Kaplan joins other leaders, community in opposing MTC's proposed move to San Francisco
Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan at MTC meeting
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has called off the moving vans - for now.
After a host of complaints from the Oakland and East Bay communities, the MTC board has reascended its July 27 vote in favor of the move to San Francisco. Now, an ad hoc committee made up of six board members, will study the issue and make a recommendation to the full MTC board on whether the organization should move from its long-time Oakland digs to a 1940s-era location south of Market.
The previous board vote ended in favor of relocating to 390 Main St. in San Francisco as part of a two-year process to find a new home with its partner groups - the Bay Area Toll Authority, or BATA, the Bay Area Quality Management District and the Association of Bay Area Governments, or ABAG. The new site is expected to cost $150 million and will be funded through BATA reserves.
Currently, MTC, a regional planning agency, shares space with ABAG at the Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter building on Eighth Street, right next to the Lake Merritt BART. MTC said it is continuing to outgrow its original home and needs additional space.
MTC said 390 Main St. site fit all of its needs - it "lessens environmental impact through energy efficiency and sustainability; reduces costs through interagency sharing of resources; and it improves interagency cooperation and initiatives through co-location."
But after the July vote to move to San Francisco, the relocation issue garnered a whole host of questions from a variety of groups. In addition, ABAG pulled out of the deal.
According to critics of the decision, the relocation vote was rushed, with no serious consideration given to Oakland sites, particular the 1100 Broadway site that includes the old Key System Building.
Critics say the San Francisco site is too far from BART and is not easily accessible for the disabled. Many people also question the use of toll revenue to pay for the relocation. The site also does not fit transportation sustainability efforts MTC has advocated for in the past, critics say.
As a result of the loud outcry against the move, and with the Oakland City Attorney's office threatening to sue because of alleged Brown Act violations connected with the July vote, Wednesday's special meeting was a "do-over."
From the beginning of Wednesday's meeting, Oakland and the East Bay came out swinging hard against the MTC move across the Bay. A slew of politicians, and folks representing politicians, stepped up to the podium and blast the vote to move.
"Why San Francisco and why not Oakland or the East Bay? What makes San Francisco so special here?" asked Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson. "If you compare any costs for a building in San Francisco versus Oakland or the East Bay, any realtor will tell you the cost of doing business in San Francisco is going to be much higher than doing business in Oakland."
Pro-Oakland speakers said the process to find a new location seemed to favor San Francisco beforehand.
"It's untrue to claim their ways an apples-to-apples comparison (between San Francisco and Oakland sites)," said Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan.
Civic pride was also on heavy blast at Wednesday's meeting with Oakland advocates pointing to low costs, its central location in the Bay Area and its wonderful culture as reasons to stay in the city.
"One thing that is accurate is that the sun rises in the East," joked Gregory McConnell, CEO of the Jobs and Housing Coalition. "It will get to Oakland much faster than it gets to San Francisco. As a matter of fact the sun sets in the (West) on an old crumbling building at 390 Main."
After a closed session, the board reconvened and reascended the vote to move to 309 Main in San Francisco. The MTC board has 60 days from the ad hoc committee's recommendation to make a final decision.
Story Features
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
For the public that resides on the East side of the Bay, the present location is preffered. However, the bottom line is long-term cost and the the required space nedeed to perform. In conclusion, I am neutral.
It is LAUGHABLE that the MTC for what is, after all, the SAN JOSE Bay Area (no ? Check with the U.S. Census Bureau- no such thing as the "San Francisco Bay Area", at least not since 2002-nearly 10 years ago! ), is debating whether to locate either in the 3rd largest city OR the 2nd largest city. Debating the merits of locating in the second largest county OR the third largest county.
Santa Clara County has nearly as many people as San Francisco County AND Alameda County PUT TOGETHER. San Jose has nearly as many people as San Francisco AND Oakland PUT TOGETHER.
If it weren't for the fact that these bozos (mis)allocate Federal money to the entire nine county San Jose Bay Area, they would be completely irrelevant to the majority of people. Instead, they allocate the money to favor the two smaller cities, rather than focusing on the city that matters.
This was a poor decision on MTCs part. The SF location is far from transit, amenities, and is very expensive. If you did a quick evaluation on transit access, you'd fin there was was only one choice within a 10 minute walk of the building: the Temporary Transbay Terminal. BART, Muni, and Caltrain were all 10-30 minutes away by foot. Once ther Teminal moves into the new building, that would put all transit 15 minutes away by foot. Anyone who claims that location is 10 minutes away by foot is a speedwalker. It is a long 5 blocks. That section of the city is very congested and home to some of the most dangerous intersections for pedestrians in all of SF.
To top it off, only 5 MTC members actually visited the site at 390 Main. How on earth can you vote for a location you have never seen?
Also the purchase was to be funded by bridge tolls? The building price nearly doubles in 1 year. A lot of stuff isn't adding up here.
The comparison criteria was also inconsistent. At the end of the day I expect the MTC to put out a fair RFP with the same criteria for everyone and to evaluate accordingly.
I of course want an Oakland location, but honestly any location could make sense if it is accessible by most residents int he region within an hour, and transit friendly a numbe ror loactions could work. Oakland ahs an edge being in the center of the region, where most Bay Area cities are within 40 miles of Oakland.
Jaded, well said and excellent data.
Did any of the speakers question the MTC's basic assumption that they will continue to grow despite every other federal, state, and local government entity shrinking and cutting?
The MTC seems to consider the bridges to be their own personal gold mines.
Len, just talking about that tonight--very sharp point.
When San Francisco wanted to expand their airport circa 2000, they commissioned a study by outside experts to 'prove' that San Francisco Airport was the most important airport in the (San Jose) Bay Area.
Unfortunately, what the experts discovered was that for 60% of the entire San Jose Bay Area population, the closest airport is actually the San Jose Airport.
Oakland is only the center of the San Jose Bay Area if you look on the map, where the 250,000 who live in Marin County appear to be as visually important as the nearly 2 million people who live in Santa Clara County. If you look at the actual population distribution, the reality is that demographic center is somewhere between Fremont and North Santa Clara (city).
Oakland isn't anywhere close to being the center of the population. Maybe Fremont, but not much farther north than that.
John, would be happy to send a bunch of government and non profit entities down your way. Please send us a few profitable tax paying tech companies in return.
But make sure their employees are willing to accept great restaurants in exchange for personal safety.
Funny, Len!