City Government

TRASH TALK: We Will Not Roll Over, Say Councilmembers

Published

12 years ago

September 12, 2014

Lynette McElhaney

City Councilmembers are unwavering in the face of what they consider to be the bullying and intimidation tactics of Waste Management (WM), a nationwide trash collection company that lost the City’s $1 billion trash and recycling contract is now pursuing legal action against the city.

Along with its aggressive referendum campaign on the streets of Oakland, the company has filed a lawsuit against the city – attempting to disrupt the city’s new agreement with California Waste Solutions (CWS).

“By filing a lawsuit, one can say that is a legitimate claim to address their grievances. But running a deceptive campaign is political – that’s not about your grievances, that’s about locking in Oakland’s business,” said District 3 Councilwoman Lynette McElhaney.

Waste Management is trying to pressure he city to sign a new 10- or 20-year contact for whatever rates it wants to charge.

“They were providing worst services, at worst prices, and they lost. And now they want to bully the city into being wholly dependent on them,” said McElhaney.

City Council President Pat Kernighan released a letter regarding the referendum and the city garbage contract, which says, “Waste Management’s proposed rates were even higher” those offered by the new company.

Photo from Oakland Local.

The Council “approved the bid with the lowest increase,” said Kernighan.

“Waste Management has endless money and they are willing to play hardball and engage in unscrupulous tactics in order to win,” she said. “It’s shameful.”

According to Kernighan, the city can fight back by challenging the validity of the referendum, given the numerous reports of signature-gathers heckling community residents and gathering of signatures under false pretenses.

“It’s unclear how this will play out but we will not roll over in the face of these tactics,” she said.

“We have to make sure that Oakland residents are informed, accurately informed,” added District 1 Councilmember Dan Kalb.

Councilmember and mayoral candidate Rebecca Kaplan was deeply concerned about some city staffers’ apparent attempts to manipulate the negotiations over the trash contract in favor of Waste Management.

Oakland had in its existing contact a provision that allowed the city to extend Waste Management services for six months – until December 2015. But staff, acting in secret without informing the public or City Council, signed away that provision, according to Kaplan.

By dropping that part out of Waste Management’s contract, staff in effect was giving the company an unfair advantage by shortening the time that any competitor could implement a new contact, Kaplan said.

Elihu Harris

She said the City Administrator should investigate to find out who made that decision.

District 7 Councilmember Larry Reid praised Councilmember McElhaney for leadership in the council’s choice of a local company that will charge residents lower rate and has a proven commitment to creating jobs for young people in the city, which Waste Management refused to do.

Former Mayor Elihu Harris worked with both companies during his tenure as the city’s leader. He says Oakland residents should be concerned about the “cheating, lies and deception” on the part of Waste Management.

“Waste Management lost the contract,” said Harris. “They compete all over the country and they take contracts from the other people. At minimum its hypocrisy.”

“CWS grew in Oakland, is headquartered in Oakland, and won the competition fair and square,” Harris added.

Anyone who signed the Waste Management petition and wants to remove their name removed can mail or hand deliver a letter to the City Clerk’s Office saying, “Please remove my name from each of the three referendum petitions.” An original signature must be signed at the bottom of the letter.

The City Clerk’s Office is located is located at 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, #1, Oakland, 94612.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

TRASH TALK: Phil Tagami’s Conflicts of Interest Could Jeopardize Trash Deal

Don't Miss

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

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.”