City Government

Schaaf: “We will not have coal shipped through our city.”

Published

11 years ago

July 10, 2015

In a sharp email exchange, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has blasted local developer Phil Tagami for moving ahead with a deal to export coal out of the former Oakland Army Base.

The digital dispute was documented in emails that the Sierra Club obtained through a Public Records Act request.

In 2013, Tagami had said use of the Army Base to bring coal to Oakland by rail and ship it abroad was the farthest thing from his mind. He said that his company, California Capital and Investment Group (CCIG), had “no interest or involvement in the pursuit of coal-related operations at the former Oakland Army Base.”

But that was then.

Mayor Libby Schaaf.

Schaaf wrote in an email to Tagami, dated May 11, that she was “extremely disappointed to once again hear” mention of the “possibility of shipping coal into Oakland” during a community breakfast.

“Stop it immediately,” Schaaf wrote. “You have been awarded the privilege and opportunity of a lifetime to develop this unique piece of land. You must respect the owner and public’s decree that we will not have coal shipped through our city.”

In response to the mayor’s email, Tagami explained that by entering into a binding contract with Terminal and Logistics Solutions (TLS), he and the city had agreed to “a complete transfer of our rights and obligations with respect to the terminal operations under the ground lease.”

Additionally, he states the scope of the binding deal “is not driven or defined by any single commodity, product, or good in transit,” claiming that the city cannot legally restrict what products flow through the rail terminal development.

What is essential to the new facility’s financial and legal viability, said Tagami, is “the ability to accommodate the full universe of bulk goods,” which includes coal.

Tagami claims that the binding legal contract signed by the city gives it no control over what commodities can be shipped. But according to a number of community members, under the contract’s “Regulation for Health and Safety” clause, the city can apply regulations for health-related reasons.

The clause states that the city has the right to apply regulations at any time after the agreement’s adoption if failure to do so “would place existing or future occupants or users of the project, adjacent neighbors, or any portion thereof, or all of them, in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety.”

According to Brian Beveridge, co-director of the West Oakland Environment Indicators Project (WOEIP) and West Oakland resident, there is ample evidence that shipping coal through Oakland would be detrimental to residents’ health.

“Coal dust is related to diesel pollution and the burning of fossil fuels,” said Beveridge. “It contains carcinogens and is likely the cause of black lung disease and asthma.”

“The whole community’s health is at stake. Our advances in cleaning air in West Oakland are at stake. The city’s pride in calling itself a green city is at stake.”

Community observers have also criticized the city’s lack of transparency in negotiations with developers of city land. The examples, they say, include the Oakland Army Base and sale of the parcel at Lake Merritt and East 12th Street.

“It’s completely in line with all these other development deals happening behind closed doors where the public is being cut out of the conversation,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter.

“All these proposals are on city-owned land and should be used for community benefits. What City Council is doing is just letting developers have at it.”

“We’re ready to back Mayor Schaaf if she’s ready to stand up and say ‘no’ to coal,” said Beveridge. “Oakland is unanimously opposed to shipping coal into or out of our city.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

City Must Enforce Police Accountability, Says 100 Black Men

Don't Miss

Government Response to Church Burnings Must Have “Real Teeth,” Say Clergy

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.”