On August 28, I wrote about a new encampment that forced the little kids from St. Paul’s School from using their playground on the lawn of the Oakland Senior Center.
It was pretty sad. These kids had played there for many, many years, but sometime in the summer the first tent went up, then another, then another, until the lawn was a sprawling mess, and the private school had no choice but to keep the kids away for their own health and safety. I offered help from our Coalition to St. Paul’s director, but she declined, stating that the city told her they would do something about the situation, and she believed them.
And then, suddenly, a few days ago, I saw a garbage truck at the site loading stuff up, and an hour later, all the tents were gone! A success story, I thought: now the kids can use their playground again.
Then I noticed that the trees on the lawn had notices tacked up, in several languages. The one in English read:
NOTICE TO VACATE
ILLEGAL ENCAMPMENT
The Public Works Department has deemed this site uninhabitable and all persons are directed to vacate this site and remove any personal belongings
That made me wonder. What was it about the site that made it “uninhabitable”? Funny word. I usually think of “uninhabitable” as meaning a place that’s too unhealthy for humans to live. But there was nothing unhealthy about the Senior Center lawn—not unless you define all encampments as “uninhabitable.” In fact, just on the other side of the Senior Center, along Harrison Street, there’s been another encampment for at least a decade (and that one has sparked at least 6 fires). So why did the Public Works Department break up the one the kids played on?
I can’t tell you exactly what transpired between St. Paul’s School, the Senior Center administrative staff (who have never been happy with the camps) and the City of Oakland. But clearly something happened. Somebody with clout told Public Works to clear the site. Obviously, St. Paul’s School was upset by the loss of their playground; I know, too, that some of the parents were upset. Probably they complained. Perhaps Carroll Fife’s office got involved; maybe even the Mayor. At any rate, the City decided to get tough.
But there are scores of similar encampments across Oakland that remain open, even though in many instances they, too, cause inconvenience (or worse) for local residents. So my question is, How did Oakland come to declare the Senior Center lawn “uninhabitable” while allowing all the other sites to stay? Could it have been because the wealthy, mainly white parents at St. Paul’s School have more economic and political clout than, say, the people of color over in East Oakland, who have been unsuccessfully trying to get rid of their encampments for years?
Steve Heimoff