It’s worth noting, as we approach the fifth anniversary of Oakland’s Encampment Management Policy (EMP), that almost every element of that policy, which the City Council unanimously approved on Oct. 20, 2020, has never been implemented, or else has been interpreted by the City Council in such a way as to nullify it.
You might wonder why the City Council would draft a much-publicized policy, only to create circumstances that make its implementation impossible. Good question! Here’s the answer: In the Fall of 2020, anger and indignation over encampments, even in progressive Oakland, were mounting. Citizens everywhere, from the flatlands of the Fruitvale and West Oakland through Lake Merritt onto the flanks of the Hills, were shocked. Tents everywhere --overflowing with garbage - their inhabitants doing and dealing drugs and bipping cars – neighborhood stores closing forever – endangered citizens fleeing town – murders -- the people’s alarm was palpable. They called and emailed their City Council members to do something! These City Council members, people like Nikki Bas, Sheng Thao, Carroll Fife, Roberta Kaplan and the other woke guardians of “equity” and DEI (including Loren Taylor), never intended to do anything serious about the encampment problem. They liked the chaos and the mess, which--according to their reckoning—would reduce the cost of rent in Oakland so that their constituents could live here on the cheap. It was a noble impulse, in some respects, but proved disastrous. The politicians learned that you can’t kill a city without harming everyone in it, including your own people.
But the woke City Council, under intense pressure, had to do something, if only performatively. If they merely stood by, everyone in Oakland, including the progressives, would know that they didn’t give a damn about the voters. Quite the opposite: everybody would know that the City Council was intent on ruining Oakland, in the name of “equity.” So they crafted an Encampment Management Policy, which on its surface looked like a response to the situation, but in reality was a charade. The woke pols had no intention of actually enforcing the policy, so they passed it eagerly and cynically. It was a fraud from Day One.
The first stated goal of the EMP got right to the point: “to protect vulnerable tenants from losing the housing they have and stabilizing those most at risk of becoming homeless.” This meant crafting policies and practices designed to force rents as low as possible. No journalist asked the followup questions: If you cause rents to plunge, won’t home prices follow suit? And won’t that be a slippery slope on Oakland’s way to economic collapse?
The second item continued the woke agenda: “to shelter and rehouse households and improve health and safety on the street.” Again, this was greeted by the media as an example of Oakland’s compassion, but again, no one asked the followup questions: Do you propose to provide shelter and healthcare for every one of the thousands and thousands of homeless people in Oakland? For how long? How much will that cost, and where will the money come from?
Crickets.
In its third paragraph, the EMP noted, “affordable housing development strategies are not addressed in this particular policy.” Of course not: the socialist-communist gimmick always is to spend the money first, then figure out where to get it, which typically is through the imposition of confiscatory taxes. Of course, this being Oakland, the EMP then got to its racialized idée fixe: the policy “highlights the importance of developing an encampment policy through a race and equity lens, given the disproportionate impact of homelessness on African Americans in Oakland.” Once again, Oakland would craft its policies and laws toward the only constituency it cared about: “encampment residents who are disproportionately Black, Indigenous, and Persons of Color (BIPOC).”
This should have raised all kinds of red flags, but once again, a lapdog media simply accepted it without question. Was it constitutional to spend vast amounts of money to favor one group of people, at the expense of everyone else? Was it fair? Would anything be asked of the recipients of the city’s largesse, in return? Again, no answers were forthcoming. The City Council did gratuitously promise that “An equity impact analysis will be conducted in coordination with the City’s Department of Race and Equity (DRE) after the adoption and implementation of this policy to ensure the stated outcomes above are achieved and maintained.”
Was this “impact analysis” ever done? There’s no trace of it on DRE’s website. What there is, is a “timeline” of how long it would take: the department vowed to achieve all “the stated outcomes” within “10 years.” In the interim, its efforts would be “ongoing.” Well, ten years is a long time: it would take at least until 2032 for its promises to be met—and in 2022 it was hardly likely that by 2032 anyone would remember that the City Council, speaking through its Department of Race and Equity, once upon a time had promised anything. But then, that’s how Oakland government does things: promise light at the end of the tunnel, kick the can down the road, keep bureaucrats’ salaries flowing, make sure the unions keep paying their vigorish, and continue to con the poor people of Oakland into believing that you’re helping them when you’re plainly not.
So let’s have a birthday party for the Encampment Management Policy. Or, more truthfully, a funeral.
By the way – if you’re feed up with the grifting con known as the Negotiated Settlement Agreement run by that greedhead, Warshaw, please sign this petition to END THE NSA NOW!!!
Steve Heimoff