Connect with us

Activism

Advocates Back Bill to Increase Homeownership for Black Californians

“We envision a Bay Area with thriving, healthy and resilient Black communities, where all Black residents have a home. We want a region that rebuilds Black commercial districts destroyed by highway development, regains the Black homeownership losses from the racially targeted lending schemes that drove the Great Recession, and creates the affordable housing our region has failed to deliver over the last two decades,” sand Fred Blackwell, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation and Melissa Jones, CEO of Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative.  

Published

on

Caption: Fred Blackwell, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation (SFF Foundation photo) and Melissa Jones, CEO of Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII photo).
Caption: Fred Blackwell, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation (SFF Foundation photo) and Melissa Jones, CEO of Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII photo).

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌, ‌California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

Last week, the Bay Area Black Housing Advisory Task Force (BABHATF) —‌ a coalition of more than 40 groups with housing and community expertise — ‌‌unveiled a $500 million plan to make housing more accessible and affordable for Black families.

BABHATF is asking the region’s leaders and residents to support the “Bay Area Regional Black Housing Fund” initiative. The organization is also calling on the Legislature to include funding for the effort in this year’s state budget.

The task force is supported by Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun) who was sworn into office April 6 after winning a special election in the 11th Assembly District.

The investment “will help repair the injustices that have shaped the housing experiences of Black people in the Bay Area and in California,” BABHATF leaders said in a letter drafted to bring awareness to a problem that the group says is statewide.

“It will also create new opportunities to expand housing for Black people in places where they have largely been — and are still — excluded. Increasing Black homeownership will benefit our entire region,” said task force members Fred Blackwell and Melissa Jones in the letter.

“The work we do to reduce the rent burden for Black people will provide a way forward for the Bay Area overall,” the letter continued.

Blackwell is CEO of the San Francisco Foundation, a community nonprofit committed to advancing racial equity and economic inclusion. Jones is executive director of the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative. Her work focuses on health, social inequity, and well-being.

The task force points out that there has been no regional response to California’s housing crisis’ well-documented impact on Black communities. It believes “a targeted solution” is necessary for an “issue rooted in racial injustice,” Blackwell and Jones wrote.

The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) reports that Black homeownership rates are the lowest among California’s ethnic groups.

The Black homeownership rate was 50.98% at its peak in 2004. Since then, the homeownership rates for Black Californians have fallen at a steeper curve than those of all other racial and ethnic groups in the state.

During the early 2000s, several mortgage lenders specifically targeted Black homebuyers offering them subprime loans. High default rates on those loans contributed to the Great Recession, which began in 2007 and lasted through 2009. As a result, the Black homeownership has dropped by more than 10% since 2004 and has yet to recover, according to CalHFA.

BABHATF illustrates how affordable housing impacts Black communities throughout the state, pointing out that there is no major ethnic group over-represented in the state’s homeless population than Black people.

Various reports state that 150,000 Californians experience homelessness on any given night and nearly 40% are Black.

“We envision a Bay Area with thriving, healthy and resilient Black communities, where all Black residents have a home. We want a region that rebuilds Black commercial districts destroyed by highway development, regains the Black homeownership losses from the racially targeted lending schemes that drove the Great Recession, and creates the affordable housing our region has failed to deliver over the last two decades,” Blackwell and Jones stated.

The task force is certain that with California’s $98 billion budget surplus, there is a historic and unprecedented opportunity to help right past wrongs and invest in Black communities and housing.

The group is calling for the Legislature to include the fund in this fiscal year’s state budget. The fund will create more affordable housing with a $500 million investment that includes:

No.1: Financial support for initiatives such as down payment assistance for low- and moderate-income Black households, preserving Black housing and neighborhoods, pre-development resources for housing development by Black-led developers, and preserving cultural districts and anchor institutions.

No. 2: Community support for strengthening smaller, Black-led community groups so they can better serve the housing needs of Black communities, plus community planning to develop ideas and blueprints for future projects.

The Black community in the Bay Area has been disadvantaged in the state’s housing market for decades because of discrimination, including redlining, unequal access to wealth and good jobs, and other systemic problems.

All of these issues have been discussed in the last 12 months during meetings conducted by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans, under Assembly Bill (AB) 3121.

BABHATF says that increased disadvantages will leave Black communities facing multiple systemic barriers leading to massive displacement in the Bay Area

“As a result, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley each lost between 40% and 50% of their Black residents between 1990 and 2018. In Oakland alone, more than 60,000 Black residents have left. East Palo Alto had a 66% decrease. This is a profound loss,” Blackwell and Jones stated.

Efforts to combat housing across the state got a partial boost last week. Homeownership for low- and moderate-income moved closer to reality after the California Senate approved a plan to establish a $25 billion fund financed by voter-endorsed general obligation bonds.

Senate Bill (SB) 1457, authored by Majority Leader Emeritus Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), now goes to the Assembly for consideration. It establishes the California Family Home Construction and Homeownership Bond Act of 2022.

If SB 1457 is adopted by voters on the November 2022 ballot, it will authorize the $25 billion bond fund to finance homeownership opportunities and promote new home construction.

Hertzberg stated that “the underlying problem is simple: A lack of supply” and says his plan “tackles this problem head on.

“California policymakers have a responsibility to create more opportunities for first-time or left-behind homebuyers,” Hertzberg said. “Purchasing a home, attaining a middle-class lifestyle and building generational wealth cannot be accomplished without addressing the severe lack of housing production that is fueling the state’s homeownership crisis.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

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

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

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.