CAN OAKLAND FIX THE CRISIS IT CREATED?
By Kheven LaGrone
I remember when I came to the realization that Oakland’s
gentrification meant displacing its African-Americans. I was the new project
engineer on construction of the Port of Oakland’s Middle Harbor Shoreline
Park. I was the only African-American on
the team. The Port had proudly announced
that it was working with the neighboring West Oakland’s African-American community
in the creation of the park; however, I never saw anyone from West Oakland at
the meetings.
At one meeting, an artist presented conceptual drawings of
the park. The drawings excited the team. The park was beautiful and full of white
people. Everyone was proud of the
park—except me. “Can African-Americans come to the park I asked?” The artist
nervously re-did the drawing and painted a couple of the people brown. “It’s nice that Latinos and dark East Indians
can use the park, but can African-Americans with nappy hair like mine use it?”
I asked.
That moment angered me.
West Oakland, our neighbors and partners, was proudly African-American. How could everyone not notice the omission of
African Americans?
As we completed the park, the team wanted to show it off. They
wanted to make it a “regional park.” They
talked excitedly about advertising the park to Danville, Blackhawk and other
white suburbs. Even though the Port is a department of the City of Oakland, the
team said nothing about advertising to West Oakland or other African-American
communities. I learned that successful gentrification
meant showing off the project to their white peers outside Oakland. To them, we
African-Americans were invisible and unworthy of a nice, new park.
Homeless people were expressly not welcomed at the park. For
example, a team member suggested at an outside meeting that we use concrete
benches “so homeless people won’t sleep at the park.” As the biting cold wind coming off the water
hit my face, I thought about the homeless people in Oakland that I saw every
day. Most of them were African-American.
I knew many of their names and stories.
“If someone is so bad off that he has to sleep out here,” I said
angrily, “then we should not make things worse for him.”
Yet, my co-worker had dehumanized the homeless person like
vermin. He did not ask why the person had to sleep on a park bench in the
freezing cold. By rendering the homeless
person nameless and faceless, my co-worker felt he had an excuse to unwelcome
and even remove the homeless person without guilt. He could still brag about
the beautiful park.
Years later, Oakland officials would use the decline in the
city’s African-American population to market Oakland to outsiders. Oakland had
been “stigmatized” as a “Black city,” so they promoted its “changing
demographics” and “new diversity.” Condo
developers and restaurants never used African-Americans in their
advertisements. City leaders announced
the “New Oakland” as if to say it was no longer a “Black city.” As Oakland
became more attractive to outsiders, housing costs rose and more African
Americans were displaced.
Oakland was voted one of the country’s “coolest cities,” but
today, Oakland’s homeless have been displaced into visible encampments located
throughout the gentrified areas. They are mainly African-Americans displaced by
the gentrification. The illegal encampments
resemble third world refuge camps.
People sleep among trash in tents and on sleeping bags on the cold dirt
or concrete sidewalk. Other people dump their trash in the encampments. There are rodents. They’re often under noisy, dusty freeways. Police chase them away.
In this “new” Oakland, the people in the encampments are
dehumanized, while pets are humanized and treated like spoiled children. Near one encampment, there is a doggy play
and daycare and spa. It offers super suite boarding, pedicure and manicure, and
“overnight cuddle time.” Near another encampment is a pet “country club” with
“doggy daycare, pet hotel and spa.” The brochure states that dogs can play in
an “engaging environment” all day. When the dogs want to sleep, they can sleep
in the hotel and “reminisce about their friends.” Cats can enjoy a “private immaculate condo.”
Do the pet owners ignore the encampments when they drop off
their animals?
Near another encampment, a brochure for a cat shelter seems
to mock, dehumanize and trivialize Oakland’s homeless, at-risk youth. It claims to be “helping Oakland’s vulnerable
cats.” It advertises that “through
foster care and adoption,” it “finds homes for at-risk cats who are struggling
in the animal shelter environment [. . .] Help us save some of Oakland’s most
distressed cats and kittens.” This is
either clueless or insensitive. On the
front door, its kitty cat café claims to be the first in the U. S. Does this mean that Oakland is the first city to
be so dehumanizing in the U. S.?
* * *
Right before Christmas 2015, I learned that the Oakland City
Council would be addressing the issue of the displaced African-Americans by
gentrification. They planned to vote on
an ordinance declaring a shelter crisis in Oakland. The meeting would be on
January 5, 2016.
I read the meeting report and the proposed ordinance. I had
written such reports for the Port and City and understood them. A crisis requires immediate and action. The
declaration didn’t seem to have any meaningful direction from the City. The ordinance seemed to be “just talk.”
At the same time, Wanda Sabir e-mailed me that she and her
family had been buying blankets, food, etc. and giving them to people in the encampments. She and her friend R. J. Reed planned to go
back for Christmas.
I told Wanda about the City’s proposed shelter crisis
ordinance. People from the shelters and
homeless community needed to attend the city council meeting when the Council
voted and make the declaration and ordinance meaningful.
I visited several shelters. The managers had not heard about
the proposed ordinance. I also visited
some encampments with Wanda and found out the people there had not heard about
the proposed ordinance either. But would the ordinance address the issue of the
homeless community? One of the people
told Wanda, their biggest problem is being dehumanized and vilified. How would simply declaring a “shelter crisis”
humanize them? How was the Council
making any decisions about this community without contacting them
directly? Was the declaration “just
talk”?
We wanted them to come and be seen and heard at the meeting.
I prepared flyers to inform the community about the meeting. I e-mailed them to the media and the
shelters. I also went with Wanda to distribute them to some encampments. I also
took flyers to a few shelters.
I also e-mailed members of the City Council and the City
Administrator. Only Councilmember Desley Brooks replied to my e-mail.
The vote was one of the first items of the meeting.
Councilmember Brooks, the only member to say she had visited
an encampment, pushed for the council to make concrete actions. That seemed
obvious for addressing a “crisis.” However,
she faced a bureaucratic roadblock—especially from the City Attorney. Councilmember
Kaplan reminded us that the homeless form social connections and relocating the
homeless should not break up those connections.
Councilmember Gullien also mentioned working with Laney College to build
tiny houses.
Then it was time for the public to speak on this issue. R. J. Reed had been going to the encampments
with Wanda and had made friends there.
He angrily told the Council to “stop the foolishness” and do something.
Wanda told her own story with being homeless and she told
the personal stories of people she had met in the encampments. Councilmember McElhaney was visibly moved.
Another woman reminded the Councilmembers that many of the
homeless were veterans.
Unfortunately, no homeless persons spoke for themselves at
that meeting.
One good thing came out of the meeting. The meeting room was packed with people who
had come for several other city issues. As they waited for the Council to
address their issues, they heard the personal statements. Thus, the issue of
homelessness was more personal and reached beyond the homeless community. At
times, the whole room applauded Councilmember Brooks’ support of the homeless
community—showing that they supported the community as well.
Finally, Brooks made a motion to direct the City Administrator
to open the Garden Center at Lake Merritt or another City-owned property as a
temporary homeless shelter within 15 days. The Council agreed to that, plus the
City Administrator was to provide a report on a tiny house community for the
next City Council meeting on January 19, 2016.
The homeless shelter issue would also become a regular item for
following council meetings.
When Wanda and I went to an encampment a few days after the
meeting, we heard about some changes from the city. Her friends living in the encampment told us
that the City clean up crew had been there.
This time, they asked the homeless people to gather their possessions
before they cleaned the rest of the area. That way, the clean up crew would not
throw away their possessions. In the past, the city simply cleared
everything—including the last of their personal possessions.
Sadly, we also found out that Waleena Mitchell, a resident
of the encampment, had died. Her husband, Lionel, was grieving and would not
come out of his tent to talk to Wanda.
* * *
The City Council met again on January 19, 2016. This time,
the shelter crisis was one of the last items to be discussed. This meant most
of the people in the meeting would leave before hearing about the shelter
crisis.
We sat through an item where a woman who lived in in Oakland
hills complained because AT&T was placing a tower near her home. She was
distressed that the ugliness of the tower would lower her property value. She worried that the tower would disturb her
peace and quiet. She brought a lawyer.
The woman and the City questioned whether or not the trees
in the area were Cedar or Oak and whether or not the City had trimmed them. If
so, when did the City trim them?
But hers was not a “shelter crisis.” A week before the
meeting, a rainstorm belted Oakland. The
winds blew away the tents and tiny houses of people living in a homeless
encampment. People were exposed to cold
rain, standing water and mud. That was a “shelter crisis.”
Hours later, the City Council finally got to the real
shelter crisis. Like at the last meeting, homelessness seemed to be an abstract
issue to debate. The Council had been
given another report (which mentioned another report almost a year
earlier). It listed options for
addressing the shelter crisis. The
biggest issue for the City was money. Neither
the Garden Center nor other City property, would be opened as a temporary
shelter. However, a few more beds would
be provided at an existing shelter—though Brooks pointed out that this was not
a significant number of beds for this crisis.
Councilmember Kaplan pointed out that the money spent to
remove the homeless from the encampments could be better spent. She suggested that the city identify legally
allowable encampments.
Gullien was meeting with Laney to discuss tiny houses, but
they needed land. In the past, shelters
had been centrally and conveniently located downtown. Oakland supported the gentrification that
displaced people, Oakland owes it to them to help them stay. It’s not fair to relocate shelters just
because a neighborhood gentrifies. They should be part of the diversity and new
community. They are Oakland. If newcomers have a problem living near a
shelter, they shouldn’t move near it.
Despite Councilmember Brooks’ pushing for a bigger
commitment, the Council only voted to spend $180,000 for immediate winter
relief efforts. According to the City
report, Oakland has over two thousand homeless people. So the City Council did not make a major
commitment to addressing Oakland’s shelter crisis. However, the Council would discuss the
shelter crisis as a regular item for the meetings.
The Council assumed the discussion was settled for the night
and started to move on without public input. People in the room protested. They had come to speak on the issue. “We didn’t wait all this time for nothing,”
the homeless man behind me yelled.
Twenty-four people surprised the council by signing up to
speak on the shelter crisis. R. J. Reed delivered
the news of the death in the encampment since the last meeting. Wanda told the council that if she can use
her own money to buy food and supplies for the encampments, surely the City
could spend money. Rachel, who works for
a homeless agency, told the council that her clients often died on the streets.
She could barely speak through her tears. She went to sit in a dark corner by
herself to cry.
The rest of the speakers were homeless people who told their
own stories. Many of them came together from nearby Henry Robinson
Multi-Service Center. In contrast to the
white woman who lived in the Oakland hills and worried about the trees, all
these homeless speakers were African-American.
One was a 67-year old woman on SSI.
Another woman who said she had been sexually assaulted and saw fights in
the shelters. Another woman identified herself as an educated single mother
“who matters.”
The meeting turned personal and emotional. They silenced the Council. McElhaney listened
teary-eyed. People put faces, names and
stories on their homelessness. Would the Council have voted differently if they
had these stories before they voted?
If this item had been discussed earlier in the meeting, more
Oakland residents would have been moved by the stories.
* * *
On January 19, 2016, the homeless community made itself seen
and heard at the Oakland City Council meeting. They put human faces on
homelessness. They placed themselves in the “New Oakland.” They included themselves in Oakland’s “new
diversity.” Hopefully, they’ll do more.
Hopefully, it’s not too late.
A homeless African-American man, born and raised in Oakland,
told the Council that “Oakland puts more emphasis on gentrification than the
people who live here. They’re trying to
give Oakland some new identity.” He’s
right. Removing people like him is part
of the gentrification process. However, by exercising his right to vote, he can
bring the Council’s emphasis back to him.