City Government

TRASH TALK: Oaklanders Say Petition Gatherers “Lie, Bully and Harass”

Published

12 years ago

September 11, 2014

Pam Drake, director of the Lakeshore Business Improvement District, was in her office last week when she ran afoul of Waste Management’s signature gatherers.

She went outside to see for herself when she heard there were petitioners at Trader Joe’s and setting up tables around the Lakeshore and Lake Merritt area.

“They had signs saying that the petition was to lower garbage rates, and people were go going up and signing,” she said.

“If you said no or argued, they ran after you, harassed you or took a picture of you,” she said. They followed one woman, Drake said, photographing the woman’s license plate. Numerous people said they were followed, harassed or intimidated.

“I said to someone who was signing the petition, ‘Don’t sign, because they’re lying to you,” Drake said. Several signature gatherers responded: “No, you’re a liar!” She said.

“They told me to go away three times. I said, ‘You get to put your table here, and I get to stand here,’ and then one man came up and pushed me away,” which is assault, she said.

The signature gatherers had their petitions clipped together so Drake could not read the text, and she had to argue with them for a while to actually read the petition, she said.

Drake’s experiences on Lakeshore Avenue are typical of what residents have been reporting all over the city. A number of residents having been arguing with the signature gatherers, who reportedly are being paid $2 a signature or up to $6 per signer on the three related petitions.

In charge of the operation is political consultant Larry Tramutola, paid by Waste Management to run its campaign.

Some residents, infuriated by Tramutola’s and Waste Management’s tactics, have been circulating their own flyers and gone online to use social media to respond to what they consider a corporate disinformation campaign.

“We are taking our case to the streets of Oakland,” wrote Barry Skolnick, area vice president of Northern California-Nevada Waste Management in an email memo dated Sept. 2.

Preying on racial and anti-immigrant hostilities, one petitioner asked, “Do you know that CWS is owned by someone from Vietnam?” Another petitioner told a man in front of the Oakland YMCA that he should sign to support Waste Management, an American owned company, instead of CWS, which was owned by people who are Chinese.

Responding to Waste Management, CWS began to put people out on Oakland streets last Saturday, said Claude Everhart, who is handling communications for CWS.

“We got 100 people out (Wednesday), he said. “ At a lot of places, when we show up, they leave. We are getting out with leaflets and signs, and we’re asking people to check out our website: www.truthaboutoaklandtrash.com.”

“They’re trying to do a shock and awe campaign on us. This is like an old-time union fight in Chicago. They’re hiring thugs to take away people’s democratic rights,” Everhart said.

“We’re hearing that people are finding Waste Management’s representatives shameful and disgusting, and they’re (angry) that people would try to insult their intelligence,” he said.

“If people have already signed, they’re asking us more and more how they can take their names off the petition,” Everhart said, adding that CWS is circulating a form on the streets and on its website that people can sign and return to the city if they want to take their names off the petition.

When asked about petitioners’ lies and bullying, Tramutola, Waste Management’s political strategist, denied that he had told anyone to misrepresent the petition or create signs saying that the petition would reduce trash rates.

“If (we have) knowledge of someone not being accurate, we have taken action to correct that,” he said. “All we can do is correct any incident where that might have taken place.”

“Truth in some ways is in the eye of beholder, but to say that anyone out there is wrong is not right either, Tramutola said. “We believe that the facts speak to themselves.”

“If anyone put garbage at risk, it is City Council,” he said. “They ignored their staff recommendations. “The simple fact is that City Council has rushed the agreement through without public attention, and the process needs to be slowed down.”

Councilmembers accused staff of biasing reports and recommendations to favor Waste Management. Rather than being rushed, the contract was negotiated and discussed at City Council and at the Council Public Works committee many times.

Before they lost the contract, Waste Management criticized the process for taking too long.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:California Waste Solutions City of Oakland Lynette McElhaney Oakland Oakland City Council Pam Drake Waste Management

Up Next

Tom Butt and Corky Booze: From “Good to Bad”

Don't Miss

Marin Women’s Hall of Fame Call for Nominations

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.”