Editor’s Note: In our Candidate Forum section, Oakland Report is providing space for candidates for local offices to share their personal stories, motivations for seeking office, and desired policies with voters.
An easier fix would be to have public transit service to the already well-maintained EBRPD parks. A weekend-only bus to Redwood Regional Park would be amazing. I agree Oakland can’t maintain the parks it has now. Joaquin Miller is a tinderbox of dead trees.
I for one do not support acquiring more land for parks. Oakland has many parks in the D3 district, they are neglected and hotspots for crime. They look blighted. The east bay and Oakland have no muscle to maintain parks. Compare this to the parks in San Francisco, they are beautiful.
It would be irresponsible to hand over more land to organization that has not managed parks well.
I would instead advocate for divesting park land to developers with a promise of maintaining some puiblic space. The current situation in D3 is atrocious. Parks cause more harm to the community than not.
I believe the author, Mr. Reisman, is proposing for East Bay Regional Parks to acquire land, not City of Oakland. But your point is valid. Oakland has lots of parks that are all poorly maintained. I visit these parks with my dog and we walk. So we see the difference. For one, Oakland has a huge litter problem, that the City is unable to cope with (there are actually a few brave City staff trying to keep garbage and litter from flowing out into the Bay, but they are overwhelmed by the ever increasing litter generation.) Two, the City does not fund Parks maintenance enough, and the staff that are dedicated to maintenance, while dedicated, seem to have beaurocrats for bosses who do not feel they need to answer to the public or seem to be foward thinking at all. Three, The City does a terrible job enforcing its own encampment rules in parks. So it's not really true that residents don't have access to parks. They just don't have access to clean and safe parks, which would be the EBRPD lands all located up high in the hills. There is MLK Regional Shoreline Park, which EBRPD does an admirable job maintaining. Mr Reisman does not mention this park, which is telling, because the existence of MLK Regional Shoreline contradicts his narrative. I will not be voting for him.
Do you think for a minute that your informative essay regarding the history and current status of Parks & Recreation can be read and absorbed in time for a decision regarding candidates in this race?
It would be so helpful to the average voter to have ongoing info about each municipal department, their budget and leadership on a recurring (monthly? quarterly?) basis. I do appreciate your efforts to do so and am now a fan.
An easier fix would be to have public transit service to the already well-maintained EBRPD parks. A weekend-only bus to Redwood Regional Park would be amazing. I agree Oakland can’t maintain the parks it has now. Joaquin Miller is a tinderbox of dead trees.
100% agree!
I for one do not support acquiring more land for parks. Oakland has many parks in the D3 district, they are neglected and hotspots for crime. They look blighted. The east bay and Oakland have no muscle to maintain parks. Compare this to the parks in San Francisco, they are beautiful.
It would be irresponsible to hand over more land to organization that has not managed parks well.
I would instead advocate for divesting park land to developers with a promise of maintaining some puiblic space. The current situation in D3 is atrocious. Parks cause more harm to the community than not.
I believe the author, Mr. Reisman, is proposing for East Bay Regional Parks to acquire land, not City of Oakland. But your point is valid. Oakland has lots of parks that are all poorly maintained. I visit these parks with my dog and we walk. So we see the difference. For one, Oakland has a huge litter problem, that the City is unable to cope with (there are actually a few brave City staff trying to keep garbage and litter from flowing out into the Bay, but they are overwhelmed by the ever increasing litter generation.) Two, the City does not fund Parks maintenance enough, and the staff that are dedicated to maintenance, while dedicated, seem to have beaurocrats for bosses who do not feel they need to answer to the public or seem to be foward thinking at all. Three, The City does a terrible job enforcing its own encampment rules in parks. So it's not really true that residents don't have access to parks. They just don't have access to clean and safe parks, which would be the EBRPD lands all located up high in the hills. There is MLK Regional Shoreline Park, which EBRPD does an admirable job maintaining. Mr Reisman does not mention this park, which is telling, because the existence of MLK Regional Shoreline contradicts his narrative. I will not be voting for him.
Do you think for a minute that your informative essay regarding the history and current status of Parks & Recreation can be read and absorbed in time for a decision regarding candidates in this race?
It would be so helpful to the average voter to have ongoing info about each municipal department, their budget and leadership on a recurring (monthly? quarterly?) basis. I do appreciate your efforts to do so and am now a fan.