Oakland City Council had little interest in questioning Elaine Brown’s non-profit, except her top rival Desley Brooks

Elaine Brown, Alameda County Supervisor

Keith Carson and Oakland Councilmember

Desley Brooks in an undated photo.

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
Apparently, Oakland Councilmember Desley Brooks and former Black Panther and Oakland activist Elaine Brown have no limits on being in the same room. On Tuesday, the Oakland City Council approved a land disposition agreement for the property at Seventh and Campbell Streets where Brown’s non-profit Oakland & the World Enterprises operates an urban garden and envisions building affordable housing for the recently incarcerated. Brooks, nonetheless attempted to land a number of straight-arm jabs at Brown’s project.

In fact, the dust-up between the two women that occurred in October 2015 at a barbecue restaurant in Downtown Oakland and included allegations that Brooks knocked Brown to the ground was precipitated by an argument over this same project. Brooks reportedly threatened to not support the project and Brown allegedly accused her of “being in the hands of developers.”

On Tuesday, Brooks repeatedly questioned city staff as to why a pro forma on the project, one that apparently exists, was not given to the council. “I believe the goals of this project are laudable,” Brooks prefaced. “My concern here is that we haven’t seen the normal things we see in a project.”

“Who’s the development team? What is the financing?” continued Brooks. “It’s wonderful to talk about things as we hope they would be.”

Assistant City Administrator Claudia Cappio told Brooks a pro forma is “not really relevant” to the project since its aims for 100 percent affordable housing funded through subsidies and grants. It also should not be viewed within the context of a typical market-oriented project, said Cappio.

Brooks was nonplussed before adding, “I simply would like to see it. That’s part of our due diligence.”

Meanwhile, there was very little mention of the Alameda County grand jury report released last week that focused, in part, on Brown, her Oakland & the World non-profit and questionable funding from the office of Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson. Brown is also a paid county staffer in Carson’s office.

According to the grand jury report, Brown was hired by Carson expressly to start her non-profit. Through Carson’s discretionary account, his office gave Oakland & the World $710,000 in funding since its founding in 2015. The grand jury questioned the overall use of millions of dollars in county funds that are being allocated by county supervisors, such as Oakland & the World, without any limits or contractual obligations.

Councilmember Noel Gallo, though, asked Brown about an East Bay Express article that hinted Brown may being paid not only by taxpayers as a county staffer, but also drawing a salary from her non-profit.

Brown, though, sidestepped the question and blasted the article for being a “slanderous lie,” although she probably meant libelous. However, Brown focused on an issue of missing tax returns, an allegation not made in the story. Brown added she wanted to sue the paper for the article.

The compendium of events swirling around Brown and Oakland & the World could pose problems for the city down the line. Questions persists whether the city is using Tuesday’s council action to appease Brown and her lawsuit against it. The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) approved by the City Council Tuesday night is not a sale of the city-owned property to Oakland & the World, but is likely down the line. Furthermore, the fallout from the grand jury report is not yet discernible and Carson has not publicly commented on the allegations in the report.

4Comments

Add yours

1

Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM

Brooks is s crook, I hope Brown run against her

LikeLike
2

Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 6:01 AM

This seems to suggest Brooks is acting in a righteous manner. Maybe she is like a broken clock is right once a day.

LikeLike
3

Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 3:10 PM

By MW:

A few decades ago I worked for the XYZ Corporation, and which had myself and also a few other employees stationed full time in a major back's building, and with us providing services to that bank.

One of the employees in our group had previously been self employed fulltime, and was still operating his own business, but now on only a part time basis. However, he still had a considerable inventory left over of expensive parts and materials from when he had been self employed fulltime.

So sometimes that employee, and who I will refer to as Mr. A, and who and who was not just an employee but also a supervisor for XYZ, would sell from his own business's inventory this or that large and expensive item to the bank when the bank got involved in a major project.

And Mr. A, and who had a very close relationship with at least one of the very highest ranking bank employees in that building, was always pushing for non-stop and expensive changes, updating, and “improvements” for the mechanical equipment in that building.

Mr. A should have gone into Bay area politics.

Or perhaps A could have gotten a job as a staffer in Keith Carson's office, and then convinced Carson to arrange all sorts of projects in which Carson's office would have bought inventory and/or services from A's business.

LikeLike
4

Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 3:23 PM

By MW:

In regard to the immediately above, I neglected to mention that eventually Mr. A's supervisor, and who I will refer to as Mr. B, was fired due to being an extreme alcoholic.

So Mr. C was brought in to replace Mr. B. And C, and unlike B, was not a close friend of A. So C soon fired A for getting involved in constant conflicts of interest and basically being a snake.

Or as they say, “A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN” – or at least sometimes it does.

LikeLike

Share this:

Like this: