Thanks for all of your efforts on our behalf. You do great work.
While I do appreciate the distortions you point out, the fact does remain that digital billboards would be amazingly intrusive to a great number of people. After all, you can see the digital billboards down on 880 from up on Grizzly Peak.
A better resolution would be to ban them entirely for all the light pollution they cause for all residents.
Sadly, we will see "better" fakes taking over political discourse. Fake images were pretty easy to spot until recently, with crude cut and paste. Now the AI-generated fakes are impossible to identify. NYT had a scary illustration: A.I. Videos Have Never Been Better. Can You Tell What’s Real?
Tom, thank you for your comment. You’re right, fake imagery is getting harder to spot without anything to compare it to. That’s why this article focuses on checking the evidence found at the primary source. It’s a tried-and-true way to check the veracity of fake images and misinformation one may encounter online.
Everyone thought it was fake. But when we got proof with the OFI pdf and knew it was REAL, many wrote our city council members to try to stop it. The dubious picture should not have been posted perhaps, but the truth that billboards were being considered was not FAKE NEWS.
I do very much love the Oakland Report and Oaklandside!!! Just not this article
Alice, thank you for your comment. The point of the article is that the yellow-and-red image was indeed a fake intended to overstate the scale of the proposal and distort the debate about a real public concern. The article does not advocate for or against the billboards themselves. The article lays out a clear critique of the harms caused by the use of misinformation like the fake images, which actually serve to undermine, not help, opponent’s arguments against the billboards, several of which are valid concerns. No one wins when decisions are made based on fake images and misleading messages.
First, I want to say I love and appreciate the Oakland Report. I am so grateful that you've taken on the investigative reporting and attempting to reform the malfunctioning Oakland government and school system in Oakland. The newspapers fall far short of what you and Oaklandside are giving us.
My problems with the article are:
1) Instead of blaming several City Council members for their questionable actions for billboard deals (a previous billboard deal was a subject of the “2023-2024 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report”), you turned justice upside down by making a concerned Oakland resident the bad guy. That guy is my husband, Jeffery Kahn!
2) The picture posted was obviously an imagined rendering of a proposed billboard, BUT THE NEWS WAS NOT FAKE. The picture was not posted UNTIL IT WAS KNOWN TO BE REAL NEWS.
3) The real story is that if there is any FAKE NEWS, it is the OFI renditions, which implied billboards would be 14’ x 48’ and only the “end closure visible” when in fact they are double sided and clearly visible from much, but not all, of the park. Maybe all of the part though, the public notice says they could be 20’ x 60', with a height of up to 85' above highway grade level! Higher than the “fake news” photo said!
4) They do not face away from the lake, that can be seen in the rendering provided by the OFI billboard company. I’ve been to that site, the billboard on Highway 24 would have to be MUCH higher to be seen over the trees next to it, and clearly visible at the north end of the park from its largest picnic area.
5) It was not misinformation. It was not manufactured outrage. What it was is an attempt to prevent City Council members from contracting to erect these billboards and to get word out about this before the February 10th Community and Economic Development committee vote on the billboards.
6) It took a long time for several city council member to even learn and confirm that there were billboards being proposed. Wang and Gallo refused to give them any details since the public notice had been published but wouldn’t tell them where it was published. No one could find it on the web. In fact, even at the Dec. 4 Rules and Legislation Committee meeting, council members were unable to learn the proposed locations.
7) I am glad to know that the PG&E sites are alternatives, but a better, more interesting and helpful news story for better Oakland governance would have pointed out they should not be alternatives at all. Ever. They violate three City of Oakland regulations about advertising sign placements, and two California state / CALTRANS rules.
8) We won’t know until the February 10 committee meeting which of the proposed sites will actually emerge as the primary five sites. I am sure, however, that the Lake Temescal/PG&E substation is a top choice for advertising signs to attract the eyeballs of drivers on heavily traveled Highways 24 and 13.
While the City Council needs to find ways to reduce the level of Oakland’s debt, there are less harmful ways than making Oakland Ugly. Digital billboards are also dangerous. There are scientific papers on studies of them causing more highway accidents. Especially at these sites, where vehicles are criss-crossing lanes to merge or exit.
When the Oakland Report first began publication, you published a wise and insightful list of ways to reduce the city budget deficit. This would have been a time to revive or link to that list as an alternative to raising funds with billboards.
Too, a reference to the Alameda Grand Jury findings would have been germane. It found that in a past billboard deal, “A handful of nonprofit organizations, not subject to competitive selection” received two thirds of the billboard revenue while the city of Oakland received only one third. Were these nonprofits chosen because their members were likely to donate to certain City Council members? If the goal was to bring in revenue for Oakland, then asked the Grand Jury, why did they choose a proposal against staff recommendations that paid the city $88 million less than a competitive billboard proposal?
We live near Temescal and the light from digital billboards would be disruptive to wildlife at Temescal- birds, deer, and residents along both sides of 24/13. It’s not the frame of the board that is unsightly - it’s the extreme light generated by the boards. Digital billboards should only be located primarily in industrial areas.
Hi GA, thank you for engaging. I’m not arguing for or against your comment, but I thought you should be aware that the PG&E substation is located on a parcel zoned for industrial use.
Hi Jeff, thank you for the clarification. My previous comment that the "parcel is zoned for industrial use" was imprecisely worded. You are correct that the parcel the PG&E substation sits on is zoned by the city as RH-4, according to the city's GIS map. However, the current *land use* of the parcel is industrial in nature, more precisely a public utility, i.e. an electrical substation. As such, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has exclusive jurisdiction over the parcel in several areas such as construction permitting.
Jeff- I forgot to add-- your statement that the parcel is "surrounded completely by residential zones and the park" is not entirely accurate. The parcel is bounded on two sides by the Highway 13 and Highway 24 freeway interchange. I point this out not as a "gotcha" but as a friendly heads up that may help strengthen your advocacy on this issue.
[I deleted a previous version of this comment that had a typo and replaced it with this comment that fixes the typo.]
It’s interesting to note that, to date, neither the billboard proposal company (Outfront/Foster Interstate), nor its City Council sponsors (Wang, Gallo), have posted any meaningful details about the proposal (are they deliberately waiting to the last minute to limit pushback on the plan?). And yet, the author of this piece seems to have all of the information about the proposed locations. It begs the question: What is the author’s relationship with Oufront / Foster Interstate? I was hoping that the Oakland Report would do their own research and unearth the real facts about this proposal instead of posting an opinion piece full of misinformation from a company trying to win a sweetheart deal with the City of Oakland.
Rich, the author of this piece, Rajni Mandal, has publicly stated her opposition to placing billboards in the PG&E Temescal sites in discussion groups. This piece is not advocating for the billboards, as it clearly stated. It is advocating for honesty in public debate.
Rajni wrote this piece because of her belief that fabrication of information is not a route to democratic decision making, even when such fabrication advocates for her own point of view.
Lying and distortion is a negative sum game. Any victory obtained through such means takes us one step closer to disorder, and one step away from freedom.
Unfounded insinuations and character assaults devoid of evidence are yet another example of the destructive behaviors that have degraded public decision making. It quells the sharing of perspective by those in the community who may be unwilling to combat such mud slinging.
Oakland Report shares Rajni's perspective on truth, honesty, and verifiability, and has written it into our operating principles and editorial guidelines, as you can see in our About page. We will and do share opinions different from our own, so long as they meet those standards.
The writer's bio says they "focus on increasing awareness about transparency in public safety and misinformation in the public discourse." Parts of the history were omitted. As you recognized on Nextdoor, there is still confusion about who is proposing to build the bilboards. You said, "I can’t find any public, [actual documentation] about what Jeff has posted," (the competing company's mock-up). As Jeff Kahn said on his Nextdoor post, "This billboard deal was a stealth proposal that City Council member and sponsor Charlene Wang tried to sneak through the city approval process. . . . In fact, at the December 4 Oakland Rules & Legislation Committee meeting, Wang refused Council member Ramachandran’s request to disclose the location of the five billboards to the committee. She said they would be disclosed prior to the Feb. 10 Community & Economic Development committee meeting," which is too late for actual public involvement in the Committee's deliberations.
Thank you for making it clear that the public is not posting fake news, ticks me off that instead of the sneaky city council members behavior that this was the main message of the article!!! When someone, we still have no idea of who it was, sent the OFI document that showed that these billboards were really under consideration, we got more active to nip that in the bud so the wouldn't be on the list at the Feb 10th meeting. For all we know, they were in the top 5 and put in the bottom 10 so council members proposing this could seem less slimy. These will NEVER be alternative sites, they violate too many city and state codes/laws. If Mandal wanted to be of service to Oakland she would let the public know how she found this information out, so that we don't have to go to such lengths in the future.
It has been clearly stated that the billboards are proposed and not yet emplaced. The calls to action are to alert Oaklanders of the sleight of hand attempt to deface the park. Rather than misleading or an attempt to deceive, it is obvious with the slightest reflection that the pictures illustrate the potential impact since the billboards remain PROPOSED. It is the Oakland Report that is sadly off base with ill-considered, self-righteous umbrage.
Phillip, thank you for your comment. the article lays out a clear critique of the problems caused when advocates resort to using misinformation to state their case. The call-to-action could have alerted Oaklanders to this issue without resorting to misinformation that undermines their credibility, and by extension the credibility of other opponents of the proposal.
The Oakland Report story by Rajni Mandal is itself deceptive. Oakland Report’s “real rendering” of the proposed Lake Temescal billboards, the one at the top of the story, was Photoshopped, or generated by AI, and provided by the Outfront billboard company. This “real rendering” is ridiculously deceptive.
The image is a wide-angle camera view of Lake Temescal which makes objects (the day-and-night electronic billboards) across the lake look substantially smaller and more distant than they are to the naked eye. I dare say that if the billboards were this unobtrusive, almost invisible in the trees, they would not serve their purpose. After all, the billboards are 14-feet-high and 48-feet-wide, according to the small print at the bottom of the Outfront image. Thus, per the words of the Oakland Report story, that “real rendering” from Outfront billboards is fake.
As for a depiction that truly represents the visual impact of these electronic billboards: Consider the electronic billboards near the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza and at night, how prominent they are four or more miles away in the East Bay Hills.
How about we see a rendering of what these new proposed billboards look like at night!
There are multiple problems with Rajni Mandal’s article.
This billboard deal was a stealth proposal that City Council member and sponsor Charlene Wang tried to sneak through the city approval process. Why? Because the public does not want electronic billboards in Oakland. In fact, at the December 4 Oakland Rules & Legislation Committee meeting, Wang refused Council member Ramachandran’s request to disclose the location of the five billboards to the committee. She said they would be disclosed prior to the Feb. 10 Community & Economic Development committee meeting (which is required by law). Ramachandran asked Wang if she would withdraw the two Lake Temescal billboards from the proposal, and Wang said absolutely not.
The Oakland Report story ignores the fact that the locations of the other three signs remained secret. Worse, it implies that the Lake Temescal locations were never primary sites. Without reporting where she got the location information (which has not been disclosed publicly by Oakland), Mandal’s story says that "In the current proposal, the 5 primary proposed locations for the proposed 5 new/relocated digital billboards are all located along the Interstate 880 freeway corridor.” If that is the case, then the attention and the public feedback this has generated is having some success. We shall see.
The biggest problem with Rajni Mandal’s article is she violated the very first rule of Journalism 101: She never attempted to contact me, the person who is being criticized, to hear my side of the story. I am a second generation newspaper reporter, and one thing I learned again and again: When you actually speak to the person who is the focus of your story, your point of view shifts. And you learn things you did not know and where you might be wrong.
P.S. I am a donor to the Oakland Report, and one of its founders, Tim Gardner, spoke to a group of us here in our home. I admire what you are doing. This particular story disappoints.
You are welcome to write a counterpoint and Oakland Report will publish it, provided it reflects our editorial guidelines. https://www.oaklandreport.org/about
Our article is not about whether the billboards should be located there or not. It's about the substance of how issues are discussed, presented, and inflamed with misleading information in this city. The article makes this point clearly, and supports it well, which meets our editorial policies.
For transparency, if you decide to write a counterpoint, please consider this perspective. The yellow/red poster that was circulated online makes verifiably false claims about the position and size of the billboards:
• They are not what was drawn by the proposal (neither shape, nor position, nor size);
• They represent billboard faces that are 300' wide and 42' high. This is 6 times larger than the proposed width and 3x larger than the proposed height.
Your commentary would need to justify why these modifications were made.
Your point about the nighttime glare is a good one and it would be good to include in a counterpoint. If an accurate visual of that simulated scenario can be created, please include it in your counterpoint.
If you can show how the proposer’s original images were inaccurate, please do. Note that we did check their images and found that the schematics are exactly to scale and are not an exaggeration of dimensions.
I am very disappointed to see this article in the Oakland Report. It goes to show how widespread the corrupting influence of these billboard companies has been. We need to go back to the clear interpretation of the 1997 ordinance that does not allow new billboards in the city of Oakland.
Greg, thank you for your comment. The article provides information about the 1997 ordinance and the 2023 amendment that allows replacement/relocation of existing billboards, which opponents of the proposal could find helpful to support their case. The article does not take a position either for or agajnst the billboards.
Billboards at that location SHOULD NOT BE ON THE LIST AT ALL. The hope of those of us opposing them was to get them off the list so that it appeared to be a non-issue. We assumed that until the list came out Feb 1, when by law it had to be published, we would not be able to find out, because several other city council members were unable to find out where they would go. In fact, we submitted a public records act request to learn all proposed locations.
We KNOW that alternative locations are always proposed, especially after the Alameda County Grand Jury Report about a prior Oakland billboard deal, which slams several city council members regards a possible conflict of interest which was never investigated. Citizens of Oakland are now aware of how sneaky legislation can be and that we need to keep an eye on it.
Meanwhile I hope that billboards at PG&E and scenic byway Highway 13 are never on any billboard list.
What a shoddy piece of writing. If Rajni Mandal had done her homework, she would know that billboards cannot go in residential areas, and that PG&E was zoned residential according to current Oakland Planning Codes: 17.13.040 Permitted and conditionally permitted facilities. Advertising signs are prohibited in zones RH-1, RH-2, RH-3, and RH-4. Putting billboards there also violates Oakland city code Policy T6.5 Protecting Scenic Routes. It says, "The City should protect and encourage enhancement of the distinctive character of scenic routes within the city, through prohibition of billboards, design review, and other means." The location also violates two CALTRANS/State of California rules about where billboards can go on freeways.
It would be a real scandal if any city council members or billboard companies tried to change Oakland zoning of PG&E from residential to commercial or ask CALTRANS for an exception.
SO: these billboards should not be on the list at all, not even in the list of 10 alternatives
The "only end closure on back of sign structure will be visible" does not mean that the billboard is one-sided and only advertising to the lanes coming west on 24. It does not mean just the back side might be seen from the park. AI says that this refers to the supporting pole. In teeny letters below the picture the OFI renditions say: "14’h x 48’w, Double-Sided Digital “V” Display" which means it will flood Lake Temescal park and neighborhoods with light and advertisements from BOTH sides.
Thanks for all of your efforts on our behalf. You do great work.
While I do appreciate the distortions you point out, the fact does remain that digital billboards would be amazingly intrusive to a great number of people. After all, you can see the digital billboards down on 880 from up on Grizzly Peak.
A better resolution would be to ban them entirely for all the light pollution they cause for all residents.
Victor, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the editor column.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20251209-yes-it-is-possible-for-oakland-letters
Excellent article. Thank you
Rajni, thank you for clarifying this issue and getting to the truth! Misinformation and fake images are so dangerous.
Luann, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20251209-yes-it-is-possible-for-oakland-letters
Sadly, we will see "better" fakes taking over political discourse. Fake images were pretty easy to spot until recently, with crude cut and paste. Now the AI-generated fakes are impossible to identify. NYT had a scary illustration: A.I. Videos Have Never Been Better. Can You Tell What’s Real?
By Stuart A. Thompson June 29, 2025
Tom, thank you for your comment. You’re right, fake imagery is getting harder to spot without anything to compare it to. That’s why this article focuses on checking the evidence found at the primary source. It’s a tried-and-true way to check the veracity of fake images and misinformation one may encounter online.
Everyone thought it was fake. But when we got proof with the OFI pdf and knew it was REAL, many wrote our city council members to try to stop it. The dubious picture should not have been posted perhaps, but the truth that billboards were being considered was not FAKE NEWS.
I do very much love the Oakland Report and Oaklandside!!! Just not this article
Alice, thank you for your comment. The point of the article is that the yellow-and-red image was indeed a fake intended to overstate the scale of the proposal and distort the debate about a real public concern. The article does not advocate for or against the billboards themselves. The article lays out a clear critique of the harms caused by the use of misinformation like the fake images, which actually serve to undermine, not help, opponent’s arguments against the billboards, several of which are valid concerns. No one wins when decisions are made based on fake images and misleading messages.
First, I want to say I love and appreciate the Oakland Report. I am so grateful that you've taken on the investigative reporting and attempting to reform the malfunctioning Oakland government and school system in Oakland. The newspapers fall far short of what you and Oaklandside are giving us.
My problems with the article are:
1) Instead of blaming several City Council members for their questionable actions for billboard deals (a previous billboard deal was a subject of the “2023-2024 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report”), you turned justice upside down by making a concerned Oakland resident the bad guy. That guy is my husband, Jeffery Kahn!
2) The picture posted was obviously an imagined rendering of a proposed billboard, BUT THE NEWS WAS NOT FAKE. The picture was not posted UNTIL IT WAS KNOWN TO BE REAL NEWS.
3) The real story is that if there is any FAKE NEWS, it is the OFI renditions, which implied billboards would be 14’ x 48’ and only the “end closure visible” when in fact they are double sided and clearly visible from much, but not all, of the park. Maybe all of the part though, the public notice says they could be 20’ x 60', with a height of up to 85' above highway grade level! Higher than the “fake news” photo said!
4) They do not face away from the lake, that can be seen in the rendering provided by the OFI billboard company. I’ve been to that site, the billboard on Highway 24 would have to be MUCH higher to be seen over the trees next to it, and clearly visible at the north end of the park from its largest picnic area.
5) It was not misinformation. It was not manufactured outrage. What it was is an attempt to prevent City Council members from contracting to erect these billboards and to get word out about this before the February 10th Community and Economic Development committee vote on the billboards.
6) It took a long time for several city council member to even learn and confirm that there were billboards being proposed. Wang and Gallo refused to give them any details since the public notice had been published but wouldn’t tell them where it was published. No one could find it on the web. In fact, even at the Dec. 4 Rules and Legislation Committee meeting, council members were unable to learn the proposed locations.
7) I am glad to know that the PG&E sites are alternatives, but a better, more interesting and helpful news story for better Oakland governance would have pointed out they should not be alternatives at all. Ever. They violate three City of Oakland regulations about advertising sign placements, and two California state / CALTRANS rules.
8) We won’t know until the February 10 committee meeting which of the proposed sites will actually emerge as the primary five sites. I am sure, however, that the Lake Temescal/PG&E substation is a top choice for advertising signs to attract the eyeballs of drivers on heavily traveled Highways 24 and 13.
While the City Council needs to find ways to reduce the level of Oakland’s debt, there are less harmful ways than making Oakland Ugly. Digital billboards are also dangerous. There are scientific papers on studies of them causing more highway accidents. Especially at these sites, where vehicles are criss-crossing lanes to merge or exit.
When the Oakland Report first began publication, you published a wise and insightful list of ways to reduce the city budget deficit. This would have been a time to revive or link to that list as an alternative to raising funds with billboards.
Too, a reference to the Alameda Grand Jury findings would have been germane. It found that in a past billboard deal, “A handful of nonprofit organizations, not subject to competitive selection” received two thirds of the billboard revenue while the city of Oakland received only one third. Were these nonprofits chosen because their members were likely to donate to certain City Council members? If the goal was to bring in revenue for Oakland, then asked the Grand Jury, why did they choose a proposal against staff recommendations that paid the city $88 million less than a competitive billboard proposal?
We live near Temescal and the light from digital billboards would be disruptive to wildlife at Temescal- birds, deer, and residents along both sides of 24/13. It’s not the frame of the board that is unsightly - it’s the extreme light generated by the boards. Digital billboards should only be located primarily in industrial areas.
GA, thank you again for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20251209-yes-it-is-possible-for-oakland-letters
Hi GA, thank you for engaging. I’m not arguing for or against your comment, but I thought you should be aware that the PG&E substation is located on a parcel zoned for industrial use.
Sean, the PG&E substation property is NOT zoned industrial or commercial. It is zoned RESIDENTIAL. See Oakland's Planning & Zoning GIS map for the PG&E substation shows that it is designated as residential zone RH-4. https://gismaps.oaklandca.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?data_id=dataSource_4-18cfefa216d-layer-2%3A13613754&id=a2ab7ee345ba4d1681700bf60681d364
It is surrounded completely by residential zones and the park.
Hi Jeff, thank you for the clarification. My previous comment that the "parcel is zoned for industrial use" was imprecisely worded. You are correct that the parcel the PG&E substation sits on is zoned by the city as RH-4, according to the city's GIS map. However, the current *land use* of the parcel is industrial in nature, more precisely a public utility, i.e. an electrical substation. As such, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has exclusive jurisdiction over the parcel in several areas such as construction permitting.
Jeff- I forgot to add-- your statement that the parcel is "surrounded completely by residential zones and the park" is not entirely accurate. The parcel is bounded on two sides by the Highway 13 and Highway 24 freeway interchange. I point this out not as a "gotcha" but as a friendly heads up that may help strengthen your advocacy on this issue.
[I deleted a previous version of this comment that had a typo and replaced it with this comment that fixes the typo.]
It’s interesting to note that, to date, neither the billboard proposal company (Outfront/Foster Interstate), nor its City Council sponsors (Wang, Gallo), have posted any meaningful details about the proposal (are they deliberately waiting to the last minute to limit pushback on the plan?). And yet, the author of this piece seems to have all of the information about the proposed locations. It begs the question: What is the author’s relationship with Oufront / Foster Interstate? I was hoping that the Oakland Report would do their own research and unearth the real facts about this proposal instead of posting an opinion piece full of misinformation from a company trying to win a sweetheart deal with the City of Oakland.
Rich, the author of this piece, Rajni Mandal, has publicly stated her opposition to placing billboards in the PG&E Temescal sites in discussion groups. This piece is not advocating for the billboards, as it clearly stated. It is advocating for honesty in public debate.
Rajni wrote this piece because of her belief that fabrication of information is not a route to democratic decision making, even when such fabrication advocates for her own point of view.
Lying and distortion is a negative sum game. Any victory obtained through such means takes us one step closer to disorder, and one step away from freedom.
Unfounded insinuations and character assaults devoid of evidence are yet another example of the destructive behaviors that have degraded public decision making. It quells the sharing of perspective by those in the community who may be unwilling to combat such mud slinging.
Oakland Report shares Rajni's perspective on truth, honesty, and verifiability, and has written it into our operating principles and editorial guidelines, as you can see in our About page. We will and do share opinions different from our own, so long as they meet those standards.
The writer's bio says they "focus on increasing awareness about transparency in public safety and misinformation in the public discourse." Parts of the history were omitted. As you recognized on Nextdoor, there is still confusion about who is proposing to build the bilboards. You said, "I can’t find any public, [actual documentation] about what Jeff has posted," (the competing company's mock-up). As Jeff Kahn said on his Nextdoor post, "This billboard deal was a stealth proposal that City Council member and sponsor Charlene Wang tried to sneak through the city approval process. . . . In fact, at the December 4 Oakland Rules & Legislation Committee meeting, Wang refused Council member Ramachandran’s request to disclose the location of the five billboards to the committee. She said they would be disclosed prior to the Feb. 10 Community & Economic Development committee meeting," which is too late for actual public involvement in the Committee's deliberations.
Thank you for making it clear that the public is not posting fake news, ticks me off that instead of the sneaky city council members behavior that this was the main message of the article!!! When someone, we still have no idea of who it was, sent the OFI document that showed that these billboards were really under consideration, we got more active to nip that in the bud so the wouldn't be on the list at the Feb 10th meeting. For all we know, they were in the top 5 and put in the bottom 10 so council members proposing this could seem less slimy. These will NEVER be alternative sites, they violate too many city and state codes/laws. If Mandal wanted to be of service to Oakland she would let the public know how she found this information out, so that we don't have to go to such lengths in the future.
It has been clearly stated that the billboards are proposed and not yet emplaced. The calls to action are to alert Oaklanders of the sleight of hand attempt to deface the park. Rather than misleading or an attempt to deceive, it is obvious with the slightest reflection that the pictures illustrate the potential impact since the billboards remain PROPOSED. It is the Oakland Report that is sadly off base with ill-considered, self-righteous umbrage.
Phillip, thank you for your comment. the article lays out a clear critique of the problems caused when advocates resort to using misinformation to state their case. The call-to-action could have alerted Oaklanders to this issue without resorting to misinformation that undermines their credibility, and by extension the credibility of other opponents of the proposal.
The Oakland Report story by Rajni Mandal is itself deceptive. Oakland Report’s “real rendering” of the proposed Lake Temescal billboards, the one at the top of the story, was Photoshopped, or generated by AI, and provided by the Outfront billboard company. This “real rendering” is ridiculously deceptive.
The image is a wide-angle camera view of Lake Temescal which makes objects (the day-and-night electronic billboards) across the lake look substantially smaller and more distant than they are to the naked eye. I dare say that if the billboards were this unobtrusive, almost invisible in the trees, they would not serve their purpose. After all, the billboards are 14-feet-high and 48-feet-wide, according to the small print at the bottom of the Outfront image. Thus, per the words of the Oakland Report story, that “real rendering” from Outfront billboards is fake.
As for a depiction that truly represents the visual impact of these electronic billboards: Consider the electronic billboards near the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza and at night, how prominent they are four or more miles away in the East Bay Hills.
How about we see a rendering of what these new proposed billboards look like at night!
There are multiple problems with Rajni Mandal’s article.
This billboard deal was a stealth proposal that City Council member and sponsor Charlene Wang tried to sneak through the city approval process. Why? Because the public does not want electronic billboards in Oakland. In fact, at the December 4 Oakland Rules & Legislation Committee meeting, Wang refused Council member Ramachandran’s request to disclose the location of the five billboards to the committee. She said they would be disclosed prior to the Feb. 10 Community & Economic Development committee meeting (which is required by law). Ramachandran asked Wang if she would withdraw the two Lake Temescal billboards from the proposal, and Wang said absolutely not.
The Oakland Report story ignores the fact that the locations of the other three signs remained secret. Worse, it implies that the Lake Temescal locations were never primary sites. Without reporting where she got the location information (which has not been disclosed publicly by Oakland), Mandal’s story says that "In the current proposal, the 5 primary proposed locations for the proposed 5 new/relocated digital billboards are all located along the Interstate 880 freeway corridor.” If that is the case, then the attention and the public feedback this has generated is having some success. We shall see.
The biggest problem with Rajni Mandal’s article is she violated the very first rule of Journalism 101: She never attempted to contact me, the person who is being criticized, to hear my side of the story. I am a second generation newspaper reporter, and one thing I learned again and again: When you actually speak to the person who is the focus of your story, your point of view shifts. And you learn things you did not know and where you might be wrong.
P.S. I am a donor to the Oakland Report, and one of its founders, Tim Gardner, spoke to a group of us here in our home. I admire what you are doing. This particular story disappoints.
Jeff, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the editor column.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20251209-yes-it-is-possible-for-oakland-letters
Jeff, thank you for your feedback.
You are welcome to write a counterpoint and Oakland Report will publish it, provided it reflects our editorial guidelines. https://www.oaklandreport.org/about
Our article is not about whether the billboards should be located there or not. It's about the substance of how issues are discussed, presented, and inflamed with misleading information in this city. The article makes this point clearly, and supports it well, which meets our editorial policies.
For transparency, if you decide to write a counterpoint, please consider this perspective. The yellow/red poster that was circulated online makes verifiably false claims about the position and size of the billboards:
• They are not what was drawn by the proposal (neither shape, nor position, nor size);
• They represent billboard faces that are 300' wide and 42' high. This is 6 times larger than the proposed width and 3x larger than the proposed height.
Your commentary would need to justify why these modifications were made.
Your point about the nighttime glare is a good one and it would be good to include in a counterpoint. If an accurate visual of that simulated scenario can be created, please include it in your counterpoint.
If you can show how the proposer’s original images were inaccurate, please do. Note that we did check their images and found that the schematics are exactly to scale and are not an exaggeration of dimensions.
Thank you.
I am very disappointed to see this article in the Oakland Report. It goes to show how widespread the corrupting influence of these billboard companies has been. We need to go back to the clear interpretation of the 1997 ordinance that does not allow new billboards in the city of Oakland.
Greg, thank you for your comment. The article provides information about the 1997 ordinance and the 2023 amendment that allows replacement/relocation of existing billboards, which opponents of the proposal could find helpful to support their case. The article does not take a position either for or agajnst the billboards.
Billboards at that location SHOULD NOT BE ON THE LIST AT ALL. The hope of those of us opposing them was to get them off the list so that it appeared to be a non-issue. We assumed that until the list came out Feb 1, when by law it had to be published, we would not be able to find out, because several other city council members were unable to find out where they would go. In fact, we submitted a public records act request to learn all proposed locations.
We KNOW that alternative locations are always proposed, especially after the Alameda County Grand Jury Report about a prior Oakland billboard deal, which slams several city council members regards a possible conflict of interest which was never investigated. Citizens of Oakland are now aware of how sneaky legislation can be and that we need to keep an eye on it.
Meanwhile I hope that billboards at PG&E and scenic byway Highway 13 are never on any billboard list.
What a shoddy piece of writing. If Rajni Mandal had done her homework, she would know that billboards cannot go in residential areas, and that PG&E was zoned residential according to current Oakland Planning Codes: 17.13.040 Permitted and conditionally permitted facilities. Advertising signs are prohibited in zones RH-1, RH-2, RH-3, and RH-4. Putting billboards there also violates Oakland city code Policy T6.5 Protecting Scenic Routes. It says, "The City should protect and encourage enhancement of the distinctive character of scenic routes within the city, through prohibition of billboards, design review, and other means." The location also violates two CALTRANS/State of California rules about where billboards can go on freeways.
It would be a real scandal if any city council members or billboard companies tried to change Oakland zoning of PG&E from residential to commercial or ask CALTRANS for an exception.
SO: these billboards should not be on the list at all, not even in the list of 10 alternatives
Sean, the PG&E substation property is NOT zoned industrial or commercial. It is zoned RESIDENTIAL. See Oakland's Planning & Zoning GIS map for the PG&E substation shows that it is designated as residential zone RH-4. https://gismaps.oaklandca.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?data_id=dataSource_4-18cfefa216d-layer-2%3A13613754&id=a2ab7ee345ba4d1681700bf60681d364
It is surrounded completely by residential zones and the park.
The "only end closure on back of sign structure will be visible" does not mean that the billboard is one-sided and only advertising to the lanes coming west on 24. It does not mean just the back side might be seen from the park. AI says that this refers to the supporting pole. In teeny letters below the picture the OFI renditions say: "14’h x 48’w, Double-Sided Digital “V” Display" which means it will flood Lake Temescal park and neighborhoods with light and advertisements from BOTH sides.