City Government

Army Trucking Company’s Survival Now in Port’s Hands

Published

13 years ago

August 10, 2013

Down to the wire, the City of Oakland and community members are close to saving Oakland Maritime Support Services (OMSS), a nationally recognized truck yard that provides parking and one-stop support for 3,000 big rigs a day that serve the Port of Oakland.

Bill Aboudi, owner of OMSS, met Tuesday with Mayor Jean Quan and Deputy Mayor Sandré Swanson, who pledged to do everything in their power to make sure the company receives a 30-month lease to move to a temporary site on port land.

At press time, the port has already given a lease for the property to the city. But the Port Commission had added conditions that OMSS must meet, and the port’s new executive director has the final decision on whether the city will be allowed to give OMSS a sublease.

The city has sent a letter to the port saying that it is satisfied those conditions have been met. At present, the port’s legal staff is reviewing that letter and will advise new Port Executive Director Chris Lytle, who will make the final decision.

At stake for the city is whether polluting big rigs will be kept out of West Oakland, which would be in jeopardy if the company closes, say community activists who have worked closely with OMSS for years to reduce truck traffic and parking on residential streets in their neighborhoods.

Moreover, OMSS and other companies must move immediately off the Oakland’s Army Base property so the city’s massive development project at the base can start by Sept. 3, which is the deadline Oakland must meet to avoid jeopardizing $242 million in state matching funds.

“We don’t have the luxury of waiting,” said Assistant City Manager Fred Blackwell at a recent Community and Economic Development Committee meeting. “It is important for us to do what we’re doing now (proceeding with the evictions),” he said, because the city does not want to “have to have embarrassing conversations with the state about not being able to spend the money.”

If OMSS is unable to secure a sublease, Aboudi says he has no choice but to go to court to fight the eviction.

“I don’t want a fight with the city and the port. We just want to do business, but OMSS is too important to the lives of community members and hundreds of workers and small businesses,” said Aboudi, who had a court date scheduled Thursday afternoon to attempt to block the eviction.

OMSS, which has been running into obstacles put in its way by the city and the port for over two years, is one of the companies that face eviction by Sept. 3 from their homes on the city’s Army Base property.

While other companies have repeatedly been thwarted in their efforts to receive leases to move, OMSS has additionally been confronted with determined efforts by the Teamsters Union, which has intensely lobbied the port and the city to shut down the company as part of its efforts to unionize drivers who own their own trucks.

Recently, the Port Commission placed what some are calling almost insurmountable obstacles in the way of OMSS. Although the city had agreed to assume all risks associated with a sublease to OMSS, the commission is requiring that Aboudi settle and pay penalties in an ongoing litigation that involves another company that he owns, AB Trucking.

Hoping to resolve the issue, the mayor has spoken with the port’s executive director, and the city sent a letter to the port saying it is satisfied that Aboudi and OMSS are able to meet their obligations, and that letter is currently being reviewed by port attorneys.

OMSS, a kind of co-op, is the home of 18 small, mostly family- and minority-owned businesses that provide 24-hour-a-day trucking services, including engine repair, sign painting, oil changes, repair or replace tires, a truck scale, live scan fingerprinting, as well as a mini-mart and medical services.

Other army base companies, PCC Logistics and Impact Transportation, this week were sent drafts of new leases for port property and have already been approved to begin start working on their temporary sites, according to the port.

The companies are reviewing the leases before signing them and have already begun to do the work that is necessary so they can move.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Spectrum “Shines Light” on Oakland LGBTQ Film Festival

Don't Miss

Raiders beat Cowboys to kick off the preseason

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

5 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.”