It’s unconscionable that Jewish Family & Community Services is hosting an “Oakland Mayoral Candidate Forum” that includes only three of the ten candidates: Sheng Thao, Loren Taylor and Treva Reid.
The Jewish vote is considerable in Oakland, especially in the Hills, and Jewish campaign contributions can be significant. Jews, of whom I am one, like to consider their candidates’ intellectual positions on the issues and qualifications for tackling them. I have to wonder who made this decision. And why. Is it because the three invited candidates all sit on the City Council? That already gives them an advantage in name recognition and fundraising. Jews, of all people, should be sensitive to issues of exclusion; historically we have sympathized with underdogs. I emailed JFCS and Temple Sinai, the co-sponsor, yesterday to ask them about this, but so far no one has replied.
When they invite only City Council members, it’s like they’re saying, “The other candidates don’t count.” That is discriminatory and wrong. Although the Coalition for a Better Oakland supports Seneca Scott, there are other fine candidates, including Greg Hodge and Ignacio de la Fuente. For JFCS to exclude them is a disservice to the people they claim to represent. It’s also an insult to their Jewish audience who will hear this panel on September 15. How can voters choose intelligently among candidates if they’re not permitted to hear from all of them?
* * *
Yesterday I was on my way back from shopping at Whole Foods, walking along Bay Place, when I heard the sound—familiar to most of us who live in Uptown/Downtown—of someone screaming and yelling. “Another crazy,” I thought, stopping to see who and where the latest drama was coming from.
It was a young woman. She was really angry at something no one else could see. She was standing in the middle of Bay Place, throwing torn-up pieces of newspapers into the air, her profanity-laced performance startling passersby. And given that she was in the middle of the road at the very busy approach to Grand Avenue, motorists were forced to swerve to avoid running her down.
And I thought, “How is MACRO supposed to deal with this?” The program was heavily touted by Sheng Thao the other day at KQED’s Mayor’s Panel. But really, would you have any idea whom to call in such a situation? And even if there was someone to call, how long would it be before they arrived? The crazy woman was on the move. In five minutes, at her current pace, she would no longer be around. Then I thought of Gov. Newsom’s CARE Court, which was passed by the Legislature yesterday.
I’m sure that much still needs to be worked out concerning the details, but here’s what I sincerely hope. That crazy woman clearly should not be out on the streets. She’s a danger to herself and everyone around her. Under CARE Court’s protocols, there’s a complicated process for detaining her and getting her into treatment. But, just as with MACRO, the devil’s in the details. How could I, a mere citizen with no connection to the woman, bring her to CARE Court’s attention? Answer: I couldn’t. Therefore, I’d have to assume that someone else—a family member, perhaps—would take the necessary steps to bring the woman into custody where she could receive medical treatment. But what if there’s no family member? Does the woman just stay out there in the streets, wandering around in delirium, waiting for a car to run her over? If we’re no longer allowed to call the cops to take care of this woman, then who you gonna call?
Count me in for MACRO and CARE Court. I wish both of them success. But count me in, also, for skepticism. Both are going to have to prove themselves in the real world, not just on paper.
Steve Heimoff