Economic Development Subcommittee_Findings and Feedback_Presentation to Open Oakland_May13 2014


Published on

From November of 2013 to May of 2014 an informal subcommittee of OpenOakland members conducted informational interviews with nonprofits, foundations, businesses, and city staff that were all working on economic issues in Oakland, CA. The purpose of the interviews was to get a sense of how different actors were working to increase economic activity in Oakland in a way that is sensitive to gentrification and benefits all Oakland residents. We hoped that these interviews would help OpenOakland identify a need within the topic of Economic Development that we could bring our unique civic-tech skills to and fill a need. On May 13, the subcommittee shared our findings with the broader OpenOakland group and asked for input on which project to select based.

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Economic Development Subcommittee_Findings and Feedback_Presentation to Open Oakland_May13 2014

  1. 1. Sharing our Findings, Getting your Feedback The Economic Development Subcommittee presents to OpenOakland May 13, 2014
  2. 2. Getting Started
  3. 3. Motivating Factors
  4. 4. Motivating Factors
  5. 5. Our History and Process • Focus on economic development was shared by folks who met at City Camp in Nov 2013 • Identified a preliminary list of stakeholders for outreach around Dec ‘13/Jan ‘14. • Set up a fairly open definition for goals and outcomes, that we evolved over time
  6. 6. Our Shared Resources Whom To Reach Out To • Outreach List - Targets and Tracking • Script Who We Are • Internal Skills Inventory • Form • Spreadsheet • Presentation about Open Oakland Outcomes • Copious Notes (on Google Drive) • Final Project List
  7. 7. Who We Talked To • Kami Griffiths - Community Technology Network • Sarah Filley - PopUp Hood • Max Cadji - Phat Beets • Susan Montauk - Oakland Parks Commission • Eleanor Hollander - Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce • Reverend Daniel Buford - Allen Temple Baptist Church • Susan Mernit - Live Work Oakland • Mario Lugay and Tiffany Price - Kapor Center • Dennis Rojas - East Bay Job Developers • Steve Snider - Downtown Oakland Association • Anne Price and Gabriela Sandoval - Insight Center for Community Economic Development • Kelley Kahn, Aliza Gallo, and Rachel Flynn - City of Oakland’s Economic Development and Planning Departments • Jay Standish - Open Door Development • Angela Hadwin - Hope Collaborative of East Oakland • Julian McQueen - Green for All
  8. 8. What We Heard: Skill Development • Automate the updating of Insight Center for Community Economic Development’s Elder and Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Standard tools • An alternative to the CalJobs site • Mentors/tech tutors
  9. 9. What We Heard: Mapping Resources, Needs, & Opportunities • Mapping digital access points • Connect Chicago Get Connected Oakland • Create a See Click Fix-style tool for reporting neighborhood crime • Map showing availability of fresh food from un- traditional sources in East Oakland • Falling Fruit Concrete Jungle • Forage City Forage Oakland • Analyzing data on commercial property vacancies • Identifying and sharing what the community wants in vacant spaces • Spot Mojo Neighborland
  10. 10. What We Heard: Improving City Processes • A new system to track and expedite buildings and permits • CivicInsight OpenCounter • Development FastPass • A better system to connect potential volunteers with Park & Rec project needs
  11. 11. We have an opportunity to work with the HOPE Collaborative to increase civic participation in Deep East Oakland.
  12. 12. Next Steps We’d like to pick a project that is informed by what we’ ve heard. Do we... • Retrofit an existing tool? • Create something new? • Start a project that is not focused on a tool (i.e. mentoring)? • Something else? Help us decide!
  13. 13. Next Steps (alternate) ● How can we determine what’s a good project for OO to work on? ○ Something that retrofits an existing tool vs creates something new? ○ How about projects not focused on building a tool (i.e. mentoring)? ○ Should city data necessarily be involved? ● How should we loop back with the “requesters”? ● What is the timeline we can realistically commit to? Help us decide!