Connect with us

Activism

Tenants of one of Oakland’s Biggest Evictors are Organizing

Published

on

A protestor on May Day with a sign attached to his car that reads "No Rent Debt." The SMC Tenant Council sent a letter to SMC East Bay on May Day demanding all rent debt be cancelled during the pandemic.

Tenants who rent from Sullivan Management Company (SMC) East Bay, have founded the SMC Tenants Council, unifying to make collective demands including that the company cancel debt of back rent that’s owed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’re putting together all of us so if they touch one of us they have to touch all of us,” said Xavier T. de Janon, an SMC tenant, council member, and the group’s media spokesperson.

Although de Janon would not reveal precisely how many members the SMC tenant council currently has due to concern for retaliation, he said they spent over 100$ on mailers which they used to contact hundreds of SMC tenants, many who joined the council.

“There’s enough of us that we feel confident that there’s a critical mass. If we were to act together, it would affect SMC’s bottom line,” said de Janon.

In 2014, The East Bay Express reported that SMC East Bay’s owner, Neill Sullivan, started buying hundreds of properties, mostly in West Oakland, in the wake of the 2008 recession. The recession and housing market collapse allowed Sullivan to purchase the properties at about half of what the previous owners had paid. Billionaires and/or hedge fund investors provided needed capital for Sullivan’s investments, including former presidential candidate Thomas Steyer.

The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project reports Sullivan has purchased at least 356 properties and served at least 357 eviction notices from 2011 to 2016, making him the 12th biggest evictor in Oakland at that time. But it’s difficult to know exactly how many properties Sullivan has or how many eviction notices he’s served since he is associated with at least a dozen companies and LLCs.

The Oakland Post emailed SMC East Bay and asked how many properties Sullivan owns and if we could speak with him, but SMC East Bay responded with an unsigned response that did not answer those questions.

“They have too many properties to have proper oversight and a lot of their tenants are suffering,” said an SMC tenant and council member who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

The tenant says while her rent is affordable, her building is neglected and looks dilapidated to the extent that “people think it’s abandoned.” Inside, her place has a ceiling leak that previous tenants made a formal complaint about over three years ago and still hasn’t been fixed. The place is filled with rats and mold which affects her health as the mold harms her lungs and the rats bring fleas that bite her. Termites have eaten much of the wood in the home and the tenant is concerned about what would happen if an earthquake struck.

Over half of active SMC Tenant Council members say they were unable to afford to pay rent due to the COVID-19 crisis. De Janon says expenses related to his family increased drastically while his income level remained the same. On May 1, SMC Tenant Council collectively sent an email and a physical letter with demands that would allow him and other SMC tenants to be able to afford to stay in their homes: canceling rent owed during the pandemic, a rent reduction for the rest of this year, and allowing lease transfers to be available to subtenants.

Neither SMC East Bay nor Sullivan responded directly to the email or the letter but instead, the company individually emailed tenants the same response. The email outlines services, some already running, some planned, that SMC East Bay says it provides to Oaklanders including a martial arts program, a community garden after school arts programs, and a gift card program for residents who are having difficulties affording groceries.

While the last two paragraphs of the nine paragraph email directly address housing affordability and the COVID-19 crisis and confirm that SMC East Bay intends to obey a City of Oakland emergency ordinance which currently prevents eviction, it makes no mention of the SMC Tenant Council, rent forgiveness, or any of the council’s demands.

“We will work with you to discuss your financial difficulties…however, if you do not pay rent and don’t notify us that you have been affected by the coronavirus pandemic, we will assume you have not been directly impacted and your current lease is in full effect,” reads the email.

The email also states “for those affected by the pandemic, there are a variety of governmental and third-party resources,” insists “these organizations are not affiliated with SMC East Bay,” then lists charitable organizations that could help people pay rent.

“I think the way [SMC East Bay] responded to us shows the idea that they can be great to the community in theory, but our individual lives don’t really matter,” said de Janon.

De Janon also says SMC East Bay has asked to see his personal financial information, but after talking with lawyers, he concluded he wasn’t legally obligated to.

SMC East Bay did respond to one of The Oakland Post’s emailed questions which asked if they recognized SMC Tenant Council. SMC East Bay emailed back and stated: “While tenants are free to organize in any manner that they deem appropriate, we will continue our historic practice of responding to individual tenant requests on a case-by-case basis—which we believe is fair, smart and consistent with best industry practice.”

SMC Tenants Council is currently exploring the legal protections that forming a tenant council could provide them and seeking out new SMC tenants to join them. Those interested can check out their FacebookTwitter, and Instagram pages, email them directly at smctenantscouncil@gmail.com, or call 510-342-9843.

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.