Connect with us

Activism

Port Workers and West Oakland Residents Oppose A’s New Ballpark

Published

on

Over 100 community members attended a discussion held by leaders of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 on Sept. 21, to oppose the Oakland Athletics’ plans to build a new ballpark at Howard Terminal.

“This is not about baseball, this is about gobbling up land, this is a real estate investment,” said event organizer and former ILWU Local 10 Secretary-Treasurer Derrick Muhammad as he addressed the crowd gathered at the West Oakland Senior Center.

The A’s proposal to build a stadium at Howard Terminal on the Port of Oakland includes the construction of 3,000 condominiums, a 400 room hotel, and a multi-million dollar gondola to transport fans to and from the park.

ILWU leaders and West Oakland community members expressed concerns about the implications of a ballpark on the city’s industrial waterfront.

Over 100 community members and port workers gathered at the West Oakland Senior Center to oppose the A’s plans for a new ballpark at Howard Terminal.

“We believe that once you start placing houses adjacent to industry, you subject that industry to complaints of the neighbors,” said Muhammad, who fears that in the long run Oakland could suffer the same fate as Detroit, which some have called a “ghost town” in reference to large swaths of the city that were abandoned after the decline of the automotive industry between 2008 and 2010.

The A’s plan to flank their new ballpark with 3,000 apartments, in the middle of Oakland’s industrial hub where air pollution is some of the highest in the Bay Area. A few hundred yards adjacent to Howard Terminal, recycling plant Schnitzer Steel grinds up and recycles on average over 500,000 metric tons of cars, household appliances and scrap metals per year, according to their 2017-2018 Sustainability Report. While the company has significantly reduced emissions in recent years, during the day acrid smells waft from the plant on to the Howard Terminal lot.

Meanwhile, the A’s are promoting their project as an environmental solution. A Feb. 15  report by the San Francisco Chronicle found that decades of industrial activity had contaminated the soil and groundwater at Howard Terminal with “hazardous” and “cancer-causing chemicals,” that would require removal prior to construction.

On their website, the A’s pledge to “fully remediate these environmental issues at no cost to taxpayers,” along with the rest of the project that they promise will be “100 percent privately financed by the Oakland A’s.”

This statement comes in contrast to a California bill in the works, SB 293, which would potentially allocate millions in public tax money to cover costs for anything from transportation and waste management, to the “remediation of hazardous materials,” on the Howard Terminal property.

If signed by Gov. Newsom, SB 293 will fund the infrastructure needed for the ballpark by creating a new Oakland tax district and will cover any costs related to making the Howard Terminal site buildable and accessible. Major challenges facing the project include sea level mitigation, removal of toxic waste, and transportation infrastructure.

A map depicting the current access points for the Port of Oakland and Howard Terminal.

Aaron Wright, ILWU Local 10 business agent, called the stadium nothing short of a “billionaire’s dream,” and said that the A’s have not taken into account the implications of building on such a challenging site. At the event, he urged community members to “say hell no”  to allowing their tax money to subsidize a “billionaire’s condo paradise.”

 

Howard Terminal is a 50-acre site with a single access point via Market Street. It’s one-third of the size of the Coliseum, which spans 150 acres, and is nearly one mile from the nearest BART station.

Wright also takes issue with Howard Terminal being touted as an “unused” site by project supporters.  According to him, the lot serves as an important hub for the hundreds of truckers entering and exiting the port each day, who would otherwise be parking on Oakland streets, clogging the freeways, and increasing pollution in residential West Oakland.

“Howard Terminal actually took that traffic off the streets and gave them a place to stage their loads…it really is a mechanism to keep trucks off the road, to keep trucks out of West Oakland streets,” said Wright.

Due to the spatial restrictions of the lot, the A’s plan to build a substantially smaller parking lot for the stadium, and want to encourage sports fans to leave their cars behind by building a $123 million gondola that would transport up to 6,000 fans per hour per direction from West Oakland BART station to Jack London Square.

Andrew Garcia, president, and director of marine transportation company GoodBulk Ltd addresses Oaklander at the community meeting on Sept. 21. Photo by Saskia Hatvany.

“The west Oakland community — if that stadium is built — will become the parking lot of the Oakland A’s. There is no way that you will be able to control 20 or 30,000 sports fans coming to a stadium on the waterfront,” said Andrew Garcia, president, and director of marine transportation company GoodBulk Ltd., who also spoke at the event.

Another concern for the ILWU is the “turning circle,” a widened part of the estuary where large cargo ships turn around between loading and unloading. The largest ships can barely turn in the existing space and require careful maneuvering from the bar pilots, who have also opposed the stadium over concerns that lights from the new stadium will blind them. As ships get bigger, the Port will no longer be able to accommodate them unless the estuary is adapted, Wright said.

In response to the concerns, the Port of Oakland has laid down its conditions in a project overview and reserved the right to expand the turning basin up to 10 acres of Howard Terminal. The residential development would only be permitted on the side further away from the industrial operations and would have to include a “comprehensive transportation and circulation plan” to ensure that Port operations remain unaffected.

Still, Muhammad suspects that if the project moves forward, there will be larger socio-economic implications.

“This project would be the last few nails in that coffin of gentrification that west Oakland currently finds itself in,” said Muhammad, who expressed skepticism at the 5,000 jobs that the A’s promised to generate with the new ballpark.  He and other industry workers are concerned that the new employment opportunities will consist of low-paying, part-time service jobs — aside from the promised 2,000 construction jobs, which Muhammad argues are temporary.

In addition to the stadium at Howard Terminal, the A’s wish to purchase the Coliseum land from the City of Oakland. Preliminary digital renderings show the 150-acre lot transformed into a large green space surrounding an open-air baseball diamond, flanked by shopping centers, a university campus, and residential areas — including affordable housing.

“Howard Terminal is a 50-acre site…that needs a huge amount of funds to make it buildable. And you could go over to the Coliseum — three times as large, 150 acres — and build three times the stadium and hotel and houses over there, tomorrow,” said Wright.

“It just seems like they’re trying to double dip…and it seems like they’re more interested in developing real estate than just getting a place to play ball,” said Muhammad.

The ILWU is confident that their movement will grow as stadium plans move forward. They are currently working on building alliances with other local industries and non-profits in the area, as well as residents of East Oakland and West Oakland, and urge those who oppose the project to attend future meetings.

The Oakland Post has reached out the the A’s, and welcomes their response to the concerns covered in this article.

For more information about the movement against the Howard Terminal Ballpark, contact Derrick Muhammad at dmuhammad@gmail.com, (510) 435 2713.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.
Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.

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.