|
|
| Front page cover of the newspaper L’Aurore of Thursday 13 January 1898, with the letter J’accuse...!, written by Émile Zola about the Dreyfus affair. The headline reads "I accuse! Letter to the President of the Republic". See J'accuse...!, the whole text on Wikisource. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Here is a link to Ken Katz' recent open letter to City Council. Here is my response.
Let me begin with a thought experiment. What if you, Oakland City Council member, were
confronted with the demand that you be immediately recalled from office for dubious cause but
that, of course, you could run for your post again – maybe? Sound fair to you? That’s the situation the
Agricultural Institute of Marin (AIM) finds itself in today when confronted
with Ken Katz’ recent manifesto concerning its management of the Grand Lake
Farmers Market.
His attack on AIM’s management of the Grand
Lake Market needs to be turned on its head. Any analysis of his “open letter” needs to
begin not with refuting his criticisms but with a close examination of the
proposed solution to AIM’s alleged inadequacies because that proposed solution
– an RFP, or Request For Proposal - is unfair, disproportionate and in every
way overkill. Before talking about the
problems, we must talk about the proposed sledgehammer approach to solving
them.
One must first acknowledge what a RFP is. In this context, applied to this
long-established farmers market, it would in effect terminate AIM as market
manager, fire them, throw them out. You
have been so deficient a market manager – it would in effect say - that we are
shoving you out the door, though perhaps we will let you reapply. (That’s a big
“perhaps.” Back to that in a minute.)
Such an action is unfair given the quality
of AIM’s management of the Grand Lake Market over the last 18 years. If (and that’s
a very big if) one concludes that AIM’s management has been deficient and
some improvement is needed, AIM’s track record has earned it the right to
negotiate exclusively with the city on the merits of those complaints as city
staff recommended in a council report in January. That would be both fair and sensible.
Now back to that “perhaps” I mentioned
earlier: the “promise” that a chastened AIM could reapply to manage the market. Anyone versed in the ways of bureaucracy
knows that the key phase in the life of an RFP is not its final application but
its creation, in the setting of its basic ground rules. Stipulations can be added – let us say stipulating
where market management be headquartered or a requirement that a certain
percentage of vendors be from Oakland – that would pre-select who could apply
and who could be chosen. In short, AIM
could fall victim to the sort of generalized pie-in-the-sky wish lists that
sound good but that ignore the realities of what it takes to run a market in
this city.
RFPs can be gamed. I fear what would happen if those members of
the neighborhood group who are the principal opponents of AIM’s management of
Grand Lake Market somehow were given the power to write, or even influence, the
document.
For many years, I brought my Advanced
Reporting class across the bridge from San Francisco to Oakland city council to do their required meeting story. I cannot
forget the Tuesday evening when a council member's chief of staff who had over the years
befriended my classes told us with great excitement that, “You’ve picked a great
meeting. Tonight I actually don’t know what the outcome of one of the votes
will be.” What he meant, of course, was
that many political decisions fly under the radar, and that sometimes citizens
become engaged so late in the process that for all practical purposes the
decision has actually already been made in the shadows, in committee or
subcommittee or - in this current case of who manages the market - somewhere (I
fear) in the RFP process. I want any
decision about the market’s future to take place in the sunshine with as many
people as possible informed and involved. A RFP is not the way to go.
And – back to basics - a RFP would be
justified only if AIM’s deficiencies
are real and, if real, serious enough to deserve the aforementioned
sledgehammer blow. Let’s examine some of
these alleged deficiencies and the proposed solutions to them.
1)
AIM’s supposed ability to pay more to the
city of Oakland. It’s a legitimate
question. I’ve examined AIM’s 990 tax
form, and it does not seem to me that lavish salaries are being tossed around. But as a former newspaper journalist and now a
journalism professor, I’ve examined many 990s, and it is a challenge to
interpret them. Therefore, put city
staff to work researching the question, specifically finding out what other
farmers markets in the city pay. Extend
that research to popular markets in other cities. Then let that be a baseline for conversations
with AIM. Indeed, those of us who are
fighting for AIM to continue as market manager would be glad to volunteer time
to help with such useful research. The
following is an excerpt from a 2011 article in the Oakland Tribune
addressing this concern:
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 [now retired] 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," (emphasis added) 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."
Her statements are as relevant now
as they were then. The market is indeed
“phenomenally successful.” And it would
be a good idea for the city to step back and take a comprehensive look at how
farmers markets fit into the future of Oakland. But a piecemeal, kneejerk attack on that “phenomenal”
AIM-managed Grand Lake Farmers Market? How
foolish and counterproductive. Certainly
no RFP is needed.
2)
The desirability of hiring an existing Oakland-based farmers
market group to run the market. Isn’t it great that Oakland’s new police chief
is from Oakland? (Wait, no she isn’t.) And that our next fire chief will be. (Maybe. It’s a nationwide search, the idea being you
find the best people for the toughest job.) I do not mean to be flip, but the determiner
in choosing who should run a complex and challenging farmers market should be competence,
not parochialism. Certainly one wants
whoever manages the Grand Lake Market to be responsive to neighborhood, and to
citywide concerns, and we believe AIM is. Marin is not on the other side of the world.
3)
The desirability of hiring a local non-profit
group expressly created for the purpose of running the Grand Lake Farmers
Market. This sounds good because it
seems to create a kind of sweet spot in any attempt to expel AIM. It seems to respond to the obvious
shortcoming that if you toss out AIM, you toss out AIM’s farmers and other
vendors, many of whom are beloved by neighborhood residents. So perhaps a brand-new non-profit could keep
the “best” of the farmers? Maybe and
maybe not. Several vendors have told us
they feel threatened by Katz. Also, if
AIM loses Grand Lake, it’s reasonable to assume they would find another locale
for a Saturday market, taking vendors with them. Moreover, it takes expertise
and commitment to run a farmers market. Assuming such a new local non-profit will
arise and that it will have the skills to assemble and run a market is a risk
the neighborhood and the city cannot afford to take. And what would be the impetus for such a local
non-profit to arise? Previous assertions
by the Katz group about how lucrative the market is suggest a possible motive
for removing it and replacing it with a local group, and that is to create an
opportunity to create a non-profit that produces income for its organizers
through salaries for those organizers. That
possibility – that motive - should at least be considered.
Now, to be fair, let us cite Katz’ proposed market "guidelines" in his newsletter from several months ago, which included this
statement:
Considering the long term lack
of support from the current management – combined with our limited expectations
for future improvements, we’d recommend that the city issue an RFP inviting
other market operators to submit bids. We’d also consider organizing a
community non-profit for this purpose that would ensure more local
participation and be able to pour some of the proceeds into Splash Pad Park
improvements – as well as contribute more financially to the City of Oakland.
Katz has since denied he wants to manage the market, but read the preceding
paragraph and judge for yourselves. It’s a lovely promise that this imagined
group would “pour” market profits into the park. But the choice of words
betrays the fundamental assumption by the group that is attacking AIM, that the
market is some kind of cash cow or golden goose that runs on autopilot. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.) Bring in a new manager, spin around twice,
and turn on the money faucet! Good luck with that, as my students used to say. As I said earlier, let the city, using its
accountants and MBAs, figure out just what additional payback Oakland should
expect from AIM – if any, and in addition to all the indirect benefits the
market has provided to the city and the neighborhood.
But do not underestimate the importance of expertise. Let those
researchers take a look at the Jack London Square market. In recent conversations, several Grand Lake marketgoers
have commented on how the Jack London Square market is much diminished because
of new restrictions. I do not know if this is true, but determining its
accuracy is an example of the kind of research that needs to be done before the
city makes too quick a decision about the Grand Lake Market.
Finally, where in Katz’ open
letter to city council are the all-important words, “AIM has refused to
negotiate changes with the city or with its legal representatives”? Ken Katz and Jerry Barclay have no status to
request, much less demand, anything of AIM. They are volunteer participants in an
organization that was apparently created by a previous council member to advise
her, not to instruct the market on how it should behave. In recent years, I have been mildly amused –
indeed, it has often brought a smile to my face – to see Katz as a kind of
self-declared Sheriff of the Market, bustling around keeping an eye on things
in much the way that legendary gadfly Sanjiv Handa used to sit in the front row
at Oakland City Council making suggestions – and often accusations – of varying
degrees of usefulness.
It may be that Katz deserves
commendation for making so loud a noise that the city and the market can begin
a conversation on the merits of his accusations and insinuations. But there is no reason to jump from the possibility
of adjusting the market’s contractual relationship with the city to the nuclear
option of terminating it.
Appendix created by Edith Landrith-Robertson which addresses some of the other criticisms that have emerged
from the Katz camp of how AIM has run the Grand Lake Market.
·
Gravel path (decomposed granite): Individuals
are claiming that the wear of the gravel pathways is caused by AIM’s poor
management of the farmers market and site. I, Edith Landrith-Robertson,
registered architect, attended a design meeting nearly 20 years ago when the
park was being re-designed to accommodate the Grand Lake Farmers Market.
That meeting was attended by the design landscape architect, neighborhood
individuals and myself. I was told of the meeting and asked to attend by
a committee individual who thought ‘wrong design decisions’ were being made by
the landscape architect and neighborhood representatives and requested that I
attend and comment on the design. I attended that meeting and commented
as I had been asked to do. At that meeting, because of my experience with
parks and public projects, I told the design group that the material being
proposed for the majority of the walkways within Splash Pad Park was an
inappropriate material for the proposed use. It was, I said, not durable,
would not hold up to light foot traffic, let alone heavy traffic. I
explained that the material could be easily dislodged, and when that happened
it would almost certainly become a tripping hazard, a liability for the City
and for that reason should not be installed in the heavily used park. The
designer, with the approval of neighborhood individuals, ignored my warning and
approved decomposed granite. Decomposed granite was installed and failed
almost immediately. I find it disingenuous now that the very neighborhood
resident who approved of the use of a material (decomposed granite), a material
which can never hold up to foot traffic, now blames the farmers market (AIM)
for the poor condition of the paths. He is blaming the logical outcome of
his recommendation and the original poor design decision on the farmers market
managers, Agricultural Institute of Marin, who was not part of choosing the
wrong material for the park in the first place. If the gravel is replaced
today, tomorrow it will be kicked out because that is the nature of loose fill.
Decomposed granite is simply the wrong material for the heavily used paths of
Splash Pad Park. It was a bad design decision and should, because it is a
liability, be replaced. But don’t blame AIM for the problem. Certainly,
replacing the granite is a good idea, but it is primarily a city
responsibility.
* An elaboration on the issue of Revenue Generated By the Market:
Earlier this year the leader of the group that wants to run their own
farmers market said at a public meeting that if he ran the market he would pay
the City more for running the market at Splash Pad Park than AIM is currently
paying. If any market manager paid more to use the site, that would be
nice, but it is not just what a market management group pays the City to use
the site that brings revenue into a city: It is what the market brings into a
city (via sales taxes) as a result of the market’s activities that generates
the bulk of the revenue from which the city benefits. AIM’s Grand Lake
Farmers Market at Splash Pad Park generates a significant amount of revenue
through non-food vendors (which incidentally members of this group have stated
they would like to eliminate) and especially by the business generated by
farmers market attendees shopping in the retail establishments on Grand and
Lakeshore Avenues. Shopping in local stores and eating in local
restaurants generates sales tax revenue for the City of Oakland. The man may
pay more for use of the site, but if it is a lesser quality farmers market that
replaces AIM’s market - and a drop off in quality is a likely bet no matter who
might be chosen to replace AIM - then sales tax revenue will drop and the
overall City income from the farmers market decreases.
* Grass: A few in the neighborhood blame the condition of the
grass on the market managers (AIM). The fact is that this winter Oakland
received about 50% more rain than in an average year, and that made sod, sod in
the park and in anyone’s yard, a muddy mess when walked on. Grass can be
re-grown. Other than the grass, in my opinion the plantings in the park
(my first degree was in biology) could have been better laid out, and, I
believe, a different selection of plants would have been more attractive.
Originally the designer proposed Lombardy Poplars, but thankfully used other trees instead and at least the trees fare better than other plants in the
park.
* Pavement discoloration: A few neighborhood activists are ‘upset’
by the fact that there is some staining of pavers and asphalt in Splash Pad
Park as a result of farmers market vendors and farmers market attendees.
I say, yes there is some staining, but considering that the park has been
the site of a busy market for almost two decades, that is not surprising.
Some staining would likely have occurred even if a market had not been
on the site. Disneyland and Disney World both steam clean their walkways
at the end of each day to keep walks pristine. Periodical steam cleaning
of stained pathways and gathering spaces would make the park ‘cleaner’ and no
one would object to that, but, this claim, it seems to me, is simply a way to
try to find something wrong with our wonderful market, so that individuals can
push out the current managers who over the years have done an outstanding job.
* Parking problems. The essence of this criticism is that the success of
the market makes it difficult to find a parking place during market hours on
Saturday and that AIM should do something about it. How to go about unpacking
this complaint? When my husband and I go to market, usually it takes five
to ten minutes to find a parking place. But we always find a parking place.
If we did not love the market so much, we would go home – or never
venture forth in the first place. A handful of local residents seem to
want a small-scale, mildly repulsive farmers market to which they can go
without the rude jangle of rubbing elbows with the masses. This, of
course, is a recipe for soon there being no farmers market at all. When
my husband and I moved to the neighborhood in 1991, Lakeshore Avenue had so
little foot traffic we wondered what was wrong with the neighborhood.
Today we relish those moments when the street is most busy, when it
is alive. What seems an inconvenience to others seems to
us a welcome sign of neighborhood health. The benefits of the market far
outweigh any problems with parking. As Oakland A’s season ticket holders,
my husband and I have gone to many games in recent years where parking is easy,
and we have had half a row to ourselves to watch our beloved, beautiful, bumbling
A’s. Guess why that is so. Is that what you want for our farmers
market?
NOTE: One aspect of the new lease with AIM addresses parking. It is
my understanding that parking will again be available at Lake Park School site.
