By the way, redevelopment law does not require that any units in a particular project be affordable. It only requires affordable housing to be provided somewhere in the project area which in this case goes from Oak Street to the border with San Leandro. So it is significant that all of the affordable housing is on-site. In addition, redevelopment law certainly doesn't require any contributions from developers to help pay for the affordable housing. Neither does the City of Oakland—although it should.

And let’s talk developer contribution for a minute. There are two big costs to produce housing—land and construction. In general, there are two big streams of funding for affordable housing in Oakland. One is a portion of tax revenues from redevelopment projects (leveraged with other public monies). The other is whatever the developer puts on the table. Right now the City Council negotiates project by project for the developer contribution. At Oak to 9th, that contribution basically ended up being 4 and a half acres of cleaned up land, ready to build on. The City has to reimburse costs for the clean up and preparation. (The cost will not be $29 million. More inaccuracies. The cost is not yet known. The developer is prohibited from making a profit on the transaction.)

Now that may not be a huge contribution, but it isn’t nothing either. Was it enough? Probably not. That’s why we need an Inclusionary Zoning policy in Oakland that will require a set developer contribution for every project. Does the referendum coalition have any way to get more? No. In fact, their preferred alternative would reduce the redevelopment funding for affordable housing to the tune of 60 units. One thing for sure. It was a hell of a lot more than was on the table before 300–400 families who need affordable housing started showing up at Planning Commission and City Council hearings.

What about the claim that Oak to 9th will use up all the affordable housing funds in Oakland for the next ten years? Again, hyperbole. City staff made some worst-case projections and found that when this project was added to current commitments, affordable housing redevelopment revenues might be reduced to $10 million annually for 8 years. There is currently funding available for thousands of units of affordable housing in addition to Oak to 9th. By the way, staff's projections assumed slow growth, no new or recombined redevelopment areas and no required developer contribution. Again, inclusionary zoning would change that.

Set a bad precedent for other developers? To the contrary, the message that developers got from the struggle for housing and jobs at Oak to 9th is this: “The Jerry Brown era is over. You can no longer take the community for granted when you build here. Development in Oakland must serve the needs of the community.” The referendum coalition’s message: “Not In My Backyard.”

A recent poll bears out that Oaklanders, by a large majority, want development when it includes benefits such as affordable housing and job training. This should not be surprising in a largely working class town like Oakland. And it is why Oak to 9th, with the community benefits the community fought for, has broad support in all of the East Oakland flatlands. That’s why we are not worried about defeating the ill-conceived referendum effort at the polls if need be. But what a waste of time and energy.

Let’s reform the Port and make it more accountable. Let’s all get behind Inclusionary Zoning efforts so developers have to help pay for affordable housing in Oakland like they do in most places. And let’s move on. Let’s build Oak to 9th and make the parks, housing and job training commitments there a reality.

—Andy Nelsen is a District 2 resident and co-coordinator of the Oak to Ninth Community Benefits Coalition