Fleeing Car burglary Suspect leads to Chevy’s area Lockdown

Published On September 25, 2015 | By Rob Arias | Crime & Public Safety, News & Commentary

Oakland & Emeryville Police working with CHP have lifted a lockdown order for the area surrounding Chevy’s after a pursuit that started in Oakland. A police helicopter issued a “Shelter-in-place” order for some of the surrounding buildings including the nearby Towers office complex. Police, aided by K-9 units, pursued a man on foot who was reportedly a known car burglar and gang member.

East Bay Regional Park police responding to break-ins at Roberts Regional spotted the suspect in a Chevrolet Traverse rental on Skyline Boulevard at about 3:50 p.m. The officers then pursued the suspect who led them on a vehicle chase through Oakland that concluded in the Emeryville Chevy’s parking lot. The suspect then fled on foot.

EPD issued a Nixle alert and Oakland CHP tweeted the following advisory at 5:21 PM:

The suspect was later identified as 27-year-old Ricky Joseph. Joseph is described as a known gang member and is believed to be responsible for a series of car burglaries. He is described as 6′ 1″ and weighs approx. 210 pounds. Police are continuing to search for Joseph who is still at-large.

We will update this post as new information becomes available.

Feature Image: ABC7News.com

About The Author

is a third generation Californian and East Bay native who moved to Emeryville in 2003. A new parent in the community, he can often be seen walking his French Bulldog rescue "Fiona" around his Park Avenue District neighborhood, traversing the greenway on his bike or enjoying his favorite Emeryville small businesses. Rob's "day job" is as a creative professional.

20 Responses to Fleeing Car burglary Suspect leads to Chevy’s area Lockdown

  1. Brian Donahue says:

    Emeryville sucks! That’s what the naysayers on the right say. We can’t
    expect anything nice from developers because Emeryville is simply not good
    enough they say. Rob Arias has nearly devoted his entire blog, the E’Ville Eye
    to this message: Emeryville is not in any position to ask anything of any
    developers. We have to accept what they have in store for us. His
    readers believe it too; he’s taken polls….he’s going all over town
    spreading the message that Emeryville doesn’t rate.

    And then there’s the other side. The side that says we DO rate and CAN
    make a better town.

    • Rob says:

      Brian, while I’d prefer you not troll us or lie about us, I’m not going to moderate your comments unless they specifically violate our comment policy. In this case, “On-topic links are encouraged, comment “signatures” or random links just to promote yourself or your site will be removed.”
      Please refer to our comment policy if you have further questions:
      https://evilleeye.com/the-eville-eye-comment-policy/

      • Brian Donahue says:

        Nice, Rob. Way to spin it. Interesting that ‘off topic’ links and discussions chock-a-block from your minions are A-OK…but if a commenter is critical, well that’s a different matter all together, isn’t it? I also love your threats to censor comments from critics. Nice touch. Catching a sense of irony? Didn’t think so.

        Re -“lies” about the E’Ville Eye’s ‘pro-developer, Emeryville’s not good enough’ editorial stance? Check out Rob’s July 24th story about the Market Place development everybody. Can’t hardly get any more developer brown nosing than that piece. Rob insists Emeryville isn’t good enough to ask for a better project than what the developers want to build at the Market Place. Pure ‘we’re not worthy’ masochistic groveling. Never mind the Council was working in the resident’s interests and well within their rights to call out the Development Agreement for that flawed project for not being resident friendly enough; all Rob can see is a developer not getting his way and that makes Rob angry. So out comes his poison pen.

        Incidentally, the July 24th story starts, “Despite a housing crisis fueled by low inventory…” and ends with, “In the meantime, nothing will get built in Emeryville and there will unfortunately be no relief for the current housing crisis.” “Low [housing] inventory” in Emeryville? WTF? Says who Rob? This is Rob’s continuing deference to the bullshit ‘supply and demand’ con pushed by developers in the Bay Area. As the Tattler story linked above shows, Emeryville is 200% above our RHNA mandate. That’s DOUBLE the housing we’re asked to build by ABAG. But obviously 200% isn’t enough for Rob. He has to play into the developer’s bullshit at the resident’s expense.
        Rob has a problem admitting his blog is right wing…but every chance he gets he props up business interests and tears down residents interests…that is by any reasonable definition, right wing. Sorry Rob, you’re editing Emeryville’s right wing blog…you should own it. Don’t be a hater, own your clandestine Republican Rob.

        Rob Arias and the E’Ville Eye: Making Emeryville safe for out-of-town development corporations seeking to maximize their profits.

      • Brian Donahue says:

        Note to everyone-
        Rob censored my Emeryville Tattler link in my first comment above. Other links are from other commenters are OK here at the E’Ville Eye, just not Tattler links. That’s something Rob cannot countenance. Readers can go to the relevant story (dated today) themselves by Googling the Tattler.

      • Rob says:

        If you have any links relative to the story about a car burglar at-large, please post. Thank You for being respectful to your neighbors.

      • Brian Donahue says:

        So Rob, how is it in your reader’s interest that you should stop them from following a link if they choose? It seems to me that should be their choice.
        FYI, the Emeryville Tattler isn’t a commercial blog. Advertising or any other commercial activity is not allowed. The blog is dedicated to the resident’s interest. I don’t “promote” myself except insofar as I’m the editor of the blog. It seems to me you have another agenda that’s dictating your censoring activity of your readers possible interests in reading about Emeryville from another source. Is it just pettiness on your part?

      • Rob says:

        Your words and behavior are a commercial endorsement for Prozac, Zoloft & Paxil. Please go to bed.

    • Anonymous says:

      “I had been embarrassed to tell other people in the Bay Area where I was from.” – Brian Donahue on in these times. May 26, 2015

      • Brian Donahue says:

        I guess the East Bay Bridge Mall, the Bay Street Mall and the Powell Street Plaza (among others) really gets your patriotic heart strings all aflutter don’t they? Feel pretty prideful of that, do ya?

      • Anonymous says:

        Personally, I think it’s really clever how Emeryville is laid out. In that narrow strip between the freeway and the railroad tracks which would be lousy for residential, you have great suburban retail (tax base) which, by virtue of the freeway and railroad tracks is largely isolated from the rest of the mixed-use residential elements of the city (so much so that people complain about its separation).

        East of the tracks is awesome. West of 80 is awesome. And you have the East Bay Bridge Mall acting as a clear boundary to the south giving the city a separate identity and set up as an extension of that one suburban strip.

        Frankly, the developers and city planners who figured out a way to create a significant tax base while preserving the unique areas of the city and making use of some otherwise pretty awkwardly positioned real estate did a fantastic job.

        The downside is that now so many people want to live here. We may need to start adding some heavily polluting factories back into the mix to get the rents down.

        BTW, what does any of what we’re talking about have to do with burglary suspects?

      • Anonymous says:

        So confused. In the quote above and sarcastic retort in response to your own quote, you’re saying “Emeryville sucks”. But above, you’re saying that people who say “Emeryville sucks” (you, in other words) are “naysayers on the right”. So, Brian, does that make you “a naysayer on the right” who insults yourself sarcastically?

        You’re very complicated.

      • Brian Donahue says:

        It’s really not complicated. Let’s see if you can follow along: The pro-developer crowd (that would include Rob) effectively says ‘Emeryville sucks’ because they feel we’re so bad, so undesirable, we have no effective negotiating position and therefore it’s not warranted to try to force developers to build better projects (or they’re just pure ideologues). The pro-resident crowd (that would include me) thinks the opposite; Emeryville is so desirable for developers, we can be much more aggressive in our demands for concessions from them and force better projects to increase the livability of the town for the existing residents. See? It’s pretty simple really.

      • Anonymous says:

        I get it now:

        You think that Emeryville sucks because of all the horrible things developers have done in the past.

        And you think Emeryville is also so great it can force developers to build unprofitable projects.

        Emeryville is great or “embarrassing” all depending on which argument you are trying to make on a given day.

        Makes perfect sense.

      • Brian Donahue says:

        You need to wrap your head around the concept that there is such a thing as taste or preference. Believe it or not, not everyone in the world is the same. Some people like some things and others like other things. There is commonly a ‘bell curve’ around these things. So a majority can like one thing but there can be outliers…those who don’t like what the majority likes. This strange peculiarity has real world effects. For instance, in 2004, the majority of voting Americans thought they liked George W Bush for President…And that’s why he was re-elected. Some people didn’t like George W (me for instance) and so I was an outlier. I thought the country would be better off without him as president. In Emeryville, I think these suburban style shopping malls are bad. I think we can do much better than that. But many people like those malls. Maybe they can’t imagine anything better. And they can drive a market response. Does that mean we should build more suburban style shopping malls? How about public executions? We could have gladiators…that would be popular. If Emeryville brought back gladiators, I would be embarrassed for my town even as it might be popular by a majority. How about YOU? Could you be embarrassed by something the majority wanted? Is public policy only to be informed by whatever the fickle majority wants at the moment? Is there no room for rationality and cogent public policy? Can any good come from learned experts? None of this makes sense to you?

      • Rob says:

        Brian, I wish you’d stick with the subject at hand which is an alleged felon at-large but since you appear to be having one of those “lucid” moments, I’m going to ask you a real question that I’m hoping to get a real answer to. I’m on board with you that I think strip malls are a dying breed and it’s unlikely that type of project would be build today (although if you are able to completely avoid shopping at Home Depot and Target, you’re a better man than me). I’m also on board with you about Dubya as despite your portrayal of me as a “right-winger”, I’ve never in fact voted for a republican candidate. I hope you’ll concur with me that the type of project that CCRP is proposing for the Public Market is NOT a suburban style strip mall project though.

        So what is it about the project that you despise so much?

        – Every tenant that CCRP has brought in has been of the “mom & pop” variety. Chicharron, We Sushi, Shiba Ramen, Mayo & Mustard … Is this “Good” or “Bad” to you?

        – The project is LEED certified I believe. Is this “Good” or “Bad” to you?

        – They doubled the park space. Is this “Good” or “Bad” to you?

        – The inclusion of an unnamed “organic” grocery store. Is this “Good” or “Bad” to you?

        – They included 33 affordable units that they wen’t obligated to build. We know you think this is “Bad” so what is an acceptable/realistic amount to you?

        My biggest beef with the project as I explained is the all rental nature of the project which I think we’re both in alignment on. Again, help me understand Jac Asher/RULE/Brian Donahue’s vision for that site. 100% affordable? 100% Co-ops? Give me an example of a city that did it “right”?

      • Brian Donahue says:

        Ok Rob- I’ll bite.
        I can’t speak for RULE or Jac Asher though…I’ll let you go on speaking for them as you’re wont to do.
        What I don’t like about the Market Place Development as it has been proposed:
        It upsets and worsens the existing ratios we have in this city in the following areas (among others)-
        -Affordability
        -Family ‘Friendliness’
        -Park and Open Space
        -Locally serving, non-formula retail

        -Affordability: We have a ratio of affordable units per resident right now in Emeryville now and this project will drive that number down, even with its 33 units.
        -Family Friendliness: We have a ratio of family friendly units per resident now and this project will drive that number down.
        -Park/Open Space: Again, the ratio of acres of park per resident we have now will go down with this project.
        -Locally Serving Non Formula Retail: There is an existing ratio of square footage of this kind or retail per resident now and the project will drive that number down.

        Combine these with other things like the fact that it’s 100% rental, the fact we get almost no revenue from this and there’s no reason why we should allow this project to go forward as proposed. By the way, the ratios above are not my opinion, they are demonstrably factual. This developer likes to say he’s adding park land…doubling the existing park. That’s true but what he’s not saying is that he would have to add a lot more park land than that to get us back to the ratio we have now. Same with affordability and the other things. The developer is trying to put a positive spin on this project but he’s not telling us the true nature of this thing. All I want is for Emeryville to not get worse because of each new large development going forward. Nobody needs to take my word for this…these numbers are quantifiable. If this developer is willing to not make the above ratios worse with his project, I’ll say OK, otherwise, why should I? Or why should any Emeryville resident?

      • Rob says:

        OK, now we’re getting somewhere and we’re in agreement on the 100% rental issue but I hope you’ll agree with me that our hands our tied here and the realignment of Shellmound is our only leverage here and it might not be enough to entice them to build affordable, family-friendly condominiums. These parcels and the park are in fact already approved so this point is moot, correct?

        Your argument in regards to revenue is that the impact fee, PBID assessment, local sales tax by the businesses these projects bring in, etc. is offset by the services we need to provide them and the new residents like police, public works, fire, etc. right? This is a complicated equation and very nuanced but I’d like to see your math.

        So if CCRP builds with its existing entitlements that the city has absolutely no control over sans the 33 affordable units, this will make this affordability ratio in fact worse, correct? Again, you are anticipating that the developer will come groveling back with more affordable units but until this happens (and I don’t know why they would after just just being given the civic “middle finger” by council), this is pure speculation. Currently the decision by council just made Emeryville “Less Affordable”, correct?

        Measure V brought us needed General Fund revenue but by including residential and not just commercial, it came at the expense of making Emeryville “less affordable”, correct?

        I’m pleasantly surprised that CCRP has pursued mom & pop shops vs. kicking the existing tenants out and replacing them with Chipotle, etc. Their inclusion seems to contradict your “non-Formula retail” ratio argument, correct?

        Do you know who the biggest sales tax contributor in Berkeley is? It’s their Apple Store. While the E’ville store is considerable smaller and we have other, larger big box stores like IKEA, I wouldn’t doubt if they are in the top 10. Our local sales Tax (much of it from these big box stores that you despise) accounts for about 25% of our general fund, correct?

        Another huge contributor to our tax base is the Oak’s Card Club (I’ve heard figures approaching 10%), correct? So when we pass legislation that causes them to lay people off like the MWO did (I’ve heard layoff figures as high as 20-30%), what impact does this have on that sales tax revenue we get from them? In fact Council’s decision to go with a unique model vs. a regional model is costing the city more money to administer and enforce, correct?

        The amount that we’re losing by failing/fleeing businesses, lower sales revenue from existing businesses and business that will opt for neighboring cities is not something we’ll ever know (I do know I’m personally paying 20% more every time I’m eating out). Arguably, the few low-wage earner residents will ultimately benefit by this but this will be offset by other impacts. I hope you’ll agree with me that regardless of if you think the MWO was a “ just cause” ultimately it is costing us money and negatively impacting the revenue needed for things we want for the city like park space and services, correct? Arguably, most of the decisions that the Jac Asher led Council Majority have made thus far have contributed to Emeryville being less affordable, correct?

        Seems to me that the discussion we should be having is where are we going to recoup the money lost to build the things we want for the city. How can we achieve the economic balance that will build the E’ville that we want (whatever that is)?

        BTW, any sightings of our car burglar?

  2. Anonymous says:

    The problem is not different people holding different opinions. It’s one person holding opposite opinions at the same time that’s hard to get my head around.

    “Emeryville sucks. That’s what the naysayers on the right say.”

    “I am embarrassed to say I live in Emeryville.”

    Same guy. Different days.

    That would make you a right wing naysayer by your own definition.

    Or maybe…your comment above was just an attempt to start a fight? Yep, there we go. Now it all makes sense.

    • Brian Donahue says:

      Well, you’re trying to foreclose on me thinking Emeryville should be a better place even as I acknowledge it has real estate value. You can go ahead and try to do that but it just makes you look like a putz.

Leave a Reply