Ruschin Project gets City Council OK, Will Injustice Prevail?

I live in front of the 77-unit Ruschin housing development, which was approved by Newark’s City Council on February 12, 2015.

At the City Council hearing, Assistant City Manager Terrence Grindall claimed that the project had three versions: 138, 85, and 77 units. Hence, supporters of the project and City Council members argued that compromise was accomplished by the developer’s concessions of reducing his plans from 138 to 77 units. Classic Communities developer, Jim Pollart didn’t tell City Council that he only presented two proposals to the community: 85 units and 77 units. He proposed a second plan because fire trucks could not drive through the development at 85 units. In other words, neither 85 nor 138 units were feasible projects. Additionally, Mr. Pollart had submitted both of his plans to the City before the two community meetings. Therefore, his actions did not reflect a candid willingness to negotiate with the neighborhood.

At the City Council meeting, Mr. Pollart explicitly stated rescinding his offer if any units were removed. Similarly, at the first community meeting, he threatened retracting his offer if he had to “remove even one house” from his 85 unit plan. Likewise, Newark Unified School District Superintendent Dave Marken told Ruschin residents at the second community meeting, we accept the project or a school for “students in handcuffs”. Threats do not encourage cooperation and genuine neighborhood involvement.

Excluding this project, in the past 50 years, the “Newark way” has been upheld by elected officials. This meant rejecting any project absent agreement from the surrounding neighbors. However, Newark’s City Council authorization for the project meant ignoring the 234 signatures from Ruschin residents asking to not approve the project.

Instead, City Council listened to supporters of the project: parents and district employees. Sadly, these supporters don’t even live in the Ruschin area. They brought up again and again that our neighborhood needed rejuvenation due to excessive burglaries, meth addicts, and squatters. Regrettably, none of their claims were true. Our neighborhood is quiet and peaceful. Thus, it is incorrect to characterize the entire neighborhood as suffering from excessive crime. Nonetheless, overstating crime in the area was a distraction from what should have been discussed: the merits of the project on its own. Rather than discussing crime, there should have been discussion on how the homes will have lots half the size of the surrounding neighborhood and how many won’t have anywhere to store their garbage cans. It is unfortunate that parents and district employees innocently made distracting and false claims to the City Council.

I offered Newark’s City Council a plausible compromise. In 2005, and any time before that, the school board publically considered selling the property at most 46 units for $10 million, which respects the current neighborhood and does not create permanent quality of life issues. Now they are selling the property for 77 units at $19 million. A real compromise will be in the exact middle: 60 units for $15 million. The goal was never stopping the development of the site, rather it was for the neighborhood to actually be involved in the process. Delaying the sale will uphold the importance of people’s voices and quality of life, preserve the 50 years old “Newark way”, and establish that compromise is not deceiving and intimidating Newark residents.

l