Bay Area

Council Rejects Measure for Voters to Weigh in on Billion-dollar Tax-Funded Infrastructure Expenditure

In a statement released after the meeting, the East Oakland Stadium Alliance said, “The City Council (has) denied Oakland residents the right to vote on whether to spend nearly $1 billion in public funds on the Howard Terminal project, ignoring the nearly 12,000 residents who signed petitions demanding a vote take place.

Published

4 years ago

July 10, 2022

Oakland Post

Many of the public speakers against the measure were aligned with the building trades construction unions, which have been working hard to pass the development project.

By Ken Epstein

In a meeting this week that dragged on for more than 12 hours, Oakland City Councilmembers decisively turned down a proposal to place a measure on the November ballot to allow voters to weigh in on whether they want over a billion of their tax dollars spent on infrastructure for private luxury development and baseball stadium on public land at the Port of Oakland.

The final vote was 5-2 against the measure, with council member Rebecca Kaplan abstaining.

Voting yes was Councilmember Noel Gallo, the author of the measure. Gallo emphasized that this proposal had not been his idea but was drafted in response a deluge of calls and petitions from local residents, demanding that their voices not be ignored in the city’s rush to give public funds for infrastructure to billionaire developer and A’s team owner John Fisher.

“Your neighbors, my neighbors, are asking us to put this on the ballot,” Gallo said, adding that this is a business deal, and the A’s corporation has been less than transparent about the terms of the deal, whether the A’s will pay any community benefits and how much infrastructure will cost the public.

“As of today, I don’t have a complete picture of what the A’s are asking for and what they are willing to pay,” Gallo said.

Also voting in favor of the resolution was Councilmember Carroll Fife, who represents District 3 where the project would be built.

“I want to know what the City of Oakland is on the hook for,” Fife said.

She said supporters of the stadium project complain about misinformation being spread against the project. “(But) if we’re going to tell the truth, we’re going to have to tell the truth all the way around,” she said.

While it is true the stadium, luxury condominiums and commercial real estate will be privately paid for, “there’s a lot more that has to be funded,” she said, and it will be paid ultimately by taxpayers.

State, federal and other grants are also taxpayer money, much of which could be spent on other projects to benefit the needs of Oakland residents and neighborhoods, she said.

Fife said this issue will be on the November ballot, one way or another. Either the council could place it on the ballot, or voters may consider whether to vote for incumbents who opposed allowing the public to vote on the matter.

“With homelessness, a housing crisis, school closures, and rising crime impacting our city, Oakland voters must be allowed to weigh in before the City’s limited resources are spent on a private stadium and condo development.”

The five councilmembers who opposed the resolution gave a variety of reasons for their “no” vote, though most of them agreed they have heard overwhelmingly from residents who wanted them to vote “yes.”

Councilmember Dan Kalb said, “I’m not prepared to bring this is to a vote of the citizens,” until the details of the final agreement are released. If the deal looks good for Oakland, he said, he will vote in favor of it, but if Oakland’s finances ultimately are not protected, he might support a special election in January for voters to decide if they like the deal.

Councilmember and mayoral candidate Loren Taylor opposed the measure saying it was “confusing” and “stupid,” because it does not contain the details of the proposal.

“For me to be supportive, (the measure) would have to be specific about the deal terms,” Taylor said.

None of details have been released so far and apparently are still being negotiated by city staff and the A’s.

Councilmember and mayoral candidate Sheng Thao said, “I’d like to hear an actual proposal. I’m in the same boat as Councilmember Kalb.”

Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas said, “I am not ready to put this on the ballot. We need to actually have a deal.”

Councilmember Treva Reid said voters in her district are “asking for more details before we ask them to weigh in. I’m going to wait for information.”

Many of the public speakers against the measure were aligned with the building trades construction unions, which have been working hard to pass the development project.

A number of pro-development speakers addressed similar talking points, ending their remarks with the slogan, “This is bigger than baseball!”

Calling for a “no” vote, they argued: a ballot measure would be too costly to administer; details of a proposed deal were too confusing for Oakland residents to understand; and wording of the measure was too vague since it does not contain details of a final proposal.

Public speakers calling for a “yes” vote included Cathy Leonard. “I view this proposal as nothing more than a disguised development deal. Support Oakland residents right to vote.”

Andrea Luna Bocanegra said, “We have been fighting this for over six years,” adding that the development will hurt the companies that utilize the Port, forcing them to go elsewhere.

“It seems like we’ve stepped away from developing East Oakland,” said Stanley Cooper.

In response to the argument that there is no final deal, supporters of the ballot measure responded that the content of the deal is irrelevant. “The question is whether Oakland tax-payers want to use any their tax dollars to pay for infrastructure for a private project. Period.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s Fourth of July Remarks

Don't Miss

How Mitsubishi Will Survive – AutoNetwork Reports 365 – Auto Talk Show

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.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 6 – 12, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of may 6 – 12, 2026

Published

4 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

On the Frontlines of Hate: NAACP Links Victims to Critical Support

The NAACP CA/HI has a long and well-established record of supporting victims of discrimination and hate crimes — providing critical referrals and, when necessary, direct assistance through legal advocacy and other forms of support. Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 1, 2026

Oakland Post

NAACP members at a recent advocacy day in Sacramento urging lawmakers to protect voting rights. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

By Joe Kocurek
California Black Media

The California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP (CA/HI NAACP) has expanded its efforts to respond to rising hate incidents and civil rights complaints across California, supported in part by funding from California’s Stop the Hate Program

Through that grant, NAACP CA/HI has strengthened its ability to connect individuals experiencing hate or discrimination with critical resources. This includes referring those who file complaints to the CA vs Hate hotline, a statewide, non-emergency hate crime and incident reporting hotline and online portal created to help counter a more than 50% increase in reported hate crimes in California between 2020 and 2024. The system helps ensure incidents are documented, and victims are guided toward appropriate support.

LaJuana Bivens says the work of NAACP is as urgent as ever. Photo by Regina Wilson, California Black Media.

LaJuana Bivens, who has served in a number of roles within the NAACP, said California has seen an increase in civil rights violations and hate-related incidents.

“We have 52 branches, and they are constantly receiving complaints,” she said. “So, without the Stop the Hate, we would not be able to refer those cases up to attorneys at the state level. A lot of the people would not have had an opportunity to be heard.”

Carmen-Nicole Cox helps survivors of hate with their legal options. Photo courtesy of Carmen-Nicole Cox.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, an attorney who works with NAACP CA/HI – as a part of California’s Stop the Hate Program – provides legal consultation to victims of hate incidents and discrimination through her legal practice, the Cox Firm for Law and Policy.

She said the complaints she receives span a wide range of issues.

“People are having home builders and landlords refusing to provide repairs, a student was denied promotion in an academic program, and targeted scrutiny at work,” she said. “It’s typically employment; it’s housing; it’s education.

“We’ll meet and they’ll share their experiences,” she said. “And then I make assessments about possible legal claims.”

According to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), nearly 1,200 reports of hate against minority groups were submitted in 2024 through the CA vs Hate hotline and online portal for non-emergency incidents.

While the California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, which has tens of thousands of members, does not directly investigate hate incidents or crimes, it plays a key role in connecting victims to the state’s reporting systems and support services.

Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Bivens recently traveled to Sacramento to speak with state lawmakers about voting rights during an advocacy day event hosted by the organization.

“It’s just so hard for communities of color to be up to date because of all of the confusing information coming from the federal level,” she said. “I love our great state of California because here it is possible to vote by mail and to vote early.

“And I’m seeing that trying to be eroded. So, I’m here to urge continued support for vote by mail and early voting.”

When Texas moved to redraw congressional districts in ways critics said would dilute minority voting strength, NAACP CA/HI supported the passage of Proposition 50 in California. The organization also intervened in United States v. Shirley Weber, where federal officials sought access to unredacted California voter records, including Social Security numbers, raising concerns about misuse and voter intimidation.

Cultivating the advocacy and leaderships of young people is central to NAACP’s mission to fight racism and dismantle inequality. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

A federal district court dismissed that case in January 2026.

The organization’s current work builds on a long history of civil rights advocacy. Today, Bivens says, the organization’s mission remains as urgent as ever.

“We are the oldest, boldest, most feared Civil Rights organization,” Bivens said. “What we do every day is fight for better housing, education, economic development and political inclusion. We take it on because there are just so many people who need that support.

“You would be amazed that our phones ring every single day.”

Get Support After Hate:

California vs Hate is a non-emergency, multilingual hotline and online portal offering confidential support for hate crimes and incidents. Victims and witnesses can get help anonymously by calling 833-8-NO-HATE (833-866-4283), Monday to Friday, 9 a.m.–6 p.m. PT, or online at any time. Anonymous. Confidential. No Police. No ICE.

This story was produced in partnership with CA vs Hate. Join them for the first-ever CA Civil Rights Summit on May 11. More information at www.cavshate.org/summit.

https://youtu.be/_k7UVhI-sN8