“A divided Oakland”

The S.F. Chronicle’s front page story today, headlined “Town halls reveal a divided Oakland” (online, the headline is “Fighting recall, Mayor Sheng Thao hosts citizen town halls across Oakland”), set me to thinking about political divisions that tear entire communities, if not nations, apart—what causes them, how Oakland reached this point, and where we go from here.

That Oakland is “divided” is clear from the rancor of our politics. We have pro- and anti-Recall sides sniping at each other, but the Recalls are only the visual symbol of far deeper divisions. Our country, too, is divided. Is what’s happening in Oakland a reflection of that, or does it say something particular about Oakland?

I’ve lived here nearly forty years, during which I’ve keep a close eye on politics, and I can affirm that our current divisions are indeed something new. We’ve never seen this level of mistrust of civic institutions before. I date it to Libby Schaaf’s two terms as Mayor (2015-2023). She herself was not an especially divisive figure, although she was an ineffective Mayor. She did her best to heal the nascent divisions that arose during her first term through the power of her personality, which was not unpleasant (as is Sheng Thao’s). But under Schaaf’s not-so-benign neglect, homeless encampments became a cancer on the city and crime soared to historically high levels. The people became restive, then angry, then resentful, needful of someone to blame. Nearly everyone in Oakland is a Democrat, but the progressive wokes during Schaaf’s first term overplayed their hand, believing that with a weak Mayor and an activist, progressive City Council they could finally cement their socialist revolution. What they failed to take into account was the violence of the backlash, which is what has led to today’s “divided Oakland.”

The wokes failed, also, to realize the extent of their hubris. To this date, we’ve not seen a shred of regret or remorse from any of them for the part they’ve played in Oakland’s demise. An honest politician would at least acknowledge shortcomings and offer a semi-apology, together with a vow to learn from past mistakes. Not so from this crowd. Schaaf, of course, will never apologize for her mistakes. Neither can or will Thao, or the City Council members most guilty: Kaplan, Bas, Fife and Kalb. You and I—people of integrity, humility and faith—would have no problem admitting we were wrong, but politicians are incapable of such blunt honesty.

Where we go from here is far from clear. A lot of anger and resentment has built up, on all sides. I have no idea if Thao and Pamela Price will be recalled. The votes could go either way. I hope that both will be expelled from office, but if they’re not, I fear both will double down in vengeful retribution, further throwing fuel on an already out-of-control fire.  Thao claims that Oakland under her watch is safer (and to be honest Oakland does feel a little less hostile than it did a year ago). She may limp by, just barely, but she will have to regain the people’s trust, especially if she expects a second term. As for Madame D.A., the antagonisms she’s stirred up across the county are her own fault. She comes across as rude, pushy, arrogant and judgmental, as someone who doesn’t listen to others but insists on “my way or the highway.” If we’re saddled with her for several more years, it will be bad news for Alameda County, not just in terms of public safety but with respect to race relations.

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear two words from both women? “I’m sorry.” Without qualifiers, without hedging, without irony, just “I’m sorry.” But we won’t. Neither has learned a thing from their experience, which makes them thoroughly unqualified to hold their jobs.

Steve Heimoff