Sarah Ravani, who covers Oakland for the San Francisco Chronicle, threw shade on mayoral candidate Seneca Scott yesterday, because Seneca, as a post-partisan politician, isn’t woke enough for her. Reporting on Ignacio de la Fuente’s announcement that he’s also running for Mayor, Ravani had this to say about Seneca: “Scott tried to sue the city over its encampment policy, arguing it wasn’t being adopted, even though the city had already implemented the policy.”
That “even though” was Ravani’s way of telling readers she thinks Seneca is an idiot. It’s the same as when journalists write that Trump still insists there was election fraud “even though” there’s no evidence of it.
Has “the city already implemented the policy”, as Ravani claims? They’ve now had almost two years to do so, but they clearly haven’t.
Decide for yourself. based on the facts. Here’s a link to the the Encampment Management Policy, which the City Council unanimously passed in October, 2020, and was to start on Jan. 1, 2021. Its express purpose, said the Council, “is to protect and serve all Oaklanders, sheltered and unsheltered, and to manage the adverse impacts of homeless encampments by balancing the interests of all residents (i.e. unhoused, housed, business community), focusing encampment actions on mitigating negative outcomes as they pertain to public safety, public health, and equity outcomes.”
Under the EMP, the city demanded that all “people living in RVs and in tents” be relocated to the old Oakland Army Base, as well as to “comparable areas across all seven Council districts to host encampments.” The policy specifically forbade encampments in “High-Sensitivity Areas,” such as “parks, particularly those with playground structures or tot lots, protected waterways, and other public lands.” In fact, the Council said, “Parks with playground structures or tot lots…shall be the City’s highest priority high-sensitivity areas.”
Other High-Sensitivity Areas included “sidewalks,” or places “within 150 feet of an elementary, middle, pre-school or child care center, and 100 feet from a high school…Within 50 feet of a protected waterway… Within 50 feet of a retail business, and 50 feet from the main entrance and any emergency exits from all other businesses…”. The EMP noted that “This intervention may include fully closing an encampment…to abate ongoing public safety and/or health hazards.” The policy said a lot of other things, but the ones I’ve outlined above constitute its core.
Now, ask yourself if these things have in fact happened. I’m obviously not familiar with every encampment in Oakland’s 78 square miles, but I am familiar with those in my neighborhood of Adams Point, as well as areas of Uptown and Downtown and, to some extent, Fruitvale. And I can tell you this: As for “parks,” Lakeside Park is still filled with tents, and so is Snow Park, where they are within feet of a tot’s playground. There are still tents and dumps on the estuary alongside Laney College, which is not only a protected waterway, but a bird sanctuary. There are still encampments along sidewalks (the ones beneath the 880 Freeway, toward Jack London Square, are particularly egregious examples) and, in the Fruitvale, whole blocks are inundated with them. And on and on. I’ve seen tents “within 50 feet of a retail business” and certainly within 50 feet of “emergency exits” from businesses. As for the EMP’s requirement to relocate encampments to the Oakland Army Base, it was a good idea, but City Administrator Ed Reiskin effectively killed it less than 2 weeks ago when he said the Base “is not suitable to house residents” because it is “contaminated.” That story was also reported by Sarah Ravani.
So Ravani’s shade on Seneca—the “even though” part—is an outright lie or, if that’s too strong a word, a serious misstatement of fact, from someone whose writing has influence on public opinion. The City of Oakland has not implemented the Encampment Management Policy. It may be moving the deck chairs on the Titanic around a little bit, but the ship is still sinking, and everybody knows it. Oh, and one additional example of Ravani’s shade-throwing: she wrote that Seneca “tried to sue the city,” the past-tense phrasing of which makes it sound like he lost. In actual fact, Seneca is suing the city. The case will be heard on August 18.
Ms. Ravani seriously owes Seneca multiple corrections, but I doubt she will, because neither she nor her editors care about inconvenient facts that conflict with their narrative.
Steve Heimoff