City Government
More than 250 Jobs and 18 Family and Minority Businesses at Risk
There is a well known African proverb – when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled – that seems to sum up the experience of Bill Aboudi’s Oakland Maritime Support Services (OMSS) and the 18 small businesses that operate at OMSS, as they wait to see if the City of Oakland will allow them to move to a temporary site at the port.
Army Base businesses, including PCC Logistics and Impact Transportation as well as OMSS, have until Sept. 3 to move out of the way as construction begins on the Gateway Army Base development project.
The 18 tenants provide necessary trucking services 24 hours a day at OMSS – including tire services, engine repair, an oil collection center, live scan fingerprinting and medical services and a mini-mart.
If OMSS and these minority-owned businesses are not allowed to relocate, they face the possibility of going out of business.
As you enter the OMSS yard, you can see trucks lined up waiting for service. Mechanics dressed in their smocks are working on engines and tires. Truckers are relaxing, enjoying tacos and lattes from the mobile lunch truck on site.
Aboudi, OMSS owner, provides a comfortable space for truckers to take advantage of all the services they need in one central location; and their business helps support his tenants.
Nearly 10,000 trucks travel daily through the Port of Oakland with 4,000 truckers coming through OMSS, of which 3,000 are registered with the company.
Jesus Campos has owned Campos Tire Services, or CTS, for the past eight years, employing members of his family. If he were forced to leave the base, he again would have to begin operating a mobile business on the streets.
Working at OMSS, Campos has expanded his services, providing big rigs and cars with tire balancing and recycling old tires. Campos has six employees including his wife and daughter, studying to be a lawyer at UC Davis.
“Its very important for us to survive on this place. I think [relocating] is going to be a big problem for us because we depend on the trucks. How are the trucks going to be accessible to work with us,” said a concerned Campos.
Through his business, he also supports nonprofit The Latina Center, which offers job and food assistance to women and children.
“Here, we’re all like a co-op, we all feed off of each other. The trucks come here so this business works here; otherwise he’s a mobile mechanic. With his stock of tires, he’s able to have a base of operation, so he’s been growing,” said Aboudi.
According to Aboudi, the Oakland Fire Marshall told him that the city has seen a reduction of about $400,000 per year in the cost getting truck repair debris off the streets since 2006 when OMSS moved to the base.
Christian Brothers, owned by business partners Alberto Ortiz and Jorge Rivera, started their truck repair service eight years ago beginning with only two employees. They now have six workers repairing ECU’s – engine control units, what Ortiz calls “the brain of the engine” – and other automotive parts.
“I need a place to work. I got to make a living,” said co-owner Rivera. “I have a family and all these workers – they have families so they really need the job. We’re small business owners – they don’t want to be working on the streets, and I don’t want to be working on the streets.”
OMSS hopes to move to a temporary site on the port’s portion of the old Army Base during construction before moving to its permanent site.
If OMSS is not allowed to move, businesses that may be left out in the cold include the nonprofit Hispanic Business, Education and Training that occupies space at OMSS donated by the port to help truckers in community and economic-development.
Alyn Anays Esnel, owner of Oakland Truck Signs, or OTS, has been working on site at OMSS for three years designing logos, business cards, signs, and other customized advertising material for truckers and companies. She is studying graphic design, art, and multimedia at Berkeley City College while putting her creative skills to work at OTS.
With five part-time employees working for her, Esnel talks about how exciting it is to give other students and recent graduates a chance to gain experience.
“I can give them a job, and then they go on to get other work with experience and a reference from me,” she said.
Activism
OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.
Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.
Our community is hurting. Things have to change.
The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.
Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.
I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.
SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.
For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.
This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.
Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.
Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.
About the Author
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
Antonio Ray Harvey
Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

By Antonio Ray Harvey
California Black Media
Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.
Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.
With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.
“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”
The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.
The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.
Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”
“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”
The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.
Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.
Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.
“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”
Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.
The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.
Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.
Activism
The Case Against Probate: False Ruling Invalidates Black Professor’s Estate Plan, Ignoring 28-Year Relationship
Zakiya Folami Jendayi, beneficiary of Head’s estate, states that “The errors, ranging from misstatements of fact, omissions of critical evidence, and reliance on false arguments and testimony, formed the basis of Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling against me, Dr. Head’s previous student, mentee, sorority sister and long-time friend,and despite the fact that I was her chosen, power of attorney, Advanced Healthcare Directive agent, trustee, executor and sole beneficiary.”

By Tanya Dennis
Part 5
In a shocking miscarriage of justice, a California probate judge issued a Statement of Decision on March 28 riddled with numerous documented errors that invalidated the estate plan of esteemed Black Studies professor Dr. Laura Dean Head.
The ruling from the Alameda County Superior Court’s probate division in Berkeley has sparked outrage from advocates for probate reform, community members and civil rights activists, who say the decision reflects deep flaws in the probate system, blatant disregard for due process, and the wishes of the ancestors. Judge Sandra Bean’s ruling reflects a repeated outcome seen in Black and Brown communities.
Zakiya Folami Jendayi, beneficiary of Head’s estate, states that “The errors, ranging from misstatements of fact, omissions of critical evidence, and reliance on false arguments and testimony, formed the basis of Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling against me, Dr. Head’s previous student, mentee, sorority sister and long-time friend,and despite the fact that I was her chosen, power of attorney, Advanced Healthcare Directive agent, trustee, executor and sole beneficiary.”
Reading court transcripts, the most egregious violations according to Jendayi reveal a pivotal point in the ruling that rested on a letter from Dr. Stephan Sarafian of Kaiser Permanente, who misidentified Dr. Head as male, misstated the day, month, and year, and asserted Head lacked capacity.
Under cross-examination, he reversed his opinion and admitted under oath that he never conducted a mental evaluation, did not diagnose Dr. Head with incapacity, did not write the letter, and stated he merely signed it “in case it was needed in the future.”
Despite Sarafian’s perjury, on Oct. 17, 2024, the California Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision that relied on Sarafian’s discredited letter to invalidate Dr. Head’s estate plan, ignored Jendayi’s requests to impeach his testimony and dismiss Sarafian’s testimony and letter that both the Kaiser Grievance Department and the Medical Board of California denounced.
In her ruling, Judge Bean agreed with the false argument by attorney Leahy, which alleged that Jendayi provided the names of the beneficiaries to Head’s estate attorney, Elaine Lee. Bean made this decision despite Lee’s sworn testimony that Dr. Head had met with her alone, behind closed doors, and made the independent decision to leave her estate to Jendayi.
According to court records, Judge Bean reversed the burden of proof in the undue influence claim before any of Jendayi’s witnesses testified, forcing Jendayi to disprove allegations that were never substantiated by witnesses or records.
Bean ruled: “Respondent took Dr. Head to her apartment where she assumed complete control of Dr. Head’s day-to-day care, medical care, and all aspects of her life.” Jendayi proved that statement was false.
Bean also ruled that Respondent controlled Dr. Head’s necessities of life, food, and hospice care, despite zero testimony or documentation supporting any of those claims.
The court reduced Jendayi’s role to “a friend who, at best, cared for Dr. Head during the final two months,” totally ignoring 28 years of friendship, testimony, evidence, letters of recommendation, emails, and medical records.
Exhibits confirming Dr. Head’s intent and capacity, including the discredited medical letter, Exhibit 90, were omitted or misrepresented in the judge’s final decision.
Jendayi says, “The injustice within the probate justice system is devastating, traumatizing and financially depleting. It’s nothing short of legalized crime!”
Jendayi is now appealing to the Supreme Court of the U.S. with a petition citing denial of due process, judicial misconduct, and systemic bias in probate courts.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress2 weeks ago
It Just Got Even Better 2026 Toyota RAV4 AWD GR Sport Walkaround
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 28 – June 30, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Remembering George Floyd
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Hate and Chaos Rise in Trump’s America
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
House GOP Passes Budget Bill That Prompts Largest Cuts to Health Care in History
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
WATCH: Five Years After George Floyd: Full Panel Discussion | Tracey’s Keepin’ It Real | Live Podcast Event
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
OP-ED: Oregon Bill Threatens the Future of Black Owned Newspapers and Community Journalism