jr. lost his 14-year battle with cancer on October 13, 2017. Chet was a noted urban economist with a long and distinguished career in academia, public service and business. He was one of the founders of Berkeley Planning Associates in 1974, was on the BART Board seeing its fruition in the early 1970s. He served as the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Carter Administration, and was an Associate Professor at U.C. Berkeley. He was one of the few African-Americans at U.C. Berkeley, where he lectured and taught classes in the College of Environmental Design in the Department of City and Regional Planning. He was an excellent public speaker gave very dynamic lectures that were well received by his students.
In the late 1960 Chet was Vice President of Winston A. Burnett Construction Co. in San Francisco, where he was involved with the planning and construction of The Martin Luther King Marcus Garvey Square Coop Apartments in San Francisco. This was a revolutionary in the late 1960s, as it provided the opportunity for low-income individuals to build equity and an ownership stake in their community. This project reflected one of Chet’s core beliefs, which was that community development came from economic empowerment, and that if you could provide economics to impoverished communities, “you” could make a difference. This belief is what led Chet to pursue a degree in economics and a lifetime devoted to city and regional planning. Personally, he was the source of many good talks about society and race and social justice and economics.
Chet taught classes on housing and redevelopment, housing market analysis. He also taught at Howard University on financial markets and quantitative and statistical methods. From his consulting company, McGuire Associates, he was call upon an expert witness on high profile real estate cases, and was called on to rendered an assessment of countless development proposals and policy concepts over many years. He was a giant in his field. Chet provided the necessary intellectual “muscle” that was needed to solve complex housing and transportation problems. In 1974, Chet was one if the founders if the Berkeley Planning Associates for the city of Berkeley that gave much direction to the growth of the city.
In 1973, Chester McGuire also was elected AC Transit Director-at-Large where and ran on an impressive slate with three other African-Americans, one of whom was legendary Congressman Ron Dellums. This was ground-breaking in 1973, to have had African-Americans win a predominately white constituency.
Chet continued his work as a program and policy consultant to HUD on housing issues and a consultant to financial institutions, specializing in fair lending policies, particularly in regard to lending practices in older, inner city areas. This work was recognized and in 1977 Chet was nominated by then President Jimmy Carter and then served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Carter Administration where he continued his work in Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
He also served as a consultant to the city of San Francisco, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Berkeley Neighborhood Traffic Study, the East Palo Alto 701 Planning Programs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. He has had numerous articles published on housing, transportation, and urban subjects.
Chet was born on October 29, 1936 in Gary, Indiana to Martha and Chester McGuire, Sr. He attended Roosevelt High School where he was senior class president, and later attended Dartmouth College where he was a member of the Kappa Kappa Kappa fraternity and recruited into The Sphinx. Chet was one of only seven African-American men who were admitted to Dartmouth College, Class of 1958 with such noteworthy classmates as H. Carl McCall, the late civil rights attorney, Mickey McGuire, and the late Arch Whitehead, father of author of Colson Whitehead.
Chet enlisted in the US Navy as a Lieutenant on battleships where he served as a cryptographer—a “code cracker” during the Cold War.* He later graduated from the University of Chicago School of Business with an MBA and PhD in Economics.
Chet was a well-rounded with a variety of talents. He loved fine foods and wines, was an avid cook, often seen exploring and cooking up delicious meals. He had a good sense of humor and self-declared, “best barbeque” in Berkeley. He was a sports enthusiast who was a 49ers season ticket holder for decades, through thick and thin. He was an avid skier and could be counted on going to a second home that he built with his son, Michael, in North Lake Tahoe in Tahoe-Donner. Chet was a jazz enthusiast, enjoyed going to the East Bay Symphony, was an avid reader and writer and loved Shakespeare. Chet was a deep thinker, often quiet and reflective, yet he was the kind of person that you would notice when he walked into a room, due to his striking presence. He had charisma and leadership qualities that were not wasted in his career. His was a brilliant man whose natural demeanor was comprised of an aristocratic class and grace, despite his humble beginnings in Gary, Indiana. Although a quiet man, Chet’s great sense of humor came through in his good storytelling. He also enjoyed explaining things and was very professorial when doing so with great enthusiasm. He was once described as a “professorial professor.” He was a quiet giant, who was part of a bygone era of Bay Area history of dynamic, progressive change that will be sorely missed.
Chet is predeceased by his son Michael and leaves behind his wife of over 50 years, Julie, two daughters Gail and Angela, sisters Martha and Jennifer and nephews Darryl and Corey and cousins Sunny and Joseph, and many friends.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf outlined a set of goals and objectives – well, really just objectives but not stated goals – for which we can now use to measure her performance during her first term to this date.
With that in mind, I took her actual list of “stated positions and priorities” and made this checklist survey template for Oaklanders to use and respond to. As this is written, I’m working on an actual online survey based on this template. It will be ready by Friday of this week.
Meanwhile, here’s the report card template. Consider this sort of a cheat sheet before the actual survey is released.
Oh, and the reason why there’s no information on the positions here is that I want to see what your impression is, and I don’t want to lead you to answer one way or the other.
Here’s the survey embded, created with the use of Zoho’s SAAS system. The link to the survey’s own page is here: Click here to use the survey’s own page.
Public Safety
Did The Mayor: Connect with Communities and Restore Community Policing?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Strengthen Police Force –maintain a baseline of 800 officers and a goal of 925?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor:Hire More Civilian OPD Employees?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor Speed Up Police and Emergency Response with an Improved 911 System?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor Get Maximum Benefit from Violence Prevention and Intervention Programs?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor Keep Youth Out of Prison?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Focus on Root Causes of Crime, Starting with Jobs, Better Wages and Education?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Will Appoint a Vice Mayor for Community Safety?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Learn from Successes and Failures of Other Cities?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Work with City Attorney to Reduce Payments of Claims for Police Misconduct by Half?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: End Federal Supervision on OPD saving $2M per year?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Education
Did The Mayor: Expand Access to High-Quality Education for All Oakland Students?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Expand Student Access to Personalized Learning and Technology?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Strengthen and Expand Pathways to College and Career?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Develop Restorative Practices for Youth Across City Agencies?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Oakland “Teacher Town USA”?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
21st Century Government
Did The Mayor: Implement 311 System for Better Service Delivery?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Implement CityStat Performance Accountability System for City Employees?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Embrace Public-Private Partnerships?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Combat the “Digital Divide” and Engage Residents?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Innovation Fellowships for City Employees?
Finances
Did The Mayor: Invest in Infrastructure, Use Bonding Against Future Revenue?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Create a 5- and 10-year Capital Planning Program?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Fund Street and Pothole Repair?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Pursue State Funding for Streets?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Assess the Value of City-Owned Assets?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Save Money and Hassles on Repaving Projects?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Oakland Responsible and Collaborative About Deferred Liabilities?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Cultivate Additional Revenues and Cost-Savings?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Capture Value from Real Estate and New Growth?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Respond Strategically to the Dissolution of Redevelopment?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Livable Neighborhoods and Sustainable Transportation
Did The Mayor: Speed Up the Transformation of Parks and Open Spaces?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Care for Our Libraries, Community, Sports and Cultural Facilities?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Transportation a Priority in City Hall?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Slow Down Neighborhood Streets?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Grow Bikesharing and Safe Cycling Routes Across Oakland?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Transit a Great Option?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Streets Good Places for People?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Parking Make Sense?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Plan Our Neighborhoods for Appropriate Development?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Preserving Affordability and Cultural Identity
Did The Mayor: Help Get New Housing Built?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Look for New Housing Funds and Use Affordable Housing Funding Strategies That Work?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Pursue Additional Sources of Funding for Affordable Housing?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Prioritize Protection of Current Rentals?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Incentivize the Creation of Affordable Units?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Get Tough on Bad Landlords?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Fight for Oakland’s Fair Share?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Raise the Minimum Wage to a Livable Wage?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Bring Down the Cost of Living?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Economic Revitalization
Did The Mayor: Support New Business Formation?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Retain and Expand Existing Businesses?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Market Oakland as a Great Place for Business?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Partner with Businesses to Create Training?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Help Workers Secure Jobs and Prepare for Careers?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Lift Up Our Small Businesses?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make “Made in Oakland” a Reality?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Attract New Employers?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Cut Red Tape for New and Expanding Businesses?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Did The Mayor: Make Neighborhoods with the Highest Unemployment “Job Creation Zones”?
Answers: Yes. No. Not sure.
Brooklyn Basin is a giant 65-acre, 3,000 unit housing project under construction along Oakland’s waterfront just south of Jack London Square. Of the 3,000 units, there are plans for 465 of them (15.5 percent) to be “affordable” according to the City of Oakland Staff Report presented below.
Tuesday’s Oakland City Council meeting will present the Oakland City Administrator’s recommendation to approve a lease disposition and development agreement (and which includes loan approval) for a partnership consisting of “The Oakland Housing Authority and MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, For Development of Affordable Housing At Brooklyn Basin,” to purchase a ground lease at “Parcel F” of the complex. That is where the affordable housing will be built.
The complex design was approved by the Oakland Planning Commission on August 21st 2017 and is by HKIT Architects, The building is to be 86 feet tall and be located on Brooklyn Basin’s Parcel F (bordered by Embarcadero, 7th and 8th Avenues as the map shows) The building will have 211 affordable units and a 192 car garage.
Brooklyn Basin was called “Oak Street to Ninth Avenue” and approved for construction in 2006, but then received a legal challenge, which Signature Properties, the master developer, beat in 2009.
Because of the timing of the development, the City’s impact fee structure can’t be applied to it.
Here is the full, digitized, staff report for Tuesday:
AGENDA REPORT
Sabrina B. Landreth
City Administrator
FROM: Michele Byrd,
Director, HCDD
Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing
Agreements
DATE: September 14, 2017
City Administrator Approval
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Adopt The Following Legislation:
Ordinance (1) Authorizing A Master Housing Agreement With The Oakland Housing
Authority and MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, For Development of
Affordable Housing At Brooklyn Basin, (2) Authorizing Lease Disposition and
Development Agreements With MidPen Housing Corporation And The Oakland Housing
Authority, Or Affiliated Entities, For The Long-Term Ground Lease Of Parcel F At
Brooklyn Basin For The First Phases Of Development, And (3) Making CEQA Findings
For This Action; And
Resolution (1) Authorizing An Unsecured Predevelopment Loan In The Amount Of
$2,067,000 To MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, To Support The
Development Of Affordable Housing On Parcels A And F At Brooklyn Basin, (2)
Authorizing A Secured Affordable Housing Development Loan In An Amount Not To
Exceed $15,243,000, To MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, To Support
The Development of Affordable Housing On Parcel F at Brooklyn Basin, And (3) Making
CEQA Findings For This Action.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is required to ensure that 465 units of affordable rental housing are developed on two
parcels jointly owned by the City and the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) at the Brooklyn
Basin project site. Staff is seeking Council authorization for land disposition and funding to
facilitate the development, including: (1) a Master Housing Agreement among the City, OHA
and MidPen Housing Corporation (the selected affordable housing developer) outlining the
general terms for disposition, development and funding of the affordable housing on the
Brooklyn Basin affordable housing parcels, (2) two Lease Disposition and Development
Agreements among the City, OHA and MidPen for the disposition by ground lease of one of the
affordable housing parcels, Parcel F, for development of an affordable family housing project
and an affordable senior housing project with a total of 211 affordable rental units, (3) a
$2,067,000 predevelopment loan to MidPen to fund predevelopment expenses associated with
the overall Brooklyn Basin affordable housing project, and (4) a $15,243,000 development loan
Item:
CED Committee
October 10, 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 2
to MidPen to fund development of the two affordable housing projects on Parcel F. The
predevelopment loans funds, including a $360,000 predevelopment loan approved in 2016, will
most likely be converted into permanent development loan funds, for a total consolidated loan
amount of $17,670,000 approved to date.
BACKGROUND I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Project Description and Affordable Housing Requirement
The Brooklyn Basin Project (formerly known as the Oak to Ninth Project) is a large-scale
development project on a formerly-industrial site along Oakland’s waterfront. When fully
developed, the project will comprise approximately 3,100 housing units, over 200,000 square
feet in retail space, 29.9 acres of parks and public open space, two renovated marinas and
restoration of an existing wetland area.
In 2006, the developer of the project (then known as Oakland Harbor Partners), the City, and
the Redevelopment Agency entered into a Development Agreement (DA) for the project. The
City negotiated a variety of community benefits provisions into the DA, including provisions for
on-site affordable housing development. The DA required the Redevelopment Agency to
purchase two parcels (then Parcels F and G) from the developer and to develop 465 units of
housing affordable to low income households on those parcels, to be developed in phases as
part of the overall project. Oakland Harbor Partners agreed to sell the affordable housing
parcels at a discount and to contribute $2 million toward development of affordable housing on
those parcels.
At the same time, the Redevelopment Agency also negotiated a “Cooperation Agreement” with
a coalition of community groups, known as the Oak to Ninth Community Benefits Coalition (the
“Coalition”), over the level of community benefits that would result from the project, including
affordable housing development. The Cooperation Agreement was executed in 2006.
Consistent with the DA, the Cooperation Agreement required the Redevelopment Agency to
purchase the affordable housing parcels and ensure that at least 465 affordable housing units
are developed as part of the overall development.
Delay and Subsequent Changes to Affordable Housing Requirements
Shortly after the DA and the Cooperation Agreement were originally signed, the Brooklyn Basin
project was put on hold by the developer due to the economic downturn, and a legal challenge
to the Project.
Upon dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in 2012, the City retained and assumed the
housing assets and functions of the Redevelopment Agency, including obligations related to
affordable housing development at Brooklyn Basin.
Pursuant to the DA and the Cooperation Agreement, the City purchased Parcels F and G from
the Brooklyn Basin developer, now known as Zarsion-OHP I, LLC (ZOHP), on August 28, 2014,
for a purchase price of $21,508,462 plus closing costs, with ZOHP obligated to conduct
extensive environmental remediation, as well as infrastructure work on the property. The
purchase price represented the appraised fair market value of the parcels, discounted by
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 3
$3,033,204 due to the early purchase. To fund the purchase, the City used proceeds from a
housing bond issued by the Redevelopment Agency in 2011. Project funds totaling $2,454,627
from this bond remained after the purchase of the parcels.
Current Status and Projected Affordable Housing Funding Sources
ZOHP has completed remediation and substantially completed site preparation work on the first
phase of the overall project, including the affordable housing parcels. The first market rate
phase of the development, 241 units on Parcel B, started construction this spring.
In June 2015, ZOHP selected MidPen Housing Corporation, a nonprofit affordable housing
developer with extensive development experience in the Bay Area, to be the developer for the
affordable housing project, and the City Administrator approved this selection. The City has
been working closely with MidPen, OHA and the Coalition since June 2015, as MidPen
develops and refines its affordable housing development scenarios and financing plan.
On January 5, 2016, City Council approved Resolution No. 85939 C.M.S., which approved a
financing plan for the affordable housing unit development, and approved the submittal of a
petition to the California Department of Finance (DOF) for a Final and Conclusive Determination
that the City had an enforceable obligation under the DA and the Cooperation Agreement to
fund development of 465 units of affordable housing on the affordable housing parcels. The
City sought $45 million in Real Property Tax Trust Funds (RPTTF), i.e., property tax funds that
were formerly considered tax increment funds, as its contribution to develop the affordable
housing.
After extensive negotiations, DOF allowed the City to retroactively re-characterize previous
draws from the 2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside Bond Fund, for the affordable parcel
purchase at Brooklyn Basin and the Mural Apartments affordable housing development at the
MacArthur BART station, as RPTTF expenditures. This freed up a minimum of $35 million in
2011 Affordable Housing Bond Funds to support vertical construction of affordable housing
development at Brooklyn Basin.
On July 19, 2016, per City Council Resolution No. 86301 C.M.S., the City Council approved a
$360,000 predevelopment loan to support MidPen in their predevelopment activities for
development on Parcel F, and that loan closed earlier this spring (after the Borrower affiliates for
Parcel F were formed).
On January 17, 2017, per City Council Resolution No. 13413 C.M.S., the City Council
authorized a swap with ZOHP of Parcel G for Parcel A. That swap closed in June. As a result,
the affordable housing parcels are now Parcels F and A. As part of the parcel swap, ZOHP
agreed to place its DA-required $2 million affordable housing contribution ($1 million per parcel)
into an escrow account through the end of 2018.
On July 18, 2017, City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of
a 50% joint ownership interest in the affordable housing parcels to OHA, in exchange for a $10
million purchase price and OHA’s commitment to provide 258 Project-Based Section 8 vouchers
to the project. The $10 million in sales proceeds would be earmarked to the project. The
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 4
second reading for this ordinance is scheduled for September 19, 2017, and the close of the
sale of the joint interest to OHA is anticipated by October
MidPen is proposing to build the required 465 units in four separate project phases over a
seven-year time frame. Per the terms of the Cooperation Agreement, 110 units will target
seniors and the remaining 355 will target families. All units must be affordable to households
earning 25 percent to 60 percent of Area Median Income. At least 30 percent of the units will be
three-bedroom units and at least 20 percent of the units will be two-bedroom units.
ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
The recommended actions will delineate the rights and responsibilities between the City, OHA
and MidPen, set the stage for predevelopment activities to take both parcels further into the
predevelopment process, and provide the formal site control and development financing
commitments required to allow MidPen to apply for its other funding sources for the first two
affordable housing developments on Parcel F. If successful in applying for their other funding
sources, construction could commence by the end of 2018 or early in 2019 on the first 211
affordable housing units at Brooklyn Basin.
The Master Housing Agreement (MHA) among the City, OHA, and MidPen will outline the
general terms for affordable housing development for the entire affordable housing project at
Brooklyn Basin, including land disposition and funding, and establish a proposed schedule for
development of the affordable housing in four project phases.
The Lease Disposition and Development Agreements (LDDAs) will set the terms for
conveying site control via long-term ground leases of Parcel F for a 101-unit family housing
project (Project 1) and a .110-unit senior housing project (Project 2) on Parcel F, the first parcel
to be developed. Parcel F will be ground leased to MidPen at a nominal rent in order to make
the projects economically feasible. The long-term ground lease structure complies with the
City’s policy for retaining long-term fee ownership of land parcels it owns. In this case, OHA will
be a 50% co-owner of the land as well. MidPen will develop and own the improvements (i.e., the
affordable housing developments), which the affordable housing development loans will be
secured against. The LDDAs will set forth the terms and conditions for the ground lease and
development of Parcel F, including various preconveyance conditions.
Now that the project is moving further along towards development, MidPen is requesting an
additional $2,067,000 in unsecured predevelopment loans for predevelopment expenses on
both Parcels A and F. (MidPen’s proposed predevelopment loan budget is attached as
Attachment A), In 2016, City Council approved a $360,000 predevelopment loan for partial
predevelopment expenses on Parcel F to get the project through design review approvals; this
would bring the total predevelopment loan award to $2,427,000. The additional funding will help
assist the Parcel F phases to get through the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
application process to obtain an allocation of low-income housing tax credits, and the Parcel A
phases to proceed through the design review approval stage. The total amount of
predevelopment loan funds exceeds the City’s typical predevelopment loan amounts (which are
limited currently to $35,000-$75,000, depending on location within the City). Staff has long
considered increasing the predevelopment loan limits, but to date has not had sufficient funding
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 5
available to do so. In this instance, in which funding is set aside for development of the
affordable housing units at Brooklyn Basin, staff believes that it is appropriate to exceed the
usual predevelopment loan limits in order to cover permitting fees, architectural and engineering
fees, and legal costs.
MidPen has requested that the predevelopment loan term be for an initial 24 month period (with
a six month extension available as an administrative action) at three percent simple interest,
with interest and principal payments deferred to the end of the term. The predevelopment loan
would initially be unsecured, which is necessary in this case because MidPen does not as yet
own a fee simple or ground lease interest in the parcels. When the parcels are conveyed to
MidPen via ground lease and the development loans are closed, then the predevelopment loans
will be consolidated with the development loans and will be secured by MidPen’s interest in the
properties and project improvements.
As previously noted, the proposed predevelopment loan is substantially larger than what would
be allowed under the City’s over-the-counter program (which allows for a loan of $35,000 per
phase, or up to $75,000 per phase if the Project is located in the downtown area). In addition,
MidPen has requested a lower interest rate (three percent to align with the City’s development
loans, rather than the usual six percent for predevelopment loans), and a longer term (24
months instead of 18 months). However, given the breadth and complexity of the project, and
the fact that the funding is clearly dedicated to the project, staff is comfortable with
recommending these terms. On occasion, for large projects, the City has provided large
unsecured predevelopment loans.
Currently, MidPen is requesting secured affordable housing development loan funding in
the total amount of $17,670,000 to fund the first two development projects on Parcel F, which
will include 211 of the 465 affordable units. The development budget and proforma for the
Parcel F family project is included as Attachment B, and the development budget and proforma
for the Parcel F senior project is included as Attachment C to this staff report.
Funding for the senior affordable housing loan on Parcel F is proposed to be funded by:
• $4,000,000 in housing bond funds (which will also take out $793,000 of the unsecured
predevelopment loan funds)
• $5,500,000 value of the below market ground lease (not included in loan amount)
Funding for the family affordable housing loan on Parcel F is proposed to be funded by:
• $7,670,000 in housing bond funds (taking out $868,000 in unsecured predevelopment
loan funds)
• $5,000,000 in land sales proceeds from OHA’s purchase of a joint interest in Parcel F
• $1,000,000 affordable housing contribution from ZOHP
Between the $17,670,000 in loans from City sources, and the $5,500,000 estimated value of the
below market ground lease on the senior phase, total funding contributions from the City on the
Parcel F projects will be $23,170,000, or just under $110,000 per unit. This funding amount is
well in line with other City loans in the past, and should place the projects competitively for other
funding sources.
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 6
Parcel A development loans and LDDAs for the remaining 254 units will be brought to City
Council at a later date for consideration and approval.
The terms of the DA and Cooperation Agreement, set out extensive requirements for the
affordable housing units in terms of depth of affordability, limits on senior units, and minimum
number family-sized units (two and three bedroom units). Although last year’s favorable DOF
decision provides substantial capital towards the development of the affordable units, this
estimated $35 million and land contribution costs of $21.5 million represents about 23 percent of
the projected total development costs for the project, which are estimated at $240 million for the
465 units. This gap is not unusual for affordable housing developments – the City’s policy is to
provide a maximum of 40 percent of total development costs, with developers expected to
leverage the rest of funding with a variety of sources, including tax credits, other state and
federal funding sources, and private loans to the extent that these are supported by cash flow.
OHA has an extensive history with this type of partnership with affordable housing developers
and/or the City, both in its HOPE VI revitalization efforts for its own public housing stock, and in
numerous stand alone projects throughout the City. OHA owns the land on such affordable
housing developments as the Savoy Hotel (formerly the Jefferson and Oaks Hotels), Prosperity
Place (11th and Jackson), and Ave Vista (Grand Avenue). In addition, the City and OHA have
worked together to secure Project-Based Section 8 rental vouchers in developments throughout
the City through the City’s competitive NOFA. OHA’s involvement as co-owner in the property
provides substantial benefits to the projects and to residents, including: development capital of
$10 million, on-going development subsidies via the vouchers, and on-going contributions to
project capital reserves and operating expenses for the affordable units over the long-term while
allowing the property to serve some households at even lower incomes than were originally
contemplated.
MidPen Qualifications
Although this is MidPen’s first development in Oakland, the organization has a 45 year history of
affordable housing development and property management, having developed or rehabilitated
over 100 properties with over 8,000 units in cities throughout the Bay Area. Their staff have
proceeded diligently with predevelopment activities on the affordable housing parcels, and is
working closely with Planning staff to complete their Final Development Plan (FDP) for Parcel F
this fall. As of the writing of this staff report, Planning staff expects to bring the FDP for Parcel F
to Design Review on September 28, 2017, and MidPen expects to apply for outside funding
sources (including state tax credits) in 2018. Should the tax credit applications be successful,
MidPen plans to start construction in late 2018 or early 2019.
The City is compelled to produce 465 affordable rental housing units at Brooklyn Basin per the
DA and the Cooperation Agreement at deep affordability levels. The partnerships with OHA and
MidPen, using the development funding allocated to the construction of the affordable housing,
are absolutely integral to bring these units to fruition. Therefore, especially given the Bay Area’s
deepening affordable housing crisis, no other options were considered.
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 7
FISCAL IMPACT
Since the City and OHA were already planning to retain ownership of the affordable housing
parcels, with long-term ground leases for each project to MidPen and their affiliates, the
approval of the Master Housing Agreement and Lease Disposition and Development
Agreements will have minimal fiscal impacts.
The additional $2,067,000 predevelopment loan, as well as the $360,000 predevelopment loan
made last year, will be paid from RPTTF funds (2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside Bond, Fund
1885/9785, Projects 10000020, 1000390, and 1001237), and will be taken out by the
development loans for their respective projects ($793,000 for the senior housing development
on Parcel F, $868,000 for the family development on Parcel F, and $766,000 between the two
Parcel A phases).
The proposed $15,243,000 secured development loans for construction of the affordable
housing on Parcel F (total between the senior and family projects) will be funded as follows:
•
•
•
$1 million ZOHP affordable housing contribution – this represents half of the funds held
in escrow by First American Title Company through an escrow agreement with ZOHP
through the end of 2018
$5 million – half of OHA purchase price – sale scheduled to take place in late September
2017
$9,243,000 in swapped and remaining bond funds (coming in by FY18-19; as of the date
of this report, $10,559,627 of this funding is currently available)
After funding development on Parcel F, approximately $29,330,000 in local funding will remain
for development of the 254 units of affordable rental housing on Parcel A:
• $1 million contribution from ZOHP for the second parcel
• $5,000,000 from the other half of OHA’s purchase of a joint interest in Parcel A.
• Approximately $23,330,000 bond funding projected to come through FY 2021-22
The DOF drawdown schedule is attached as Attachment D. DOF’s May 19, 2016 decision
allows the City to use the remaining 2011 Bond funds, and allows the City to go back and re
characterize previous commitments totaling $37.5 million made from the 2011 Bond fund for the
City’s purchase of the affordable housing parcels in 2014 ($21.5 million) and Mural Apartments
(MacArthur BART Transit Oriented Development affordable phase, $16 million) as RPTTF
expenditures, which frees up the 2011 Bond Funds for use for the vertical construction of
affordable units at Brooklyn Basin. Funding would be reimbursed over six to seven tax years as
it becomes available. However, under this arrangement, DOF does not consider the vertical
unit construction to be an enforceable obligation of ORSA, and will not cover City staff project
delivery costs (estimated to total $4-$5 million over the life of the five phases of the project
through 2023). Therefore, City staffing costs will need to be recovered from the 2011 Housing
Bond as well, leaving approximately $35 million for vertical construction.
Between the City’s purchase price for the affordable housing parcels of approximately
$21,500,000 and estimated development loans of $35,000,000, the City’s total funding
investment in all 465 units will be roughly $56,500,000 ($121,505 per unit). OHA will provide
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 8
$10 million in development subsidies via its purchase of a 50% interest in the property, and
ZOHP is providing another $2 million towards the affordable housing. These sources are
expected to help leverage roughly $200 million in outside funding sources.
PUBLIC OUTREACH I INTEREST
The Coalition continues to be involved with this project since it is party to the 2006 Cooperation
Agreement with the City. The members of the Coalition are the Asian Pacific Environmental
Network, East Bay Asian Youth Center, Oakland Community Organizations, and the Urban
Strategies Council. City staff, the Coalition, OHA, and MidPen have been meeting frequently
since June 2015 to discuss the affordable housing program and financing plan and the Coalition
is an active participant in those discussions. The Coalition supports the involvement of OHA at
the current level of Section 8 units.
COORDINATION
Housing and Community Development staff coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office,
Controller’s Bureau, the City Administrator’s Office and MidPen Housing in preparation of this
report. Staff also remains in frequent contact with the Real Estate division, Bureau of Planning
and Building Department, and Public Works department’s Environmental Services Division.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: The development of affordable housing at Brooklyn Basin will create economic
opportunities through the provision of construction and property management employment
opportunities. In addition, providing affordable housing, with a substantial portion of PBS8 units,
will allow residents have greater financial security. Residents of affordable housing tend to
spend their increased discretionary funds within their communities, which will also help local
businesses.
Environmental: Environmental remediation of the affordable housing parcels has been
completed and monitoring is occurring. Housing Staff will work with Public Works Environmental Services Division staff on remediation issues and monitoring, and with Planning
staff on NEPA review.
Social Equity: The development of affordable housing at Brooklyn Basin will create 465
affordable housing units for low and very low income residents, which is a means of achieving
greater social equity. Units will serve lower incomes (regulated at 25-60 percent of AMI, but
with vouchers that could allow residents in the 0-25 percent of AMI level as well). Affordable
units will serve seniors and families, with large (3 bedroom) units that would otherwise be
difficult to find in Oakland. Oakland’s neighborhood-level environment will be improved by
replacing vacant and underused lots with new homes and residents.
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 9
CEQA
The City of Oakland Planning Commission certified the Oak to Ninth Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report on March 15, 2006. Under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Section 15162, no subsequent environmental review is required unless the project
has changed substantially, the circumstances under which the project would occur have
changed substantially, or new information demonstrates that any potential environmental
impacts would be substantially more severe than previously demonstrated. In reviewing the
preliminary affordable housing development and financing plan, staff has determined that none
of the circumstances necessitating further environmental review are present. The reasons for
this determination include, among others, the following: (1) the preliminary affordable housing
development and financing plan does not affect development envelope previously reviewed in
the EIR and is not a change in the project that involves any new significant effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) circumstances
under which the project is undertaken have not occurred that will involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and (3) no new information has come to light that would involve new or substantially
more severe effects or feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. Accordingly, no further
environmental review is required for this project at this time. The EIR identifies impacts and
requires mitigation measures, and the proposed project will continue to be required to
incorporate the mitigation measures. The EIR is available for review at 250 Frank Ogawa
Plaza, Suite 3315, Oakland, CA 94612 during normal business hours.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends That The City Council Adopt
An Ordinance (1) Authorizing A Master Housing Agreement With The Oakland Housing
Authority and MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, For Development of
Affordable Housing At Brooklyn Basin, (2) Authorizing Lease Disposition and
Development Agreements With MidPen Housing Corporation And The Oakland Housing
Authority, Or Affiliated Entities, For The Long-Term Ground Lease Of Parcel F At
Brooklyn Basin For The First Phases Of Development, And (3) Making CEQA Findings
For This Action; And
A Resolution (1) Authorizing An Unsecured Predevelopment Loan In The Amount Of
$2,067,000 To MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, To Support The
Development Of Affordable Housing On Parcels A And F At Brooklyn Basin, (2)
Authorizing A Secured Affordable Housing Development Loan In An Amount Not To
Exceed $15,243,000, To MidPen Housing Corporation, Or Affiliated Entities, To Support
The Development of Affordable Housing On Parcel F at Brooklyn Basin, And (3) Making
CEQA Findings For This Action,,
Item:
CED Committee
October 10 2017
Sabrina B. Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Brooklyn Basin Affordable Housing Agreements
Date: September 14, 2017
Page 10
For questions regarding this report, please contact Christia Katz Mulvey, Housing Development
Coordinator, at (510) 238-3623.
Respectfully submitted,
March 2021
May 2021
July 2021
July 2021
January 2022
December 2022
5,7S0,000
APPROVED AS TO FO$M AND LEGALITY
ill? SEP 28 PH |:3I ‘ .
C_~-H3EPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
C.M.S.
ORDINANCE (1) AUTHORIZING A MASTER HOUSING AGREEMENT WITH THE OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY AND MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION, OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT BROOKLYN BASIN, (2) AUTHORIZING LEASE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH
MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION AND THE OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, FOR THE LONG-TERM GROUND LEASE OF PARCEL F AT BROOKLYN BASIN FOR THE
FIRST PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, AND (3) MAKING CEQA FINDINGS FOR THIS ACTION
WHEREAS, in 2014 and 2017, the City acquired Project Parcels A and F
(the “affordable housing parcels”) at the Brooklyn Basin development project (formerly
the Oak to 9th project) for the development of 465 units of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the obligation to purchase the affordable housing parcels for
development of affordable housing arises pursuant to a Development Agreement
between the City and Zarsion-OHP I, LLC (“ZOHP”), originally entered into in 2006 and
subsequently amended (the “Development Agreement”) and a Cooperation Agreement
between the City and the Oak to Ninth Community Benefits Coalition originally entered
into in 2006 and subsequently amended (the “Cooperation Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement provides that the City and
ZOHP will work together to identify, recruit and select an affordable housing developer
to acquire the affordable housing parcels and develop affordable housing, and sets forth
a process for ZOHP to propose an affordable housing developer and for the City to
accept or reject the proposed developer; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of Oakland, California (“OHA”)
has purchased or will be purchasing an undivided 50 percent tenant-in-common interest in
the affordable housing parcels; and
WHEREAS, the City and OHA have selected MidPen Housing
Corporation (“MidPen”), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, pursuant to the
developer selection process in the Development Agreement, to be the developer of
affordable housing at the affordable housing parcels; and
WHEREAS, MidPen is an experienced and capable affordable housing
developer; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2016, Council passed Resolution No. 85939
C.M.S. approving a financing plan for developing affordable housing at Brooklyn Basin;
and
WHEREAS, a Master Housing Agreement among the City, OHA and
MidPen, or affiliates, will set forth the general terms and conditions under which the
affordable housing parcels will be conveyed and the affordable housing will be financed
and developed on the parcels; and
WHEREAS, MidPen has proposed developing the affordable housing on the
affordable housing parcels in phases, with the first two project phases being developed on
Parcel F; and
WHEREAS, MidPen has proposed to develop 101 units of family housing
as part of Project 1 and 110 units of senior housing as part of Project 2 on Parcel F; and
WHEREAS, all units (other than manager units) will be affordable to
households earning no more than 60% of area median income; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.42.140, et seq., of the Oakland Municipal Code
authorizes the City to sell or lease real property for development by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, lease disposition and development agreements among the City,
OHA and MidPen will set forth the terms and conditions under which the City and OHA will
dispose of Parcel F to MidPen and/or affiliated entities by means of long-term ground
leases, and by which MidPen will construct Project 1 and Project 2 on Parcel F; and
WHEREAS, the conveyance of Parcel F to MidPen for development and
operation of affordable housing will further the health, safety, and general welfare of the
residents of the City of Oakland by increasing the stock of housing affordable to low
income households; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.42.180 of the Oakland Municipal Code authorizes
the City to dispose of property at its fair reuse value as assessed based on the
property’s proposed development and use, prevailing market conditions, development
climate at the time of disposition, and other economic and noneconomic factors, and
requires findings to justify any below-market disposition; and
WHEREAS, the assessment set forth in the staff report accompanying this
Ordinance concludes that, based on a financial feasibility analysis of the proposed project,
the fair reuse value of Parcel F is nominal; and
2
WHEREAS, given the economics of the proposed projects and the need to
make the projects work, the ground lease of Parcel F to MidPen at a nominal cost is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the Oak to Ninth Mixed
Use Development Project prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) and certified by the City Council in 2006 and recertified in 2009 (the “EIR”)
provides a project-level analysis of the environmental impacts of the Brooklyn Basin
development project and supports all levels of approval necessary to implement the
Brooklyn Basin project, including affordable housing development on the affordable
housing parcels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transactions, including development of Project 1
and Project 2 on Parcel F, would not result in any significant effect that has not already
been analyzed in the EIR, and there will be no significant environmental effects caused by
the transactions that have not already been analyzed in the EIR; now, therefore
The Council of the City of Oakland does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator or
her designee to negotiate and execute a Master Housing Agreement with OHA and
MidPen, or affiliated entity or entities approved by the City Administrator, setting forth the
general terms and conditions under which the affordable housing parcels will be conveyed
and the affordable housing units will be financed and developed on the parcels.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator or
her designee to negotiate and execute lease disposition and development agreements
with OHA and MidPen, or affiliated entity or entities approved by the City Administrator, for
the disposition of Parcel F to Mid-Pen or affiliate by long-term ground leases and the
development of Project 1 and Project 2 on Parcel F by MidPen or affiliate consistent with
the terms of this Ordinance and other agreements with respect to the affordable housing
parcels.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby authorizes long-term ground leases of
the City’s interest in Parcel F at Brooklyn Basin to MidPen, or affiliated entity or entities
approved by the City Administrator, for nominal lease payments, in return for an
agreement by the developer to develop and operate Project 1 and Project 2 on Parcel F as
affordable housing. The City Council further authorizes the City Administrator or her
designate to negotiate and execute ground leases and any other agreements or
documents as necessary to convey leasehold interests in Parcel F to MidPen or affiliates,
as well as agreements or documents as necessary to transfer or assign funds or other
interests the City has with respect to Parcel F including remediation and monitoring funds,
escrowed funds, and environmental protections, upon the satisfaction of any
preconveyance conditions imposed by the City Administrator or her designee.
3
SECTION 4. As a condition of the conveyances, the City will require that
appropriate restrictions on occupancy, rents and operations for affordable units developed
as part of Project 1 and Project 2 be recorded against improvements developed on Parcel
F.
SECTION 5. The City Council, pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code
Section 2.42.170.B., hereby waives the competitive Notice of Development Opportunity
(“NODO”) process for disposition of Parcel F, and finds and determines that disposition
of Parcel F without a competitive NODO process is in the best interests of the City in
order to comply with the provisions of the Development Agreement concerning selection
of an affordable housing developer for the affordable housing parcels, and to facilitate
timely development of affordable housing on the affordable housing parcels by an
experienced and capable affordable housing developer.
SECTBQN 8. Based on the reuse value assessment set forth in the staff
report accompanying this Ordinance concluding that the fair reuse value of Parcel F is
nominal given its required use as affordable housing and the need to make Project 1 and
Project 2 financially feasible, Council hereby finds that the ground lease of Parcel F to
MidPen at nominal cost is necessary and in the best interests of the City. Because Parcel
F is being conveyed at less than fair rental value, all City employment and contracting
programs shall apply to Project 1 and Project 2.
SECTION 7. All agreements associated with the Parcel F and Project 1 and
Project 2 shall be reviewed and approved as to form and legality by the Office of the City
Attorney prior to execution by the City, and shall be placed on file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 8. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed
transactions would not result in any significant effect that has not already been analyzed in
the EIR, and there will be no significant environmental effects caused by the transactions
that have not already been analyzed in the EIR. The City Administrator or her designee is
hereby authorized to file a notice of determination with the Office of the Alameda County
Recorder and the State Office of Planning and Research, and to take any other action
necessary in furtherance of the project consistent with this Ordinance and its basic
purposes.
SECTION 9. The record before this Council relating to this Ordinance
includes, without limitation, the following:
A. All staff reports, decision letters and other documentation and information
produced by or on behalf of the City, and all notices relating to this
Ordinance and the LDDAs;
B. All oral and written evidence received by City staff and the City Council
before and during the consideration of this Ordinance;
4
C. All matters of common knowledge and all official enactments and acts of the
City, such as (1) the General Plan; (2) the Oakland Municipal Code,
including, without limitation, the Oakland real estate regulations; (3) the
Oakland Planning Code; (4) other applicable City policies and regulations;
and (5) all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
SECTION 10. The custodians and locations of the documents or other
materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s
decision is based are respectively: (a) the Office of Housing And Community
Development, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 5th floor, Oakland CA; (b) Planning and
Neighborhood Preservation Department, Planning Division, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza,
3rd floor, Oakland CA; and (c) the Office of the City Clerk, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 1st
floor, Oakland, CA.
SECTION 11. The recitals contained in this Ordinance are true and
correct and are an integral part of the Council’s decision.
SECTION 12. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately
upon its passage as provided by Section 216 of the City Charter if adopted by at least six
members of Council, or upon the seventh day after final adoption if adopted by fewer
votes.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
2017
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES-
BROOKS, CAMPBELL WASHINGTON, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY,
GUILLEN, KALB, KAPLAN, AND PRESIDENT REID,
NOESABSENTABSTENTION-
ATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
5
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A MASTER HOUSING AGREEMENT WITH THE OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY AND MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION, OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT BROOKLYN BASIN, AND (2) AUTHORIZING LEASE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION AND THE OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, FOR THE LONG-TERM GROUND LEASE OF PARCEL F AT BROOKLYN BASIN FOR THE FIRST PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, AND (3) MAKING CEQA FINDINGS FOR THIS ACTION NOTICE AND DIGEST
This Ordinance authorizes a Master Housing Agreement between the City, the Oakland Housing
Authority, and MidPen Housing Corporation for the disposition of the affordable housing parcels at
Brooklyn Basin and the financing and development of affordable housing on those parcels. This
Ordinance also authorizes the long-term ground leases of one of the affordable housing parcels,
Parcel F, to MidPen Housing Corporation at a nominal cost for development of affordable housing, on the site, and authorizes the City Administrator to negotiate and enter into lease disposition and development agreements and ground leases with MidPen Housing Corporation and the Oakland Housing Authority for this transaction, and makes associated findings with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other matters.
6
III SEP 28 PH |: 32
Approved as to Fdrm/and Legality
TO
Deputy City Attorney
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO.
C.M.S.
RESOLUTION (1) AUTHORIZING AN UNSECURED PREDEVELOPMENT
LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,067,000 TO MIDPEN HOUSING
CORPORATION, OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, TO SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PARCELS A AND F AT
BROOKLYN BASIN, (2) AUTHORIZING A SECURED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$15,243,000, TO MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION, OR AFFILIATED
ENTITIES, TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON PARCEL F AT BROOKLYN BASIN, AND (3) MAKING CEQA
FINDINGS FOR THIS ACTION
WHEREAS, in 2014 and 2017, the City acquired Project Parcels A and F (the
“affordable housing parcels”) at the Brooklyn Basin development project (formerly the Oak
to 9th project) for the development of 465 units of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the obligation to purchase the affordable housing parcels for
development of affordable housing and to ensure development of at least 465 units of
affordable housing on the site arises pursuant to a Development Agreement between the
City and Zarsion-OHP I, LLC (“ZOHP”), originally entered into in 2006 and subsequently
amended (the “Development Agreement”) and a Cooperation Agreement between the City
and the Oak to Ninth Community Benefits Coalition originally entered into in 2006 and
subsequently amended (the “Cooperation Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement provides that the City and ZOHP
will work together to identify, recruit and select an affordable housing developer to acquire
the affordable housing parcels and develop affordable housing, and sets forth a process
for ZOHP to propose an affordable housing developer and for the City to accept or reject
the proposed developer; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of Oakland, California (“OHA”)
has purchased or will be purchasing an undivided 50 percent tenant-in-common interest in
the affordable housing parcels from the City for $10 million, with these sale proceeds to the
City earmarked to the development of affordable housing on the affordable housing
parcels; and
WHEREAS, the City and OHA have selected MidPen Housing Corporation
(“MidPen”), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, pursuant to the developer
selection process in the Development Agreement, to be the developer of affordable
housing at the affordable housing parcels; and
WHEREAS, MidPen is an experienced and capable affordable housing
developer; and
WHEREAS, MidPen has proposed to develop the required 465 affordable
housing units in four separate phases in order to maximize project viability and ability to
leverage outside funding sources; and
WHEREAS, the City and OHA have been working closely with MidPen and
the Community Benefits Coalition to develop and refine the affordable housing
development scenarios and financing plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2016, Council passed Resolution No. 85939
C.M.S. approving a financing plan for developing affordable housing at the affordable
housing parcels; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2016, the City Council approved City Council
Resolution No. 86301 C.M.S. authorizing a $360,000 unsecured predevelopment loan for
the project; and
WHEREAS, it will be beneficial to the affordable housing development at
Brooklyn Basin for the projects to receive additional predevelopment loan funds in the
amount of $2,067,000, for a total predevelopment loan amount not to exceed $2,427,000,
so that MidPen will have working capital to undertake predevelopment activities for the first
two planned phases of the project through design review; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available to the City from the Oakland
Redevelopment Successor Agency from the 2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside Bond
Fund to provide the additional requested predevelopment loan; and
WHEREAS, MidPen does not currently hold an interest in the affordable
housing parcels, and it is therefore not possible to secure the predevelopment loans at this
time; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the predevelopment loans will be
consolidated with the loans for development of the projects on the affordable housing
parcels when the development loans are closed; and
2
WHEREAS, the City anticipates receiving roughly $40 million in additional
housing bond proceeds over the next several years for affordable housing at Brooklyn
Basin, of which $35,000,000 will be available for development loans to the projects after
paying City staff and administrative costs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, ZOHP
must provide a $2 million affordable housing contribution to affordable housing
development costs ($1 million per affordable housing parcel), to be paid to the City once
building permits for the affordable housing are drawn on each parcel; and
WHEREAS, MidPen has proposed developing the first two project phases on
Parcel F, with 101 units of family housing as part of Project 1 and 110 units of senior
housing as part of Project 2, for a total of 211 affordable units developed on Parcel F; and
WHEREAS, lease disposition and development agreements among the City,
OHA and MidPen will set forth the terms and conditions under which the City and OHA will
dispose of Parcel F to MidPen and/or affiliated entities by means of long-term ground leases,
and by which MidPen will construct Project 1 and Project 2 on Parcel F; and
WHEREAS, all units (other than manager units) will be rented at rents
affordable to households earning no more than 60% of area median income; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the City’s Project Development
Guidelines, and MidPen meets the City’s Threshold Developer Criteria; and
WHEREAS, the project will increase and improve the supply of low and very
low income housing available in the City of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the Oak to Ninth Mixed Use
Development Project prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and
certified by the City Council in 2006 and recertified in 2009 (the “EIR”) provides a project-level
analysis of the environmental impacts of the Brooklyn Basin development project and
supports all levels of approval necessary to implement the Brooklyn Basin project, including
affordable housing development on the affordable housing parcels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transactions, including development of Project 1
and Project 2 on Parcel F, would not result in any significant effect that has not already
been analyzed in the EIR, and there will be no significant environmental effects caused by
the transactions that have not already been analyzed in the EIR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator
or her designee to provide an additional unsecured predevelopment loan in the amount of
$2,067,000 to MidPen Housing Corporation, or to an affiliated entity or entities approved by
the City Administrator or her designee, to support predevelopment work associated with
the development of 465 units of affordable housing on the Brooklyn Basin affordable
housing parcels, for a total unsecured predevelopment loan in an amount not to exceed
3
$2,427,000; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the funding for this additional predevelopment
loan shall be allocated from the 2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside Bond Fund (City Fund
1885, Org 89929, Project 10001237; ORSA Fund 9785, Org 89929, Projects 10000020,
1000390 and 1001237); 2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside Bond Fund and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the additional predevelopment loan shall be
contingent on the availability of sufficient funds in the 2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside
Bond Fund; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the predevelopment loan shall be for an initial
term of 24 months (with a six month extension available at the City Administrator’s
discretion), with an interest rate to be determined by the City Administrator in her
discretion, with the balance due at the end of the term, or on such other repayment terms
and schedule as the City Administrator or her designee determines are in the best interests
of the City and the project; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is authorized to
consolidate the predevelopment loans or any portion thereof with any development loans
for the project; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby further authorizes the
City Administrator or her designee to provide a development loan in an amount not to
exceed $15,243,000, for a total consolidated loan amount (predevelopment and
development loans) of up to $17,670,000, to MidPen Housing Corporation, or to an
affiliated entity or entities approved by the City Administrator or her designee, to be used
for development of 211 units of affordable housing as part of Project 1 and Project 2 on
Parcel F; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the funding for the development loan shall be
allocated from the following sources: $9,603,000 from 2011 Affordable Housing Set-Aside
Bond Fund (City Fund 1885, Org 89929, Project L439410; ORSA Fund 9785, Org 89929,
Projects 10000020, 1000390 and 1001237), and $6,000,000 in funding from OHA sales
proceeds and ZOHP developer contributions that will be deposited in the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (2830), Housing Development Organization
(88929), Housing Development Program Project (To Be Determined); and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the development loan shall be contingent on
the availability of sufficient funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund
and other funds; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the development loan and/or the consolidated
loan shall be for a maximum term of 55 years, with an interest rate to be determined by the
City Administrator in her discretion, with repayment to the City from surplus cash flow from
the project and other available funds during the term of the loan, with the balance due at
4
the end of the term, or on such other repayment terms and schedule as the City
Administrator or her designee determines are in the best interests of the City and the
project; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That as a condition of the development loan and/or
consolidated loan, the City will require that appropriate restrictions on project occupancy,
rents and operations be recorded against project improvements on Parcel F; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the development loan and/or consolidated
loan shall be secured by a deed of trust on project improvements on Parcel F; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the development loan funds shall be reserved
for a period of no more than 24 months from the date of this Resolution and shall be
subject to reprogramming at the end of this period unless MidPen has secured
commitments for full project funding or provided other assurances of adequate project
funding that the City Administrator or her designee deems sufficient within her discretion,
within the reservation period; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the making of the predevelopment loan and
the development loan shall be contingent on and subject to such other appropriate terms
and conditions as the City Administrator or her designee may establish; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City hereby authorizes the City
Administrator or her designee in her discretion to subordinate the priority of any of the
City’s recorded interests in Parcel F to a lien or encumbrance of another private or
governmental entity providing financial assistance to the project, if the City Administrator or
her designee determines that (1) an economically feasible alternative method of financing
the project on substantially comparable terms and conditions but without subordination is
not reasonably available, (2) the City’s investment in the project in the event of default is
reasonably protected, and (3) subordination is in the best interests of the City; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is hereby authorized to
negotiate and execute loan documents for the predevelopment loan and the development
loan, administer the loans, extend or modify the repayment terms, and take whatever other
action is necessary with respect to the loans and the project consistent with this Resolution
and its basic purposes; and be it
5-
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council finds and determines that the
proposed funding transactions would not result in any significant effect that has not already
been analyzed in the EIR, and there will be no significant environmental effects caused by
the funding transactions that have not already been analyzed in the EIR.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES – BROOKS, CAMPBELL WASHINGTON, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, GUILLEN, KALB, KAPLAN,
AND PRESIDENT REID
NOESABSENTABSTENTION ATTEST:
6
LaTonda Simmons
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
Oakland Sharing The Vision: Timeline of Recent Oakland City Administrators Since 1998
6/1998 – 6/2003 Robert Bobb 5 Years
2/2004 – 7/2008 Deborah Edgerly 4 Years, five months
7/2008 – 4/2011 Dan Lindheim 3 Years, 8 months
4/2011 – 7/2011 Lamont Ewell 0 Years, 3 months
7/2011 – 3/2014 Deanna Santana 3 Years, 8 months
3/2014 – 4/2014 Fred Blackwell 0 Years, 1 month
4/2014 – 1/2015 Henry Gardner 0 Years, 9 months
1/2015 – 6/2015 John Flores 0 Years, 5 months
6/2015 – 10/2017 Sabrina Landreth 3 Years, 4 months (current)
The avetrage tenture of an Oakland City Administrator is now up to 2.44 years – that’s an increase of 1.78 years, and due strickly to the fact that Ms. Sabrina Landreth has held her position for the last 3 years and four months.
The longest time an Oakland City Manager or City Administrator has been on the job is marked by Henry Gardner: Mr. Gardner was Oakland City Manager from 1981 to 1993, a total of 13 years. But that was before the change in the City Charger forced by the passage of Measure X in 1998. With the conversion to a “strong mayor” form of government, the City Manager title was dropped for “City Administrator” and that person served (and serves) at the pleasure of the Mayor.
By contrast, the City Manager had to be hired or fire with five Oakland City Council votes.
Still, we’re in election season, and while it’s still early, and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is running for re-election, Ms. Landreth has to keep an eye out for the possiblity that Mayor Schaaf may not win in November of 2018. Will she stick around to see the November 2018 election outcome, or depart early?
Stay tuned.
Oakland Sharing The Vision (OSV) was an effort to bring 1,000 Oaklanders together to form goals and objectives that were to be a path to civic growth. What Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf calls the ‘secret sauce” of Oakland, what our city is, is in large degree reflected in the work of OSV.
The list of members was never put into a webpage form, only a pdf form – until now with my effort to revive OSV for the 21st Century. Here’s the full list of those people who made up the first meeting that created OSV. Some of them, like Richard Winnie, the Alameda County Counsel and friend and mentor to me, have passed on. Many others, like Annalee Allen, Mayor Harris, Ray Leon and Alton Jelks, Paul Cobb, Gay Pair Cobb, LaTonda Simmons, and Becky Taylor, and myself, are with us today.
Here is it, the Oakland Sharing The Vision Original Members List from 1992, complete with the groups they belonged to:
Oakland Sharing the Vision Members
Board of Directors
Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris
Dick Spees
Robert Toney
Annalee Allen
Lynette Lee
Expanded Economic Base
Task Force
Co-Chairs
Ces Butner
Claude Hutchison
Members
Zenophon Abraham
Jack Atkin
Seth Bailey
Arnold Bellow
Allison Bergamo
Jennie Bettles
Elissa Brown
Linda Bytof
Jacquee Castain
Bob Chew
Jeff Chew
John Christensen
Marlene Daniels
Michael Dean
Margot Dishner
Alan Dones
Bob Eagle
James Edgerly
Gary Fields
Robinson Foster
Dana Fox
Mark Friedman
Tracey Glenn
John Glover
Judith Goldsmith
David Grubbs
Kerry Hamill
Mac Hay
Connie Hosemann
Sharon Jackson
Dave Johnson
Michael Kinane
John Klein
Richard Knutson
Kathryn Kutz
Peter Lawrence
Mi Yeong Lee
Myrtise Lim-Wong
Mark Lindquist
Paul Loh
Dana Long
Helen Lore
Arnold Luft
David McDonald
George McLaughlin
Robery Middleton
Fred Morse
Lovell Mosely
Maureen Murray
John Nasstrom
Alfred Parham, Sr.
Donna Pate
Shelly Peterson
Mark Ross
Victor Rubin
John Russo
Anita Sevilla
Shyaam Shabaka
Gary Sirbu
Lee Snider
Adeline Sweeney
Melvin Tennant
Robert Toney
Paul Valva
Ernest Walker
Winifred Walsh
Vanessa Washington
Selwyn Whitehead
Barbara Winn
Richard Winnie
Alex Wong
Ellen Wyrick Parkinson
Ruth Yanover
Neighborhood
Revitalization Task Force
Co-Chairs
Don Kinkead
James Sweeney III
Members
Jerry Adams
Ginney Allen
Deneen Allmond
Dan Altemus
Carl Anderson
Jack Atkin
Dianne Bartleson
Arnetta Belgar
Jean Blackshear
Susan Boyle
Clyde Brewster
Sue Brewster
Cynthia Griffin Brown
Chris Buckley
Sharon Burleigh
Karen Calloway
Carlotta Campbell
Nona Campbell
Marina Carlson
Jacquee Castain
Robert Chastain
Sharon Chezan
Pamela Clark
Willie Collins
Eric Cone
Ron Cornman
Leilani Cotton
Mary Crawford
Shaerry Crawford
Kit Curtiss
Don Davenport
Edith Davis
Celilia Duncan
Bennie Easley
Kennecia Easley
Kathie English
Dorothy Erb
Na’ama Firestone
Creighton Fong
Larry Forte
George Gianopoulos
Judith Goldsmith
Susan Haight
Joanne Hausler
Vanessa Hawkins
Heather Hensley
Al Hernandez
Richard Higginbotham
Sheila Hill-Fajors
Bishop Holmes
Charles Hudson, Jr.
Greg Hyson
Alice Jackson-Taylor
Alvin James
Ned Jaros
Michael Johnson
Vivian Kahn
Michael Kinane
Cayren King
John Klein
Bea Knowles
Tina Konvalinka
Roy Krausen
Lynette Lee
Chan U Lee
Brooke Levin
Charles Lewis
Bill Lowe
Ron Morra
Fred Morse
John Mortensen
Elizabeth Morton
Phillip Moss
Lois Nembhard
Barbara Neustadler
Monsa Nitoto
Maureen O’Neill
James Owens
Sally Phillips
Gary Pound
Christine Ralls
Hans Reuvekamp
Gwin Richards
Eunice Robinson
Justin Rosenthal
Gail Rusin
Dan Rust
Roy Schweyer
James Servais
Natasha Shebeko
Liz Silverman
Fannie Smith
Joanna Smith
Marguerite Smith
Jane Spangler
Lisa Spearman
Mary Strauss
Doreen Strongs
Earl Stucky, Jr.
Adeline Sweeney
Carlon Tanner
Larry Taylor
Queen Thurston
John Wagers
Kathy Walsh
Louise Ware
Maureen Webb
Lenore Weiss
Dorothy Williams
Hallie Williams
James Williams
Ellen Wyrick Parkinson
Ann G. Yee
Willie Yee
Kristina Younger
Gerry Zager
Safe, Healthy, Drug-Free
City Task Force:
Co-Chairs
Ophelia Long
Sherry Hirota
Members
Anita Addison
Lisa Allen
Judy Armstrong
Jack Atkin
Jim Barber
Jean Blacksher
Gretchen Blais
Kathleen Boehm
Odessa Bolton
Lisa Brill
Charles Brown
Elissa Brown
Maurice Brown
Warner Brown
Mark Cabrera
Abelbert Campbell
Cass Caufield
Regina Chavarin
Paul Cobb
Patrick Connell
Sgt. Bob Crawford
Tony Crear
Georgia Davenport
Rafael Delgadillo
Len Duhl
Robert Eisenman
Barbara Evan
Walter Filkowski
Dorothy Graham
Louis Hal
Sara Hamlen
Jim Haye
Horace Hobbs
Dorothy Hurlburt
Henry Hurlburt
Wendy Jameson
Ned Jaros
Warner Jenkins
Gary Johnson
Gracie Johnson
David Kears
Charles King
Ken Kingsbury
Norman Knight
Chuck Lacy
Denise Lai
Bruce Marcus
Daphne Markham
Michael McCree
Ronnie McFarland
Lilia Moreno
John Nasstrom
Robert Nichelini
Mike Nisperos, Jr.
John Norton
Ana O’Connor
King O’Neal
Tony Papp
Ken Parker
Fred Peoples
Denis Pina
Walter Preston
Phebia Richardson
Rick Ricketts
Jerry Rose
John Russo
Isaac Slaughter
Freddie Smith
Harvey Smith
Martha Smyser
Calvester Stanley
Muriel Sterling
Don Sutton
Carol Tolbert
John Viera
Marty Wagner
Sheryl Walker
Jennae Wallach
Harriet Walsh
David Wells
Molly Wetzel
Robert Whitaker
Edward Willis
Education and Lifelong
Learning Task Force
Co-Chairs
Richard Winnie
Gay Plair Cobb
Members
Joseph Adwere-Boamal
Lynn Baraco
Jennie Bettles
Charles Boije
Manuel Cabello
Barbara Cannon
Wilma Chan
Terry Coffino
Toni Cook
Lynn Dodd
Bill Doge
Suzanne DuBois
Susan Duncan
Robert Galizen
Barbara Gee
Carolyn Getridge
Deborah Gilmore
Martin Gomez
Jacqueline Goodman
Willie Hamilton
Fannie Mae Haughton
Henry Izumizaki
Bruce Jacob
Alton Jelks
Angela Johnson
Percy Julian
Kathy Katano-Lee
William Kramer
Barbara Lee
Susan Lo
Robert Long
Lois MacGillivray
Avon Manning
Sadie Marrow
Frank Martino
Bella Medera
Karen Meroble
Mae Monroe
Tomye Neal-Madison
Beverly Neeley
Robert Nicolai
Henry Nunn
Genita Paceley
Lise Perlman
Jeanette Phillips
Diane Raulston
Don Smith
Robert Scannell
Robert Toney
Marie De Porres Taylor
Pearlean Taylor
Queen Thurston
John Turpin
Evelyn Westly
Herbye White
Lee White
Allie Whitehurst-Gordon
Bob Williams
Cleve Williams
Calvin Womble
Gerri Wollfork
Ellen Wyrick Parkinson
Alan Young
Building Coalitions Task
Force
Co-Chairs
Jose Arredondo
Richard Cowan
Members
Jack Atkin
Dianne Bartleson
Darlene Bednerik
Jennie Bettles
Arthur Boone
Carolynne Boone
Yolanda Butler
Terry Coffino
Barbara Davis
Faith Dubois
Bob Eagle
Faith Fauntleroy
Sally Gallegos
Patricia Glover
Arthur Goldman
Susan Haight
Al Hernandez
Linda Huber
Alton Jelks
Kathy Katano-Lee
Laura King
Suzie Lee
Robert Long
Bill Lowe
Daphne Markham
Jackie McCort
Diane Moffett
John Nasstrom
Theresa Navarro
Tina Neil
Mike Nisperos, Jr.
Marlene Oehler
Odessa Pegus
Perviz Randeria
John Randle
Carole Reed
Eunice Robinson
Justin Rosenthal
Cynthia Ross
Victor Rubin
Mary Strauss
Sala Udin
Cultural Affairs Task Force
Members
Cathy Adams
Marcia Carter
Judith Duenas
Davud Glover
Shyrl Hayman
Patty Hirota
Janette MacKinlay
Ignacia Peri
Charles Schmuck
John Sutter
K.M. Tan
Jeffrey Tauber
Jill Vialet
Mary Lou Weggenmann
Sonja Williams
Grants Committee
Karen Bilbrey
Marcia Carter
Shryl Hayman
Arlene Kimata
Carolyn Lau
Mlinzi Majigiza
Charles Schmuck
Public Art Committee
Lorna Dare
Violet Fields
Beatrice Hablig
Susanna Hirshen
Leonard Hunter
Chris Johnson
Nancy Selvin
Judge John Sutter
Jose Vilar
Calvin Womble
Marketing Committee
Carol Beadle
Judith Blair
Robert Brown
Pat Donohue
Judith Duenas
Diana Freeland
Stan Hebert
Kathy Irving
Janette Mackinlay
Dave Mendelsohn
Millie Mitchell
Harold Power
Suzanne Talmy
Carole Ward Allen
Mary Lou Weggenman
Rhonda White-Warner
Sonja Williams
Traditional Arts
Committee
Cathy Adams
Theresa Bonner-Payne
Claude Clark
Stephen Gong
Patty Hirota
Donna Reid
Lynn Rogers
Judge Jeffrey Tauber
Work/Live Committee
Jim Blyer
Candice Carson
Thomas Dolan
Candi Farlice
Michael Floss
Frederick Hertz
Dolores Jaquez
Alton Jelks
Gary Knecht
Jim Kushera
Arthur Monroe
Miguel Nelson
Leon Paulos
Ignacio Peri
Michael Reynolds
Jim Riehart
Charles Schmuck
Jeffrey Smith
Scott Staupe
Reynaldo Terrazas
Technical Advisors
Walter Abernathy
Antonio Acosta
Sue Aiken
Annalee Allen
Mark Allen
Carl Anthony
Jose Arredondo
Frank Arthur
Jack Atkin
Tony Atkisson
Rahim Aurang
Ralph Baker
Rick Baker
Belen Balaba
Steve Banker
Jerry Barnes
Tom Bates
John Baumann
Ben Bear
Cleveland Bellow
Ward Belding
Charles Benson
Fran Bitterman
Jean Blacksher
Angela Blackwell
Gretchen Blais
Ed Blakely
Dolores Blanchard
Charles Boggan Jr.
Anne Bonie-Wilson
Carolyn Bovat
John Bowers
James Branch
Gary Breaux
Paul Brekke-Meisner
Mike Bridges
Lisa Brill
Janet Broughton
Elissa Brown
Julia Brown
Maurice Brown
Charles Brown
Charles Bryant
Chris Buckley
Ces Butner
Mark Cabrera
Deane Calhoun
Jim Carter
Pat Cashman
Susan Chamberlin
Wilma Chan
Jeff Chew
Floretta Chisom
John Christensen
Ed Church
Gay Plair Cobb
Ada Cole
Deane Calhoun
Willie Collins
Lee Collins-Rink
Denise Conley
Toni Cook
Fran Cooper
Michael Corbett
Link Corkery
Betita Coty
Bud Covert
Lawrence Crouchett
Mary Curran
Ted Dang
Marie De Porres Taylor
Rafael Delgadillo
Margot Dishner
Carolyn Douthat
Richard Dowling
Alan Dreyfuss
Suzanne DuBois
Leo Dubose
Susan Duncan Bob Eagle
Peter Ekstein
Zenobia Embry-Nimmer
Kathy Ferber
Steve Ferguson
Gary Fields
Ceda Floyd
Lynn Fonfa
Charles Foster
Robinson Foster
Burchelle Fox
Aileen Frankel
Frank Fuller
Bernardo Garcia
Joel Garcia
Jane Garcia
Henry Gardner
Bill Garvine
Carolyn Getridge
David Glover
Patricia Glover
John Glover
Judith Goldsmith
Martin Gomez
Dorothy Graham
Barbara Gregory
Louis Hal
Kerry Hamill
Sara Hamlen
Alice Hammers
George Hart
Margaret Hauben
Fannie Mae Haughton
Les Hausrath
Linda Hausrath
Jim Haye
Chappelle Hayes
Stana Hearne
Richard Heasley
Mary Ann Hedderson
Bill Hein
Khati Hendry
Lisbeth Henning
Barbara Henry
Heather Hensley
Al Hernandez
Antoinette Hewlett
Sheila Hill-Fajors
David Hoard
Horace Hobbs
Sandra Holliday
Rick Holliday
Pearl Howell
Henry Hurlburt
Dorothy Hurlburt
Kathleen Hurley
Greg Hyson
Bradley Inman
Adrian Isabelle
Jim Ishimaru
Henry Izumizaki
Martin Jack
James Jackson, Jr.
Alvin James
Wendy Jameson
Ned Jaros
Alton Jelks
Warner Jenkins
Gary Johnson
Gracie Johnson
Ken Jones
Vincent Jones
Vivian Kahn
David Kears
Jim Keddy
Bruce Kern
Harland Kessel
Ron Kilcoyne
Joan Kiley
Laura King
Charles King
Ken Kingsbury
Travis Kinsley
Gary Knecht
Norman Knight
Craig Kocian
Katrina Koh
Brooks Kolb
Tina Konvalinka
Roy Krausen
Cynthia Knoll
Dana Kueffner
Jim La Mentia
Chuck Lacy
Lambert Lee
Edwin Lee
Lynette Lee
Mary Lee Widener
Barbara Lee
Mi Yeong Lee
Richard Legates
Lori Lenrow
Jeff Levine
Ariu Levy
Charles Lewis
Diane Lewis
John Licht
Mark Lindquist
Robert Long
Helen Lore
Mark Lovette
Mary Lu Ellis
Donlyn Lyndon
Carl Lynn
Estelle Mannis
Bruce Marcus
Daphne Markham
Judith Briggs Marsh
Thomas Martinsen
Jan Masaoka
Frank Matarrese
Martin Matarrese
Gwen McCormick
Michael McCree
Ronnie McFarland
Paul Merrick
John Merrit
Pete Mesa
Cathleen Michaels
Barry Miller
Carol Mintz
Robert Mires
Monsa Nitoto
Cheryl Mitchell-Wade
Lisa Moreno
Bea Morris
John Mortensen
Larry Mortimer
Rosemary Muller
Margo Murray
Jay Musante
John Nasstrom
Booker Neal
Robert Nichelini
Mike Nisperos, Jr.
Wade Nobles
Henry Nunn
Shanna O’Hare
Maureen O’Neill
Linda Okahara
LaRRY Orman
Bob Orser
Richard Pantages
Chris Patillo
Fred Peoples
Mike Pickering
Denis Pina
Gary Pound
Helaine Prentice
Fred Presily
Mike Pyatock
Marsha Ramsey
Barbara Ramsey
Ezra Rapport
Renee Resendez
Vince Reyes
John Reynolds
Jim Rinehart
Barney Rivera
Charles Roberts
Terry Roberts
Janet Rolando
Peggy Roth
John Russo
Ken Ryan
Bob Sakai
Frances Sam-Soqsa
Mtangulizi Sanyika
Janet Sapenter
Robert Scannell
Susan Schacher
Naomi Schiff
Roy Schweyer
Anita Sevilla
Jean Shields
Allen Shinn
Dan Siegel
Patricia Simmons
Isaac Slaughter
Harold Smith
Michael Smith
Cecilia Smock
Randy Snowden
Connie Soper
Nika St. Claire
Barbara Staggers
Ken Stanley
Muriel Sterling
David Stern
Julie Strauss
Lynn Suter
John Sutter
Don Sutton
Steve Szalay
Sandra Taylor
Donald Terner
Minnie Thomas
Mildred Thompson
Revan Tranter
James Vann
John Viera
Phyllis Waller
Bill Walsh
Zack Wasser
David Wendel
Frances Werner
Evelyn Wesley
Larry Westland
Molly Wetzel
Bonnie Wheatley
Robery Whitaker
Herbye White
Selwyn Whitehead
Allie Whitehurst-Gordon
Cleveland Williams
Jayne Williams
Curt Wingler
Richard Winnie
Oakland City Attorney Resolution Asks Federal Government To Reclassify Medical Cannabis
On November 17th, Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker’s staff will introduce a resolution to the Oakland City Council that, if passed, will ask the Federal Government to reclassify Medical Cannabis from its current status as a “Schedule 1 controlled substance.”
The Oakland City Attorney argues that because of this designation, “the federal government considers marijuana as dangerous a heroin with no medical use and high potency for abuse” and that threats of criminal arrest and prosecution leave those in need of the medicine unable to obtain it lawfully.
According to the Oakland City Council Agenda for November 17th, the item is called “Subject: Declaration Of Medical Cannabis Health Emergency From: Office Of The City Attorney Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Renewing The City Council’s Declaration Of A Local Public Health Emergency With Respect To Safe, Affordable Access To Medical Cannabis In The City Of Oakland” and is Agenda File #17-0197.
The meeting starts at 5:30 PM at Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza. via IFTTT
John B. Williams, Lionel Wilson, Carter Gillmore, Marcus Foster, George Williams, Henry Gardner, Avon Manning, Elihu Harris, Robert Bobb, Gregory Hunter, Cedric Williams, Clint Bolden, Austin Penny, Ray Leon, Fred Blackwell, Kofi Bonner, and Ron Dellums, Larry Reid, and Lamont Ewell are some of the top names in a long list of distinguished black men who have served executive management positions in the City of Oakland since 1968.
If you know Oakland at all you know many of the names: John B. Williams was the City of Oakland’s legendary boss of its redevelopment agency, and going back to 1968. Lionel Wilson was Oakland’s first black mayor in 1979. Carter Gillmore was the first African American elected to the Oakland City Council in 1977. Marcus Foster was the first black Superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District, who was killed by the Symbonese Liberation Army in 1973. Henry Gardner was Oakland’s first black City Manager. Avon Manning was Assistant City Manager under Gardner. The legendary Ron Dellums became Oakland’s 48th Mayor in 2007. Robert Bobb was Oakland City Manager and then Oakland’s first City Administrator in 2000. Larry Reid is the current Oakland City Coucilman for District
Seven and was Mayor Harris’ Chief of Staff. And Gregory Hunter, Cedric Williams, Clint Bolden, Austin Penny, (now San Francisco Foundation CEO) Fred Blackwell, (now Lennar Urban Director) Kofi Bonner, and Lamont Ewell all held positions as City Manager, Assitant City Adminstrator, or head of Oakland’s economic development and redevelopment departments.
What these gentleman represented was what became something of a tradition in Oakland: an expectation of seeing a black man run something. That’s not to say there wasn’t a great list of black women then, but there are many African American women in high positions in Oakland today – however the ranks of black men in City of Oakland management positions have lessened to such a degree that Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf did not have one black male in any position in her office for most of her time as Mayor, and that includes the City Administrator’s Office.
As one who served as Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris’ Economic Advisor from 1995 to 1999, and then as the founder and Executive Director of The Oakland-Alameda County Sports Commission from 1999 to 2001, I’m proud to say I’ve known the majority of the men I’ve listed, and many others. For example, Mr. Bonner and I have a relationship that goes back to September 15th 1985, when I met him in the computer room of The University of California at Berkeley Department of City and Regional Planning, where we were both students. Part of the Berkeley Mafia.
But something has happened, and that it has became obvious to me when I was at Mayor Schaaf’s thank you event earlier this year. I made a livestream of the gathering, which is up at Zennie62 on YouTube as I write this. It was a fantastic time, but one moment just completely shocked me: when Mayor Schaaf asked her staff of what was by my count 29 people to come up for a photo, there was not a single black man. Black women, yes; black men, no.
That was jarring to me.
It was particularly bothersome because prior to what I will call “The NFL issue”, Mayor Schaaf and I had been close – after she was elected Mayor, she referred to me as her “brother” and so I returned the act, and called her my godsiter, and it went on from there.
This all started because we’ve known each other for about 30 years, and both shared a love for the Oakland community. In May of 2009, I was the one who told Libby she should run for Mayor, and I said it in front of her parents, my godparents, and my Mom, at their place. Libby ran for District Four Oakland City Council, and won in 2010, even as I wrote that she was going to run for Mayor of Oakland as an April Fools story that many took seriously.
But, in 2013, things changed: Bryan Parker, a black Oakland busness man new to politics, asked me to support his run for Mayor. I held off to ask Libby if she was going to run; she said no. But I was completely blindsided by the news she changed her mind – and it did not come from her. Libby never asked me to join her team – just expected that I would automatically dump Bryan and back her. But that’s not something one does in politics. Rank Choice Voting saved me – I could pick Parker 1, Schaaf 2, and Joe Tuman 3. But I was, and still am, hurt about that. The one who pushed her to run for Mayor and laid the publicity groundwork – the one who has a deep history in Oakland government – was left on the outside of her campaign, even as a black man in Bryan Parker asked for my help. That really dd hurt.
Then came the NFL: Schaaf rotinely learned on me for advice – some she took early on (like working to develop a relationship with Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis) but most she did not take (the stadium plan Mark Davis asked for from me, landing Pier Jaffrey Investment Bankers for the stadium project, letting the NFL purchase the Coliseum land, forming an incentive package and a plan to have the A’s go to Howard Terminal, and so on). But what was occasional at first became for all practical purposes a job for me. So, when I changed my mind and sought to be brought on as a consultant, and after Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis asked me to form a plan for Coliseum City – and after I cold-called Piper Jaffrey Investment Bankers and introduced a spreadsheet financial plan the firm blessed that called for no tax subsidy. Even with all of that, Libby never hired me – just maintained what I called the brother code.
We lost our preliminary bid to keep the Raiders, and for reasons that, had I been placed in an official position to fix, would not have existed. That because I have a relationship with the National Football League which goes back to 1995, and the return of the Raiders to Oakland from LA. After my work from 1999 to 2001 to have Oakland bid for the 2005 Super Bowl (we lost to Jacksonville), I wound up covering the NFL Draft from 2005 to present year.
Anyway, on March 26th 2017, by a vote of 31 to 1, we lost. A lot happened that weekend leading up to that day that involved the Mayor and I will not go into. But after that, I started to put things together, and look around at my City of Oakland – and that’s when the problem I wanted to ignore became impossible not to pay attention to: black men in non-elected executive positions were all but impossible to find in Oakland’s City Hall.
Now, you can say my reasons for being so interested in this issue now are self-serving, and you would be correct. But look: the whole point of being gainfully employed, being able to be well-compensated for being good at what you do, is self-serving. It would have been great to see other black men in many different high-level positons in Oakland, thus meaning it really was just my lack of whatever, but that is not the case. Oakland has gotten rid of black male managers under Mayor Schaaf.
That this is happening under Libby, and that I am compelled to point it out, makes me sick to my stomach. But someone has to shed a light on this problem. One media publication I will not named pointed to the “sisterhood” but I contend deliberately failed to note the lack of black men. Moreover, that publication has had a history of attacking black male government executives in Oakland. So, when I read that article, it seemed to me that the publication was engaging in a kind of dog-whistle racism, celebrating that black men were nowhere to be seen, without saying so.
This has to be considered a crisis of perception based on race and sex. A combination of some kind of weird hatred for competent black men, combined with what seems to be a white guilt over the race issue. Even though Oakland’s had and has a great history of powerful black women in many executive positions in Oakland, to see the ranks today and the media coverage, you’d think Oakland had never seen sisters before. Perish the thought.
Clearly, we collectively took a wrong turn over the last few years. If Mayor Schaaf was committed to ending the problem of perception, she would have hired me to represent her on the NFL issue, rather than just repeatedly calling me her brother and saying I have her ear. When you believe someone is truly competent at something, you pay for their services, and not seek free advice and work from them.
Something is wrong in Oakland. It’s not the way we used to be. That said, the new City of Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist, an African American man, is a step in the right direction. It’s not that the ranks have to be as they were when Oakland was a majority black city, but the drop in black men has been so dramatic that people have talked about it – I decided to write about it.
Stay tuned, because I’m not done trying to figure out what happened to Oakland.
On a recent trip to the City of Oakland’s Business Licensing Office I was told that there are no licensed or permitted commercial cannabis cultivation operations in the City of Oakland. I was told that the City was perfecting their regulations and would be issuing applications for permits shortly.
This was interesting because I am personally aware of several locations where large scale commercial cannabis cultivation operations are currently in business in the City of Oakland. Out of curiosity I inquired about one such address. I was told that there is no current business license at that address and that the last licensed operation was in 2013 when the property was a bakery. I then inquired about the operators of the business and was informed that they have no business license in the City of Oakland.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that one faction of the City government is aware and complacent with these operators of the unlicensed and unpermitted businesses. Documents produced in response to Public Record Requests show that, at least since 2015, Gregory Minor, Assistant to the City Administrator, has been in contact and supported these unlicensed businesses.
In March 2016, Minor was asked by Councilmember Brooks to provide a list of cannabis businesses that had taken out business licenses and were voluntarily paying business taxes, a list he did provide. In June of 2016, Minor exchanged several e-mails with the operators and toured the previously referred to unlicensed, unpermitted cultivation facility. Minor cannot claim that he did not know the facility was unlicensed because he had prepared the list for Brooks shortly before the tour. There are also documents that suggest that Minor was discouraging inspectors from checking these illegal operations.
On February 19, 2016, Minor wrote an e-mail which states “all non-retail cannabis businesses are completely below ground, yet we are proposing to going a step further than SF by bring all cannabis business into compliance with not just building and fire codes, but permitting requirements…”. Now well over a year has passed and nothing has changed. These illegal businesses continue to operate with Mr. Minor’s compliance and aid. How can a City official allow these “below ground” businesses to exist?
Oakland’s City government has stated that they intend to allow new cannabis businesses in a manner to encourage diversity and allow Oakland residents a place in this industry. Allowing the existence of these large illegal business owned and operated by predominantly wealthy people who live outside of Oakland calls the City government’s stated goals into question.
In a City that has recently suffered more than its share of tragedies from fires and scandals, can we continue to allow these uninspected, untaxed, illegal businesses to continue with inadequate fire protection, no environmental compliance, no permits virtually no regulation?
Happened to find this letter written by long-time Oakland architect James Vann and on the Oakland A’s proposal to build a ballpark at Laney College.
I diagree with his take, but it’s an important addition to the overall conversation and debate on the Oakland A’s proposal to build a ballpark at Laney College:
Are the “A’s” Out to Destroy Oakland?
While the Oakland community strongly supports the Oakland A’s and urges the team to remain in Oakland, the team’s response has been to “kick dirt” in the City’s face. The team’s leadership has repeatedly lied to the community.
The secretive decision recently revealed threatens the existence of Chinatown and the low-income Eastlake residential neighborhoods; will cause abandonment of highly popular Laney Community College and its working-class body of students; will overtax the only two local streets that serve the area; will destroy the wildlife and ecology of Lake Merritt and the Channel to the Bay, and will turn the communities surrounding Peralta and Laney over to speculators, land-grabbers, and gentrifying boutique and luxury developments.
On September 12, with great fanfare and a splashy video, the Oakland A’s announced their decision to abandon the Oakland Coliseum and to construct a new baseball stadium at the 13-acre Peralta Administration parcel. The timing of the announcement was both a surprise and a denouncement of pledges repeatedly made to residents, stakeholders, and interest groups.
The selected location also adjourns the Lake Merritt Channel and will threaten the life-line of Laney Community College.
The A’s announcement culminated a series of lies to City leaders and residents. A’s president Dave Kaval repeatedly assured the city that the organization would engage in extended “listening tours” to hear opinions from all areas of the city before a decision on sites would be made.
At an A’s-hosted “listening tour” on August 30 at La Estrellita Restaurant in the Eastlake district, Kaval stated that the A’s were still in the information-gathering stage and a decision on location was months away.
To the contrary, just the day before on August 29, Kaval delivered a 4-page letter to Peralta trustees and Chancellor Jowel Laguerre announcing that the A’s had selected the Peralta site and requested the opening of negotiations. This misrepresentation was followed on Sept 12 with release of Kaval’s public announcement and video.
Councilmember Abel Guillén – whose district includes the selected location — published that District 2 constituents were about 75% opposed to an A’s stadium at the small Peralta Administration Offices parcel, with a similar majority favoring the A’s remaining or rebuilding in the present Coliseum area, and with a slight majority leaning toward the Howard Terminal site on the Bay near Jack London Square. Similar results are routinely expressed throughout the city.
The off-repeated “month’s-away-to-decision” declarations were belied by the splashy A’s video immediately released Sept 12 together with the premature announcement. Persons featured in the video are developers; out-of-area business owners; commercial associations promoting new stores and restaurants (as though no displacement is necessary to make room for the envisioned new establishments); construction unions promoting “jobs, jobs, jobs” (as though the number of jobs is the same irrespective of location); and certain city policymakers (who immediately renounced their statements probably recorded weeks before). No area residents are featured and the councilmember’s retractions testify that the video announcing the selection of Peralta was made weeks if not months before the actual announcement. At the same time as the A’s selection was announced, the public was still being mislead that the decision was “months away,” and that the community hearing process will continue.
Lies, lies, lies !
Selection by the A’s of the Peralta site lacks logical justification. Superimposing the A’s own “bare-bones” stadium option on the site reveals that the parcel can barely contain a 35,000 seat stadium and bleachers, with little to no remaining area for offices, accessory buildings, service vehicles and storage, off-street parking, or gathering space. A more desired A’s rendering depicting a circular stadium surrounded by bleachers has absolutely no chance of fitting on the small parcel. It is unbelievable that the A’s would not be aware of the unexpandable limitations of the Peralta site.
In addition to the Peralta site being too small, it is inconceivable that the ecological and environmental impacts highlighted by The Audubon Society and The Measure DD Community Coalition on birds, fish, wildlife, and humans can ever be mitigated.
Also unstoppable once approvals for the stadium are obtained will be real estate vultures that will swoop into Chinatown and the Eastlake buying up low-rise buildings, single-family homes, and ethnic businesses to be replaced by high-rise luxury hotels and condominiums. Displacement of the areas’ 22,000 present residents will be total. In Oakland’s current out-of-control housing market, once an existing resident is displaced from their housing, only 2 choices are available: get-out-of-Oakland, or, join the growing thousands of homeless who populate the streets and sidewalks of neighborhoods throughout the city.
It is difficult to blightly ignore the natural fit and ‘rightness’ of the Coliseum area for the A’s new mega-stadium. Even if the A’s want no part of the present joint-use Coliseum, practically unlimited and unencumbered land exists there to choose from. BART already serves the area with a generous station, pedestrian overpass, and bus-transit cener; the rail connector to Oakland Airport is convenient and accessible; generous unoccupied city land is present to accommodate any desired parking configurations; all needed utilities exist in the vicinity; no housing or commercial establishments exist to be impacted; little if any environmental challenges to mitigate; no residents to be displaced; and land galore throughout the area that literally “begs” for compatible housing, commercial, technological, industrial, and office developments for various futures and visions.
The vast Coliseum area is ripe for immediate development. Thoughtful planning could assure an equitable “win”-“win” solution for the Oakland A’s team and organization as well as for the greater East Oakland community and for the whole of the City of Oakland.
StAy the Right Way !
James E Vann AIA is an Oakland Architect and a Cofounder of Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM)
Stay tuned.
On September 29th, California Governor Jerry Brown put pen to the paper of what he called “15 good bills” designed to respond to the state’s affordable housing crisis. But will they really help Oakland’s affordability problem? They are as follows according to the press release from the Governor’s Office:
SB 2 (Atkins), the Building Homes and Jobs Act, establishes a permanent funding source for affordable housing through a $75 fee on real estate transaction documents. The fee is capped at $225 per transaction and exempts real estate sales. The fees would generate roughly $250 million a year, which would be split among state and local housing programs.
“We know what solves homelessness: homes,” said Senator Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). “SB 2 will provide an ongoing infusion of funding that communities all over California need to build affordable housing, so they can help bring people off the streets and into safe homes with supportive services. It will also help provide housing for seniors on low, fixed incomes and struggling families. California’s housing crisis is causing pervasive instability for individuals, families and communities. It will take continued hard work to solve the crisis, but our comprehensive, multifaceted package of housing bills is a good start toward restoring stability. I thank my colleagues who have contributed their great ideas, and I thank Governor Brown and our legislative leadership for making housing a top priority in 2017.”
SB 3 (Beall) authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing programs and a veteran’s home ownership program. SB 3 must be approved by voters next November.
“Senate Bill 3 gives California the opportunity to build $15 billion in much-needed affordable housing for working families, seniors, vets, and the homeless,” said Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose). “Together, SB 3 and the housing bills signed today represent a historic step to expand a limited housing supply and counterbalance the skyrocketing market that threatens our future and economy. More Californians will be able to live in the community where they work and spend less time on congested roads.”
SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines the approval process for infill developments in local communities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs.
“California just took a huge step forward to address our housing crisis – a crisis that is tearing our communities apart, undermining our environment and economy, and making it harder for families to succeed,” said Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). “No one should be living on our streets, be forced into three or four hour commutes, or have to leave their community as their family grows because they just can’t afford housing. These bills to streamline housing creation and fund new affordable housing construction won’t solve California’s entire housing problem – that will take years of hard work given how deep this crisis is – but today we are establishing a strong foundation for future housing efforts.”
SB 166 (Skinner) ensures that cities maintain an ongoing supply of housing construction sites for residents of various income levels.
SB 167 (Skinner) increases the standard of proof required for a local government to justify a denial of low- and moderate-income housing development projects. (SB 167 is identical to AB 678.)
“Our housing permit process should not be a shell game,” said Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). “My bills, SB 166 and 167, tackle the ‘Not in My Backyard’ obstacles that too often keep needed housing from being built.”
SB 540 (Roth) streamlines the environmental review process for certain local affordable housing projects.
“Access to housing is a basic human need,” said Senator Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside). “That’s why I am proud to have authored SB 540, which will incentivize and streamline housing construction to meet our state’s dire housing shortage. California is home to one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, with many folks unable to afford to rent or own a home. SB 540 is a commonsense measure that will remove the barriers to housing construction in the areas most in need, helping ensure this crisis does not continue to grow and families do not continue to struggle”
AB 72 (Santiago/Chiu) strengthens the state’s ability to enforce laws that require local governments to achieve housing goals.
“Housing should not be for the privileged few who can afford a place to live,” said Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles). “Housing should be a right ensuring that any person who tries hard, works hard, and plays by the rules has the ability to sleep with a roof over their head. I’m thrilled that the Governor agrees with my legislative colleagues and I on this issue and I thank him for his leadership during California’s current housing emergency.”
AB 73 (Chiu) gives local governments incentives to create housing on infill sites near public transportation.
“California is a large and diverse state, but one thing we all share is that we’re living through the worst housing crisis in our state’s history,” said Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco). “With this historic package of bills, we begin to take on the affordable housing crisis that threatens our state’s economic prosperity, deepens inequality, and increases homelessness. My deep thanks goes to Speaker Anthony Rendon for making housing a top priority, and to my Assembly and Senate colleagues for their tireless partnership. I also appreciate the engaged leadership of Governor Brown and his incredible team. Our work is not done, but we’re making a down payment for our children’s future, for people struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage or even to have a roof at all, and for our teachers, firefighters and other workers who can’t afford a home in the cities they serve.”
AB 571 (E. Garcia) makes it easier to develop farmworker housing by easing qualifications for the Farmworker Housing Tax Credit.
“I truly want to commend Governor Brown, Speaker Rendon and Chairman Chiu for leading the charge to address our state’s severe housing crisis,” said Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella). “I was proud to support this comprehensive package of bills, anchored around SB 2 and SB 3, which established a funding mechanism for these critical measures, and play my part advocating on behalf of rural Californian communities, like those in my district that have been historically underserved. AB 571 eases eligibility requirements for a state tax credit for developers to build migrant housing. Farmworker labor fuels our economies, yet these areas lack the necessary investments to spur growth and prosperity. These modifications to the Farmworker Housing Assistance Tax Credit Program, along with other programs established within this historic bill package, will help ensure the essential right to safe, affordable housing for more of our hard working families and veterans across California.”
AB 678 (Bocanegra) increases the standard of proof required for a local government to justify its denial of low- to moderate-income housing development projects. (AB 678 is identical to SB 167.)
“California is in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis caused by a severe lack of inventory and new housing construction,” said Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima). “I’m proud to have worked with many of my colleagues in the Legislature as well as with Governor Brown to help create more housing and make owning or renting in California more affordable by providing greater certainty during the project approval process at the local level.”
AB 879 (Grayson) authorizes a study of local fees charged to new residential developments that will also include a proposal to substantially reduce such fees.
“This has been a long time coming, and after a decade of falling behind 100,000 housing units a year we finally exercised the fortitude to move California forward,” said Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord). “Though this package is not a fix all – it contains the first steps in the right direction. I want to thank leadership and the Governor for their work and vision on this issue.”
AB 1397 (Low) makes changes to the definition of land suitable for residential development to increase the number of sites where new multifamily housing can be built.
“No one should be denied a place to call home,” said Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell). “This housing package will help make our Golden State shine bright again.”
AB 1505 (Bloom/Bradford/Chiu/Gloria) authorizes cities and counties to adopt an inclusionary ordinance for residential rental units in order to create affordable housing.
“The skyrocketing cost of housing is forcing millions of Californians to make stressful financial decisions every month just to keep the eviction notice off their front door,” said Assemblymember Richard H. Bloom (D-Santa Monica). “Our housing problem is real and devastating to families, seniors, and young adults in communities throughout this state. Today’s signing of AB 1505 ensures that real affordable housing is built so our teachers, grocery clerks, car mechanics, and retired seniors – those who we interact with every day and who make up the fabric of our communities – can also afford to live in our communities.”
“People shouldn’t have to the leave the state in order to find affordable housing or achieve the American dream of home ownership,” said Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena.)
“Skyrocketing housing costs have squeezed California’s working and middle class for too long,” said Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego). “I am proud to join the Governor and my fellow legislators to pass a historic package of bills that makes specific and tangible progress to give some relief to those struggling to pay their rents and mortgages. We have more work to do on housing affordability and I look forward to building on this year’s achievements in the months ahead. Our goal must remain a roof over the head of every Californian at a price they can afford.”
AB 1515 (Daly) allows housing projects to be afforded the protections of the Housing Accountability Act if the project is consistent with local planning rules despite local opposition.
“The Housing Accountability Act fosters and respects responsible local control by providing certainty to all stakeholders in the local approval process, and preventing NIMBYism from pressuring local officials into rejecting or downsizing compliant housing projects,” said Assemblymember Tom F. Daly (D-Anaheim). “AB 1515 strengthens the provisions of the HAA and provides courts with clear standards for interpreting the HAA in favor of building housing.”
AB 1521 (Bloom/Chiu) gives experienced housing organizations a first right of refusal to purchase affordable housing developments in order to keep the units affordable.
For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
“These new laws will help cut red tape and encourage more and affordable housing, including shelter for the growing number of homeless in California,” said Governor Brown.
No one should have to work three full-time jobs just to provide a home for their family,” said Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de Leïn. “This bipartisan package by the legislature marks an historic step towards our goal of ensuring that every Californian has a place to call home.”
But in Oakland’s case, will the bills work? Prior to 2012, Oakland benefited from the use of California Redevelopment Law, and what became a robust affordable housing funding effort that saw $111 million Oakland had for use in 2011.
But then, the same Governor Brown who now is trying to alter the climate to cause more affordable housing to be made, took away the industry’s best tool in 2011. That was the year Brown had completed a full-attack on the California Redevelopment Law System, and with the idea that doing away with the CRL would save the state $1 billion. What it did was take away a giant engine of funding for affordable housing, especially for Oakland.
Prior to Brown’s action, and the California Supreme Court’s ratification of it, CRL was such that 20 percent of redevelopment tax increment revenue was set aside for use in the development of affordable housing. By 2011, Oakland had an affordable housing fund that was at $111 million; now, the Oakland City Council has bragged about having just over $50 million for the same purposed – under half what was there, when more is needed.
The question is will this new set of laws really solve Oakland’s and California’s affordable housing problem? Stay tuned for more on this.
In the wake of the tragic Oakland Ghost Ship Warehouse Fire that took 36 lives on December 2, 2016, The City of Oakland has still not taken any meaningful action to make sure that such an event does not occur again, save for one policy change: allowing Oakland Police Officers to tell the City about unpermitted events.
This effort is also part of a survey that’s under way and established by an inner-City-of-Oakland group called the Special Event Permit Redesign Task Force. Don’t worry if you’ve not been informed about it as an Oakland resident; only City of Oakland staffers sit on it, and that’s a bad idea.
The Special Event Permit Redesign Task Force includes “Greg Minor and Nancy Marcus in the City’s Administrator’s Office, Kelley Kahn in the Mayor’s Office, Jim MacIlvaine in the Cultural Affairs Office, Sgt. Andy McNeil in the Oakland Police Department, Assistant Fire Marshall Cesar Avila in the Oakland Fire Department, Tim Low in Building Services and Aubrey Rose in the Planning Department, (and) has identified several barriers that discourage compliance, as well as strategies to combat these obstacles.”
But on the survey page the task force does not explain what those “several barriers that discourage compliance, as well as strategies to combat these obstacles” are.
The problem is what we in planning used to call “Analysis Paralysis” – or “the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome.”
For example, the survey has been in existence for several months now, and no release of information from it has happened. Moreover, the survey itself lacks a way to determine the location of any venue that may be the focus of the response. There’s a reason for this, if wrongheaded.
Greg Minor, in The City’s Administrator’s Office, said in an email to me that…
“The special event permit redesign survey did not include a question regarding the specific venue(s) associated with the survey respondents in order to protect the anonymity of the survey respondents, many of whom have expressed concern about either being displaced from their place of residence/assembly or having the venue shut down. In turn, this anonymity should maximize the amount of information the City receives from those currently holding unpermitted events.
In terms of the task force composition, it only includes staff members but has and will benefit from the expertise of those involved in the entertainment community. For example, the task force conducted a listening session with a focus group of event holders earlier this year, met with the sf entertainment commission director, is currently reaching out to the public via the survey, and will circle back with the entertainment community as it moves forward with implementing the suggestions put forth by the public.
Given that today is now September 23rd, 2017, and that email was just sent to me on September 14th, and the Warehouse Fire happened on December 2nd, there has been plenty of time to do that, and to take more meaningful action.
Like what?
If I were to put on my economic development hat, I would call a real estate broker who specializes in warehouse development and go around the City with that person, making an inventory of warehouses – used and not used. I got this idea from a project I worked on as an intern in the Oakland Office of Economic Development.
In 1987, it was my job to find a way to relocate pipes owned by East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). My boss, Oakland Assistant City Manager Ezra Rapport, did not give me a road-map to use – he expected me, the Berkeley City Planning grad, to come up with the method myself. So I did.
I found a site, and went about the task of relocating the pipes, stopped only by EBMUB, who’s property manager had no idea Ezra put me up to the task.
But if I can do that, then, 30 years later, what the hell is going on with the City of Oakland that it does not have staff members who take effective action?
Rather than just posting a survey online, the task force should be expanded to include Oakland event producers like my friend Lionel Bea, and actually make a list of places that events have been held or could be held, and determine what’s right and wrong with them via a combination of site visits, phone calls, emails, and information provided by organizations that have held (for example) art gallery tours.Then, draft a resolution for the Oakland City Council, and then get to work selling the plan to the City Council.
And on the matter of Mr. Minor’s concern about protecting “ the anonymity of the survey respondents, many of whom have expressed concern about either being displaced from their place of residence/assembly or having the venue shut down” – work can and should be done to identify and to help brings those persons and places into code compliance. That’s what good economic development and planning work does.
Stay tuned. via IFTTT
In the wake of the tragic Oakland Ghost Ship Fire that took 36 lives on December 2, 2016, The City of Oakland has still not taken any meaningful action to make sure that such an event does not occur again, save for one policy change: allowing Oakland Police Officers to tell the City about unpermitted events.
This effort is also part of a survey that’s under way and established by an inner-City-of-Oakland group called the Special Event Permit Redesign Task Force. Don’t worry if you’ve not been informed about it as an Oakland resident; only City of Oakland staffers sit on it, and that’s a bad idea.
The Special Event Permit Redesign Task Force includes “Greg Minor and Nancy Marcus in the City’s Administrator’s Office, Kelley Kahn in the Mayor’s Office, Jim MacIlvaine in the Cultural Affairs Office, Sgt. Andy McNeil in the Oakland Police Department, Assistant Fire Marshall Cesar Avila in the Oakland Fire Department, Tim Low in Building Services and Aubrey Rose in the Planning Department, (and) has identified several barriers that discourage compliance, as well as strategies to combat these obstacles.”
But on the survey page the task force does not explain what those “several barriers that discourage compliance, as well as strategies to combat these obstacles” are.
The problem is what we in planning used to call “Analysis Paralysis” – or “the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome.”
For example, the survey has been in existence for several months now, and no release of information from it has happened. Moreover, the survey itself lacks a way to determine the location of any venue that may be the focus of the response. There’s a reason for this, if wrongheaded.
Greg Minor, in The City’s Administrator’s Office, said in an email to me that..
“The special event permit redesign survey did not include a question regarding the specific venue(s) associated with the survey respondents in order to protect the anonymity of the survey respondents, many of whom have expressed concern about either being displaced from their place of residence/assembly or having the venue shut down. In turn, this anonymity should maximize the amount of information the City receives from those currently holding unpermitted events.
In terms of the task force composition, it only includes staff members but has and will benefit from the expertise of those involved in the entertainment community. For example, the task force conducted a listening session with a focus group of event holders earlier this year, met with the sf entertainment commission director, is currently reaching out to the public via the survey, and will circle back with the entertainment community as it moves forward with implementing the suggestions put forth by the public.”
Given that today is now September 23rd, 2017, and that email was just sent to me on September 14th, and the Warehouse Fire happened on December 2nd, there has been plenty of time to do that, and to take more meaningful action.
Like what?
If I were to put on my economic development hat, I would call a real estate broker who specializes in warehouse development and go around the City with that person, making an inventory of warehouses – used and not used. I got this idea from a project I worked on as an intern in the Oakland Office of Economic Development.
In 1987, it was my job to find a way to relocate pipes owned by East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). My boss, Oakland Assistant City Manager Ezra Rapport, did not give me a road-map to use – he expected me, the Berkeley City Planning grad, to come up with the method myself. So I did.
I found a site, and went about the task of relocating the pipes, stopped only by EBMUB, who’s property manager had no idea Ezra put me up to the task.
But if I can do that, then, 30 years later, what the hell is going on with the City of Oakland that it does not have staff members who take effective action?
Rather than just posting a survey online, the task force should be expanded to include Oakland event producers like my friend Lionel Bea, and actually make a list of places that events have been held or could be held, and determine what’s right and wrong with them via a combination of site visits, phone calls, emails, and information provided by organizations that have held (for example) art gallery tours.
Then, when problems are found, create solutions, and where that has to be done, draft a resolution for the Oakland City Council, and then get to work selling the plan to the City Council – then once all of the kinks in the plan are worked out (and limit that work to a month’s time), put it up for vote.
That could have been done by now. It can be done by now. It should be done by now.
Oakland has policy wonked itself to a point of inaction. The Special Event Permit Redesign Task Force has to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and get to work.
Stay tuned.
In my 24 year politico-level relationship with Oakland Activist Shirley Gee, I’ve never known her to pull punches, regardless of whether I agreed with her or not.
In this case, Ms. Gee, who was known for her work in guiding the development then-new 1992 Oakland Redistricting Plan such that the voting power of Asian and Latino communities were preserved, wants the Oakland Athletics to consider another site other than the ballfields at Laney College for the planned new ballpark.
The reason? Gee says if the A’s get what they want in the form of the ballpark at Laney College, the Asian Culture in that Eastlake District part of Oakland will be eliminated due to gentrification.
Gee was my livestream guest Wednesday night at Zennie62 Daily Vlog Live, where she directly pointed out why she objected to the plan, and issued choice words for Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval, and Oakland Chinatown Business Leader Carl Chan.
In the case of my long-time friend Carl Chan, Gee was really hard on the ballpark proponent, and said he was not really the leader of the Asian business community, and then openly challenged him to prove that he had any real member of the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce on his side at all.
As for Dave Kaval, Gee characterized his effort as more like, in her words, President Trump. Or more to the point, how she sees Donald Trump with respect to the immigration issue: as one who’s disrespecting Latinos and Asians. Gee said that is what Kaval and the A’s are doing by advancing the ballpark plan in the way they have done to this point.
There’s more in our hour-long talk, and you can see and hear it, here:
Stay tuned.
OAKLAND, CA (Press release) – On Monday, September 25th, Oakland Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan (At-Large) and Dan Kalb (District One) will host a community forum on public banking and renewable energy, at Oakland City Hall, 3rd Floor, from 7-9pm. The forum, co-sponsored by Friends of the Public Bank of Oakland and Local Clean Energy Alliance, will discuss how a public bank in Oakland could help fund local renewable energy resources for our new Community Choice program, and bring jobs and economic benefits to communities throughout Alameda County.
This forum follows tonight’s public banking victory, where Oakland City Council passed Councilmember Kaplan’s Resolution authorizing a public bank feasibility study. The Resolution, co-sponsored by Councilmembers Kaplan, Kalb, and Guillen, authorized a feasibility study of a regional public bank with the ability to provide community benefit lending and handle cannabis business deposits. The study was funded by Oakland City Council at $75,000, the City of Berkeley at $25,000, and private donors, many from the cannabis industry. Councilmember Kaplan offers special thanks to these donors, especially Berkeley Mayor Arreguín and Berkeley Councilmember Worthington, for contributing to the study, and making it a collaborative, regional effort.
Councilmember Kaplan says: “Passing this Resolution marks an important step in the process of investigating public banking for the City of Oakland and larger region. By creating a bank that is accountable to the community, we can fund needed projects, offer low interest loans to underserved populations, and invest in accordance with our values. We can protect our cannabis community by taking them out of the cash economy, and, like our recent successful efforts to create Community Choice Energy, we can harness local community support to take action that improves the environment, public health, and the local economy. As distrust in big corporate banks and lack of oversight at the Federal level are growing problems — this is how we can be part of the solution.”
Libby Schaaf is officially running for re-election as Mayor of Oakland – not new news at all. Let’s take a look at where the 50th Mayor of Oakland, and first white woman to run the City of Oakland, stands in her quest to retain her seat as of this moment in time. Preliminarily, one has to say she looks pretty good, particularly from a fund-raising and competitors standpoint.
In 2014, Schaaf raised $341.503.55, and even though challenger Bryan Parker raised more than she did by just over $11,000, he failed to make that money become votes: Schaaf gained 20,094 votes (when rank-choice voting second and third selections are combined with first picks), versus just 5,546 votes for Parker. (Who has said he has no plans to run again, but people do change their minds.) This year, Schaaf’s on a good pace with respect to that.
Right now, according to City of Oakland campaign files, Schaaf has already raised just over 47 percent of her 2014 campaign total, or $161,557.66 as of July 30th 2017.
That $161,557.66 came from some of the usual suspects: local Oakland entrepreneur John Bliss and his wife Kim Thompson, who’s an Oakland lawyer, Oakland Lawyers Joan Story and Bob Stumpf, long-time friend and legal talent recruiter Becky Taylor, San Francisco-based Political Consultant John Whitehurst, Oakland-based Political Consultant Jason Overman, Yui Hay Lee’s architecture firm, William Rosseti of Oakland apartment owner J and R Associates, and SCN Strategies of San Francisco.
The list was also notable for who didn’t put money into it: one name that sticks out among them is long time Oakland lawyer Zachary Wasserman of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP (a firm Mayor Schaaf once worked for). Another is Amy Baker, who seems to have timed out from supporting the Mayor this time around.
I know these two were supporters before, because they were at the same initial fund-raiser i attended in 2014, and assembled by Oakland developer John Protopappas – who’s name was not on the City of Oakland record this time around, either.
And missing were the folks in this video from the press conference on the minimum wage law:
That would seem to imply Mayor Schaaf has a problem drawing back the people who initially helped her. Considering it’s still early in the political ball game this time out, that could change.
Still, Mayor Schaaf has crafted for herself an uphill battle – and the hill is formed by two simple facts: she forgot to bring along her real friends, and Libby micro-managed in matters she was better off letting more experienced players work for her.
The friends matter reared its head, first, in 2014, when a mutual friend of ours complained that she wanted to work for Libby (and needed work) but could not get a call back from her. I did reach out to Libby on her behalf, but the then-new Mayor was supposedly too swamped to get back to our friend.
That’s the lesson in politics: friendship is a two-way street: you can’t ask for people to help you, if you’re not willing to help them when you reach the prize. For all of his errors, that’s the one rule Donald Trump did not forget when he became POTUS: keep your friends close – period. Money is the oil that helps friendships run smoothly – the other factor is communication. Libby didn’t get the memo in both cases.
(Mainstream media types might complain about friends and cronies in politics, but then they turn around and act the same way in newsrooms. Go figure.)
The other lesson is to let more experienced people help you and then you sit back and take the credit. Scott McKibben, the current head-boss over at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was completely unappreciated by Mayor Schaaf, and her bad treatment of him is one reason he’s all-but out of the door and headed to run Levi Stadium. If McKibben had been the head of a task force to retain the Raiders (and one ran by the JPA), the Oakland Raiders arguably would not be wasting bucks in Las Vegas as I write this.
But I digress.
So with that, and more from the usual suspects of errors in judgement you and I both know about (like the Police Sex Scandal, the Ghost Ship Fire, and the apparent loss of the Raiders), it would seem Libby has a set of problems that could hamper her quest for the brass ring, once again. But there’s one fact: as of this writing, she’s running for Mayor of Oakland unopposed.
Sure, there are many rumors that this person, or that person, or me, will go against Libby, but none of them has materialized for now. Heck, I was just told there’s a rumor that a former African American female employee of Libby’s thinking of running for Mayor.
Considering there are two who fit that “former” tag, and one of them is Director of Communications for Mozilla, that could only mean Peggy Moore. Yep: the same Peggy Moore who ran for the Oakland City Council At-Large Seat and lost to the incumbent Rebecca Kaplan. The same Peggy Moore who was one of Libby’s major behind-the-scenes campaign workers the first time out.
Yes… THAT Peggy Moore…
Keep your friends close, right?
Stay tuned.
Libby Schaaf For Mayor Of Oakland 2018 Campaign Statement And Monetary Contributions To Date by Zennie Abraham on Scribd
Buffy Wicks is someone I’ve known since 2007, and because of her job as field organizer with the Obama For America campaign. After the successful 2008 Presidential Election, Buffy landed a position in the White House working for President Obama.
I interviewed Buffy at the 2012 Democratic National Convention:
After the unsuccessful 2016 Presidential Race ran by Hillary Clinton, for which Buffy was, again, a field organizer, she took time off with her family in Oakland, then issued this letter moments ago, today, announcing her run for the California State Assembly District 15 Seat currently held by Eric Swalwell:
Advocate and Activist Buffy Wicks Launches Campaign For State Assembly
OAKLAND — Today, in an email and video message to supporters, advocate for kids and families and longtime grassroots activist Buffy Wicks officially announced her candidacy to be the next Assemblywoman from California’s 15th District.
“We live in scary times, but here’s the thing: we don’t have to let what’s happening in Washington define us,” Buffy said. “California has the unique opportunity to achieve bold, progressive goals that reflect our shared values and actually help people: economic security for all women and families, equity for all people, and clean air and water for all our kids. The next Assemblywoman from our district should be leading this fight, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do.”
Buffy is a community organizer, an advocate, and a grassroots leader with experience at the local, state and federal level. A California native, she got her start in community organizing when she moved to the Bay Area to organize against the Iraq War. She’s been an organizer ever since.
Buffy became a grassroots organizer for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, then joined the United Food and Commercial Workers and led the campaign to fight Wal-Mart for better wages and health care for its employees. In 2007, she was one of the first hires on then Senator Obama’s campaign for President, innovating the campaign’s national grassroots organizing model and serving as one of the senior staff for the California primary. Following the President’s election, she was asked to serve in the Obama White House organizing support for the eventual passage of the Affordable Care Act that has provided more than 20 million Americans with health care, including 5 million here in California.
Buffy’s passion is fighting for equity, equal opportunity, and economic security – with a particular focus on policies affecting women and children. She served at the Center for American Progress as a Senior Fellow, where she launched a national policy initiative, with Planned Parenthood and SEIU, fighting for economic security for women and families. Currently, Buffy is leading a statewide campaign to empower parents to advocate for better opportunities for their kids. Buffy hopes to continue advocating for California’s parents and kids as an Assemblywoman in Sacramento, where only 22% of our state legislators are women and just a handful are mothers to young children.
Buffy lives in Oakland with her husband Peter and her 6-month old daughter, Josephine.
Nancy O’Malley, the Alameda County District Attorney, has filed charges against seven Oakland Police Officers that were responsible for the sexual violation of Jasmine Celese Abuslin, who’s commonly known as Celeste Guap. You can read more about the charges filed here, but the DA did not release the names of the officers.
You can learn about Ms. Guap herself, via this interview conducted by Zennie Abraham:
OAKLAND, CA (Press Release) – After over two decades of Oakland going unrepresented on the Board of the powerful Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Oakland Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan won a seat on the Board of Directors, representing all of the Cities of Alameda County.
Link for BAAQMD Board: http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-the-air-district/board-of-directors
Councilmember Kaplan is the first Oakland representative to hold a seat on BAAQMD’s Board of Directors since the late Oakland Councilmember Frank Ogawa left the Board in 1992. Kaplan obtained the seat, which is appointed by the Alameda County Conference of Mayors, by applying and obtaining the votes of Mayors of cities from throughout Alameda County, upon the departure of prior member, Margaret Fujioka of Piedmont.
In her short time thus far on the BAAQMD Board, Kaplan has successfully advanced limits on refinery pollution, new funding for the Broadway Shuttle connecting BART, ferries, Amtrak and more through downtown Oakland, and is launching new initiatives to clean up air pollution from trucks.
Kaplan said: “Parts of Oakland have had some of the highest asthma rates in the nation, and it is vital that programs and laws to improve air quality for our region protect some of our hardest hit and most vulnerable communities.”
Councilmember Kaplan plans to work with BAAQMD to achieve high quality air standards and reduce the health problems caused by air pollution. Councilmember Kaplan has already urged the Board of Directors to adopt stricter emission limits for the Bay Area oil refineries in order to protect community and refinery worker health and safety. “Bay Area residents already suffer disproportionally from emissions related diseases,” Kaplan said. “This is unacceptable, which is why we must prohibit any further increase of emissions from the five Bay Area oil refineries.”
Oakland receives a disproportionate share of some of the negative impacts, from truck congestion and pollution from ships and other projects that benefit the economy of the region. Solving the region’s traffic congestion and air quality problems can be achieved more effectively if the city in the heart of the region, which carries a majority of freight traffic and other impacts, is at the table and part of the solution.
Bringing creative programs, whether connecting transit systems, increasing use of zero-emission vehicles, or improving truck systems to protect communities, can improve air quality and human health for Oakland and the entire Bay Area.
To learn more about BAAQMD, please click here.
In Oakland, Councilmember Kaplan fought for and succeeded in keeping the Free Broadway Shuttle running. This fast and free shuttle connects riders to Oakland offices, restaurants, local shops, and social services 7 days a week. “Before the Broadway Shuttle, Oakland had a hole in the transit system,” Kaplan said. “The Broadway Shuttle helps weave that together, which is why I am so happy to have succeeded in maintaining this service.”
To learn more about the Broadway Free Shuttle, please click here.
Since 2004, when I started Oakland’s first true blog (and not a news website) Oakland Focus, Oakland has seen the following online publications come and many go:
Grand Lake Business
Oakland Local
A Better Oakland
Make Oakland Better
The Oakland Tribune
And between 2004 and today, 2016, the ways that media is published and distributed have expanded and changed at the same time. Back then the concept of micro-blogging was just that. 2006 gave us Pownce and Twitter. And now, even though the basic micro-blogging platform is easy to build, it seems like everyone has just counted on Twitter without challenge.
But this growth and change has caused many established news sites to reduce in both web traffic and staff size. And many offline media publications did not successfully make the leap to the Internet. And so the Oakland Tribune is, for all practical purposes, dormant.
The last Oakland news website standing, The Oakland Post, is a fantastic publication ran by the legendary Paul Cobb. But The Oakland Post’s problem is, it hasn’t successfully monetized its content, nor widely expanded from it’s base in the African American Community of Oakland to fill a news void that has gotten only larger with time.
This is also true of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner. Blogs like SFist and 7×7 have tried to cover Oakland culture, but they just don’t get it, and only know that after decades of being ignored by the white media in the Bay Area and the World, Oakland is now mainstream.
The hunger for Oakland news has become so great, some have turned to The New York Times, but even that has failed to meet the demand.
There has to be a publication that has enough Oakland moxy to know that Rod Dibble has played piano at The Alley at 3325 Grand Avenue, and since 1960, and yet pay attention to who’s running for what Oakland City Council seat, and why!
I could go on and on, but you get the point now: this new site is the news venue of Oakland. The main difference here is that you can read about what Oakland’s are doing in their own words, and using there own voice, either in text or video.
Like this:
“Oakland News” is an experiment I am excited to get going.
Let’s go!
