logo
Oakland is moving aggressively to clear homeless encampments, including one of the city's largest

Oakland is moving aggressively to clear homeless encampments, including one of the city's largest

Oakland officials are clearing some of the city's most challenging homeless encampments, flush with an infusion of state funds and new homeless housing to offer displaced residents.
The city has long struggled to address sprawling, chaotic camps, including what was once the state's largest, because of a shortage of homeless shelters and affordable housing. Oakland also faced uncertainty, as other cities did, over how to legally clear encampments before a key court ruling last year.
The city last month removed camps around Lake Merritt, as well as a growing encampment at Mosswood Park. Next week, the city will begin dismantling another one of the city's largest encampments, on East 12th Street, located just east of the BART tracks between Fruitvale and the underground tunnel leading to the Lake Merritt station.
The closure of the encampments comes less than a year after the city launched a more aggressive approach to addressing homelessness. Less than two months before former Mayor Sheng Thao was recalled, she issued an executive order directing police, fire and city workers to enforce existing city policy to clear homeless encampments. While Thao's critics said her move was a political stunt to fight the recall, her order came just three months after the Grants Pass ruling from the Supreme Court that gave cities the power to sweep encampments without offering services.
The city logged 63 encampment closures in February, the most recent month for complete data, marking the highest of any month in the last four years.
The proliferation of camps throughout Oakland has long been a concern for residents. A city survey released in March determined that residents' top priorities were homelessness, safety and cleanliness, in no particular order. Oakland's homeless population, which accounts for more than half of the total across Alameda County, grew 9% from 2022 to 2024 to reach an estimated total of about 5,490 unhoused people. Oakland has a significantly higher rate of unhoused people compared with San Francisco.
Thao's order, which remains in effect, still requires the city to offer people shelter and services before closing down an encampment, but it doesn't force residents to accept the offer. The city doesn't have enough beds to meet the demand. Oakland has about 1,300 beds for unhoused people across shelters, RV parking sites, tiny cabins and other housing sites but it has 3,337 unsheltered homeless residents and about 1,400 encampments.
There are more resources on the way. Oakland officials announced last month that the city had purchased the Extended Stay America hotel in North Oakland, using $7 million in state funding, $25 million in grant money from the state's social services department, and $4.6 million in city money, to rehouse residents from three encampments. The hotel will provide temporary housing with wraparound services for up to 150 people before the site gets converted to permanent supportive housing, according to the city.
Still, homeless advocates have criticized what they view as Oakland's aggressive response to encampments — as well as condemning San Francisco and other cities across the Bay Area for sweeps.
'Since the Grants Pass Supreme Court ruling, cities including Oakland have been emboldened to increase sweeps, often with no accessible shelter being offered,' said Talya Husbands-Hankin, a homeless advocate in Oakland. 'Community members living in trailers and RVs are rarely offered any assistance and the few 'safe parking' programs are almost always full.'
Mayor-elect Barbara Lee, who is expected to take office later this month, has not said whether she will continue the current encampment sweeps and did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. During the campaign, she said that she wants to test a guaranteed income pilot for unhoused residents, work with the Veterans Administration to get homeless veterans off the street and hire unhoused people to clean the streets.
Lee also released a 10-point plan for her first 100 days in office that pushes for the city to get its fair share of money from Alameda County to tackle homelessness. Lee is referring to a voter-appointed homelessness funding measure, but it's unclear how much help Oakland might get from that money, which is controlled by the county.
Still, that funding could help address encampments like Mosswood Park, which officials closed in April, by adding shelter, housing and social services. Over the last four years, Mosswood Park was Oakland's most visited location for encampment sweeps. Residents complained about open drug use, hazardous waste, rats and other safety concerns.
A fence now stands to block off a small area of the park where the tents and makeshift shelters once stood. City officials have added 'no re-encampment' signs around the park to deter unhoused people from returning, and they're instructing neighbors to call 311 if they see any tents pop back up. Of the 41 people that Oakland officials called 'core' residents of Mosswood Park, 32 moved into the Extended Stay Americaafter the site was cleared late last month, according to city spokesperson Sean Maher.
Even bigger than Mosswood is the encampment on East 12th Street, which spans at least four city blocks and is home to just under 100 people, according to city estimates.
The site has more than a dozen makeshift pallet shelters, RVs and vehicles with other living quarters made of tarps, wood and other discarded items. The site, which has angered some neighbors who say the city needs to do more to clean it up, is also a hot spot for illegal dumping and is littered with massive piles of trash.
LeAndre Redd moved to the massive site recently after the city closed the encampment where he was living nearly a mile away.
'They took my stuff and destroyed my home,' Redd said. 'It's tough because all my stuff was gone.'
In 2022, the city attempted to close the East 12th Street encampment, but Maher said that 'outside parties created an unsafe work environment' and efforts stalled. As part of this month's closure, city officials said they're exploring the addition of new landscaping and parking restrictions to reduce the chances of re-encampment.
Outreach workers have spent the past six months preparing encampment residents for the move. All 79 of the 'core residents' of the East 12th Street encampment will be offered temporary housing at the Extended Stay America site, officials said.
But some encampment residents, including Hassan Shaghasi and Redd, said they were either never approached by the workers or told they were not identified as one of those 'core residents' who were prioritized for housing. Shaghasi said he has lived at the encampment for more than five years and is stressed about not knowing where he'll go after it's cleared.
Harold Duffey, assistant city administrator, acknowledged at a recent public meeting that not all residents at the encampment were offered a spot at the interim housing site. Duffey said the city created a list of longer-term encampment residents who had priority for housing, and that more offers of housing will be forthcoming.
Bartholomew Drawsand, 37, has been living at East 12th Street for nearly a decade after his struggles with drug addiction left him homeless. Drawsand said he'd move to the hotel if given the option, but no one from the city has offered him housing or shelter.
Some residents are more hesitant about leaving. Raquel Zavala, 51, expressed concern that the hotel stays are temporary and said she has a community at East 12th Street.
'We have established ourselves just like you have your neighborhood,' Zavala said. 'There has to be more input from the people's lives they're affecting. The person who's never been homeless gets to decide, 'what are we going to do with the homeless people.' '

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Van Hollen on Abrego Garcia's return to US: ‘A victory for the Constitution'
Van Hollen on Abrego Garcia's return to US: ‘A victory for the Constitution'

The Hill

time19 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Van Hollen on Abrego Garcia's return to US: ‘A victory for the Constitution'

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) celebrated the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported and detained in El Salvador's CECOT prison, calling it 'a victory' for the rule of law. The Trump administration doubled down on the deportation, accusing Abrego Garcia, who illegally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 2011 but was later protected from removal to his home country, of having gang ties. His legal team has denied these allegations and urged for his return to the U.S. On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi, after months of fighting against Abrego Garcia's return in court, announced that he was transported back to U.S. soil to face criminal charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 'This is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean … the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time and ignored a 9 to 0 order from the Supreme Court,' Van Hollen said during a Friday appearance on MSNBC. 'But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law,' he added. The Maryland lawmaker visited Abrego Garcia while he was detained overseas to check on his well being and champion his release from El Salvadoran custody, which White House officials originally said would never happen. Van Hollen on Friday said that the court battle Abrego Garcia will now face should have been launched prior to his removal. 'If they're now going to take this case into the courts, as they should have, you know, from the beginning, before they just took him off the streets of Maryland and deposited him in a gulag in El Salvador, then that is — that is the due process that we've been fighting for,' he said. 'And, again, not just for his case, but for others. And — and I think that Americans understand that everybody deserves to have their rights, you know, respected. That's what the Constitution is for.' Abrego Garcia's attorney said on Friday that the criminal case is just another attempt to persecute his client. 'This shows that they were playing games with the court all along. Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg previously told The Hill in a statement. 'The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things, 'to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,' as the Supreme Court ordered.'

Supreme Court gives DOGE access to millions of Americans' private Social Security data
Supreme Court gives DOGE access to millions of Americans' private Social Security data

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court gives DOGE access to millions of Americans' private Social Security data

The Brief The Supreme Court ruled DOGE can access personal data from the Social Security Administration. The case marks the first Supreme Court decision involving DOGE, once led by Elon Musk. The dissent warned the decision puts Americans' sensitive information at risk. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light for the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access one of the country's most sensitive databases — the Social Security Administration's internal systems — which hold information on nearly every American. The 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines, marks the first major Supreme Court ruling involving DOGE, the controversial agency once led by Elon Musk. The Court's majority reversed a lower court's order that limited DOGE's access under federal privacy law, siding with the administration's argument that the restrictions were hampering its anti-fraud mission. Liberal justices dissented, warning the decision erodes vital privacy protections. The backstory The Department of Government Efficiency — or DOGE — was established during President Trump's second term and tasked with rooting out government waste and inefficiency. Its first director was Elon Musk, who called the Social Security program a "Ponzi scheme" and repeatedly targeted it as a key source of fraud. Although Musk has since stepped away from DOGE, the department has continued aggressive efforts to audit and investigate various federal programs. Social Security has remained a top priority. The administration argued that unfettered access to the SSA's internal systems was essential to detect abuse, duplication, and improper payouts — particularly in disability and survivor benefits. Dig deeper The case originated in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander ruled that DOGE's demand for open access to Social Security data amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on limited evidence of wrongdoing. She blocked broad access but allowed DOGE staff with training and security clearance to view anonymized data, and permitted expanded access only if a specific need was documented. The Trump administration appealed, arguing the court was overstepping its role and interfering with executive branch operations. An appeals court upheld the partial block, but the Supreme Court has now lifted it entirely. Solicitor General John Sauer told the Court the restrictions "micromanaged" DOGE's work and undermined its mission. The other side Opponents of the ruling, including the plaintiffs represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, argue that the Social Security Administration contains deeply personal data: salary history, school records, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. They warned that handing this information to a politically driven agency without individualized review poses massive privacy risks. Labor unions and retiree groups joined the lawsuit, saying the system could be weaponized against vulnerable Americans. The dissenting justices agreed. "There is no meaningful check here on the breadth or use of the data," one wrote. "We risk turning privacy law into an empty promise." Why you should care This decision expands the Trump administration's ability to conduct sweeping audits across government agencies using personal data. While supporters frame it as a win for accountability and fraud reduction, critics say it weakens safeguards that prevent misuse of federal databases. It also sets a precedent for how much control the courts can — or cannot — exert over federal agency operations, a core issue as Trump's administration continues to consolidate executive power. What's next With the Supreme Court's backing, DOGE is expected to move quickly in analyzing Social Security data. Critics worry this could lead to mass denials of benefits or politically motivated reviews. Supporters say it could lead to cost-saving reforms. The agency, which has faced more than two dozen lawsuits, remains under scrutiny. Legal challenges are ongoing regarding its personnel decisions, data practices, and oversight authority. The Source This report is based on coverage from the Associated Press and court documents related to the Supreme Court decision in the DOGE v. Democracy Forward case. Additional background was gathered from statements by the U.S. Solicitor General, District Court Judge Ellen Hollander's original ruling, and legal filings from the plaintiff groups, including labor unions and the nonprofit Democracy Forward.

Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling
Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court turns away RNC challenge to Pennsylvania ballot ruling

The Supreme Court on Friday turned away the Republican National Committee's (RNC) bid to block Pennsylvania voters' in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot. The announcement was intended for Monday morning, but the court mistakenly released it early due to what a court spokesperson called an 'apparent software malfunction.' The order leaves in place a 4-3 ruling from Pennsylvania's top court that voters can still cast a vote at their polling place on Election Day if their mail-in ballot was rejected for technical reasons, despite a state law saying such votes 'shall not be counted' if the mail-in ballot was timely received. The additional option impacts thousands of voters each election cycle. The legal battle gained attention just ahead of the 2024 election, when President Trump narrowly beat former Vice President Kamala Harris in the key swing state and went on to retake the White House. Just before the election, the Supreme Court declined the RNC's request to intervene on an emergency basis. Now returning to the high court on its normal docket, the RNC urged the Supreme Court to use its case as a vehicle to more broadly restrict state courts' power over elections. Two years ago, the high court declined to endorse the maximalist version of the 'independent state legislature' theory, which would give state legislatures near-total control over setting federal election rules by preventing state courts from restraining their actions. However, the justices in that decision warned that courts may not 'arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures.' The justices have yet to adopt a specific test to measure when a court crosses that constitutional line, and the RNC cast its petition as a prime opportunity to do so. 'Failure to correct the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's indefensible distortion of the General Assembly's laws would effectively do just that by sending a strong message that judicial review under the Elections and Electors Clauses is illusory. The result would directly contravene the Constitution,' the RNC's attorneys at Jones Day wrote in the petition. The justices' refusal to take up the case comes months after the justices turned away a petition arising from Montana asking them to take up similar issues. The Pennsylvania case arose after Faith Genser and Frank Matis attempted to vote in the state's 2024 Democratic primary. Initially, the duo planned to vote by mail. But they mistakenly returned 'naked' ballots, meaning they didn't include a required secrecy envelope. With their votes invalid, Genser and Matis went to their polling place on the day of the primary election to cast provisional ballots. They sued after the Butler County elections board refused to count those ballots. The RNC's petition was joined by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Butler County Board of Elections. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store