Activism
Released E-mails Call into Question Proposed Wood Street RV Site

In the summer of 2019 Mayor Libby Schaaf announced plans to construct a safe RV parking site for unhoused residents living along Wood Street in West Oakland but recently released e-mails call those plans, and the intentions of those plans, into question.
The proposed site, if constructed, would be available for some people living on and just west of Wood Street and between 24th and 26th streets in West Oakland. That area is densely populated with around 100 people living in vehicles, self-made homes, and tents.
The site would allow them to have electrical hookups, freshwater, regular trash and bathroom services but would only be available for those who live in RVs. It is unclear how long RV dwellers could live on the site.
City administration drafted lease terms in August and September 2019 to rent a 1.5-acre tract of land covered mostly in dirt and stone just west of Wood Street from Game Changer LLC, a San Francisco-based company owned by a billionaire named Fred Craves. At the time, Game Changer had left the land unused for years and many people already lived there. While no rent was to be charged, the 18-month draft of the lease stipulated that the city would agree to pay about $33,000 per year in property taxes for Game Changer.
Clarifying the city’s plan for Game Changer, the lease quoted the City of Oakland Geographical Emergency Shelter Intervention Policy which laid out two goals for the site: “provide respite and stabilization to the unsheltered community” and “alleviating the impact the encampments have on the surrounding community.”
“When a site is scheduled to open,” reads the policy “the city determines an area surrounding the site that is considered an invitation zone.”
According to the policy, people in the invitation zone are offered space in the site, but after the site fills up “the invitation zone becomes the closure zone and enforcement is used to remove or prevent the return of any encampment in that area.”
While the city administration has maintained that the proposed site intends to help the community of unhoused people living on Wood Street, the stated policy implies that those living in tents or self-made homes in the area would be displaced as they could not move into the safe RV parking site.
“Closure Zones are the highest priority to maintain as they surround the emergency shelter intervention and can have an impact on normal operations at the intervention site” the policy stated.
An email from the area’s Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney to Assistant City Administrators Joe DeVries and Maraskeshia Smith also suggests that by late October of that year, the planned construction of the site was in doubt.
The e-mail, dated Oct. 29, 2019, shares notes taken from a meeting McElhaney attended with the city administration earlier that day. Under a heading marked “Wood Street,” her notes read “Administration no longer considering location for RV parking; cost to prep and clear are excessive.”
“I cannot provide any updates on the Wood Street effort as joint meetings we had sought to convene were discontinued when the administration let me know that they were not moving forward with the RV site,” McElhaney wrote in response to questions about her October notes and the current plans for Wood Street. “Sometime later I was told RVs were still planned but I have not been provided details.”
About a week after the meeting with McElhaney, on Nov. 5 and 6, 2019, the city of Oakland cleared vehicles and residents off of Game Changer LLC’s land. They faced resistance as the United Front Against Displacement (UFAD), a grassroots organization that sponsors protests and does mutual aid projects with Wood Street residents, organized a rally where about 35 protesters supported residents who stayed on Game Changer’s land and refused to move.
While many other residents moved onto Wood Street, where they are now more densely packed together and closer to traffic, five people refused to leave Game Changer’s land.
One resident was Natasha Noel, who worried that her damaged vehicle with no wheels would be broken if moved. Another resident, Mavin Carter-Griffin who has been on the land for over five years, lives in a self-constructed shelter and her displacement would mean destroying her home. A third resident, Cam McKeel, lives in a large bus and does not know where else he could park it if forced to move or if the bus would be allowed in a safe RV parking site.
Although the company has erected a fence around their land, hired a security guard, and served the residents’ eviction notices, four residents, including Carter-Griffin and McKeel remain on the land. Noel has moved in with her daughter.
An e-mail from Dec. 13, 2019, by Patricia Smith, a lawyer for Game Changer, to Assistant City Administrator Joe DeVries and Deputy City Attorney Joe Flanders stated that Game Changer intended to clear residents from the site by December 20 so the city could control the property. After the date passed, Game Changer still had not gotten residents to leave.
On Feb. 3, 2020, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article that called into question residents’ decisions to stay on Game Changer’s land and suggested the decision was preventing the construction of the safe RV parking site. The piece quoted Dayton Andrews, an organizer with the UFAD.
“No one’s actually been given a promise that they’ll get a spot in the Wood Street lot,” Andrews said in the article. “They’ve been given no written proof that they will get to be on this safe parking lot. Folks would like to use the service, but they’d actually want assurance that the service would come through.”
Later that day Maraskeshia Smith e-mailed DeVries to ask about the article and the Wood Street plan.
“I think we have done all we can until the courts and attorneys do their work,” DeVries responded in an e-mail, referring to the eviction notices that Game Changer had served to residents. “I do believe it is worth switching gears and focusing on opening the Post Office site.”
When The Post News Group e-mailed DeVries about the plan for Wood Street and the Post Office site, DeVries did not respond but forwarded the inquiry to Public Information Officer Autumn King.
King acknowledged that the city administration “did initially express concern about the cost of site prep and clearing” but also stated that “the city is still working closely with the property owner to move forward with the lease.”
“Once the owner informs the city that the site is available,” she wrote, “we can resume established plans and open a site.”
King did not respond to a direct question asking if a lease between Game Changer and the city had been signed.
King described the Post Office Site as an RV safe parking site planned for a tract of land behind the West Oakland Post Office that the city has been trying to construct since January 2020 but has been blocked by a hold the Federal Highway Administration has put on homeless interventions on highway-owned land.
At the time of writing, Game Changer’s land sits vacant except for four residents. The large community of people living in tents, RVs and self-made homes mostly live densely packed together on Wood Street, although some live under the 880 Highway on land owned by CalTrans.
Residents report that the city is not providing hand-washing stations, freshwater or dumpsters to the community. They have been provided with two portable toilets. A visit to the site on August 11 showed one toilet had been serviced that day, but the other was last serviced on July 20.
The UFAD and The Berkeley Free Clinic have provided some hand-washing and freshwater stations to the community, but the needs of the population far outnumber the ability of the two small organizations to meet them.
Residents are still unclear when or if a safe RV parking site will be available and, if it is constructed, who will be allowed to use it.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
The RESISTANCE – FREEDOM NOW
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Teachers’ Union Thanks Supt. Johnson-Trammell for Service to Schools and Community
Pingback: Activists are Gathering to Prevent Eviction of Homeless in West Oakland | Post News Group