A District 4 constituent asks his council member to reconcile her vote for the Oakland Coliseum sale with the ‘culture of enforcement’ she has publicly championed.
Letter raises all valid questions. My short version is: why Oakland and Alameda are so desperate to sell to one particular first time developer on very risky terms?
Thank you - this is an excellent letter and one for which everyone on the City Council should be held accountable. I can't believe that this deal doesn't violate the law. It is the epitome of financial malfeasance, to say the least.
"What financial analysis demonstrated that continued negotiations with Oakland Acquisition Company represented a better outcome than testing the market?"
The City of Oakland takes pride in placing things like race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., above taking a risk and putting the property up for bid. Because, God forbid, an evil corporation run by a greedy white man might swoop in and pay for the property with their own financing. Can't have that. Who cares if the Oakland taxpayer is left on the hook and further bled dry by the mayor's and council's mismanagement.
At some point, the City must put fiscal responsibility higher on the pedestal than the various checkboxes they demand. Stop freezing out investment for virtue signaling. Help the City right their course.
Sean - Is Alkebulan Fiscal Sponsors holding any funds for OR? I no longer want to be associated with OR under your leadership. Please let me know so i can send ur $$$
Thank you for this letter, I am also disturbed by the lack of transparency and no bid process for this deal. Sadly, the lack of responsiveness is not limited to D4. I am in D6, and it feels like a part time job to get my city council person to respond. And even if they do respond, action does not follow.
I've also been troubled that the apparent attitude behind Councilperson Ramachandran's short admirably educational videos isn't matched by actual responsiveness when I have reached out to her office. Mr. Urkovsky has put his finger on the feeling of unease I have about the gap here between rhetoric and behavior.
District 4 residents, we must pay attention to the actual council work behavior of our elected council member. Appearing in published videos rather than in person to talk and listen and respond to us is something to consider the next time around.
Agreed. In the 2022 D4 elections, I was more inclined towards with Nenna Joiner because she actually engaged with residents and she has a direct stake in Oakland (Nenna was considering investing in a business in Oakland at the time). Moreover, I had the impression that Janani would be more invested in her Tik Tok presentation than our concerns.
I am worried about this deal for many of the same reasons cited by Chris Urkofsky. It stands out to me that there is a lack of agreement with specific details and consequences for default in writing. I would never enter into any type of agreement without a signed agreement that is reviewed by legal counsel. It also stands out that there was no competitive offers. That is either lazy or no one else is interested in working with the city. That is really sad. Once again Oakland will be putting itself in a precarious position that leave the constituents of the city vulnerable. This is not a good deal.
Thank you for this letter and agreeing to let the Oakland Report publish it. I am not comfortable with the risks with this deal either. As I commented elsewhere, this deal seems to be governed by "the feels" rather than by sound business math and pragmatism.
Regarding the non-responses from representative Ramachandran's office, you are not alone.
Neighbors and I have sent emails and letters that have not been acknowledged - these were communications regarding topics of high concern (safety and crime). We even sent them to all of her assistants (each represented a different area in D4) and not one of them responded.
In the past, District 4 was usually represented by people that took the time to respond to their constituents (while I disagree with her often, Jean Quan was a very good representative for us. Libby Schaaf and Anne Campbell-Washington were excellent representatives).
I need not repeat my (unfavorable) opinion of Sheng Thao as the D4 representative.
Readers - Please withdraw all support for this publication. Mr Urkofsky has been mislead by OR as follows:
- There was a competitive process with at least 4 bidders in 2021: AASEG, A’s, Floyd Kephart, Dave Stewart. Mr Urkofsky doesn’t realize this because he relied on OR’s misleading reporting
- Payment deadlines weren’t missed. They were revised. Again, relying OR led him astray.
Why was preserving this particular purchaser considered preferable to reopening the process and inviting competitive bids?
- Breaking the ENA would get the city sued. City may be facing BK because they broke coal terminal agreement
What financial analysis demonstrated that continued negotiations with Oakland Acquisition Company represented a better outcome than testing the market?
See above. Also, this was done when original 4 bidders were evaluated & AASEG was selected
OR does not subscribe to ANY journalistic cods of ethics. They have no obligation to facts and have repeatedly printed info they know is factually inaccurate. Readers beware.
The transaction underwent multiple revisions to its timetable and material terms over several years, including the introduction of seller financing for the Coliseum purchase. Those changes naturally raise the question whether the City reassessed its decision to continue with the existing purchaser and whether doing so remained the course most consistent with its fiduciary obligations to Oakland taxpayers. Those obligations extend beyond honoring existing contractual relationships; they include exercising reasonable diligence to secure the partner and transaction structure most likely to achieve the City's financial, housing, and broader redevelopment objectives. If such an analysis was performed, it was never explained publicly. If it was not performed, why not?
The commenter suggests that ending the ENA would necessarily have exposed the City to litigation. Perhaps. But the possibility of litigation does not establish the likelihood of success, nor does it end the City's fiduciary inquiry. Public fiduciaries routinely weigh litigation risk alongside other considerations, including financial exposure, opportunity cost, and the public interest.
Moreover, as I understand the ENA, its performance deadlines were not self-executing. The City retained discretion whether to invoke available contractual remedies in response to nonperformance. If that understanding is correct, then the relevant question is not simply whether litigation was possible. It is what analysis led the City to conclude that continuing with the existing purchaser, rather than exercising its contractual rights or reopening the market to competing proposals, best served Oakland's interests.
Finally, the ENA itself raises a broader policy question. Why was an agreement containing such favorable provisions negotiated with a newly formed enterprise that, at the time, had no demonstrated track record of completing acquisitions of this scale? What due diligence did the City perform in evaluating the purchaser's experience, financial capacity, and ability to execute a project of this magnitude?
As a rule, I don't respond to anon accounts, so this my only exchange with you.
Let's address your points 1x1:
The transaction underwent multiple revisions to its timetable and material terms over several years, including the introduction of seller financing for the Coliseum purchase. Those changes naturally raise the question whether the City reassessed its decision to continue with the existing purchaser and whether doing so remained the course most consistent with its fiduciary obligations to Oakland taxpayers. Those obligations extend beyond honoring existing contractual relationships; they include exercising reasonable diligence to secure the partner and transaction structure most likely to achieve the City's financial, housing, and broader redevelopment objectives. If such an analysis was performed, it was never explained publicly. If it was not performed, why not?
- These analyses happen in closed sessions for obvious reasons. It is standard practie in govt
The commenter suggests that ending the ENA would necessarily have exposed the City to litigation. Perhaps. But the possibility of litigation does not establish the likelihood of success, nor does it end the City's fiduciary inquiry. Public fiduciaries routinely weigh litigation risk alongside other considerations, including financial exposure, opportunity cost, and the public interest.
- I believe contracts should be honored, and so does the law. Not only is it legally mandated, it is poor form to renego on contracts. I agree to disagree with you on this
Moreover, as I understand the ENA, its performance deadlines were not self-executing. The City retained discretion whether to invoke available contractual remedies in response to nonperformance. If that understanding is correct, then the relevant question is not simply whether litigation was possible. It is what analysis led the City to conclude that continuing with the existing purchaser, rather than exercising its contractual rights or reopening the market to competing proposals, best served Oakland's interests.
- Makes sense. As you reference, your understanding of the ENA is not correct
Finally, the ENA itself raises a broader policy question. Why was an agreement containing such favorable provisions negotiated with a newly formed enterprise that, at the time, had no demonstrated track record of completing acquisitions of this scale? What due diligence did the City perform in evaluating the purchaser's experience, financial capacity, and ability to execute a project of this magnitude?
- Why do you think the contract had unduly favorable positions?
- You also have some incorrect assumtions: Loop Capital is NOT a newly formed enterprise and Loop, and its principal, has a demonstrated track record of completing larger acquisitions. For example, Reynolds' partnership with Magic has billions of dollars of infrastructure assets under mgmt.
I understand. I started to use anonymous accounts after supporters of Pam Price threatened me, in person, after my posts on several social media platforms.
When I obtain a firearm and the legal right to carry it, I will reset my accounts to my name.
You're right. The opening ("a 35-year Oakland resident") is somewhat redundant with the closing ("he and his wife have called Oakland home for more than three decades"). Thanks for pointing that out. I'll tighten it up.
Letter raises all valid questions. My short version is: why Oakland and Alameda are so desperate to sell to one particular first time developer on very risky terms?
There-in lies the rub
Thank you - this is an excellent letter and one for which everyone on the City Council should be held accountable. I can't believe that this deal doesn't violate the law. It is the epitome of financial malfeasance, to say the least.
"What financial analysis demonstrated that continued negotiations with Oakland Acquisition Company represented a better outcome than testing the market?"
The City of Oakland takes pride in placing things like race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., above taking a risk and putting the property up for bid. Because, God forbid, an evil corporation run by a greedy white man might swoop in and pay for the property with their own financing. Can't have that. Who cares if the Oakland taxpayer is left on the hook and further bled dry by the mayor's and council's mismanagement.
At some point, the City must put fiscal responsibility higher on the pedestal than the various checkboxes they demand. Stop freezing out investment for virtue signaling. Help the City right their course.
Sean - Is Alkebulan Fiscal Sponsors holding any funds for OR? I no longer want to be associated with OR under your leadership. Please let me know so i can send ur $$$
Thank you for this letter, I am also disturbed by the lack of transparency and no bid process for this deal. Sadly, the lack of responsiveness is not limited to D4. I am in D6, and it feels like a part time job to get my city council person to respond. And even if they do respond, action does not follow.
I've also been troubled that the apparent attitude behind Councilperson Ramachandran's short admirably educational videos isn't matched by actual responsiveness when I have reached out to her office. Mr. Urkovsky has put his finger on the feeling of unease I have about the gap here between rhetoric and behavior.
District 4 residents, we must pay attention to the actual council work behavior of our elected council member. Appearing in published videos rather than in person to talk and listen and respond to us is something to consider the next time around.
Agreed. In the 2022 D4 elections, I was more inclined towards with Nenna Joiner because she actually engaged with residents and she has a direct stake in Oakland (Nenna was considering investing in a business in Oakland at the time). Moreover, I had the impression that Janani would be more invested in her Tik Tok presentation than our concerns.
I am worried about this deal for many of the same reasons cited by Chris Urkofsky. It stands out to me that there is a lack of agreement with specific details and consequences for default in writing. I would never enter into any type of agreement without a signed agreement that is reviewed by legal counsel. It also stands out that there was no competitive offers. That is either lazy or no one else is interested in working with the city. That is really sad. Once again Oakland will be putting itself in a precarious position that leave the constituents of the city vulnerable. This is not a good deal.
Chris looks great for a 35 year old! Seriously though, what a great letter. Right on! Thank you for republishing.
He's referred to as a 35-year Oakland resident, not a 35-year-old.
Mr Urkofsky,
Thank you for this letter and agreeing to let the Oakland Report publish it. I am not comfortable with the risks with this deal either. As I commented elsewhere, this deal seems to be governed by "the feels" rather than by sound business math and pragmatism.
Regarding the non-responses from representative Ramachandran's office, you are not alone.
Neighbors and I have sent emails and letters that have not been acknowledged - these were communications regarding topics of high concern (safety and crime). We even sent them to all of her assistants (each represented a different area in D4) and not one of them responded.
In the past, District 4 was usually represented by people that took the time to respond to their constituents (while I disagree with her often, Jean Quan was a very good representative for us. Libby Schaaf and Anne Campbell-Washington were excellent representatives).
I need not repeat my (unfavorable) opinion of Sheng Thao as the D4 representative.
Readers - Please withdraw all support for this publication. Mr Urkofsky has been mislead by OR as follows:
- There was a competitive process with at least 4 bidders in 2021: AASEG, A’s, Floyd Kephart, Dave Stewart. Mr Urkofsky doesn’t realize this because he relied on OR’s misleading reporting
- Payment deadlines weren’t missed. They were revised. Again, relying OR led him astray.
Why was preserving this particular purchaser considered preferable to reopening the process and inviting competitive bids?
- Breaking the ENA would get the city sued. City may be facing BK because they broke coal terminal agreement
What financial analysis demonstrated that continued negotiations with Oakland Acquisition Company represented a better outcome than testing the market?
See above. Also, this was done when original 4 bidders were evaluated & AASEG was selected
OR does not subscribe to ANY journalistic cods of ethics. They have no obligation to facts and have repeatedly printed info they know is factually inaccurate. Readers beware.
The transaction underwent multiple revisions to its timetable and material terms over several years, including the introduction of seller financing for the Coliseum purchase. Those changes naturally raise the question whether the City reassessed its decision to continue with the existing purchaser and whether doing so remained the course most consistent with its fiduciary obligations to Oakland taxpayers. Those obligations extend beyond honoring existing contractual relationships; they include exercising reasonable diligence to secure the partner and transaction structure most likely to achieve the City's financial, housing, and broader redevelopment objectives. If such an analysis was performed, it was never explained publicly. If it was not performed, why not?
The commenter suggests that ending the ENA would necessarily have exposed the City to litigation. Perhaps. But the possibility of litigation does not establish the likelihood of success, nor does it end the City's fiduciary inquiry. Public fiduciaries routinely weigh litigation risk alongside other considerations, including financial exposure, opportunity cost, and the public interest.
Moreover, as I understand the ENA, its performance deadlines were not self-executing. The City retained discretion whether to invoke available contractual remedies in response to nonperformance. If that understanding is correct, then the relevant question is not simply whether litigation was possible. It is what analysis led the City to conclude that continuing with the existing purchaser, rather than exercising its contractual rights or reopening the market to competing proposals, best served Oakland's interests.
Finally, the ENA itself raises a broader policy question. Why was an agreement containing such favorable provisions negotiated with a newly formed enterprise that, at the time, had no demonstrated track record of completing acquisitions of this scale? What due diligence did the City perform in evaluating the purchaser's experience, financial capacity, and ability to execute a project of this magnitude?
Good questons!
As a rule, I don't respond to anon accounts, so this my only exchange with you.
Let's address your points 1x1:
The transaction underwent multiple revisions to its timetable and material terms over several years, including the introduction of seller financing for the Coliseum purchase. Those changes naturally raise the question whether the City reassessed its decision to continue with the existing purchaser and whether doing so remained the course most consistent with its fiduciary obligations to Oakland taxpayers. Those obligations extend beyond honoring existing contractual relationships; they include exercising reasonable diligence to secure the partner and transaction structure most likely to achieve the City's financial, housing, and broader redevelopment objectives. If such an analysis was performed, it was never explained publicly. If it was not performed, why not?
- These analyses happen in closed sessions for obvious reasons. It is standard practie in govt
The commenter suggests that ending the ENA would necessarily have exposed the City to litigation. Perhaps. But the possibility of litigation does not establish the likelihood of success, nor does it end the City's fiduciary inquiry. Public fiduciaries routinely weigh litigation risk alongside other considerations, including financial exposure, opportunity cost, and the public interest.
- I believe contracts should be honored, and so does the law. Not only is it legally mandated, it is poor form to renego on contracts. I agree to disagree with you on this
Moreover, as I understand the ENA, its performance deadlines were not self-executing. The City retained discretion whether to invoke available contractual remedies in response to nonperformance. If that understanding is correct, then the relevant question is not simply whether litigation was possible. It is what analysis led the City to conclude that continuing with the existing purchaser, rather than exercising its contractual rights or reopening the market to competing proposals, best served Oakland's interests.
- Makes sense. As you reference, your understanding of the ENA is not correct
Finally, the ENA itself raises a broader policy question. Why was an agreement containing such favorable provisions negotiated with a newly formed enterprise that, at the time, had no demonstrated track record of completing acquisitions of this scale? What due diligence did the City perform in evaluating the purchaser's experience, financial capacity, and ability to execute a project of this magnitude?
- Why do you think the contract had unduly favorable positions?
- You also have some incorrect assumtions: Loop Capital is NOT a newly formed enterprise and Loop, and its principal, has a demonstrated track record of completing larger acquisitions. For example, Reynolds' partnership with Magic has billions of dollars of infrastructure assets under mgmt.
Knowledge is Power! The truth will set you free!
Considering the other interested parties with better financial standings and experience, Oakland chose poorly in selecting AASEG.
Could be. Show us your analysis of the bids.
I generally don’t interact with anon accounts
I understand. I started to use anonymous accounts after supporters of Pam Price threatened me, in person, after my posts on several social media platforms.
When I obtain a firearm and the legal right to carry it, I will reset my accounts to my name.
No problem.
Show us your analysis of the competing bids.
But you can't. Cuz you don't have access to them & can't support your assertion that the Council chose poorly in selecting AASEG.
Just like OR - unsupported assertions and feelings masquerading as facts
Kindly don’t interact with me further as long as your account is anonymous. Once you’re strapped & no longer anonymous, i’m eager to engage.
Please & thank you
Please correct the author's age, which has him working from the 2 years old
He's referred to as a 35-year Oakland resident, not a 35-year-old.
You're right. The opening ("a 35-year Oakland resident") is somewhat redundant with the closing ("he and his wife have called Oakland home for more than three decades"). Thanks for pointing that out. I'll tighten it up.