Apr 212011
 

Many of us who live in San Leandro are frustrated about the lack of shopping, dining and cultural opportunities in the city. Even during the economic boom early in the century, San Leandro languished. Our downtown is practically a ghost town, devoid of compelling shopping and entertainment venues.  The only reason why anyone goes downtown at all is to go shopping at Safeway or get money at one of the remaining banks.   An empty downtown wouldn’t be a problem if there were other more alive sectors of the city, but that’s not the case either.  San Leandro has a myriad of low-end chain stores, a newly renovated but deserted mall and a wonderful library – but there is nowhere in town where to go for a stroll and do some window or actual shopping, no place that can compare to 4th street in Berkeley, Rockridge, Piedmont Ave., Park St. in Alameda or even downtown Pleasanton or Hayward.

The excuse City Hall has given is that San Leandro doesn’t have the demographics to attract high end stores or restaurants.  And while it’s true that San Leandro’s median household income is of under $60,000 a year, other towns with similar demographics manage to have vibrant business districts. A vibrant business district (combined with more effort putting into improving our schools) would attract a higher demographic to the city, which in turn would attract more businesses.

I think a great part of the problem is that City Hall is not doing its job of trying to attract businesses.  The City spent tons of redevelopment money on the MacArthur Project Area, but has done little to promote it to businesses that might actually attract customers and bring some life into the city.  For example, Vila Cereja (formerly Jake’s Lion), a pretty large restaurant in that area, is up for sale as the owner wants to retire.  This would be a wonderful location for an East Bay branch of a San Francisco restaurant.  The venue was remodeled recently and while it’s a little quirky (for example, it doesn’t have any windows), that could be turned into an advantage.  Its large banquet room could be used as a jazz/world music club – somewhere for grown up entertainment.   It’s right next to the freeway, so it could easily draw customers from nearby cities.  All the City has to do is find someone to invest in the business (and it’s very reasonably priced, Jake just wants to retire) and then promote it.  The idea being that once people outside San Leandro start thinking of San Leandro as a “place to go”, other businesses will think of settling here as well.

As for downtown, the City is already paying the Downtown Farmers Market $15,000 a year to operate.  It’s a wonderful FM and it seems very popular, but the City has no strategy on how to use it to revitalize downtown.  One type of business I think could do well, both in conjunction with the farmers’ market and other downtown businesses, is a nice wine/cheese shop.  It could be located in the space next to Le Soleil, which has been empty for years.  It would have to offer some moderately priced wines for the local crowd and some unusual, attractive selections – to encourage oenophiles from nearby cities to come by.  The City could start by contacting established San Francisco wine shops and pitch the idea that they open a second branch in San Leandro.

In short, what the City’s business developer needs to start doing is developing business: identifying businesses that would do well given our demographics/location/market trends and approaching those businesses to come to town.  They should concentrate on established name-brand businesses, who already have local notoriety, so that San Leandro can gain from their cache, and sell them on our great central East Bay location, starving (if limited) middle-class Berkeley-refugee base, low rents and generally easy parking.  They are not coming to us, so let’s go to them.

Apr 182011
 

The city of San Leandro will be hiring a new City Manager shortly.  They’ve published a questionnaire online, asking  San Leandro residents vague questions about what they want in a City Manager. No word as to what they will do with the information.  One question that I think is particularly important is that of where the city manager should live.  By law, the City cannot impose a residency requirement on the City Manager – but it can hire someone who lives in San Leandro or shows a strong inclination to move here.  But should we care?

[polldaddy poll=4913366]

Apr 162011
 

The city of San Leandro is joining 5 other cities, all represented by the Meyers Nave lawfirm, in a lawsuit that asks the court to validate their redevelopment activities.   The city has not yet disclosed the particulars of the case, but this article discusses the type of lawsuits cities like San Leandro are filing.  It’s unclear whether this lawsuit has legal merit or is necessary, but it’s sure to generate lots of attorney fees for Meyers Nave.

Apr 162011
 

San Leandro City Attorney Jayne WilliamsUnlike many cities, San Leandro does not have a full time City Attorney of its own.  Instead, it contracts with Meyers Nave, one of the most important municipal law firms in the state, for legal advice and representation.  Jayne Williams, one of Meyers Nave’s principals, functions as San Leandro’s City attorney – but other members of the firm also do work for the city.  Unfortunately, the quality of the legal advice that San Leandro is getting from Meyers Nave seems to be quite poor. San Leandro is currently facing a multi-million dollar settlement/judgement in the Faith Fellowship case and is opening itself up to litigation on several fronts.  Meyers Nave benefits from the poor legal advice it provides to the city, charging attorney’s fees to represent it in lawsuits that arise when the city follows its advice.

As mentioned above, the most egregious example of this conflict of interest is the Faith Fellowship case.  Here, a local church that had undergone dramatic growth tried to move to a building large enough to accommodate its congregation.  The only property they could find that would work for them was zoned industrial, and the City Council refused to let them use that property as a church.  Faith Fellowship sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the 9th circuit recently ruled that the city had no compelling interest in denying them that use, and remanded the case for trial on other issues.  A close examination of the case leads me to believe that the city is not likely to prevail and will likely have to pay several million dollars in damages to the church.  The city has already spent $500,000 on legal costs alone, and will be on the hook for Faith Fellowship’s attorneys fees as well.

Meyers Nave’s behavior on this case has been outrageous.  First, it failed to warn the city about its legal liabilities under RLUIPA if it denied the church’s rezoning application.  While it did warn the City Council that they could get sued, it did not explain what the potential damages of the lawsuit might be or what the likelihood of the church succeeding was.  Once the City was sued, rather than advising the City to hire a law firm that specialized in RLUIPA and/or first amendment litigation, Meyers Nave had its own attorneys represent the city.  Meyers Nave made a lot of money on attorneys fees by doing so, but its attorneys were unable to produce coherent or convincing arguments. Attorney Deborah Fox, in particular, made a fool of herself during oral arguments before the 9th circuit – she was clearly unprepared and was unable to answer the judge’s questions with any credibility or coherence.  The rehearing petition filed after the 9th circuit unanimously ruled against the city is so poorly written and so disrespectful of both Faith Fellowship and the 9th Circuit appeals panel, that the city of San Leandro should be ashamed to be associated with it. Still, as inadvisable as filing that rehearing petition was, it does generate additional legal fees for Meyers Nave.

But the firm’s inadequate legal advice goes beyond the Faith Fellowship case.  In 2005, the City of San Leandro entered into an agreement with Redflex for the installation of six red light cameras in the city.  This agreement included a “cost neutrality” clause, which provided that the city and Redflex would share in the revenue from the red light camera tickets.  This cost neutrality provision, however, is explicitly in violation of California law and San Leandrans have been able to have their tickets dismissed on these grounds.  Moreover, there is currently a class action lawsuit on those exact grounds making its way through the courts that, if successful, might force the city in question to provide a refund to everyone who received a red light citation during that contract.   Meyers Nave does not appeared to have warned the city about the illegality of that contract provision and of the potential legal and financial consequences of having it in place – thus, once again, subjecting the city to needless legal risk.

At its next meeting, the City of San Leandro will likely extend its contract with Redflex.  The cost neutrality clause is gone (fortunately), but it remains questionable whether red light camera tickets are legal.  The City Attorney has not, once again, explained to City Council members what the legal issues related to red light cameras are and what the city’s legal risk is in signing this contract.

The same can be said about a new policy that the City is considering to automatically delete all staff and council e-mails.  This policy would violate the California Public Records Act, and would subject the city to litigation.  Has the City Attorney explained these risks (and potential costs) to the City Council?

I suspect that this is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

My suspicion is that San Leandro would do better if it hired its own full-time city attorney, someone who was able to give it objective, realistic advice and had no incentive to get the city into costly litigation.

April 17th Update

In response to a question in the comments, I’m updating this note with some information about the financial arrangements between Meyers Nave and the City of San Leandro.  In 2008, the city entered into an amended agreement with Meyers Nave, for the firm to provide legal services indefinitely.  Until then, the city legal costs averaged about $900,000 a year, though they were over $1.2 MILLION for the 2007-08 fiscal year.  Legal costs under the amended contract are higher, and I will publish the actual expenditures when I get the numbers.  Under this new contract, Meyers Nave gets paid:

-around $28K a month for basic City Attorney services

-$210/hour for attorney services and $110/hour for paralegal services for non-basic services

-travel expenses

-5% of their fees for administrative costs

The amounts are to increase annually based on the consumer tax index, plus Meyers Nave may ask for additional compensation as it sees fit.

For more recent updates of what Jayne Williams and/or Meyers Nave has been up to in San Leandro, check out the Meyers Nave tag.

Apr 152011
 

Mayor Cassidy has put his Estudillo Estates home for sale, a mere 3 months after taking office.  The 2,000+ sq. ft. house has 3 bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms and features a cute detached office in the backyard.  It’s on the market for $615,000.  You can look at the listing here, or, if you’re really curious as to how our current Mayor lives, go the open house this Sunday, April 17th.

Cassidy has given different people different reasons for the move, but it seems he’s looking to buy a house in Bay-O-Vista.  Perhaps he’s trying to get closer to Councilman Michael Gregory 🙂