Activism

SF Company, Oakland Unhoused Residents, End Year Long Land Dispute

Published

5 years ago

November 19, 2020

Kiki

Activists hold shields and stand crouched behind them on Friday, November 13th on a tract of land just west of Wood Street in West Oakland. The shields created a barrier to delay the eviction of unhoused people living in buses. Photo by Zack Haber.

San Francisco’s GameChanger LLC and seven unhoused residents ended a dispute on Monday when residents agreed to leave a 1.5 acre tract of company owned land just west of Wood Street in West Oakland in exchange for accepting material or monetary concessions.

Both sides agreed to each other’s terms after a year-long standoff that involved a court battle, law enforcement actions, several protests and civil disobedience.

Over the last year, the United Front Against Displacement (UFAD), a grassroots group that organizes to prevent displacement, supported the residents during the standoff by organizing several protests and defensive actions.

“We would have been mowed over if it wasn’t for the UFAD…and all the neighbors that came out of their houses to stand by us,” said Mavin Carter-Griffin, a resident in her mid-50s who, starting over seven years ago, lived in trailers and self-built structures that sat partially on the tract of land and partially on the bordering Wood Street. She agreed to move all of her belongings off the tract and onto Wood Street on Monday in exchange for a 40-foot metal storage facility and assurance that the move would be done in a way that would not cause her to lose possessions she wished to keep.

Some roots of the dispute can be traced back to Nov. 5, and 6 of 2019. On those days the City of Oakland, using funds supplied by GameChanger for towing expenses, agreed to clear vehicles off the company’s land. Some of those vehicles were abandoned, while others served as homes for residents, off the company’s land.

At the time, the dust-covered tract with dried grass and wild flowering fennel was densely packed with unhoused residents who lived in vehicles, tents, or self-made structures. The declared plan was for GameChanger to lease their land for $1 a year to the City of Oakland which would then work with a nonprofit to create a Safe RV parking site where residents who lived in RVs could soon come back and live.

An 18-month-long lease was written up, but not signed, as the City first wanted the land cleared. During the operation, Oakland Police Dept. officers also encouraged people living in tents and self-made homes to clear the area, although no formal eviction was declared.

Some residents resisted the move as they did not want to live in a Safe RV Parking site, were skeptical that they would be allowed to return, and/or felt that moving would put them in a less safe position. The UFAD and their supporters worked with the residents by organizing a protest during the operation to support them in their resistance.

Protestors chanted “shame” and “quit your jobs” as OPD officers walked throughout the tract. While the vast majority of residents left the tract during the operation, a small group of unhoused residents remained on the tract, resisting OPD officers who encouraged them to move.

One resident who resisted the eviction and asked only to be identified as Puffy, recalls dogs being involved as well.

“A bunch of people showed up with a bunch of people from the camp,” said Puffy. “And the dogs started barking and these big burly cops didn’t want to [mess] with the people or the dogs. So they left.”

California Secretary of State records show that Fred Craves owns GameChanger LLC and bought the tract in 2016. He also owns Bay City Capital, a life science investment firm that, according to its website, has raised over $1.6 billion.

Craves has not responded to requests to comment on this story but his lawyer, Pat Smith of Smith LLP said by allowing his land to be used for a Safe RV Parking site she thinks “the owner feels he’s being able to do something positive for city and the homeless.”

Smith has stated that GameChangers will develop the land within two to three years and hopes that in the interim time “hopefully the homelessness problem will start to be addressed more successfully but the city.”

In the weeks that followed last November’s clearance, GameChanger installed a fence around their land and hired a security guard, but most of the few remaining residents still did not leave. The City refused to sign a lease with GameChanger until the lot was cleared. Then GameChanger escalated their tactics to remove unhoused residents.

Smith said they sued remaining residents in December 2019, and in September 2020 GameChanger was able to get a forceable detainer trial, which they won, requiring the Alameda County Sheriff to evict residents still on the tract within a 180-day period that started on Oct 13.

The UFAD still wished to defend those living on the land, partially because they were concerned about how the Safe RV Parking site and eventual development on the land would affect those in surrounding areas of a larger sprawling community of unhoused people that live on Wood Street and nearby CalTrans land.

“The tract is right in the center of the community,” said Dayton Andrews of the UFAD. “As this land is developed, it puts more pressure for eviction on the surrounding inhabitants. So after they develop this lot we’re going to see more and more people along the sidewalk get pressured and more and more people on the CalTrans land get pressured.”

The Safe RV parking lot itself could pose a problem to some residents since, if it works like other City-run parking sites, only those who live in RVs would be allowed in. Some residents who live in RVs also do not want to live in such a site.

Kelly Thompson, an elderly resident who lives near the GameChanger tract on CalTrans land left a similar City-sanctioned site after being robbed at gunpoint there earlier this year.

Not knowing when the eviction would occur, UFAD put out a call for people to show up early on October 13 to defend the tract. About 70 people came and sheriff’s deputies did not execute the eviction on that day.

The group and concerned local housed residents then organized an occupation during working hours on weekdays, where a few people took turns keeping an eye out for sheriff’s deputies approaching the tract.

On the afternoon of October 29, sheriff’s deputies came to execute the eviction, and supporters on site made a call for additional people to protest, which inspired about 60 total people to show up. Sheriff’s deputies were able to take residents who where on-site out of the tract but protestors stood at the exit of the gate and locked arms in a standoff with police and chanted “Who protects us? We protect us,” and “The people, united, will never be defeated.”

As sheriff’s deputies and protestors faced off, workers for GameChanger showed up with a truck full of fencing that could have secured the tract further but were unable to get past the line of protestors. Sheriff’s deputies and GameChanger workers left shortly after 5:00 p.m.

There were large holes in GameChanger’s fence and residents came back to the tract later in the night, violating trespassing law.

“Our role was to have unauthorized dwellers leave the property and we turned it over to GameChanger LLC and their reps,” wrote Alameda County Public Sheriff’s Deputy Sgt. Ray Kelly in an e-mail written on Monday. “It is their job to secure lock and clean the location. We are not involved with any fencing or site security.”

To follow California law, GameChanger then had to wait 15 days before removing property from the site. On November 6, exactly a year after the initial 2019 protest, Puffy, who had lived on the tract in a tent and self-made structures for about eight years, moved to land about a quarter mile north under the I-880 Highway, but only after being given an RV.

“The issue with this property, to me it’s between this billionaire, and us. If he’s got a beef let him come and say it,” said unhoused resident Cam McKeel on Sunday while remaining on Gamechanger’s tract.

McKeel, along with four other residents, established a residency on the tract in 2017 and lived in buses situated behind self-built barricading wooded walls that stood about 10 feet tall and a locking gate. A black and red sign attached to the gate read “KEEP OUT.”

Oakland Police Department officers showed up on November 13, and also came on Monday. They were within their legal rights to arrest McNeel and the other people living in buses for trespassing. But no arrests were made.

On both days, activists bearing colorful shields formed a shield wall by holding and slightly overlapping them with each other at the gate entrance while an additional row of supporters stood behind them to support their bodies.

Since sheriff’s deputies had broken the lock on the gate while executing the eviction, the spot, if undefended, could have been an easy entrance. But OPD officers faced the shield wall and did not enter. OPD media has not responded to requests to comment on this story.

“It’s just a piece of plywood” said an activist who participated in the shield wall and asked not to be named out of fear of police retaliation. “But it proved to be very effective. The fact that there is a human body behind them and they’d have to drive through that made it something that was a little bit too bold for officers to want to tear down in the same way they would homeless people’s shelters.”

McNeel, other residents who live in buses, and some activists who participated said shielding off the area forced GameChanger to negotiate.

McNeel and other residents came to an agreement on Monday afternoon with GameChanger to leave the tract after being paid over $2,200 each. About a week prior, they said they were offered a flat fee of $1000 total. The residents said they planned to move onto nearby CalTrans land. They were the last residents to leave, and GameChanger finally achieved its goals of clearing the tract.

While the vast majority of residents living on GameChangers tract of land left during the initial City run clearance in November of 2019, Mavin Carter-Griffin, Puffy,

Cam McNeel and others who lived with him in buses all chose to stay and resist the initial clearance operation. They were all able to stay on the tract for an additional year and receive material or cash concessions when they did leave.

UFAD members said they see the prolonged struggle as a win but are now focused on helping other nearby residents in the area resist further displacement.

City of Oakland spokesperson Karen Boyd wrote in an e-mail on Tuesday that since the land was now cleared, the City signed a lease with GameChanger and is moving forward with the Safe RV Parking site that will open in early 2021.

Recently passed City legislation called The Encampment Management Policy states that encampments that sit within 25 feet of a Safe RV Parking site can be subject to closure.

“The GameChanger battle was the first battle in a series,” said Dayton Andrews. “They’re going to escalate after it’s cleared.”

Kiki

Posts by Kiki | Website

Up Next

Triple-Dog Dare: An Open Letter to Governor Newsom

Don't Miss

New Oakland Mural Will Celebrate Diversity, Support Local Black Artists And Enhance Social Justice Efforts In The Community

Kiki

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

5 hours ago

May 25, 2025

Oakland Post

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

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

6 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

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

6 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

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.