Connect with us

#NNPA BlackPress

OPINION: ​​Let the Voters Vote! Citizens Should Decide on Proposal to Build New Ballpark for Oakland A’s

THE OAKLAND POST — The A’s have set their sights on Howard Terminal, located in West Oakland’s industrial zone, and the heart of the Port of Oakland. Many critics complain that building at Howard Terminal would threaten the viability of the Port of Oakland, and good-paying union jobs. These complaints were validated when the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) — a committee of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) — said that it was inappropriate to transition lands that are essential for maritime purposes to private use. To support their position, they stated that under the law, if maritime property is needed for current or future maritime use, it cannot be transferred to private non-maritime use.
The post OPINION: ​​Let the Voters Vote! Citizens Should Decide on Proposal to Build New Ballpark for Oakland A’s first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

on

 

By Paul Cobb, Post Publisher

We applaud Councilmember Carroll Fife’s decision to honor the wishes of Oakland residents and let the voters determine whether it is appropriate to use public funds to support building the Oakland A’s privately owned baseball park and 3,000 luxury condominiums at Howard Terminal.

Oakland faces many challenges including school closures, an ever-increasing homelessness crisis, spiking crime, desperately needed infrastructure repairs of roads, and fire safety investment. Voters should be given the opportunity to decide whether this is the right time to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds on billionaire John Fisher’s privately owned luxury project.

For the past several years, the Oakland A’s have pursued building a new stadium. A strong contingent of Oakland residents wants the stadium to be built at the existing Oakland Coliseum site. For decades, the Coliseum was home to the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors. Each of these teams had great success, sellout crowds, and championship seasons at the Coliseum site.

They also argue that the Coliseum site is shovel-ready, accessible by public transportation, and bordered by two major freeways. It does not have the huge infrastructure costs, estimated at over $800 million, that Howard Terminal requires. But the A’s reject the Coliseum site without good justification, prompting many residents to believe that their objection is really based on not wanting to have a baseball park in a Black neighborhood.

The A’s have set their sights on Howard Terminal, located in West Oakland’s industrial zone, and the heart of the Port of Oakland. Many critics complain that building at Howard Terminal would threaten the viability of the Port of Oakland, and good-paying union jobs.

These complaints were validated when the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) — a committee of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) — said that it was inappropriate to transition lands that are essential for maritime purposes to private use. To support their position, they stated that under the law, if maritime property is needed for current or future maritime use, it cannot be transferred to private non-maritime use.

As well, the International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union (ILWU), Oakland’s largely Black union at the port, convened a work stoppage to protest giving valuable port land to the A’s because it could lead to the loss of hundreds of union jobs, and disrupt port activities at a time where the entire nation is reeling from supply chain issues.

Nobody wants to lose the A’s, but Oakland taxpayers are still smarting from the $200 million debt they will be paying until 2026 for Oakland Coliseum renovations in the 1990s, when Oakland lured the Raiders back from Los Angeles.

When the Raiders asked the city to close a $400 million funding gap for additional renovations at the Coliseum in 2015, Mayor Libby Schaaf said no way. In 2015, she told SFGate “we could spend (that money) on police, parks and libraries.”

Oakland’s need to address citywide problems is even more dire now than it was seven years ago. How then, can the city consider spending twice as much public money today than was unthinkable seven years ago?

This is one of the most divisive issues Oakland will face. It puts the needs of the city against the desires of a wealthy businessman to build luxury housing and a baseball field at a location that will hurt workers and the Port.

Councilmember Noel Gallo is also concerned about the cost and impact of the proposed project to the city and its residents. On March 24, he introduced legislation to require the A’s to provide the City Council with a full and complete economic analysis of the benefits and risks associated with the project. He insisted that this analysis be presented at a public City Council meeting, so the information will be available to all Oakland residents.

We think that Councilmembers Fife’s and Gallo’s proposals are complementary. Every member of the Council should support Councilmember Fife’s call to let the voters decide whether to use public funds to help build the baseball stadium and luxury condominiums at Howard Terminal. They should also support Councilmember Gallo’s legislation requesting a full and complete publicly disclosed economic analysis.

Some opponents argue that this is too complex an issue for the voters to consider. That is wrong for many reasons, but the two most important are these.

Oakland voters have considered and voted on major financial issues in many elections. More importantly, if the voters are smart enough to elect a mayor and City Council members, they are smart enough to evaluate whether it is appropriate to spend public funds on a billionaire’s folly when the city has so many other needs.

We urge the voters of Oakland to demand that the City Council place the question of whether to spend public funds on baseball and luxury housing before the voters on the November 2022 ballot.

We also urge the City Council to schedule a public meeting for a full and complete economic analysis of the benefits and risks of the project to the city. If the City Council refuses to do so, the voters should assess whether people running for office, who refuse to let the voters vote, should be elected.

Thank you, Councilmembers Fife and Gallo, for bringing these issues to the attention of the voters.

Let the voter’s vote.

The post OPINION: ​​Let the Voters Vote! Citizens Should Decide on Proposal to Build New Ballpark for Oakland A’s first appeared on Post News Group

The post OPINION: ​​Let the Voters Vote! Citizens Should Decide on Proposal to Build New Ballpark for Oakland A’s first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

#NNPA BlackPress

UPDATE: PepsiCo Meets with Sharpton Over DEI Rollbacks, Future Action Pending

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond.

Published

on

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

Rev. Al Sharpton met Tuesday morning with PepsiCo leadership at the company’s global headquarters in Purchase, New York, following sharp criticism of the food and beverage giant’s decision to scale back nearly $500 million in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond. Sharpton was joined by members of the National Action Network (NAN), the civil rights organization he founded and leads. “It was a constructive conversation,” Sharpton said after the meeting. “We agreed to follow up meetings within the next few days. After that continued dialogue, NAN Chairman Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson and I, both former members of the company’s African American Advisory Board, will make a final determination and recommendation to the organization on what we will do around PepsiCo moving forward, as we continue to deal with a broader swath of corporations with whom we will either boycott or buy-cott.”

Sharpton initially raised concerns in an April 4 letter to Laguarta, accusing the company of abandoning its equity commitments and threatening a boycott if PepsiCo did not meet within three weeks. PepsiCo announced in February that it would no longer maintain specific goals for minority representation in its management or among its suppliers — a move that drew criticism from civil rights advocates. “You have walked away from equity,” Sharpton wrote at the time, pointing to the dismantling of hiring goals and community partnerships as clear signs that “political pressure has outweighed principle.” PepsiCo did not issue a statement following Tuesday’s meeting. The company joins a growing list of major corporations — including Walmart and Target — that have scaled back internal DEI efforts since President Donald Trump returned to office. Trump has eliminated DEI programs from the federal government and warned public schools to do the same or risk losing federal funding. Sharpton has vowed to hold companies accountable. In January, he led a “buy-cott” at Costco to applaud the retailer’s ongoing DEI efforts and announced that NAN would identify two corporations to boycott within 90 days if they failed to uphold equity commitments. “That is the only viable tool that I see at this time, which is why we’ve rewarded those that stood with us,” Sharpton said.

Continue Reading

#NNPA BlackPress

Target Reels from Boycotts, Employee Revolt, and Massive Losses as Activists Plot Next Moves

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Target is spiraling as consumer boycotts intensify, workers push to unionize, and the company faces mounting financial losses following its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Published

on

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

Target is spiraling as consumer boycotts intensify, workers push to unionize, and the company faces mounting financial losses following its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. With foot traffic plummeting, stock prices at a five-year low, and employee discontent boiling over, national civil rights leaders and grassroots organizers are vowing to escalate pressure in the weeks ahead. Led by Georgia pastor Rev. Jamal Bryant, a 40-day “Targetfast” aligned with the Lenten season continues to gain traction. “This is about holding companies accountable for abandoning progress,” Bryant said, as the campaign encourages consumers to shop elsewhere. Groups like the NAACP, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, and The People’s Union USA are amplifying the effort, organizing mass boycotts and strategic buying initiatives to target what they call corporate surrender to bigotry.

Meanwhile, Target’s workforce is in an open revolt. On Reddit, self-identified employees described mass resignations, frustration with meager pay raises, and growing calls to unionize. “We’ve had six people give their two-week notices,” one worker wrote. “A rogue team member gathered us in the back room and started talking about forming a union.” Others echoed the sentiment, with users posting messages like, “We’ve been talking about forming a union at my store too,” and “Good on them for trying to organize—it needs to happen.” Target’s problems aren’t just anecdotal. The numbers reflect a company in crisis. The retail giant has logged 10 straight weeks of falling in-store traffic. In February, foot traffic dropped 9% year-over-year, including a 9.5% plunge on February 28 during the 24-hour “economic blackout” boycott organized by The People’s Union USA. March saw a 6.5% decline compared to the previous year. Operating income fell 21% in the most recent quarter, and the company’s stock (TGT) opened at just $94 on April 14, down from $142 in January before the DEI cuts and subsequent backlash. The economic backlash is growing louder online, too.

“We are still boycotting Target due to them bending to bigotry by eroding their DEI programs,” posted the activist group We Are Somebody on April 14. “Target stock has gone down, and their projections remain flat. DEI was good for business. Do the right thing.” Former congresswoman Nina Turner, a senior fellow at The New School’s Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, wrote, “Boycotts are effective. Boycotts must have a demand. We will continue to boycott until our demands are met.” More action is on the horizon. Another Target boycott is scheduled for June 3–9, part of a broader campaign targeting corporations that have abandoned DEI initiatives under pressure from right-wing politics and recent executive orders by President Donald Trump. The People’s Union USA, which led the February 28 boycott, has already launched similar weeklong actions against Walmart and announced upcoming boycotts of Amazon (May 6–12), Walmart again (May 20–26), and McDonald’s (June 24–30). The organization’s founder, John Schwarz, said the goal is nothing short of shifting the economic power balance.

“We are going to remind them who has the power,” Schwarz said. “For one day, we turn it off. For one day, we shut it down. For one day, we remind them that this country does not belong to the elite, it belongs to the people.” As for Target, its top executives continue to downplay the damage. During a recent earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Jim Lee described the outlook for 2025 as uncertain, citing the “ripple” effects of tariffs and a wide range of possible outcomes. “We’re going to be focusing on controlling what we can control,” Lee said. But discontent is spreading internally. A Reddit post from a worker claimed, “The HR rep is doing his best to stop the bleeding, but all he did was put a Bluey band-aid on what is essentially a severed limb.”

Several employees criticized the company’s internal rewards system, “Bullseye Bucks,” for offering what amounts to play money. “Can’t pay rent or buy food with Bullseye Bucks,” one wrote. Others urged their colleagues to join unionizing efforts. “Imagine how much Target would lose their mind if they were under a union contract,” one team leader wrote. “It needs to happen at this point.” One former manager said they left the company after an insulting raise. “Quit last year when they gave me a 28-cent raise. Best decision I’ve ever made.” From store floors to boardrooms, the pressure is growing on Target. And as calls for justice, equity, and worker rights get louder, one worker put it plainly: “We’re all screwed—unless we fight back.”

Continue Reading

#NNPA BlackPress

Confederates Whistle Dixie Tunes and Black MAGA Applauds

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — They include Black MAGA supporters who’ve chosen silence—even solidarity—as racism escalates from campaign rhetoric to federal policy.

Published

on

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

In Donald Trump’s second term, the faces of compliance are no longer just white. They include Black MAGA supporters who’ve chosen silence—even solidarity—as racism escalates from campaign rhetoric to federal policy. When Trump returned to the White House, he did so with a platform not just soaked in bigotry but engineered to roll back civil rights and diversity efforts on every front. And while his white base cheered, many of his Black allies—those donning MAGA hats and taking up seats on the frontlines of his rallies—chose loyalty over principle, muting themselves as a wave of white nationalist policymaking targets their communities.

Their silence began long before Inauguration Day. During the 2024 campaign, Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally drew fire after a comedian on the lineup referred to Puerto Rico as “garbage.” But that wasn’t the only racist moment. As Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, one of Trump’s most visible Black surrogates, walked onto the stage, the campaign blasted “Dixie”—a song revered by the Confederacy and white nationalists. Donalds said nothing. And neither did the rest of Black MAGA. That same silence echoed in Springfield, Ohio, when Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, spread a false and racist claim that Haitian immigrants were “eating cats and dogs.” The fabrication was met with horror from civil rights advocates and journalists. But Trump’s Black supporters? Not a word.

Black MAGA loyalists, many of whom cite values, religion, and personal ambition as their rationale, have essentially normalized the very racism that their grandparents fought to dismantle. Pew Research shows that while only 4% of Black Americans identify as Republicans, those who do often express a belief that the GOP better represents their values—even as those values are trampled by the very administration they support. One study published in Sociological Inquiry found that Black Republicans often “reframe racism in a way that makes their alignment with white conservatives more palatable,” even when it involves rationalizing policies that harm Black communities. And harm is precisely what Trump’s policies are doing. Since taking office, Trump has issued a barrage of executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government. Agencies that serve minority communities have faced massive defunding, DEI offices have been shuttered, and civil rights enforcement has all but disappeared. As noted in The Hill, the goal is not just the destruction of policy—it’s the erasure of progress itself.

“Every act of Trump’s second term has been a white-nationalist signal,” wrote one analyst in The American Prospect, calling MAGA an “identity movement” that champions white grievance over democratic principle. There is little space for Blackness, except as a prop. And yet, some Black Trump supporters defend the administration with defiance. One such supporter, who canvassed for Trump in 2024, told The Independent he was called the N-word by fellow conservatives. Rather than walking away, he doubled down on his allegiance. The consequences of this allegiance are becoming deadly clear. As TIME reported, nearly 20% of Trump supporters said freeing the slaves was a mistake. According to The Washington Post, support for Trump has long been fueled more by racial resentment than economic concerns, and that resentment has now translated into policy.

A report from Press Watch concluded that Trump’s base continues to be driven by a desire to protect white dominance and suppress nonwhite progress, particularly through culture war battles over schools, immigration, and federal hiring. Even academic journals have noted that wearing a MAGA hat has become “a proxy for racialized identity”—an affirmation of white supremacy, no matter who’s wearing it. Meanwhile, The Conversation documented how MAGA’s rise has coincided with increased armed intimidation at polling places, violent rhetoric against journalists, and calls to monitor so-called “urban” neighborhoods—all with Trump’s encouragement. The Black MAGA base has not only failed to object—they’ve offered Trump moral cover. Whether out of personal ambition, political opportunity, or delusion, they’ve made peace with racists, while the administration they uphold works tirelessly to erase the freedoms won through generations of Black struggle. As The American Prospect put it: “Trump’s MAGA identity is a movement rooted in white identity politics. That some Black Americans have chosen to stand inside of it doesn’t make it less racist—it makes it more dangerous”

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.