Activism
Californians Spurn Sports Gambling Initiatives on Election Day
Prop 27 was the one of the least successful ballot measures in the last 30 years, based on the percentage of yes votes. Nearly 17% or 1,127,983 voters marked “yes.” The proposition was opposed by more than 50 of California’s Native American tribes who said Internet sports wagering would harm gambling business at tribal casinos statewide.
By McKenzie Jackson | California Black Media
On Election Day, Golden State voters emphatically rebuked the sports gambling initiatives on the ballot.
With 67% of the ballots counted at press time, according to the Associated Press (AP), 83.31% or 5,628,855 California voters voted against Proposition 27, which would have legalized online sports gambling. The initiative was backed by gambling-industry titans Bally’s, BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics, FanDuel, PENN Entertainment, and WynnBet.
Prop 27 was the one of the least successful ballot measures in the last 30 years, based on the percentage of yes votes. Nearly 17% or 1,127,983 voters marked “yes.”
The proposition was opposed by more than 50 of California’s Native American tribes who said Internet sports wagering would harm gambling business at tribal casinos statewide.
Greg Sarris, chairman of the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria Tribe in the Bay Area, a member of the Coalition for Safe Responsible Gambling, No on Prop 27, said the No on 27 campaign is thankful voters stood with state Indian tribes and downed the proposition supported by the gambling companies.
“Today’s vote is a show of support for tribal self-reliance and a total rejection of corporate greed,” Sarris said in an election night statement.
Anthony Roberts, tribal chairman of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation in Northern California, said No on 27’s polling before the November 8 election revealed Californians do not support online sports betting.
“Voters have real and significant concerns about turning every cellphone, laptop, and tablet into a gambling device,” Roberts said, “and the resulting addiction, and exposure to children.”
Another sports wagering measure – this one supported by dozens of Indian tribes — was also smacked down.
Proposition 26 would have legalized sports betting at tribal casinos and allowed them to offer craps and roulette. According to the AP though, 69.71% or 4,665,484 voters marked “no” on their ballot to the question of whether they supported the initiative, while 30.39% or 2,036,734 Californians marked “yes.”
Santa Monica voter Clint Thompson, 39, doesn’t gamble but voted in favor of Prop 26 and opposed Prop 27.
“I wanted the tribes to keep money,” Thompson said. “I feel like it’s hard for them to make money. Any possible hustle they can do on tribal lands, they should have it.”
The runup to Election Day saw advertisements for and against both of the propositions overwhelm the airwaves and digital platforms. The campaigns combined waged the most expensive ballot measure contest in U.S. history — spending nearly half a billion dollars.
Both campaigns sought support from various individuals and entities across California. Many civil rights organizations, including the Baptist Ministers Conference of Los Angeles and Southern California, the Black Business Association, California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, and the California African American Chamber of Commerce supported Prop 26.
Voter rejection of the gambling initiatives leaves the largest market in America — California— out of reach to legal sports betting.
Nathan Click, the Prop 27 campaign spokesperson, said the coalition knew passing Prop 27 would be an uphill battle, but they remain committed to it.
“This campaign has underscored our resolve to see California follow more than half the country in legalizing safe and responsible online sports betting,” Click said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of November 13 – 19, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of November 13 – 19, 2024
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
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
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
-
Alameda County3 weeks ago
Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price Announces $7.5 Million Settlement Agreement with Walmart
-
Activism3 weeks ago
‘Jim Crow Was and Remains Real in Alameda County (and) It Is What We Are Challenging and Trying to Fix Every Day,’ Says D.A. Pamela Price
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
In the City Attorney Race, Ryan Richardson Is Better for Oakland
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
D.A. Price Charges Coliseum Flea Market Vendors in Organized Retail Theft Case
-
Activism3 weeks ago
‘Criminal Justice Reform Is the Signature Civil Rights Issue of Our Time,’ says D.A. Pamela Price
-
Activism3 weeks ago
“Two things can be true at once.” An Afro-Latina Voter Weighs in on Identity and Politics
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
MacArthur Fellow Jericho Brown’s Poetry Reflects Contemporary Culture and Identity