
[jump] Infrastructure Bond: Oakland is hella big. The Town has 806 miles of paved streets, 1,000 miles of sidewalks, a 929-mile labyrinth of sewers, and 304 public buildings. And for years, the city hasn’t had enough cash to properly maintain all of this public infrastructure. In fact, there’s a $2.5 billion cost to the city’s deferred maintenance — the patching and paving we haven’t done. Crumbling public infrastructure imposes costs on the city too: In an average year, Oakland pays out $2.5 million to settle trip-and-fall lawsuits filed by people injured from dangerous roads and sidewalks, according to the Public Works Department. So Oakland is considering an infrastructure bond to fix some problems. At Tuesday’s Finance and Management and Public Works committee meetings, staffers will present a plan to issue $600 million in bonds: $400 million would go toward fixing roads, sidewalks, and bike paths. Another $150 million would be used to improve city buildings like libraries and fire stations. And $50 million would be used to fund acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing.
An infrastructure bond would have to be approved by voters in the November election. But the city already commissioned a poll to see if voters are willing to pass a bond, and the initial results indicate that Oaklanders are willing to tax themselves to spruce up The Town.


Making matters more confusing, the fee levels would also depend on the type of housing a developer is building, with the fee on single-family homes being higher than on multi-family apartments. Finally, the fees would be phased in between now and 2020, with fee levels in each of the three geographic zones, and for each different type of housing, increasing by different amounts each year.
Under the staff proposal, there would also be an onsite affordable housing option for developers who don’t want to pay the fees. Under the city’s proposal, a developer who sets aside 5 percent of the units in a development for very low-income renters would not have to pay the affordable housing impact fee. If the developer chooses to include units that are priced for low- and moderate-income renters, they would need to set aside 10 percent to avoid paying the housing impact fee.
Many affordable housing advocates think that the city’s housing impact fee plan sets fee levels too low, phases them in too slowly, and that the onsite option requires developers to build too few affordable units in exchange for not having to pay impact fees. For example, East Bay Housing Organizations, an advocacy group that represents affordable housing groups, presented the city with an onsite option that would require developers to ensure 22 percent of their building’s units are priced for very low- and low-income tenants.