Connect with us

Activism

COMMENTARY: Vote ‘No’ on Props 26 & 27: Both Are Bad for California

In respect for Native sovereignty, voters previously supported the establishment of Indian gaming. However, neither of the current measures have significant Indian support.

Published

on

James E. Vann is a former architect and advocate for social justice housing. He is also a co-founder of the Oakland Tenants Union (OTU) and Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM).
James E. Vann is a former architect and advocate for social justice housing. He is also a co-founder of the Oakland Tenants Union (OTU) and Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM).

By James. E. Vann

Propositions 26 and 27 on the November ballot appear to be related, but their differences are substantial, and both are exceedingly harmful.

Proposition 26 would result in vast expansion of gambling methods within American Indian lands, with a new extension to California racetracks.

Proposition 27 would result in vast expansion of present gaming methods beyond Indian lands, with no limitations, and would add the authorization of ‘online’ gambling.

In respect for Native sovereignty, voters previously supported the establishment of Indian gaming. However, neither of the current measures have significant Indian support.

Proposition 26

This measure, somewhat related but unlike Proposition 27, was initiated by a small group of leaders of the largest tribes. Their motivation is their personal enrichment, not from either demand or need. The currently authorized program of permitted gaming methods at Indigenous casino sites is constitutionally limited. Proposition 26 would remove the present restrictions and permit unlimited gambling methods and selections at casino sites and at California racetracks. Methods would include wagering on sports events, like horse racing, sports teams, auto racing, boxing, wrestling, and a host of events broadcast into casino platforms.

The institution of Indigenous casinos has been a needed boon and supplement to mandated federal and state financial assistance that is perennially insufficient. The result of tribal-sponsored gaming – currently earning hundreds of millions annually — has brought tremendous uplift in the political, economic, health, and social life of Indian tribes and peoples. Casino profits are shared with non-casino tribes and these efforts, though lagging, are continuing and constantly improving.

While Indian casinos are thriving and producing admirable widespread improvements, tribal leaders of some of the largest casinos initiated Proposition 26 with the goal of slyly piggy-backing on the possible success of Proposition 27, solely due to greed, not need for new, unlimited revenue. VOTE ‘NO.’

Proposition 27

Proposition 27 was qualified for the ballot by deceptive propaganda. Paid signature collectors told signers that “this new measure will raise money to end homelessness in California.” Proposition 27 was not initiated, nor promoted by California Indian tribes, but by out-of-state corporations that sought to take advantage of the universal desire of California voters to end homelessness together with the compassion of state voters to lift up the plight of California’s Native peoples from the violent repression of the past.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 correctly acknowledged the sovereignty of Indigenous people and the right of tribes to operate gambling casinos on tribal land. This Act has successfully improved the quality of life for Indian tribes and produces millions in revenues that is shared among both casino and non-casino tribes, which bureaucratic federal and state government financial assistance could never replicate.

Proposition 27 would astronomically expand to unlimited types of gambling well beyond being confined to casinos on Indian land to online phenomena available to everyone, including minors with a cell phone, or varieties of digital devices. Arguments for the measure blatantly lie in many ways:

  • That revenue from online gaming will uplift poorer, non-casino Indian tribes. Impartial analysis shows that at least 90% of revenue from the expansion will go into the pockets of the out-of-state carpetbaggers who wrote the measure specifically for their selfish enrichment;
  • That revenue from the measure will end homelessness. Besides there being little revenue to allocate, voters need only to recall that the “selling point” years ago for approving the California State Lottery was the promise that lottery revenue “would forever end the problem of funding education throughout the state;”
  • That minors will not be able to gamble online. No procedures are indicated that will weed out anyone with a digital device from online access.

Additionally, because Blacks, people of color, and those of lower income are lured in larger numbers to games of chance with the hope of improving their financial status, Proposition 27 would aggravate economic inequality and insecurity. The availability of unlimited online gaming opportunities will provide increased attractions that will further worsen the already weak financial condition of marginalized people.

Practically all California Indian Council tribes oppose Proposition 27 as a boondoggle that will proliferate gambling throughout California life and institutions degrading the lifestyles of minors and the elderly.

Through this new, deceptive measure, the sponsoring out-of-state corporations will realize uncountable wealth with practically nothing positive accruing to California, its residents, or its many intractable issues.

VOTE “NO.”

James E. Vann is a former architect and advocate for social justice housing. He is also a co-founder of the Oakland Tenants Union (OTU) and Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

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.