Counterpoint: Oakland prostitution enforcement and support services up for revisions
Charlene Wang's policy director responds to our article reporting on the councilmember's proposal to revise local laws concerning prostitution.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This commentary was written in response to our article, Oakland prostitution enforcement and support services up for revisions, published on January 26 with the subtitle, “Public safety committee proposal would shift enforcement focus away from sex workers and toward buyers of commercial sex, and create a new support fund for victims of sex trafficking.” We, the editors of Oakland Report welcome and appreciate the dialogue — and the author of this commentary’s willingness to offer their counterpoint.
BY BRIDGET RUIZ RIVEZZO
As the Public Safety Committee prepares to meet on January 27, 2026, to discuss proposed revisions to the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) regarding prostitution enforcement, it is crucial to clarify some of the surrounding narrative. This proposal is not a radical departure, but rather a necessary modernization of our local laws to protect our most vulnerable residents.
First and foremost, these amendments are about alignment and accountability. By updating the OMC to match the California state law AB 379 (the Survivor Support and Demand Reduction Act), Oakland is ensuring its local codes are consistent with broader efforts to combat exploitation. The “new” elements here are the targeted financial penalties. Instead of penalizing those being trafficked, the ordinance shifts the burden to where it belongs: on the buyers, traffickers, and nuisance businesses that facilitate this industry. The creation of a Human Trafficking Survivor Support Fund—funded directly by these fines—is a pragmatic way to ensure that those causing harm are the ones paying for the recovery and support of survivors and victims.
This shift is justified by the reality of who is driving this activity. “Councilmember Wang’s introduction of the ordinance states that ‘sex buyers’ are predominantly higher-income men who do not reflect the demographics of the East Oakland communities they frequent.” Oakland Police Department data further clarifies the impact on our city: 70% of those who come to purchase sex in East Oakland and perpetuate the commercial sexual exploitation of individuals—many of whom are minors—do not live in Oakland. This highlights a predatory pattern where non-residents compromise the well-being of our streets, leaving local families to deal with the fallout of their behavior.
Help us reach our goal of 10,000 subscribers
Secondly, concerns regarding how the Oakland Police Department (OPD) will identify “loitering with intent” should be viewed through the lens of their existing expertise. The OPD Vice Unit possesses deep, institutional knowledge of the specific behaviors and patterns that signal who is a sex purchaser and trafficker along International Boulevard. They are not guessing; they are identifying established “tracks” and documented criminal methods.
Furthermore, the Vice Unit has already been working closely with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office to successfully execute arrests under AB 379. This partnership has allowed the Vice Unit to develop specialized training for patrol officers, ensuring that those on the front lines are equipped to distinguish between legitimate activity and criminal solicitation. The ordinance does not invent new police tactics; it simply aligns itself with existing state law and provides the legal teeth for officers to apply their specialized training effectively.
See this related article:
As for the proposed revisions to levy civil penalties against property owners this not only represent a shift toward addressing demand but also the commercial infrastructure that sustains sexual exploitation.
1. Defining the Nuisance Under OMC 9.08.260
The strength of this ordinance lies in its adherence to the established legal definition of a public nuisance. As stated in the code, a nuisance includes anything:
“Injurious to health” or “indecent/offensive to the senses.”
An “obstruction to the free use of property” that interferes with the “comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community.”
When “gift shops” and “convenience stores” along International Boulevard dedicate a significant amount of their retail floor space to inventory specifically curated for the exploitation of others—and permit traffickers to use their premises as a base of operations (identified by OPD Vice Unit)—they are not merely businesses; they are contributors to a public nuisance. This behavior creates a hostile environment for local families, effectively obstructing their “comfortable enjoyment” of their own neighborhood. Levying civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day against property owners continues to shift the focus from hard toward repair and recovery.
The goal of Councilmember Wang’s proposal is to fund the Human Trafficking Survivor Support Fund using the proceeds of these fines, creating a direct transfer of wealth from those causing harm to those seeking an exit or working to survivor a victimized past. By matching state law and trusting the trained expertise of our officers, Oakland can more effectively disrupt the cycle of exploitation.
Sincerely,
Bridget Ruiz Rivezzo
Policy Director
Council Member Charlene Wang, District 2
City of Oakland
Contact the District 2 office
The views expressed in our Commentary section do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing authors.
DONATE TO SUPPORT OUR WORK
We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents through investigative reporting and evidence-based analysis of local issues.
Thank you.
As a former reporter at both the SF Examiner and SFChronicle who investigated prostitution in San Francisco, I can attest that the response by Bridget Ruiz Rivezzo is right on the money. The concern must be for the young victims of sex trafficking, and not to protect or shield the abusers. As she writes "Instead of penalizing those being trafficked, the ordinance shifts the burden to where it belongs: on the buyers, traffickers, and nuisance businesses that facilitate this industry." The bad guys in business and in their cars looking to abuse or profit off minor girls know who they are. Good for Oakland for taking this important step to protect the girls. (At one point, SF cops, with the help of nonprofits, started what they called a "John's School,'' requiring men who solicited to take a class in which they heard from the victims themselves -- and were schooled on the health issues like STDs that came w soliciting prostitution. It also appeared to be effective: one look at a genital warts slide, and a lot of the Johns said they were never coming back. Oakland might consider this also. CM