Yes, I agree with Naomi, this was a dreadful mistake by City Staff. Further, the staff report justifies the decision in an all too familiar way. Staff representatives of multiple departments followed the procedure, and therefore are both anonymous and blameless for perpetrating a community disservice, and allowing a rare historic treasure to be forever lost. Just why are these public servants in their jobs? I'll join you on the 12th at 12:30PM. ME

Unfortunately, I will be working during the hearing (isn't it funny how these things are often scheduled to accomodate those who have nothing to do but agitate), but I will definitely be writing a letter in favor of NOT moving the development (which is actually right next to where I live). When our city is so strapped for cash that public libraries are not appropriately staffed and cannot be open on weekends, and when we can afford to appropriately fund community centers or after-school programs, and when many more programs are that will actually do some good for the needy in this city are so incredibly udnerfunded, is it really appropriate for the City Council to take on the additional responsibility and cost of maintaining a high maintenance garden? And to remind everyone - this garden is not currently publicly accessible, so it is hardly as though we are losing a treasured public space. A private owner sold a parcel of land to another private owner, and now Nancy Nadel wants to...what...commondeer the property from the new owner so we can build an expensive park?

Right on, V! How are downtown residents, who tend to have jobs, supposed to attend this meeting? Oakland has more parkland per-capita than any other city in the country. The garden is located right by a public park. There is currently a new downtown public park under construction as part of the Forest City project. This is a high-density neighborhood, just blocks from Oakland's tallest building. A 40-story skyscraper would be in scale with the area. Downtown needs housing, the city needs services, and nobody needs an unused, incredibly expensive garden.

So, I read the report, and the donors' conditions are ridiculous. Bsically, they want the city to pay to maintain a private garden for the adjoining apartments' residents, with public access only allowed for scheduled events. That's not a good use of scarce public works funds.

Just to elaborate a little bit on what dto510 said above, here are the relevant quotes from the report: "In a subsequent meeting with Mr. Guinnane, one of the owners, it was stated that the property must remain a "private" closed off park area only accessible to the public for scheduled events. The current owner made it clear that the park could not be incorporated into the existing Snow Park which abuts the property to the west" "An estimate of the required capital improvements and restoration were in the range of $760,000. Annual maintenance costs for upkeep of the gardens as a public park were estimated at $178,000."

I agree that the proposal didn't reach a point of being workable. That is why it should have been brought to the city council and the public. Then we could have used the bright light of open government to work toward a reasonable deal. Many Oakland citizens have been involved in substantial fundraising efforts toward parks and park improvements. But here despite the potential for a major land donation, there was no opportunity to explore funding sources, or what citizen interests might be. Of course one would want public use! But there was no opportunity to air the issues.

Well, it's too late now. Agitating against skyscrapers (which pervades this entire newspaper) won't get us a park. Besides, I'd rather see $2m go to the Cleveland Cascade than purchasing this private garden. The cascade's maintenance would be much lower, too.

You mean a major land donation wherein the donor insists that a condition of the donation is that the space not be made available to the public. What would the City Council or the public have been able to do about this? Those were the explicit and non-negotiable terms of the donation offer - that it would remain private. Of course the city didn't waste valuable time and resources on exploring the issue further!

I am so frick'in mad that Oakland's city council members and planning commision folks continue to approve HUGE residential structures that, in my opinion, will completely ruin the neighbor feeling around the lake, downtown and other districts with buildings the size more commonly found in Manhattan. If I wanted to live in that type of surroundings I'd move to New York. Where is the outrage among Oaklanders ??? We need to band together stop these greedy backroom deals that continue to get rubber stamped without much concern to what residents want. Just wait until the housing market takes a dive and the City is left with thousands of empty building structures. Oh what a tangled web they weave when their only means to an end is greed..

I presume the reason you don't see much "outrage" is because many of us community members who actually live on the downtown side of the lake enjoy new tall buildings. And a large building in that location, just across the street from the Kaiser Center, near the Ordway building, and surrounded by several other high rise office buildings hardly seems out of place.

There's plenty of disgust to go around re: the "selling out" of our neighborhoods to developers hell bent on building out-of-scale residential towers that clash with the surrounding neighborhoods and that are frankly unattractive and soul-less. To be sure, there is the occasional person one meets who gets all misty eyed at the promise of tall buildings/skyscrapers. I have encountered a few myself. Well, three to be exact. Two were architects and one was a city planner who didn't live in Oakland. And yes, the proposed 40 story building WOULD be out of place and would entirely dwarf the two historical buildings that surround it. Someone made the point about Oakland being overbuilt and facing the future of partially-filled residential towers. The condo market is on the edge of tanking and there are HUNDREDS of units up and down the Broadway corridor that are all going to open around the same time next year. Why any one in their right mind would build another condo tower in the current market is beyond me. (sigh) Hate to sound like a person who wants to go back into a time machine, but I am from an old Oakland family. Pre WWII, my dad and my Uncle Jack used to take their dates down to the edge of the lake near the Pergola and watch the sun actually set on some kind of horizon. It was quite romantic and beautiful, I was told. Nowdays the sun disappears behind the skyscrapers sometime in the afternoon. I am not pleased that yet another out-of-town developer is planning to cast yet another long shadow across the lake. Good news for archetects. Not so good for the rest of us....

Hi, I'm trying to reach dto510. Anybody know who that person is? Chris Heredia SF Chronicle East Bay Bureau email: cheredia@sfchronicle.com Thanks!

I read the staff report and the way Public Works chose to spend its time initially infuriates me to no end. Let's see .... we have a property ready for historic designation. We have an zoning ordinance (s7) that, among other things, mandates that a historic landmark be kept in good repair. We have programs at the national and state levels, National Trust for one, whose sole reason for existence is to help cities deal {financially} with such dilemmas. We have many (I know two personally) generous residents and neighbors willing to form public/private partnerships with Oakland to manage its parks, but PWorks consistently impedes the process (and wastes hundreds of thousands in the process of doing so, I might add). So rather than get the damn thing landmarked right away (I'm sure Naomi would have singlehandedly volunteered to do this!) so it was eligible for funding, take a day or two to reach out to established national endowments for help, call upon the private donors who they are already currently working with for assistance ....... they instead assumed they knew what was best, internally drew the same conclusion, and put up a for sale sign. PW Staff had an opportunity to serve the interests of Oaklanders, but failed -- miserably and irresponsibly.

I ask again - why should the city have made any attempt to landmark the area or find funding sources to pay for this building's private garden? It was a clear and non-negotiable condition of the donation that the garden remain private - that's what killed it. How would having the city take on the responsibility of maintaining someone's private garden at a cost of $200,000/year serve the interests of Oaklanders?

one phrase ... "public/private partnership"

Chris - the Oakland Museum, Dunsmuir House, Oakland City Zoo, Children's Fairland, don't those fall under "public/private partnership" category? If so, the Gardens would serve as another destination spot for visitors who don't live in Oakland and enrich the lives of those who do. My wife and in-laws are rabid plant people ("Yes, dear, you read that right, I said "rabid"..."). Although they haven't had the opportunity to see it, the garden would probably be a big draw to horticultural types. And a quick, slightly off-topic note to V Smoothe @ http://futureoakland.blogspot.com whose posts are above. Is that you, Xenophron Abraham? I heard that you regrouped and opened up another blog. The tone and style here sound so familiar: "Unfortunately, I will be working during the hearing (isn't it funny how these things are often scheduled to accomodate those who have nothing to do but agitate)..." Just curious. There are no names identified with your website, unless I missed it, which is possible.

This is ridiculous. The city has no money to buy, restore and maintain a private garden. Perhaps those who wish to see a garden could spend their energies on the public gardens that are park of Lakeside Park. What would the public works budget cut to pay for this garden? Bike lanes? Traffic lights? Shouldn't the Cleveland Cascade and Bordertown Skatepark be first in line for public monies? Let alone the huge property taxes the city would collect from a residential tower on the site. PS: Our blog sounds nothing like ZA's.

Okay, I don't think you guys read the report, or didn't understand it or something. A condition of the donation was that the garden NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. Visitors to Oakland would not have been able to see the garden. The rabid plant people above would not have been able to see the garden. Horticultural types would not have been able to go to the garden. This was a non-negotioable condition of the donation. Why is this so hard to understand?

If you think that demand was non-negotiable, you don't know much about negotiating. Anything can be negotiated. In any case, I would rather see a historic garden preserved, even if no one is allowed to visit it, rather than see another soulless high-rise by the lake. High rises belong DOWNTOWN, not by the lake and not by the estuary. In any case, I think the staff went far out of bounds in rejecting the donation out of hand without even consulting the council or the citizens. They can't seem to reject a bad project, and let things go to the Planning Commission which would have never even have seen the light of day in other bay area cities- the applicant would have been politely told the project wouldn't fly, at that would have been it. And what exactly is so bad about "open to the public only for scheduled events?" Many properties owned by the city are not available for the public to wander around at random- you can only visit the Camron-Stanford House when it's open for tours, or if you rent it to get married, ditto for the Dunsmuir House. You have to rent the Leona Lodge, the Sailboat House, etc. I don't see that this is any different. I also am annoyed by the idea that any piece of land that doesn't have something built on it OUGHT to have something built on it. I have no problem at all with this remaining a private garden- possibly the donor who offered it didn't want it to be taken over by homeless people, which seems like a fairly likely scenario if it was made part of Snow Park. And I would like everyone who is so enamored of high rise towers to move to Manhattan or Hong Kong and leave the rest of us alone, or else respond to one of those spam ads for "male enhancement" instead of encouraging the thrusting of more phalluses into our sky. There's way too much testosterone in this city already!

Wow...you people really are confused. Okay, let's start with a major problem here. This property IS downtown. The land in question is directly across the street from a high rise office building. It is, in fact, in the financial district of downtown where most of the city's high rises are. It is only two blocks away from Oakland's current tallest building - the Ordway Building, which is only 16 feet shorter than the proposed tower. So to say that the project is out of scale with the neighborhood suggests one has never even been downtown. The proposed building fits in with current zoning of the location and with the city's general plan. And we're talking about a project that hasn't even reach the stage of filing an application with the planning department, so for everyone here all up in arms about it - you're seriously jumping the gun. It hasn't been approved - it hasn't even started an EIR or public comment process yet. As for this garden - has anyone here actually looked at it? Because I have. There isn't anything there. It is just a big mess of overgrown weeds. But back to the main issue here - the rejection of the donation. Why do people keep thinking it was negotiable? The staff report clearly outlines the demands of the property owner. The owner said that a condition of the donation was that it remain inaccessible to the public. What is so hard to understand? I can't see why anyone would possibly think this is a good use of sparse public works funds. The Dunsmuir Estate is hardly an apt comparison - it is open to the public most days of the week, all day long. Dunsmuir, Leona Lodge, Sailboat House, etc are all actual facilities - this is just a garden. Or something that once was a garden, was not maintained by the owner, and could potentially be a garden if the city poured a million dollars into it just for capital improvements, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for maintenance. It doesn't have meeting rooms, banquet facilities, or a kitchen. That significantly decreases its value in terms of potentially renting it out. I suggest everyone who is upset about this go down to the location - look at this "garden" then look around at the high rises surrounding it. Perhaps that would end the hysteria.

Smoothe's earlier comment "As for this garden - has anyone here actually looked at it? Because I have. There isn't anything there. It is just a big mess of overgrown weeds. " That got me scratching my head as a friend of mine, who lives next door to the site, said it was quite beautiful. I went there with a camera and asked the doorman/garage captain if I could per through the fence (the gate to the left side of the building facing the circle driveway, and the lake behind me) -- and lo and behind there was a picture perfect, old fashioned garden. A large circular, very green and trim, lawn circled by a peaceful and well kept garden of ferns, roses, and trees...a garden bench in the shade...all seemed to be well cared for and picture- perfect, ready for a wedding or what have you. I circled around the building and peered through the fence on the Snow Park side (had to step gingerly through what looked like a homeless encampment) -- which gave me the view of the back side of the paths circling the lawn area. Nicely maintained. Circled around to the 19th St service entrance at the base of Alice Street (nothing pretty there -- just old potting sheds and gardening equipment) then went around to the fourth side and stood on the dumpster of 200 Lakeside (whose service entrance faces 19th) and saw more well-kept paths and spotted a fountain of one sort or another near the back. All was very green and neat as pin, just as my friend, who truly DOES live next door, had described it. I think the owner's projected annual maintenance fee is steep, but that's all stuff that can be dickered with during negotiation. By the way, the story-behind-the-story about the history leading up to the sale was the lead piece in Matier and Ross (the Chronicle columnists). It makes a very interesting read -- for instance, who knew that SF former Mayor, Willie Brown was once a part- owner in that property?

So let me get this straight. I'm assuming the "Schilling Garden" was once the property of August Schilling; the same August Schilling who once owned most of the land in the South Bay (for his salt and chemical companies) as well as his estate on the lake. Now I'm sure that, back in the day, Schilling didn't want just anyone marching through his private garden and may have even taken steps to prevent folks from doing so. Like, say, puting up a giant iron gate with an AS on it? The heritage of the August Schilling estate so-to-speak. Fast-forward to today's debate and it seems perfectly consistent with the goals of "preserving" Oakland's heritage to distribute public funds to support a private garden formerly owned by one of the largest land holders in the Bay area. Makes even more sense that preserving the "garden" is at the expense of hundreds of folks that might actually get a shot at joining our Oakland community. Schilling would be proud. The bottom line is that the proposed development doesn't violate any landmark laws, so let's get on with it. Protest the preservation (with public funds) of a salt tycoon's garden and build the damn tower.

Why the rush to overbuild?? Two days ago, the Oakland Tribune reported the 14,388 proposed condo units are in the pipeline (that's inclusive of the 3,000 + units slated for Oak to Ninth.) Yet a 100-unit luxury condo project just completed a few blocks away from the Shilling site, smack in the middle of downtown, sits virtually empty with no takers. Spooky. "Build and common sense be damned..."

Just read the Matier and Ross column. Thanks Nancy. This just keeps getting better and better... Now we can save the salt tycoon's garden in order to preserve Willie Brown's real estate investment!

Joseph - what building are you referring to? I live a block from the spot everyone is talking about and I can't think of what you're referring to.

Funny. I went to look at the garden on Thursday and all I could see were overgrown weeds and piles of leaves. I encourage everyone to go look for themselves. Or check out the pictures I took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49403502@N00/

The new empty condo complex is a few blocks down, just on the otherside of Broadway, one block West of City Hall, a rock's throw from the State Building. Fifteenth Street, I think. It's about as downtown as you can get. Just a comment about whether the Schilling Garden is "downtown" and should be the home of a tower, the proposed site is actually in a residential area downwind from the Kaiser Center and the Ordway building, not next to them. The Kaiser Center is two or three blocks away. The garden in question is situated in a residential neighborhood behind Snow Park. The two historical buildings that edge the garden on the other two sides would, indeed, be dwarfed by the forty story tower. 200 Lakeside is only 11 stories (I may be off by a floor or two) and 244 Lakeside is taller, but not by all that much. For those who are not familiar with the area, 244 Lakeside (the building with the Schilling Garden in its back yard) is the very elegant and ornate building with the circular drive in front of it -- before you peel off to the right to head out towards the library and the courthouse.

Um, the "garden" is directly across the street from 1800 Harrison, a 657,498 sf office building. As for the condo on 15th St. - I can't think of what you're talking about and I walk by there twice a day. There are two condo buildings under construction - none finished, though.

Mr. V Smoothe seems typical of those who would rail against the sun coming up in the morning. I think that's because they believe it would allow them to see the forest for the trees. Access, who does he think would have access to the gated condo development once built. We need more more exclusive, very expensive high rises around the lake? Ask the citizens of Oakland, who exist with an average income of around $35,000, and; who are leaving Oakland because of the dearth of affordable housing and crime There is no inclusionary housing slated for this project. Ask the first responders who , for the most part, live in other communties because of the cost of housing in Oakland. The situation is so bad that Rep. Lee is trying to push legislation to help, police, fire and other first responders find housing in the community they are paid to serve - Oakland. The condition demanded by the "developer" is a ruse. Did he offer the garden out of altruism? No he wanted a tax incentive. As far as Public Works, if they were'nt able to negotiate around such a ridiculous condition, maybe they would have been better suited as park attendants. The comments offered by Mr. Smoothie, aren't really that smooth. The developer has filed an application and is moving forward. Why wait until he has entitlements to address what has all the earmarks of a disaster for the Lake Merritt historical district, the senior community (which is located across the street from the potential diaster), the ecological stability of Snow Park and the lake, and; the utter traffic nightmare it would produce for the neighborhood. There is so much more, but it seems pointless to waste time and energy on distorted perspectives.

You're confused. The developer did not offer the garden to the city. The property owner at the time offered the donation - on the condition that it not be accessible to the public, but that the city pay for its maintenance and needed capital improvements. The city rejected the ludicrous offer and the property owner then sold the land to the developer. The Oakland median income is $44,376/year, not $35,000. Since the proposal is part of a redevelopment area, there are indeed affordability requirements. Properties like this actually create more affordable housing, providing money through the designated tax increment for affordable housing funds - that's why we've built more affordable housing in the last 8 years than in the 12 before that. And no, the application has not yet been filed. As for traffic - people who live in high density, transit-oriented areas like downtown Oakland don't need cars.

The reason we are "jumping the gun" on this is because we are well aware that by the time an application is filed and an EIR process starts the project has already become a snowball rolling downhill and is well nigh impossible to stop. That there is no 24 story tower on the Fire Alarm Building site and no Catholic cathedral at the south end of Lake Merritt is because some of us try to nip these bad projects in the bud, since the staff seems unable or unwilling to do it for us! Just because there are other tall buildings in the area does not mean we need to repeat the mistake! I do sometimes wonder why I even waste time arguing with people who think ANY development, no matter how bad, is just the best thing since sliced bread. And don't even start with me about wonderful high rises by the water in Vancouver, BC- I've been there. The topography is very different in Vancouver, and I did not find the high-rises an enhancement to the scenery.

;0) V. S moothe writes: "Funny. I went to look at the garden on Thursday and all I could see were overgrown weeds and piles of leaves. I encourage everyone to go look for themselves. Or check out the pictures I took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49403502@N00/ " .....Bless your heart, Smoothe. You took a picture of the potting sheds/service entrance where Alice dead ends into 19th. The ivy shot is the outside of the wall along 19th. Sweetie, take your camera, drive over to the exact spot where you took the pictures...walk towards the Regelis Apartment building back down on 19th (maybe 25 yards or less from where you took your pictures), walk down their driveway to the left of the building, stand next to their dumpster, look through the fence --- and voila! A beautiful vista will before your eyes. Roses, ferns, trees and well manicure paths will encircle a lovely circular lawn. You will see a fountain from that vantage point as well. Or, go completely around Snow Park-- the buffer that separates the residential section from the downtown skyscrapers that you mentioned -- and walk down Lakeside Drive, walk up the circular drive and walk toward the garage and peer through the gate at that spot. The doorman won't stop you. It's quite lovely. Or if you like, let's connect and we can meet my friend who lives at the Regelis and we can take their elevator up to their laundry room and gaze upon the lovely bird's eye view from those windows. Can I ask you a question? I am going to ask you this as gently as I can:... what led you to only take pictures of... a potting shed? Especially if you are so well acquainted with the neighborhood as a resident? Just curious.

I live in a tall apartment building in downtown Oakland - I don't drive. Ever. Some of us our more concerned about the environment than our views.

Proposed apartment building would include several floors of parking and assumes each unit would generate an automobile. I walk too, but I try not to be self-righteous about it.

Do you really not own a car, Naomi? I find that difficult to believe. I also live nearby (17th and Jackson), and I can't believe how ridiculous the people on this blog are. Those pictures discussed above are all the public gets to see of this garden. I think everyone should look at them. I, for one, would have been outraged beyond belief if I had discovered that the city agreed to pay enormous sums of money to maintain the elegant garden of a bunch of rich people at the expense of us regular folks in Oakland. I wish I didn't have a job so I could go to that hearing on Tuesday and speak up for sanity.

According to the history files I've seen...the Schilling gardens were regularly held open for the public to visit, just as other private estates were...during that period. Its all there to read about...at the library history room.

Can Naomi, or anyone, tell us more about the proposed land swap? Seems the developers are "very interested" and so am I.

Just a quick note to Smoothe/Cole: "Those pictures discussed above are all the public gets to see of this garden. " Actually that's not true. The public does NOT see empty potting sheds. Smoothe peered through the bars of the service gate and took picture of them. It's like... going into an elegant house, taking a photo of a kitty litter box on the back porch and then, afterwards, showing pictures to your buddies and crowing that where Fluffy answers the call of nature is representative of the entire house, and IS, in truth, the entire house. It appears that Smoothe -- who says he lives adjacent to the property -- committed the sin of omission.

It never occured to me to walk through a private driveway and peer through the front gate of a private apartment building to see a "public" garden. The portion abutting Snow Park is the public portion, and has no value. The elegant landscaped park Ms. Reiser saw is only visible to the residents of the ultra-luxury apartment building. This proves our point - there is no public access and no public value to this garden. The idea that Oakland should spend scarce public resources to benefit a 20-unit luxury apartment complex is laughable.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but there are four sides to the square garden. Two sides edge public property. Without trespassing you could have looked through a fence abutting Snow Park that shows a generous glimpse of the garden proper. You showed only the "litterbox on the back porch." And your characterization of the land deal isn't what the owners were proposed to City staff. Having said that, it will be interesting to hear what transpired this afternoon from those who had a chance to attend. Looking forward to those observations! Have a good day everyone.

I know we all need to be careful in what we allow built and not built in our wonderful city, but sometimes we need to look at the big picture. Although the housing market of recent years has helped make many blighted areas of our city look a bit better, we still have a long way to go. We need to let developers, especially those willing to take the huge risk of building a high rise, build them. Downtown Oakland and the Lake Merritt areas still need much work. Think about it when a high rise condominium is built you have the opportunity to not only enhance the city's skyline. You get property takes from hundreds of home owners going into the city/neighborhood. You can build 12 units of housing on one of those ugly beat up parking lots that no one will ever see or even admire. Or you can build hundreds of units of housing all paying into the local economy as well as give the city another iconic building that we can all be proud of. Think of all the stink that went on about the Essex before it was approved. We could have either kept that big hole in the ground for more years to come or build this wonderful building. As far as I am concearned they can build a new high rise on every one of those parking lots downtown and we would have a much better living environment as well as have the tax revenue we really need. STOP FIGHTING PROGRESS THIS IS WHY WE NEVER GET AHEAD OF THE GAME FOLKS.

Additional comment: Remember, it was not long ago when we could not get anyone to build anything in Oakland. We are on a roll here and it could end very soon. Instead of fighting every developer on every aspect keep in mind that there will be a time again where no one wants to build here (especially with our reputation for fighting everything)and it could last a long time AGAIN. Sooner or later developers will once again find it much easier to make their money in cities/suberbs where there is no fight. They need to get these projects going while the iron is hot. When we delay them over and over again their risk of failure is made greater and many of them give up and all we will have is those damn beat up surface parking lots and abondond or under used buildings. We will be looking back saying why where we so picky about the developement of these blighted spots. I can hear it now " do you remember when a developer wanted to spend Millions and Millions of dollars developing that surface parking lot accross the street by building a the tallest building in Oakland on it and we were so busy fighting them that we forgot that if we do not allow it all we are left with is a surface parking lot at adds nothing to our community.

I read through all these comments today, long after the property transfer occurred and I'm not sure whether anyone will ever see this comment but our investigation of the original gift offer uncovered the fact that there was no restriction that the park remain private and in fact there were few if any restrictions at all. I would not have been upset about the offer being refused if it required city tax dollars to maintain a private park. That was not the case. Nancy

In that case, Nancy, why did the staff report on the issue claim those restrictions?

At the Public Works meeting where you put the garden on the agenda, nearly every speaker who spoke in favor of the city taking the garden made it clear that they did not want public access for it. When one speaker said "unless the use of the garden is truly public, it should not receive public funds," the pro-garden crowd literally hissed at him.

I've lived in Oakland for 30 years. I remember when they wanted to have boat races on the Lake; it was the community that said leave the Lake as it is. This has nothing to do with the building or the garden other than to say that not all "city revenue" ideas are good for Oaklanders. Has anyone noticed how much more traffic there is around that end of the lake since Whole Foods went in? I live in Adams Point and just getting home now is a chore. What will happen when you have 40 stories of people trying to get home during "rush" hour? Its great that some people can live without a car, but unfortunately that is not the majority of us. For this new construction, its been said that there will be parking with the building. How much? Will it really be enough for everyone living there? Or will any available on-street parking be swallowed up by the 'second car' of the residents? Why does it have to be so tall? It may be on the edge of downtown, but we don't need downtown creeping closer and closer to the lake! There are a lot of apartments/condos/townhouses being built right now. What is the occupancy rate on them? Is there really a need for more living spaces that the majority of people cannot afford (and granted I have no idea what this building would go for, but its something that needs to be addressed)? I've seen the signs ... "Affordable condos starting at 1 million". And agreed architecture has gotten better and safer, but remember, this is earthquake territory ... would you really want to be on the 40th floor when the big one hits?!

Naomi - thank you so much for providing this forum. it's great to read about how you and others care so much about this little garden. Comments for and against the proposed development and the went-by-the waste-side-not-alerting-Councilwoman-Nadel-about-the-donation deal are so compelling (and, after finding out that Nadel read this post) that I need to leave my comment, too. Actually a few points: 1. Why do you care so much about this little piece of ... that is not accessible to the public. It is currently flanked by 2 huge buildings, parking to get to this place or walking to it is a pain in the behind. Have you seen Snow park used like the parks in Piedmont? When Oakland residents want to hang out with their childen, they go to Piedmont parks . ... 2. There are so many other places, with much more historical significance than this garden, are neglected because lack of funding. why spends city monney to keep Willie Brown's investment up (he is not even shy about that! the audacity of that man!) ? Hang out at Snow Park lately? Walk or jog up and down the Cleveland Cascades, play a set of tennis at the Athol Tennis Courts, rent a kayak at the Lake Merritt Boating Center, read a book from the Main or Lakeview Library, or bring your magical keys to enjoy a whole new world at Children's Fairyland: done any of these things lately? How about the Wildlife sanctuary? Been to the Dunsmuir house lately? Better check it out because it's not going to be there after an earthquake. there isn't money to retrofit it! And, how about Pardee home? visit it lately? or too scare to go down that neighborhood? And, where are the visitors? At Golden Gate Park? And, boys, who want to be mugged before they even get out of the car to visit ... Nancy, if you read this, i'd like to know what you are doing about hiring a city manager who can actually manage rather than freeloading the tax paying residents. What are you doing about getting the guns off the street and keeping Oakland kids in school reading and doing math. Preservation is great, but ho'cw about preserving what are already here and improving them, making them safe so Oakland - all of Oakland - can benefit instead of wasting City $$ to statisfy a handful of your constituents. Oakland is much larger than just the area you represent. Naomi - since you are so good at this PR stuff, could you organize a clean-up-goose-crap and all the scary stuff around the lake?? Thanks a whole bunch.

Bascially my reading of the staff report is that they acted correctly. The donor placed restirctions on the property that would not have allowed it for general public use. Given that, the donor may have wished to preserve the beauty of the private park and suspected opening the park to general use would have quickly deteriorated the site. Catch 22. So the potential donor sold the property, certainly their right. Now the new owner will have to deal with public opinion and the City of Oakland. But given the recent Deborah Edgerley disaster and Mayor Dellums lack of direction, its evident there has not been sufficient oversight on spending. And given that staff and public servant salaries combined with generous compensation packages are growing ridiculously expensive, the city has to find ways to increase reveneue. A 40 story apartment complex will generate significant real estate taxes to city and county coffers. So regardless of public opinoin the City has a vested interest in allowing developement to go forward. Is this the right econimic environment for such developement? Probably not but its a free market system and the developer, if allowed, can decide to take that risk. On a very simplicitic gut level feeling I would be apposed to further developement on the site and wish it could be used for all Oaklanders as it exists now.

it's been a year...Is this still a go? Considering the economic climate. Who would pay so much to live in Oakland now?

I agree that the proposal didn't reach a point of being workable. That is why it should have been brought to the city council and the public. Then we could have used the bright light of open government to work toward a reasonable deal. Many Oakland citizens have been involved in substantial fundraising efforts toward parks and park improvements. But here despite the potential for a major land donation, there was no opportunity to explore funding sources, or what citizen interests might be. Of course one would want public use! But there was no opportunity to air the issues. social security office locations New York