City Government

As Unhoused Community’s Eviction Approaches, City Council Discusses ‘Alternative Shelter’ Options

Residents claim over 35 people live in the park and that City representatives told them they would be cleared in the first week of February and offered shared space in the City’s Community Cabins, also known as the tuff sheds. For Edward Hansen, 65, who’s lived in the park for over seven years, was born in Oakland, and just got out of the hospital after having a stroke, accepting the space would mean sharing a room with a new person he does not live with. Hansen plans to reject the offer.

Published

5 years ago

January 25, 2021

Kiki

Edward Hansen, who was born in Oakland and has lived in or near Union Point Park for 7 years, holds a painted anchor at the park. Union Point Park's homeless community is set to be evicted before February 12. Photo by Zack Haber on January 17.

At a January 12 meeting, Oakland’s City Council discussed, but did not vote upon, amendments proposed by Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan and Nikki Fortunato Bas requesting the City offer unhoused residents extended shelter stays and individual shelter units following evictions of unhoused people during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Out of concern for possibly spreading the COVID-19 virus, Kaplan said that “people should not be made to share a room with those who they do not already live with.” A resolution, passed unanimously by Council on March 27 of last year, requested the City to only clear unhoused communities if it offered residents “individual housing units or alternative shelter,” but the Council still has not decided what “alternative shelter” means.

The delay will likely soon affect unhoused residents at Union Point Park, as the City plans to clear the park but does not yet have codified guidance from the Council as to what alternative shelter options they should offer unhoused people when they execute the clearance.

Due to a cease-and-desist order that the S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission has delivered to the City of Oakland, which the City has not challenged, residents living in Union Point Park must be cleared from the park by February 12.

“If they’re not going to physically push us with police, I’m going to stand my ground,” said Hansen. “From what I understand they have to offer us something a wee bit better than what we have now.”

After Council unanimously passed the Encampment Management Policy during an October 21 meeting, which set strict guidelines for where the City plans to focus unhoused community closures, Oakland’s City Administration proposed a resolution that defines what “alternative shelter” they plan to offer people like Hansen. The resolution allows “congregate” or grouped shelter, like homeless shelters and shared space in the Community Cabins, to be offered. It further stipulated that the shelter must be offered “no less than 72 hours prior to an encampment clearing” and for a stay “of at least two weeks.”

Advocates for homeless people found the resolution unacceptable and encouraged the public to call City Council members to encourage them to accept amendments by Kaplan and Bas’ that request “alternative shelter” be defined instead as offers of individual shelter units for a minimum of 90 day stays with 30 days prior notice.

“Do not let the current proposal of two weeks, potentially in congregate shelter, pass!,” the homeless advocacy group Housing and Dignity Village tweeted on January 11. “While permanent housing is always the goal…we need folks to receive AT LEAST 90 days in COVID safe housing options.”

Councilmember Loren Taylor and Dan Kalb both spoke in support of the extension of stays to at least 90 days with at least 30 days prior notification. But a point of contention arose over whether or not homeless shelters, where individuals would share space with strangers, should be considered “alternative shelter.” Taylor reiterated a claim that Homelessness Administrator Daryel Dunston made that there have thus far been no outbreaks in Oakland homeless shelters and that the shelters were operating at a reduced capacity. Kalb agreed and stated that shelters that do not require residents to leave during the day “maybe should be” used for the purpose of alternative shelter.

Kaplan expressed concerns that a new strain of COVID-19 that is more contagious could more easily spread in grouped shelters. The CDC’s website refers to it as B.1.1.7 and states that it has already been detected in the United States. She also reiterated concerns over how social distancing and mask regulations would be impossible in shelters.

“It’s not six feet or a mask; it’s six feet and a mask,” said Kaplan. “When you’re in an indoor room with other people where you would be needing to sleep and eat and take your mask off. That is not what the 6-foot standard refers to.”

Council did not discuss the Community Cabin Program but Kaplan and Bas’ amendments would still allow them to be used as long as people, excluding those who were already sharing a tent or a dwelling, were no longer forced to share single cabin units.

During the discussion at the meeting over the amendments, which lasted about an hour, Councilmember Noel Gallo suggested that the matter be brought to the newly formed homelessness commission to get their input before Council votes.

Taylor suggested Council address the issue on March 22, when they will consider amendments to the Encampment Management Policy. Council ended their discussion by unanimously agreeing to delay voting on the amendments, meaning that the City currently has no agreed-upon definition with Council as to what “alternative shelter” means for residents who are facing clearance.

Kiki

Posts by Kiki | Website

Up Next

Arsola’s House Drive Through Grocery Distribution

Don't Miss

While Sheltering in Place (A Guide and Workbook) During the Time of Dread, the Corona Virus Global Pandemic

Kiki

Click to comment

Activism

Life Expectancy in Marin City, a Black Community, Is 15-17 Years Less than the Rest of Marin County

“Marin City residents have been fighting for years just to stay here. Residents live with the fear of being forced out, public housing torn down and rebuilt for the wealthy. Due to ongoing issues continually being ignored, residents feel they must be empowered to make their own decisions for the future survival and protection of their community,” said Terrie Green, a lifelong resident and executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience (MCCR).

Published

3 days ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

Marin City community leaders (l.-r.): Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience (MCCR); Wambua Musyoki, Stanford University; Khamil Callahan, Santa Rosa Junior College; Serenity Allen, Xavier University; and Chinaka Green, MCCR associate director.

By Ken Epstein

People may be aware of the existence of Marin City and know a little about its history as a center of U.S. resistance to fascism in the World War II. But fewer know of the community’s ongoing struggles to survive potential displacement while facing severe toxic health and environmental conditions on a daily basis.

These conditions cause chronic disease and premature death, dramatically shown in the sharp difference in life expectancy between Black and white people living in households only a few miles apart.

A historically African American enclave, Marin City, occupies a 0.5-square mile area between Mill Valley and Sausalito with its own freeway exit near the Golden Gate Bridge. In contrast, the rest of Marin County rates among the healthiest, wealthiest, and most environmentally friendly counties in the country. However, it is one of the least racially equitable counties in California, with Black residents being the most impacted, according to the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization,.

The community owes its continued existence to the World War II generation that came to the Bay Area from the South to work in the shipyards and to the resiliency of its residents. Despite often facing discriminatory practices, such as redlining and a segregated school district, Marin City residents have continually created a strong community rich in culture, spirituality, and community values.

The current statistics are brutal. At present, Marin City residents face more than a 17-year difference in life expectancy compared to neighboring cities and towns. Contributing to these conditions are a lack of investment in public housing and infrastructure: unsafe drinking water, air pollution caused by proximity to the U.S. 101 freeway, unsanitary stormwater drainage that produces mold and mildew, as well as old and broken lead pipes and sewage in homes.

As an unincorporated community, Marin City residents must rely primarily on the elected Marin County Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Works, Transportation Authority of Marin and Caltrans for the decisions and investments that impact their lives.

MCCR’s focus is on environmental justice. Its purpose is to empower and advocate for individuals to embrace sustainable living, envision a future free of environmental harm and collectively work towards a better Marin City. MCCR’s motto is “Forever Marin City.”

MCCR has created a unique team of Marin City Youth Environmentalists who have studied and researched environmental issues impacting the health of the community.

Serenity Allen is an MCCR Youth Coordinator/Young Environmentalist studying to be a medical social worker at Xavier University. She has been working in the community for six years. “I strongly believe that where you live should not determine how long you are able to live,” she said.

Allen referred to the work done by former Marin County Public Health Officer Dr. Matt Willis, who stated that Marin City has a 17-year life expectancy difference between residents of Marin City (77 years) and more affluent areas like Ross (94 years).

“The research shows this gap is heavily correlated with race and socioeconomic status. Sausalito, which is not even two miles outside of Marin City, has a life expectancy of 92 years,” Allen said.

“Many elements contribute to this gap,” she said. “A major factor may be the 12 acres of toxic flood waters that pour down off the highway into low-lying Marin City.

In addition, “We do not have a barrier wall protecting us along our highway; the rest of Marin County has 16 barrier walls to protect from noise and air pollution. Marin City has been fighting for a barrier wall since 2008,” she said.

Octavien Green, an MCCR high school environmentalist, spoke about the impact of the absence of recreational facilities on health and wellness, particularly for youth.

“Lack of investment in our recreational facilities means we have fewer spaces and opportunities for physical activity, which contribute to serious health problems like heart disease, diabetes, weak bones and low energy, especially for kids. We are presently involved in an ongoing struggle just to rebuild a sports ball field for the community that’s been unusable for the last 15 years.”

“Marin City is the center of Black culture for all of Marin County,” said Green. “Historically, though, the county has not invested in the community, and you see it in the life expectancy, the highest chronic disease and disability rates and eight times the amount of asthma. In the last six weeks, we’ve had three young people in their 40s and 50s die from heart attacks. This is alarming and must be addressed.”

Looking toward next steps, she said, “The way forward is through incorporation,” which would mean that Marin City would have its own elected leadership to find solutions that determine the future of the community.

This is the first in a series of articles on Marin City, examining conditions in the community and interviewing both community members and public officials.