Shenanigans on the Boulevard
Let There Be Light

by Dennis Evanosky

I once lived in one of the brightest spots in the city. A 150-watt bulb shone each night from the light pole just across the street. Most bulbs, an Oakland employee told me one sunny day, brighten city streets with only 70 watts.

Why not spread the wealth? the employee asked. He suggested removing this 150-watt monstrosity in the middle of our one-block stretch of 39th Avenue. Two new 70-watt lights, one at Redding and another at Quigley street, would brighten the entire block of 39th, he promised.

Our neighbors on Quigley Street circulated a petition and garnered enough signatures to approve the project. No one thought much of it until a few months later, when a crew came and installed the lights. The results were a disaster. The block of 39th between Quigley and Redding was left in darkness.

The day after the city changed the lighting, I called and asked that someone from the lighting department stop by our street at night to see the damage this ill-studied scheme had caused. I also called Jean Quan, the then brand-new District 4 Councilmember, and invited her to see how the city had darkened our street. No response.

I called the Councilmember's office again. Nothing.

My first lesson in all this: Don't ever call city officials or employees again to ask for anything. E-mail them. That way a record exists.

Not only did I e-mail Quan's office this time, I went online and found the names and e-mail addresses of the department responsible for darkening my street. I e-mailed the head of the lighting department and City Attorney John Russo as well. In my e-mail, which I aimed more at Russo than anyone else, I promised to take legal action against a public hazard. Later, I learned just how involved Russo was.

I got an e-mail from Paul Chan, the very person who promised me that the 70-watt bulbs would spread light over the entire street. Before I could call Chan, I got a call from one of my Quigley Street neighbors. Chan had called her to let her know I was interfering with "their" streetlight. To install "their" streetlight, however, the city removed one in the middle of "our" street, I explained to Chan when I spoke to him on the phone.

Had Chan followed proper procedure, he would have requested a list of addresses on 39th Avenue alone. The city would have then provided us a petition for the majority of the residents to sign. There are 17 addresses on the street. The city should have gotten eight signatures from 39th Avenue, the only street the light's removal affected.

Instead, Chan decided to create his own policy. He told the neighbors on Quigley (?) to get five (what's half of 17?) signatures from 39th Avenue for their light. The petition clearly said the city would remove the light on 39th Avenue and replace it with streetlights at each intersection.

Behind the petition stood Chan's promise that the 70-watt lights would brighten the entire street.

Hoodlums made good use of the darkness. They stole one car and attempted to rob a neighbor in the darkness. One of the victims chose to circulate another petition. Two days (!) after she turned the petition in, the city put a 70-watt bulb in the middle of the block where the 150-watt had been, in addition to the new lights at either end.

Why was the light put back so quickly? City Attorney John Russo played a role. I didn't know this until two days after the streetlight was in place. I got a phone call from Russo. "I want to congratulate you on your persistence in getting your streetlight replaced," Russo said.

I listened to that message about 10 times.