Mayor Announces Parks Are No Longer a Priority for Emeryville
It's Only Housing, Housing and More Housing For Emeryville
General Plan Parks Policy Overturned With Mayor's Proclamation
News Analysis
Emeryville’s mayor Tuesday night, finally put to words why Emeryville has stopped building new parks; “Because people don’t need to sleep in a park, they need to sleep with a roof over their head” he said, adding that “the region is suffering from a lack of housing”.
The surprising announcement came as a response to questions from the Tattler at the City Council meeting, when Mayor John Bauters presented a major reversal of settled public park policy for Emeryville. He said the City of Emeryville will no longer prioritize building parks, focusing instead on building as much housing as fast as can be built. “Our housing jobs balance is off” he offered as a rationale.
While his City Council colleagues looked on silently, the Mayor did not equivocate, “Every person on the City Council agrees we wish to expand parks and find opportunities to do that but not at the cost of housing” he said.
Mayor John Bauters He says Emeryville needs housing instead of parks. He presents a false equivalency between the two: it's going to be parks or housing and he choses housing. |
The issue of parks was discussed Tuesday night as a result of developers who had responded to a request for proposals from the City of Emeryville to build a large, new all rental residential tower on land south of Christie Avenue park. The developers told the Council they were prepared to expand the existing park by as much as 10,000 square feet if they are given permission to build their proposed project. But 10,000 square feet of park expansion is anemic, short by about 120,000 square feet if we are to keep pace with what the General Plan says should be built to offset the proposed tower.
The false equivalency of parks or housing put forth by Mr Bauters mimics draconian language from the national housing advocacy organization YIMBY, a group with tendrils extending into the Emeryville City Council. YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), a lobbying organization funded by developers and right wing entities such as the Koch brothers, was formulated as a pro-development foil to the discredited and disorganized NIMBY phenomenon that local residents sometimes engage in to fight undesirable development. Other cities in the Bay Area have also recently taken up the YIMBY cause, some council members taking money from them and approving formerly controversial development projects as the organization grows in political power. Several Emeryville City Council members are associated with YIMBY and at least two have taken money from them, either directly or indirectly.
It's important to note while NIMBY represents opinions and behavior from individual citizens and as such is not an organization in any meaningful sense of the word, YIMBY is a powerful lobbying organization funded by interested parties, often with corporate dark money.
What Mayor Bauters failed to note as he announced Emeryville’s new park policy is that our guiding document, the General Plan, says Emeryville DOES need to build more parks. A lot more. In fact, more than 50 acres of parks are delineated by the sunset of the General Plan in 2030. As of 2020, Emeryville had (and still has) only 22.4 park acres. We should have had 41.6 acres by 2020 if we were following the General Plan.
Mr Bauters’ unquantified announcement that the City will not build parks until some future day when there is enough housing, was really more of an imprimatur, finalizing what has been a 'no park' trajectory by the City since the General Plan was written more than ten years ago. The City has not been building parks nearly fast enough to offset all the new housing being built and Emeryville has been falling further behind our designated park needs every year. The mayor’s announcement simply puts to words what has been the City's default policy of not building enough parks.
The ‘parks or housing’ false choice proffered by Mr Bauters belies Emeryville’s massive market rate housing boom of recent years. The City has been building housing at a prodigious rate. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that Emeryville wants to exceed housing requirements from the Association of Bay Area Governments by 50 percent even while neighboring cities are failing to meet the ABAG housing minimums. The Chron reported as such, "One Bay Area town, the small city of Emeryville, is shooting to not only meet the target but exceed it by a mile". Councilman Bauters admitted as late as 2019 the City was doing its share building housing, “Developers line up to build in the City”, giving Emeryville a “pro-housing” designation, he told the Real Deal, a local real estate magazine.
YIMBY Prom Court Ms Martinez, a vocal antagonist against planning and a long time critic of ABAG's housing needs assessment, was also a 'VIP' guest at the October YIMBY prom gala. |
So while Emeryville has built housing more than what the jobs/housing balance actually requires as tabulated by ABAG and in spite of Mayor Bauters’ proclamations, Mr Bauters now says the City needs to step up even more in its zeal to build housing. Taken at his word, the parks-at-the-expense-of housing equivalency presented by Mr Bauters hints that whereas before Emeryville could presumably build parks, now we can’t, regardless of what our General Plan says. Parks are a luxury Emeryville can no longer afford Mayor Bauters implies.
The new no parks policy has come at a bad time for our town. Emeryville has been the worst city in the East Bay area for parks for decades. Our residents per acre of park in 2020 was at 549. That number has gone higher since 2020. We need to be much lower; three acres for every 1000 residents or 333 residents per acre. As we build more housing and don’t build enough parks to offset the increase in population, every year Emeryville gets worse. And with Mr Bauters’ new no parks policy, delivered by executive fiat, that will likely be our fate. Against all this pressure from an outside organization and barring a democratic pushback, Emeryville is now on track to remain the worst city in the East Bay area for parks into the foreseeable future.
Mayor Bauters refused to comment for this story but he said his comments made at the City Council meeting can be quoted as accurately portraying his policy ideas.
Only Brian Donahue would take what the mayor said about needing more housing as a negative thing. Who besides Brian doesn't know we need more housing? You try to make this a criticism against John and you just make yourself look stupid.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but you're wrong: it's not just me that thinks the Mayor's statements about Emeryville needing more market rate housing is incorrect. ABAG also says it. How do they know? They conduct a jobs/housing assessment every few years (for each new RHNA implementation period). The data for this is garnered scientifically. It is not anybody's opinion guiding the data collection. As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, every RHNA implementation period, Emeryville exceeds the minimum numbers for market rate housing while the neighboring cities always fall flat. So Mr Bauters is correct when he says that the REGION needs more market rate housing....but notice how he conflates the region with Emeryville? He's hoping you don't notice. Because Emeryville doesn't need more market rate housing. YIMBY, the City Council and developers don't want Emeryville residents to be able to build parks because that might come at the expense of housing as Mr Bauters says. So they have to keep us in the dark about the data so we don't start thinking we could get something nice for our town. Developers have always seen Emeryville as a pushover for the development they want to build (and profit from of course).
DeleteCount me as someone that likes parks. But I am appreciative of the mayor for not ignoring the issue. I do think the people should have a right to have their say about this and frankly I don't believe the mayor when he says the people don't want parks. His linking the people wanting housing automatically with not wanting parks is only in his own mind. We can have both and I think many more will agree with me. Thanks for the informative story.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who watched this council meeting for the affordable housing project he supported, the mayor did not say what you’ve implied. He talked about how the city regularly polls residents and the number one thing they want is solutions for housing affordability. If I recall correctly, you were the one who spoke and was attacking the housing staff person unfairly and the mayor defended her for doing a great job. This looks more like you’re trying to get back at him for doing that.
ReplyDeleteThere’s no need to struggle to recall correctly because it’a all in the video I link at the bottom of the story. Here’s the legend for you-
Delete1:09:38- I talk about 10,000 square feet not being nearly enough to offset the new housing.
1:17:55- Mayor Bauters says parks come at a cost of housing
1:42:25- Mayor Bauters says “The number one thing Emeryville residents say they want is housing” according to polls. He then conflates people wanting housing with people therefore not wanting parks. The people of Emeryville never said that in any poll taken by the City and it is very disingenuous for the mayor to put his concocted conflation as something the people said they want.
As far as me rebuffing a staff member, it is true I said I thought the City staff should not accept proposals from developers who want to segregate residents by income (as at least one of these developers were proposing), because there is an actual City policy against that. I said “I wish the staff would stop doing that”. That’s the level of my redressing the staff that night.
You are entitled to think it’s unfair for me to ask the staff (‘attack' to use your word) to follow our own policy that requires residential development to be mixed income. You are also entitled to think I don’t really think Emeryville should be getting the parks that our General Plan calls for and instead to attribute my motives to wanting to ‘get back’ at the Mayor for praising the staff. You are free to think anything your mind can concoct. But what you can’t do is posit a false narrative about what happened at the meeting because the video recording is an objective documentation. People can look and see for themselves, as much as you would rather they believe you when you say I don’t really care about parks but I only care about getting back at the Mayor. When there’s a camera recording the events, it’s not a good idea to lie about it….free advise for you.
Your answer makes my point. You say the developers “want” to segregate people. The mayor explained how tax financing works to build low income housing and the limited options affordable housing developers have. These developers don’t “want” to do that, they are trying to work within the tax law that allows the project to be built. And he also explained that staff don’t “allow” discriminatory applications. He said chastising staff for accepting applications that comply with the law is inappropriate that they did a great job in putting the process together to get great choices. I find it interesting that you didn’t post the time stamps to your comments and his response I just highlighted. Also, the other council members were silent and a couple were nodding their heads. To me, that was a sign that they were letting him do the job of replying and they agreed with him. He’s regarded by other people I know who work on housing and homelessness and he has done a lot of address the issue. The claim that he is changing the general plan which he can’t even do like that doesn’t pass a sniff test. You wrote this because someone on council finally rebuked you for publicly lying about the work the city staff do.
DeleteThank you Mr Mayor for responding. I find it interesting that you find it interesting that I didn’t time stamp a comment I made that is not related to the story. Have you noticed the story is not about segregated housing? Have you noticed the story is about parks? True, I talked about segregated housing at the meeting. I said I don’t like it and I said there is an Emeryville policy against it. I also said I think the mayor should always thank commenters who are long term Emeryville residents. I mean since you thanked one that was praising of you for living in Emeryville a long time, you should thank even critics of your policy if they’ve also lived in Emeryville a long time. Why do you suppose I didn’t put that in the time stamp? It’s interesting, isn’t it? Am I trying to cover up that you only thank commenters that praise you at the meetings?
DeleteLastly, I didn’t claim you are changing the General Plan (watch the objective video). I said you SHOULD change the General Plan if you think Emeryville people don’t want parks anymore. I mean our plan should reflect the will of the people, don’t you agree?
Damn that camera, right? It’s really getting in the way of you telling your story.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNote to readers: I deleted all my answer/comments to this person who identified as a child (as far as I could determine from the writing style).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWho said that I’m an adult?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm very confused by this article. The title says "Mayor Announces Parks Are No Longer a Priority for Emeryville". I've read the article twice start to finish and there are numerous quotes from. The mayor but none of them state that "parks are no longer a priority". In fact, he only states that parks are important. Cities have lots of priorities. It seems incorrect to conclude that in one instance where housing is being built that the city doesn't care about parks.
ReplyDeleteWell, when the Mayor said we’re not going to get parks at the expense of housing, and that was the give-a-way. Nothing confusing there. That very clearly means housing before parks. And then he refuses to qualify how much housing Emeryville needs. So what he is saying is someday perhaps when we have built enough housing, we can build some parks. Someday when developers can’t make any more profit from building housing, then we can finally have nice things.
DeleteI went to the general plan community meeting years ago and parks were the main topic of discussion. The community was very supportive of building more parks. I doubt if they've changed their minds as the mayor seems to think. Parks are expensive and I think that's why we are not getting them not that we suddenly decided we don't want them.
ReplyDelete