Open Letter: Councilmember Kaplan Challenges Sale of Public Land for Charter School

Mayor and City Administrator Don’t Want a Public Lands Policy, Says Kaplan

By Rebecca Kaplan

The Community and Economic Development (CED) committee of the Oakland City Council voted two weeks ago to forward to the full council the sale of public land at Derby Street in the Fruitvale District for development of a charter school.  The sale was on the City Council agenda last week but was withdrawn without explanation. In response to the proposal, Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan sent the administration and the mayor the following letter:

I am writing to you to share questions and concerns about your proposal to sell a parcel of the City of Oakland’s public land, which is zoned for multi-family residential, to sell for a charter school, without public lands policies regarding jobs and other standards.

During the administration’s prior presentation on the Derby St. parcel, in 2015, you stated that “The new development could also produce over a hundred new affordable housing units for the residents of Oakland.”  In addition, your 2015 report, both verbally and in writing, stated that the negotiations would be for a lease, not a sale.

Now, you have brought forward a proposal to sell the land for a dramatically increased size charter school, not housing, despite our large and growing housing crisis.

In addition, I am concerned about the public lands policy effort.  As you may know, there have been extensive meetings over the past two years to develop a public lands policy.

When I proposed last year to adopt a policy setting certain standards for use of public lands, and for quality jobs, local hiring, and other public benefits for public lands, the administration requested that my proposal not move forward, due to your claim that there was already a public lands policy development process underway covering many of the same topics.

I have been participating in many of those meetings now, and, in recent weeks, the administration has stated that you do not intend to bring forward or propose a public lands policy, for how public land would be used for the public good, local jobs, and other benefits, despite extensive work by a broad community coalition to develop such policies.

Instead, you have suggested a listing and case-by-case basis.  And now, in the absence of either a policy, or of the strategy list the administration says you will bring forward, we are being asked to go ahead with the sale of this particular piece of public land, with no analysis or understanding of how it fits into a public lands policy or strategy.

In addition, it contains no mention of quality jobs, local hiring, ban the box, or other community benefits.

Furthermore, while this decision would have substantial impact on the overall school system in Oakland, we have received letters from OUSD leaders, stating that they have not been consulted on this decision, and expressing further concerns as well.

Please clarify:

• Why is affordable housing not included?
• What jobs policies or other community benefits will be included?
• Why is the administration retracting your prior commitment to a public lands policy? On whose direction was this decision made?
• What consultations on this decision have taken place? With whom? Has OUSD been included in these discussions?
• What is your analysis of the potential impact of the proposed project, including the impact on surrounding schools?