City Government

Tagami’s Army Base Project Hired Only Eight from West Oakland

Published

12 years ago

August 23, 2014

More and more people in the community are raising concerns that the $1.2 billion Army Base project is not living up to its promises to deliver jobs to local residents who are trying to break into the construction trades.

In particular, the project hired only eight workers who live in West Oakland out of 171 total new hires between October 2013 and Aug. 1, 2014. During negotiations several years ago, it was agreed upon by all parties at the table that community benefits would prioritize jobs for West Oakland residents, who have been adversely affected for many years by the Army Base and the Port of Oakland.

Because of legal restrictions, the city can only require hiring by zip code and residence but not by race. However, activists have wanted to see increased percentages of African American workers, who have long been underrepresented in many construction unions. At the Army Base, though African Americans represent 27.3 of the city’s population, they have received only 14.9 percent of the total work, which means they are 45 percent underrepresented in comparison with their percentage in the population.

Focus is now being turned to the benefits agreement, which was negotiated with community groups at the table and passed by the City Council, requiring that 50 percent of the jobs go to local residents and allegedly providing stronger guarantees than ever before that these promises would be delivered upon.

But along the way, say activists, the verbal agreements were subverted. As written, the agreement does not match up with what everyone had thought they had agreed upon during negotiations.

“We believe that the African American community has not received a fair portion of the jobs available at the Oakland Army Base – the process, whatever it is, is not working,” said attorney George Holland, president of the Oakland chapter of the NAACP and member of the Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce.

“We were led to believe that a large number of jobs were sup-posed to go to West Oakland,” Holland said. “There should be better oversight to make sure those who are affected by lack of employment would be considered more favorably.”

The West Oakland Job Resource Center was supposed be a “clearing house” for Army Base jobs, a place where all the jobs would be listed so that the proof of what was happening at the base would be transparent to all. But somewhere along the line, the job center turned out to be something different.

Though the center has found work for a number of people, only 11 people have been employed at the Army Base through June. When the jobs benefits agreement was originally negotiated, there were a number of community groups at the table along with city representatives and master developer Phil Tagami of CCIG.

Questions about what happened to the promises and what can be done to repair and enforce the agreement were directed to the community groups who sat at the table and negotiated the agreement, including OaklandWorks, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE), Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Alameda Labor Council, and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County.

Margaret Gordon

By deadline the Post was unable to interview Andreas Culver, secretary treasurer of the Building Trades Council. Despite repeated calls, the Post did not receive replies from EBASE, ACCE, or Josie Camacho, executive secretary treasurer of the Alameda Labor Council.

“There are so many loop-holes now that it comes down to a voluntary, ‘good faith’ agreement,” said Margaret Gordon of OaklandWorks, who was at the negotiating table.

People negotiated one thing, but then the agreement went to labor and other ‘stakeholders,’ and it was changed before it went to the city council, said Gordon.

At this point, the discussion must go back to the City Council, which has to deal with Phil Tagami, who has final say-so over changes in the written agreement, she said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

OP-ED: Immigration, Racism and the Future of Oakland

Don't Miss

COMMENTARY: The Polarity of a Black Man in the White House

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

4 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”