Guest blog: What would that Black man have said?

At last Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Trish Spencer ordered that the microphone be cut off for public speaker Rasheed Shabazz.  He has provided more context (and content) that expands on his comments from Tuesday night.

By Rasheed Shabazz

Since I only had three minutes to address the Council, and Mayor cut the mic off, I wanted to provide some context to my remarks and also state my main point.

Alameda has a fascinating legacy of thinly veiled exclusionary, or rather racist and classist rhetoric, particularly when debating the very emotional and complex issue of housing.

In the past, some so-called Alamedans would use “Oakland” as a code, a euphemism, a racial proxy rooted in exclusionary housing policies. For example, in 1992, when the City defied a court order and did not apply for state housing funds, a speaker at a council meeting received a standing ovation when stating low-income housing in Alameda would “create an East Alameda like East Oakland.” This comparison is rooted in racial segregation and stereotypes.

During the debates to establish a moratorium on no-cause evictions, landlords convinced the City to adopt the phrase “housing providers.” Although this phrase is also used by HUD, it appeared this term was used to provide a better image for landlords at a time when many renters faced skyrocketing rents and displacement.

Leading up to the November election, campaign mailers referred to renters as “criminals” and tenant organizers as “outsiders.” Psychologists have long documented the stereotype associating Black people with crime, or the race-crime association.

For some, this is referred to as “dog whistle politics,” the use of coded racial rhetoric that sounds innocent, but has clear intent and meaning to a particular audience. Lee Atwater’s “Southern strategy” is a clear example. With that context, I’d like to address the “respect the election”, “the people of Alameda have spoken” and “the will of the people” references to the November 2016 election of L1 and M1.

First, there are many factors we should consider in understanding the results of elections: low voter registration, low-voter turnout, and in the case of L1 and M1: undervoting. Why aren’t all Alamedans registered to vote? Why didn’t all registered Alamedans vote? (1 in 5 registered voters did not turnout). And why didn’t all registered Alamedans vote on both measures?

What really explained why people voted for and/or against one or both measures?

For instance, I voted against L1 and in favor of M1. Yet, if it was the only measure on the ballot, I likely would’ve voted in favor of it. However, between the two: I supported what I considered to be the stronger measure. Yet, I soon benefitted from the few protections that L1 offered. I was the first RRAC case after the election, and have a very different analysis of the outcome than your readers. Nonetheless, had M1 been on the ballot by itself, we can only speculate what the results may have been.

So there are nuanced reasons to explain why people voted.

It is also true that some “voters” confused the two measures, even if we don’t know how many exactly. I don’t like to point to the confusion some voting had between L1 and M1, as it seems to imply–for some–that those voting were stupid or ignorant. However, it’s clear that some people were confused. Case in point, a landlord’s correspondence to Council on Tuesday. The email subject is “City of Alameda Tax Payers have spoken….Do not change M1, Ord 3148.”

And what does “taxpayer” imply? That those of us “rental income providers” (my euphemism for tenants) pay no taxes? Or, because tenants do not (directly) pay property taxes to the assessors or since we do not own property we call home that we are “wannabe Alamedans” and we don’t deserve to vote?

There is precedent to the “taxpayer” and “will of the voter” rhetoric–and this is the main parallel I’d hope to make at the Council meeting.

In 1964, California’s voting majority adopted Proposition 14, a state initiative that sought to overturn the Rumford Fair Housing Act and change the state constitution. The “Citizens” (aka California’s white majority electorate) voted to legalize housing discrimination. The State Supreme Court declared Prop. 14 unconstitutional. Much of the rhetorical appeals were couched in language of “property rights.” And 73 percent of “Alamedans” voted in favor of Prop. 14. It was the “will of the people”, those “taxpayers” of Alameda, at that time, to practice housing discrimination.

In 2018, some landlords are banking on a low-voter turnout during the mid-term election to enshrine the “right” to displace tenants with no “just cause.” There’s just something dubious about “housing providers” wanting to force people out for no just reason.

Hopefully, when this effort is defeated, landlords will recognize the “will of the people” of Alameda, to truly have a city of sanctuary where everyone belongs, including the “silent majority” of renters.

For those interested, my entire undergrad thesis, “ Alameda is our Home: African Americans and the Struggle for Housing in Alameda, California, 1860-present” (2013) is available online. It’s my intention to publish an edited and updated version in 2018.