I was interviewed yesterday by a reporter from the Bay Area News Group, which publishes the Mercury News, East Bay Times and Marin Independent Journal. The reporter, Marisa Kendall, wanted to know what I think Oakland’s new Homeless Administrator, Daniel Cooper, should do. I had an easy answer: “Quit.”
I wasn’t trying to be a smart aleck. As I told Marisa, my remark was simply meant to express my opinion that Oakland doesn’t need a new homeless administrator. We already have an extensive network of bureaucrats and programs to address homelessness. This network has existed for years, even as Oakland has invested untold millions of dollars to “solve” homelessness. But what has the effect of all this herculean activity been? Homelessness is worse than ever, with no end in sight. Evidently, what Oakland is doing isn’t working, so why do more of the same? Hiring Mr. Cooper is just moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Then what would you do, Marisa asked. Simple, I replied. I support Carroll Fife’s idea to establish a large “homeless intervention site” on the old Oakland Army Base, where 1,000 homeless people would live on 22 acres at the western end of Grand Avenue. I have been suggesting this for years. After all, we own the land; it’s sitting idle; we can do whatever we want with it.
Fife’s plan was light on details, but in my vision, I see a full range of services offered to these people, including medical, psychological, plumbing, heat, transportation as needed, job training and security. I explained to Marisa that, in my plan, homeless individuals who were offered the opportunity to dwell at the Army Base would not be allowed to refuse. The advantages of such a site, where all services could be centralized and coordinated, would be laid out to them, but in all probability some would prefer to remain where they are. These individuals would be forcibly removed. What’s the point of creating alternative dwelling sites for homeless people if they’re allowed to remain on our streets and in our parks?
I hope Marisa will publish my remarks accurately. You never know with reporters. Having been one for the majority of my working life, I’m aware of how a journalist can get her facts and quotes wrong. Either through incompetence or on purpose, a reporter can selectively choose quotes out of context, or even falsify them, in order to drive home her agenda. I trust this isn’t the case with Marisa.
Back to the Army Base. Why would we not take advantage of Fife’s proposal? Granted, City Administrator Ed Reiskin has pointed out challenges to the site: he estimated it would cost $22.5 million a year to operate, and also that the site is contaminated. But both of these objections can be dealt with. For one, $22.5 million annually doesn’t seem that much to me, given how much money has poured into Oakland to address homelessness, from both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. For example, in the past year Oakland received $42 million in state funds, money it used to create 628 beds. That’s out of a total of more than 5,000 people who are homeless in Oakland. That’s about $67,000 per bed, a ridiculous waste of money. And that $42 million is only a small part of all the money Oakland is raking in for homelessness. Why not spend $22.5 million to develop the Army Base?
As for the site’s contamination, I’d like to see a professional discussion of exactly what the problem is. Even if the site does contain lead, kerosene, etc., how dangerous is it really? Aren’t there mitigations, short of a complete, expensive and time-consuming cleansing of the soil, that could minimize the health risks? I don’t want to fall into the rabbit hole of the science of environmental cleanup, but we need a much greater understanding than we’re getting from Reiskin. We have an emergency now, and also an opportunity to alleviate it. Surely this is worth a conversation.
Steve Heimoff