Clean Oakland
  • Home
  • Sanjiv Handa
  • Gene's Blog
  • Rotunda RFP
    • Lawsuit against Rotunda Partners II >
      • Facts you should know about the Rotunda Building
      • Facts you should know about the Rotunda Garage
      • Charges in massive investment fraud case
      • Phil Tagami's Obligation
  • Gene Hazzard -Keeping eyes open
    • Hazzard substitution of attorney
    • Public Record Request [PORT] about the $100,000.00 deposit, NO Straight answer.
    • Court Reporter Transcript
    • The Power Broker? >
      • Robert Moses >
        • NY Times February 14, 2007
  • Chronology of Tagami's scheme of Private-Public Partnership with City Projects
  • Another Tagami scheme - Rotunda Building deal
    • Eight Years Later, Tagami Still Hasn’t Started Rotunda Project City Fails to Hold Developer Responsible
    • 1630 San Pablo - Parcel 2
    • Rotunda Building Loan
    • Post -Tagami Failed to Make Payments on Rotunda Development Loan
    • City Urges No Action in Tagami’s Failure to Make Payments on $12 Million Loan
  • Oakland Army Base
    • Port to Give Tagami $600 Million Exclusive
    • OAB - Wikipedia
    • OAB - Military Museum
    • Army Base Gateway Redevelopment Project
    • BAAQMD Comments on Air Monitoring Work Plan
    • Cost Sharing Agreement
    • OAB Rezoning and LDDA update
  • Billboards in Oakland
  • Port of Oakland
  • Oakland Raiders?
  • Who is running Oakland?
    • Jerry Brown
    • Don Perata
    • Judge Robert B. Freedman
    • Jacques Barzaghi
    • Gawfco Enterprises
    • Deception
    • Doug Bloch
    • Phil Tagami >
      • SF Business Times November 20, 2005
      • Rotunda wrestling
      • A conversation with Oakland developer Phil Tagami
      • Audit of $91 million Fox Theater project
      • Tagami Conflict
      • CCIG Response to Oakland Works
      • Oakland developer Phil Tagami named to state medical board
      • ‘Shotgun Phil’ hits another bullseye — with governor’s help
  • CleanOakland Store
  • CenterPoint Properties

The city’s process for selection of developers for city-owned property is not open and transparent.

6/20/2017

0 Comments

 

CONCLUSION

​The city’s process for selection of developers for city-owned property is not open and transparent. The real estate exception to the Brown Act does not give the council free reign to discuss policy, project vision, and RFP terms, or the authority to deliberate about and select developers, in private meetings. These matters are intended to be discussed openly in public, not behind closed doors. When deliberations occur in closed sessions, the public and those doing business with the city are given the perception that backroom deals are being made. Key questions are left unanswered for the public. Intended to protect the financial interests and negotiating position of a public agency, the Brown Act’s real estate negotiation exception limits closed-door discussions to providing direction to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment. 
final2017.pdf
File Size: 2205 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

​While the Grand Jury only investigated three recent city development projects, it is concerned that the city’s misuse of closed sessions in discussing development of city property is a systemic problem. Public deliberations are important. The city must provide an environment whereby public participation in developer selection is invited. In addition, developers must believe that they will be treated fairly and equitably, thus promoting a competitive selection process benefiting the city. The city must follow open meeting laws ​to prevent further misuse of closed session meetings and eliminate the inequities in the developer selection process. 

FINDINGS 

Finding 17-1:
The Oakland City Council misapplies the real estate negotiation exception to the openmeeting requirements of the Brown Act and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance, thereby shielding the deliberative processes – including discussions and debates regarding project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and the ultimate selection of a developer – from public scrutiny. 
Finding 17-2:
The city’s closed session agendas for discussions of the 1911 Telegraph and 12th Street Remainder projects did not comply with disclosure requirements in the Brown Act and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance. 
Finding 17-3:
The Oakland City Council violates the city’s Sunshine Ordinance by failing to discuss publicly the advisability of selecting particular developers for projects on city-owned property before making final decisions (section 2.20.120(B)) and failing to disclose the parts of closed session discussions that were not confidential (section 2.20.130). 
Finding 17-4:
Unauthorized closed sessions prevent the public from witnessing council deliberations, preclude public input into planning, and restrict public participation in the selection of appropriate developers for city-owned property.  
Finding 17-5:
The city of Oakland unfairly applied the requirements of its RFP for 1911 Telegraph by allowing the successful proposer to wait until after it was chosen to provide required financial information. 
Finding 17-6:
A developer was allowed to change the scope of its proposal for 1911 Telegraph at the last minute. This put the other proposers at a disadvantage, and resulted in the city choosing that developer without the benefits of staff analysis of the new proposal
Finding 17-7:
Oakland City Councilmembers privately discuss projects with developers whose proposals are pending, and the communications are not disclosed publicly before one developer is selected. This compromises public scrutiny of the selection process because citizens have no ability to assess the strength or weakness of private arguments made by developers in support of their proposals. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendation 17-1:
The city of Oakland must comply with the Brown Act and city of Oakland Sunshine Ordinance provisions relating to the real estate exception. The city must limit closed session discussions concerning proposed real estate development projects to price and terms of payment, and ensure that deliberations on matters such as project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and selection of a developer are conducted openly, allowing the public to be informed about and comment intelligently upon proposals for use of city-owned property. 
Recommendation 17-2:
The city of Oakland must follow its Sunshine Ordinance by conducting open meetings in which councilmembers discuss publicly the advisability of any proposed disposition of city-owned property before making final decisions. 
Recommendation 17-3:
The city of Oakland must update its training for public officials on open meeting laws to prevent the city from misapplying the real estate negotiation exception. 
Recommendation 17-4:
The city of Oakland must enforce requirements of its RFPs even-handedly to create a level playing field for all proposers, and to allow city staff a full record with which to vet competing proposals. 
Recommendation 17-5:
The city of Oakland must treat developers who respond to an RFP equitably by informing all RFP respondents whether changes to proposals after the submission date are permitted. 
Recommendation 17-6:
The city of Oakland must adopt rules to address private communications between councilmembers and proposing developers before a developer is selected. 

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Oakland City Council:
Findings 17-1 through 17-7
Recommendations 17-1 through 17-6

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Gene Hazzard

    Don't Be Envious of Evil Men
    1Do not be envious of evil men, Nor desire to be with them; 2For their minds devise violence, And their lips talk of trouble.…

    Archives

    February 2023
    December 2022
    October 2022
    May 2022
    March 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    AMB
    Army Base
    City Of Oakland
    Coal
    Dan Siegel
    Garage
    Gene Hazzard
    Grant
    Hamid Moghadam
    Kaplan
    Oakland
    Phil Tagami
    Prologis
    Public Ethics Commission
    Rebecca Kaplan
    Redevelopment Agency
    Rotunda
    Tiger
    Wharf
    WOSP
    Zhao Liang

    RSS Feed

  • Home
  • Sanjiv Handa
  • Gene's Blog
  • Rotunda RFP
    • Lawsuit against Rotunda Partners II >
      • Facts you should know about the Rotunda Building
      • Facts you should know about the Rotunda Garage
      • Charges in massive investment fraud case
      • Phil Tagami's Obligation
  • Gene Hazzard -Keeping eyes open
    • Hazzard substitution of attorney
    • Public Record Request [PORT] about the $100,000.00 deposit, NO Straight answer.
    • Court Reporter Transcript
    • The Power Broker? >
      • Robert Moses >
        • NY Times February 14, 2007
  • Chronology of Tagami's scheme of Private-Public Partnership with City Projects
  • Another Tagami scheme - Rotunda Building deal
    • Eight Years Later, Tagami Still Hasn’t Started Rotunda Project City Fails to Hold Developer Responsible
    • 1630 San Pablo - Parcel 2
    • Rotunda Building Loan
    • Post -Tagami Failed to Make Payments on Rotunda Development Loan
    • City Urges No Action in Tagami’s Failure to Make Payments on $12 Million Loan
  • Oakland Army Base
    • Port to Give Tagami $600 Million Exclusive
    • OAB - Wikipedia
    • OAB - Military Museum
    • Army Base Gateway Redevelopment Project
    • BAAQMD Comments on Air Monitoring Work Plan
    • Cost Sharing Agreement
    • OAB Rezoning and LDDA update
  • Billboards in Oakland
  • Port of Oakland
  • Oakland Raiders?
  • Who is running Oakland?
    • Jerry Brown
    • Don Perata
    • Judge Robert B. Freedman
    • Jacques Barzaghi
    • Gawfco Enterprises
    • Deception
    • Doug Bloch
    • Phil Tagami >
      • SF Business Times November 20, 2005
      • Rotunda wrestling
      • A conversation with Oakland developer Phil Tagami
      • Audit of $91 million Fox Theater project
      • Tagami Conflict
      • CCIG Response to Oakland Works
      • Oakland developer Phil Tagami named to state medical board
      • ‘Shotgun Phil’ hits another bullseye — with governor’s help
  • CleanOakland Store
  • CenterPoint Properties