January 13, 2015: A Day of Infamy for Newark's History Books

Hello Newark residents and other readers,

I live on Rosewood Drive, in front of the proposed 77-unit Ruschin School development. On January 13, 2015, Newark’s Planning Commission gave their approval to the proposed project “as is”. The meeting was packed and had around 200 people attending, that several were forced downstairs to the overflow room. Over the past three months, I distributed flyers about the project to my neighbors, informing them of the public meetings. Many would not have been notified of the process otherwise. The next step will be fighting approval from the City Council, which will be difficult. Regardless, I write this because I am disheartened with the toxic politics associated with this project as well as the precedent setting nature of the Planning Commission’s decision.

The “Newark way” has been to not approve any proposed project if the neighbors surrounding the project were not in agreement. This has essentially been precedent over the past 50 years. The Planning Commission’s approval of the Ruschin Project has broken this time honored tradition, despite there being more than 70 dissenting Newark residents in attendance at the two public neighborhood meetings. Thus, it seems that residents can be silenced by others who don’t live in the affected area and have been misled by their own public officials. This new precedent is not progress, but the exact opposite.

Although there were two public neighborhood meetings, our voices were still silenced. We thought we were going to be given a space to voice our concerns as the flyers from the developer, Classic Communities read “Your opinion counts”. Unfortunately, the developers only needed to notify those living within 500 feet of the development. As a result, in order to include other residents who lived near the Ruschin school site, meant approximately 300 flyers needed to be distributed each time. Furthermore, these meetings were not held for us to voice our opinions nor to participate in the democratic process. At these meetings, we were told we could not make comments, but merely ask questions. Although there were approximately 70 Newark residents at this meeting, we were told we could only ask one question per person. There were several neighbors who had their hands in the air for more than 10 minutes. Quickly, the representative from Classic Communities and other speakers from the city began not calling those residents who had asked the most critical questions. This was not a meeting where developers cared about our opinions, despite promising otherwise. This showed us that this development was a done deal regardless of public opinion. Even before the meeting had started, we found out that the plans for the project had already been submitted. The developers had no intention of actually hearing our concerns and comments. Essentially, it was a farce and was for show just to fulfill a City requirement.

The second public meeting was not much better. Once again, the room was packed. Unfortunately, the procedure remained the same at this second meeting. We still were to ask questions only and were not allowed to make any comments. There was most likely a second meeting because the developers were forced to change their original plan from 85 homes to 77 homes. But it was not from consideration of our feedback. Rather, the truth was that they made a fatal mistake in their first plan. Essentially, our city’s fire trucks would not have been able to drive through the development, which put everyone’s lives at risk. So as a result, the developer had to remove a few homes from the project to allow for space for emergency vehicles. It is scary that this was a plan previously deemed as “ready to go”! Someone could have died because it seems that appeasing business interests is more important than Newark residents. Is this really what you would call accountability?

Once again, it seemed this meeting was only to meet a City requirement. But this meeting also had a special surprise speech from Newark Unified School District Superintendent, Dave Marken. Amazingly, he had the audacity of threatening that we needed to accept the proposed development or something worse would happen to us. More specifically, Marken said that not only would there be a possibility for a charter school at the site, but also claimed there would also be a two-story school where students would arrive in and leave with handcuffs. So not only were we mocked with these insincere public meetings, now the NUSD Superintendent was bullying residents as well. How could anyone believe it would be appropriate for the leader of Newark schools to bully and coerce its residents? Is this really what you would call transparency? In one night, I was shocked at the seeming lack of integrity by the Superintendent and representatives from Classic Communities.

This lack of integrity continued at the Planning Commission’s hearing by our public officials. Why was there a booth at the front door with the misleading sign that read “Welcome school supporters”? Why did the city decide to add voting options to “speaker cards”? Why were “school supporters” given a different colored speaker card than others? Why hadn’t the technical issues with the TV equipment in the overflow room resolved prior to the Planning Commission meeting? Why didn’t they expect the large number of people attending if they also had the foresight to have a Deputy Fire Marshal checking to make sure the room did not go over capacity? It was not enough for our Superintendent to make threats at the second neighborhood meeting, he then invited around 120 school staff, students and parents to the Planning Commission meeting, most of which reside outside of the Ruschin area. Why were supporters invited by Superintendent Marken allowed into the Planning Commission building an hour and half before the official start for the meeting? This succeeded in drowning out Ruschin area residents’ speeches and concerns by making sure the room would only be full of enthusiastic “supporters”. Regardless of the reasons they had come, it was clear that they were not told the whole story. The students and parents did not know what they were really defending. Did they know the state already offers our schools money for new books and technology? I am saddened to see how our own school’s students and parents were used as pawns for political reasons.

Additionally, the Assistant City Manager’s actions at the Planning Commission showed a complete disregard for advocating on behalf of Newark residents. As per the City’s webpage, “The General Plan is used by the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate proposed land use changes and local budget decisions.” The Assistant City Manager’s presentation at the Planning Commission hearing failed to include Newark’s General Plan policy LU-2.1, which explicitly states “protect single family neighborhoods from substantial increases in density and new land uses which would adversely affect the character of neighborhood.” This project would essentially double the current density and does not “protect the character of the neighborhood”. Furthermore, why didn’t the Assistant City Manager tell us that according to the General Plan, some of the Ruschin site must be kept as a neighborhood park? Why is Newark creating a special zoning category (LDR-FBC or Low Density Residential – Form Based Code) that has never been used before, just for this project? In addition to creating new codes, the Ruschin Project will create parking and traffic problems that will last forever. This results from doubling the number of residents and cars of our current neighborhood, without actually respecting the policies outlined in our own city’s General Plan. I explicitly noted these several contradictions between the proposal and the project during the Planning Commission meeting. But when the Planning Commission staff directly asked Assistant City Manager later about any contradictions between the project and the General Plan, he falsely suggested only one policy from the General Plan was in contradiction with the project.

Enough is enough. I am a school supporter and proudly graduated from NMHS from my class in the top ten percent. I have a sister in NMHS. I want my future children to go to Newark schools. But, I am also a supporter of responsible and fair housing developments that respect surrounding neighborhoods. I am a supporter of sincere attempts to include city residents with political and public processes. I am a supporter of balancing housing developments with businesses that create recreational and entertainment reasons for Newark residents to stay within our city. I am a supporter of transparency and accountability with our public officials. I am NOT a supporter of silencing residents in the interest of business. I am NOT a supporter of being bullied by our public officials. I am NOT a supporter of appeasing business with special rules and exceptions to our City’s General Plan that are not offered to Newark residents. I am NOT a supporter of using innocent kids and parents as political weapons. But most of all, I am NOT a supporter of framing regression for our city as “progress”.

Our city and school officials have disappointed us. Assuming the project gets approval at City Council on February 12, 2015, this means the start of a new precedent in which bullying and ignoring a city’s residents is okay. My neighbors and family are frustrated, outraged and fed up with the lack of accountable and transparent politics that was used to approve the Ruschin project while circumventing our democratic process at every turn. Approving the Ruschin Project “as is” is not a good deal for Newark residents, schools or kids. Please reconsider supporting the Ruschin Project in its current state. Ultimately, do not let money that will run out matter more than the quality of life of current and future Newark residents.