Bay
Crossings Interview
The Inimitable Jerry Brown
Hizzoner Holds Forth on the
Waterfront
You were Co-Chair of
the Blue Ribbon committee that was set up to study the idea of
expanded ferry service, but you didn’t take an active role and
generally haven’t had much to say on the issue. Ferries were
crucial to emergency efforts after the 9/11 terrorist attack in
NY, with bridge and tunnel access hampered they are for many now
an only way to get to Lower Manhattan. And now many Bay Areans are
crowding onto ferries in the wake of scares about our own bridges.
Are you kindling a greater interest in bay ferries?
Well, I have always
had a strong interest in ferries and I was very happy to support
the task force that Ron Cowan headed up. I met with him on many
occasions and felt that Willie Brown and Ron Cowan and the
representatives from Oakland would be able to handle whatever was
needed and I was disappointed to see that the Governor didn’t
appoint Cowan to the WTA. There hasn’t been any forward movement
because of, I guess, the fear of innovation. Ferries are going to
be a part of our future but we’re just awaiting the proper
leadership to get us there. I could be more involved but it
requires the leadership of the Governor or some key legislators in
order to really put together the financing mechanisms that make it
all possible.
But you see ferries
as playing an important role in Oakland’s economic life?
I do see that and I
also see that they require a significant capital investment to do
a large enough program to get it really going and that is
something within the appropriate purview of the state.
Aren’t higher
bridge tolls and gas taxes really the only way to discourage
automobile use and shouldn’t the proceeds be used to fund such
expanded and improved public transportation like ferries?
The difficulty with
any kind of higher gas taxes or tolls are that they fall on the
poor and middle class with a greater force because of the lack of
discretionary income and therefore, the political representatives
are loathe to increase them. So even though there might be some
increases, it would not be anywhere near what an economist might
suggest.
Higher tolls and gas
taxes may be politically problematical, but aren’t they really
the only effective way to get people out of their cars and, at the
same time, to pay for public transportation?
Some people have no
other option so you have to find some way to counteract the fee. I
would think that would be very difficult. I’m not saying it’s
impossible. It’s a theory. That is the source of some money but
that’s not enough. The gas tax maybe more so but even there,
they’re still trying to pay for a new bridge.
But sales taxes are
used mostly to pay for transportation and that’s the most
regressive kind of tax there is.
Right, but you’re
talking about increasing them in the form of tolls or gas taxes. I
understand as a matter of theory but the political consensus would
not be there particularly when there are so many pressures from
BART and buses, let alone highways.
When it comes to any
kind of bridge toll increase, do you support at least some of that
money being used for an expanded ferry service?
Yes, I believe we
ought to come up with the money somehow. Government has a number
of pockets that I can pick and we ought to find enough of them to
support the ferry system.
Oakland was
originally a waterfront community. So-called urban renewal
programs moved the commercial and civic center away. Did Oakland
as an urban idea lose its way in the process?
Oakland lost a lot
when the freeways and the BART system were put in over decades
destroying housing and business and stalling economic activity for
a long, long time and we still haven’t fully recovered yet. The
shoreline is indeed a key economic asset and the Port right now
has awarded or is in the process of signing the responsibility to
a private developer to develop the shoreline, particularly from
Broadway going to 9th Street. So yes, there is a lot of potential
there. It has been underutilized and essentially industrial and
now it’s going to get a rebirth as a mixed use, whether it be
residential, commercial, hotel and office.
You were less than
thrilled with the Port of Oakland at the start of your term. What’s
your thinking these days?
I think the Port’s
doing a good job and they’ve got a lot of great land that’s
got to be utilized. The Port brings a lot of economic benefit and
it creates a lot of burden by way of trucks and pollution. So all
of that has to be mitigated. But the Port is an important part of
the economic life of the East Bay.
You fought long and
hard for a better designed Bay Bridge retrofit yet much of the new
development nearing completion in the Jack London Square
waterfront area, where you live, in fact, can be fairly described
as utilitarian, unimaginative and boxy. Isn’t innovative design
for the waterfront as important as it is for the Bay Bridge?
It’s very
important, and I would question what you say about the Jack London
area buildings being just boxy. The warehouses they replaced were
boxy too. Historic preservationists like to keep the fabric as it
was and economics plays a part too. And, yes, I champion the
aesthetic of the waterfront.
Many Bay Areans are
distressed by the lack of a regional perspective in airport and
seaport planning. Don Perata , Gavin Newsom and others are on
record as favoring studying the idea of regionalizing control of
these assets much as New York has done with the New York & New
Jersey Port Authority. Your view?
I want to keep the
Oakland Port Authority under the control of the City of Oakland.
That’s all there is to it. We’re running the airport. We’re
running the port. We’re suffering the consequences so we ought
to get the positives that flow from it. We don’t operate in a
vacuum. We’re part of a regional system and a Bay Plan that BCDC
enforces. We have to take into account regional needs. Right now,
we’re in litigation with Alameda and San Leandro about the
airport. So there’s no go-it-alone spirit in Oakland. We want to
be collaborative with our neighbors.
