Readers' Comments On Quan/Developer Scheme

Good afternoon Jean [Quan]:

Regarding this past Monday night's AMG meeting you held for the community, we never asked for a senior housing facility, and I don't think the community is so desperate for development that we are willing to settle for anything you bring to the table.

High and MacArthur is one of the worst choices possible to put a senior citizen facility due to crime, lack of conveniences and traffic. (Not sure if you're aware of this, as you have been out of the country, but an 80-year-old woman was raped in her front yard while doing yard work. She lives off High St.)

At the Envisioning MacArthur workshop [Nov. 2005], there was never any mention about public input being determined by whether the City is investing or whether it is all investment by the developer. But for the record, AMG is using taxpayers' money and in exchange offers no compromise. I don't think that this project is a good representation of what was discussed at the workshop. We asked for a bakery. What on earth happened??

The developer didn't seem to give a hoot about our concerns, nor did he even pretend to be. He never took one note about any of our concerns! And from my viewpoint, you seemed to be backing the developer up each time someone spoke out against the proposal. You were even answering questions addressed directly to him. But after all, it was your meeting. You were answering more questions then he was! I was shocked when you interrupted that one gentleman (Jim) in the back of the room right in the middle of his questions to the developer about air quality.Nobody cut you off when you had something to say. Can't we ask questions about the quality of air? And you know what came out of that? The air coming into the building would come straight from the freeway, which is horrible!

I hope you take a good look at what's unfolding and really think to yourself, "Is this somewhere I would want my mother, grandmother, father or grandfather to live?" Crime stats alone are a reason to say No to this type of development.

In addition to being bad for future residents of dense housing crammed between a freeway and two heavily travelled commercial thoroughfares, the proposed AMG housing is bad for the Laurel business dictrict and its surrounding residents. A previously blighted blue-collar neighborhood is not going to turn into young yuppy heaven like College Avenue. Pedestrians do not enjoy major bus and truck routes like MacArthur Boulevard.

All the proposed housing will do is bring additional traffic as residents exit in their cars and drive to the malls. How can Councilmember Quan suggest that a strip with three storefront churches, numerous fast food outlets, nail shops and discount stores that accompany blight and poverty will attract shoppers with disposable income? The arguments for the AMG project are simply unfounded rhetoric to sell us the project. It is a bad project conceived without the needs of the Laurel for amenities and small business support in mind.

Once again the City of Oakland and political leaders want to develop this corner as they see fit without great concern for the needs of the community. In 1989, I don't believe that there was any planning and design review for the commerical development on the corner of High and MacArthur where Subway is. For years, Laurel Liquors operated while drugs were sold on the property, stolen cigarettes and alcohol being purchased on site, under-age people bought alcohol, and on and on.

Also, the former building leased by the Alameda Country (now the post office) was one day demolished without out any neighborhood notification or demolition permit.

Only because I called the property owner at his home in San Rafael was there finally a meeting to discuss this project. I'd just thought to share some history of this block.

Deer Neighbors,

I walked out to our side yard at about 11:30 this morning and startled a full grown deer! He ran down to the intersection of Simmons and Wyman. I could hear his frantic hooves on the asphalt as I went inside to make sure the dog was inside and secure. Upon seeing it, I instantly marveled at the sight ... just as quickly I was saddened, poor dear. I do not know where he went.

But hey, let's invite more developers in. Let's change the zoning, grant them variances and conditional use permits so they can build twice as high and have twice the density with half the parking.

The major impediment to the process is the unwillingness of the developer to participate in a consensus-building process. And this is augmented by a councilmember who refuses to require participation from the developer, thereby letting down the people who voted her into office. Sadly, this makes it look like the councilmember is more interested in exchanging favors with/for monied interests rather than representing the community.

Stated in simple dynamics, if the developer isn't going to listen to my views, why should I get behind what the developer is doing? If my councilmember doesn't want to speak for me, why should I get behind my councilmember? A meeting at the very end of the planning process [the Feb. 15, 2007 meeting, less than two weeks before the Planning Commission], a meeting where the councilmember is shown to be clearly and unambiguously behind the developer, means nothing. It's almost more insulting than no meeting at all.

This would have been a great opportunity to pitch an idea and woo the community with a vision, an opportunity to solicit participation and get everyone behind a plan, but instead it became business-as-usual-who-cares-what-they-think.