A commentary on the abusive relationship between Oakland City Hall and Oakland voters: on leadership, crime, services, encampments, politics and accountability.
I agree with most of what you have stated. The battered voter syndrome is interesting, but I think maybe misses on a few points, IMO. Oakland loves to stand on their history, being a town of activism and protest. This permeates every facet of policy in Oakland. Everything is wrapped in progressivism with no rational thought to how far we have progressed, and is it too far? We have the city's major unions and SEIU dumping thousands of dollars into radical candidates who promise more to the unions (behind closed doors) and run on niche policies. No one runs on competence. No one in Oakland's elected government is ever asked about how much money (taxes) they spend and on what. Does MACRO meet any statistical level of success? Do the various NGOs operating on City grant money showing success? Why are Unions still demanding to work from home, depriving the City residents the services they pay for.
When I hear people complain about some billionaire buying elections, I wonder why SEIU and other major unions are not tossed in with that thought.
Oakland's cancer is their misplaced belief that more progressive policies will fix what is wrong. Until the voters demand more from elected leadership, Oakland will continue to slowly die.
I truly enjoy Gotham Oakland. I can’t say I always agree with the Mr. Scott’s perspective, but it is always a perspective that causes me some discomfort when in my comfort zone. I write this comment as a free American citizen, but I have a job that involves leadership and transportation for the city. I draw on some of that experience, but I speak for myself, an Oakland resident. I am not born and raised in Oakland, but I am a resident according to the US Constitution.
Shortly after Mayor Thao issued her executive order to ramp up encampment sweeps, I had some events that sharpened my perspective on this issue.
I was directed by a high ranking city official to be more aggressive with the sweeps. Many don’t understand the nuance when it comes to towing vehicles in Oakland. My team tows abandoned autos (think no people inside the vehicle). Specifically, I was told that my team of parking control technicians “need to start knocking on RV doors and telling the mother f&ckers inside to get out.” I refused to put my people in danger like that. We developed a department policy that a vehicle with a person living in it was a “vehicle encampment.” That proved to be a critical decision in how auto encampments are addressed by the city. My team deals with steel, not people.
During that time, I asked the question, “Where are they supposed to go?” Let’s say we do yank the “mother f&ckers” out of their RVs and leave them standing on the side of the road. What is next? Where are they supposed to go?
Around that same time, Mr. Scott posted an episode of Gotham Oakland, and he was rightly quite critical of the executive order. He even asked, “Where are they supposed to go?” OK. I wasn’t alone. Two people had the same question - Seneca and me. We might both be crazy, but we had the same question.
Within a few weeks, I received a call from a pastor at a local church who asked me to pay a visit. I like to get out to see things firsthand. What did I see? I saw an RV parked adjacent to a church (and across the street from an elementary school) with a “business” name spray painted on the side of the RV - The Boom Boom Room. This RV was clearly operating as a brothel and needed to move ASAP.
One size doesn’t fit all.
I would encourage everyone to read the current encampment management plan. The current policy is silent on vehicle encampments. My department policy seems to have forced the issue, and it’s an issue that needed to be addressed. What do we do when an RV can be a home, a meth kitchen, a chop shop, or a brothel? It’s a complex situation.
Please also read the sections about high sensitivity zones and low sensitivity zones. The theory is that encampments can exist in low sensitivity zones as long as certain conditions are met. This is an important point that we will get back to later. This point is also at the heart of any encampment strategy. It’s important to understand.
Lastly, read Council Member Houston’s Encampment Abatement Policy. For anyone who has been paying attention, CM Houston and I won’t be going to a ballgame together any time soon, but I appreciate that he is trying to add specificity and clarity to the policy, especially in an area where the current policy is silent - RV/auto encampments.
Please read CM Houston’s draft EAP. I’m not going to make any comments. Read it for yourself. Make your own judgement. Don’t listen to what your friend tells you about it. Don’t listen to what you hear on social media. Read it. Pay extra attention to low sensitivity and high sensitivity. This is the crux of the issue.
Let’s get back to the Sheng Thao executive order sweeps. I do have a few comments here:
- the sweeps have been a failure; other cities seem to be able to sweep people out of town; Oakland moves them to another part of town
- there is no definition of success; the executive order was literally just a do something to do something initiative; there is no definition of success; there are no operational metrics to measure effectiveness; it is literally chaos
- my team has mapped low sensitivity and high sensitivity areas according to current policy; it’s worth looking at; 95% of Oakland is high sensitivity; pay close attention to the low sensitivity areas as that’s important for EAP (spoiler alert….the low sensitivity areas are mostly in D6, D7); let me say that again; if we relocate people from high sensitivity to low sensitivity, we are moving them to D6/D7; look at the map; judge for yourself.
- the current executive order sweeps moved people from LOW sensitivity to HIGH sensitivity.; we moved people the wrong direction; we moved them from mostly industrial areas to residential and commercial areas; we also drove them deeper to the east
Let’s say we shift from the current position that an RV/auto with a person in it is an encampment (my policy definition) to the opposite position that an RV/auto with a person in it is just an RV/auto.
Let’s also say we have the OPD resources to immediately sweep every RV and auto encampment. Let’s get all the tents and shanties too. The right of way has been totally cleared.
What have we not addressed? PEOPLE. Where are they supposed to go?
This is a timely and critical question for me. Yesterday, my son and I had to dodge an individual smoking meth at our bus stop. There was no tent, auto, or RV - just a sleeping bag. After we get off the bus, we navigate daily puddles of human urine and now have a gentleman who sleeps in the ADA ramp on Franklin/11th. He uses a backpack for a pillow - not even a sleeping bag.
I believe we actually need two plans. Let’s debate this EAP. It might be the right position on RVs and autos. It certainly has more merit than the empty, fraudulent ethics complaint the council member submitted against me.
Let’s also develop a plan for supporting the people the EAP is going to leave wandering the streets of Oakland like an episode of the Walking Dead.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment—and I agree with you on the core question: Where are they supposed to go? That question has to be answered if we want real solutions instead of political theater.
This is exactly where Measure W funding should come into play. The county needs to step up with real capacity and real solutions. That means in-patient housing with wraparound services for people who are struggling with addiction, severe mental illness, or both. It also means the state needs to be part of the planning, because this problem is far bigger than any single city.
At the same time, we have to be honest about enforcement. We need clear and consistent enforcement of public camping laws and open-air drug use, because the current approach simply allows the problem to grow while making our streets less safe for everyone—including the people living in these conditions.
Another key piece is sensible triage of supportive housing. Not everyone on the street is ready for permanent supportive housing yet. When we put people into those units who are not ready, it often fails—and that wastes enormous amounts of money while making the crisis worse. Supportive housing should go to people who are ready to stabilize, while others need treatment-first options.
Right now we’re doing the opposite. We spend huge sums of money while simultaneously exacerbating the problem and destroying public value in the process.
Which raises another question: what happened to CARE Court? Programs like that were supposed to create a pathway into treatment and accountability. Instead, we continue to drift between half-measures and political messaging.
The gritty policies need to stop. What Oakland needs now are honest, effective solutions that balance compassion with accountability—for the sake of the people suffering on the streets and for the communities living around them.
I agree with your comment. I’d like to see/develop some sort of care/housing process flow for the people living on the streets. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I have gained a significant quantity of firsthand experience over the last two years.
I have observed three general categories of people in RVs/autos - working poor, addicted/mentally ill, criminals. For the working poor, I have no personal objection to RVs using low sensitivity areas, but the sewer tanks need to function and adjacent clutter needs to be limited. I’m no expert in the field of addiction and mental illness. OPD is trained to handle the criminals.
I believe there is also a difficult conversation that needs to occur in order to reach real solutions. When you look at Oakland, we don’t have the physical space, the physical acreage, to create support villages - tiny homes, RVs, tents, etc. However, Alameda County does have the space.
There is currently an imbalance in the where the unhoused are physically located. A disproportionate share are located in Oakland. A policy which says that those who are unhoused in Oakland must be sustained/managed in Oakland is not a real solution.
My new question is - if we needed to house 25 people, what would we do? Let’s do it. There will no doubt be multiple steps between living on the streets and living in permanent supportive housing. What are they? Let’s develop a comprehensive process.
This is a math problem. What would we do for 25 people? What would we do for two groups of 25 people? What would we do for 25 groups of 25 people? What would we do for the one person smoking meth at the bus stop on 2nd Street. Let’s address the “what” and then figure out how to scale.
Any solution will need to be distributed throughout the county, which seems to contradict post-WWII history that has attempted to confine issues related to “poverty” to the city limits of Oakland. This isn’t new. Eight decades of land use policy has designated Oakland as the wasteland.
It seems most people agree the current approach isn’t working. Let’s start from a point of agreement and develop real solutions. Lastly, what should we measure? How do we define success? I’ve struggled with that one.
isn't the Strong Mayor-Council or Council-Manager/Hybrid supposed to make a difference? in Best and worst cities at https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869 the top 20 were as follows, so I really have no clue which is better, and if the issue is the underlying culture of the staff of the city, this won't matter: Strong Mayor-Council: Provo, Nampa ID, Boise, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville, Lincoln, Manchester, Missoula, Nashua, Sioux Falls
Council-Manager/Hybrid: Chesapeake, Columbus, Dover, Durham, Las Cruces, Mesa, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Virginia Beach, Warwick
Oakland was the 3rd worst at #146 of 148 USA cities.
I prefer solid, concrete goals that are measured. How many homeowners in the Oakland hills didn't pass the fire inspections, and did the city come in to do the necessary work and collect the fee from the homeowner? That was supposed to have been fixed 10 years ago, but I bet it hasn't. Or the people caught dumping trash, they don't pay the fines. When Oakland burns down next time, there goes a huge percent of property taxes to fund Oakland. And no chance of fixing homelessness and all the other problems. If not that, Trump's disastrous invasion of Iran stands a good chance of causing a major recession and cities having less money or even going bankrupt.
Okay, money is found. The city puts up hundreds of digital billboards in scenic areas.
So what? Are the sewer staff getting the clay pipes that cause underground leaks into Lake Temescal, Lake Merritt, and water drains getting fixed at whatever goals were set? Potholes fixed?
It seems like city planners and other experts know how things should be done, the rock bottom issue is reforming city services, with less provided per capita than 145 other cities. More auditors? They already aren't doing their jobs. Can we hire security guards since police are so damned expensive?
I lived in West Oakland (16th at Filbert) the first 26 years of my life. Still in the Bay Area, but Oakland will always have a soft spot in my heart.
I am so disheartened to see where it is today. I was hopeful after Sheng Thao was recalled that Oakland would get a good person in there. My soul died when Barbara Lee was elected.😩
However, I will never give up on Oakland, as I still have family there.
I’m really glad that someone like Seneca Scott is fighting for the soul of Oakland. For some accountability. Thank you!
Thanks Seneca and Oakland Report. You are right it is time to stop the battered voter syndrome. This is why I am running for Oakland Mayor in 2026. We need leadership for Oakland that has a vision for rebuilding the city from top to bottom. No more piece meal solutions. I offer Oakland my leadership to do this. I will give my fellow Oaklanders a vision of future they can both believe in and be part of. I will be coming out with more debth on my website on what I will be doing. Keep doing your great reporting and providing a place for us to have this dialogue. Take care, Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026. electmindy.com
These items clarified by S.Scott have at least put a spotlight on issues that voters seem to have no say in how and when they can be resolved. Now for the purposes of national readership of the article we need to clearly state areas in Oakland by the use of either zipcodes or names. Persons for example in Arizona who peruse the commentary need to know that terms such as *flatlands* and *bottoms* are not referring to either human anatomy or farmlands.
Now here I will state what appears to me to be of the most outstanding hurdles to seeing unhoused persons placed into both transitional and permanent residences : affordability, viable treatment facilities, programs, and job training resources. Yes. There must be enforcement of open air drug trafficking as well. It can no longer be mildly tolerated. However ! Having a council that seemingly incessantly green lights permits to greedy developer investors who do not know, understand or even like Oakland is in itself criminal. Stop encouraging these characters to build on every postage stamp corner in town. Encourage them instead to build where there actually IS space for it : Concord, Pleasanton, Livermore, etc.
We have had more than our share of this maniacal building mania. No one can afford these cheaply constructed over priced nonsense cubby holes.. So does the city expect that unhoused persons line up like cattle for a *lucky winner* lottery to obtain a room with a toilet and a hotplate ? Or a tiny studio ?..Many of persons who now dwell in tents, formerly HAD a place of their own. Many were displaced by being bribed with $5000 to move out so their home could be turned into a luxury condo.
And make no mistake, all those ridiculous images you see all over downtown in windows, murals, etc...of happy looking African Americans, .. where are the people ?...Council has pushed so many people out due to utterly ridiculous rents. So these artworks are just for show. Meanwhile, the very people supposedly represented in these artworks are pushed to the edges on a daily basis just to maintain and get by in our city. We can no longer afford to mimic Manhattan here. It has come to this. Oakland was a place where everyone could afford to live here prior to 2009 or so. But no, that wasn't quite good enough for those in council seats wanting to make backroom deals with unscrupulous developer groups and investment outsiders.
So where does the city intend to house even homeless who are not engaging in criminal activity ? Please..let us know. Inquiring minds are listening..
This is an excerpt from my show, Gotham Oakland, a political variety show whose cornerstone is political humor—think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, or SNL. Would you extend that same criticism to your favorite political humorist when they make a joke about someone you dislike in politics? Few people would. Your comment is noted, but it does come across as a bit biased.
Do you say the same about Gavin with his constant mimicking of Trump? Barack Obama (his vicious takedown of Trump at a white house correspondents dinner led to Trump running). My guess is….you don’t.
I’m positive as long as the person being ridiculed is someone you don’t like, it’s fine with you. “El Presidente” gives you away. That’s literally you doing the same thing. Thanks for sharing so everyone here knows how blatantly hypocritical you are!
How do you explain your mockery of the president with “El Presidente”? Isn’t that a joke? An attempt at humor?
Or does satire only become offensive when someone you dislike is the target?
You expect me to believe that you’ve never once laughed at political satire? Please. No serious person believes that. George Carlin built an entire career on it. Saturday Night Live has done it for fifty years. Every late-night host does it nightly.
But somehow, when I do it, suddenly we’re supposed to pretend satire is a moral crime.
What’s really interesting is this: you seem far more outraged by ridicule than by the corruption, incompetence, and destruction happening in this city. That tells me a lot about your priorities.
And while we’re at it—I’ve never once seen you defend me when the people in power spread lies and smears about my work exposing that corruption. Not once. Yet somehow you find the time to clutch your pearls over a joke.
Miss me with the performative outrage.
Let’s also remember something Saul Alinsky wrote in his famous rules for political activism:
Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
There’s a reason for that. It’s difficult to defend against. It irritates people. And it exposes hypocrisy very quickly.
Which brings us back to you.
For the third time now, your use of “El Presidente” already proves you understand exactly how satire works. You’re using the same device you’re pretending to condemn. That’s what makes the outrage so obviously fake.
And then there’s Barbara "Blah Blah" Lee—she talks too much with word salads and little substance. That’s a perfectly legitimate criticism. It’s politics. It’s debate. It’s commentary.
Unless, apparently, I say it.
What I’ve learned is that many people today simply cannot engage intellectually. They prefer moral posturing to actual argument. I can do both—satire and substance.
If you want a formal debate, I’m happy to have one. But strangely, the people complaining the loudest are never interested when that offer is on the table.
You’re entitled to your opinion, however misguided it may be. Just understand one thing:
“Where are they supposed to go,” is the recurring refrain.
Alameda county has 101,000 acres of space open to the public. How about get off the sidewalk and camp in the woods? A little out of the way for needle exchange, but plenty of fresh air.
I had been trying to figure out what the deal is with Oakland Report.
In this particular case, I was puzzled because, up front, no mention of the author. I read through the issue anyway, noticing that the author was very self-centered. Like he thinks that we want to know his innermost thoughts.
Finally, at the end, saw that the author was none other than Mr. Scott. That explained everything. If the Oakland Report is a mouthpiece for Mr. Scott, they should just say so, rather than hiding the ball.
Thank you for your comment. Oakland Report is an independent charitable nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, and is not affiliated with any of our individual contributors.
Our mission is to provide reasoned, evidence-based reporting and analysis on local government issues, focused on observable and verifiable evidence free from implicit bias.
We seek integrity, accessibility, and quality in the articles we publish. We seek truth.
Our guiding principles:
- Present the facts and evidence and let the reader judge for themselves.
- Focus on what people and organizations do, not what they say.
- Always remain open to examining and questioning our own biases.
We don’t expect everyone to agree with everything that we publish, but we do expect that the articles are grounded in verifiable evidence and logic so that all observations and conclusions may be rationally challenged.
We welcome counterpoint commentaries from other leading voices in Oakland. Please visit our About page for more information.
The author is mentioned at the front of the article. Yet, as usual, you avoid engaging with the substance of the argument itself. Instead, you retreat into personal attacks and smears. It’s an intellectually lazy maneuver—one that substitutes indignation for thought and character assassination for debate.
I agree with most of what you have stated. The battered voter syndrome is interesting, but I think maybe misses on a few points, IMO. Oakland loves to stand on their history, being a town of activism and protest. This permeates every facet of policy in Oakland. Everything is wrapped in progressivism with no rational thought to how far we have progressed, and is it too far? We have the city's major unions and SEIU dumping thousands of dollars into radical candidates who promise more to the unions (behind closed doors) and run on niche policies. No one runs on competence. No one in Oakland's elected government is ever asked about how much money (taxes) they spend and on what. Does MACRO meet any statistical level of success? Do the various NGOs operating on City grant money showing success? Why are Unions still demanding to work from home, depriving the City residents the services they pay for.
When I hear people complain about some billionaire buying elections, I wonder why SEIU and other major unions are not tossed in with that thought.
Oakland's cancer is their misplaced belief that more progressive policies will fix what is wrong. Until the voters demand more from elected leadership, Oakland will continue to slowly die.
That "cancer" as you aptly describe it, actually reinforces my core argument, IMO. Thanks for commenting!
I truly enjoy Gotham Oakland. I can’t say I always agree with the Mr. Scott’s perspective, but it is always a perspective that causes me some discomfort when in my comfort zone. I write this comment as a free American citizen, but I have a job that involves leadership and transportation for the city. I draw on some of that experience, but I speak for myself, an Oakland resident. I am not born and raised in Oakland, but I am a resident according to the US Constitution.
Shortly after Mayor Thao issued her executive order to ramp up encampment sweeps, I had some events that sharpened my perspective on this issue.
I was directed by a high ranking city official to be more aggressive with the sweeps. Many don’t understand the nuance when it comes to towing vehicles in Oakland. My team tows abandoned autos (think no people inside the vehicle). Specifically, I was told that my team of parking control technicians “need to start knocking on RV doors and telling the mother f&ckers inside to get out.” I refused to put my people in danger like that. We developed a department policy that a vehicle with a person living in it was a “vehicle encampment.” That proved to be a critical decision in how auto encampments are addressed by the city. My team deals with steel, not people.
During that time, I asked the question, “Where are they supposed to go?” Let’s say we do yank the “mother f&ckers” out of their RVs and leave them standing on the side of the road. What is next? Where are they supposed to go?
Around that same time, Mr. Scott posted an episode of Gotham Oakland, and he was rightly quite critical of the executive order. He even asked, “Where are they supposed to go?” OK. I wasn’t alone. Two people had the same question - Seneca and me. We might both be crazy, but we had the same question.
Within a few weeks, I received a call from a pastor at a local church who asked me to pay a visit. I like to get out to see things firsthand. What did I see? I saw an RV parked adjacent to a church (and across the street from an elementary school) with a “business” name spray painted on the side of the RV - The Boom Boom Room. This RV was clearly operating as a brothel and needed to move ASAP.
One size doesn’t fit all.
I would encourage everyone to read the current encampment management plan. The current policy is silent on vehicle encampments. My department policy seems to have forced the issue, and it’s an issue that needed to be addressed. What do we do when an RV can be a home, a meth kitchen, a chop shop, or a brothel? It’s a complex situation.
Please also read the sections about high sensitivity zones and low sensitivity zones. The theory is that encampments can exist in low sensitivity zones as long as certain conditions are met. This is an important point that we will get back to later. This point is also at the heart of any encampment strategy. It’s important to understand.
Lastly, read Council Member Houston’s Encampment Abatement Policy. For anyone who has been paying attention, CM Houston and I won’t be going to a ballgame together any time soon, but I appreciate that he is trying to add specificity and clarity to the policy, especially in an area where the current policy is silent - RV/auto encampments.
Please read CM Houston’s draft EAP. I’m not going to make any comments. Read it for yourself. Make your own judgement. Don’t listen to what your friend tells you about it. Don’t listen to what you hear on social media. Read it. Pay extra attention to low sensitivity and high sensitivity. This is the crux of the issue.
Let’s get back to the Sheng Thao executive order sweeps. I do have a few comments here:
- the sweeps have been a failure; other cities seem to be able to sweep people out of town; Oakland moves them to another part of town
- there is no definition of success; the executive order was literally just a do something to do something initiative; there is no definition of success; there are no operational metrics to measure effectiveness; it is literally chaos
- my team has mapped low sensitivity and high sensitivity areas according to current policy; it’s worth looking at; 95% of Oakland is high sensitivity; pay close attention to the low sensitivity areas as that’s important for EAP (spoiler alert….the low sensitivity areas are mostly in D6, D7); let me say that again; if we relocate people from high sensitivity to low sensitivity, we are moving them to D6/D7; look at the map; judge for yourself.
- the current executive order sweeps moved people from LOW sensitivity to HIGH sensitivity.; we moved people the wrong direction; we moved them from mostly industrial areas to residential and commercial areas; we also drove them deeper to the east
Let’s say we shift from the current position that an RV/auto with a person in it is an encampment (my policy definition) to the opposite position that an RV/auto with a person in it is just an RV/auto.
Let’s also say we have the OPD resources to immediately sweep every RV and auto encampment. Let’s get all the tents and shanties too. The right of way has been totally cleared.
What have we not addressed? PEOPLE. Where are they supposed to go?
This is a timely and critical question for me. Yesterday, my son and I had to dodge an individual smoking meth at our bus stop. There was no tent, auto, or RV - just a sleeping bag. After we get off the bus, we navigate daily puddles of human urine and now have a gentleman who sleeps in the ADA ramp on Franklin/11th. He uses a backpack for a pillow - not even a sleeping bag.
I believe we actually need two plans. Let’s debate this EAP. It might be the right position on RVs and autos. It certainly has more merit than the empty, fraudulent ethics complaint the council member submitted against me.
Let’s also develop a plan for supporting the people the EAP is going to leave wandering the streets of Oakland like an episode of the Walking Dead.
Where are they supposed to go?
Hi Josh,
I appreciate the thoughtful comment—and I agree with you on the core question: Where are they supposed to go? That question has to be answered if we want real solutions instead of political theater.
This is exactly where Measure W funding should come into play. The county needs to step up with real capacity and real solutions. That means in-patient housing with wraparound services for people who are struggling with addiction, severe mental illness, or both. It also means the state needs to be part of the planning, because this problem is far bigger than any single city.
At the same time, we have to be honest about enforcement. We need clear and consistent enforcement of public camping laws and open-air drug use, because the current approach simply allows the problem to grow while making our streets less safe for everyone—including the people living in these conditions.
Another key piece is sensible triage of supportive housing. Not everyone on the street is ready for permanent supportive housing yet. When we put people into those units who are not ready, it often fails—and that wastes enormous amounts of money while making the crisis worse. Supportive housing should go to people who are ready to stabilize, while others need treatment-first options.
Right now we’re doing the opposite. We spend huge sums of money while simultaneously exacerbating the problem and destroying public value in the process.
Which raises another question: what happened to CARE Court? Programs like that were supposed to create a pathway into treatment and accountability. Instead, we continue to drift between half-measures and political messaging.
The gritty policies need to stop. What Oakland needs now are honest, effective solutions that balance compassion with accountability—for the sake of the people suffering on the streets and for the communities living around them.
Appreciate you engaging in the discussion.
—Seneca Scott
I agree with your comment. I’d like to see/develop some sort of care/housing process flow for the people living on the streets. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I have gained a significant quantity of firsthand experience over the last two years.
I have observed three general categories of people in RVs/autos - working poor, addicted/mentally ill, criminals. For the working poor, I have no personal objection to RVs using low sensitivity areas, but the sewer tanks need to function and adjacent clutter needs to be limited. I’m no expert in the field of addiction and mental illness. OPD is trained to handle the criminals.
I believe there is also a difficult conversation that needs to occur in order to reach real solutions. When you look at Oakland, we don’t have the physical space, the physical acreage, to create support villages - tiny homes, RVs, tents, etc. However, Alameda County does have the space.
There is currently an imbalance in the where the unhoused are physically located. A disproportionate share are located in Oakland. A policy which says that those who are unhoused in Oakland must be sustained/managed in Oakland is not a real solution.
My new question is - if we needed to house 25 people, what would we do? Let’s do it. There will no doubt be multiple steps between living on the streets and living in permanent supportive housing. What are they? Let’s develop a comprehensive process.
This is a math problem. What would we do for 25 people? What would we do for two groups of 25 people? What would we do for 25 groups of 25 people? What would we do for the one person smoking meth at the bus stop on 2nd Street. Let’s address the “what” and then figure out how to scale.
Any solution will need to be distributed throughout the county, which seems to contradict post-WWII history that has attempted to confine issues related to “poverty” to the city limits of Oakland. This isn’t new. Eight decades of land use policy has designated Oakland as the wasteland.
It seems most people agree the current approach isn’t working. Let’s start from a point of agreement and develop real solutions. Lastly, what should we measure? How do we define success? I’ve struggled with that one.
isn't the Strong Mayor-Council or Council-Manager/Hybrid supposed to make a difference? in Best and worst cities at https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869 the top 20 were as follows, so I really have no clue which is better, and if the issue is the underlying culture of the staff of the city, this won't matter: Strong Mayor-Council: Provo, Nampa ID, Boise, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville, Lincoln, Manchester, Missoula, Nashua, Sioux Falls
Council-Manager/Hybrid: Chesapeake, Columbus, Dover, Durham, Las Cruces, Mesa, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Virginia Beach, Warwick
Oakland was the 3rd worst at #146 of 148 USA cities.
I prefer solid, concrete goals that are measured. How many homeowners in the Oakland hills didn't pass the fire inspections, and did the city come in to do the necessary work and collect the fee from the homeowner? That was supposed to have been fixed 10 years ago, but I bet it hasn't. Or the people caught dumping trash, they don't pay the fines. When Oakland burns down next time, there goes a huge percent of property taxes to fund Oakland. And no chance of fixing homelessness and all the other problems. If not that, Trump's disastrous invasion of Iran stands a good chance of causing a major recession and cities having less money or even going bankrupt.
Okay, money is found. The city puts up hundreds of digital billboards in scenic areas.
So what? Are the sewer staff getting the clay pipes that cause underground leaks into Lake Temescal, Lake Merritt, and water drains getting fixed at whatever goals were set? Potholes fixed?
It seems like city planners and other experts know how things should be done, the rock bottom issue is reforming city services, with less provided per capita than 145 other cities. More auditors? They already aren't doing their jobs. Can we hire security guards since police are so damned expensive?
I lived in West Oakland (16th at Filbert) the first 26 years of my life. Still in the Bay Area, but Oakland will always have a soft spot in my heart.
I am so disheartened to see where it is today. I was hopeful after Sheng Thao was recalled that Oakland would get a good person in there. My soul died when Barbara Lee was elected.😩
However, I will never give up on Oakland, as I still have family there.
I’m really glad that someone like Seneca Scott is fighting for the soul of Oakland. For some accountability. Thank you!
Thanks Seneca and Oakland Report. You are right it is time to stop the battered voter syndrome. This is why I am running for Oakland Mayor in 2026. We need leadership for Oakland that has a vision for rebuilding the city from top to bottom. No more piece meal solutions. I offer Oakland my leadership to do this. I will give my fellow Oaklanders a vision of future they can both believe in and be part of. I will be coming out with more debth on my website on what I will be doing. Keep doing your great reporting and providing a place for us to have this dialogue. Take care, Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026. electmindy.com
great article, I don't live in Oakland but visit several times per year. Keep up the great work Seneca. The SF Bay Area needs you.
These items clarified by S.Scott have at least put a spotlight on issues that voters seem to have no say in how and when they can be resolved. Now for the purposes of national readership of the article we need to clearly state areas in Oakland by the use of either zipcodes or names. Persons for example in Arizona who peruse the commentary need to know that terms such as *flatlands* and *bottoms* are not referring to either human anatomy or farmlands.
Now here I will state what appears to me to be of the most outstanding hurdles to seeing unhoused persons placed into both transitional and permanent residences : affordability, viable treatment facilities, programs, and job training resources. Yes. There must be enforcement of open air drug trafficking as well. It can no longer be mildly tolerated. However ! Having a council that seemingly incessantly green lights permits to greedy developer investors who do not know, understand or even like Oakland is in itself criminal. Stop encouraging these characters to build on every postage stamp corner in town. Encourage them instead to build where there actually IS space for it : Concord, Pleasanton, Livermore, etc.
We have had more than our share of this maniacal building mania. No one can afford these cheaply constructed over priced nonsense cubby holes.. So does the city expect that unhoused persons line up like cattle for a *lucky winner* lottery to obtain a room with a toilet and a hotplate ? Or a tiny studio ?..Many of persons who now dwell in tents, formerly HAD a place of their own. Many were displaced by being bribed with $5000 to move out so their home could be turned into a luxury condo.
And make no mistake, all those ridiculous images you see all over downtown in windows, murals, etc...of happy looking African Americans, .. where are the people ?...Council has pushed so many people out due to utterly ridiculous rents. So these artworks are just for show. Meanwhile, the very people supposedly represented in these artworks are pushed to the edges on a daily basis just to maintain and get by in our city. We can no longer afford to mimic Manhattan here. It has come to this. Oakland was a place where everyone could afford to live here prior to 2009 or so. But no, that wasn't quite good enough for those in council seats wanting to make backroom deals with unscrupulous developer groups and investment outsiders.
So where does the city intend to house even homeless who are not engaging in criminal activity ? Please..let us know. Inquiring minds are listening..
The “Blah Blah” thing is sophomoric and detracts from your argument.
This is an excerpt from my show, Gotham Oakland, a political variety show whose cornerstone is political humor—think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, or SNL. Would you extend that same criticism to your favorite political humorist when they make a joke about someone you dislike in politics? Few people would. Your comment is noted, but it does come across as a bit biased.
I agree Greg. The belittling nicknames is also a tactic of El Presidente which in my opinion is a show of low self esteem.
Do you say the same about Gavin with his constant mimicking of Trump? Barack Obama (his vicious takedown of Trump at a white house correspondents dinner led to Trump running). My guess is….you don’t.
I’m positive as long as the person being ridiculed is someone you don’t like, it’s fine with you. “El Presidente” gives you away. That’s literally you doing the same thing. Thanks for sharing so everyone here knows how blatantly hypocritical you are!
Seneca, I once was a supporter of you, voted for you in elections. I put up your signs in my window of my house.
No more.
For your information, I think decorum should be practiced in the political arena and thusly I don’t approve of either of your examples.
How do you explain your mockery of the president with “El Presidente”? Isn’t that a joke? An attempt at humor?
Or does satire only become offensive when someone you dislike is the target?
You expect me to believe that you’ve never once laughed at political satire? Please. No serious person believes that. George Carlin built an entire career on it. Saturday Night Live has done it for fifty years. Every late-night host does it nightly.
But somehow, when I do it, suddenly we’re supposed to pretend satire is a moral crime.
What’s really interesting is this: you seem far more outraged by ridicule than by the corruption, incompetence, and destruction happening in this city. That tells me a lot about your priorities.
And while we’re at it—I’ve never once seen you defend me when the people in power spread lies and smears about my work exposing that corruption. Not once. Yet somehow you find the time to clutch your pearls over a joke.
Miss me with the performative outrage.
Let’s also remember something Saul Alinsky wrote in his famous rules for political activism:
Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
There’s a reason for that. It’s difficult to defend against. It irritates people. And it exposes hypocrisy very quickly.
Which brings us back to you.
For the third time now, your use of “El Presidente” already proves you understand exactly how satire works. You’re using the same device you’re pretending to condemn. That’s what makes the outrage so obviously fake.
And then there’s Barbara "Blah Blah" Lee—she talks too much with word salads and little substance. That’s a perfectly legitimate criticism. It’s politics. It’s debate. It’s commentary.
Unless, apparently, I say it.
What I’ve learned is that many people today simply cannot engage intellectually. They prefer moral posturing to actual argument. I can do both—satire and substance.
If you want a formal debate, I’m happy to have one. But strangely, the people complaining the loudest are never interested when that offer is on the table.
You’re entitled to your opinion, however misguided it may be. Just understand one thing:
I couldn’t care less what you think.
I’m trying to save the city.
I mocked Thao for two years during the recall and never heard a word from you about it. Not one complaint.
I’ve been exactly the same for the last five years. If you supported me then, you already know that.
So let’s not pretend this is about principle. You’re not being honest here—and we both know it.
“Where are they supposed to go,” is the recurring refrain.
Alameda county has 101,000 acres of space open to the public. How about get off the sidewalk and camp in the woods? A little out of the way for needle exchange, but plenty of fresh air.
I had been trying to figure out what the deal is with Oakland Report.
In this particular case, I was puzzled because, up front, no mention of the author. I read through the issue anyway, noticing that the author was very self-centered. Like he thinks that we want to know his innermost thoughts.
Finally, at the end, saw that the author was none other than Mr. Scott. That explained everything. If the Oakland Report is a mouthpiece for Mr. Scott, they should just say so, rather than hiding the ball.
Thank you for your comment. Oakland Report is an independent charitable nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, and is not affiliated with any of our individual contributors.
Our mission is to provide reasoned, evidence-based reporting and analysis on local government issues, focused on observable and verifiable evidence free from implicit bias.
We seek integrity, accessibility, and quality in the articles we publish. We seek truth.
Our guiding principles:
- Present the facts and evidence and let the reader judge for themselves.
- Focus on what people and organizations do, not what they say.
- Always remain open to examining and questioning our own biases.
We don’t expect everyone to agree with everything that we publish, but we do expect that the articles are grounded in verifiable evidence and logic so that all observations and conclusions may be rationally challenged.
We welcome counterpoint commentaries from other leading voices in Oakland. Please visit our About page for more information.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/about
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
The author is mentioned at the front of the article. Yet, as usual, you avoid engaging with the substance of the argument itself. Instead, you retreat into personal attacks and smears. It’s an intellectually lazy maneuver—one that substitutes indignation for thought and character assassination for debate.