Alameda Board of Supervisors offer rent to former racetrack employees
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesay to pay rent for families with children living at the RV Park at the Alameda County Fairgrounds.
Many residents are former employees of the racetrack, which ceased operations earlier this year.
The rent will only last through the rest of the school year.
ALAMEDA, Calif. - The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday to pay the rents of multiple families with children living at the RV Park at the Alameda County Fairgrounds.
Those families had until recently lived on subsidized rent due to their work with the stables and horses that participated in the races at the fairgrounds. However, the Fair Board of Directors voted at a closed session on Jan. 20 to end horse racing at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, and asked for the removal of the horses by March 25.
With the horses now gone, the families who had previously relied on the races for their income were left with few options. Many have children enrolled in Pleasanton Schools.
By the numbers
The exact amount the board will provide is currently unclear, but the county will be working with Centro Legal de la Raza to utilize emergency financial assistance funding through Housing and Community Development's Alameda County Housing Secure program to pay negotiated rents for families with children.
The goal is to provide funding for three months of rents, to get the recipients through the end of the school year, but the funding may come through one month at a time.
"We've been monitoring this situation for some time. We were happy the board made the decision to subsidize these rents so no one will be displaced and people can go on living their lives knowing they won't have to worry about rent for a couple months," Shawn Wilson, chief of staff for Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert, said.
The backstory
The Alameda County racetrack was the oldest one-mile track in the United States before it closed earlier this year.
The fairgrounds' stables and horse training facility closed on March 25. The County Fair Board reportedly wanted to revive the horse racing that had been hosted on the property for at least five generations, but money and regulatory issues prevented that from happening.
An assistant trainer at the time told KTVU that "at least 500 people" had lost their jobs as a result of the closure.
The Source
Shawn Wilson, Chief of Staff, Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Washington Post
Owners said a Texas RV park was safe. Then flooding killed 37 people.
INGRAM, Texas — In the fall of 2021, a real estate executive whose company was planning to upgrade an RV park along the Guadalupe River assured officials that guests would have time to flee in the event of a flood. People would stay 'as close as we can get to the river,' Minh Tran, a partner at HTR Investors, the company that had recently bought the park, told Ingram's City Council. 'I love water,' he said. 'A lot of RVers do.'
Yahoo
31-07-2025
- Yahoo
Phillips 66 hit with $800 million penalty in biofuel trade secrets case
By Nicole Jao NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. refiner Phillips 66 was ordered to pay biofuel maker Propel Fuels $800 million in damages for stealing trade secrets to build up its renewable-fuel capabilities, according to a California state court document. A state court in Alameda, California, on Wednesday ordered Phillips 66 to pay $195 million in punitive damages, in addition to $604.9 million in compensation the refiner was ordered to pay following a separate verdict. "In summary, the court finds that Phillips 66's misconduct was 'reprehensible' from a business perspective. The evidence at trial reflects that Phillips 66 took advantage of Propel Fuels by abusing its bargaining power during due diligence," the court order said. In October, a jury in the California court decided that Houston-based Phillips 66 stole trade secrets under the guise of gathering information for a potential acquisition and then used that information to create a competing business. "We received the order and continue to evaluate all our legal options," a Phillips 66 spokesperson said on Thursday. Sacramento-based Propel Fuels specializes in low-emissions gasoline and diesel fuel. According to the legal document, Phillips 66 approached Propel Fuels in 2017 about acquiring the company to enhance its renewable fuel business in California. Phillips 66 abruptly withdrew from the deal in 2018 and began selling its own renewable fuel in 2019. Propel Fuels sued the refiner in 2022, accusing Phillips of unlawfully using trade secrets, including financial data and business strategies, that the biofuel company had shared during their talks. "This is the result of years of perseverance by our client," said Michael Ng, lawyer at Kobre & Kim and co-counsel for Propel Fuels. "It was really important to them that they stand up, not just for themselves, but for innovators generally." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
30-07-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Alameda County adopts $1 billion plan to address homelessness after years of delay
More than four years after Alameda County voters narrowly approved a sales tax measure to address the area's growing homelessness crisis, the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday adopted a plan for allocating more than $1 billion over the coming years. The board's unanimous vote comes after a prolonged legal battle that, until recently, had prevented the county from spending any of the new tax revenue to address one of the region's most pressing issues. Alameda County's homeless population grew 18% from 2019 to 2024, when it reached an estimated 9,450 people, according to the latest homelessness census. Over that same five years, the number of people living unsheltered across the county, including in tents, vehicles and other makeshift shelters, nearly doubled from 1,710 to 3,107. Oakland is home to more than half of the county's homeless population. Supervisor Elisa Márquez said Wednesday that she was eager to support the county's spending plan for Measure W, but urged residents to demand more accountability from their local leaders as well. 'I need everyone here who has all that passion about Measure W funding to go back to your cities and ask them what they're doing,' Márquez said. 'Every city has to be part of the solution, and until that happens, we're going to continue to have this conversation.' Voters in November 2020 passed a 10-year, half-cent sales tax, known as Measure W, to fund housing and programs related to homelessness, behavioral health care, job training and other essential county services. Collection of the new tax began in July 2021, but the county was unable to spend any funds for several years due to a lawsuit filed by the Alameda County Taxpayers Association challenging the validity of the measure. In April, a judge sided with the county and finally enabled the county to begin releasing funds. The measure is projected to raise a total of more than $1.8 billion. The county has collected $810 million to date and anticipates an additional $1 billion in revenue through June 2031, when the sales tax expires. Of the funds raised to date, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors previously approved $350 million for capital acquisition, $30 million for 250 new interim housing units, $10 million for housing subsidies, $4.5 million for new staffing and $6.5 million food security and senior services. Under the plan approved Wednesday, they will also set aside $170 million of the existing funds raised for a reserve to protect against economic uncertainty and provide financial stability to any programs that might face federal or state funding cuts. Of the remaining $238.5 million previously accrued and funds raised by the tax moving forward, 80% will go toward the county's 'Home Together Fund.' That fund, which is expected to collect $136 million annually, will focus on preventing homelessness and increasing access to homeless shelters and housing. The new funds will mark a notable increase in the county's ability to address its homeless crisis as it currently spends about $219 million annually on services for its unhoused residents. The rest of the money will go into an 'essential county services fund,' which will help to maintain critical county infrastructure and programs related to food security, senior support and services for immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and other marginalized groups affected by federal policy changes and funding cuts. The county anticipates that the fund will receive about $34 million annually. For the second time in two weeks, dozens of residents and stakeholders came to a special board meeting to offer their feedback about the county's allocation plan. While many expressed their enthusiasm for the unprecedented influx of new funding, they also voiced concerns about several aspects of the proposal. Several questioned the need for a $170 million reserve while others advocated that 90% or more of the overall funds be dedicated for homeless services. A handful of speakers also opposed a $15 million emergency stabilization fund that officials planned to set up to help nonprofit affordable housing providers that were struggling financially due to eviction moratoriums put in place during the pandemic. 'Measure W should be used for what it was voted for — housing and homelessness services, mental health and support services,' said Carmen Jovel of the East Bay Community Law Center. Jovel added that it was 'alarming' that the county planned to use any funds from the measure to help landlords rather than those suffering from homelessness. Vivian Wan, executive director of the affordable housing nonprofit Abode Services, argued that the stabilization fund would assist the agency to serve more unhoused people. "We want to build more supportive housing. We want to help end the homelessness in this community, and we can't do so if we're not (financially) healthy,' she said. The Board of Supervisors did not make a decision on whether or how to move forward with the proposed $15 million emergency stabilization fund and instead punted it to a future meeting.
