City Government

Oaklanders Fight for the Right to Watch their Watchmen

Published

7 years ago

April 12, 2019

Oakland residents are fighting for more power to oversee the actions of the Oakland Police Department (OPD).

On April 2, 2019, attorneys for the Coalition for Police Accountability (CPA) filed a motion to intervene in the ongoing federal oversight of OPD, established in 2003 by a Negotiated Settlement Agreement in a major police misconduct case.

This settlement required OPD to make 51 improvements, and granted some authorities to the plaintiffs and lawyers in the case to oversee OPD’s fulfillment of the required tasks.

Many in the CPA resent that after 16 years and over $30 million in public funds, the NSA still isn’t complete and the public’s role in the process is minimal.

If approved, the motion would allow CPA to attend and participate in meetings related to police policy and practice that are currently closed off to them. CPA members feel that intervening in the case would make it easier for Oakland residents to influence and change police policy.

“We would file our own reports and be able to do our own investigating because we’d have access to the same information as the other parties in the case,” said CPA member Rashidah Grinage. CPA wants the authority to hold police accountable that was granted in the settlement of the 2003 police misconduct case to plaintiffs and their lawyers James B. Chanin and John Burris, to extend to them.

CPA member Pamela Drake said they need that access and can be of service because they have deep and broad connections to people in Oakland. They represent about 25 local organizations.

“You need people on the ground who have a broad base and spend their time doing outreach in order to make a difference,” said Drake. “We have the outreach and access to political pressure of a kind that Burris and Chanin don’t because we represent so many people and we have people who are living it.”

Chanin said public oversight is important and he advised CPA in its push to pass Measure LL, a bill which resulted in the creation of Oakland’s Police Commission, a portion of the city government that provides civilian oversight to OPD policy and practice. But Chanin disagrees with CPA’s motion.

Chanin and Burris currently have authority to participate in the oversight of required improvements as representatives of the community’s interest. The 2003 NSA required a set of improvements, which the court calls “tasks.” They were to be fulfilled in five years. Sixteen years later, of the original 51 tasks, four tasks remain incomplete.

“It might have been a good idea for CPA in intervene in the case in 2003,” said Chanin. “But we have so few tasks left and there’s so much time that’s gone by that I don’t think their participation at this point would shorten the NSA.”

Members of CPA insist that, though only four tasks remain, those tasks involve some of the most important issues for both the public and OPD.

The most recent report by independent monitor Judge Robert S. Warsaw shows task numbers 26 and 30 still incomplete. These tasks relate to use of force. Task number 34 is also still incomplete. It deals with racial discrimination against Black people.

While Chanin and Burris both have suggested that the CPA focus their attention on collaborating with the Police Commission instead of intervening in the case, CPA members already regularly attend their meetings but see the commission as limited in what they can control and do.

By intervening in the case, they hope to obtain more resources and control for the commission which would allow for more public oversight of OPD. The City of Oakland and OPD originally planned for the publicly funded NSA process to last only five years.

Many in the CPA resent that after 16 years and over $30 million in public funds, the NSA still isn’t complete and the public’s role in the process is minimal. “We’re paying a huge amount of money for this process and we’re not getting the results that we need,” said Grinage.

Zack Haber

Posts by Zack Haber

Up Next

In Sept. 11 Related Tweet, Trump Targets Another Black Woman in Congress

Don't Miss

Who controls the fate of Oakland schools?

Zack Haber

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.”