As Oakland leaders grappled with a daunting $265 million deficit ahead of the two-year city budget deadline, they searched for creative revenue sources to address the funding shortfall.
While familiar tactics, such as increasing parking fines and anticipating a rise in sales tax receipts from the newly passed Measure A, were on the table, the City Council considered a less conventional strategy to bridge the budget gap.
In a move that raised eyebrows, they included a proposed deal with a billboard company in their budget calculations even before it was officially voted on by the council.
This tactic effectively bound the council to approve the deal when it came to the floor for a vote just days later, influencing their decision-making processes.
The contract, negotiated largely behind closed doors between city officials and the company’s lobbyist, significantly altered the landscape for the city’s finances.
The deal provided for the construction of five new double-sided digital billboards in exchange for the removal of 11 existing ones over a span of 15 years.
In return, Oakland is set to receive approximately $2.3 million upfront, along with annual payments of up to $750,000 over the next 31 years, along with commitments to provide free advertising for local nonprofits.
Initially suggested by Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, the billboard deal faced delays and was withdrawn mysteriously shortly before her temporary council term was set to expire.
It was then reintroduced by Councilmembers Janani Ramachandran and Noel Gallo amidst discussions surrounding the city’s financial challenges, despite concerns about the lack of public hearings on the matter.
Ramachandran, who was part of the budget team orchestrated by then-Interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins, emphasized that she was comfortable with the proposal after consulting city staff and stakeholders.
While Gallo, a supporter of Becker, highlighted his connection with the company, critics, including Councilmember Carroll Fife, questioned the wisdom of basing the budget on a deal not yet finalized.
Ironically, even Jenkins, the council president, cast a no vote on the deal, citing a need for a more transparent process.
Given his prior support for Becker’s dealings with the city, this unexpected dissent raised questions about internal dynamics in city leadership.
In the weeks leading up to the vote on the billboard deal, Jenkins participated in private meetings at City Hall that included Nema Link, the Becker company’s director of land development.
These meetings, held to discuss various issues pertaining to development in Oakland, have stirred controversy due to their lack of transparency and the potential implications for city governance.
Link has made efforts to position himself as a community supporter, working alongside local nonprofits and promising free advertising for their causes, which helped garner public support at council meetings.
Under Oakland’s lobbying rules, individuals engaging with public officials to influence government actions generally need to register as lobbyists, yet Link has never registered, fueling concerns about the relationship dynamics involved.
Becker’s lobbyist, Isaac Kos-Read, is known to have had multiple discussions with city council members, promoting the benefits of the company’s advertising programs while navigating the intricacies of local governance.
The controversial nature of these discussions highlights the complex intersection of development interests and city budgeting processes, leading to public skepticism regarding transparency in the decision-making hierarchy.
Ultimately, the June 11 vote to approve the budget, which included the anticipated revenue from the Becker deal, was seen by some as rushed, with detractors emphasizing the necessity of a more stable and legitimate budget process.
Following the approval, the council swiftly moved to finalize the agreement with Becker, resulting in a unanimous decision among council members present.
The sustained relationship between the company and various city officials, including Jenkins and Gallo, raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and the ethical implications of these financial agreements.
As Oakland moves forward, the approval of the billboard deal is expected to generate approximately $35 million over the next 31 years for the city, but its overall impact on city services and governance remains under scrutiny.
In light of these developments, city officials must reconcile community concerns with the demands of fiscal responsibility, seeking a balance that ensures transparency and public trust in local governance.
As the situation continues to evolve, Oakland residents will be watching closely to see how these financial dealings will shape the future of their city and its commitment to serving the community’s needs.
image source from：oaklandside
