The City of Oakland loses its fourth appeal in massive lawsuit over its shipping terminal development. Now the city faces hundreds of millions in damages. If awarded, Oaklanders will foot the bill.
Thanks again for the great work. Please keep the spotlight on the incompetence and political nonsense. This is the truth that needs to be out there. Please repost this everywhere! In future we need a version of OR for non-readers who vote.
Time to read the room. Even tho popular opinion is hugely anti-coal, Ill-advised and rash moves by prior elected officials bring Oakland to this no-win juncture. The costs of poor management will echo for decades from this- potholes, libraries, other services … or yet another special assessment tax. So helpful that OR keeps a focused eye on current going’s on
So it sounds like the City is on the hook for AT LEAST $230 million if not much more? I'm no fan of coal but it always seemed like overreach for the city to clamp down on one use of the port.
It kept suing because the people running this city feared the political consequences of admitting they were wrong. Instead of protecting Oakland’s finances, they protected themselves. And instead of owning the breach, they dragged the city into years of doomed litigation that any competent lawyer could see was unwinnable. The result is the same pattern we’ve lived through for a decade: political theater upfront, financial devastation on the back end.
Why did the city keep on suing?
The truth is blunt. Admitting fault would have exposed years of mismanagement by the mayor’s office, the supervisors, and the city attorney. Rather than face that reckoning, they gambled taxpayer money in the hope that appeals would push the financial fallout onto the next administration. They feared backlash from activists, pretended the courts might “save” them despite losing repeatedly, and banked on residents not reading the court filings. They knew they had breached the contract. They knew they had interfered politically. They knew the rulings were going against them and that they had no legal path to victory. Yet they pressed on because losing quietly later was more convenient than admitting defeat publicly now.
This wasn’t negligence, it was deliberate self-preservation. Every appeal bought them time, not justice. Every press release bought them cover, not credibility. Behind closed doors, they understood the facts: Oakland had sabotaged its own agreement, issued misleading legal documents, and violated basic principles of contract law. But instead of leveling with the public, they chose to stall, spin, and stonewall, hoping residents would remain in the dark while the financial damage grew into a multi-hundred-million-dollar disaster.
The Betrayal. And who is responsible?
This debacle didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because Oakland’s leadership embraced a governing style built on political signaling instead of legal obligation. Former Mayor Libby Schaaf set the pattern by interfering with a legally binding contract, weaponizing public pressure, and ignoring warnings that the city was exposing itself to catastrophic liability. Current Mayor Barbara Lee continued the same behaviour, publicly doubling down while the city was already losing in court, handing plaintiffs exactly the evidence they needed to prove ongoing bad faith. Both mayors chose grandstanding over governance, and Oakland is now paying for it.
The supervisors were no better. They voted to block the very contract they had already approved, then misled the public with statements that contradicted the court record. They did this knowing full well that interfering with a signed agreement is a guaranteed legal failure. And the City Attorney’s office compounded the damage by issuing incorrect statements, refusing required documents, and defending a position that the courts repeatedly shredded. This isn’t an isolated incident. These same leaders have presided over collapsed lawsuits — the Raider land dispute, the endless police misconduct payouts, the pothole injury settlements — and panic-driven land sell-offs like the Coliseum deal and fire-sale leases to plug budget holes.
This is not bad luck. It is a governing philosophy: Politics First, Law Second, Taxpayers Last.
Hi Billy Bob, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column. Our standard is to sign letters with the writer's name and city. Would you please be so kind as to let us know your city of residence? You can let us know through private message. Thank you!
Thank you to the Oakland Report for continuing to highlight the quality of Oakland’s leadership.
Thank you. So does the city of Oakland have the option for filing bankruptcy? Or what can the city do when it has no money?
Thanks again for the great work. Please keep the spotlight on the incompetence and political nonsense. This is the truth that needs to be out there. Please repost this everywhere! In future we need a version of OR for non-readers who vote.
Time to read the room. Even tho popular opinion is hugely anti-coal, Ill-advised and rash moves by prior elected officials bring Oakland to this no-win juncture. The costs of poor management will echo for decades from this- potholes, libraries, other services … or yet another special assessment tax. So helpful that OR keeps a focused eye on current going’s on
So it sounds like the City is on the hook for AT LEAST $230 million if not much more? I'm no fan of coal but it always seemed like overreach for the city to clamp down on one use of the port.
Oakland could pay $674M in Damages
Why did Oakland keep suing?
It kept suing because the people running this city feared the political consequences of admitting they were wrong. Instead of protecting Oakland’s finances, they protected themselves. And instead of owning the breach, they dragged the city into years of doomed litigation that any competent lawyer could see was unwinnable. The result is the same pattern we’ve lived through for a decade: political theater upfront, financial devastation on the back end.
Why did the city keep on suing?
The truth is blunt. Admitting fault would have exposed years of mismanagement by the mayor’s office, the supervisors, and the city attorney. Rather than face that reckoning, they gambled taxpayer money in the hope that appeals would push the financial fallout onto the next administration. They feared backlash from activists, pretended the courts might “save” them despite losing repeatedly, and banked on residents not reading the court filings. They knew they had breached the contract. They knew they had interfered politically. They knew the rulings were going against them and that they had no legal path to victory. Yet they pressed on because losing quietly later was more convenient than admitting defeat publicly now.
This wasn’t negligence, it was deliberate self-preservation. Every appeal bought them time, not justice. Every press release bought them cover, not credibility. Behind closed doors, they understood the facts: Oakland had sabotaged its own agreement, issued misleading legal documents, and violated basic principles of contract law. But instead of leveling with the public, they chose to stall, spin, and stonewall, hoping residents would remain in the dark while the financial damage grew into a multi-hundred-million-dollar disaster.
The Betrayal. And who is responsible?
This debacle didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because Oakland’s leadership embraced a governing style built on political signaling instead of legal obligation. Former Mayor Libby Schaaf set the pattern by interfering with a legally binding contract, weaponizing public pressure, and ignoring warnings that the city was exposing itself to catastrophic liability. Current Mayor Barbara Lee continued the same behaviour, publicly doubling down while the city was already losing in court, handing plaintiffs exactly the evidence they needed to prove ongoing bad faith. Both mayors chose grandstanding over governance, and Oakland is now paying for it.
The supervisors were no better. They voted to block the very contract they had already approved, then misled the public with statements that contradicted the court record. They did this knowing full well that interfering with a signed agreement is a guaranteed legal failure. And the City Attorney’s office compounded the damage by issuing incorrect statements, refusing required documents, and defending a position that the courts repeatedly shredded. This isn’t an isolated incident. These same leaders have presided over collapsed lawsuits — the Raider land dispute, the endless police misconduct payouts, the pothole injury settlements — and panic-driven land sell-offs like the Coliseum deal and fire-sale leases to plug budget holes.
This is not bad luck. It is a governing philosophy: Politics First, Law Second, Taxpayers Last.
And who is left footing the bill?
~d
Truly heartbreaking how city leadership defied the very agreement they had made and now the city will suffer (once again).
Hi Billy Bob, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column. Our standard is to sign letters with the writer's name and city. Would you please be so kind as to let us know your city of residence? You can let us know through private message. Thank you!
Hello Sean. Of course. My name is Timothy Birch and l live in South San Francisco. Please feel free to publish everything I write.