Connect with us

Activism

City Announces Partial Clearance in Unhoused North Oakland Community

Published

on

Tents and self-made structures that sit along Manila Avenue between 38th and 40th Streets. Behind them, sits an abandoned glove factory the City is planning to demolish. Photo taken on Aug. 25 by Zack Haber.

On Aug. 21, the City of Oakland posted notices announcing plans to remove some unhoused residents who live just north of Mosswood Park Thursday, Aug. 27.

The clearance is set to affect about 15 unhoused residents who live along Manila Avenue between 38th and 40th Streets near the Temescal neighborhood of North Oakland.

Current plans would force some residents to move but will still allow them to live on Manila Avenue, forcing all unhoused residents in the area to live closer to each other.

People started living on the street in the location in February after the City of Oakland evicted them from Mosswood Park. Although Kaiser Permanente donated funds to the city to offer shelter to evicted residents, many felt that the shelter offered was not allocated fairly. They claim that some people were offered hotel rooms, others were offered space in the city’s Tuff Shed Program, and others were ignored.

Kat Wadsworth,* who initially moved to Mosswood Park to flee abuse from a partner and  then moved to Manila Avenue after the eviction, said Operation Dignity, the non-profit that arranged shelter allocation for the city, was hesitant to reach out to “the ones of us that had been there for a long time and we’re kind of rougher around the edges.”

Wadsworth said the people who got the first pick for shelter were people that appeared cleaner and were “really new to being on the street,” while those who were “not embarrassed to be a little dirty” got the last pick or were ignored.

Wadsworth said she wanted a hotel. She was offered space in the Tuff Shed Program but did not feel safe being in a small space with a roommate she did not know, which the program would have required her to do.

So she, along with a handful of others, moved just north of Mosswood Park to Manila Avenue. Since then, one of the former Mosswood residents has died and a few have moved away. Five remained and unhoused residents from other parts of town have moved into the area.

The plan to relocate Wadsworth and other nearby residents were directed by city administrators appointed by Mayor Libby Schaaf and could violate a resolution written by Oakland City Council President Rebecca Kaplan and passed unanimously by City Council on March 27. It requests that the city administration follow the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for responding to COVID-19.

“Unless individual housing units are available, do not clear encampments during community spread of COVID-19,” reads the resolution.

The resolution further specifies that causing people to leave their fixed location during the pandemic “increases the potential for infectious disease spread” and also requests that the city administration “encourage people staying in encampments to set up their tents/sleeping quarters with at least 12 feet X 12 feet of space per individual.”

In an e-mailed response to questions from The Oakland Post, Kaplan said she thought the March 27 resolution as well as another resolution the City Council passed on April 17, 2018, provide “for more effective strategies around homelessness.”

“The strategy that the Mayor has been pushing for, of just pushing people around with no strategy of where they should go, is very expensive, uses huge amounts of police time and other public resources, and fails to solve the problems,” Kaplan said.

Kaplan also questioned whether or not the city administration has “the power to override council direction,” and further asked, “if so, by whose authority?”

Oakland’s Homeless Policy Director Peter Radu, as well as Justin Berton, a spokesperson for Schaaf, did not respond to questions asking if the city intended to follow the council’s resolution encouraging them to follow CDC guidelines.

The plan to clear the unhoused residents comes after an online petition, which called on Schaaf, City Councilmember Dan Kalb and the non-profit Operation Dignity to relocate residents.

The petition specifically pointed out that some residents were staying outside of an abandoned glove factory that has toxic chemicals inside and expressed worry about fire hazards. California’s State Water Resources Control Board classified the site as a clean up program site in 1993.

An e-mail from Deidra Moss, who works as Kalb’s Constituent Liaison, said Kalb is working with the city to demolish the building.

“Councilmember Kalb has worked with city staff to get an encroachment permit for the owner of 3920 Manila Ave.,” reads the e-mail, which Moss sent to a person who made an OAK 311 Report and lives near the abandoned factory and the unhoused residents.

“This is just the first step in getting to the demolition of that property,” Moss also wrote in the e-mail.

When questioned, Kalb claimed he did not seek the encroachment permit.

“The encroachment permit for 3820 Manila Ave. was not sought by my office,” Kalb wrote in an e-mail. “The owner of the building applied for the encroachment permit (for a fence) and demolition permit(s) so that he could proceed with the demolition.”

Although Kalb did not personally seek the permit, he said he reached out to City staff about it, claiming concern for fire hazards and referenced a fire that occurred in the area on July 8, 2020. He also said, in addition to an abandoned factory, a lumber yard sits on 40th street and Manila Avenue.

“My office reached out to city staff about the encroachment permit because I feel that the property being in proximity with an encampment that has already experienced one fire poses a real risk of a devastating fire, and we were lucky that the July 8th fire did not spread to this property,” Kalb wrote.

The City’s stated plans demand that those living outside the building move. Residents in that location live in tents or self-made structures. Across the street from them, those living in RVs found orange tags on their vehicles on Aug. 24 demanding they move their vehicles in 72 hours.

“If the vehicle cannot be driven, please arrange for it to be towed,” reads the tag. “If it is not removed, it will be towed to a garage by the police and stored at the owner’s expense.”

Those residents just north of the abandoned factory got notices saying that the City is planning a deep cleaning on Thursday but were not informed that they would have to permanently leave the area.

Local advocates for unhoused residents are questioning the timing and intention of the planned clearance and demolition especially as Oakland’s air quality index unpredictably reached particulate matter concentrations classified as unhealthy by the Environmental Protection Agency due to smoke from wildfires throughout California.

“It’s unacceptable to be making people move at all when there’s a global pandemic and Oakland is in the middle of an air quality emergency,” said Talya Husbands-Hankin, of Love and Justice in the Streets, a volunteer-run unhoused advocacy organization.

Needa Bee of The Village in Oakland, a group of unhoused residents and advocates for unhoused resident’s rights, said “We have two health emergencies happening. We have the air quality emergency and the pandemic. This does not seem like a sound, medically informed decision.”

Radu and Berton did respond to direct questions about whether the clearance plans would be delayed due to the air quality.

One unhoused resident, who asked not to be named,* said the smoke was the least of his worries and that he was more concerned with other daily problems involving the instability of not having a home. He expressed skepticism that the city would follow through on its plans on Thursday and regretted doing work to move his belongings that might end up being useless.

As it stands at press time, the operation has not been canceled.

City Council District 5 candidate Zoe Lopez-Meraz and The United Front Against Displacement, a mutual aid and protest group that advocates for housing justice, have called for residents to show up to document and support unhoused residents during the operation.

“I’ll be there on Thursday to make sure that the city does not violate people’s rights or harm or further traumatize people,” said Bee.

*Kat Wadsworth is a pseudonym. Both unhoused residents in this article asked not to be named because they feared being exposed as homeless could hinder their chances of securing housing or employment in the future.

Michelle Snider

Associate Editor for The Post News Group. Writer, Photographer, Videographer, Copy Editor, and website editor documenting local events in the Oakland-Bay Area California area.
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.