Dear Larry,

While I personally try to avoid putting unhealthy substances into my body, which includes not smoking anything, I support Proposition 19 for several reasons. First, I believe that the people should be able to decide whether or not to continue to criminalize the personal consumption and possession of marijuana for recreational use. Second, despite the fact that I personally believe that recreational marijuana use is not in the best interest of a person’s health, we already allow the consumption of many other substances, such as tobacco and alcohol, that are at least as unhealthy, if not more so. It seems somewhat arbitrary to insist on the criminalization of marijuana while allowing the legal use of these other detrimental substances. Third, I believe that it is simply indefensible to incarcerate people simply for the possession or use of marijuana. It not only places unnecessary stress on our already overburdened corrections system but, worse, it can potentially ruin many young people’s lives by limiting their employment opportunities and exposing them to a hardened criminal element. Finally, by eliminating the black market for recreational marijuana, not only will the price decline, which itself will likely reduce small property crimes, but, more importantly, it will reduce the violence inherent in criminal drug enterprises, at least concerning marijuana.

As to Measure V, I do not believe that Proposition 19 has any effect on that measure, with the exception that Measure V has a clause allowing the tax to be extended to commercial producers of recreation marijuana if Proposition 19 passes. I understand that there is some disagreement as to whether or not the measure should be passed, based largely on the belief that an increase in the tax imposed on medical (and possibly recreational) marijuana will simply drive customers to other locals without such taxes. I believe this is a possibility but I also believe that the potential tax revenue, as stated by Measure V proponents, is overly optimistic. This is largely due to the decrease in price that will result from the elimination of the marijuana black market. That said, while our City is in desperate need of tax revenue, my personal belief is that voters in this economic climate are not likely to enact any new taxes. There is always the possibility that a majority of voters will view the Measure V tax as something they won’t have to pay and enact it, but it’s far from certain. I do not view Measure V as inordinately unfair or burdensome but, as mentioned, I do not believe it will generate the amount of revenue that has been claimed.

Regarding your final question, I am not certain what you are asking. Proposition 19 does nothing to change California law regarding medical marijuana. I am somewhat concerned regarding the fact that the current permitting of medical marijuana production seems to be inordinately favorable to several large producers at the expense of smaller growers but I believe that some form of regulation is necessary in this industry as it is in the production of many other consumer goods. If Proposition 19 fails to pass, other commercial production, which I believe is the focus of your question, would be illegal. Therefore, the City would be legally barred from issuing any permits for the production of non-medical marijuana production.

Thank you, Larry, for asking your questions. As Election Day looms I believe it is vital that all our citizens actively investigate the choices before them for Oakland Mayor. I hope that you will consider supporting my candidacy by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman for Oakland Mayor this Tuesday, November 2. Remember, in ranked-choice voting, you are able, and I encourage you, to vote for your top three choices for Mayor. I hope you will consider making me your first choice.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

I am both supportive of the arts on a personal level and based on the more pragmatic consideration regarding the economic benefits such a community provides. These benefits are not only realized through the actual income derived from the arts themselves but are also realized through an increased reputation of desirability for Oakland that, in turn, attracts more visitors here. Those visitors also create an economic benefit through their spending. As a result, I will do everything within my power to maintain the City’s support the non-profit arts sector. That said, as Mayor, my primary responsibility is to ensure the health and safety of our residents. Provided that this can be accomplished and that the money remains available for such support, Oakland will continue to support the arts under my administration.

Given the vast critical problems facing Oakland, I cannot definitively state when I might convene such a task force. I do believe that such a campus would be to our benefit but, in all honesty, if the money isn’t available to maintain vital services such as those involving public safety and public health, I would have to prioritize their restoration over any expansion in arts funding, even for so worthy a project. As to how such a task force might be convened, I would work with the Cultural Affairs Commission as well as local groups such as the Oakland Cultural Trust and others to identify, contact, and request the participation of those qualified members of our local arts community who together provide a representatively diverse group of citizens. Once such a group of candidates was secured, I would meet with each in order to ensure that a wide variety of perspective comprise the task force.

A major component of my economic revitalization plan involves the coordinated use of non-monetary incentives, such as rezoning and tax breaks, to attract private sector employers city-wide and shift Oakland’s budgetary reliance away from property and transfer taxes and towards a sustainable vibrant sales tax base. On focus of this plan is on growing our retail base, while another is focused on attracting major employers in the high-growth industries of green energy, biotech, and the digital arts. This last aspect speaks to your question. I believe that local arts, be they performance arts or those that fall in the classic definition are vital to both the welfare of our culture and of our economic viability. As such, I will always encourage those who create within theses disciplines to remain a part of our City and through some of the incentives I have mentioned and others that time does not permit me to go into here, we can both maintain our current creative base while also expanding it.

Yes, I would support the inclusion of Cultural Equity considerations in the Sustainable Opportunities section of reports submitted to the City Council. I believe not only is the expansion and preservation of the arts culturally and economically beneficial to our City but also that this consideration should also reflect the diverse and vibrant community that helps to define Oakland as the jewel of the Bay Area. As to implementation of the inclusion, this is a question that I can’t fully answer at this time. After speaking with several policy aides to various City Council members and requesting this information from the City Attorney’s Office, I have yet to receive clarification as to the process required for adding such a requirement to the Sustainable Opportunities section in reports submitted to the City Council. If the inclusion is within the power of my office, I will include it. If such an addition requires a new ordinance or Charter amendment, I will use the power of the Mayor’s Office to strongly advocate for such legislation.

Dear Nev,

First, I apologize for the lateness of my answer. Given the hectic schedule facing me during these last few days of the campaign, I simply have not been able to keep up with my correspondence to the degree I prefer. While this is no excuse for my tardiness, I nevertheless offer this explanation so that you will know that my lack of response has only been for this reason.

As to your question, I must state at the outset that I’m not certain I can agree with your final characterization. I believe that it is entirely possible, using smart, common sense, long-term planning to support both development and the interest of Oaklanders. I also believe that developers, or anyone else, should have access to their elected officials, including the Mayor. I do not believe, however, that they should have any greater access than the least powerful among us. To the degree that this appears to have happened in this case, I do not support such “pay to play” politics. That neither the access nor the development process itself was undertaken in this way by our current career-politician elected officials speaks both to your obvious distress and to the reason that I am running for Mayor of Oakland.

That said, my understanding is that the Oak to Ninth Project is largely immune to further action by the next Mayor. The agreement made with the developers of this project not only provided them with a “buy back” of their total indebtedness, in the form of a payment by the City to cover the inclusion of affordable housing that should have been a prerequisite to any agreement beforehand but they also are allowed to extend the payments required by the deal indefinitely. Therefore, even though our elected officials have given the developers the $18 million dollars they were to pay for the deal, there is no requirement that the developers even use that money to satisfy their debt and the chance that they will default in some way is largely eliminated.

I am deeply concerned with the form of the agreement regarding the Oak to Ninth Project as well as the actual plan itself. From the redesignation of tidal lands by my former Sacramento career-politician opponent, in order to allow development on those lands, to the claim that parks are being provided, even though that land is part of the Tideland Trust and cannot be developed at any rate, to the forced payment by the City to ensure that at least some of the development provides affordable housing, this project is a classic example of career-politics gone wrong. I do believe that both residential and economic development is vital to allowing Oakland to survive the crises that our career-politicians have placed us in. I do not believe that such development should take the “backroom pay-off” form that is illustrated by the Oak to Ninth Project. Unfortunately, I do not believe that much can be done at this late date to rectify this problem. I do support the preservation f the existing terminal building on the site and the extension of the tidelands proposed by opponents of the plan. My hope is that some accommodation can be reached on these points in order to at least mitigate the effects of this ill-executed plan. I am particularly saddened by the fact that this mismanaged, overly generous plan has cost Oakland one of the potentially beneficial areas in our City. Under my administration, Oakland will continue to be developed. I differ however in my approach. I will not sacrifice the best interest of Oaklanders for those of political powerbrokers, cronies, or entrenched special interests. As your Mayor, my Oakland will be your Oakland. It will not be for sale to the most politically advantageous buyer. I am sorry for the way this project was formalized and I apologize on behalf of the City for its dereliction in this regard.

Again, I apologize to you Nev for both my own tardiness in replying to your question and for the inability of our career-politician elected officials to see beyond their own selfish political gains. You deserve better, I deserve better, and, most importantly, Oakland deserves better. I hope that you will consider supporting my candidacy by casting your vote for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2. Together, we may not be able to rectify the damage wrought by this project but we can ensure that any development undertaken in the future appropriately balances the need for economic expansion with those of our people and not our career-politician elected officials. I hope you will join me in achieving this laudable and necessary goal.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

You are correct that there is a greater economic impact created by local residents. There are two key reasons for this. First, the entirety of the profit generated by any business owned by an Oakland resident will remain in Oakland. Second, that resident is far more likely to spend the disposable income created by that profit within his or her own city, provided that the retail opportunities sought exist. However, there are some other issues to consider.

First, Oakland faces an unacceptable and inordinate unemployment rate that is currently just below twenty percent. When you factor in underemployment, those working people who still subsist at or below the poverty level despite being employed, the number is closer to twenty-five percent. It’s just not realistic to expect that locally owned small businesses fulfill Oakland’s unemployment needs. In a city so crippled by unemployment, as Oakland truly is, the next Mayor must increase the employment opportunities available to our residents. Large national retailers offer employment opportunities on a scale that small independently owned businesses cannot provide with the same immediacy.

Second, every successful retail model requires the establishment of certain large “anchor stores” which, through their size, diversity of products, and economies of scale act to attract consistent numbers of shoppers to their area. Through the drawing power of these anchors, smaller businesses are able to increase their own sales, whether by offering products not available through the anchor stores or by providing a level of personalized service unavailable in their larger counter-parts. In this way, a rising tide truly does lift all boats.

Having said that, I am absolutely a proponent of locally owned businesses. My retail revitalization plan not only insists on a city-wide, neighborhood specific retail plan that accounts for existing businesses and seeks to maximize neighborhood retail options by avoiding over-duplication of services in any one area, but also utilizes the drawing power of several nationally recognized and highly popular chains to provide locally owned smaller businesses with a greater probability of profitability.

Additionally, while I share your preference for locally owned business for a number of reasons, the fact remains that a large proportion of our population currently do not possess an inexhaustible supply of disposable income. As a result, many Oaklanders are financially unable to patronize smaller boutique shops, and will instead travel to a mass marketer in order to maximize their buying power. As Mayor, I want to increase the earning capacity of our residents, however, it cannot be denied that many of us shop at mass retailers because they offer cheaper pricing for the same goods. Until the incomes of Oaklanders rise, they will patronize these retailers. While I share your interest in seeing them patronize locally owned businesses, to be candid, if they are going to patronize mass retailers, I prefer that they do so in Oakland rather than in Walnut Creek, San Francisco, or Emeryville.

I believe that my retail and industrial revitalization plan balances the need to provide Oaklanders with diverse retail shopping options and to create large numbers of retail jobs with the need to protect existing businesses and encourage the creation of new locally owned small business. As I have explained, the two are not mutually exclusive but rather, if properly implemented, actually compliment each other. For that reason, I must respectfully decline your offer to state a blanket preference for one type of business over another. As the Mayor of Oakland, my duty is to all of the people of Oakland, and I feel that my retail revitalization plan, which combines the attraction of large national chains with the promotion and protection of locally owned small businesses, does exactly that.

I hope my answer, if not entirely agreeable to you, was at least satisfactory. Thank you for asking your question. In times of crisis such as these, it is vital that all of our citizens pose critical questions to all candidates for public office. By so doing, we all benefit through exposure to detailed positions of those candidates and best decide who we believe is the best person to serve as Oakland Mayor for the next four years. I hope you will consider supporting my candidacy by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

First, please accept my apology for the lateness of my reply to your very insightful question. As you might imagine, the final weeks of the campaign are extremely busy ones and the demands on my time continue to grow. As a result, I am not always able to respond to questions as quickly as I like but I do try and set aside some time each week to do so. While this is no excuse for my tardiness, I nonetheless hope that you can understand that the increased constraints on my time in no way reflect upon either my willingness or my desire to respond to the individual concerns of the Oaklanders who have sacrificed their own time to pose these questions to me, yourself included. That said, let me answer your question.

The purpose of parking meters and citations for violating the time limits of those meters is the facilitation of business. Simply put, parking meters exist not to generate revenue for the City but rather to ensure that potential customers of our merchants can find places to park their cars so that they can patronize our retail businesses. Somewhere along the way, this was forgotten by our career-politician elected officials who view parking revenues as yet another source of income that they can use to fund their ill-conceived and short-sighted budgetary decisions. This original, and legitimate, purpose of parking fees was reflected in Section 10.56.080 of the Oakland Municipal Code. This section, enacted in 1963, required that all parking revenues be deposited on behalf of the generating district into two funds. One-half of the fees generated were required to be deposited into the “Off-street Parking Meter Fund,” which was to be used for the maintenance and installation of parking meters in that district, and the other half of the generated funds to be deposited into the “Traffic Control Fund” to improve and preserve the flow of traffic through that particular district.

Last year, members of our City Council voted to strike this provision of our municipal code in order to allow the parking funds generated by each district to be deposited into the General Fund. The justification for this vote, which included “yea” votes by two of my competitors, was that the revenues hadn’t been properly deposited for a number of years. As an aside, I’d like to say that I do not believe that the fact that the flaunting of an existing law is itself a justification for repealing a legal requirement. Rather, I think it is evidence of an exigency which demands compliance with a legal mandate. Regardless, my opponents decided that it was a justification for converting district parking fees into another source of income to cover their budgetary mismanagement and they quickly seized upon this opportunity.

I do not believe that parking fees should be relied upon as a revenue source for the City. That was never the intended purpose for their institution and I believe that such a reliance encourages aggressive, unyielding parking enforcement that damages, rather than promoting business as was originally envisioned when such fees were instituted. Under my administration, parking enforcement will be focused on the management of traffic in order to facilitate business, not on the generation of income for the City.

That said, in answer to your question, I believe that 100% of the parking revenues generated within a district should be applied to that district. This refers to those revenues generated by parking meters. For those monies received as a result of parking citations, I believe that, once the cost of enforcement personnel has been deducted, the remainder of these funds should also be used for the benefit of the district wherein they were generated. As to the use of those funds, I believe the appropriate starting point would be the command of the stricken municipal code section I referred to above. I believe that meter maintenance as well as street maintenance of those areas should be the priority for the usage of these funds. If excess funding remains after these expenditures, then perhaps I would consider alternative uses, such as applying then in other districts for the same purposes. The key point is that parking revenues, like the fees themselves, should be used to facilitate the movement of traffic in order to benefit our businesses. They should never be merged with other funds in order to maintain a private money pot that our City Council can use to cover the failings of their compromised, political decisions. The corruption of parking fees, which converted them from a traffic facilitation device and into just another revenue source, is a large reason that Oakland is viewed as unfriendly to business and certainly has contributed to the economic crisis we face. Under my administration, this corruption will end and traffic control will be undertaken with its justifiable goal, to encourage business, at the forefront of parking enforcement.

I hope that this has satisfactorily answered your question. I do appreciate you taking the time to ask it and again apologize for the lateness of my answer. I hope you will support my candidacy by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman for Mayor on November 2 and encouraging your friends and family to do likewise.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Yes, parking revenue should be shared with the neighborhood commercial districts, and I suggested this approach when parking was discussed last year. My Council office has been meeting with community leaders to create what are called Parking Benefit Districts, so that we have the mechanism to reinvest parking proceeds to support neighborhoods with improvements - and give local residents and businesses a voice in parking policy. This has been very successful in places like Old Town Pasadena, where dedicated parking revenues have reinvigorated the shopping district with new sidewalks, street trees, and lighting. A similar approach in Oakland would help make the link, that’s missing now, between parking and the commercial districts that need parking. Revenues from Parking Benefit Districts should be controlled by local stakeholders so communities can make decisions about their needs. I would like to see 50% of new parking revenues shared between the City and the neighborhoods, and I will implement more ways to pay and get discounts for customers.

Transportation can be one of Oakland’s great strengths and a key factor in our City’s economic success and public health. We need to look at parking as part of transportation - people getting to shopping, services, and jobs. I am also working on creating a Transportation Commission that will improve planning and increase opportunities for public input on transportation policy, including parking.

Dear Veronica,

First, let me apologize for the lateness of my answer. As you might expect, the constraints on my time have grown as Election Day nears and it has become more difficult to find time in the day to answer resident’s questions as expediently as I would prefer. Nevertheless, I deeply appreciate the time and energy that you and other residents have taken to ask me probing and insightful questions, such as yours. Again, I regret that it has taken me so long to provide you an answer.

That said, after reviewing the actual text of the North Oakland gang injunction, I generally support it. I realize that there are legitimate concerns regarding the use of a civil judgment to mitigate criminal conduct. Not the least of these is the fact that the evidentiary burden necessary to obtain an injunction is significantly lower than that required in a criminal prosecution. Further, I am aware of the potential that the enforcement of any such injunction may be subject to civil rights abuses including, but not limited to, the use of racial profiling or other questionable tactics by police. In light of this, I believe that the use of civil injunctions to combat gang activity must be strictly scrutinized and any enforcement must also receive an equal degree of oversight.

I believe that the language employed in the North Oakland injunction is appropriately narrow in scope and, if properly enforced, can provide our police with a valuable tool for their anti-gang efforts. With the exception of the prohibition of association with known gang members, the injunction essentially prohibits conduct, such as drug sales, vandalism, trespassing, and forcible intimidation, that is already prohibited by our criminal laws. Further, the association prohibition and several others include exceptions for socially legitimate activities such as attending school, church, and civic meetings, conducting lawful commerce and employment, and even attending entertainment venues. As such, with my earlier caveat that enforcement must be conducted through legitimate means, I support the North Oakland gang injunction.

As to the second part of your question, the robbery problem in North Oakland exemplifies our city-wide public safety crisis. The simple truth is that Oakland suffers from an inordinate level of violent crime because of the consistently short-sighted, quick-fix, status quo approach to governance by our career-politician elected officials. As your Mayor, I will bring innovation and common sense to Oakland City government. One example of this change in policymaking is my innovative and comprehensive plan to increase the public safety of all our streets, including those in North Oakland. As your Mayor, I will increase our public safety by hiring, not firing police officers. Further I will do so without raising taxes or further alienating the Oakland Police Association as the City Council has done.

My plan involves several prongs to grow our police force. First, I will employ redevelopment funds as an interim measure to immediately mitigate the effects of the recent police lay-offs. Second, I will actively seek federal funding through the Department of Justice to add additional officers, focusing on gang and drug related crime. Next, I will incentivize early retirement by many of our most senior, and most expensive, police officers. This incentivization will allow those officers who opt to take early retirement the opportunity to be rehired at less than half-time status for the remainder of the time that they would have served had they not retired early. This allows those officers to actually increase their salaries for that period, while removing the cost of their pensions and other benefits from Oakland’s budget and allowing us to benefit from their experience.

Next, I will renegotiate with the OPA to create a second-tier starting salary for prospective recruits that better reflects the practices of similarly situated jurisdictions and Oakland’s current economic capacity. This lower starting salary will provide increases based upon duration of service, further ensuring that the officers to whom we pay the highest salaries demonstrate their commitment to our City. In order to further incentivize new hires, I will work with the owners and developers of currently vacant housing to designate a portion of those developments as affordable housing, which will be prioritized for public safety employees, including police officers. As we grow our police force, we can return street-level policing to Oakland and begin to rectify our public safety crisis.

Finally, increased police presence is only part of the solution to our public safety crisis. We must also grow the private sector employment opportunities available to our residents and ensure that Oaklanders are qualified to perform those newly created jobs. I will utilize a variety of incentives to attract large and small private sector employers to Oakland and to retain those that we currently have. I believe that it is crucial that we increase our economic viability and address Oakland’s dismal unemployment rate, which is nearly twenty percent, if we are going to effectively return public safety to our streets.

In addition to attracting these new employers, who I will require to grant hiring preference to Oakland residents, I will partner with those employers and our community colleges to create short-term certification programs that will qualify our residents for these new jobs. Cutting-edge industries such as those in the green energy, digital arts, and biotech industries are the wave of the future and I intend Oakland to be at the forefront of those industries by the end of my administration. By attracting these industries and providing training for our residents, I will ensure that we craft a sustainable revenue base for our City and provide living wage jobs for our people. This, combined with an increased police presence, will allow us to return safety to our streets and provide Oaklanders with the safe, economically viable city that we all deserve.

My plan will not achieve overnight success. It is not a quick-fix or an easy out. It requires planning, commitment, and true leadership. This is why it has never been considered by our career-politician elected officials. Such an approach is not within the status quo. It is an anathema to career-politicians who prefers platitudes to action. I am not a career-politician. I am an educator and author. I have no political aspirations beyond becoming your Mayor so that I can rescue our City from the brink of disaster in which our elected officials have placed us. When my administration is over, I will return to teaching and writing. I don’t have to worry about my political future so I can and will make the tough decisions Oakland needs.

Again, I apologize for not answering your question sooner Veronica. I do thank you for taking the time to ask it and hope that my answer to you has been satisfactory. I further hope that you will consider supporting my candidacy by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Dear Orbo,

Another great question! I agree with you that a lack of educational opportunity is a key component in Oakland’s inordinate rate of violent crime. Simply put, people strive for economic opportunity through whatever means are most readily available and, for those children who are woefully underprepared to compete scholastically, obtaining economic viability has more and more frequently involved turning to criminal enterprise. In order to reverse this trend, we need not only an adequately staffed police force but also alternative opportunities for our young people.
As you may know, the Oakland Unified School District is an autonomous body over which the Mayor exerts no direct control.
This does not, however, mean that the Mayor of Oakland is powerless to affect some degree of improvement over the opportunities currently afforded to our youths. Any solution to as complex a problem as that posed by Oakland’s educational opportunity deficit requires a multi-pronged approach, which institutes reforms for the education of those children about to enter our public schools while also addressing the educational deficits of our existing students by taking remedial action to improve the opportunities for those about to leave our school system.

First, as your Mayor, I will champion early childhood literacy. As an educator in the CSU system whose students are in large part drawn from the OUSD, I have seen first-hand the detrimental effects of under education by our public schools upon upper division university students. A multitude of educational studies reinforce the proposition that early childhood literacy, or the lack thereof, is the greatest determiner of future success in school. While the Mayor cannot institute educational parameters for the School District, as your Mayor I can and will lead by example. I have already pledged that I will visit every kindergarten class in Oakland and devote two hours to reading to the children and speaking to their parents about the importance of family reading as a tool to promote literacy. Further, I will continue the current Mayor’s program of encouraging every City employee to volunteer to our schools on their own time. Additionally, I will seek federal and state funding to increase the availability of afterschool literacy development programs for all our students.

Second, I will face the facts as they are for our current students. Certainly literacy efforts should be extended through every grade but the fact remains that we have a large proportion of under educated young people within our district. Some will excel as the result of an increased focus on academic achievement through literacy but some will not. Those who do not should not be left behind. I believe that there is an important place in public education for vocational training. I will advocate that the OUSD use of some of the funding obtained from the State and the federal government to reinstitute vocational programs in the middle and high schools. For those who simply are uninterested or incapable of achieving traditional academic success, vocational or “shop” classes can give them the necessary leg up to compete for industrial employment. Rather than the old standbys of wood or metal shop, I would seek to create vocational classes for the 21st Century that taught the skills necessary to obtain employment in our burgeoning green industry.

Third, for those students nearing the end of their academic careers in our District, I would like to see the OUSD partner with our community colleges, much as already done in San Francisco through the SFUSD partnership with City College of San Francisco. This would provide those students who are academically prepared to take advanced placement courses that earned them college credit and would also provide a more detailed course of study in the vocational areas mentioned above. This is particularly true in light of my plan to facilitate a partnership between the City, potential new industrial employers, and our community colleges to create certificate programs that will both provide our students with necessary skills and also create a base of qualified Oakland applicants for the jobs of those employers.

I thank you Orbo for taking the time to ask your question. In order to rectify the degree of damage our career-politicians have wrought upon us, we need not only a clear, honest, and direct leader but also an informed citizenry who holds all candidates for public office, including myself, accountable for not only their intentions but also their plans to achieve those goals. I hope that you will support my candidacy by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Dear Daniel,

First, let me apologize for the lateness of my reply. The fact is that as the time before the election grows shorter, the constraints on my time grow larger. Regardless, I value every interaction with Oakland voters and am sorry that it took me so long to respond to your question. I can only apologize and ask for your understanding.

As to your question, let me say first and foremost that I strongly support the requirement that all residential development include a certain percentage of affordable housing. In our City, which faced critical economic devastation as the result of the misguided and short-sighted policies of our elected career-politicians, I believe any other policy would be unconscionable. We need to not only keep Oaklanders in Oakland but also need to provide them with the opportunity to escape the cycle of tenancy and become homeowners. This not only improves our lower-income residents overall financial security but it also ensures a dedicated populace while simultaneously increasing the City’s tax base.

That said, I cannot provide you with a specific percentage of redevelopment funding, which I could commit for that purpose prior to assuming the office of Mayor. The main reason is this. Our City is in a financial crisis that is bordering on bankruptcy. The only way to reverse our descent into the abyss is to significantly increase our tax revenues while also reducing our costs, particularly as they pertain to benefit, pension, and salary costs for City employees. In order to achieve this necessary goal, as your Mayor, I must concentrate our limited resources on the growth of private sector employment here in Oakland. In order to attract viable industrial and retail employers, which comply with my demand that hiring preference be given to Oaklanders, I will have to expend redevelopment resources as relocation incentives for those companies. Until I know the specific amounts available for that purpose, I cannot honestly give you a hard number in regards to affordable housing.

I realize that this is a less than satisfactory answer but it is an honest one. Many of my opponents, particularly those who are career-politicians will easily promise you the moon. I would rather tell you the truth and suffer the consequences if they arise. I can tell you that I strongly support affordable housing requirements for redevelopment. I can also tell you that, assuming the money is available, I would fully support a significant commitment to such allocation of funding. Without knowing the details of the budgetary fiasco I might inherit, I can tell you that I would like to follow in the footsteps of cities such as San Francisco that have prioritized the provision of affordable housing over concerns lacking in the moral imperative that I believe inheres in the creation of affordable housing.

Again, I apologize for the lateness of my reply and for what I’m sure seems to be a less than satisfactory answer to your question. In my defense, I can only say that I have promised you and all Oaklanders candor over pandering and, in good conscience, this is the best answer that I can provide you until I am your Mayor. I do thank you for taking the time to ask me this question Daniel. Without informed and critical voters, such as yourself, taking the time to hold all of your candidates accountable for their positions, including myself, we can never return Oakland to the greatness it, and we, deserve. I hope, despite my somewhat broad answer to your question, you will consider supporting my candidacy by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Dear Orbo,

I apologize for the lateness of my answer but as I explained earlier, it was unavoidable. I believe that the biggest obstacles that the next Mayor will face in attempting to balance Oakland’s budget are our inherent structural deficits, the inordinate and unreasonable pension and benefit obligations that the City has incurred, and our excessive and unsustainable long-term liabilities as a result of the ill-advised and ill-concieved policies enacted by our City Council and other “live for today” career-politicians.

Simply put, during the financial boom of the pre-recession 2000s, our elected officials spent first and thought later. They were well aware that they were incurring financial liabilities that could not be covered in the existing revenue stream but relied on the continuance of an artificially inflated economic expansion to cover the failure to exercise their fiduciary duty to our citizens. Salaries, pensions, benefits, and other financial obligations were all rubber stamped without a single thought as to the possibility that the well-spring of commerce might run dry. It was irresponsible. It was reckless. Worst of all, it has placed our City in financial peril. Despite their dereliction, I have some solutions to the crises they have created.

As to the pension and benefit portion, as your Mayor, upon taking office I will convene a meeting of the representatives of all city employee unions. I will lay out for them the stark truth we face. In sum, the current level of contribution incurred by our City is not sustainable and must be reduced. I will be candid with them. The fact is that, without concessions from every union that receives City contributions, we will face bankruptcy. If we must declare bankruptcy, everyone loses. The employee contracts are voided, so the City regains control over compensation but the City loses as well. Our bond rating drops, our debt costs increase and we face the possibility of receivership at the hands of the State. Bankruptcy is in no one’s interest and I believe that, in its face, concessions can be realized.

Additionally, I will insist on immediate accounting by each department head wherein they must justify every dollar spent with objective, verifiable evidence. Where there is waste, I will cut it. Where there is duplication of efforts, I will eliminate it. Where there is inefficiency, I will streamline it.

Finally, I will proactively institute the City’s budget. The days of the City Council presenting the Mayor with a budget will end under my administration. I, not they, am ultimately responsible for the execution of city government and it will be I, not they, who dictates the budgetary priorities of Oakland. Having ascertained the areas of the budget that can be cut, I will cut them. Where there is a lack of resources, I will reallocate. I will bring our budget into balance and I will do so in a way that maximizes the services provided to our citizens and minimizes the waste we have suffered through for decades of rule by career-politicians.

As to the final portion of your question, I will ensure that money allocated is efficiently and appropriately spent through a simple, tried and true, business method. When I institute a budgetary priority or a specific program, I will insist on regular reports by those under me. These reports must be current accountings that are unassailable in their detail. If I set a plan or goal for a particular revenue stream, I will demand consistent verifiable results or those responsible for that plan’s implementation will be replaced. The days of Oaklanders serving their government will end when I am your Mayor. My administration will eliminate self-service from Oakland City Hall and will insist that you receive the government you deserve – a government that exists solely to serve you, the people, and not one that seeks to enrich the fortunate few who control it.

I hope that this has answered your question Orbo and, again, I apologize for the lateness of my reply. Thank you again for your insightful and critical question. Every elected official and candidate for public office should be held accountable by the people. I thank you for the opportunity to do so today. I hope that you will consider supporting my candidacy by cast your vote for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Dear Tonya,

First, please accept my apology for the lateness of this reply. As you might imagine, as Election Day nears, the constraints on my time grow and I am not able to devote as much time to the answering of voter’s questions as I would prefer. That said, I am running for Mayor for the sole purpose of serving each and every resident of Oakland and feel that it is very important that I respond to their concerns as I am able.

Your question raises a very important, if contentious, issue. I, myself, try to be as healthful as I can. I am an avid tri-athlete and do my best to eat as healthily as possible. This does not mean that I am not occasionally prone to the “junk food” craving but, for me and many Oaklanders, this is an indulgence rather than a daily reality. Unfortunately, for the residents of West Oakland without the ability to travel miles to a grocery store, this unhealthy indulgence is their only choice of sustenance.

I am absolutely committed to changing this reality. West Oakland should have not one but several competing full-service grocery stores. You, I, and the City Council agree on this point. Where we part is on the best method by which we can achieve this goal. In my opinion, the use of eminent domain for this purpose is not only fraught with danger but is also potentially unnecessary. Please let me explain.

Eminent domain, as you may know, is a government “taking” of property and is governed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As such, it is subject to a reasonableness review by the courts. It is not enough that compensation be provided to the previous property owner but there must also be a public purpose for the taking of private land to justify its seizure. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court determined that private property could be taken by the government and granted to another private party if such a grant served the public interest. This is undoubtedly the basis for the vote by the City Council. The problem is that the decision does not allow any government seizure in a private party to private party transfer but only allows those that serve a verifiable public interest, such as economic revitalization. The Court specifically stated in Kelo that it was the breadth of the revitalization effort that was decisive in that case and left open the possibility that lesser efforts might very well fail. To date, there has not been a single case where a government entity attempted to take a piece of private property for transfer to another private entity for the limited purpose of creating a single store or business of any kind. In my opinion, this is because such a limited public purpose would fail to satisfy the standard espoused in Kelo.

Unfortunately, the vote by the City Council is yet another example of short-sighted pandering policy that is intended to win immediate votes while failing to adequately address a real problem. Worse, such an action continues the pattern of our career-politicians in sacrificing the long-term financial stability of our City for an easy answer to a complex problem. Since, in my opinion, such a taking would not only invite legal action but would undoubtedly result in liability and a judgment against the City after trial, I do not support the use of eminent domain for any limited purpose, including the laudable attempt to bring real retail grocery opportunities to West Oakland. I do, however, have a better plan.

By utilizing zoning policies and economic incentives, I intend to grow Oakland’s retail base city-wide, including in West Oakland. I will make the attraction of real grocery stores to West Oakland a major priority of my administration and believe it can be accomplished without the drastic step of using eminent domain, which will only invite litigation against the City and delay the creation of real, healthy shopping alternatives for those residents.

I understand the frustration of our West Oakland residents. It is completely unreasonable that they cannot shop at an actual grocery store without traveling for miles but the answer isn’t in quick-fix gimmicks that not only don’t achieve the goal but actually make the situation worse. Our career-politicians can’t understand that. It’s how they got us to the edge of peril we are in. I do understand it. I will not succumb to political expediency. I will do the hard work that is necessary to bring a real solution to West Oakland and the rest of our City. I refuse to pander to you. You need to know the truth. I believe that once you do, you will support and insist on that all our elected officials provide real solutions to our problems and not platitudes and stop-gap votes that actually create more problems rather than fixing the ones we have. I can do this. With your help.

I thank you for taking the time to ask your question Tonya. It not only allows me to explain my position but to also illustrate another example of the failure of the career-politician mind-set. I hope that, even if you are disappointed by my answer, you can understand why I cannot just go along with the pandering of the crowd. Oakland’s problems are too big for anymore political games. We have to solve them now. I can and I will. I hope that you will support my candidacy by casting your vote for Joe Tuman for Mayor of Oakland on November 2nd.
Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Hi Tonya,
This is a good question and the answer is not simple. According to a report done four years ago by the Alameda County Public Health Department that examined 45 years' worth of death certificates and other vital statistics. If you're black, born and raised in West Oakland, you're likely to die of health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer 15 years sooner than a white person who was born and raised in the Oakland hills.
If you live in West Oakland you breath air polluted from thousands of diesel trucks that pass through West Oakland every day. Your neighborhood probably has more liquor stores and fast food restaurants in than in others.
So as much as I dislike eminent domain in West Oakland when it come to a grocery store with better food choices at lower prices I’m in agreement with the city council.
The main reason I entered the Mayors race is to work to bring about the kind of changes that will improve life in the inner city. Besides grocery stores we need more employment opportunities and strict regulation to control pollution on the trucks that serve the port. Doing this few things will only be a start.
I hope I’ll see you at the debate at Holy Names.
Greg Harland

As residents of West Oakland, we have Mandela Coop which provides organic vegetables, fruits, milk products and other edibles. We need more space for Peoples Grocery and we need a simple supermarket that could provide more jobs and simple things, like, a mop or aluminum foil or zip lock bags.

We need the products (we buy them elsewhere) so use eminent domain to wake up developers that are sitting on properties that are vacant. And push the owners of these properties (Krogers at West Grand and Market wants a store there) to sell. Krogers up there price for $1.4 to $2.8 and Sung Hahn the owners still wouldn't sell.

What's up with dat?

Homies from Chester Street.

Ensuring a quality education for all of Oakland's children is key to building a better future, and the schools need a respectful and collaborative partner in the Mayor's office to help make this happen. As Mayor I will not take over the schools, nor put them into receivership, but will work with the Superintendent, the independently-elected School Board, and the community to build a better working relationship with the City, and to take concrete and cooperative actions to improve both quality of and access to education in Oakland. These specifics include teacher recruitment and retention, making sure our students can get safely to and from schools, and helping our schools have the resources they need.

If our children can't safely get to school, then they can't get a quality education and our schools lose money, because funding is based on attendance. I will add a new program of Safety Ambassadors around the schools, who can work to prevent crime and bullying of students, while also helping with traffic safety. Like I did as an advocate for TransForm in 2001, I will secure regional funding to cover bus passes for students, which will help with student access and the budgets of Oakland's families. I will strengthen the Safe Routes to School program so that students have safe ways, including walking and biking, to get to school, which will also improve student health and fitness.

My administration will continue to expand health services at schools with clinics on site, and expand wrap-around community services. I will work with the School District to leverage our resources to aid education and recruit and retain excellent teachers, including helping local residents to become teachers, by using loan forgiveness programs and home-buyer incentives for teachers and other school personnel. I will use the bully pulpit of the Mayor to speak out about the value of being a teacher in Oakland, and promote Oakland as a great place to live and teach.

I will work together with community organizations, gardens, and urban agriculture groups to provide healthier food for students, since student nutrition has a major impact both on quality of life, long-term health (such as preventing diabetes) and also on learning.

Oakland needs to do a better job partnering with the schools around facilities. I will complete the long-delayed agreement on the use of school grounds for recreational programs and after-school activities funded by the City, and resource-sharing plans that can save money for both the city and the schools. I will ensure we are collaborating better on seeking new funds from the federal and state governments, and work together, rather than in conflict, on ballot measures. As Mayor, my actions specifically with the schools will be combined with broader efforts toward building a stronger economy, with local jobs and supporting local businesses to expand our local revenue base, which will benefit the schools with increased funding and community involvement. By partnering with the schools on funding, sharing facilities and programming, and improving transportation and health for students and families, while recruiting great teachers, the City can greatly aid our schools while respecting their vital role in our community.

I also invite you to watch a video of my discussion of these issues, online at: http://www.youtube.com/kaplanformayor#p/f/0/6zX8YVqLKVY

Sorry this is a duplicate, we are merging two accounts.

Over the years we have started to work with neighborhood based venues. Last year I met with the All City Council -- student leaders from the city's high schools. Many raised the issues of having safe liquor free locations where teens and others under 21 could party, dance or see performances. Some raised problem with crossing "borders" and "turf". We are trying to establish some "teen centers" run by and governed by teen councils both at rec centers and "teen zone" areas at libraries.

Some entrepeneurs have opened spaces in the neighborhoods like Flux 53 in the Melrose area or the Eastside Arts Alliance in East Lake where hundreds of youth often gather for "turf dancing" or other performances.

My office also worked with Nancy Nadel on the cabaret licensing changes to make sure neighborhood restaurants and coffee houses like the World Ground Cafe in the Laurel could feature music without paying for a cabaret license. I think we will see more entertainment at places like this that could incorporate young performers.

Finally, Superintendent Tony Smith has talked about making schools more like community centers. Many of them have very big auditoriums and arts afterschool programs. With the deep cuts in both schools and the Kids First budgets, a citywide effort to maintain the performing arts is sorely needed.

As for the Parkway I understand Council woman Pat Kernighan has been trying to work with the owners on different options over the years, she's probably the best source

This is a duplicate for jeanquan. We will try to merge the accounts.

Until the state seized about $41 million in redevelopment funds, the Council set 25% aside. We are now at 20%, the amount required by law.

If Prop 22 passes the state will not be able to take local redevelopment, gas, and vehicle license taxes in the future AND we will get the $41 M back, which was mostly slated to affordable and senior housing.

I think 5% or ($30,000,000.) would be a good start. We could use that money to begin turning foreclosed properties into affordable housing. We should however not reward the banks by overpaying and establishing a false market. It would have to be administered carefully with proper oversight to avoid creating a moral hazard.

Greg Harland

There is no question that a lack of recreational, cultural, and
educational opportunities for our young people is a problem in
Oakland. Every study I have seen affirms that old adage that "Idle
hands are the Devil's playground." Further, there is little dispute
that a city that actively encourages the growth of the arts,
including performing arts, reaps rewards, both in terms of its
cultural reputation and in real dollars generated by those
activities.
I agree that Oakland needs to actively court businesses and that
includes those who provide cultural outlets, such as live music
venues. The fact that there are only a handful of "all-age" venues
available to our youths is largely driven by economic concerns. The
fact is that the vast majority of live music venues, with the
exception of stadium and arena-sized shows, are profitable as a result
of alcohol sales. As a result they must acquire liquor licenses, a
condition of which is usually either an 18 or 21 year age requirement
for patrons.
I have received a number of emails concerning the Parkway. I have
always enjoyed that theater and was particularly impressed with the
innovative "living room" configuration employed by its most recent
operators. Additionally, the Parkway, with its prominent marquee and
corner location, has always anchored its neighborhood. I do think it
should be utilized as an economic draw to the area and that it should
remain an entertainment venue.
As Mayor, I would have limited authority to determine the use of that
privately owned property. However, there are several things that I
could and would do to encourage its continued use as an entertainment
venue and to make it easier for any new operator to provide a
profitable, all-ages venue for live music.
First, I will convene meetings with all City department heads and
committees during my first few weeks in office. At my initial
meetings with both the Planning Department and the Oakland Cultural
Committee I will make clear that I view the provision of
youth-oriented entertainment and educational opportunities not only a
vital tool in the reduction of crime but also a moral imperative of
our society. I will actively encourage the identification of
potential providers of such services and insist that the process
undertaken for approval of such businesses be thorough but expedient.
Second, I would encourage an potential venue operator to consider
alternatives to the "over-21" model in making a profit. Taking from
the previous Parkway operators, one idea would be to create a
quasi-restaurant / music venue with a wine and beer license, rather
than a full liquor license. Such an arrangement would allow the
operator of the venue to open the Parkway to all ages while still
generating reasonable profits through the sale of wine and beer to
adult customers. This has been done successfully in any number of
areas. From my own youth, I remember that this was the model that
was employed by the "Keystone/Stone" collection of music clubs that
at one time operated three venues in Palo Alto, San Francisco and
Berkeley. I see no reason why such a model would not be profitable
and, more importantly, provide an outlet for our youths while
simultaneously ensuring that the neighborhood surrounding such
venues, like the Parkway, remained vital partners in Oakland's
economic recovery.
I hope that my answer has given you an idea of my stand on both the
lack of youth entertainment opportunities and on the need to better
utilize our dormant entertainment venues. Thank you for taking the
time to ask your question and I hope that you will support my
candidacy for Oakland Mayor by casting your ballot for Joe Tuman on
November 2.

Sincerely,
Joe Tuman

Hey Conan, we are not running for Oakland mayor, but we wanted to pass this along. Have you checked out the directory of all-ages music venues provided by the awesome and amazing All-Ages Movement Project (AMP)? It looks like there are a few in Oakland: http://www.allagesmovementproject.org/directory

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be more, though, especially if it means getting old venues back on their feet.

I do not have any direct information about Mr. Newsom or others directly endorsing Mr. Perata. But Mr. Perata has a formidable reputation for fundraising for many candidates in the Democratic Party. Considering how much money is being spent by the GOP in the governor's race, It would not be a surprise that party officials would want or need to endorse Don Perata. The question really is not are they endorsing him, but what does it matter if they do? How much time has Senator Feinstein or Mr. Newsom spent in Oakland? Do they really understand what is going our city?