Connect with us

Bay Area

Board of Supervisors Recommend Recount in Oakland Mayor’s Race

Passed unanimously Jan. 10 by board members, the resolution was authored by Supervisor Keith Carson, who said he and other board members have received “thousands” of emails and phone calls urging the recount.

Published

on

Supervisor David Haubert (left) represents Dublin, Livermore, and Fremont. Passed unanimously Jan. 10 by board members, the resolution was authored by Supervisor Keith Carson.

By Ken Epstein

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors this week recommended a manual recount of the Oakland mayoral race and other close ranked-choice election results in the county Nov. 8 elections but fell short of requiring a recount and making clear that the supervisors’ decision was contingent on what is allowable under California election law and regulations.

Passed unanimously Jan. 10 by board members, the resolution who authored by Supervisor Keith Carson, who said he and other board members have received “thousands” of emails and phone calls urging the recount.

“In order to enhance transparency and accountability regarding the ranked-choice voting results, I am recommending consideration of a recount count of the Nov. 8, 2022, ranked choice elections for which the outcome has been called into question, specifically the Oakland Mayoral race, Oakland Unified School Board District 4 race, and the two races in San Leandro that were decided by a very small margin of victory,” Carson’s resolution said.

Ignoring the one race that the Registrar of Voters said was tallied incorrectly, the supervisors said they would pay for recounts in all ranked-choice election that resulted in narrow victories, failing to provide any evidence of errors in the vote count.

The resolution called for the Registrar of Voters to hire a “qualified individual with experience overseeing ranked choice voting from another county” to oversee the manual recount. The county would charge the cost of the recount to the budget of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, a charge that would be borne by taxpayers.

Though they passed the resolution, supervisors were unsure that the actions they were recommending were legal.

“We request the registrar conduct the recount, (but) but we’re not going to order it. We’re not sure we can order it,” said Supervisor David Haubert, who represents Dublin, Livermore, and Fremont.

Supervisors noted that the votes have already been counted and certified, that the deadline for challenging results has passed and that winners have already been sworn in, asked county counsel if their actions could be legally challenged.

“Any action we take can be challenged,” county counsel said.

Alameda County’s election results were certified on Dec. 8.

The county counsel said the resolution includes the following language, which she recommended:

“The recommendations set forth in this letter will be implemented to the extent allowed and consistent with the California Elections Code, state regulations implementing the Elections Code, and all other applicable laws governing California elections, including those governing recounts the authority of the Elections Official (the Registrar of Voters).”

Supervisor Carson acknowledged the unlikelihood of obtaining a recount that would reverse election results.

“The bell has already been rung. We cannot un-ring it. We understand that,” he said.

A manual recount could take a month or longer and cost many thousands of dollars, according to the registrar.

Many of the public speakers at the board meeting, either in person or on Zoom, who supported the recount, were from Fremont, Danville, Hayward, and other cities outside Oakland. Among the supporters of the recount were Republicans who argued the election results could not be trusted, while others advocated getting rid of ranked choice voting, called for ending vote by mail, or recommended requiring people to vote in person with ID.

Some people in Oakland are saying ranked-choice voting is unfair and argue Loren Taylor should have won the election because he had the most votes first-round votes, leading Sheng 33.07% to 31.79% of the vote. However, Oakland requires a candidate to receive over 50% of the vote to win, not just a plurality. When all the ranked-choice instant runoff ballots were counted, Thao won with 50.30% to Taylor’s 49.70% the vote.

Supporters of ranked choice voting, which has been utilized in Oakland since 2010, say that it allows for a more diverse and less well-funded candidates to run for office and that it provides for an instant runoff, rather than a separate run-off election which has a participation rate of about 40% fewer voters and is therefore less democratic.

However, while questioning election results, the supervisors did not speak to or seek to correct the error in the one race that had been identified by the Registrar of Voters as being tabulated incorrectly, which recorded Nick Resnick as the winner of the Oakland District 4 school board race, rather than Mike Hutchinson, who was the real winner.

Seeking to remedy the error, Hutchinson has had to hire a lawyer at his expense. A recount in this race would not address the error, which was not a mistake in the count, but a tabulating error caused by incorrect setting in the ranked choice algorithm. A recount would not benefit Hutchinson, who was the ranked choice winner, but could potentially benefit Resnick, who was the losing candidate but has been seated as the District 4 school board representative.

The software error, which was admitted by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, involved a wrong software setting that affected a small subset of votes in which voters did not vote for a number one candidate but voted for second and third-place candidates. When corrected, this error only changed the winner of one race.

Activism

An Inside Look into How San Francisco Analyzes Homeless Encampments

Dozens of unhoused people are camped at Sixth and Jesse streets in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood. Tents made of tarps and blankets, piles of debris, and people lounging alongside the allies and walls of businesses are seen from all angles. These are some of the city’s hotspots. City crews have cleared encampments there over 30 times in the past year, but unhoused people always return.

Published

on

Since the ruling of Grants Pass by the US Supreme Court earlier this summer, which allows cities the authority to ban people from camping or sleeping on the streets, San Francisco has been at the head of the conversation to crack down on encampments.
Since the ruling of Grants Pass by the US Supreme Court earlier this summer, which allows cities the authority to ban people from camping or sleeping on the streets, San Francisco has been at the head of the conversation to crack down on encampments.

By Magaly Muñoz

Dozens of unhoused people are camped at Sixth and Jesse streets in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood. Tents made of tarps and blankets, piles of debris, and people lounging alongside the allies and walls of businesses are seen from all angles.

These are some of the city’s hotspots. City crews have cleared encampments there over 30 times in the past year, but unhoused people always return.

But it’s normal to have tents set up again within less than 24 hours after an encampment sweep, David Nakanishi, Healthy Streets Operation Center Manager at the Department of Emergency Management, says. Sometimes there’s less people than before but often there is also no change.

“Most of the people that were in the encampments that want to go inside, we’ve gotten the majority of those [into shelter],” Nakanishi says. “Many of the people we encounter now, are those who have various reasons to not accept shelter, and some are already in shelter/housing”.

Since the ruling of Grants Pass by the US Supreme Court earlier this summer, which allows cities the authority to ban people from camping or sleeping on the streets, San Francisco has been at the head of the conversation to crack down on encampments.

Where neighboring cities in the Bay Area are clearing encampments a few days a week, San Francisco is sweeping 10 times a week, two per weekday.

David Nakanishi, Healthy Streets Operation Center Manager at the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management, makes a 311 report on an encampment in the Mission District. These reports allow smaller city teams to tackle individual spots where unhoused people frequent. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

David Nakanishi, Healthy Streets Operation Center Manager at the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management, makes a 311 report on an encampment in the Mission District. These reports allow smaller city teams to tackle individual spots where unhoused people frequent. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Considering the controversy that plagues the city around its harsh policies, the Post decided to tag along on a ride with Nakanishi to show us how he decides what encampments make it on the city’s sweep list.

Nakanishi, having over 20 years of experience in homelessness management, drives around the busiest parts of the city almost daily. He’s tasked with arranging a weekly sweeping operation schedule for city teams to engage with unhoused folks to help get them off the streets.

So what exactly is he looking out for when deciding what encampments get swept?

It depends, he says.

Locations like schools, recreational centers, senior centers, or businesses are places he tends to want to address quickly, especially schools. These are the places where the complaints are highest and access to facilities is important for residents.

He says he also takes into account 311 calls and reports made to him by city staff. On the date of publication, over 100 calls and reports were made about encampments around the city, according to San Francisco data.

Makeshift structures built from plywood and tarps are starting to pop up more throughout the city. Certain areas under freeways are not under direct authority from San Francisco, making it harder to sweep these encampments. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Makeshift structures built from plywood and tarps are starting to pop up more throughout the city. Certain areas under freeways are not under direct authority from San Francisco, making it harder to sweep these encampments. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Nakanishi made a few 311 reports himself on the ride along, pulling over to take photos and describe the encampments into his 311 app. He says it helps him remember where to possibly sweep next or allows smaller teams in the city to engage quicker with individuals on the streets.

Nakanishi also looks at the state of the encampments. Are there a lot of bulky items, such as furniture, or makeshift structures built out of tarps and plywood, blocking areas of traffic? Is trash beginning to pile up and spill into the streets or sidewalks? Sites that meet this criteria tend to be contenders for encampment sweeps, Nakanishi says.

Street by street, he points out individuals he’s interacted with, describing their conditions, habits, and reasons for denying assistance from the city.

One man on 2nd St and Mission, who rolls around a blue recycling bin and often yells at passing pedestrians, has refused shelter several times, Nakanishi says.

People deny shelter for all kinds of reasons, he says. There’s too many rules to follow, people feel unsafe in congregate or shared shelters, or their behavioral and mental health problems make it hard to get them into proper services.

Inside a tent left by an unhoused man on Stevenson and 14th Street in San Francisco. The area smelled of human waste and leftover alcohol. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Inside a tent left by an unhoused man on Stevenson and 14th Street in San Francisco. The area smelled of human waste and leftover alcohol. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Nakanishi references another man on South Van Ness under the freeway, who city outreach have attempted to get into shelter, but his screaming outbursts make it difficult to place him without disturbing other people in the same space. Nakanishi says it might be an issue of the man needing resources like medication to alleviate his distress that causes the screaming, but the city behavioral team is in the process of outreaching him to figure that out.

In October, city outreach teams engaged with 495 unhoused people. 377 of those engaged refused shelter and only 118 accepted placements, according to city data. That number of monthly referrals is consistent throughout the entirety of 2024 so far.

Nakanishi has long advocated for the well-being of unhoused people, he explains. In 2004, he was working with the Department of Public Health and told then-Mayor Gavin Newsom that there needed to be more housing for families. Nakinishi was told it was easier to deal with individuals first and the city “will get there eventually.” 20 years later, family housing is still not as extensive as it could be, and the waiting list to get placements for families is a mile long with over 500 names.

In 2020, he was a Senior Behavioral Health Clinician at a hotel in the city during the pandemic. He says in 2021 he collaborated with DPH to provide vaccines to those staying in the makeshift hotel shelters once those became available.

Nakanishi strips apart a solo tent on Stevenson and 14th Street in San Francisco. He discards items, like tarps and cardboard, so that people cannot reuse them to make another sleeping structure. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Nakanishi strips apart a solo tent on Stevenson and 14th Street in San Francisco. He discards items, like tarps and cardboard, so that people cannot reuse them to make another sleeping structure. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

Despite the constant media attention that city outreach is inhumanely treating homeless people, so much so that it has led to lawsuits against San Francisco from advocates, Nakanishi says not a lot of people are seeing the true conditions of some encampments.

He describes soiled clothing and tents, drenched in urine, and oftentimes rodents or bug infestations in places where people are sleeping. He’s asked homeless advocates- often those who are the most critical about the city’s work- who have shown up to observe the sweeps if those are conditions the city should allow people to be subjected to, but not many have answers for him, Nakanishi says.

The city’s “bag and tag” policy allows city workers to throw away items that are “soiled by infectious materials” such as bodily fluids and waste.

Sweep operations are conducted at 8am and 1pm Monday through Friday. People at the encampments are given 72 hour notice to vacate, but some don’t leave the area until the day of the sweep.

City outreach workers come out the day before and day of to offer resources and shelter to those interested. The Department of Public Works discards any trash that is left over from the sweep and washes down the area.

Nakanishi told the Post that the only time the city takes tents or personal possessions from residents is when folks become physically violent towards workers and police take the items as evidence. Other items taken are bagged and tagged in accordance with city policy.

Stories from local newspapers such as the San Francisco Standard and the Chronicle show instances of SFPD handcuffing residents while their items are thrown in the trash or disposing of personal possessions without reason.

Advocates have long been pushing for a more competent and compassionate process if the city is going to choose to continue sweeping unhouse people.

No matter the lawsuits and constant criticisms from allies, the encampment sweeps are not slowing down, even with the cold weather quickly approaching the coastal city.

Nakanishi says there aren’t a lot of large encampments left in San Francisco so now they do runs of streets in order to stretch out the sweeps as much as possible.

It’s calculated strategies and years of first hand knowledge that make this job work, “It takes dedication to the work, caring for the people and the community, and persistence, patience and sometimes good luck to make the positive changes for the people on the street,” Nakanishi says.

Continue Reading

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of November 13 – 19, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of November 13 – 19, 2024

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Activism

LIVE! — TOWN HALL ON RACISM AND ITS IMPACT — THURS. 11.14.24 5PM PST

Join us for a LIVE Virtual Town Hall on the Impact of Racism hosted by Post News Group Journalist Carla Thomas and featuring Oakland, CA NAACP President Cynthia Adams & other Special Guests.
Thursday, November 14, 2024, 5 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. PST

Published

on

Join us for a LIVE Virtual Town Hall on the Impact of Racism hosted by Post News Group Journalist Carla Thomas and featuring Oakland, CA NAACP President Cynthia Adams & other Special Guests.
Thursday, November 14, 2024
5 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. PST

Discussion Topics:
• Since the pandemic, what battles have the NAACP fought nationally, and how have they impacted us locally?
• What trends are you seeing concerning Racism? Is it more covert or overt?
• What are the top 5 issues resulting from racism in our communities?
• How do racial and other types of discrimination impact local communities?
• What are the most effective ways our community can combat racism and hate?

Your questions and comments will be shared LIVE with the moderators and viewers during the broadcast.

STREAMED LIVE!
FACEBOOK: facebook.com/PostNewsGroup
YOUTUBE: youtube.com/blackpressusatv
X: twitter.com/blackpressusa

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.