Delay Ruschin Site Sale, Prevent an Injustice

I live in front of the proposed 77-housing unit development at Ruschin School. The school has been closed since 1989. Recently, Newark Unified School District decided to move forward on development of the property. First of all, I support our schools. At the same time, I support responsible and fair housing developments that include surrounding neighborhoods in the decision making. Frankly, I am disheartened by the misuse of political power to prevent Ruschin area residents from advocating in defense of their own neighborhood.

Over the past 50 years, the “Newark way” has been to withhold approval on any project absent agreement from the surrounding neighbors. Yet more than 70 dissenting Newark residents attended two public neighborhood meetings. The precedent of the “Newark way” will be forever broken if the project gets approved by the City Council on its February 12th meeting at the Newark Pavillion.

With two public neighborhood meetings, we expected our opinions to be valued as promised on the flyers from the developer. But before both meetings had even started, the plans for the project were already submitted to the city. Simply, these meetings were only meant to fulfill a City requirement.

At one of the two neighborhood meetings, NUSD Superintendent Dave Marken was in attendance. As neighbors continued to ask critical questions about the project, our superintendent got defensive. He threatened to build a charter school or a two-story school where students would arrive in and leave with handcuffs. I was taken aback by this angry reaction. When is making threats an acceptable reaction to questions?

The proposal was reduced from 85 to 77 units, since otherwise the city’s fire trucks would not have been able to drive through the development. Prior to this change, the proposal had been deemed as “ready to go!” Someone could have died, but the developer’s interests are more important than the lives of future Newark residents.

There were also many questionable decisions at the Planning Commission’s hearing like: voting options on cards meant for “speakers”, “school supporters” given a different-colored speaker card, Ruschin area seniors who were in the downstairs room left frustrated due to technical problems, and supposedly not expecting a large crowd yet the Deputy Fire Marshal was there keeping count of attendance.

Superintendent Marken also invited more than 200 staff, students and parents to the Planning Commission’s hearing. Many of the invited live outside the Ruschin area and would not be directly impacted by the project. Furthermore, they were allowed into the building an hour early. I learned that several of my neighbors were not allowed in because there was “no more room”. I understand the interest of the school board is to invite as many supporters as possible, but is inviting 200 individuals an hour before the official start of the hearing really appropriate?

Due to the large number attending, public comment was also limited to 3 minutes each. Superintendent Marken’s supporters were easily able to argue that the money from the sale was going to new books and technology within that time. But actually all of the money received will go towards maintenance and new wireless routers. Even without funds from the sale, the state already offers money for new books and technology. If the school district wanted to resolve these issues, they could have already done so.

Additionally, the Newark Assistant City Manager Terrence Grindall’s actions at the Planning Commission showed a complete disregard for Ruschin Area residents. Why is this project being granted a new zoning category (LDR-FBC) that has never been used before? Why wasn’t it mentioned that the project completely disregards Newark’s General Plan policy LU-2.1, which explicitly vows to “protect single family neighborhoods from substantial increases in density?”

The Ruschin Project will create permanent parking and traffic problems from doubling the density of our neighborhood and ignoring the General Plan. I explicitly noted the contradictions to the Planning Commission staff. But later, our Assistant City Manager falsely suggested only one policy from the General Plan was in contradiction with the project.

I have personally spoken with neighbors who have been and are employed by the district. None was happy about how the project was being handled. One told me that administrative staff in the district were paid to go to an LA conference that added no value to their daily jobs. What guarantee do we have that expenses such as this will not continue to come from the funds from the sale?

In 2005, the school board expected to sell the Ruschin property for 46 units at $10 million, which maintains the current neighborhood density. The proposal is for 77 units at $19 million, which is double their expectations. A fair compromise is in the exact middle: 60 units for $15 million. This would give money to the district AND wouldn’t ruin the quality of life of an entire neighborhood just for a couple extra million.

For more information or any questions about this process, feel free to contact me at rcorte@berkeley.edu.