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

Here's why advocates doubt the Supreme Court will revisit marriage equality
Here's why advocates doubt the Supreme Court will revisit marriage equality

Axios

time6 hours ago

  • Axios

Here's why advocates doubt the Supreme Court will revisit marriage equality

The first challenge to same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court enshrined the right a decade ago comes before a very different mix of justices, LGBTQ+ advocates said. The big picture: Legal experts believe the court is highly unlikely to hear the case because unwinding protections for same-sex marriage after so many years would be incredibly complicated. The request challenges the landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which established that marriage equality is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Catch up quick: Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, is asking the Supreme Court to appeal an order that requires her to pay $360,000 to a gay couple in damages and fees for refusing to issue them a marriage license in 2015. Davis has been unsuccessfully appealing the order for years, and lower courts have repeatedly rejected her arguments. In a news release announcing the petition, an attorney representing Davis called Obergefell an "egregious opinion" that violated his clients "religious liberty." What they're saying: Mary Bonauto, one of the attorneys who represented lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, told Axios that Davis' case is "extremely narrow" and that she's "attempting to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate" the landmark case. "There's good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families and the larger society as marriage equality," she said. The intrigue: Shannon Minter, a spokesperson for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Axios that the Supreme Court "has shown an alarming willingness" to "reverse long-standing precedent" in recent years. He named the court's decision to reverse the right to abortion access enshrined in Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision, and gutting legislation that sought to equalize historic discrimination against people of color such as the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action policies. He also mentioned the court imposing new restrictions on the power of lower courts to unilaterally freeze nationwide policies through "universal" injunctions in a case related to President Trump's efforts to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship. Flashback: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in 2022 that the high court should reconsider multiple previous opinions, including those that offer protections to same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives. Despite the unpredictability of the Supreme Court, here's why LGBTQ+ advocates aren't worried about marriage equality being reversed: What are the legal implications of trying to reverse marriage equality? Overruling Obergefell could potentially make someone's marital status apply in one state but not in another. Multiple experts said that would create a patchwork of problems for tax laws, insurance policies and legal custody over children. Robbie Kaplan's successful arguments to the Supreme Court in 2013 laid down the foundation for Obergefell. "It's hard to imagine a situation where the reliance interests are more consequential than in the case of nationwide marriage equality," Kaplan told Axios. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan continued. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Do Americans support marriage equality? Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which federally defined marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." At the time, 68% of Americans said they did not support marriage equality, according to a poll Gallup conducted in 1996. Stunning stat: Ten years after Obergefell, attitudes about marriage equality have flipped, as 68% of Americans now support it, according to Gallup's most recent numbers. What other protections exist for same-sex marriages? The Respect For Marriage Act passed by Congress in 2022, codifying the right to same-sex and interracial marriages is seen as a safety net for LGBTQ+ protections. The legislation also repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. Yes, but: The Respect For Marriage Act doesn't prohibit individual states from limiting or banning same-sex marriage if Obergefell were struck down. What's next: SCOTUS will decide if it wants to take up the case this fall. Approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed with the court each year, and the justices hear oral arguments in about 80 cases, according to the court's website. The bottom line:"None of us can predict what the court will do," Suzanne Goldberg, Director of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic at Columbia Law told Axios.

Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC

New York Post

time7 hours ago

  • New York Post

Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC

Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.

Texas AG asks judge to arrest Beto O'Rourke for redistricting battle fundraising
Texas AG asks judge to arrest Beto O'Rourke for redistricting battle fundraising

USA Today

time7 hours ago

  • USA Today

Texas AG asks judge to arrest Beto O'Rourke for redistricting battle fundraising

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to jail Beto O'Rourke, claiming the former Democratic congressman violated a court order by fundraising to support the dozens of state Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state amid its redistricting battle. The attorney general's request builds on a previous order, granted by a Texas county judge earlier this month, barring O'Rourke and his nonprofit, Powered by People, from raising money to help fund the Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state more than a week ago. Paxton claimed in his filing to the Tarrant County court on Aug. 12 that O'Rourke violated the fundraising block by soliciting donations through the Democrats' ActBlue platform. "He's about to find out that running your mouth and ignoring the rule of law has consequences in Texas," Paxton said in a statement released alongside the filing. "It's time to lock him up." Paxton's move is the latest in growing escalations between Democrats and Republicans in the Lone Star state, as the standoff over GOP attempts to redraw congressional boundaries in Texas. The redistricting attempt could add another five Republican seats to Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and is seen as blatant gerrymandering efforts by Democrats. In response, Democrats decamped the state en masse, many taking refuge in blue-led states like Illinois and New York, to prevent the vote from taking place in Austin, Texas, where the Republicans' firm majority would all but guarantee the revised maps pass. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the arrest of the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have fled while Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to oust them from office over their absence, arguing they abandoned their seats. Texas redistricting: Which states have threatened to redraw their own maps in response to Texas GOP plans? In the first sentence of the court filing, Paxton quoted the former congressman at an Aug. 9 Fort Worth event saying: "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules," claiming O'Rourke was "disparaging' the previous court order. In response, O'Rourke posted the full clip of his speech at the event to X, saying that Paxton took his words out of context in the filing. In the full recorded video of the speech, O'Rourke is speaking about the Democrats' attempts to put forward their own revised maps in states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois, telling the crowd that blue states should redistrict now and "not wait for Texas to move first." "You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules,'" O'Rourke says immediately after speaking about the Democrats' redistricting efforts. "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules, we are going to win. Whatever it takes, we are going to take this to them in every way that we can." O'Rourke said in his post on X on Aug. 12 that the attorney general's office lied in its filing. "We're seeking maximum sanctions in response to his abuse of office," he said. "Taking the fight directly to this corrupt, lying thug." Along with jail time, the attorney general is also requesting O'Rourke be held in contempt and fined $500. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store