City Government
Bonds for the 385 Drake Development Halted
In a ruling that marks a major milestone for affirming the concerns of Marin City residents, a Marin County judge has issued a preliminary injunction to halt public funding for the construction of a 5-story, 74-unit housing development at 825 Drake Avenue in Marin City, a historically Black community that already holds a disproportionate number of public and affordable housing in the wealthy enclave of Marin County.
By Godfrey Lee
Below is a summary of the recent Save Our City press release.
In a ruling that marks a major milestone for affirming the concerns of Marin City residents, a Marin County judge has issued a preliminary injunction to halt public funding for the construction of a 5-story, 74-unit housing development at 825 Drake Avenue in Marin City, a historically Black community that already holds a disproportionate number of public and affordable housing in the wealthy enclave of Marin County.
Because the 825 Drake development was approved under SB 35, a law intended to fast-track affordable housing projects without public notice or hearings, the residents of Marin City were not given notice of the development until after it was approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
While SB 35 was adopted to sideline wealthy enclaves that have historically stonewalled affordable housing projects in their communities, it has been used in Marin City to create even more housing density in the County’s most racially diverse, economically disadvantaged, and politically disempowered community.
The well-intentioned law failed to carve out adequate protections for low-income California communities that already have a grossly disproportionate share of their region’s affordable and public housing options, and it has failed to ensure that the term “affordable” takes into account low-income communities like Marin City that are embedded within regions with the highest Average Median Income levels in the state.
On Sept. 6, Marin County Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Freccero entered a Limited Preliminary Injunction on behalf of a Marin City organization, Save Our City (SOC), temporarily halting public funding approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors (Board) for the construction of a 5-story, 74-unit housing development at 825 Drake Avenue in Marin City.
SOC had filed suit on May 18 to invalidate the Board’s approval of the bonds, arguing that the Board had improperly failed to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to approve the bonds. Transcripts of Board proceedings showed that Board members erroneously believed that a recent state law allowing expedited approval for certain housing developments had stripped the Board of the power to decide whether funding such a development was in the community and County’s best interests.
The Court agreed with SOC, finding that Board approval of the bonds did require that “the [local authority] decide the matter [at issue] after considering local residents’ views, and by clear implication requires the [local authority] to consider city priorities and housing needs, the wisdom of preferential financing for the project, and all other relevant considerations to which elected representatives normally give weight in executing their office.”
Given these considerations, the Court stated that the Board’s refusal “to consider or exercise its lawful discretion may be grounds to invalidate the resolution.”
Save Our City was formed to stop this large-scale development from being forced on the small, historically Black community of Marin City, which is already densely saturated with affordable housing and has only one park in the entire city. The proposed development would encroach on that limited open space available to Marin City residents and block sunlight, particularly from the seniors living in existing affordable housing directly next to the proposed site.
Meanwhile, the wealthy and predominantly white surrounding communities in Marin County offer little to no affordable housing options for Marin County residents and have ample open green and recreational spaces for their community.
The Marin County Board of Supervisors is responsible for overseeing affordable and public housing options in unincorporated Marin. To address the housing shortages in California, state law requires each region to supply housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The RHNA is intended to promote several objectives including: (1) increase housing supply and the mix of housing types in an equitable manner; (2) discourage housing development patterns that segment communities, (3) affirmatively further fair housing. Marin County’s approval of the 825 Drake project in Marin City violates all of these principles:
The 825 Drake Development will not be affordable for Marin City residents. Because Marin County has one of the nation’s highest Average Median Income (AMIs), the “affordable” 825 Drake housing development will not be affordable to the vast majority of the residents in Marin City and will perpetuate further gentrification of this community.
Marin County has repeatedly denied Marin City residents the courtesy of notice or an opportunity to be heard concerning the County’s approval of the 825 Drake project. During the County’s March 21 hearing to consider approval of $40 million in non-taxable bonds to support developer Caleb Roope’s construction of 825 Drake, the residents raised their concerns about inequity and the project’s impacts on the community. Upon five days posted notice for the hearing, community members scrambled to provide substantive feedback during the limited minutes of public comment. However, their comments fell upon deaf ears.
SOC co-founder Bettie Hodges observed that “The County has failed to represent Marin City throughout this process. First, we are told that they were not legally required to give us notice of 825 Drake’s approval, then in the bond hearing they tell us that they did not have discretion to consider our comments.
“We have been completely silenced at every turn. Our elected representatives could and should have given us the courtesy of notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially given the inequities in Marin City that are a direct result of Marin County’s history of discriminatory housing practices.”
Marilyn Mackel, co-founder of SOC, stated that “I was disappointed to see that even in the preliminary injunction hearing, the County stood silent. They did not defend their approval of the bonds, but also did not have the moral fortitude to concede that they failed to consider our concerns when they approved the bonds. Their repeated choice to stand silent is not just an abdication of responsibility, it is a perpetuation of economic and racial segregation in Marin County.”
Save Our City’s lawsuit seeks to preserve this small piece of open space in Marin City. Marin County is known for its green and open spaces, including hiking trails, streams, open fields and waterways. While the rest of unincorporated Marin County is characterized by these copious green spaces, Marin City has only one small park that is made of concrete and astro-turf.
For more information, please contact: Bettie Hodges at bettie@hannahprograms.org, or Marilyn Mackel at mmackel@gmail.com
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026
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.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025
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.
Alameda County
Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
By Post Staff
The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.
The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.
“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.
According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.
Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.
However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.
Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.
Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.
“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.
“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”
Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.
A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.
So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.
-
Activism4 weeks ago2025 in Review: Seven Questions for Black Women’s Think Tank Founder Kellie Todd Griffin
-
Activism4 weeks agoAnn Lowe: The Quiet Genius of American Couture
-
Activism3 weeks agoDesmond Gumbs — Visionary Founder, Mentor, and Builder of Opportunity
-
Advice4 weeks agoSupport Your Child’s Mental Health: Medi-Cal Covers Therapy, Medication, and More
-
Activism3 weeks agoFamilies Across the U.S. Are Facing an ‘Affordability Crisis,’ Says United Way Bay Area
-
Alameda County3 weeks agoOakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition
-
Alameda County3 weeks agoBling It On: Holiday Lights Brighten Dark Nights All Around the Bay
-
Activism3 weeks agoBlack Arts Movement Business District Named New Cultural District in California




