By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

On Aug. 19, a bipartisan coalition of mayors from California’s largest cities gathered at the State Capitol to urge voters to approve Proposition (Prop) 1, an $11.25 billion housing and veterans bond measure on the November ballot.

Also known as the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, Prop 1 would provide state funding for local affordable housing projects.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty said cities need the measure’s support to address California’s housing crisis.

“Without help from the state and this ballot measure, we can’t do our jobs in cities across California. We need this measure to do our jobs,” said McCarty, a former member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).

“We need Prop 1 for the future of California, addressing the issues of this generation, and housing affordability for all levels of income throughout California,” McCarty added.

The mayors said their jurisdictions lack the substantial subsidies needed to move shovel-ready affordable housing projects forward and help address the state’s homelessness crisis.

The coalition included Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie.

The city leaders were joined by Sens. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), as well as Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). Supporters say the measure would help finance the construction of 40,000 affordable housing units statewide.

“In Fresno, more than 1 of 5 residents live in poverty. That’s nearly twice the state average,” Dyer said. “We need more affordable housing at every income level to include single-and multi-family dwelling units.”

Prop 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds. Of that amount, $10 billion would support affordable housing and homeownership programs and be repaid from the state’s General Fund.

The measure would allocate $7.2 billion to build, acquire or rehabilitate rental housing through low-interest loans. Another $1.1 billion would support homeownership loan programs for low-and moderate-income households.

Prop 1 would also provide $500 million for housing infrastructure projects; $450 million for farmworker housing grants and loans; $350 million for student housing at University of California and California State University campuses; $200 million in housing grants for Native American tribes; and $200 million for local government pilot programs aimed at lowering housing costs.

An additional $1.25 billion would go to the CalVet Home Loan Program to help veterans purchase homes.

Lee said the measure would provide critical statewide funding to complete much-needed affordable housing and permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness, building on a housing bond voters approved in 2018.

However, several Republican lawmakers opposed SB 417, the legislation that placed Prop 1 on the ballot.

Assemblymembers Philip Chen (R-Yorba Linda), Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), Stan Ellis (R-Bakersfield), Heather Hadwick (R-Alturas), Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), Kate Sanchez (R-Rancho Santa Margarita) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis) voted against the measure.

In the Senate, Sens. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) and Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) voted against SB 417.

Supporters argue that Prop 1 would also help address longstanding racial disparities in homeownership.

“It helps working families to become homeowners, and that matters for equity,” Lee said. “Black and Latino homeownership has never recovered from decades of redlining and discriminatory lending. So, if we’re serious about closing the gap, homeownership must be part of that answer.”

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

By Tanya Dennis

Sheriff Covers Lens of Resident’s Security Camera as Alameda County Deputies Enter House with Guns Drawn

What began as a long-running legal battle over the home she has lived in for 13 years escalated Tuesday into a dramatic confrontation between Zakiya Jendayi and Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies—one that has raised urgent questions about probate court decisions, due process, and whether a pending bankruptcy filing should have halted the removal.

Jendayi refused to leave her home Tuesday as approximately 15 to 19 deputies arrived to enforce a court order removing her from the property. The order followed a decision by Judge Sandra Bean of the Alameda County Probate Court, a ruling Jendayi has repeatedly described as unjust and based on what she alleges are serious errors in the court record.

Deputies noticed a Ring camera recording their actions and taped over the lens.

Fifteen to 19 Sheriff’s deputies placed tape over her security cameras, before breaking the locks and entering her home despite the bankruptcy filing taped to the door. Courtesy photo.

Adding to the controversy, Jendayi and her supporters state that opposing counsel, attorney Phillip Campbell, had the property placed in his name in October 2025 without notice to Jendayi. Campbell’s attorney, Alana Grice Conner, filed an opposition in connection with Jendayi’s bankruptcy case. Hours later, sheriff’s deputies arrived at Jendayi’s door.

Trending

Apple Shareholders Reject Effort to Dismantle DEI Initiatives, Approve $500 Billion U.S. Investment Plan

The confrontation was not simply about one woman refusing to leave her home. For Jendayi and her supporters, it represented the culmination of years of litigation and a larger fight over whether courts have the power to overturn the expressed wishes contained in a person’s will or trust.

Last November, The Post published portions of court transcripts that Jendayi says demonstrate a pattern of false and erroneous rulings. Jendayi states that Bean made 45 rulings in the case, 35 of which she characterizes as false, while she contends that others were legally erroneous.

Bean’s judgment in Jendayi’s case, Hamlin v.

Approximately 25 to 30 of Jendayi’s neighbors came out in massive support on Tuesday observing, streaming and challenging the deputies’ actions on Tuesday. Regarding their show of support, on Wednesday, NBC Bay Area interviewed (left to right) Irene Sip, Elaine Chuck, Irene Yamasato, Joan Rosenberg, Joan Rosenberg, Jade Le, Arianna Angel, and David De Hart. Courtesy photo.

Jendayi, was later upheld on appeal, a development that Jendayi and her supporters say only deepened their concerns about whether the underlying record received meaningful review.

Tuesday’s events brought those concerns from the courtroom to her doorstep.

After covering the lens of Jendayi’s security camera, deputies broke the lock on the front door and entered the residence after she did not respond. Fearing for her safety, Jendayi had retreated to her bedroom. She later emerged nude with her hands raised as an officer entered the home with his gun drawn while other deputies remained outside and on the porch.

Officers reportedly stated that their legal department had determined that the bankruptcy filing did not protect Jendayi from eviction. Deputy Sheriff S. White #2198 of the Court Services/Civil Unit showed a Post reporter what appeared to be incomplete bankruptcy documents that suggested the case had been dismissed. However, when the reporter independently accessed the bankruptcy docket, two additional entries reflected future hearing dates.

The significance and legal effect of those docket entries remain matters for the bankruptcy court and other appropriate legal authorities to determine.

Facing an officer with a gun drawn, Jendayi retreated back into her bedroom, locked the door, and refused to come out, stating that she was suicidal.

At approximately 6:30 p.m., an officer read a warning to Jendayi’s neighbors concerning law enforcement’s duty and response when a person is believed to be threatening to take their own life. The officers then left the premises.

Adding another layer of legal controversy to the confrontation, Jendayi and her supporters contend that the bankruptcy filing made before the attempted removal should have triggered protections against further collection or eviction activity.

Zakia Jendayi was interviewed by NBC Bay Area reporter Velena Jones regarding what led to Tuesday’s stand-off with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. Courtesy photo.

Questions surrounding the legal effect of the filing—and whether the Sheriff’s Office was legally permitted to proceed—are now expected to become central issues in the continuing dispute.

Jendayi remained inside for some time after the officers left.

Outside, neighbors gathered in growing numbers. Angry, alarmed, and deeply engaged, they voiced support for Jendayi and began reaching out to Alameda County District 4 Supervisor Nate Miley, asking him to intervene while questions about the bankruptcy filing and law enforcement actions are investigated.

Although she remains in possession of her home for now, for Jendayi the events of Tuesday are only the latest chapter in a battle she says has exposed something much larger than the loss of her home.

“The probate court is corrupt. It ignored Dr. Head’s wishes that were written into her will and trust, which made me the sole beneficiary of her home,” Jendayi said, referring to the trust established by Dr. Laura Dean Head upon her death in 2013, that made Jendayi executor of the estate. The trust was challenged by Head’s estranged sisters.

Jendayi says she is not alone in her battle with the probate court. “Over 100 other Black families in Alameda County have lost their homes in probate court over the past decade. This is an injustice. Our homes are worth fighting for.”

For background on the case:

The Post News Group, “The Truth Is in the Transcripts,” Week of November 12–18, 2025.

Post News Group archive: https://postnewsgroup.com/week-of-november-12-18-2025/

Additional information: www.protectyourtrust.org

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Every indicator in New York City’s housing market is pointing in the wrong direction.

Rents are at historic highs. Foreclosure notices are climbing in Black and brown neighborhoods that never fully recovered from the last crisis. Deed theft, the predatory stripping of generational wealth from families who built their equity over decades, continues to devastate communities from Brownsville to Jamaica.

On top of all these factors, there were more than 57,000 rent-stabilized apartments sitting completely empty as of April last year. That number grew by 8,000 units in a single year, with the sharpest increases hitting Brooklyn and Queens hardest.

Brooklyn and Queens. My neighborhoods. Your neighborhoods.

You would think that news of 57,000 empty affordable apartments in the middle of a housing emergency would produce outrage, emergency hearings, and demands for accountability. Instead, New Yorkers got a collective shrug from opinion leaders.

Read that again: 57,000 families could be housed in those apartments. Households currently paying market rent, doubled up, couch-surfing, or one missed paycheck away from the street could have relief. And silence from the city’s housing leadership, activists, and coalitions.

In my experience as chair of the Subcommittee on Affordable Housing in the Assembly, that is not advocacy. That is surrender.

These are the same voices, the same institutions, the same political class that successfully lobbied to effectively ban short-term rentals in New York City through Local Law 18. At its peak, Airbnb had roughly 20,000 listings in New York City, nearly a third the number of apartments currently sitting vacant and padlocked in the rent-stabilized system. The campaign against those listings was relentless, loud, and wrapped in the language of affordability and housing justice.

Where is that energy now?

Where are the press conferences about landlords warehousing stabilized units while families sleep in shelters? Where is the legislation with teeth? Where is the outrage that was apparently plentiful when a Black homeowner in Bed Stuy wanted to rent out her spare bedroom to make ends meet?

Because that is exactly who Local Law 18 hit hardest. Not the corporate bad actors. Not the hedge funds. The struggling homeowner, disproportionately Black, disproportionately in Brooklyn and Queens, who used their home as a small economic engine to survive in a city that grows more expensive by the month.

Those families were told their activity was destabilizing the housing market. Those families were fined, delisted, and legislated out of a livelihood. And now we learn that 57,000 stabilized units are sitting empty while rents spiral and foreclosures mount, and the response from housing advocates is essentially: that’s just how big numbers work.

This is not sound policy. This is politics. And the communities paying the price know the difference.

I have spoken with homeowners across Central Brooklyn who are barely holding on. They bought their homes, sometimes one generation removed from the Great Migration, and they have watched the equity they built become both their greatest asset and their greatest vulnerability. Predatory lenders, deed theft schemes, and rising property taxes all circle that equity like wolves.

Short-term rental income was, for many of these families, not a luxury. It was the margin between keeping the house and losing it. Local Law 18 closed that door, and the people who closed it are now waving away 57,000 empty apartments as statistical noise.

Everyone in this fight knows what needs to happen but will not say it out loud: Local Law 18 needs reform. Common sense reform. The kind that distinguishes between an investor running a ghost hotel and a homeowner renting a room. The kind that actually targets bad actors instead of penalizing the most economically vulnerable property owners in the city.

I hear it in private conversations with elected officials, with housing attorneys, with planners. The consensus is there. The political will is not, because the same advocacy groups and political donors who pushed the original law are still in the room, and nobody wants to take their call.

What this moment requires is courage, not calculation.

Every month that passes with 57,000 empty stabilized apartments is a month of families in crisis, of shelter costs ballooning, of neighborhoods destabilizing. Every month that Local Law 18 remains unreformed is another month a Black homeowner in Flatbush or Hollis faces impossible choices that wealthier New Yorkers simply never have to make.

You cannot ban the small and ignore the large. You cannot mobilize armies of lobbyists against a homeowner’s spare bedroom while shrugging at tens of thousands of warehoused affordable units. You cannot claim to stand for housing justice and then tell 57,000 families worth of empty apartments that the math just works out this way.

The hypocrisy has to stop. Politics have to give way to people. And the officials and advocates who have the power to fix this, who know what needs to be done, have to decide which side they are actually on.

Because from where I stand, in the communities I have served for decades, it is very clear who is being left out in the cold.

Dr. Annette Robinson is a former member of both the State Assembly and City Council in Brooklyn.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group