Oakland (Special to ZennieReport.com) – Last week, the Port of Oakland issued an announcement that its seeking developer proposals for the still undeveloped Howard Terminal property. The place the Oakland A’s new ballpark was supposed to be.
That action proves Oakland has not learned anything from economic development errors regarding the loss of our three major sports teams, the closure of businesses, and the collapse of the East Oakland business corridor.
The Port of Oakland action proves Oakland does not know how to do economic development, so passes the job off to the private sector, with lay politicians picking the winner, thus inviting accusations of corruption. The result: no city-created financial plan, no real project manager because the politicians are seeking the media spotlight, and ultimately a project that never gets done, or takes too long to get off the ground. Here we go again.
Let’s review what the Port of Oakland did, then why it’s a mistake, and then how it should be done.
The Age-Old Oakland Mangled And Corrupt Process The Port Of Oakland Is Using
This is what the Port of Oakland put out:
Port of Oakland seeks development concepts for Howard Property
50-acres adjacent to Jack London Square – A transformational development opportunity
Oakland, Calif. – September 6, 2024: The Port of Oakland has issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking a developer for its 50-acre Howard Property. Located along the Oakland waterfront, this site is a former marine terminal that has not been used for cargo vessel operations since 2013. Howard Property is adjacent to industrial operations to the west and Jack London Square—the East Bay’s top waterfront entertainment destination—to the east. The Port will consider a wide range of submissions, including maritime, light industrial, commercial, recreational, and/or water-oriented uses.
Here’s What Is Wrong With The Port of Oakland’s Approach
The big problem with the Port of Oakland’s approach is that, once again, we leave the future of Oakland’s very economy to the whims of a private developer with an idea, rather than to something that’s the result of civic planning and collaboration. How many times do we have to put ourselves in the position where we’re looking for a “billionaire group” to get something done, thereby inviting the anti-billionaire Oaklanders to complain? And that will invite the constant and correct concerns about gentrification and homelessness.
So, what happens is a constituency is formed in opposition to the project, and we get the same “pro vs. con” gossip we’ve had for years. That has not done Oakland any good. It makes the City look like it’s without sound leadership, and the results, or lack of same, back those claims.
Here’s What The Port of Oakland’s Approach Should Be: A Task Force Design-Build Competition Framework
The Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland’s Economic Development Department should form a task force for the development of Howard Terminal. The objective of that group, consisting of Port and City economic development and real estate staff, designated members of the Port Commission, two Oakland City Council members, one County Supervisor, and 10 members of the Oakland community, one for each Councilmember, two from the Chamber of Commerce, an economic development consultant, a community development consultant, The City Administrator and one Assistant City Admin, and staff interns to help with communications and outreach.
That task force would look at what large scale development concept is best for the property with respect to Oakland needs. It would determine objectives for the project and then look at various submitted ideas and concerts, with respect to those desired outcomes, and then form a desired land use, the land to be available for development, the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District and Public Financing Authority to be formed, and the targeted amount of tax increment financing to be made available to the developer.
Then, that task force would hold a kickoff meeting to present the plan and announce the subsidy the Port of Oakland / City of Oakland would make available via tax increment financing. And then it would present the request for proposals to build that public / private project.
The advantages of this design-build competition format are numerous. In a document on the subject, the Varisco Design Build Group says “Design Build encourages direct and efficient communication channels among architects, engineers, contractors, and clients. With all team members involved from the project’s early stages, decision-making is expedited, potential conflicts are resolved swiftly, and a shared understanding of project objectives is shared. Streamlined communication enhances project efficiency and minimizes delays.”
This process can be simplified to be understood as: task force, land use objective, RFP, Design Competition, Developer Selection, ENA, then DDA, then groundbreaking.
The Design Competition would allow the public to see what the development would look like from the perspective of competing developers, have them present their model for view in Oakland City Hall, and then pick the winning development team. San Francisco used that model to pick the winning architect and developer for the Transbay Transit Center in 2007. (See the video below).
The result is a more focused and controlled and less politically-sloppy effort that has a set of reasons for it that reflect what the community wants and not a private billionaire developer. It also reduces the constant spectre of political corruption, where a developer that pays money to politicians gets their approach considered over one that could be better from an economic development perspective.
The task force gives Oakland a chance to really shape its needs from the start, adding various goals that complement the land use objective. For example, affordable housing can be part of the land use, or the task force may want a design that fuses live-work, open space, theater, and sports and entertainment uses into the project.
Nationwide, a number of iconic public / private development projects have come from this kind of process, like the Harold Washington Library Complex in Chicago as one example and the SalesForce Transit Center in San Francisco, as another one. In the Harold Washington Library Complex case, Chicago had a 45-person task force, and offered a $140 million subsidy to the winning architect / developer team.
In this new process the Oakland task force has the chance to fashion a new way to offer a fixed, predetermined subsidy that matches the land use project objective, up front. Now, developers and the public know what to expect and can plan accordingly.
In addition, the design / build competition will become a media-driven event that sells the public on a positive future for Oakland. The pre-packaged approach gives far more certainty to the project and confidence in Oakland’s ability to get it done.
The Public Task Force, Not The Private Developer, Shapes The City of Oakland
In Oakland’s case, Howard Terminal provides a number of possibilities, but we never ask what the City of Oakland itself really needs. Recently, it has always been a sports facility that was a team’s urgent need and so the City was slow to respond to the demand for it, and then the team left.
NFL Relocation Point Man Eric Grubman said it best about how Oakland was going about the Raiders Stadium project in 2016: “Oakland is reacting, rather than planning”. This new approach is planning, and not reacting. The Port of Oakland’s RFP call causes reaction to what the developer wants and the City has nothing to offer in the form of a concrete predetermined subsidy incentive. Then, we will see more reacting to news about what the developer will do next. The task force approach ends that.
The Task Force Approach Lets Port of Oakland And Oakland Determine Its Future
We never asked ourselves why doesn’t Oakland have a large convention center and hotel complex to take advantage of the tourism industry? Or, why can’t we focus and make our own new sports and entertainment complex with AASEG as master developer, and then other partners, to provide another possibility for how such a model of organizing can work.
In short, Oakland has not worked to shape its economy, but has been content to have others, outsiders, shape it.
This approach would form a true public / private partnership, focus our resources, and act faster to build our Oakland economy.