I do not doubt that low end stores saw sales improvement but most of us do not shop at low end stores. Most of us do not work at low end stores. So when riots or fear of riots make it impossible for people to enjoy a drink at Somar, Make Westing, CVK, the Trappist, etc and to eat at the restaurants in Old Oakland, then there is a problem. When employers who are potentially bringing 600 jobs to Oakland refuse to come because Mayor Jean Quan can't handle her business and allows a bunch of ne'er-do-wells to make a mess of our beautiful downtown, then there is a problem.

It is almost 2012; what is the relevance of 2009 occupancy rates, which as reported above purely anecdotal. And before you ask, my data is purely anecdotal based on what my friends, who live in these buildings, tell me.

"But a survey of more than 100 businesses recently conducted by OO’s Local Business Liaison committee, a group comprised of small business owners, reached different conclusions."

Um... do you really trust Occupy Oakland to do an unbiassed survey about the effects of Occupy Oakland?  

Is it possible, maybe, just maybe, that the Occupiers might have chosen many businesses that they already knew had expressed support?

Eric, did the folks at occupy oakland let you see the names of the 106 businesses they claim had nothing bad to say about them?  'Cause if they had, you could have made some calls and fact checked that.

There are several small businesses who's owners I personally know, street level businesses located near the Occupy camp site, who were VERY unhappy about Occupy. One of them was burglarized by occupiers.  And Eric, I saw you talking to that particular business owner a few weeks back.

This is just bullshit.

The big difference between the Chamber and Occupy in this situation is that Paul Junge told you openly that he didn't do a scientific study, and Occupy handed you a study that they may have claimed was objective, but that apparently you can't publish the full details of.

I'll believe 106 businesses supported Occupy when I see a list of those businesses and check with their owners. Otherwise I'm saying bullshit.

If you would like to talk to nearby business owners who I know were very unhappy about the Occupation, I can make those introductions.  Not sure they'd talk on record for fear of retaliation, but I'm sure they'll tell you that they don't support Occupy's tactics and attitude.

"did the folks at occupy oakland let you see the names of the 106 businesses they claim had nothing bad to say about them?"

yes, they did. FWIW, i have the document and the data. we agreed not to publish the names of the specific businesses and their specific comments, but they are listed in the report. obviously, with something like this, we are not going to publish unverifiable reports.

"Eric, I saw you talking to that particular business owner a few weeks back."

max, if you read my previous story on local business, i quoted the store owner who was burglarized, along with others near the Occupy camp. that business was not included in the survey, possibly because it is a pop-up shop and not open daily. but even in that story, with a much smaller sample of businesses, there was a surprising level of support for the Occupy movement, even among folks who reported that their business was down. again, all that is in the previous story, published Nov. 13.

while i appreciate your comments and input, your emotions sometimes get the best of your rationality, and lead to a lot of assumptive speculations which simply arent supported by facts--both here and on other sites. please try to maintain some degree of civilitude as well.

If Occupy Oakland wants anyone to believe that they have lots of local business support, I suggest that they publish a list of local business endorsers.

The very fact that they claim 106 out of 106 surveyed were supportive should be enough to reject the survey.

Did you make 106 calls to confirm this, Eric?

I don't see even a basic level of professional skepticism here. People with an obvious motive conduct a survey that gives them exactly the results they want, flawlessly, and you eat it up?

Really?

Max, we have the survey and we are reporting what they said. Does this mean that what they said is *true*?  We'd have to check with 106 businesses to report that, which is why we cite the source and say according to. 

max, let's be realistic. and let's not hold OaklandLocal to a higher standard than other media outlets, ok? irascibility for the sake of irascibility is not as cute as one might think. if you want to do your own study, and publish it on your own blog, i will be more than happy to make inane comments.

But as far as a standard of objectivity in this particular article, it cites sources with opposing viewpoints who each contribute different information. Between those viewpoints, the objective truth can always be safely assumed to be somewhere in the middle. It's up to the reader to determine what point of view holds the most sway with them. As for "professional skepticism," essentially you are asking me to insert opinion into a data-driven story. that's not my role.

It should go without saying that the LBL study does not attempt to be comprehensive of all business in Oakland or all businesses affected by Occupy.and only reflects the viewpoints of businesses actually interviewed. Do i really need to point this out to you?

My suggestion is to go back and read the article over and look at what the data is actually telling you. The main point of agreement between the Chamber of Commerce view and the LBL's findings, is that the police action of Oct. 25 was a factor in a negative perception of Oakland which had a detrimental economic impact on business. This is supported by both anecdotal and statistical evidence.

Also, your comments toward the LBL should be addressed to the LBL, not to Oakland Local. As a citizen, you have every right to question the findings and ask for more comprehensive data; the media's job is to report. As i told Junge, i'd like to see more empirical research done on the subject, though such an evaluative study, were it to be done, would likely be costly, resource-intensive, and would likely require 100s of hours of data-collecting. If the Chamber, or any other entity, were to undertake such an endeavor, they'd also have to be prepared to accept whatever the data ends up showing.

Susan, Your citing of only this one survey, which was performed by an inherently biased source, is equivalent to quoting only sources on one side of a story.

Yes, your story is biased.

Eric writes, so naively, "as a citizen you have every right to question the findings and ask for more comprehensive data; the media's job is to report." That's just so far out in space. it's the journalist's job to present a balanced view.

OTOH this site is not above printing press releases wholesale and without context. This story is no better or worse than that. At best, it's simply shallow journalism. 

Monica, where did you get the "600 jobs" number from? That's double the number estimated by the Chamber. There's no queston that hi-end restaurants, which the majority of Oaklanders do not patronize on a regular basis, and often rely on people from surrounding areas such as Piedmont, Montclair, Berkeley, or even San Francisco to fill their tables, saw a drop in business; this was also confirmed by the study. However, the fact that other businesses which rely on foot traffic (and not reservations) increased as a result of more people being in the Plaza area, especially after 6pm, is also significant.

I personally went to Somar (and other spots in the area) a bunch of times while the encampment was happening, before and after the police action. Didnt see any drop-off at Make Westing, either. and, on Nov. 1--First Friday--there didn't seem to be much of an impact as far as a drop in attendance, other than it was colder than the summer months. This past First Friday was also buzzin' with folks. So i'm not sure where you're going with that.

As far as anecdotal evidence, the Chron's research was not anecdotal; it was based on actual stats. The number is approximate because it's compiled from different sources.. If you know of more recent data available, don't hestitate to let us know.

Sandra, did you miss the fact that an opposing view was quoted at length? in fact there are more quotes from Junge than anyone else, and no less than five paragraphs are devoted to allowing him to respond to the survey's findings.

Also, we cited the LBL survey because that's the only one which has been done. The article also cites other sources, but their statements are based on purely anecdotal evidence.

Eric, I didn't miss that. You give the opposing view first and then cite the survey as if it disproves the opposing view. The gist is that the people who claimed OO hurt business are wrong, and this survey proves it. But the survey does not prove anything of the sort. The survey itself is open to charges of bias. Any poll, as you surely know, can be written so as to garner the desired results. And that's really the point here. 

Sandra, I totally agree with your comments about surveys being biased. Since we did not conduct either survey we can only report what the sources tell us and, in this case, review their data. As for inbalance, we reported on the Chamber assertions when they first broached them..see oaklandlocal.com/occupy for all the coverage.

Sandra, what this survey proves is stated in the article's opening graphs: that the data collected shows different findings from the prevailing mainstream media view, as well as the viewpoints expressed by city officials and the Chamber of Commerce. As i said earlier, its not comprehensive. it's also somewhat limited in scope, since it doesnt crunch the hard economic numbers--a logistical task which may be beyond the capacity of this particular group.

I also need to correct you on another point: the survey not only confirms that some businesses were negatively impacted, but clarifies which types of businesses were affected negatively--as well as those which were impacted positively. None of the opposing view statements acknowledged any positive impact due to O/O. That in and of itself is significant.

Eric, Susan:

You reported what the survey said without a hint of skepticism. And again, it said basically that 100% of respondents had positive responses about Occupy Oakland. And the survey was created by Occupy Oakland.  

It is a news outlets job to be skeptical of things like this.  It is a gross dereliction of journalistic integrity to present it without any question as to it's validity.

Max, by that "logic," shouldnt it also be the media's job to be skeptical of viewpoints based solely on anecdotal evidence which don't include any actual research? Especially when research-driven studies indicate a context which was entirely omitted from those viewpoints? If you go back and read the earlier story i linked to, you will see that the most negative comment about O/O from a small business owner--indeed, the one who was burglarized, as you pointed out--is, "there needs to be some accountability." Even so, the business owner identified as a supporter, even after that incident.

We've already addressed your points a few times, so your argument has become entirely circular. So, please refer to my previous comments. Thank You.

You've studied for too long the "objectivity" of mainstream media. Journalism is not citing the two (and there are always, somehow, only exactly two) sides and letting the reader decide that the truth is somewhere in between.

Journalism involves trying to figure out what the truth actually is. While I'm a participant in the Occupy movement, this survey seems suspect (as of course, does all the usual Chamber of Commerce blathering), and this article is not worthy of being called journalism.

I suggest you start listening to Jay Rosen among others.

http://pressthink.org/

https://twitter.com/#!/jayrosen_nyu

"Journalism involves trying to figure out what the truth actually is."

Well, that explains why Fox news won a lawsuit allowing it to knowingly broadcast information it knew to be false, right? http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

Sorry, but it's erroneous to say that an article which does in fact offer a balanced viewpoint is somehow biased. Also, there's no law saying that journalists must be skeptical, and if there were, i for one would like to see it applied to mainstream outlets when reporting on corporations. Of course, the fact that many of those outlets are corporate-owned might make that difficult.

The lack of bias or journalistic slant in this article doesnt mean that the views presented within are unbiased, just that they aren't necessarily the views of the media outlet reporting on the topic. It's pretty much a given that every single source willing to be attributed on the record has an agenda, so any claims of naivete on the part of an (experienced) journalist reporting news can be chalked up to knee-jerk reactionism. again, look at the places where the two sides concur if you want to see the objective reality. Just remember that "truth" is a subjective term, since it depends on individual perspective.

The bias of the LBL should be apparent, since they are obviously pro-O/O and their affiliation is clearly identified as such. The bias of city officials and corporate business advocates should also be clear.

The difference between the two is that one is relying on anecdotal evidence, and the other has compiled statistical data, with surprising yet verifiable results. are these results comprehensive? no. do they have to be? no, since the data collected is statistically-significant, incorporated a much greater sample than the anecdotal claims to the contrary, and counters reports indicating purely negative impact. is this a more reliable and credible method than anecdotal evidence without the benefit of any research or data collection? most certainly.

one facet of journalism is to inspire public debate over issues which aren't black and white, but have layers of nuance. that speaks to the notion that there is no one "truth", just objective reality.

For your information nay sayers: Kamdesh Afghan Restauarant- made food for 200 people during the general strike.

Disco Volante has hosted benefits for Occupy Oakland and also did $2 strike specials in support.

Radio Bar has made record profits because of Occupy Oakland. They've been in business 12 years.

Ruby Room has also made record profits and supports Occupy Oakland.

Vitus has openly stated support for Occupy Oakland.

Pizza Man & San Francisco Pizza both saw huge increases in sales during OO's encampment.

Feelmore 510 stated open support for OO.

Grand Lake Theatre has a giant markee stating support.

The list goes on and on. If y'all want to listen to the Chamber of Commerce who represents Corporate interests in Oakland, you go for it. The Chronical, KTVU, etc keep interviewing them as the know all of Oakland Local business, but none of the above mentioned businesses have be approached by the Chanmber. The chamber is wildly corrupt and recently one of the chambers own board members has been implicated in a fraud costing 14 million dollars.

This shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

very happy you know many local business owners in downtown, as do I , and everyone I've talked to says the encampment was great for business and decreased crime in the area.

How many businesses have YOU talked to? I have talked to about 20 to 30 myself and didn't hear one person say they wanted OO out of there.

In fact many local business owners said the wished it would never leave and actually started to participate in the OO process.

Kinda feel like you're the bullshitter here Max.

I helped conduct this survey by personally talking to business owners, managers, and employees in the City Center area in early November. The story here does justice to what I saw: several of the 20-odd businesses I canvassed were wildly in support, others were in support of Occupy's ideals but did not like vandalism, and a few did not comment. Not one voiced any dislike of Occupy, though it is true that they may not have been speaking openly. As the writer of the article stated, we agreed not to release personal details of those who spoke to us, in part to protect employees of larger corporations from admonishment or worse.

For what it's worth, I'm a real estate investor who has owned his own home near Piedmont Avenue for 14 years. I support Occupy because it's doing something to counter abusive legislation (abrogation of Glass-Steagall), abusive court rulings (Corporate Personhood),  and generally abusive treatment of the middle class by those in possession of large amounts of capital. No one else is.

Susan, That counterbalance should have been referenced here for perspective. And it's not just that. As I said, it's the way Eric wrote it. He gave the survey the last word, so to speak. He wrote this as if the survey disproves everything that had been said before. You need to keep him on a tighter leash.

p.s. As a former journalist, I agree with Max. This piece is a gross violation of journalistic integrity and should be removed from the site for you to retain any credibility at all here.

I'm a frequent reader of Oakland Local, with no background in journalism whatsoever, and I thought that the headline "Occupy Oakland has helped some local businesses, a new survey claims" was perhaps a bit deceptive.

Somehow, it made this opinion piece sound as though it was an article written by or on behalf of Oakland Local (was it?) to support one side of this PR war between OO and the Chamber of Commerce. I did not know who Eric Arnold is, and his profile at the end of the piece provides no information as to his involvement or sympathy towards OO. 

In general, though, I think it's just sad that we're here debating whether more or less local businesses in Oakland DT (most of them run by the 99%) were hurt by the encampment, when I thought the whole point of the Occupy movement was to target the 1%. As long as ANY business run by the Oakland's 99% gets hurt by OO's actions I'll find it hard to give them my full support.

Dr. Wiley, The headline is  not the problem. The problem is that it's important to know whether or not OO is hurting businesses. If it's not, then let's see a survey done by an entity other thatn OO itself showing it's not. Don't give us some smarmy survey done by OO , no matter how you try to "balance" it with other viewpoints (and even that was done in a biased way). The survey has at least the appearance of bias due to its source; the article is written in a biased way; and this generates nothing but the reader skepticism shown here, followed by futile defenses by the obviously biased writer, his valiant and hapless editor, and the unfortunate author of the survey itself (who obviously tried to conduct it in good faith).

It's no good. Just throw the whole thing out.

I agree with most of what Max and Sandra wrote but I decided that it is not worth getting my panties in a bunch about a story that lacks any analysis and just the retelling of a tale told by an OO mouthpiece.

OO's survey is obviously biased and respondents probably did not answer freely. I surveyed downtown business owners who said they supported the ideal of changing the economic inequalities but were not supportive of OO's process and preferred they had operated from within the system.

What I, and maybe others, find troubling is the use of the same bias reporting methods found in other media outlets. Maybe we expected more and we were wrong. Someone needs to shill for the extreme progressives and that is what OL does.

Fox won a lawsuit because the law does not require a factual reporting thus the plaintiff did not have legal grounds for a whistleblower action. I think if this outlet wants to follow legal but unethical reporting practices then it is no better than the MSM. And that is sad. 

I don't recall where I heard the 600. It may have been at a council meeting, another outlet or in discussion with someone active with chamber people. 300 or 600 either way it is more jobs than one small business can create and it benefits caterers and other downtown food vendors who would see an increase in demand for lunch and catering services.

My people and I don't buy inferior goods. We will be happy when Pizza Man is gone.

I have not seen the Chron data. I do know that some of the newer condos had foreclosures but nowhere near 50% or even 100%. Some of the condos were converted to rentals and were fully occupied. 

I don't know what is still in foreclosure but my friends in the business tell me that the apts are over 90% occupied and condos up and down Broadway are either selling or going back on the market after being rentals. 

This piece has generated more controversey than just about anything we've published in the past 6 months. Everyone has intense frustration at the lack of verified data around the actual impact of the Occupy movement on Oakland businesses, and everyone--or many people--are conflicted about their support for the #OWS fiscal accountability principles vs their concerns for the impact of the movement on the Oakland CA economy and economic stability. 

Oakland Local's not a mouthpiece for anything; anyone who thinks that hasn't looked at the range of views on the site for long. 

As for Eric Arnold's coverage, we've presented stories by multiple reporters and many, many community members--and if anyone reading this would like to use their real name and publish an opinion piece on their views, so long as you avoid slander and hate speech, we welcome your voice.

Susan, Without resorting to hate speech or slander: I think it would behoove you to consider *why* this piece has generated so much controversy, and to consider the extreme amount of bias that comes through consistently in Eric's writing. It really doesn't matter if you've published things by multiple reporters. Biases in stories (that is, stories that are supposed to stand as reportage rather than columns) don't cancel each other out. Each story on its own should stand as unbiased reporting - if not, just call it a column. This story stands out because it so clearly is not a column. It stands out because of the reference to "a new survey," which sounds like maybe it's going to be an ABC News poll or something. The reader really expects an *independent* survey. Not a survey done by the entity being evaluated! For god's sake! I'm surprised you can't see the problem here...Have a good evening. 

Monica, you conducted a survey? um, where's your data? and, you have an unverifiable number--600 jobs allegedly lost --based on...wait for it... "i don't recall." no further comment.

Sandra, thank you for not resorting to hate speech or slander. that must have been difficult for you. glad you made the right choice.

Susan,

While you are looking at what caused the outrage, you may also want to institute a policy that prohibits the reporter from commenting on their own story. Stories should stand on their own merits. This is the only news outlet where I see a reporter consistently engaging in the comments and it is there the reporter displays his true colors.

If your reporter can not see the difference between employer bringing no less than 300 and maybe as many as 600 jobs to the city versus an employer hiring 4 people then there is a problem. I ask you, does it make sense for a hip hop reporter to cover a business story if the reporter doesn't understand the multiplier effect of 300 to 600 jobs.  

Monica, I think having reporters be a part of the discussion s a plus, but bonus snark doesn't always sit well as a rhetorical device in discussion. However, Eric has skills beyond reporting on hiphop and has been covering local issues for us for more than a year, along with other reporters.

Hello people

There is no need beating the messenger over this. The fact that "claims" is in the title is already alerting the readers to the survey source.

In a perfect world, there would be third party surveyors for all kinds of community issues. Unfortunately, none of us could afford to work for free for long. Let's take this as an interesting article that presents an unexpected point of views.

Let's thank Oakland Local  for giving us a forum to discuss Oakland issues.

When I moved to the Piedmont Avenue area in 1997, a store called Omnidesign was selling modern metal and glass furniture and  housewares in what is now a yoga studio. Then came Ikea. The owners of Omnidesign put on a brave face, scaled back their display space by 50%, moved down the street, and within a year went out of business.

Piedmont Stationery, kittycorner from the Piedmont Theatre, was a convenient place to buy ink cartridges and manila envelopes. OfficeMax and Staples put it to rest about two years ago.

Yesterday, I went to REI in Berkeley to find hiking boots for my daughter. I looked inside the shoes; all but one  on their long rack was made in China. I purchased the Italian shoes because Italy has strong unions (and good shoes).

In the Midwest, where shoes and other goods were once manufactured, the economy is in shambles; by comparison, even East Oakland looks like the promised land. If you do not believe this, visit the commercial real estate site Loopnet, and search for multifamily properties in cities like Dayton. You will find that the price per unit is often under $10,000. That's right--a 15 unit apartment building can be purchased for less than$150,000. What does that say about the loss of manufacturing jobs in these areas?

Those of you who feel Occupy has harmed small businesses: do you have the same hostility toward Ikea or OfficeMax? Does it bother you that almost everything Patagonia makes and REI sells comes from low-wage countries? Are you worried that outside the Bay Area, our economy looks like that of Bolivia? 

The real damage has not been done by tents in the plaza.

@Angie, The word "claims" in the headline doesn't fix this. The headline is part of the problem, referring as it does to "a new survey," as if the survey were independent.  

"If your reporter can not see the difference between employer bringing no less than 300 and maybe as many as 600 jobs to the city versus an employer hiring 4 people then there is a problem."

maybe as many as 600 jobs? so we're just making up numbers now?

Monica, the 300 jobs figure mentioned came directly from the Chamber's representative. your arbitrary doubling of that figure appears to be based on nothing more than pure imagination, since you have not cited a credible source for that number. Or any source ("i dont recall" doesnt count). That's problematic because it over-exaggerates the impact on business.

Sandra, writing your own piece means...wait for it... writing your own article and publishing it, not making comments on something someone else has written. It's surprising that someone who claims to have a journalisitic background would not know this. Your out-of-context reference to hate speech made it seem as if you could barely contain yourself when commenting. I merely thanked you for having the decency to do so.

and, fyi, the word "new" means...wait for it... new. it does not mean "independent." At least not in the English language. i dont really see the point in attacking a headline which is clearly stating the context of the story. it does appear to be a case of, as Angie put it, blaming the messenger because you dont like the message.

What we are seeing here is the phenomenon of the reactionary, who Nietzsche claimed suffered some underlying ("psychological") injury which he or she attributes, without real logic, to the cause reacted against. For this reason, there is little use arguing with people like those posting here. Their reactions stem from the subconscious.

Eric Arnold left this comment on the FB page of Kerie Campbell, one of the more prominant and vocal members of Occupy Oakland, a few hours ago:

"Erik Arnold wrote:  hey if you guys want to comment on the article, feel free to do so on the oakland local site... a lot of the comments thusfar have been from knee-jerk reactionaries. would be nice to hear other voices..."

Mustering the forces of one side of an argument to come and support your article against those who find fault with what you've written and whom you characterize as "knee-jerk reactionaries" Eric?  I'm not sure that's an activity that refects what I would consider to be unbiased reportage.

Inviting folks to comment isn't a crime, L.and you're miscontextualizing my comments there. the folks on that forum were already having a discussion of the article online. all i'm suggesting is that they bring that discussion over to the OL site.

notice i'm not telling people what to say--and indeed, i have no way of knowing what those people would say or whether they would support the article or dispute it--just saying it would be nice to hear more than the 3 or 4 voices who have made the bulk of the comments so far. We've heard their arguments. Let's hear from those who have yet to comment.

Clearly, this site is out of control. The editor needs to keep this "reporter" on a leash and is failing to do so. Bye bye all and good riddance.

Really Eric?  Really?  You have no idea in the world what Occupy Oakland supporters might have to say about your article ... or whether they would support your claims -- or act as your defense against people here who find fault with your process?  LOL.   Thanks for the early morning chuckle. ;-)

Been lurking on this site and don't usually feel compelled to post. But WTF, a reporter claiming to not be biased posts on FB begging for support for his views? Not only is that really dishonest, it calls to account his integrity and his lack of professionalism. This apology strikes me as an Enron executive who got slapped on the wrist and made to apologise, phony baloney, doesn't mean it. Or like Mel Gibson caught making anti-semitic remarks and saying "I'm sorry". That really does nothing to abate the original remark and the truth getting out about how he really feels. It is unconsciounalbe. 

I'm curious as to whether Occupy Oakland pitched this story to other media outlets. The Occupy media contact list is rather long. Gotta wonder how many other outlets looked at a survey with this level of dubious conflict of interest, followed their professional instincts, and passed on covering it.

Occupy Oakland has a media team that is pretty much dedicated to creating positive PR for Occupy Oakland. One would hope journalists would approach them with the same degree of skepticism that local politicians and the Chamber of Commerce deserve. If Quan said she had a survey that said 106 out of 106 respondents had nothing bad to say about her, would you take that seriously?

Also, consider looking at the survey this way:

When asked by people representing a movement with a reputation for smashing the windows of people they don't like, 106 out of 106 businesses said they had nothing bad to say about that movement. Pretty obvious obstacle to collecting accurate data, no?

Good comments, Max. If I owned a business in downtown Oakland - especially at ground level with large glass windows - I would be particularly reluctant to express any negative comments on those very same people we all witnessed smashing Whole Foods', Tully's, Oak Collective's (etc.) windows not too long ago.

Also because, let's not forget, the actions of those individuals will be dismissed by OO's PR people as the actions of fringe outsiders who, however, ARE  ALLOWED to be part of the movement, ARE ALLOWED to participate in OO's strikes, and rallies, and ARE ALLOWED to make quorum and vote down non-violence resolutions during GA meetings. So convenient, the best of both worlds!

And, oh by the way, OO's folks went wild on #OO's twitter publicizing this piece on Oakland Local, duh!!

The story was sent out as a press release to many media outlets, Max. OL was able to see the complete survey data, which was not sent out. But I'd say the comments here are going way beyond this piece into the general views folks have on Occupy--mostly negative--and this piece's comments section becoming a forum for these views. Again, anyone who'd like to write an op ed under their own name for Oakland Local, let me know. editor@oaklandlocal.com

Its good to see many people commenting on this subject. I have a few comments on the process and on the 300 vs 600 jobs figures.

I support the article, and the headline.  But I also recognize problem with a survey conducted by OO themselves.  

I would encourage the doubters here to help fund an independent survey.  If you wanted to fund Oakland Local to conduct such a study, you might be surprized at the data analysis capabilities of some staff members.   But they don't have the funding for such efforts.   

This story was about the study and its conclusions, which is news and relevant to OL's coverage of OO.   I know that OL staff arranged to see the data to verify the statistics were generated correctly.

If OL had a large paid staff, I guess it probably would have conducted its own survery, but the limited buget just can't support any such effort.

As for the job loss numbers, I had a surprize encounter with Councilman Larry Reid and I challenged him on his press statements regarding the negative effects of OO on business.  He explained to me that 2 things had happened in the same week: Kroger's - the food marketeers - announced they were pulling out of downtown Oakland and a large non-profit group, that was scheduled to move into the building on Telegraph which had been occupied, cancelled their new lease.  As I recall, Reid said Kroger's represented 280 jobs in that office and it also threatened plans to open stores in East Oakland, something that community sorely needs  --  FYI there are no Safeways or Lucky's stores south of High Street.  I think he said the non-profit would have started with about 75 people and  grown from there.  

I took that as a short term loss of 350 jobs, maybe 400.   If Kroger's cancels its planned stores in East Oakland, that would be another 100-200 jobs.   But I personally don't know if those stores are at risk or who is counting which part of this.

http://oaklandlocal.com/article/grocery-chain-looking-open-stores-oaklands-flatlands

Aside from the jobs, the loss of the new food markets is a big deal for my neighbors in East Oakland.  Most go to San Leandro, or to the Diamond District, for major food shopping.  And that is a good part of the reason the City Council got so negative so fast - they were concerned about a chain reaction from other large businesses, including the Tech companies they have been trying to court to relocate in Oakland.

Anyway, 350 lost jobs seems to be a solid number.  Including future supermarkets that may be cancelled is speculative, but could get a debater up to 500 or 600.  I would use the lesser figure of 350.  

Can anyone verify the number of Krober employees currently in Oakland?

Harun,

I know Trevor, Damon, and Kevin Cook, and I know damn well they made good money during the occupation. I never disputed that.  I don't, however, believe that increased business at bars, inexpensive restaurants, and convenience stores is representative of all of downtown business.

My issue here is not with the occupation as a whole: I see fundamental flaws in the way it's unfolded, but most of the broad goals are things I support.

My complaint about this article is about one thing in essence: Occupy has a groupthink problem that I believe is hindering it's prgress, and I think Oakland Local's take on this survey is exacerbating that.  

There is a simple integrity issue when a group does a survey about itself and comes back with such fabulous results as the ones that Occupy Oakland got in it's business survey.  You just shouldn't do that sort of survey about yourself.  It's the kind of thing a third party needs to do in order for it to be reliable.

There is a LOT of dysfunction in Occupy Oakland, and there is a lot of negative public sentiment towards Occupy Oakland for a variety of reasons.  I feel like that survey was more designed as a PR exercise than as self-evaluation.

Fundamentally, A revolution must make it's own accountablity and integrity THE first priority, or it will fail. The more difficult things get for Occupy Oakland, the more I see defensive rhetoric, and the more I see criticism, even from within, is being dismissed. It's a BIG problem, potentially suicidal for a movement that I believe is full of people with good intentions and worthy goals.

FYI, this "bullshitter" donated to your bail fund, dude.

"There is a simple integrity issue when a group does a survey about itself and comes back with such fabulous results as the ones that Occupy Oakland got in it's business survey.  You just shouldn't do that sort of survey about yourself.  It's the kind of thing a third party needs to do in order for it to be reliable."

i dont know that the results were all that "fabulous," Max. Your biggest problem--and that of many of the other commentors--seems to be that of 106 businesses surveyed, all expressed overall positive or overall neutral impact--meaning positive and negative cancelled out--and none expressed overall negative impact. That's how the survey worded it, which is not exactly the same as how you interpreted it (had "nothing bad to say").

However, the survey confirmed some of the anecdotal evidence referenced by the Chamber and the council--business losses up to 70%--by providing data, which the Chamber et. al didn't do. What it also did was add additional context, i.e. the type of businesses which suffered, which wasnt clear from previous reports.

Disputing the reports of the overall respondants is one way to try to move the focus away from what is signifigant (and less open to question) about this survey: that it reported that not only did some businesses experience a positive economic impact from O/O--which was previously unreported--but that the number of businesses which experienced positive impact was greater than those which were impacted negatively.

Reporting that the majority of businesses had a neutral impact isn't "fabulous"--it just means that the negative impacts were grossly exaggerated and overstated, without the benefit of any data whatsoever to back up those claims. if you take away your superlatives, these findings seem much more within reason.

if we're going to frame this an an integrity issue, we need to look at the larger context. If the job loss figure is being exaggerated by as much as 100%, isn't that an integrity issue? If some in the business community are miscontextualizing the impact as entirely negative when that isn't actually the case,isn't that an integrity issue? There are many businesses downtown with signs in their windows reading "We are the 99%." Just that alone should tell you the impact hasn't been entirely negative and that there is wide support among these businesses.

It's not entirely correct to say the LBL did a survey about itself, either. They are a subcommittee of O/O comprised of local business owners who contacted other local businesses.

If they are a part of Occupy Oakland, then so are you, Max. You've attended general assemblies, marched in rallies--don't front; i have photos--and otherwise participated in the same thing which you have complained about on Internet forums.

here's proof:

So if you're calling their integrity into question, you're also calling your own into question. At least they're not trying to play both sides of the fence.

That said, a comprehensive, third-party, independent evaluation by an outside entity with no agenda, would certainly be welcomed.