|
|
| English: Looking towards the Grand Avenue side of Lake Merritt from Lakeshore Avenue. The group of apartments on the hill in the foreground are on Burk and Lagunitas streets and are typical of the apartments found throughout the Adams Point neighborhood. Photo taken and submitted to Wikipedia by Aran Johnson. Category:Images of Oakland (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
All arguments are based on a
premise, on a foundational conviction from which all else flows. My premise is
simple: The Grand Lake Farmers Market under the management of the Agricultural
Institute of Marin is an outstanding farmers market by any metric. It is
popular as measured by the number and enthusiasm of attendees. It is popular as
measured by the number of those attendees who come back again and again. If you
use the utilitarian measure of what creates the greatest good for the greatest
number, it scores high, benefiting the surrounding neighborhoods by stimulating
adjacent commerce not only on market days but on other days when those
introduced to our lovely neighborhood return!
And by the way, Tuesday of
this week the Chronicle ran a story headlined, “Mid-Market restaurants
brace for life after Hamilton,’” describing how restaurants and bars near San
Francisco’s Orpheum Theater profited from the hit musical and now fear what
comes after its departure.
Prior to the show’s arrival, many restaurants in the
Mid-Market neighborhood struggled to
find a foothold. A rash of high-profile closures during the fall and
winter — Cadence, Oro, Bon Marche, AQ, Volta — made headlines, spurring doubt
about the area’s viability as a dining destination.
The arrival of the musical — and 370,000 ticket
holders, according to production company SHN — offered the potential to remove
those doubts.
Across the street from the Perennial, the Cadillac’s
Rodriguez is bracing for a post- “Hamilton” slowdown, but he is trying to stay
positive, hoping to ride the established momentum.
“It’ll still be busier than it was before,” he said.
“We’ve been able to build up some new customers because of the exposure we’ve
gotten.”
Earlier stories in the Oakland
Tribune made a strikingly similar point about our Market and the Grand Lake
“renaissance.” I quote from this recent Chronicle
story to re-emphasize that obvious point. Even if the popularity of the market
creates a problem or two, its benefits are clear, and a smaller, less vibrant
market will cost the neighborhood. That’s why I mention the Chronicle
story.
That and the opportunity to
call Grand Lake the “Hamilton” of farmers markets.
To sum up, the market
generates tax income for the city, on site and off. It builds the
neighborhood’s brand and also the city’s brand. Indeed, if I had the time (and
I will make the time if it becomes necessary) I am certain I could produce a
long list of real estate ads which praise – high among the attractions of the
neighborhoods surrounding the market - “our prize-winning Saturday market.”
That’s my premise. It’s a
great market, and challenges to AIM’s management of it better make damn good
sense. But before I tease out why I think the current challenge to AIM lacks
merit, both in content and method, I want to thank former councilperson Pat
Kernighan for joining the discussion, since her past as a political heavy
hitter – anyone who has served as my councilperson is by definition a heavy
hitter – raises the profile of this lively back and forth.
A couple of months ago, when
my wife and I attended the “renewal” meeting of the Splash Park advisory group
created by Kernighan around 10 years ago - but apparently more or less defunct
as an entity for several years - we were immediately made uneasy by obvious
antipathy toward AIM from the seven (or eight) of those in attendance who voted
at evening’s end to urge the city to institute a Request for Proposal, or RFP,
opening the managing of the market to bids from others. Based on what they said
in the meeting – not a single word of praise for our market - and what we had
read earlier in Ken Katz’ online newsletter, it was clear the seven (or eight)
had little use for AIM and expected it to be replaced as market manager as the
end result of the implementation of the RFP. Indeed, if no existing market
management group stepped up to contend for the job, Katz and company were more
than ready “to consider organizing a community non-profit” to take over and run
things, as Katz wrote online. In other
words, it seemed to us, the group thought a collection of well-intentioned
amateurs would do a better job than AIM.
This distressed me for substantive
reasons I have written about on my blog, the link to which I include above. But
I was also distressed for a more general reason that had more to do with
process than substance. As Jerry Barclay said – and in more or less these words
– there aren’t many of us, but we have political clout. The implication to me was that he was
confident the group could get the RFP through without significant support
beyond the seven (or eight) people in the room. That’s another reason I’ve
spent time publicizing the effort to oust AIM. I do NOT want a decision about
the future of the Grand Lake Farmers Market to take place under the radar while
the general community has no idea of what is going on until it is too late for
them to speak out.
Whatever the final decision
is, I want it to take place in the bright sunlight with as many people as
possible invested in its outcome.
Kernighan’s joining in this discussion will help publicize this
discussion. People will learn more about the particulars of this controversy,
and – I hope – raise their voices so that our elected representatives will not
be under the impression that seven (or eight) people are the voice of the
community.
(And when I phrase it that
way, doesn’t it kind of remind you of the recent Trumpcare debacle? The opponents
of AIM want to repeal and replace, as it were: boot AIM and then – fingers
crossed – put something better in its
place, maybe a “skinny repeal” of AIM’s tenure which everyone hates but is expected to vote for anyway.)
Responding to my wife’s
takedown of RFPs, a couple of people on Nextdoor have written about their
beauty and simplicity, suggesting there is no reason to fear they might produce
anything other than a just and logical outcome.
Indeed, maybe a proposed market RFP could say something like, “Hey,
people. We need somebody to run this little farmers market here. Interested?
Everyone welcome!” And justice will prevail. Of course, that’s not the way it
works. The RFP will have criteria and stipulations that will – if they are
adroitly done – limit those who make their way through the initial filter to
become finalists, and then those will be filtered too.
My wife is not the only one
who has mucked through this sort of process. I’ve been a university professor
for more than 30 years and have helped create many RFPs, though in academia we
call them Job Announcements. The
jostling, the maneuvering, the politicking around a simple job description is
amusing to hear about - unless you’ve actually gone through the process
yourself. If you care about the
parameters for who gets hired, you work hard to control the verbiage. Whether
two job qualifications are joined by an “and” rather than an “or” can turn out
to be decisive. A phrase omitted “to
tighten up the description” can come back and bite you hard. A friend no longer
has a job because I failed to scrutinize the revision of a final list of required
courses closely enough.
But let’s assume as some have
argued on this very website that the creation of this particular RFP is sweet,
simple and utterly apolitical. As the opponents of AIM have made clear – and indeed
Kernighan makes clear in her comments – the folks challenging AIM don’t trust
AIM. Thus, from their
perspective, no matter what AIM promises in a bid to get back in as market
manager, why believe those promises? Why
believe they will not evade and avoid even if contractually committed? Saying
AIM can reapply as market manager is as sweet a piece of misdirection as David
Copperfield ever managed. If an RFP is created under these circumstances –
poisoned root, poisoned fruit - AIM is effectively out of the picture, and on
that I’ll wager.
At this point, perhaps you
accuse me of some legerdemain of my own. I have attempted to discredit the wisdom
of creating an RFP. But what, you ask, is then to be done to get AIM to make a better market as it moves forward. Robertson,
you say, are you pooh-poohing all of the complaints made by AIM opponents about
the quality of its management of the Grand Lake Market?
Well, yeah, some of them I
am. I will briefly break down these complaints into three categories, starting
with the one I respect the least:
1)
The market is too
popular. Katz has responded: no no no. Never said it. We love the fact
the market is popular. But then he will complain about the “congestion” at
the market and how it must be reduced. In the common understanding of the term,
when an area with a comparative small footprint is popular, it will be
congested, i.e., lots of people will be close together rubbing elbows. The
short answer to this is that if people don’t like being close together rubbing
elbows, they won’t come to the market and get close together and rub elbows. In a public venue where people are not
compelled to gather, the problem self corrects. As the continued high
attendance at the market makes clear, the congestion is apparently not a burden
for those congested.
But, of
course, he means more than that. The popularity of the market means parking is
scarce to which I reply that people still come flocking to the market, so
apparently it’s not too scarce. He also complains about the vendors parking their
trucks under the expressway and thus taking up parking spaces. But again:
People are still thronging the market even with those spaces occupied. I think
much of the agitation about congestion is a solution in search of a problem. My
wife will address more of these questions, and in more detail, later in this
response.
2)
The market is
damaging the park. This complaint I take more seriously, but it’s not reason
enough to unceremoniously toss out AIM. Again, see my wife’s comments below.
3)
The market should
be paying more to the city. I’ve already written about this. The market
generates tax income for the city through its vendors whose products are taxed
and, more significant, through taxes paid on purchases made by marketgoers on
Saturday and by people who have been introduced to our lovely neighborhood by
the market and come back other days. As
my wife so beautifully writes about later, it shows Oakland at its best, at its
most inclusive, functioning as a living advertisement for not just our
neighborhood but for our city. As she and I have learned as we collect
signatures at the market, people from all across the Bay Area come to our
market – and not a few from other states and other countries dragged down by
friends and family to witness the Oakland spirit come alive. Before setting a
figure on what AIM should pay, let’s do a cost-benefit analysis of how much the
city benefits directly and indirectly from the market. Certainly, AIM should
pay the going rate for its time in the park, but what that rate should be
should not be speculative and based on comparing a farmers market to a wedding
in the park. City staff should do research and figure out what a fair rate is
and ….
Negotiate directly with AIM.
Remember my initial premise.
AIM has run an outstanding market. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Don’t kill
the golden goose. Two birds in the hand are worth more than what might be an
eagle in the bush. (No, wait. It’s a piece of newspaper caught on a branch.) It
is only fair and it is no more than common sense to reject what seems to be –
at least in part - an animus-driven effort to create an RFP the result of which
will almost certainly be AIM’s termination as market manager. You dislike the
word “certainly”? Let us say that there is a high probability that if the city
creates an RFP, AIM will not succeed itself as manager of our farmers market,
and whoever follows with do a lesser job. And if that kind of crapshoot excites
you, there’s a bus leaving for Reno in 15 minutes.
One of the points Kernighan
makes in her comments above is that AIM was difficult to deal with in the past,
which – if so - might not bode well for successful face-to-face negotiations. Of course, AIM apparently has its own collective
memories about who said what to whom and when and how and with what authority,
etc. etc. To this whole litany of he said/she said, I respond: DOESN’T MATTER. LET IT GO. I am convinced that going forward we now have AIM’s
full attention. Before I was a journalism professor, I taught English Lit, and
I cannot resist quoting Samuel Johnson: "When a man knows he is to be hanged, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." Now that AIM is faced with Official
Oakland - not with members of a neighborhood group having no official brief to
negotiate with the market but only to advise a councilmember who is in fact no
longer a councilmember - yes, we have AIM’s attention. Every day the public
spotlight is shining brighter on any possible long-term future partnership
between AIM and the city of Oakland, and since AIM is not dumb (you can’t be
dumb and run a market as challenging as ours) I wager it will respond to
reasonable demands for reasonable rent for their use of our park, and to any
other reasonable requests. But the city of Oakland is not going to balance its
budget on an increase in what AIM pays for use of Splash Pad Park to stage its
outstanding market.
And, by the way, as Kernighan
points out, Oakland’s other markets don’t pay anything for using the streets on
which they set up (and close down for hours at a time) which she says makes all
the difference.
Perhaps Kernighan has already
provided the best perspective on the situation:
Oakland Tribune Story
Headlined Farmers' Markets: Who Benefits? (6/1/11)
But in Oakland, there seems
to be no agreement as to the idea behind the city's farmers' markets. Are they
about economic vitality, but not about tax revenue? Fruits and vegetables, but
also arts and crafts? According to Councilwoman Pat Kernighan, whose
district includes Grand Lake, the city hasn't gotten around to that question.
"The city council has never passed a
comprehensive policy with regard to farmers' markets," she said. "I
think the thinking," with the first market in Old Oakland in 1989,
"was that providing fresh fruits and vegetables is a benefit to the
people." The second component, she said, which developed later, is that
"it's a festive public gathering that tends to attract people to the
neighborhood.
"The Grand Lake market
has become phenomenally successful beyond our wildest dreams," Kernighan
continued. She described the lines outside Arizmendi, Lakeshore
Cafe, Starbucks, and Peet's on Saturday mornings; the pedestrian
traffic that slows to a standstill on Lakeshore, the parking difficulties that
encourage residents to walk to the market from a half-mile away. The market,
she and others began to realize, "has really some wonderful benefits, but
it also had some downsides that need to be dealt with."
I agree. City
Council should work out policies governing all of Oakland’s farmers
markets. In the meantime, AIM deserves
to continue in its role managing a market that has proved “phenomenally
successful beyond our wildest dreams.”
Kernighan suggests in her remarks posted on Nextdoor
earlier this week that my wife and I are oversimplifying this controversy.
First, let me say that what we hope to do is serve as a catalyst for
conversation. I’m not setting myself up
as the one-stop destination for definitive instruction on this topic. Much has
been written about possible futures for our market. Read. Judge. At the top of
my blog is a link to Katz’ proposed market guidelines. Speak out and reach out
to our elected representatives. My wife and I represent but one perspective,
which I will now sum up as simply – and, I know, as repetitively - as possible.
1) We love the current Grand
Lake Farmers Market, as it presents itself when we view it from a distance and
as we experience it when we shop there. Thinking globally, even those who currently
challenge AIM seem to accept its market has invigorated the neighborhood
economy.
2) Of the recommendations about
how the market should be changed going forward, some seem trivial and others
seem flat out wrong. None seem so
substantive to me that we should terminate AIM as market manager without directly
negotiating in good faith with them on those issues around which there is
consensus.
3) Given the attitude toward
AIM on the part of some of those who are pushing for an RFP – and perhaps that
attitude is based at least in part on tone-deaf response by AIM in years past –
I think creating an RFP is de facto
termination of AIM as market manager.
4) If AIM is terminated, I
think the probability that any subsequent manager will do as good a market is
low.
5) In any negotiations with AIM
at this moment, the city has the stronger hand. Use it. Negotiate.
One
last thing. Kernighan says that AIM “rallied its troops” to defend it. Ha. I guess I’m flattered to be considered worthy
of being called out of barracks, word warrior, pen in hand. Since the market’s
earliest days, and until a few weeks ago, our contacts with AIM were precisely
zero. My wife and I became involved because we went to a community meeting and
were upset by what we saw unfolding. At first, when we showed up at the market
to hand out flyers, AIM management didn’t know what to make of us. I’m not
certain what they make of us now. We have had some interaction with AIM but not
much. We are not in the pay of Big Vegetable (Marin division).
And
now more from my wife:
We appreciate Pat Kernighan’s public service. However, we disagree with a portion of what
she says and assume that some of her comments were based on being given erroneous
information because much of what she says is what some on the re-constituted
farmers market committee claim.
“Hello neighbors, this is Pat Kernighan, former
City Councilperson for District 2, now happily retired. I have been reading the
debate about the Grandlake Farmers Market with dismay, as I'm seeing
accusations and statements that are not true. I am also seeing an
over-simplification about what would make for the best future of the Farmers
Market. It is not simply a question of keeping or changing the current market
management. It is more about deciding what operational standards we want as a
community for the market. For starters, let me clear up a couple of incorrect
statements that appear in the Save Our Market flyer that is being distributed:
1. No one in the community that I know of, or in City government, is proposing
that the Grandlake market be shut down or that the current management company,
AIM (Agricultural Institute of Marin), be barred from managing the market.”
(SAVE OUR MARKET: Neither of
those things was said by us nor
written by us! Neither of those
assertions is in our flyer. The market will continue (in one form or another)
when all this is over, and if there is an RFP, I am sure AIM will not be banned from reapplying – though we
confidently predict that at the end of the day it will NOT be chosen to succeed
itself. We have no way of knowing what
the ‘anti-AIM’ individuals are claiming we have said. What we have stated verbally and in writing is
that anti-AIM individuals are attempting to oust the Agricultural Institute of
Marin (AIM) as managers of our wonderful farmers market. We have heard them state that as their goal,
and they have put it in writing. Again,
neither my husband nor I ever suggested that anyone is trying to remove the
Farmers Market from the park. We simply
support City staff’s January 24, 2017 Council Report be followed which was to
provide AIM with a “5-year lease.” And
we also ask why is the AIM market being singled out for an RFP when the Old
Oakland Farmers Market, a market operating longer in the same place, is not? That market is a far less complex and yet not
nearly as good as Grand Lake, so should not an RFP be issued as an incentive
for them to shape up or perhaps to bring in a group which would create a better
market?)
“2. No one is advocating that the craft vendors
or prepared food vendors be eliminated from the market.”
(Actually, when we attended the meeting of the re-constituted farmers
market advisory committee several months ago, attendees DID lobby for exactly THAT! Our neighbor who attended the meeting with my
husband and me referred to them as the ‘contingent.’ The ‘contingent’ - by my count more than half of the anti-AIM people present
- stated a ‘farmers only’ policy was
their goal, and that they had stopped attending the Grand Lake market
and now shopped only at those kinds of markets elsewhere. Again, at least four of the seven
individuals in the Katz group did specifically state that their goal was to
have FARMERS only. They pressed for that
over and over again --- to get rid of vendor-types other than farmers. The group did not vote on this issue, but the
majority of the anti-AIM group (‘contingent!’) did lobby to eliminate crafts
and prepared foods. We attended the
‘re-constituted’ farmers market committee meeting, and we heard clearly what
was said. If what was said has been
reported otherwise, then the report is incorrect.)
“What IS being proposed by a group of community
members, (who have spent years volunteering on behalf of the market and the
park),”
(They are not the only local individuals who volunteered large amounts
of time. Those of us who actually worked to save Splash Pad Park from
development in 1998 and 1999 and who worked to create its farmers market [some now claim to
have done both, but did neither] also spent years of our lives to help
create a better neighborhood and a better CITY, and the park would not have
been saved or our wonderful market created if we had not put so much time and
effort into the park and market! In addition to Oakland
Tribune columnist Peggy Stinnett, there were four women in the neighborhood
who worked to save Splash Pad from development and who helped start the farmers
market so that we could show the park was used and therefore not expendable. I was one. The other three were Nancy Rieser, Caroline
Kim and Laura Haas.)
“is that
the City should set operational guidelines”
(Operational guidelines are a
good idea.)
“for any market manager about things like
protecting the park surfaces (especially the grass) by laying plywood under the
booths”
(Most booths at the market do try to protect the surfaces. That is not to say that a better job could
not be done, making sure that all vendors comply.)
“and a tarp under the greasy popcorn machine,”
(I find it interesting that
some individuals are so upset about staining of the sidewalk at the park, when
they seem not to notice worse staining on the walks directly across the
street. Why is the staining of walks on
one side of the street a bad thing and of no concern on the other? I would argue that, considering the numbers
of years the market has operated, the staining is actually minimal. But, of course, the walks could use a
good steam cleaning, up and down the neighborhood!)
“that pedestrian aisles for shopping be a
minimum width to eliminate congestion,”
(There is no factual evidence to support the need for wider aisles. In fact, I have worked for a couple of the
most prestigious architectural firms in the country, and one of those firms, a
specialist in retail, sometimes designed retail spaces to create an experience
similar to those found in a Middle East market. Speaking as an architect and designer, the
width of the aisles does not seem too narrow.
On Saturday, when the park is filled, the business - the ‘congestion’ - makes
the whole park seems rather like a bazaar.
Because of that, the intimate atmosphere is delightful, and it is a
pleasant place to spend a morning.
Families bring their children to the market, and if they felt it too
congested, they would not be bringing their small children. It seems to me that, this is one of the
things Ken and Jerry are pushing for.
Just because they believe it does not make it true, does not mean that
most people attending the market react as they do, and it does not mean their
position is a valid one.
What I would say about the aisles - and I have been told so by market
attendees - is that they want the ‘gravel’ removed and replaced by a solid
surface. They want that because the
gravel path is a hazard! During the
design phase of the park, I attended a single design meeting at the request of
committee members who thought Katz was “overly influencing” the rest of the committee. At that meeting I very strongly advised Ken
and Walter Hood, the landscape architect, not to install gravel in walkways --
based on my public project management experience -- because it was a
maintenance problem and a liability problem.
Ken and Hood approved the gravel, and Ken is now blaming AIM for its
condition. The gravel’s condition can
never be made ‘good’ because the wrong material was selected for the wrong
place. More gravel will not make the
wrong material right!!!!!!! Ken and the architect made an error in judgment,
and now Ken blames the farmers market for his bad decision. The city signed off on the initial design and oversaw
its construction and thus incurred responsibility for current conditions.)
“that rules for truck parking be made so that a
reasonable amount of parking is left for customers of the market,”
(This is now Katz’ position. However,
the starting point for the re-designed Splash Park around 15 years ago was
to have the vendor trucks park in the parking spaces under the
freeway and adjacent to the park. In fact, it was
suggested by Katz at a preliminary community design meeting, and I thought it
then a good idea, told him so, and it is still a good idea today. Vendors parking further from their booths
would be a hardship on vendors because they would need to hire more people
and/or leave their booths unattended when they leave so that they might
replenish their stock. And again, what
would be the precise benefit of creating a few more parking spaces? Ken seems to think the market is already too
crowded. It’s not clear who would
benefit from this proposed change, but it is clear who would suffer – the vendors,
particularly the farmers.)
“that there be established a maximum footprint
for the market, and that the market management pay the city a reasonable fee
that would go for repair of wear and tear on the park.’
(No one would oppose AIM paying a reasonable amount – an increased
amount - for ‘leasing’ the park.
However, on Saturdays the use of the park - per square foot per person -
is greater at our small Splash Pad Park than any other park area in the
City. Because that is true, City maintenance
dollars should reflect the park use. As
for limiting the market to a “maximum footprint,” I find it delightful that the
park is being utilized to its fullest.
Cut the size of the market and you diminish the benefits of the market
to the neighborhood since some of those benefits are not a matter of direct
economics but also an intangible based on the market’s size and energy.)
“are the issues that should be the subject of a
community discussion, in my opinion.”
(That is a good point. No one
objecting to community input. What some
in the community object to – including us - is that a few Crocker individuals have
already imposed their views; are trying to dictate what is done in the market; to
dictate who runs the market; and what the market should be. They, believe it or
not, are in the minority!)
“Finally, the group is also asking that the
City issue an open and competitive Request for Proposals for management of the
Grandlake farmers market, with these types of guidelines included.”
(As indicated by petition signatures and other responses, it’s clear hundreds
of individuals object to an RFP but support the ‘lease agreement’ proposed by
City staff in its January 24, 2017 Council Report. In the past in a story in the Oakland
Tribune, as my husband noted above, you proposed the creation of guidelines
for all farmers markets in the city. We
believe that a good idea. Of course,
guidelines could easily be a part of a lease agreement with AIM, and that would
be a good precedent, a template for citywide rules.)
“Currently the market is operated by the Agricultural Institute of Marin,
known as AIM. I believe the RFP idea is what set off the controversy and
motivated AIM to rally the troops in support of its continued management.”
(Who are these troops? Me and my
husband? Concerned by what we thought
was a below-the-radar effort – my husband loves this phrase - to undermine the
market, we showed up at the market and started giving out flyers, with no
encouragement from AIM. They didn’t know who we were! As residents of this neighborhood since 1991,
my husband and I have seen what the market has done to revitalize our
neighborhood and our City! We have seen
the market voted and re-voted the ‘BEST,’ the ‘PREMIER’ farmers market in the
East Bay, and we have seen the park, on Saturdays, become a magnet for our friends
and family. The market is right up there
with Fairyland as a family friendly place.
My husband and I were the first people who objected to John Russo’s
proposal to develop the park by installing a Trader Joe’s. Prior to that proposal, we had supported
Russo, voted for Russo – also for Kernighan and Guillen by the way. At an evening meal at Spettro’s, John and his
wife even shared a dish named after John with us. Just as we objected to a specific position of
Russo, we now object to the majority 7:5 vote of the ‘re-constituted- farmers
market committee’ calling for a market RFP.
We were stunned to hear the reasons the ‘re-constituted’ committee
members gave for wanting to get rid of AIM.
What happened is that we, with a neighbor, attended the re-constituted
farmers market committee where we heard Katz, Barclay and their associates
discuss the market, state their goals and make their proposals, and we said
‘NO!’ to their proposals and goals. We
personally had not had any contact with the Marin farmers market group since we
heard them give their successful proposal for running a Grand Lake Farmers
Market **in 1999**. The reasons we
supported them back then instead of our 2nd choice, the Old Oakland
farmers market manager, was not only that they were more sophisticated but also
because of their broader market strategy: to do things to create foot traffic in
the neighborhood and by doing that revitalize our failing retail. When we learned of what the ‘re-constituted’
committee wanted to do, we developed our flyer and created a petition and started
a web page on our own. AIM did not
recruit us.
Because we believe AIM’s Grand Lake Farmers Market at Splash Pad Park to
have had such an overwhelming positive impact on our City, on
our business district and on our neighborhood, we - on our own - are doing what
we can to preserve what we believe to be the BEST of the BEST! Oakland Magazine and the East Bay
Express and other groups call AIM’s market that! Preserving AIM’s good market we think is
worth our effort.
AIM is not perfect, but it is good, very good. We’ve attended other farmers markets, but no
other market gives us the joy that we feel at AIM’s Grand Lake Market. We love the mix of vendors, we love the
market, but most of all, being good liberals, it makes us positively giddy to
see the vitality of the market, a vitality created by the diversity of those
attending the market. The market brings
together old and young, rich and not so rich and people of every race and of
many religions and of many ways of being and living. It is as beautiful a gathering of people as
we have ever seen. Our market is not
accidental. Our wonderful market was
created by AIM, and they created it even when, for a while, some in City Hall
did things to cause it to fail, among other things closing it down between
Thanksgiving and New Year’s. AIM
prevailed, and the market not only survived, it prospered. It eventually became not just a purveyor of
foods and goods but the HEART of our
neighborhood, a place where the beautiful diversity of our City, our
community, becomes one. We support AIM today
because the market is what it is. AIM
did not ask us to lobby for them. They
did not know us and we did not know them.
What we knew and what we know is that our market is a beautiful place, a
place that we want to keep and indeed, something that should be ‘exported’ to
other areas. We support AIM because we
believe it has created something that we all can be proud of. AIM deserves to stay because of what it has
created.)
“By the way, if such an RFP was issued by the
City, AIM could certainly compete along with any other proposers (among whom
would likely be the entities that manage the other East Bay farmers markets). I
spent many years interacting with AIM and with the community members who have
volunteered for years on the Farmers Market Advisory Committee and who have
suggested doing the RFP. I have some observations. But first, a bit of history
to explain how we got to this point. When the farmers market started operating
in the newly constructed Splash Pad park in 2004, the market was about a third
the size it is now. As it grew in popularity and size, so did the attendant
problems like traffic congestion, trash left behind, lack of parking in the
general neighborhood on Saturdays, and damage to the park.”
(No one has said that everything is perfect. However, AIM has been blamed for some things
that are, in context, insignificant, and for some things that it and its market
did not cause. And part of the problem
is the result of the market’s popularity.
Actually, Splash Pad Park, per square foot, is on Saturdays the most
heavily used park area in the City of Oakland.
Because of its use, the City should provide the park with more
maintenance and, as part of a lease, could stipulate maintenance standards on
AIM. Parking is indeed an issue. However, the comparatively recent changes in parking
on Lakeshore Avenue along Lake Merritt were poorly designed, and if the City
had thought Saturday parking was an issue, they should have put a good parking
layout at the edge of Lake Merritt when It was refurbished. But if a good parking layout was not done
then, it could be done now.)
“Several businesses on Grand and Lakeshore
complained that the market was taking all the parking on Saturdays and
siphoning off customers of restaurants.
(Actually, we’ve talked to some business people who make those
claims. Prior to the farmers market’s
establishment, twice restaurants at a now-successful location went out of
business because of lack of patronage. Now
the owner blames the market for hurting his business because of tight
parking. But the only day of the week
when there is a waiting line to eat at the café is on Saturday, during market
hours. What is claimed does not jibe
with reality. I’ve recently talked to business
owners who are happy for the foot traffic generated by the farmers market because
it brings them business they would not have otherwise. Nancy Rieser and I did two surveys on Grand –
Lakeshore – Lake Park after the start of the original market because the
business association made similar claims.
Those surveys showed that most businesses believed the market had a
positive effect on their sales. Often,
what is claimed is not substantiated by fact. Any claim that the net effect of the market is
not positive for a majority of neighborhood businesses needs to be very
carefully evaluated!)
“In response, I appointed a Farmers Market
community advisory board (in about 2006?) to help sort out the difficulties and
help the market be an asset to the community. The concerns of the neighborhood
businesses were sorted out fairly early, and then the focus of the committee
was on parking, traffic, and minimizing damage to the park. I and some of the
folks from the advisory board attempted to work with AIM to get them to take
some responsibility for mitigating the negative impacts of the market. It was a
frustrating process, to put it mildly. The executive management of AIM wouldn't
commit to meeting dates for months at a time; when they did come to a meeting,
they sent people without decision-making authority; they refused to provide any
financial information about their non-profit or what their income from the
Grandlake market was. They only irregularly and grudgingly complied with
requests to put down tarps or plywood under the booths that are set up on the
grass. This pattern went on for years. The key bone of contention in our
discussions was whether AIM would contribute financially to repairing damage to
the park on which they operate. They contributed no money to the City for that
or any other purpose during the years 2004 to 2013. Though AIM refused to share
any financial information with City staff until 2014, we knew from talking with
the market vendors that AIM was grossing an estimated $20,000/month --
$240,000/year -- from the fees it charged to the vendors at the Grandlake
market. I estimate their expenses for the GL market were no more than
$100,000/year for salary for a market manager and insurance. I am happy to have
AIM correct me on that figure, but I think it's in the ballpark. So the bottom
line is that over a period of nine years, AIM made a net income from the
Grandlake market well in excess of $1 million, and they contributed none of it
back the community who had generated all that income for them. If not for the
advocacy of Ken Katz and Jerry Barclay of the Farmers Market Advisory Committee,
I doubt that we would have ever seen any financial sharing with the City.”
(No one is saying that Ken and Jerry have not contributed, but many
other individuals have contributed too!
And no one is saying that AIM has been a pushover in negotiations. But
sometimes AIM has been “negotiating” with people who are not actual
representatives of the city but are self-declared spokespeople of the
neighborhood and its interests. That’s why tough contract negotiations directly
between AIM and the City are now in order, not an end-run which will
result in AIM’s ouster, and with all those who love the current market, saying,
“Wait. What? That’s not what I wanted to happen.” Editor’s note: I give one
last read to what my wife writes as she does to what I write, and I cannot
resist recalling that perhaps apocryphal quotation from Vietnam, which I hope does not foreshadow where these attacks on AIM are going: ‘To save the
village we had to destroy it.’)
“But due to the continued advocacy of these two
volunteers, AIM finally spent $35,000 for a contractor to restore the decomposed
granite paths,”
(Replacing the ‘gravelly parts’ of walks is a waste of money because the
material will not hold up! What is put
down today, will be kicked out tomorrow!)
“and in 2014 or 2015 agreed to pay $1,000/month
toward a fund for future repair needs of the park on which they operate. During
the years of fruitless negotiations, AIM's consistent mantra was that their
mission is to support the viability of small farms and to educate the public
about healthy food; therefore they needed every bit of income for that purpose.
They were also in the process of raising several million dollars to build a
permanent, 7-day-a-week farmers market building in the Marin Civic Center that
would provide a consistent place for Marin farmers to sell their produce. We
agreed those were valuable pursuits, but argued that surely they could return
some portion of their Grandlake profits to help repair the damage to the
Oakland park they operated in.
(And, if I remember, that was the same argument given for building a
Trader Joe’s on the site, to pay for park maintenance)
“It wasn't until 2014, when Jerry and Ken
proposed that the City do an RFP to open up the market management, that AIM
suddenly became more cooperative with the City. For fairness and context, I
will note that the City's policies with regard to use of City property is
inconsistent depending on the type of use. Other farmers markets in Oakland do
not pay a fee,
(Threats can be useful, and this one has certainly gotten everyone’s
attention. But also: only AIM has been asked to pay a use fee? And one wonders why they are reluctant?)
“but they all operate on an asphalt parking lot
or city street,”
(On the “street!” But that too
requires City services, and I have been told that the Old Oakland Farmers
Market has resulted in some lessening of patronage to nearby businesses at
market times. In addition, that market
has not had the HUGE positive impact on the business district that AIM has
had. Katz and Barclay argue that the
only money the City receives is from direct money paid for rent and for
maintenance. The fact is that AIM’s market was a primary engine behind
the renewal of the Grand Lake business district and the increase in Sales TAX
revenue to the City. So, as nice
as a bigger fee would be, City coffers have been enhanced by market foot
traffic business and TAXES collect because of an increase foot traffic.)
“Thus the potential for damage to the venue is
negligible. In contrast to farmers markets, the City charges any other
non-profit which uses a City park to put on an event over $1,000/DAY in fees.
(It is our understanding that AIM has agreed to pay more than it does
now. If I recall, they suggested $800 a
day.)
“This includes events like free performances
for children and fairs promoting local minority businesses, i.e., events for
the public benefit that do not charge attendees or make any profit. So what is
fair to charge the operator of the Grandlake Farmers Market? I would say
somewhere in between those extremes. But the management issue isn't just about
money, it is also about whether the market is being managed in a way that the
majority of neighbors can enjoy.”
(Based on the hundreds of individuals we have talked to, a decisive
MAJORITY, they LIKE the market as it is today, ENJOY the market, LOVE the
market, they frequent the market and vote with their feet when they visit the
market!)
“Those issues need discussion by the community
regardless of whether it is AIM or some other entity managing.”
(That is why we created a petition, to show what the COMMUNITY, not a
few, WANT.)
“-- For
instance, should some of the farmers' trucks be required to park at Lakeview
school so there is more customer parking under the freeway?”
(Again, the current parking arrangement was the basis for the re-design
of the park! It was Katz’s idea and it
was DONE to create a market that would function well in a tight space. And why make the market more difficult for
vendors simply to add a few parking spaces?)
“How wide should the pedestrian aisles be to
allow comfortable movement within the market?”
(This issue surprises me. People
make their way through the market, linger at the market. Again, there is no factual evidence that
supports this position. What people
don’t like is not the width of the walkways, but the gravel, the gravel that
Ken insisted on!)
“How dense with booths should the market be?”
(Again, this is a Katz and Barclay issue. When we’ve attended the market on days with
fewer booths, people have complained to us that they miss the vendors. So, this does not seem to be an issue of
concern to market attendees. Indeed, they seem to take a position opposite of
Katz and Barclay.)
“Some folks like it as is, but I've heard from
many people that they find it too crowded and go to other farmers markets
instead.”
(It’s perfectly fine if some people don’t like the crowds at the market
and shop elsewhere. Nothing pleases
everyone. But we would argue that those
who like the market vote with their feet and their feet support AIM’s market as
it is.)
“These questions, in my opinion, would be a
useful subject of discussion.
(We agree. What bothered us about
the meeting at which the RFP was voted on was the fact so few members of the
community were in attendance. Again,
they said they were few but had considerable political influence!)
“Wrapping this up: Whether the City opens up
the market management function to competition with a Request for Proposals or
whether they stick with AIM, I believe it is essential that the City establish
written operational standards for the market management”
(We heartily support your belief in the establishment of written
operational standards. Without written
standards, standards incorporated in a legal document, there is really no basis
for expecting demands to be met. We strongly
concur with this, your suggestion, and we believe that this is a good point in
time to establish standards!!!!!!!!!)
“that will provide adequate aisle space for
customers within the market,”
(But, again, I question the need for wider aisles. There is no empirical evidence that can be cited to show the
aisles at the market are too narrow. Demanding wider aisles might be a
backdoor way of forcing vendors out of the market.)
‘protect the park infrastructure from
unnecessary damage,”
(This would be good, but let me mention that the walks in front of the
now Merritt Bakery are more stained than those around and in Splash Pad Park. It is something that opponents of AIM decline
to notice.)
“contribute to capital repair costs.”
(That would be great! However, since Splash Pad Park is, on a
Saturdays, the most heavily used public park space in the City, it seems that
the City should increase its maintenance of the park.)
“and manage parking and traffic impacts.’
(We have been asking for years for additional parking at the Lakeview
School across the street from the market and, as stated earlier, we were highly
disappointed in the horrible parking layout at the edge of the lake on
Lakeshore Avenue. It seems that if the
City had been concerned about parking in the area, it would have required that
the Lake Merritt design consultant hired to re-work the lake’s edge provide a
quality design parking. That design
was/is inadequate. Who but the City is
responsible for the bad parking layout along the lake?)
“If community members are inclined to contact
City officials about the Grandlake Farmers Market, these are the issues I
encourage them to address.”
(We agree on this!)
“AIM could certainly meet these standards, but
they are unlikely to do so unless required to do it by a written contract.”
(My husband and I, having worked with consultants ourselves, having
worked with contractors, have found that if something is not written down, it
is as if it does not exist. And, for
that reason, Moses wrote the 10 commandments in stone. Few at the time probably were able to read,
but the commandments were written and became law and people understood they
were serious --- even if not obeyed --- because they were in writing. Moses set a good example. Let’s follow his lead and put requirements in
writing.)
