Page 2 – Pacific Sun | Marin County, California

Marin Homeless Union Accuses Novato of ‘Sneak Attack’

Nikki Silverstein

Oct 8, 2024

Marin Homeless Union Accuses Novato of ‘Sneak Attack’

Another brouhaha has developed between Novato and the Marin Homeless Union.

This one is over the city’s recommended resolution to close a sanctioned homeless encampment and a proposed ordinance that would essentially ban all camping on public property.

At least for the moment, the City of Novato won’t move forward with either.

Both issues appeared on the City Council’s Sept. 24 agenda. However, city attorney Gary Bell removed them at the start of the meeting, announcing that the Homeless Union had requested a “meet and confer” before the City Council votes on the proposals.

Marin Homeless Union attorney Anthony Prince maintains that Novato violated a 2022 settlement agreement with the union by placing the items on the agenda for a vote. The parties reached the settlement agreement after the union filed a federal lawsuit against Novato for issues similar to the current dispute—restricting homeless people from camping on public property.

“The city’s idea was to enact the ordinance and pass the resolution that very same night,” Prince said. “We found out about it. We immediately contacted the city. We immediately contacted the magistrate judge who has been assigned to resolve disputes between us and the city. We stopped the sneak attack.”

Keeping the 17-tent encampment open is a priority for the union. Prince said that it has been a successful staging ground for people to obtain permanent housing and services. The County of Marin reports that 25 former Lee Gerner Park camp residents have been housed.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Novato established the homeless encampment in Lee Gerner Park, and agreed it would remain open for at least two years—a period that ends next week, on Oct. 13. Yet the city could choose to keep operating the camp.

The agreement also struck down restrictive language in a city camping ordinance and created an ongoing Housing and Homeless Committee, composed of Marin Homeless Union representatives and community members.

But Prince claims Novato did not fulfill the agreement’s requirements to change the current camping ordinance or permanently close the encampment, which suffered extensive damage during an arson fire on July 30.

After the fire, the city provided the displaced campers with motel rooms for 28 days. Even that gesture became tainted, Prince said, because a city staffer forced the homeless people to sign an agreement that waived many of their rights without consulting legal counsel. As the Marin Homeless Union’s attorney, Prince represents all Lee Gerner Park camp residents.

Novato officials declined to speak with the Pacific Sun, although city spokesperson Sherin Olivero provided written answers to submitted questions.

Olivero said the city asked campers to sign a “Motel Agreement” outlining the parameters of the program. Still, she gave no explanation as to why the contract contained a considerable waiver of the campers’ rights.

The camp has remained shuttered since the blaze, leaving many campers with no place to stay when the motel program ended. Two weeks ago, some campers returned to Lee Gerner Park and pitched tents outside of the burned camp. The city quickly posted notices stating the tents must be removed and offered no suggestions about where the campers could go.

Another conflict between Novato and the union involves whether the city followed a settlement agreement requirement to review the state of housing and homelessness three months prior to the end of the two-year period. The review’s purpose is to assist the City Council in determining if there’s a need to continue operating the homeless camp. Both sides agree a review took place, and the Homeless and Housing Committee even approved a written report. Nevertheless, the union has cried foul on the way city staff conducted this business.

“Far from a sneak attack, the City followed the process in the settlement agreement and communicated with all interested parties as required,” Olivero said.

Jason Sarris, a union representative who also serves on the Housing and Homeless Committee, said that Olivero’s statement left out important nuances. According to Sarris, city staff withheld they were recommending the City Council close the encampment and pass an ordinance banning camping—only revealing the crucial information after the committee approved the state of housing and homelessness report. Neither of these issues made it into the 18-page report, although both clearly impact homelessness in Novato.

“The Housing and Homeless Committee absolutely should have had an opportunity to weigh in on this and have it included in the report,” Sarris said.

Additionally, the settlement agreement lays out procedures to terminate the camp if financial issues arise for Novato—a reason the city has given for shutting it down. While the City Council has sole discretion on the decision, Novato must provide the designated union representative with evidence of the financial findings and give at least 60 days’ notice of the closure date.

Sarris said he never received any financial evidence or 60 days’ notice. On Sept. 18, just six days before the City Council meeting, he learned that the council members would be voting on whether to close the camp.

The city points to its multi-year budget deficits as the reason it can’t afford to reconstruct the camp after the fire damage. Yet at last month’s Housing and Homeless Committee meeting, city staff noted that Novato has $19,500 for the Lee Gerner camp and $429,00 for homeless initiatives, Sarris said.

“None of the County or State one-time grant funds are eligible to support the potential rebuild or clean-up of the Lee Gerner Park site; therefore, General Fund dollars would need to be assigned to the project,” Olivero wrote.

She did not respond to a question about whether the city had researched or applied for other funding to rebuild the encampment.

During a meeting last week with the attorneys from both parties and the federal magistrate judge overseeing the 2022 settlement agreement, the city said it would respect the settlement agreement, according to Prince.

He contends that until officials provide financial evidence and 60 days’ notice of the camp’s closure—and then actually shut it down—the city cannot enact its proposed ordinance prohibiting camping because it doesn’t contain an exception allowing Lee Gerner Park camp to exist.

Novato is evaluating its current camping ordinances based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, Olivero said. The ruling held that regulating camping on public property does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

“We’re going to do our best to see to it that the city does not join all these other cities kicking the homeless out with a green light that they think they’ve gotten from the Supreme Court,” Prince said. “But if they do, we know how to fight. We know how to argue the Fourteenth Amendment [state created danger doctrine], and we’ve already put the city on notice that that’s exactly what we’ll do.”

Meanwhile, the campers who recently moved back to Lee Gerner Park hope they’ll receive permanent housing before their time at the makeshift camp runs out.

San Rafael evicts disabled homeless man for second time, gets sued again

Nikki Silverstein

Sep 10, 2024

San Rafael evicts disabled homeless man for second time, gets sued again

Mark Rivera has spent the last few years living in a tent alongside a public parking lot in San Rafael, forced into homelessness by chronic disabilities, he said.

Like most homeless people, Rivera, 65, wants a home. He longs for a small yard because he misses the companionship of a dog, he said during an interview.

Mostly, Rivera talked about San Rafael posting an eviction notice at his campsite on Aug. 13. In response, Rivera filed a lawsuit and obtained a temporary restraining order from a U.S. District Court to prevent the city from ousting him.

The restraining order has now expired. Last week, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers declined to issue a preliminary injunction against San Rafael, paving the way for Rivera’s eviction. Still, the underlying lawsuit will continue.

San Rafael did not offer Rivera alternative shelter. Instead, on Monday, it forced him to relocate. He pitched his tent at an established homeless encampment, following the city’s recommendation. However, Rivera remains concerned about living with other people. In the past, it has triggered his post-traumatic stress disorder, which has sometimes resulted in violence, he said.

This isn’t his first rodeo in federal court. Rivera sued the city last year after receiving an eviction notice at the same location. That case ended with a settlement agreement between the camper and San Rafael, one that prevented the city from evicting him, albeit with a couple of caveats.

In the current lawsuit, Rivera claims the city breached the settlement agreement and that the eviction violated his civil rights.

“The bigger picture is that the City of San Rafael broke the contract,” Rivera said. “We had a written agreement.”

Officials reject Rivera’s allegations and have hired attorney Scott Emblidge of Moscone Emblidge & Rubens to defend the city against the lawsuit. Rivera is representing himself.

The facts of the case initially appeared straightforward, although they have grown convoluted during recent legal proceedings. Let’s start at the beginning.

Last year, San Rafael’s city manager issued an administrative order prohibiting camping at the adjacent Menzies Lot and Falkirk Cultural Center. The city served eviction notices to all campers at the two sites, including Rivera.

The 2023 eviction prompted Rivera’s first lawsuit, which stated he suffers from “severe chronic disabilities,” including dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder and the effects of two strokes. He contended that staying at the campsite would allow him to maintain routines and stability.

A federal magistrate assisted Rivera and San Rafael in reaching a settlement agreement that went into effect on Nov. 27, 2023.

San Rafael agreed not to enforce the administrative order against Rivera. Simply put, he could camp at the Menzies Lot and Falkirk Cultural Center. In return, Rivera dismissed his lawsuit against San Rafael.

The settlement included two exceptions. First, Rivera would remain covered by the settlement agreement as long as the administrative order remained in effect.

Second, the city could take enforcement action against Rivera for “whatsoever not based on the Order.” Essentially, San Rafael could enforce laws and other administrative orders impacting Rivera.

The city kept its bargain for nine months. Then, history repeated itself when a San Rafael park ranger posted a seven-day eviction notice at Rivera’s campsite and instructed him to vacate by Aug. 19.

Rivera and his advocate, Robbie Powelson, contacted city officials to reverse the eviction. After all, Rivera had an agreement with San Rafael—a legal contract. He even hand-delivered a cease-and-desist letter to the city attorney, Rob Epstein. Nothing worked. Backed into a corner, on Aug. 16, Rivera sued San Rafael again.

What caused the city to try to evict Rivera a second time? Officials point to two recent changes.

In May, the San Rafael City Council passed a camping ordinance with numerous restrictions, including a prohibition on camping within 250 feet of a school. Rivera’s tent at the Menzies Lot, as the crow flies, was within 250 feet of Marin Academy.

The settlement agreement allows the city to enforce its new ordinance, requiring Rivera to relocate from the Menzies Lot. Yet, by moving his tent about 40 feet away onto the Falkirk Cultural Center property, he could comply with the new law and remain covered under the settlement agreement.

But the city took another action in August, a week before Rivera’s scheduled eviction. City Manager Cristine Alilovich lifted the portion of the administrative order that prohibits camping at Menzies Lot since the city’s new camping ordinance bans pitching a tent within the school buffer zone.

“Meanwhile, camping on the Falkirk Cultural Center Property remains prohibited by the Administrative Order,” according to an August staff report approved by Alilovich.

The report appeared to refer to the same administrative order that San Rafael cannot enforce against Rivera. Sure, Alilovich modified it by lifting the Menzies Lot portion. Yet last month’s staff report clearly stated that the administrative order is still in effect for Falkirk.

Why, then, did John Stefanski, assistant city manager, write in an email to Rivera’s advocate that the camper could not relocate to the Falkirk property?

I contacted Alilovich to ask for a reason.

“In response to your question about Falkirk, the City is not going to allow anyone to camp at Falkirk Cultural Center,” Alilovich wrote in an email.

Curious reply. Ditto for San Rafael’s written opposition to the preliminary injunction Rivera sought from the court. It did not seem to deny the claim that the city breached the settlement agreement.

Fast-forward to the hearing on Sept. 4. Rogers did not grant Rivera a preliminary injunction, explaining that the Falkirk Cultural Center is a “public facility” and the city’s camping ordinance bans camping at public facilities.

However, that’s not entirely accurate. The city does allow camping on the grounds of some public facilities. And the the camping ordinance doesn’t prohibit camping on the Falkirk property. It doesn’t mention Falkirk at all.

The city manager’s administrative order is the only measure preventing camping on the “non-open space” portions of Falkirk’s property. To be clear, San Rafael bars camping in all open space, but Falkirk has both open and non-open space areas.

With those facts in hand, after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Rivera filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider. Rogers ordered the city to respond.

Only then did Emblidge, San Rafael’s outside counsel, provide the court with a “new” administrative order, which went into effect on Aug. 13, 2024. It appears similar to the administrative order issued last year—the one the city can’t enforce against Rivera. Both ban camping at Falkirk.

The new administrative order is not the administrative order “referred to in the November 17, 2023 settlement agreement” was one of Emblidge’s arguments to justify Rivera’s eviction.

The judge again agreed with the city, issuing an order denying Rivera’s motion for reconsideration.

Interestingly, the “new” administrative order is titled “Revising Administrative Order of The City Manager Regulating Camping on Certain Public Property: Falkirk Cultural Center and Menzies Parking Lot, Non-Open Space.”

Does revising an administrative order constitute a new order? If not, shouldn’t the settlement agreement remain in effect, allowing Rivera to camp at Falkirk?

Based on these questions and other issues, Rivera plans to appeal Roger’s decision to allow his eviction, hoping to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the meantime, the lawsuit moves forward, with the next court date set for Nov. 25.

UPDATED: Developer buys second property to reduce size of Marin City housing project

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 21, 2024

UPDATED: Developer buys second property to reduce size of Marin City housing project

Marin County announced last week that the developer of a controversial five-story, 74-unit affordable housing project in Marin City has purchased a property near Tam Junction, with the goal of splitting the number of units over the two sites.

The new plan calls for 42 units at 825 Drake Ave., Marin City, and 32 units at 150 Shoreline Hwy., Tam Junction. Both properties are in unincorporated Marin County.

While the Marin County Board of Supervisors must approve the proposal, it may be a fait accompli. The developer, Caleb Roope of Pacific West Communities, and the county have worked together on the terms for months.

Pacific West Communities closed on the Shoreline property on May 20, according to the assessor’s office. The developer paid $1.8 million for the vacant lot, located just off the freeway, next to the Holiday Inn and Floodwater restaurant.

Neither the developer nor the county announced the purchase at the time, despite strong public interest and substantial opposition to the Marin City housing project. Both said they wanted to ensure the Tam Junction site met the developer’s needs.

On Aug. 19, the developer requested a zoning change from the county for 150 Shoreline, yet it’s already zoned for multi-housing.

“The rezoning would be to change it to the Housing Overlay Designation, which allows for ministerial approval,” said Sarah Jones, director of the Marin County Community Development Agency.

Jones went on to explain that ministerial approval removes discretionary reviews. Instead, it relies solely on county staff to ensure that the project meets coding standards and requirements, bypassing subjective judgment and assessment of the development’s merits. It also eliminates the need for an environmental study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Simply put, the developer wants fast-track approval for its Tam Junction development.

In 2020, the Marin City project received ministerial review under Senate Bill 35, state legislation passed in 2017 to address California’s housing shortage. If a local government has not met state mandated housing production goals, SB 35 requires the streamlined approval process for multi-family developments.

When the developer applied for the Marin City project approval, the county had not reached its housing production goals. Now, it has.

While the 825 Drake property benefited from ministerial approval, the project stalled as the developer and county considered numerous objections raised by the densely populated community.

Roope, owner of Pacific West Communities, says he needs ministerial approval of the Shoreline development to avoid further delays.

“We’re so behind,” said Roope. “We’ve been sitting doing nothing for a year or more, trying so hard to find this other situation to move units off of Drake. Ministerial approval basically means staff approval. We really can’t afford a long, lengthy review of the new property.”

Construction delays, buying the second site and changing the project design have added signifant costs, which Roope estimates at $4 million.

The revised proposal may alleviate some of Marin City’s concerns, including the lack of parking. Still, reducing the number of apartments has not changed the height of the building. It towers over the two-story senior housing complex just yards away.

Traffic and safety for children remain issues, with Marin City’s only park directly across the street. The planned development, located in a state-designated high fire hazard zone and an area prone to flooding, could strain the infrastructure in an emergency. Marin City has only one road in and out.

Although Roope had repeatedly said he wanted to reduce the building’s size to three stories, now the developer and the county agree that 825 Drake will be the site for a five-story building with 42 apartments.

The 74 modular units, for two wings of a building, were constructed months ago for Marin City, but never moved to the site. Reconfiguring the modules for two properties proved difficult, especially because of the Tam Junction site’s size limitation—just over half an acre. Meanwhile, 825 Drake is almost an acre.

Roope said he focused on finding a second site large enough to accommodate two stories from each wing of the Marin City building. But available properties did not fit the bill.

As Jones observed, “One of the things that we’ve been working through with his development team is what are the possibilities of configuring these units differently.” She added, “We ultimately came to the conclusion that the feasible way for this project to get split was to do a vertical slice and separate the wings.”

The Marin City hilltop property will retain the larger, five-story wing, with the four-story wing going to the smaller parcel in Tam Junction. Roope and the county must still iron out details for the second site.

A property adjacent to 150 Shoreline, owned by the county, could provide much needed parking for the planned 32 apartments. However, Jones said the county would not “gift public land” to the private developer, mentioning a lease or sale of the property as options.

On Oct. 15, the Board of Supervisors will consider a memorandum of understanding on the proposed project changes, which is based on a “term sheet” agreed to by Roope and the county in April.

Even without approval for the two-site plan, the developer already has a building permit for 825 Drake Ave. Grading and foundation construction could begin this fall. Roope estimates the Marin City construction could finish in 15 months. If he receives ministerial review for the Tam Junction site, Roope says that project should be completed in about 21 months.

The public can weigh in at Board of Supervisors meetings, a not yet scheduled workshop at the Tam Design Review Board and Planning Commission meetings, according to a county news release.

Ultimately, if the county grants ministerial approval for 150 Shoreline, the Tam Design Review Board and Planning Commission will have no say. Neither will the community, with one possible exception.

Save Our City, a local group opposing the Marin City development, filed a lawsuit against the county and the developer to stop the project. The lawsuit seeks to reverse the Board of Supervisors approval of the issuance of $40 million in tax-exempt bonds to develop 825 Drake, claiming county counsel advised the board incorrectly before the vote.

Last year, Save Our City rejected an offer by Roope to settle the case. The terms were similar to the proposal now under consideration by the county.

Roope, however, says the lawsuit will not stop development.

“The lawsuit is about financing,” Roope said. “It’s not about our physical ability to build. Could our financing be hurt by this lawsuit at some point? Yeah, I guess it could, but so far it has not. And if it does get hurt, that will be well after we’re already under construction. Maybe even built.”

In a statement released last weekend, Save Our City indicated they’re “skeptical that the new proposal will address their “core concerns.” The group also says its members were never included in discussions with the county and developer.

“Our strategy hasn’t changed,” Marilyn Mackel, a Save Our City member and named plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in an interview. “Nothing has changed for us—nothing. The next court date is October first.”

DA accepts judge’s decision to drop case against ex-cop

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 20, 2024

DA accepts judge’s decision to drop case against ex-cop

A Marin County Superior Court judge dismissed the remaining charge against a former San Rafael police officer accused of assaulting a local gardener.

The ruling last week by Judge Kevin Murphy ended the criminal case against Daisy Mazariegos, who faced a felony charge of assault by an officer under color of authority. That charge carried a sentencing enhancement for causing great bodily injury to the victim, Julio Jimenez Lopez, in 2022.

Murphy denied a motion to dismiss two felony charges against co-defendant and former officer Brandon Nail for the same incident.

The Marin County District Attorney’s Office could appeal Murphy’s decision to drop Mazariegos from the case. It also has the option of taking a second bite at the apple and filing charges against her again. However, the DA will do neither.

“Although the Marin County DA’s Office believes both former officers are culpable for crimes that led to the serious injuries suffered by Mr. Lopez, we respect and accept Judge Murphy’s ruling,” prosecutor Geoff Iida said in an email. “We now will focus on making our case in court to hold defendant Nail accountable for his unlawful actions.”

Surprising Decision

The decision surprised many who have followed the proceedings against Nail and Mazariegos. Last year, Judge Beth Jordan presided over the defendants’ preliminary hearing and found probable cause for them to stand trial.

Yet, Jordan’s ruling in December dismissed a felony count against Mazariegos for allegedly making false statements on a police report, leaving only the assault charge with a sentencing enhancement. Murphy’s decision last week threw out that remaining charge.

Exactly what happened to allow Mazariegos to walk away from two felony charges stemming from stopping three men suspected of drinking on the sidewalk in the Canal area of San Rafael? After all, the then-officers’ body-worn cameras captured the beating of one of the men, Jimenez Lopez, who ended up face down on the street, laying in a pool of his own blood.

First, Jordan believed Mazariegos’ preliminary hearing testimony on why her police report differed significantly from what can be seen in the police videos. The ex-cop testified that she wrote what Nail had told her, but failed to attribute the words to him. Out went the charge for falsifying a police report.

Then, in April, Mazariegos’ and Nail’s defense attorneys each filed what is known as a “995 motion.” Essentially, in separate motions, they appealed Jordan’s decision to order the defendants to trial, asking Murphy, the trial court judge, to dismiss all charges against their clients.

These motions rarely succeed, according to attorney Julia Fox, who represents Nail. She estimates that dismissals from 995 motions occur about 15% of the time because preliminary hearings have a very low standard.

A preliminary hearing judge needs only to find probable cause—a reasonable belief that defendants committed a crime—to send them to trial. At a criminal trial, the standard increases significantly, requiring a prosecutor to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Still, the 995 motion filed by Mazariegos’ attorney, Alison Berry Wilkinson, did succeed. The straightforward argument presented by the attorney convinced the judge.

Wilkinson’s strategy separated Mazariegos’ actions from Nail’s. Video evidence, she said, showed her client attempted to handcuff Jimenez Lopez with minimal force. It was Nail who employed a leg sweep maneuver to bring Jimenez Lopez to the ground and then punched him in the face, according to Wilkinson.

“You have to look at Daisy individually, as opposed to in combination with Brandon Nail,” Wilkinson said in an interview. “Based on what she individually did, it doesn’t meet the basic elements of the [assault] charge.”

Wilkinson’s motion cited case law in support of her position. Additionally, Murphy reviewed the preliminary hearing transcript and exhibits, which included the police videos. The tide then turned for Mazariegos.

“The video is very clear on what Daisy did,” Wilkinson said. “The judge found that she had nothing to do with the leg sweep. She had nothing to do with the punch. And the techniques she used to put handcuffs on him, which she was lawfully entitled to do, were reasonable, not excessive. Judge Murphy said there’s no basis to hold her accountable.”

Indeed, Murphy’s order states, “There is a difference between the two defendants and their actions.”

Brandon Nail will continue to trial as the solo defendant, with the date still to be determined.

Ruling Response

Reactions to Murphy’s rulings run the gamut.

“I am disappointed that Brandon’s motion was not also granted,” Fox said. “I have tremendous respect for Judge Murphy. That remains unchanged.”

Mazariegos feels relieved and grateful, according to Wilkinson. And the attorney said that she is happy for her client, who has a family, including two toddlers.

Many community members do not share these sentiments. In fact, after Jimenez Lopez’s attorney, Charles Dresow, released the police videos to the media almost three months after the beating, public protests erupted.

The incident occurred on June 27, 2022. Mazariegos, on patrol in the Canal area, came upon Jimenez Lopez standing near his truck, while his two friends sat on the sidewalk with beer. She called for backup and ordered the men to sit down and produce their identification. Jimenez Lopez stood to retrieve his ID.

Nail arrived as backup and told him to “Sit the fuck down,” the video evidence shows. Jimenez Lopez complied and then stood up again, appearing to want to explain something. That resulted in the officers trying to handcuff him. Within three seconds, Nail used the leg sweep maneuver, followed by the closed-fist punch to Jimenez Lopez’s nose.

Police arrested Jimenez Lopez, and the DA filed a variety of felony and misdemeanor charges against him. The DA dismissed all charges after reviewing the body-worn camera footage.

Once the public saw the videos, people demanded that San Rafael Police Chief David Spiller fire Nail and Mazariegos and that the DA file charges against the officers. They implored the city to initiate an independent investigation. Months after the use of force against Jimenez Lopez, those demands were met.

“These officers were still on duty, Dresow said. “It was only after the videos justifiably caused outrage in the community that the city did the right thing.”

For those community members disappointed by last week’s ruling to dismiss Mazariegos from the criminal case, they may be interested to know that Jimenez Lopez filed a civil rights lawsuit against her, Nail and the city.

Attorney Anthony Label, who represents Julio Jimenez Lopez in the civil lawsuit, said that he disagrees with Murphy’s ruling, although he appreciates the judge’s thorough and reasoned analysis. But Label has no plans on releasing Mazariegos from the civil litigation.

“The burden of proof in a criminal case is very different than in a civil case,” Label said. “This ruling does not affect Julio’s civil rights lawsuit.”

In this regard, Mazariegos may still be held liable for her actions.

Stonewalled: When public officials refuse to speak to press

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 12, 2024

Stonewalled: When public officials refuse to speak to press

“Transparency” is a big buzzword for governments now. From the White House to tiny town councils, transparency means that the government conducts its business openly and without secrets.

Marin constituents can read all about the transparency of their local municipalities with a few keystrokes. Our cities, towns and the county reference the concept on their websites.

As a reporter, my job includes gathering government information of interest to the public and writing about it. With all this transparency talk by our governments, I should get my work done lickety-split and have plenty of time for afternoon siestas.

However, not all Marin municipalities embrace the approach. As a result, I’m forced to work overtime.

Two weeks ago, Marin County and Novato officials were especially elusive. Mind you, I wasn’t asking for nuclear launch codes or their personal bank account numbers. I had a few relatively simple questions about newsworthy issues. Almost all my numerous phone calls and emails went unanswered. The three written replies that I received contained no information.

I wouldn’t exactly describe this behavior as government transparency. Murky would be more apt.

Case in point, Supervisor Mary Sackett, an elected official serving on the Marin County Board of Supervisors. She also serves on a subcommittee working to bring forth a sheriff’s oversight ordinance for the supervisors to vote on, one that establishes a civilian oversight commission and an office of the inspector general. My questions, had I been able to ask them, were about the ordinance.

Essentially, I wanted an update on when the ordinance would come before the entire board and the specific causes for the delay. In February, Sackett told me the vote would “hopefully take place in late spring.” And county counsel said at the time that they would soon engage in a final step, a mandatory “meet and confer” process with two law enforcement labor unions.

Even before February, community members were demanding to know about the hold-up. The county has been working on this ordinance for two years. It must be a masterpiece, considering it took just 17 days to draft the Declaration of Independence.

Certainly, it’s fair to ask what the heck is going on. Why has the county had numerous meetings, at least five, with the labor unions? When will the process end?

In a reply to my email sent two weeks ago, Sackett wrote that she had no information and sent a link to the county’s website. I had already read the outdated material posted there, and it didn’t provide the answers I sought regarding the current status of the ordinance.

But I had reason to believe that Sackett did have information. She recently met with two Marin residents, both of whom I know and respect, and reportedly gave them news that does not appear on the referenced webpage. Those two people provided the intel to a group of community advocates. Like a game of Telephone, it spread to more people, me included.

Last week, I followed up with Sackett via email, listing some of what I had heard. She decided to respond, denying that she made the comments. Additionally, she provided vague statements, saying that the website would be “updated shortly” and she’s “hopeful” the meet and confer process will conclude next month.

And that is precisely the reason Sackett should have taken five minutes to speak with me—on the record. A conversation would give me the opportunity to press for clarification and specifics. Instead, members of the community will continue to repeat the words Sackett claims she never uttered. Worse yet, the public still doesn’t know when to expect the supervisors to vote on the sheriff’s oversight ordinance.

I find it ironic that the intent of the ordinance is to provide transparency into the inner workings of the sheriff’s department. Maybe the board of supervisors needs an oversight commission too.

Novato officials also recently ignored my many requests for a brief interview. Like Sackett, they referred me to a webpage that did not answer my questions about the city’s plans for a sanctioned homeless encampment devastated by a fire.

Why are these officials refusing to be transparent? The absence of information triggers conjecture, rumors and uncertainty.

Now, I will twiddle my thumbs waiting for responses to the public records requests I submitted to Novato and Marin County. Thank goodness for the California Public Records Act, legislation that forces government transparency, with some exceptions.

The growing phenomenon of public officials dismissing journalists occurs at the local, state and federal levels. The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit global media organization and newsroom, held a symposium last year on the topic and recently issued “Shut Out,” a 22-page report on their findings.

“Not all, but many who do the public’s business have taken a misguided and unfortunate stance that they are under no obligation to make themselves or their work available for independent journalistic review, even though it is an essential component of our civic life,” Neil Brown, the Poynter Institute president, said in the report.

“Shut Out” encourages journalists to tell the public how they tried to obtain information and provide details about uncooperative sources, as I’m doing here. Frankly, I’m not optimistic that it will prompt Sackett to call and tell me all about the sheriff’s oversight ordinance delay. Nor am I counting on hearing from Novato’s Amy Cunningham, city manager; Jessica Deakyne, assistant city manager; Rachel Farac, city council member; or any of the other folks I contacted about the future of the city-sanctioned homeless encampment.

I asked Candice Nguyen, a Peabody Award-winning reporter for NBC Bay Area, about the roadblocks she faced while working on an 18-part series about Oakland’s broken 911 system. The biggest issue, she said, was not receiving timely responses from city officials.

Nguyen said she repeatedly requested—at least a dozen times—to interview Oakland’s mayor on the crisis-level problems with 911. It took more than six months of “respectful persistence” to finally land that interview, according to Nguyen.

“I believe, as an investigative reporter, this delayed or lack of response is disappointing to the public, but it’s no surprise,” Nguyen said. “My stories often hold officials and agencies accountable.”

Even without receiving information directly from officials, Nguyen pointed out that she still gets the story. In fact, she ran 13 reports on Oakland’s 911 system before the mayor agreed to an interview. Her ongoing series shines a light on the extremely long wait times for 911 dispatchers to answer calls. That reporting prompted the city to make some improvements, and Nguyen continues to investigate the issue.

Officials have an obligation to respond to the media, “especially on matters concerning the public’s interest,” Nguyen said.

Indeed, they do. However, when officials eschew their responsibility to transparency, they’ll still be part of journalists’ stories.

Only they won’t get to tell their side to the public.

Homeless heroes save victims of encampment fire

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 6, 2024

Homeless heroes save victims of encampment fire

It happened wicked fast, said the victims of last week’s fire at a Novato homeless encampment. The flames ripped through nylon tents, destroyed personal possessions and even damaged one man’s prosthetic leg—all in a matter of minutes.

Miraculously, none of the 15-or-so occupants of the city-sanctioned encampment in Lee Gerner Park were injured when the fire, allegedly arson, broke out on July 30 at 3:30am. But the residents described a terrifying scene, awakening to shouts of fire, seeing rising flames and feeling intense heat.

Scrambling out of their tents, John Sandfort and Geno Meyer immediately went to the aid of the camp’s two wheelchair-bound residents. Together, they pulled Mike Robertson and Kathy Plumb, life partners, to safety.

“Geno and John got me and Kathy out,” said Robertson, who has relied on a wheelchair since his leg was amputated. “They’re heroes because that fire took off like a bat out of hell.”

Another resident, David Tillotson, recalls hearing a cacophony of popping and banging as the fire climbed one tree and leapt to the branches of others.

A fire at the Novato homeless encampment displaced about 15 people. Video by Mark Alperin.

“We got lucky that there was no wind,” Tillotson said. “And the police and fire [department] got there almost right away.”

Novato Police Lt. Chris Jacob confirmed that after 911 dispatch received the call, police arrived in minutes, with the fire department not far behind. From the outset, the fire seemed suspicious to the two departments, and they investigated it as arson, according to Jacob.

Two days later, on Aug. 1, police arrested Brianna Giudice, 36, and Giovanni Allison, 39, former encampment residents. Police identified Giudice as the arson suspect, while Allison was named a person of interest.

The suspects were apprehended as they fled from a vacant building near the camp. Police booked Giudice into the Marin County Jail on suspicion of felony arson, burglary, resisting arrest and outstanding warrants. Allison’s booking charges include outstanding warrants, burglary, violating probation and resisting arrest.

The early morning blaze left half of the downtown Novato homeless encampment a heap of charred rubble and ash. Officials had no choice but to red tag the area and close it down—at least temporarily—keeping the displaced residents in limbo about their future.

The city moved most of the fire victims into a Novato motel, although at least one person, a young woman who said she has lived at the camp for about a month, was not provided with a room. Officials have declined to answer questions about how long they will continue to pay for the lodging or whether they will reopen the encampment, which has space for 17 tents.

Lee Gerner Park became the site of an impromptu camp in 2019, when a homeless Novato man, Jason Sarris, began sleeping there. Others soon followed. In July 2020, the city cleared the camp, but the unhoused people returned the following month.

Then the Novato City Council passed two anti-camping ordinances in May 2021, prompting Sarris to form the Novato chapter of the Marin Homeless Union. Civil rights attorney Anthony Prince quickly filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Novato, and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the city from closing the camp at Lee Gerner Park.

The union and the city engaged in negotiations, eventually reaching a settlement in 2022. Novato sanctioned the “Temporary Camp” and agreed to keep it open for at least two years, with that term expiring two months from now, on Oct. 13. The agreement states that the camp’s operation beyond that date remains solely at the city’s discretion; however, homeless advocates said they have always hoped for an extension.

A current budget deficit, more than $4 million this fiscal year, may influence the city’s decision about rebuilding. It’s also unclear whether the city would have funds for the camp’s ongoing maintenance, with multi-million-dollar budget deficits projected for the next several years.

The homeless residents understand the city faces financial issues, yet almost all want to return to the camp at Lee Gerner Park. Stability topped the list of reasons why the camp is important to them. And they hope that like other residents before them, staying at the camp will lead to permanent housing.

“The camp has been a bona fide pathway to housing with a proven track record,” said Sarris, who serves on the City of Novato’s Housing and Homeless Committee. “Twenty-three of our residents have been housed, and all have remained in their new homes.”

Sarris is among them. In 2022, soon after the city-sanctioned camp was established, he moved into an apartment—his first time off the streets in more than a decade. He wants others to receive the same leg up.

“That’s what’s bad about the whole thing, because you don’t know what’s gonna happen,” camp resident Tillotson said. “You can’t make any kind of plans. You know, it’s a really stressful situation. I’m not worried about me so much because I’ll get through this somehow. But other people, like Mike and Kathy, they’re in wheelchairs, and they don’t have anywhere to go.”

All the residents expressed great appreciation for the camp. Case managers connecting the residents with services and housing know where to find them, the mobile showers come weekly, and the central location makes it convenient to walk to the grocery store and Goodwill. And the Novato community has embraced the camp’s residents, with individuals, church groups and nonprofits regularly delivering clothing, food and other supplies.

While the homeless residents now stay in temporary quarters at the Days Inn in Novato, miles from a grocery store and other services, some community groups still check in. Residents sing the praises of Donald Cowan, a homeless outreach specialist for Community Action Marin, who provides transportation and much more.

When Cowan learned that Sandfort’s size 14 shoes were lost in the fire, he found a local group, Marin Cursillo, to donate new shoes. He also reached out to Rotary Club of Novato Evening to help another man who lost his wallet and all his clothes in the fire.

For now, the homeless residents’ immediate needs are being met. But until Novato decides how to move forward, they will continue living with uncertainty and fear about their future. Despite contacting numerous city officials to find out about a timetable, I received a single email stating, “There is nothing new to report.”

“I really want the city to continue their good work and rebuild the camp,” Sarris said. “But at the same time, the Novato Homeless Union is preparing for the worst-case scenario if the city does, in fact, try to shut the camp down.”

Marin stays course assisting Binford Road’s unhoused people

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 30, 2024

Marin stays course assisting Binford Road’s unhoused people

Part two of a two-part report. Read part one here.

Just the mention of Binford Road evokes strong reactions from folks in Marin County—positive, negative and sometimes downright caustic.

Many consider the RV homeless encampment a shining example of government working compassionately to provide much needed services to people down on their luck. Others see it as a blight on their predominantly affluent community.

Last week, I spent the morning riding with Dep. Mike Thompson, homelessness outreach officer for the Marin County Sheriff’s Office, who spends a good portion of his shifts on Binford Road. We did this same ride in May 2023, and Thompson’s reasonable, caring approach toward his work with the Binford Road community remains unchanged.

Like most mornings, it was quiet on this stretch of street just outside of Novato city limits in unincorporated Marin. We saw only a few of the 78 homeless people who live in RVs, cars, trucks and even a few tents on both sides of the road. Many of the residents work during the day.

Thompson stopped beside a large bus. I know the young man who lives there, a tinkerer, though some might call him a hoarder. His site overflows with possessions, including used bike parts that he fashions into new bicycles.

A shiny black truck pulled up beside Thompson’s cruiser, and the middle-aged driver—not a Binford resident—rolled down his tinted window and shouted a question. Thompson told the man that he was busy, and we drove away, but the interaction clearly disturbed the deputy.

“I’ve never seen that guy before,” Thompson said. “He was like, ‘What are they doing with the bike thief?’ Well, how do you know he’s a bike thief? I’m not going to engage.”

However, Thompson’s position does keep him front and center with disgruntled people who want to discuss the Binford Road encampment. He typically hears them out.

“I think they’re just uninformed,” Thompson said. “For the average person who doesn’t know anything about what it really means to be homeless, all they know about homelessness is what they see. Not so much in Marin, but in the East Bay or San Francisco, what you see seems to be trash, crime, drug abuse and unchecked mental illness. Then that’s what they know homelessness to be.”

Binford Road doesn’t come close to resembling those hotspots featured often in the media, such as San Francisco’s Tenderloin or the frequently cleared camps in Oakland and Berkeley.

Thompson reiterated what he told me last year—there’s relatively little crime on Binford. An occasional fire or drug bust is about the worst of it.

Still, the RV encampment has its own set of unique circumstances, including lack of drinking water, personal property stored outside of vehicles near an environmentally sensitive marsh and lawsuits filed by a few of the residents.

Yet, Marin County officials remain committed to diligently working with its homeless population, connecting them with services and housing. This, despite last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning legal protections for homeless people and California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week urging cities and counties to clear encampments.

For years, homeless folks have taken up residence on Binford Road, but the population swelled during the pandemic. The county decided not to enforce the 72-hour parking limit, knowing that the ordinance pushes homeless people to become nomadic, making it more difficult for social workers, often called case managers, to find them.

“The high-water mark was 117 people, and currently we have 78 living on Binford Road,” Marin County Supervisor Eric Lucan said. “I’m pleased to see the number of individuals that we’ve been able to support and house.”

Last year, Marin secured $1.6 million over three years from California’s Encampment Resolution Funding, with the ultimate objective to house all the Binford residents. The state announced in April that the county will soon receive another grant for more than $3.72 million to “resolve” the Binford encampment.

The county has been using the initial award for enhanced outreach, housing-based case management and other direct support. New staff has come on board, and contracts were awarded to local nonprofit agencies, including Downtown Streets Team and Community Action Marin.

Since last year, 27 former Binford Road residents have received housing, according to Gary Naja-Riese, director of Marin County Homelessness & Coordinated Care. An additional 22 residents are at various stages on the path to housing.

It’s not unusual for people to spend years on the county’s “waiting list” for permanent supportive housing—housing combined with voluntary support services—which is prioritized based on a person’s need.

Zoë Neil, director of Downtown Streets Team, said her staff gets creative to find different ways to house folks. It’s a time-intensive process that often achieves results for their clients on Binford Road.

“We look at alternatives to permanent supportive housing, like rapid rehousing, which provides short term rental assistance and services to people with stable incomes,” Neil said. “The outreach folks are really trying to navigate the best possible pathway to housing.”

Another solution has included connecting some people with their families, who can provide a place for them to live, explains Neil. Or if someone enjoys the recreational vehicle lifestyle, the outreach manager can try to help them find a spot in an RV park.

Even while the county has multiple departments and outside contractors working to provide services for people on Binford, community activists say their efforts sometimes fall short.

In May, three residents filed a lawsuit against the county in federal court for seizing and destroying their property. Although the county provided 15 days’ notice of the “clean up” and stored the property for 90 days before destroying it, residents said that valuable items such as dog enclosures, shade awnings and solar panels were taken.

Clearly, a common sense approach exists. There’s a difference between seizing a hoarder’s cache and removing practical, necessary items. The county, it appears, will try striking that balance going forward.

A notice distributed to residents last week states that clean ups will now occur on the second and fourth Thursdays each month. Thompson said that with this new system, they will be more flexible. As we drove down Binford, the deputy pointed out some items that he said could probably stay, such as a small table and chair set and a shade awning.

“We plan on going out to watch the clean ups and monitor how they’re conducted,” said Jason Sarris, who was homeless for more than a decade and now leads the nonprofit Marin Housing for All.

The RV encampment on Binford Road took years to grow to this point, and it will likely take a couple more to house all the residents. Until then, everyone—Binford residents, Marin County, nonprofits and community activists alike—will continue providing a checks and balance system to ensure that life on Binford Road stays safe and manageable.

“Binford could be a model as to how we’re working on resolving homelessness, but it’s not without its challenges,” Lucan said. “I feel like we’re doing a good job, but still can do better.”

Rescued, Sausalito sea lion sculpture returns home

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 8, 2024

Rescued, Sausalito sea lion sculpture returns home

A crowd gathered last week at sunrise to watch the dramatic homecoming of Sausalito’s beloved but accident-prone sea lion sculpture.

Plucked by a crane from the back of a pickup truck on Bridgeway, the newly restored bronze sculpture floated through the air and returned to its rocky nest just off the southern shoreline of Sausalito.

“The sea lion is a symbol of Sausalito and the spirit of our community,” Mayor Ian Sobieski said as he stood among about 150 spectators. “The sculpture demonstrates how art can be profoundly affecting.”

In January 2023, a strong storm toppled the 1,900-pound sculpture into the bay, and the city removed it from the water for repairs. According to Felicity Kirsch of the nonprofit Sausalito Foundation, that marked the third rescue for the sea lion.

Artist Al Sybrian created the sculpture in 1957. It was originally concrete, a material that didn’t fare well in the sometimes harsh environment. Nine years later, the Sausalito Foundation raised funds to cast the statue in bronze.

Over the next several decades, the sculpture survived the elements and took on a beautiful green patina. But a 2004 winter storm wreaked havoc, knocking the sea lion off its pedestal. The Foundation stepped in again and paid to reseat it.

When the statue ended up in the water last year, the nonprofit enlisted Reason Bradley, a Sausalito native and owner of a marine company, Universal Sonar Mount, to repair it. Bradley and his team used their hi-tech skills to develop a comprehensive restoration plan that should keep the sea lion hale and hearty for the next hundred years. It began with laser scanning the sculpture and generating a digital model.

“Corrosion had been eating away the base of the sea lion for years,” Bradley said. “We approached the project with the concept of protecting the sea lion and creating a whole new base instead of doing a quick patch.”

Let’s geek out for a minute here to understand electrolysis, the main issue the team needed to resolve to keep the statue on its base. Electrolysis occurs when dissimilar metals come into contact with an electrolyte—in this case, the bay water—and the lesser metal corrodes.

The metal tabs connecting the sculpture to its base kept failing. Clearly, the team needed to figure out how to reduce the detrimental effects of electrolysis on the fasteners and the statue.

They tackled the issue in a few ways. The new base comprises a special concrete mix with fiberglass rebar inside, eliminating electrolysis caused by steel rebar. And the new design involved fabricating eight large bronze bolts to connect the base to the sea lion.

“We introduced a way to connect zinc anodes, four-inch wide by 10-inch long replaceable bricks that protect those bolts,” Bradley explained. “The zinc is the only dissimilar metal, and it’s intentionally a lesser noble metal. Now, the current eats the zinc, not the bolts.”

Pretty impressive. The Sausalito Foundation also deserves accolades for raising approximately $50,000 to pay for the innovative restoration and providing Sausalito residents and visitors with at least another century of enjoying the statue.

“Al Sybrian was a great sculptor,” longtime Sausalito resident and former City Council member Peter Van Meter said. “The sea lion is looking to the sky, looking to heaven. It’s optimistic.”

Marin group serving homeless people reaches crossroads

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 2, 2024

Marin group serving homeless people reaches crossroads

For more than two decades, professionals from The Street Chaplaincy have walked throughout Marin, providing spiritual care to homeless people.

Now, The Street Chaplaincy needs some care and guidance of its own. The vital organization based in San Rafael faces major changes in its leadership, staff and financial structure.

Nick Morris, who has led The Street Chaplaincy since 2018, will soon leave the group, saying he wants to move on to different work. Last month, Rev. Charlotte Cramer, the organization’s only street chaplain, resigned. The Marin Interfaith Council just announced that it intends to discontinue its role as The Street Chaplaincy’s fiscal sponsor.

The fiscal relationship between the two organizations has allowed The Street Chaplaincy, which does not have an IRS 501(c)(3) designation, to conduct its charitable activities with the benefit of Marin Interfaith Council’s tax-exempt status.

“The Street Chaplaincy raises and spends their own funds on ministry to the homeless, consistent with their mission,” said Rev. Scott Quinn, Marin Interfaith Council’s executive director. “A fiscal sponsor guarantees that there’s an accounting process to ensure that every dollar that comes in is spent for the mission to which the money was donated.”

Finding an appropriate fiscal sponsor is key to The Street Chaplaincy’s future success. According to Quinn, Marin Interfaith Council will continue providing the service and some administrative support while seeking another partner, ideally a faith-based community, for The Street Chaplaincy.

Morris, too, plans on staying until that partner comes on board. He aims to shepherd the organization to a new home and offer a warm handoff.

So, the ministry soldiers on.

“I believe it’s important work, and that’s why I’ve been doing it for so many years now,” Morris said. “And the chaplain before me, Paul [Gaffney], did it for 13 years. Providing care for homeless people comprises mind, body and spirit, and the spiritual side tends to be the least supported.”

Marin Interfaith Council also understands that The Street Chaplaincy performs an essential function for a vulnerable population. Although Marin is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, it lacks enough shelter space for the almost 1,100 homeless people living here, leaving most of them struggling on the streets. The Street Chaplaincy is Marin’s only faith organization with a primary mission of tending to their spiritual needs.

Of course, that begs the question of why the Marin Interfaith Council is withdrawing as fiscal sponsor. Simply put, the coalition of faith communities is currently going through its own transitional phase. With most of its support coming from an aging population and younger people failing to flock to faith communities, the Marin Interfaith Council is doing some soul-searching about its path forward.

“A lot of our funding has shrunk,” Quinn said. “On top of that, we’re dealing with all the different crises of the past few years coming out of the pandemic—our racial reckoning and the laudable and necessary insistence on moving the needle on justice and equity that’s been so lacking in this county for so many decades. Really, this is a chance for MIC to take a step back and ask, ‘What’s our role in the community?’”

With a limited budget and small staff, Marin Interfaith Council does not have the bandwidth to continue providing administrative support and fiscal sponsorship to a separate organization. For example, Quinn spent months assisting The Street Chaplaincy in evaluating and acquiring insurance.

Last week, Quinn emailed Marin Interfaith Council’s members and supporters about the transition for both organizations. He has already received a few responses from faith organizations that want to be part of the conversation about the best place for The Street Chaplaincy.

Morris and Quinn agree that for The Street Chaplaincy to thrive, it needs an organization willing to not only become the fiscal sponsor but also take the administrative lead and run the group. It’s a big ask, but it is necessary to continue the essential programs for the homeless community.

In addition to visiting homeless people wherever they may be, such as shelters, encampments or the hospital, The Street Chaplaincy is part of Marin County’s Whole Person Care. The program enables service providers, including housing and medical case managers, to share information and collaborate on a homeless person’s care.

“We’re not case managers,” Morris said. “But as we provide spiritual support and build relationships with people experiencing homelessness, if they ask for help or there’s a roadblock in getting services, we’ll gladly interface for them with other organizations to help move the process along.”

Another goal for The Street Chaplaincy is to build community between the homeless and faith-based communities. Wellness Gathering, a weekly event, does just that by bringing homeless and housed folks together for an evening of meditation, prayer, storytelling and dinner.

“The Tuesday dinners are a way of creating relationships of care in the community, and that turns into support for housing,” Morris said. “People feel passionate about it, including the congregations that volunteer to help with the dinners.”

During The Street Chaplaincy’s transition period, the weekly dinners will continue, according to Morris. While the holiday season is still a few months away, Morris is thinking ahead to The Street Chaplaincy’s three major annual events, hoping that a new partner will be found by then.

At Thanksgiving, The Street Chaplaincy and volunteers from various groups provide dinner and entertainment for about 125 people. The evening includes a warm clothing giveaway for the homeless guests. A similar event takes place during the third week of December.

Also in December, around the winter solstice, The Street Chaplaincy holds a memorial service for homeless community members who died in the past year. Those attending include homeless people honoring their friends, parents who have lost children and homeless service providers.

“It’s incredibly moving,” Morris said. “The testimonies and the stories shared, they bring tears to my eyes. It’s a lot for everyone to carry.”

Indeed, ministering to homeless people is a heavy load. Now, Marin’s faith organizations and individuals must come together to preserve The Street Chaplaincy’s mission and good works.

Jason Sarris, who spent more than a decade living on the streets of Marin, experienced firsthand the important spiritual support offered by The Street Chaplaincy. And he has witnessed the positive impact their work has had on the homeless community.

“When I was unhoused, I talked to Rev. Marty Tracy, who was their street chaplain at the time,” Sarris said. “I’m not much of a religious person, and I’m not really comfortable speaking with clergy, but I found it easy to share things with her—soothing even. Rev. Marty related to issues that I was having living outside, and she helped me. Obviously, it would be a great loss if The Street Chaplaincy wasn’t able to continue.”

Contact Rev. Scott Quinn of the Marin Interfaith Council at di******@ma******.org with recommendations on potential partners for The Street Chaplaincy.

Come to the Table: strangers meet to dine with open minds

Nikki Silverstein

Jun 25, 2024

Come to the Table: strangers meet to dine with open minds

The late celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain once said, “You learn a lot about someone when you share a meal together.”

That’s exactly the purpose of Come to the Table, a monthly free event where an unlikely group of guests eat dinner and spend time getting to know one another. Each event hosts 50 people for dinner, with half hailing from Marin City and the rest from other parts of the county. Still, the affair is intimate, with up to six dining at each table.

The second part of the evening consists of a spirited community forum for more than a hundred people, featuring Marin City leaders in conversation with experts from across the county and beyond. Topics have included work and housing issues, telling stories through art and culture, the history of Marin City and health care disparities. Speakers have ranged from Black and white physicians to a queer Mexican-American theater director to women business owners.

Come to the Table is the brainchild of Rev. Floyd Thompkins, who leads St. Andrew Presbyterian Church in Marin City. For years, Thompkins knew many residents of the predominantly wealthy and white Marin County were either unfamiliar with or disinterested in the issues facing their neighbors in Marin City, a diverse, low-income community in the southern portion of the county.

In November, Thompkins hosted a one-day “sit down” with religious leaders from across the county and leaders of Marin City organizations to try to uncover the causes of the divide and develop ways to address it. The participants came away with what the pastor calls astonishing realizations.

“There are people who have never been to Marin City—and they live within 10 miles,” Thompkins said. “They go to Sausalito next door, but they never take a right off the freeway and come to Marin City. They’re afraid to come over. So, they haven’t even had the chance to decide whether they want to be a part of the solution or not.”

It all boils down to misconceptions. For example, Marin City, a historically Black community, now has a multicultural population of 3,000. According to the 2020 U.S. Census data for Marin City, 34% of residents are white, 27% Black, 17% Latinx and 14% Asian.

Yet in a multiple-choice survey completed by Come to the Table attendees, almost a third answered that Marin City’s population is 80% Black.

And Marin City is not actually a city, but rather an unincorporated area without the self-governance of an elected mayor or city council. The Marin County Board of Supervisors, none of whom live in Marin City, makes decisions for the residents.

Certainly, Marin City has a unique history and circumstances, but residents across the county share many of the same concerns. The housing crisis, environmental issues and climate change impact everyone.

I attended this month’s Come to the Table. Understanding the genesis of the event, I expected some uncomfortable conversations. Not even close.

From the moment I walked into St. Andrew’s dining room, I could tell that the organizers had set up every aspect of the evening with intention. Right at the check-in, friends and partners were asked to sit at different tables to ensure that they met new people.

The dinner, prepared each month by a different Marin City caterer, is served at the table, allowing people to relax and focus on conversation. Advance fundraising covers the costs, and no one pays to attend the event.

Nonstop dialogue ensued at my table. We didn’t even need the prompts placed on each table, although I found them quite interesting. Most involved the forum topic. However, one set of questions remains the same every month: What is your relationship to money? How has this influenced your choices? How does this affect how you view yourself?

Our discussions delved into issues such as race, inequity and social justice, but we also chatted about the great equalizer—getting stuck on Highway 101 during the afternoon commute.

Tami Bell, raised in Marin City and now living in Richmond, shared that he spent most of his career in education; however, at age 77, he’s preparing to take the bar exam with the hope of practicing educational and social justice law. Bell, also a historian, is an expert on Marin City’s rich past.

Russ Pratt, a Tiburon resident, told stories of his Peace Corps days serving in Botswana. After his family returned from Africa, his children witnessed racism for the first time—in a Marin County school.

Yvonne Harris, a retired law office manager, grew up in Marin City. Her family members worked at Marinship building U.S. warships during World War II. Today, Harris lives in San Rafael. Sandy Smith lives at The Redwoods in Mill Valley, a retirement community, and has volunteered with Bridge the Gap in Marin City, a nonprofit preparing students for college.

We connected on some level, the five of us. While I frequently join events in Marin City, breaking bread with these folks left me with ideas I’d never considered before.

Barbara Bogard, a seasoned organizer and activist, volunteers for Come to the Table’s steering committee. I shared my enlightening dinner experience with her, and she marked it as another success for the event.

“When you sit down with somebody, share a meal with them and have a personal conversation, it really helps dispel myths you might have about Marin City and the people who live there,” Bogard said. “It’s really the most favorite project I’ve ever worked on because we’re not fighting against anybody.”

The after-dinner forum on health care disparities gave me more food for thought. The featured speakers were impressive, informative and accessible.

Dr. Elizabeth Talley, who grew up in Marin City and is a pediatric nephrologist and associate clinical professor at Stanford University, joined Marin County Public Health Director Dr. Matt Willis on the dais. The physicians shared some grim statistics and personal experiences on the inequality of health care for people of color.

The life expectancy for a Marin City resident is 77 years. Just a mile away, in Sausalito, residents can expect to be around for 92 years. Talley and Willis were clear about the drivers for the disparity—failure to screen for, diagnose and manage preventable diseases and chronic conditions. Willis identified these issues as social injustices.

Still, they offered the audience of about 120 people hope that change will come—through better training for health care professionals and recruiting more people of color to work in the industry. In the meantime, Talley and Willis recommend that patients get educated, advocate for themselves, bring someone with them to their health care appointments and look inside the community for support.

At the end of the forum, Thompkins introduced representatives from various Marin City organizations. He reports that true connections are being made—long after the dinner ends—with attendees continuing discussions and volunteering in Marin City.

“Come to the Table is not a destination,” Thompkins said. “When it works, it’s a bridge—a bridge for relationships.”

Come to the Table, Environmentalism and Resiliency, Saturday, July 13. For more information, visit ctttmarin.org.