City Government
Oakland Adopts “Love Life” as Official Motto
The city council this week adopted “Love Life” as the official motto of the City of Oakland, incorporating the slogan in the city’s communications and welcome signs.
Community supporters who called for the council to adopt the motto or “tagline” view it as a representation of hope and an affirmation of life in the face of the pain and challenges that people in the community face.
“Love Life reflects the joy and energy that characterize our artists and businesses. Love Life responds to our communal desire to build an inclusive, equitable, and authentic Oakland,” according to Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney.
During the council meeting, dozens of community members spoke about the loved ones they have lost to senseless violence and the positive outcome that adopting such a motto would have on their communities.
Voting for the ordinance were Councilmembers McElhaney, Desley Brooks, Rebecca Kaplan, Noel Gallo and Larry Reid. Opposing the resolution were Annie Campbell Washington, Dan Kalb and Abel Guillén.
The resolution was introduced by Donald Lacy and community supporters of the work of the Love Life Foundation.
The foundation was formed after Lacy’s daughter, 16-yearold LoEshé Adanma Lacy, was shot to death in 1997 as a bystander across the street from her school, McClymonds High in West Oakland.
LoEshé, which means “love life” in Ibo, had been moved by the deaths of her classmates and had begun an anti-violence campaign to tell her peers that they should love life.
After her death, Lacy and other community advocates worked for nearly a decade to win the city’s approval for the new motto.
“What the devil meant for evil, God will turn to good,” said Lacy, speaking to the council. “(We have to) put out a different message to our children. Life is precious. The greatest thing we all share as human beings is love. Love is going to sustain us as a city.”
Councilmembers McElhaney, Brooks and Kaplan jointly introduced the proposal on Tuesday.
The city’s current unofficial tagline is “The bright side of the Bay.”
“In adopting this ordinance, the council (sent) a clear message that it honors residents who have lost their lives to gun violence and speaks hope and healing to the communities of residents who are dedicated to living robust lives,” said McElhaney.
“Life and love go together,” said Councilmember Gallo, explaining his reason for backing the new motto. “It is not just about dating each other,” he said.
“It’s about respecting each other and it’s about working together and taking this city to another level.”
“Thank you for your courage,” said Gallo, speaking directly to Donald Lacy.
During the council’s vote, it was revealed that Mayor Libby Schaaf had sent an email to the council members a few hours before the meeting urging them not to support the “Love Life” tagline.
According to a March 5 article by the SF Chronicle, when asked about the idea of adopting the motto for Oakland, Mayor Schaaf rolled her eyes and said, “My love life is fine.”
Councilmembers Guillen and Campbell Washington said they were voting against the new motto because they did not have time to discuss it with the residents of their districts.
“I have an allegiance to the public, and my residents do not know about this. We did not have a fair process,” said Guillen.
Councilmember Kalb said he was voting “no” because the city did not go through a community engagement process to choose a new motto.
Adopting a new tagline “requires a lengthy community engagement process, but we haven’t done that,” he said.
Brooks challenged the arguments of the three council members who opposed the resolution.
“It’s been on the agenda for over a month,” she said. “I don’t remember the process that took place when we decided ‘The (bright) side of the Bay’ was going to be the tagline.”
Councilmember Kaplan addressed her colleagues’ concerns that the request at hand was too “new,” thereby making them unable to support it.
“When people say that it’s new they can go to the archives of the San Francisco Chronicle over a decade ago, where Donald Lacy was quoted talking about this,” said Kaplan.
“I don’t think it’s too new, and I think we should support someone who took such a horrifying personal tragedy, and instead of responding with revenge or violence, is working to spread the value of respecting life and ending violence.”
Campbell Washington said she was upset by the direction the public debate over the motto had taken.
“It’s very painful to be in this conversation … to have it come down to be a race issue,” she said.

Donald Lacy and his supporters celebrate after the City Council approves of “Love Life” as Oakland’s motto. Photo by Tulio Ospina.
Responding, Brooks said, “It was not about race. The community came out and spoke and represented the love of this community.”
Councilmember Reid explained how he had opposed the resolution but changed his mind after considering the motto’s significance for Oakland.
During the vote, he asked his colleagues to “rethink this and make this a unanimous vote… Rethink your position, like I did.”
Reid then read aloud the email Mayor Schaaf had sent before the council meeting to all the council members:
“I write to share my concerns about adopting the motto ‘Love Life’ as the official motto of the City of Oakland…. ‘Love Life’ without context or story could mean many things – some not at all appropriate as our city’s motto,” according the mayor’s email.
“Some of these concerns came unsolicited from Bloomberg Associates, who have been offering the City of Oakland professional advice pro bono in several municipal disciplines, including city marketing.
“Their experts read about the proposal and contacted me with their concerns, which I thought it was important for you to hear:
“Although it seems the motives come from a good place, this positioning could prove problematic on a few levels…. The background of how the name was developed actually reinforces the very crime issues they are trying to combat.”
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

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.
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.
-
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