Guaranteed income of $1,000 a month changed the lives of Marin moms and their families

A couple of years ago, I heard about the launch of a fascinating program in Marin. A group of 125 low-income moms would receive $1,000 a month for two years to spend on whatever they wanted. No strings attached.

I opened my calendar, flipped forward 24 months and made a note to call the organizer in May 2023, when the program was scheduled to end. That’s how I recently connected with Barbara Clifton Zarate, the director for economic opportunity at the Marin Community Foundation, to learn more about MOMentum, the clever name given to the initiative.

Zarate has managed MOMentum since its inception. Actually, she’s still overseeing it today because the successful program has been extended for another year.

The idea to give moms $1,000 a month was born from a 2018 study that examined inequities in Marin County. During that research, the Marin Community Foundation engaged with moms to better understand their journeys towards self-sufficiency and the challenges they experience, Zarate explained.

“The moms told us, ‘We don’t need another program that tells us how to live our lives,’” Zarate said. “‘We don’t need you to teach us how to balance our checkbooks. We know how to do that; there’s just no money in there.’ Basically, the moms said, ‘Just give us money.’ And so, they spoke, and we listened.”

When establishing the criteria for moms to enter the privately funded MOMentum program, Zarate said they looked at who is struggling the most in the county. The data showed that it was low-income moms of color. With the simple parameters set, the project participants were selected. The moms came from zip codes all over the county, although families in Marin City, San Rafael’s Canal neighborhood, Novato and West Marin were found to suffer the greatest inequities and disparities.

The MOMentum model gives the moms autonomy in how to spend the money. In addition, the program offers support to them in other ways. For example, they partnered with Redwood Credit Union, which held a series on financial literacy for the moms.

“So often we have a narrative in this country that people with low income need some sort of mandate on what they do with their money,” Zarate said. “That’s an illusion.

Zarate and her team check in often with the participants, and their preliminary research demonstrates that indeed, “Mother knows best.”

While $1,000 a month may be a drop in the bucket to the majority of residents in Marin, where the median annual income for a four-person household is $175,000, the low-income moms in MOMentum say the money has changed their lives.

The moms report they are healthier and experience far less stress. The money enabled some to drop one of their multiple jobs, allowing them to spend quality time with their families. Others enrolled in college. Credit scores have drastically improved. Quite a few moms shared their windfall with neighbors in need. A mom living with roommates was able to move her family into their own home.

Claudia Muralles, 44, is one of the 125 moms in MOMentum. Having a child at a young age and dropping out of high school set Muralles on a trajectory that left her struggling financially. Today, two of Muralles’ four children still live at home with her in Novato. The $1,000 a month has provided the basics, plus a few special experiences for her family.

“I’m not waiting for the next paycheck because we ran out of money,” Muralles said. “I can tell my girls, ‘Yeah, we can go out for ice cream.’ Our lives are not extremely luxurious, but the extra money—definitely everyday—it gives peace of mind.”

Muralles is preparing to graduate from college and looks forward to buying a home. Why not? During her time in the program, she increased her credit score from 400 to 700.

Another mom, Jennifer Barron, 48, has three of her eight children living in her Novato home. The rest have left the nest. Every penny of the money that she’s received from MOMentum has been spent wisely, and mostly on her children, according to Barron.

“Our fridge is full,” Barron said. “Gas is so expensive, but I have gas in the car to drive back and forth to school. The kids have haircuts and clothes on their backs.”

The MOMentum program, while extended through May 2024, will begin tapering down the amount given to the moms—$1,000 a month for the first three months, decreasing by $250 each successive quarter.

I thought Barron might be terrified about being cut off from the funding. She’s not. Two years ago, Barron received her high school diploma and is now enrolled in community college. She’s confident that she’ll be able to get a good-paying job after she obtains a bachelor’s degree.

MOMentum is a test of the guaranteed income concept, which is also referred to as universal basic income. Andrew Yang, who ran for president in 2020, made it part of his platform to give $1,000 a month to every American over the age of 18.

Providing unconditional cash assistance to citizens isn’t a new idea. Napoleon Bonaparte talked about it. So did Thomas Paine, one of America’s founding fathers. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also a proponent. In his final book, Where Do We Go From Here?, King wrote, “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”

Basic income programs can target a specific population, like MOMentum does, or they can be broad-based, as in Yang’s plan. There are now dozens of pilot programs in the United States. But other countries—many for years—have successfully used guaranteed income to increase the quality of life for its citizens. 

Since 2017, the Stanford Basic Income Lab at Stanford University has followed pilot programs and researched the aspects of basic income, including politics, economics and outcomes. Sean Kline, Stanford Basic Income Lab’s associate director, said the programs are working; however, there are those who oppose the concept.

Of course, some people believe everyone should “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps,” despite social inequities. Reasonable objections also exist, according to Kline. Some question whether basic income is the best single investment to make with public funds, rather than spending it on programs such as public health or education. But Kline doesn’t necessarily agree with those assessments.

“We have a tremendous amount of evidence, and a growing amount of evidence, that unconditional cash is a very, very good investment,” Kline said. “Sadly, I think we’ve worked ourselves into this scarcity mindset where there’s finite dollars, and we can spend it on only a few people in a few programs. Yet our wealthy country spends huge amounts of money on all kinds of things. We need to recognize that it’s more a question of political will as to how we spend our funds. Then we can begin to normalize the notion of basic income as a policy option.”

Based on Muralles’ experience in the MOMentum program, she has no doubts that guaranteed income programs should be adopted by the government. 

“I became a parent when I was 17 and dropped out of high school,” Muralles said. “Now, I’m on the right path to becoming a contributor because I was given the right tools and opportunity. Without programs like this, people will continue to be part of the poverty statistics.”

Lacking transparency: San Rafael adds insult to injury in police ‘use of force’ case

Almost 11 months have passed since the unprovoked use of force by two San Rafael police officers landed a Latinx gardener in the hospital with severe bodily injuries.

The July 27 incident, caught on the officers’ own body-worn cameras, consisted of a series of aggressive maneuvers to take down Julio Jimenez Lopez during questioning about an open container of beer. One of those moves involved Officer Brandon Nail punching Jimenez Lopez in the face.

During the violent takedown, which was aided by then-officer Daisy Mazariegos, Jimenez Lopez, 37, suffered a broken nose, a torn labrum in his shoulder that required surgery, a knee injury and a concussion. I know this because I saw Jimenez Lopez’ hospital records from the day of his beating and later medical reports detailing his shoulder surgery.

The public, outraged by the unnecessary brutal force shown in the videos, has demanded information about the incident and the independent investigation commissioned by the City of San Rafael. Senate Bill 1421, passed in 2018, says the public has the right to know.

Yet, as I reported last week, city attorney Rob Epstein refuses to release the investigative report and other documents, even after he repeatedly promised to do so. In May and June, Epstein sent a total of three letters to Jimenez Lopez’ civil attorney, Theo Emison, confirming that the city would produce the documents in response to a public records request. Then Epstein changed his mind.

I got bupkis when I asked Epstein for an interview and sent him questions via email late last week. Although Epstein responded, he ignored my interview request and didn’t answer any questions. Mostly, I just wanted to understand why he is protecting the officers, rather than providing the transparency the city keeps saying it wants to provide.

I also contacted David Loy, the legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, a press freedom advocacy group, to ask him for insight into what the heck Epstein is doing. Of course, Loy can’t read Epstein’s mind; however, he did explain the legislation that it appears the city attorney chooses not to understand.

“Historically, these records would have been secret—until the passage of SB 1421,” Loy said. “The key part of the statute requires disclosure of any and all records relating to any incident in which an officer’s use of force results in great bodily injury to any person. And those records must be disclosed, regardless of whether that force is being legally justified or not.”

On June 12, in a fourth letter, Epstein opined to Emison that he won’t release the records because the officers have threatened legal action against the city. Loy seemed unimpressed with using that as a justification to withhold the documents.

“Any lawsuit by the officers for disclosing the records, of course, would be transparently meritless,” Loy said. “In effect, he [Epstein] is privileging secrecy over disclosure, privileging police officers over the public. It’s not even a close call. The public has a right to this record, and police officers should not get special privileges.”

Epstein has also continually questioned whether Jimenez Lopez’s injuries are considered “great bodily injury.” In a May 19 letter, Epstein blamed this issue on Jimenez Lopez declining to be interviewed by the city’s independent investigator. Does Epstein truly believe that an interrogation of Jimenez Lopez by the city’s hired investigator, a former cop, would have revealed more information about injuries than the medical records which had already been provided?

Loy has no doubt that Jimenez Lopez suffered great bodily injury during the incident.

“There’s abundant case law which says things like abrasions, lacerations, bruising, broken bones and injury requiring surgery all qualify as great bodily injury,” Loy said. “…And I read this city attorney’s letter, and I think his argument is, quite frankly, just transparently ridiculous.”

Literally adding insult to injury, the San Rafael Police Department only seems to provide important details when cornered. Case in point, I reported last week that I was tipped off that Mazariegos, who was still on her probationary period as a new employee, concluded her employment with the department on May 15. The police confirmed when I inquired, but why didn’t they issue a statement about Mazariegos’ departure to the public, which has been demanding the ouster of the two officers for months?

Nail remains on paid administrative leave. Based on my conversation with Chief David Spiller last week, it seems that he’s made a determination about what, if any, discipline will be meted out for Nail.

“I’ve reviewed the case, and I have acted in the best interest of the organization and the community,” Spiller said. 

Although I’m speculating, since Nail isn’t back to performing his duties, he may be appealing Spiller’s decision. Under California’s Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Nail has the right to an administrative appeal.

When I pressed Spiller for specifics, he declined to elaborate on what consequences Nail may face. However, Spiller gave his thoughts about the content of the body cam videos, including the behavior of officers who arrived after the beating. I asked him about the joking taking place while Jimenez Lopez, still bleeding, spent 50 minutes in the back of a police car before being transported to the hospital.

“I wanted to go into reviewing the investigation without demonstrating any inclination of my intent, but now that I’ve done what I needed to do, I can say that I didn’t like what I saw in the video,” Spiller said. “It made me angry. And I know people don’t like this saying, but ‘It’s not representative of who we are.’”

It’s satisfying to hear Spiller’s admission of feeling anger, yet it doesn’t negate that the SRPD and the city have mastered lack of transparency—they have it down to a science. The methods used in this case include avoidance, remaining silent, excuses, victim blaming and delaying.

The public may not have known about this case at all if Nail and Mazariegos hadn’t arrested Jimenez Lopez and lied in police reports. 

Jimenez Lopez put Nail into a headlock and struck him several times in his head, the police reports said. Those allegations become patently absurd when considering that Jimenez Lopez stands 5 feet tall and weighs 130 pounds, while Nail is 6 feet two inches and 250 pounds. A kindergartner could have told Mazariegos and Nail that they were going to be in big trouble when somebody reviewed the body cam videos.

The assertions by the police resulted in the Marin County District Attorney’s Office filing felony and misdemeanor charges against Jimenez Lopez on August 2, just six days after his arrest. Jimenez Lopez was then forced to engage a criminal defense attorney.

About a month later, the DA dropped the charges after viewing the videos, which is when the defense attorney released them to the media, setting off a firestorm of protests and demands for justice.

Only then did city officials acknowledge the serious police use of force incident—five weeks after it happened.

Despite the obfuscation by public officials, one crystal clear fact has emerged: Jimenez Lopez’ life has been forever changed. 

“Julio continues to experience the physical and mental consequences of being brutalized by police officers sworn to protect the public,” Emison said. “Despite these ongoing issues, Julio returned to work because he has no other source of income to support his family.”

While it took less than a minute for Mazariegos and Nail to inflict lasting harm on Jimenez Lopez, the city and police department have been keeping the public in the dark for almost a year about the incident. Hopefully, Emison’s planned legal action to force the city to release the documents will bring the facts to light.

UPDATED: San Rafael police officer involved in violent beating out of a job

Editor’s Note: This article was updated with additional information on Tuesday, June 13, at 1:30pm.

It’s not much of a surprise that one of the two officers involved in the unprovoked bloody beating of a local gardener no longer works for the San Rafael Police Department.

After all, Daisy Mazariegos was still on her probationary period as a new employee when the violent incident, captured on the officers’ body-worn cameras, occurred last July.

What’s remarkable is that Mazariegos and the SRPD parted ways on May 15, about two weeks after the conclusion of an independent investigation into the use of force incident. The city hasn’t yet released the investigative report and never made a public announcement about the change in Mazariegos’ employment status. It remains to be seen whether the two are related, and we’ll only know if the city releases the report. 

Still, Mazariegos’ departure is news. Big news, some might say. The community has been staging protests and clamoring for the dismissal of both officers since September, when videos of the beatdown were first released to the media.

Under California law, a police officer on their probationary period may be released with or without cause. But to be clear, I have no idea whether Mazariegos was fired or quit. In fact, I only found out that she was gone because a source tipped me off last month, and I then confirmed it with the police department.

Neither Lt. Scott Eberle, who serves as the SRPD’s public information officer, nor Chief David Spiller, will tell me why Mazariegos is gone.

“Details regarding why any employee separates from the city are typically confidential personnel matters not subject to public disclosure,” Eberle said.

The public, although kept in the dark regarding the reason for Mazariegos’ exit, footed the bill while the then-officer enjoyed almost nine months of paid administrative leave during the investigation into the assault incident. Mazariegos’ compensation cost taxpayers a pretty penny. In 2021, she earned more than $96,000 in pay and benefits, according to Transparent California.

Brandon Nail, the officer shown on video punching the gardener in the face, has been with the SRPD for almost four years and continues on paid administrative leave. Though Nail is not currently protecting or serving San Rafael residents, he’s still receiving compensation, which, in 2021, totaled almost $192,000.

Earlier this week, we reported that the public may finally get to see the independent investigative report into the officers’ use of force against Julio Jimenez Lopez, who the Pacific Sun previously referred to as “Mateo” because he had feared for his safety. However, Rob Epstein, San Rafael’s city attorney, has once again reversed his position and will not voluntarily release the report.

Epstein has vacillated on the issue since the end of April, when the independent investigator hired by San Rafael provided the report to the city. Initially, Epstein refused to release the report to the public, citing the officers’ legal rights to confidentiality.

On May 19, Epstein agreed to release the report after Theo Emison, a lawyer representing Jimenez Lopez in a claim against the city, argued that the report is subject to release under the California Public Records Act. While legislation exists to protect the confidentiality of peace officers’ personnel records and reports, there are exceptions. One which seems on point in this case is when an officer’s use of force has resulted in death or great bodily injury.

Jimenez Lopez’ claim against the city states that he “sustained significant, life-altering injuries including but not limited to a fractured nose, loss of consciousness, traumatic brain injury, neurological and orthopedic injuries…”

But Epstein continued to delay providing the report, asserting that the city needed more time to make redactions. Then, on June 12, Epstein sent an astounding letter to Emison, revealing that the officers are threatening to sue the city if the report is released. Ultimately, Epstein again refused to distribute the report and invited Emison to bring legal action against the city to attempt to obtain it.

“…the City has concluded that it must not ring a bell that it cannot later un-ring if the Court later determines that the records are exempt from disclosure,” Epstein wrote.

On June 13, I spoke with Emison to find out his next move in this game of chicken that Epstein seems hellbent on playing. Emison will not back down in his pursuit of the report, believing that the public interest trumps the privacy rights of officers who landed a man in the hospital for enjoying a beer on a city sidewalk.

“After receipt of Epstein’s letter on the 12th, the day he previously promised to disclose the records, we began working on a writ of mandate forcing the city to disclose the investigative report and materials,” Emison said.

The report will likely elaborate on the the specifics already known to the public based on the videos of the incident. Mazariegos confronted three men who had gathered to drink after work on a street in the Canal. Nail arrived within minutes. During questioning by Mazariegos, Jimenez Lopez stood up to retrieve his identification. The situation devolved rapidly from there.

A frame-by-frame review of Mazariegos’ and Nail’s body cam videos shows a series of aggressive maneuvers by both officers left Jimenez Lopez lying face down on the pavement in a pool of his own blood with his hands cuffed behind his back. Jimenez Lopez was arrested and placed in the back of a police car. Despite his bloodied face, he remained in the car for almost an hour before being transported to the hospital.

A police report made allegations that were contradicted by the videos. Based on the report, the Marin County District Attorney’s Office filed felony and misdemeanor charges against Jimenez Lopez; however, those charges were later dropped after the videos were reviewed.

Last week, partly in response to the incident and the community’s demand for transparency and accountability, Spiller, the police chief, unveiled a plan for the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC). The San Rafael City Council voted 5-0 to establish the committee, despite opposition from the public.

The Marin Justice League, a grassroots organization formed in reaction to the Jimenez Lopez incident, had previously provided the city council with The People’s Plan as an alternative to the PAAC. There are significant differences between the two plans.

The seven San Rafael residents appointed to serve on the PAAC will advise on police policy and have no investigative authority. Conversely, the People’s Plan calls for an oversight commission of residents with the power to investigate complaints of police misconduct and an Independent Police Monitor that can audit the police department.

I spoke with Spiller about why the PAAC lacks investigative powers. It’s by design, mostly driven by the legal rights of peace officers, he said. Logistically, it’s difficult to structure a citizen commission with the authority to go poking into confidential records and personnel files. In fact, Spiller discussed the PAAC setup with the president of the local union, the San Rafael Police Association.

“We had conferred about the reality of operating the PD with a group of community members to provide recommendations and input to the leadership,” Spiller said.

Brenda Rivas-Camarena, of the Marin Justice League, disagrees with the city’s approach. She believes that the PAAC leaves out the accountability component, no matter the name.

“Yet again, the City of San Rafael and its police department continue to play a deceptive game of double-speak by unanimously voting to approve the police chief’s weak and useless plan called the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee,” Rivas-Camarena said in an email. “There’s nothing in the plan that remotely holds the department and its present and future rogue officers accountable for any alleged or actual wrongdoings.”

For now, the city is moving forward with the PAAC. But one has to wonder whether that might change after the independent investigative report is released to the public and we see what action, if any, is taken against Brandon Nail.

Tara Evans, a lifelong San Rafael resident and member of the Marin Justice League, told me in an interview that the group will continue fighting for true police accountability in San Rafael and throughout the county.

“Dynamics are changing,” Evans said. “Every person deserves to be policed in a way that is fair, equitable and aligned with the law. Harm to one member harms us all. I think it’s really in that ideology that the issue of police accountability is not going to go away.” 

Marin City pastors stage “intervention” with private developer over unwanted housing project

In front of a room crowded with concerned residents, two Marin City pastors had a come-to-Jesus meeting last month with an Idaho real estate developer who is planning a controversial affordable housing project.

Rev. Rondall Leggett and Rev. Floyd Thompkins did not mince words. If developer Caleb Roope, CEO of the The Pacific Companies, proceeds with the five-story, 74-unit apartment complex, he’ll be another in a long line of racists who think they know what’s best for Marin City, a historically Black community.

“We want you to go,” Leggett, of First Missionary Baptist Church, said. “We know that you may potentially have the capital you need. You definitely have commitment from the county. But you don’t have our consent.”

The meeting was hosted by Save Our City, a local group opposed to the planned project at 825 Drake Ave. The pastors, along with AJ Lambert, who lives across the street from the currently vacant lot, outlined some of the community’s numerous objections to the development, including that it’s dangerous to substantially increase the population of the small neighborhood already rife with serious infrastructure issues.

Not only is the property in a state-designated high fire hazard zone, but the area is also prone to flooding. Public safety problems are compounded because there’s only one road in and out of Marin City. In addition, the building will block the sun from reaching the two-story senior housing project behind the property.

“I’m the first guy to acknowledge that this project, from a neighborhood character perspective, is way too big for the neighborhood or for the surrounding area,” Roope said.

Roope confirmed to the pastors that he had read about Marin City’s history, which includes decades of racism experienced by the residents at the hands of the county government. Through the use of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, the Black population was excluded from purchasing and renting homes outside Marin City.

Redlining, the discriminatory practice of denying mortgages to Black people, also occurred. Marin City residents were prevented from owning property in the county when it was still considered an affordable area. Black people weren’t given the same opportunity as white people to build generational wealth in what is now one of the most expensive real estate markets in America.

“You have started in the middle of a racist, classist story…,” Thompkins said to Roope. “And so, to think that somehow you’re not perpetuating that by erecting a building that does nothing but make us more unsafe–and by doing the paternalistic, small-minded racist thing that’s been done for years, which is not even talking to us before it’s done–then we look at you and say you are what we always see, a racist doing nothing but hurting us.”

At the end of the 90-minute meeting, Roope said he would consider walking away from the project and that he may need help to break the news to county officials, who he called “stakeholders.” The pastors and Roope agreed to continue their discussions.

Roope, it seemed, saw the light.

But on May 24, just eight days after the meeting, Roope closed on the purchase of the property at 825 Drake Ave. Two days later, the county issued a building permit for the oversized development.

The county didn’t have much of a choice on the building permit. While all five members of the county’s board of supervisors have been critical of the development, they have said their hands are tied by Senate Bill 35, a 2018 state law which restricts local governments from rejecting multi-family residential developments that satisfy specific criteria. The project at 825 Drake Ave. checked all the boxes. 

Roope, however, did have a choice. In fact, Roope stated during the meeting that he was the sole decision-maker on whether he would move forward with the development.

I was at the meeting, which Thompkins called an “intervention,” and I thought that Roope was going to throw in the towel. Roope has told me more than once that he wouldn’t have become involved with the project if he had understood the community. I called him to find out what happened.

“I definitely considered it and did a lot of research for the past couple of weeks,” Roope said. “I had a call with the lender and investors. The financing–there would be an enormous penalty for me. I had an interest rate lock. It would be a permanent problem for me walking away from the lender.”

The county, too, is providing funding to Roope, despite the supervisors denouncing the project. Last year, the board of supervisors unanimously approved an allocation of $1,850,000 for the development from the Marin County Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Then, in March, the board voted 3-2 to approve the issuance of $40 million in tax-exempt bonds from the California Municipal Finance Authority, enabling Roope to finance the bulk of the development’s cost—pegged at almost $57 million in a recent application for state funding. That includes a $6 million developer fee for Roope.

The Marin Housing Authority has committed to provide 25 Section 8 project-based housing vouchers for the project, providing a revenue stream of $463,728 in annual rental income. And the gifts keep on coming. The agency is now considering handing over ten more vouchers, Marin Housing Authority Director Kimberly Carroll told the Pacific Sun.

With the building permit in hand, Roope could break ground tomorrow at 825 Drake Ave. Instead, he said that he’s taking the next 90 to 180 days, and possibly longer, to make improvements to the project. On April 30, Roope signed an agreement with the county regarding the changes.

The four-page document contains a few solid commitments, such as providing one parking spot, either on- or off-site, for each of the 74 units. That’s a substantial increase from the original 24 spaces planned on the property.

However, other terms in the agreement simply require a “good faith” or “reasonable” effort that may or may not result in change. One of those vague areas addresses reducing the size and scope of the building. 

“Some of the language might be soft because there’s so much subject to other people’s decisions,” Roope said. “I have to deliver a certain amount of units [74], since I’ve gotten my financing–not just from the state, but from private lenders and investors. Could I deliver that in multiple locations? I have to secure another place to do that and I’m exploring those kinds of things right now.”

Another aspect of the agreement involves Roope possibly making a donation to local projects. Although the amount of $2.5 million has been bandied about by community members and recently reported in the Marin Independent Journal, the agreement does not specify a number. In fact, the agreement stipulates that a donation is dependent on whether Roope earns a profit during the development phase. I asked Roope for clarification.

“No determination yet on how much will be donated,” Roope said. “It will also be TBD based on whatever costs are incurred for project changes, etc. It will depend on what is left. I don’t take any developer profit until the project is built and fully leased.”

The community has concerns about the affordability of the apartments. The rents are calculated based on the median income for Marin County, which is substantially higher than Marin City’s median income. Unfortunately, that puts the rent out of reach for most Marin City residents.

The agreement has a clause that covers this issue, stating that any cost savings resulting from project changes will be used for “increased affordability.” It remains to be seen whether any savings eventually materialize.

Critics have indicated the agreement doesn’t guarantee lower rents or much else. But Marin County Administrator Matthew Hymel, who signed the agreement on behalf of the county, believes it is responsive to issues raised by the community and will ultimately improve the development.

“I think one of the structures of the agreement is that things like affordability and size and scope require more analysis,” Hymel said.  And part of the agreement is that Roope will come back to us for subsequent approval.”

However, it might be difficult for the county to withhold approval on the terms that only obligate Roope to make a “good faith” or “reasonable” effort.

Regardless of the agreement, Bettie Hodges, a Marin City native and founder of Save Our City, remains adamantly opposed to the project. Last month, her group filed a lawsuit, paid for by an anonymous donor, against Roope and the county. The legal action seeks to reverse the board of supervisors approval of $40 million in tax-exempt bonds.

“The project is ruining the fabric of the community in so many ways,” Hodges said. “Consider all of the issues people have raised. It’s an assault in ways that are hard to describe. If you place a non-native plant in a garden, it takes over. The building at 825 Drake is a large foreign object that will undermine the garden of Marin City. We have to do everything we can to throw a monkey wrench in this process.”

Tick Talk: Blood-sucking arachnids spread disease in Northern California

What the heck is that thing in the photo? A hazelnut? A small dumpling with eight legs? Perhaps an odd seed pod? Nope.

Behold the engorged tick, swollen with blood stolen from its host. Not only do the little suckers feast on our vital red fluid, but they can also leave behind parting gifts, including the bacteria that causes Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. It’s possible for ticks found in California to transmit seven different diseases to humans, according to the California Department of Public Health.

Exactly a decade ago, I wrote an article about Lyme disease featuring “Jane,” a Marin County native who had been suffering from a myriad of debilitating symptoms for three years.

“It started with a violent flu—the worst flu I ever had in my entire life,” Jane told me in 2013. “Then, I would wake up with numb arms and hands. My vision was slightly blurry.”

New symptoms continued to emerge. Severe headaches, extreme fatigue, joint and bone pain, memory loss and dizziness. Jane spent more and more time in bed.

She trudged to 14 doctors, who poked, prodded and misdiagnosed her. Finally, in May of 2013, the 15th doctor tested her for Lyme disease. Although Jane didn’t recall being bitten by a tick, nor had she noticed the tell-tale bullseye rash some people develop, she had Lyme.

While she was relieved to finally have a diagnosis, she was also confused—and rightfully so.

“First, I was told there was no Lyme in Northern California,” Jane said. “Then, I was diagnosed with chronic Lyme, a disease that I was told didn’t exist.”

In 2012, about a year before Jane’s diagnosis, a group of women in Silicon Valley started the Bay Area Lyme Foundation and convinced a couple of tick ecologists to conduct a study. The results, which came out in 2014, caused a stir in the science community. Sure enough, Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme, was present in 1% to 7% of the western blacklegged ticks collected from Bay Area trails and parks, depending on the location.

“We found ticks carrying B. burgdorferi in nearly every park that we looked, and not just in wooded areas …” said Dr. Dan Salkeld, an ecologist and epidemiologist who was one of the study’s lead authors.

Based on this study and others, the medical community no longer quarrels about whether Lyme exists in Northern California. However, there are still many controversies surrounding the disease.

“No one is denying that Lyme disease is real,” said Dr. Matt Willis, Marin County’s public health officer. Willis contracted the disease years ago and had a bullseye rash. Fortunately, he was diagnosed and cured rather quickly.

“Lyme disease has been well established,” he continued. “The debate is around its prevalence.”

The Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District collects ticks year-round from trails, parks and recreation areas in both counties. The adult and young ticks, called nymphs, are tested for the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, and Borrelia miyamotoi, a bacterium that causes tick-borne relapsing fever.

In conjunction with the state, the district also tests for other pathogens, including the bacterium that causes anaplasmosis, a disease that is on the rise in Marin County, according to Willis.

About 2% of the adult ticks in Marin are infected with the bacteria that causes Lyme. Sonoma County fares a bit better at 1.5%.

Those percentages more than double when looking at the infection rate for the nymphs, which are about the size of poppy seeds. In Marin, almost 4.2% of the nymphs harbor Lyme-causing bacteria. The rate is 4.1% in Sonoma County.

“We’re in nymphal season now, from spring through summer,” said Dr. Kelly Liebman, an entomologist and the scientific programs manager for the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District. “The ticks are out there, and the pathogens are there at low levels.”

But hotspots exist in certain areas, where a much higher percentage of the ticks carry pathogens, said Wendy Adams, research grant director for the Bay Area Lyme Foundation. And those locations can change from year to year.

In a Bolinas Lagoon study, 31% of the collected ticks harbored at least one pathogen, including the bacteria that causes Lyme, tick-borne relapsing fever and anaplasmosis, according to a 2021 research article by Salkeld that was published in the American Society for Microbiology Journal.

While the number of reported cases of Lyme disease remains low in the Bay Area—eight in Marin County and seven in Sonoma County in the last two years—experts agree underreporting occurs.

Consider the backflips by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which states that “many cases do not get reported” because health care providers are “busy.” The CDC receives 35,000 reports of Lyme disease cases annually, yet the agency uses insurance records to estimate that approximately 476,000 Americans are diagnosed and treated for Lyme disease each year.

It’s no wonder that the Bay Area Lyme Foundation is funneling millions of dollars into research at dozens of esteemed institutions, such as Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The organization aims to make Lyme disease easy to diagnose and simple to cure.

Diagnosis is difficult because the two-tiered Lyme antibody test recommended by the CDC, which has been around for 29 years, is known to provide false negatives. It often takes a few weeks for the body to produce enough antibodies to measure, causing a delay in treatment, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Accurate diagnostics are the linchpin for being treated appropriately for Lyme Disease,” said Adams, the research grant director. “We are hoping that with new, more sensitive detection technologies, we will be able to detect the bacteria itself in a blood sample, and not just the immune response which varies from infection to infection.” 

Adams knows firsthand the importance of early and accurate diagnostics. She went five years before being diagnosed with Lyme disease, and it took her several more years to fully recover.

Many Lyme patients and their doctors believe delayed treatment plays a factor in chronic Lyme, a condition the CDC refers to as Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome. Even after the prescribed course of antibiotics, some people are still plagued by illness.

Last week, I revisited Jane, whose name is actually Kirsten Seifert-Stein. During our first interview, she insisted on a pseudonym because she feared her family’s health coverage would be canceled due to her Lyme diagnosis.

Ten years post diagnosis, Seifert-Stein, now 53, has not fully recovered. Her health insurance was never canceled, but it doesn’t cover much anyway. She stopped tallying her out-of-pocket medical expenses years ago when the total hit $100,000.

“I’m concentrating on my health and getting better,” she said. “But I’ve sacrificed a lot to do that, Including my career, education and relationships with friends and family.”

Ditto for Sarah Reid, 59, who was also diagnosed with Lyme in 2013. The Santa Rosa resident’s experience is eerily similar to Seifert-Stein’s. Reid doesn’t remember removing a tick or having a bullseye rash. Despite a decade of treatment, she hasn’t been cured.

“I have a persistent disease that pretty much is with me constantly,” Reid said. “Lyme has caused me a lot of trauma, both financially and emotionally, in trying to get diagnosed and treated.”

Remarkably, both women still venture into the great outdoors when they feel up to it. Reid volunteers for the horse trail patrol and rides in Sonoma County parks and preserves, while Seifert-Stein mountain bikes and walks her dog throughout Marin. They agree that preventing tick borne illnesses is the key.

“Take precautions,” Seifert-Stein said. “Use tick repellent, wear the right clothing and do tick checks. It’s OK to go outside.”


For tips on preventing tick bites, visit the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District and the Bay Area Lyme Foundation.

‘Posh’ Marin and its homeless residents capture attention from tabloids

Marin County became the hot tabloid topic this month with three sensational stories splashed across the pages of the New York Post and the Daily Mail.

The trio of articles scream about “posh” Marin allowing hundreds of “vagrants” and “tweakers” to live in recreational vehicles on Binford Road in Novato, bringing crime, drugs and devastation to the area. The New York Post calls Binford Road “shocking,” while the London-based Daily Mail maintains there are over two miles of vehicles, making it “one of the largest encampments in the country.”

I did some fact checking. In addition to interviewing county officials and law enforcement, I spent three days on Binford Road meeting its residents.

Actually, 86 people live in RVs and other vehicles on Binford Road, a stretch of pavement running alongside Highway 101 in an unincorporated part of Marin County. For years, homeless folks have occasionally taken up residence there, but the population swelled during the pandemic.

Most of the residents are from Marin; however, some have relocated from neighboring Sonoma County. Many municipalities in both counties now strictly enforce parking limits and RV parking bans. Binford Road may be the last haven around.

Bonnie Silveria, 53, arrived at Binford Road about two months ago, after losing her Rohnert Park home when her mother passed away. The RV where Silveria now lives has all the touches of home, with a small veranda overlooking the marsh. It took her a while to find a safe place to settle. Rohnert Park shooed her out and Petaluma made her move every 72 hours.

Silveria’s RV is one in a line of 135 vehicles extending 1.2 miles, with periodic breaks where there are no parked RVs, trailers or cars. Last month, county workers began installing berms and other barriers to prevent new people from taking up roadside residence.

The Binford Road encampment isn’t even close to being the largest in the country. In March, the Los Angeles Times reported on a six-mile-long camp with 425 recreational vehicles in LA County. The population at the “Zone,” a homeless encampment in Phoenix, has ranged from 500 to 1,000 people, although it is now being cleared block by block. The list goes on.

Both the New York Post and the Daily Mail call Marin “posh.” Sure, parts of Marin are pretty swanky. But Binford Road isn’t among them. In an area zoned for commercial and industrial use, the folks living in their vehicles share the neighborhood with an RV storage lot, a self-storage facility and a small county airport. Marin’s main freeway borders the west side of Binford Road and a marsh abuts the east.

The claims of criminal activity are exaggerated, according to the Marin County Sheriff’s Office, which has a homeless outreach deputy assigned part-time to Binford Road. Last week, I did a ride-along with Deputy Mike Thompson while he patrolled the area.

“For an encampment that has close to 90 people, we get very few calls related to actual crime,” Thompson said. “Our department put out a social media post recently on an arrest involving drugs and a gun. A lot of people like to think that that happens every day, with every single person and every single trailer up here doing exactly that. There’s no evidence of it.”

Thompson provides a monthly report about Binford Road to the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Mostly, he said, activities consist of “nuisance behavior,” such as people walking in the road or illegally parked cars.

“The calls out here are very minor,” he said.

The stories of the people living on Binford Road aren’t unique. I’ve been covering homelessness for years, and the folks living on this two-lane road have the same issues as the scores of other unhoused people I’ve met. They cite lack of affordable housing as the chief reason they’re homeless, with job loss a close second.

Many working class folks live on Binford Road, people who leave in the morning for work and come back home to their RV in the evening, Thompson said. But they don’t earn enough for a permanent home.

The median monthly rent in Marin County for a two-bedroom is $3,950, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data. In Sonoma County, that same home rents for $2,432. Considering that a full-time, minimum wage worker grosses under $2,700 a month, it’s easy to grasp the gravity of the housing crisis.

Sprinkle in the impact of the pandemic, unexpected medical expenses, mental health issues and substance abuse, and one gets a pretty good picture of what sent people out to Binford Road.

Last week, while I walked Binford Road with Marin County Supervisor Eric Lucan, residents Gale and Raymond Staley invited us into their trailer. The married couple, who fell in love three decades ago when they worked together in Petaluma, told us they used to own a home in Sonoma County, where they raised their three children. 

Unfortunately, a series of incidents chipped away at their financial security. Around 2008, the Staleys joined six million other Americans who lost their homes during the banking crisis. When COVID hit, Raymond Staley, 62, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s and other serious medical conditions, ending his 40-year career at Kmart and leaving him unable to work. Gale Staley, 65, a travel agent, was a casualty of the pandemic layoffs. In September, the couple moved to Binford Road when the Bel Marin Keys home they were renting was sold. 

Often, as with the Staleys, it’s a combination of factors that send people down the path to homelessness. Providing stability and a leg up can set them on a new trajectory, which is the reason Supervisor Lucan is working to help the Staleys and their neighbors get back on their feet. Lucan is adamant that the current residents will not be displaced.

“We do not want to rip people from their housing, and we’re not enforcing a 72-hour parking rule,” Lucan said. “It took four to five years for Binford Road to grow like this. It’s going to take time to find better options for each of these individuals.”

The county has launched monthly service fairs at Binford Road to jump start the process. And the efforts are paying off. Three former Binford Road residents recently received permanent housing, according to Gary Naja-Riese, Marin County’s Homelessness Division director.

Naja-Riese says that multiple county departments have worked together to provide basic services, such as porta-potties, hand-washing stations and trash pickup. Sen. Mike McGuire secured $500,000 for the county from state surplus funds, with a significant portion going to Binford Road. The county is waiting to hear whether it will receive an additional $1.5 million in funding. And a social worker will soon be working full time overseeing Binford Road programs.

“The goal is to move people from Binford to permanent housing,” Naja-Riese said.

Clearly, it’s not the Wild West on Binford Road. This begs the question: Why did the New York Post and the Daily Mail descend on Novato—in the same four-day period—with reporters, photographers and drones, resulting in three stories that contain outlandish claims?

Exploitation comes to mind, as with the stark photos of the less than tidy areas belonging to a few tinkerers, mechanics and even a hoarder or two. 

As Deputy Thompson and I drove past the possessions overflowing from an RV, he talked about his other law enforcement duty—serving court papers to citizens. It gives him a window into what goes on behind the closed doors of private homes.

“There are a lot of hoarders everywhere,” Thompson said. “We just don’t see them.”

I contacted the three tabloid reporters multiple times to ask about their coverage. Daily Mail reporter Emma Jones replied via Twitter and email, directing me to talk to her colleague, Josh Boswell, who also wrote about Binford Road. Boswell never responded, nor did Stephanie Pagones of the New York Post.

Sadly, the hyped representation in those papers only served to demoralize the residents of Binford Road. 

“I don’t trust reporters,” said Ilan Miller, 59, a Binford Road resident. “Fake news. They made us look disgusting. These people, who don’t know the area and don’t know us.”

Miller, a handyman, hit hard times when his business dropped off during COVID. A tumor in his head is inoperable, although he can still do some work. He moved to Marin four years ago to be close to his family. Then his mother died, leaving him with funeral and burial bills.

As if the tabloid tales aren’t disheartening enough, Binford Road residents must also contend with locals who oppose the encampment. Tires have been slashed on motorhomes and other vehicles.

Cars whiz by at speeds higher than the 55 miles per hour limit, even with people walking on the narrow shoulder of the road to visit a neighbor or get to one of the restroom areas.

“It’s intentional,” Lucan said.

One particularly outspoken person who would like to see the Binford residents move out of the area is Novato resident Toni Shroyer, who lost her bid for a seat on the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 2018. 

Shroyer didn’t respond to my calls and emails, but she claimed on Facebook to possess “evidence of feces, toxins, oil, etc. going into the wetlands.” Her many photos of Binford Road failed to reveal more than some household trash.

Although Shroyer stated her Binford Road concerns are about the environment, it’s clear that’s not her only gripe. On social media, she discussed calling child protective services on a family living on Binford Road with an “underaged” daughter.

“Being homeless in and of itself is not a reason for investigation by Children and Family Services,” Naja-Riese said.

It seems unlikely that Shroyer will give up her campaign anytime soon. Thompson’s phone rang while I sat in his patrol car, and Shroyer’s ID popped up. She’s a frequent caller, he said.

Thompson takes it in stride, saying that he feels compassion for the people living on Binford Road, yet he also wants to be the voice of reason. He investigates the frequent complaints he receives about feces and oil directed into the lagoon, and he has found no proof. One call described a pipe going directly from an RV’s septic tank to the wetlands. It turned out to be a downspout, part of an awning.

“There is a resolution here,” Thompson said. “We can manage this in a way that allows people to exist safely and doesn’t harm the environment.”

Gale Staley is in agreement with Thompson, and said that she and her husband appreciate the beauty of the wetlands. She also had a message for the tabloids, Shroyer and anyone else dogging people on Binford Road: “I don’t think there’s anyone living out here by choice. It happened to us in a matter of a year. Eighteen months ago, we had it all. It can happen to anyone.”

Richardson Bay anchor-outs consider offer of housing on land

A new program launched this month offers subsidized housing on land for people currently living aboard boats anchored off the shores of Sausalito.

Most of the scrappy sailors, known as “anchor-outs,” don’t want to leave the free anchorage and their nautical lifestyle to become landlubbers.

But the promise of long-term housing seems to be softening the blow, at least for some. They are resigned to giving up their boats on Richardson Bay, beaten down by the years of battling local officials hell-bent on dismantling the anchor-out community.

Others vow to stay until the bitter end, saying the only way they’ll leave is in handcuffs or a body bag.

“If [getting] housing entails getting rid of my boat, I’m not going to capitulate in any way shape or form,” said Aaron Kelly, 43, who has lived on the anchorage for 13 years.

Part of the problem boils down to mistrust of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA). While the RBRA is overseeing the new housing program, it’s also the local authority tasked by the state to remove the boats by Oct. 15, 2026.

One hand giveth, and the other taketh. And the taking process has been particularly harsh.

The anchor-outs’ dwindling population bears testament to the RBRA’s resolve in its mission to protect “environmentally sensitive waters.” In 2019, 200 vessels were anchored out on Richardson Bay.

Till then, the agency had largely ignored a regulation limiting boats in Richardson Bay to a 72-hour stay. Then, four years ago, under pressure from the state, the RBRA began enforcing the rule.

The harbormaster stepped up the agency’s boat seizure and crushing operation, often leaving people homeless. Today, only about 50 boats and 60 people remain on the water, according to the RBRA.

The anchor-outs and their supporters maintain their boats aren’t polluting the estuary. Instead, they point to sewage spills from treatment plants, pesticides running downhill into the water and the Chevron plant located in the East Bay. During the last 25 years, the oil company has been repeatedly fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to comply with federal environmental laws at its Richmond facilities.

“It’s a smear campaign,” said Arthur Bruce, who has lived on Richardson Bay for seven years. “The RBRA wants to destroy a culture under the guise of environmentalism—all at the behest of wealthy landowners who don’t want to look at anchor-outs because they think we’re bad for real estate investments. This is a war on the poor.”

The RBRA claims the anchor-outs destroy the indigenous eelgrass, subaquatic vegetation, which certain animals rely on for food and habitat. Small fish hide in it, while others lay eggs in it. Fishing birds looking for food also depend on the eelgrass.

Whatever the real reason, if all goes as the RBRA plans, the anchor-outs will soon be banished from living on Richardson Bay. However, this group of mariners, unlike their former unfortunate neighbors whose boats were destroyed, will have access to housing on land, courtesy of the State of California.

State Senator Mike McGuire secured $3 million in funding for the RBRA’s three-year subsidized housing program, which will be administered by the Marin Housing Authority (MHA). The county also kicked in $344,680 to provide short-term case management for the anchor-outs.

Successfully housing the mariners relies on a multi-pronged approach and partnerships with other agencies, according to Brad Gross, the RBRA’s executive director. The goal is to move about 17 households a year from their boats into housing at scattered sites across the county.

“The program is designed to last for 12 months,” Gross said. “During that period, the Marin Housing Authority will be seeking federal vouchers for these people. As they transition out and into an actual Section 8 voucher, we’ll bring another person into the program.”

Additionally, social workers contracted by the county will work with the mariners to help them adjust to life on land and provide other wrap-around services as needed.

Some anchor-outs, especially those who have lived on the water for years, are dealing with issues that make housing on land somewhat appealing. Aging, declining health and deteriorating boats make life on the anchorage more difficult.

However, a chief concern among the boat dwellers is what will happen after the program terminates. Some say they’ve long been on the county’s waiting list for Section 8 vouchers. They’re scared to leave their boats, only to end up homeless after a year in the RBRA’s temporary housing.

Gross is adamant that the mariners will stay housed.

“I have assurance—the MHA says they never put somebody out on the street,” Gross said.

Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, who is also president of the RBRA board of directors, concurs.

“The program is intended to be a long-term solution,” Moulton-Peters told the Pacific Sun.

One can hardly blame the mariners for their skepticism. The RBRA doesn’t always act in their best interests. Stories abound about the agency intimidating them and violating their civil rights, especially the female anchor-outs.

A young woman is facing criminal charges for pepper spraying the harbormaster, who unannounced pulled up alongside her boat in the isolated open waters. She says his presence terrified her.

Then there’s Robyn Kelly, an anchor-out who went ashore to spend Thanksgiving with her family. While she was gone, the harbormaster seized and destroyed her boat. That was in 2019, and Kelly is still unhoused today, taking refuge in a San Rafael homeless shelter.

Kelly’s experience isn’t uncommon. The RBRA crushed Sunny Yow’s boat, and she now lives in her vehicle. A handful of other anchor-outs remain unhoused since their vessels were seized and destroyed by the agency.

Yet, both Gross and Moulton-Peters said only people currently living on the water are eligible for the RBRA’s housing program, provided they meet certain criteria.

Shel Snyder recently received notice that she does qualify for housing, and she’s considering it. Her mother is sick, and she feels the timing is right for her to live in a stable home on land.

To give Snyder a bit more incentive to accept, the harbormaster just placed a notice on her boat stating that it’s marine debris. If she doesn’t remove the vessel from the anchorage within 10 days, the RBRA will do it for her.

Long-time anchor-out Peter Glazer plans on hanging tough, telling the Pacific Sun he won’t be leaving Richardson Bay anytime soon. The sailor has lived on a boat, on and off, since 1992, and has witnessed a lot of conflict.

“The RBRA is the master of sabotage,” Glazer said. “They’ve been fighting us for years. We don’t want them breaking up our community.”

San Rafael legal settlement keeps residents in their homes—for now

A settlement reached last month between the City of San Rafael and a mobile home park owner requires the park to remain open for the next decade, ending 16 months of litigation.

But residents, who own their homes and rent the lot underneath, remain fearful of becoming homeless. At first blush, their fears seem unfounded.

After all, the RV Park of San Rafael, home to about 90 primarily low-income residents, won’t be closing in October, as previously stated by the owners.

“The city has a continuing interest in affordable housing,” said attorney Michael von Loewenfeldt of Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick, a firm representing the City of San Rafael. “A bargain was struck that provides the residents with a longer-term certainty than they might have had even if we won the lawsuit. The park could have closed this year or next.”

San Rafael negotiated other important tenant protections, too. A rent hike cap stays in place for current residents, limiting the annual increase to 75% of the local Consumer Price Index.

Residents who paid a contested rent increase of $100 per month from November 2021 through June 2022 will receive a refund.

The park must withdraw pending notices of termination, considered the first step in the eviction process. And all notices to fix violations of park rules are reset, giving affected residents a new 30 day-period to correct the cited problems with their homes.

So, why are the tenants of the RV Park of San Rafael still quaking in their boots?

Residents say they’ve been harassed and intimidated since Harmony Communities, a controversial company that owns and manages dozens of mobile home parks, took over the park in July 2021.

The company has also been involved in litigation with residents in other parks. A Fresno attorney grew so frustrated with Harmony’s tactics that she tweeted about founder Matt Davies’ criminal convictions for drugs and felony assault with a deadly weapon. As a result, Davies did time and agreed to surrender his real estate license.

Harmony’s actions against the San Rafael residents have run the gamut—from name-calling to a mass tenant eviction in February—according to residents and attorneys. Others included hiking rents far more than the max allowed by local law and issuing more than 70 violation notices for minor problems with homes, such as protruding awnings.

Adding insult to injury, Harmony reported the residents’ inconsequential violations to a state agency governing mobile home parks, triggering inspection after inspection.

While the San Rafael settlement agreement remedies most of these issues, at least for the time being, residents understand it can’t stop Davies from continuing an aggressive strategy. And Davies isn’t just managing the RV Park of San Rafael anymore. In February, he and other Harmony principals purchased the park, according to testimony Davies provided in a Marin courtroom last month.

“Harmony and Matt Davies have given the tenants every reason to be terrified,” said Josh Sullivan, managing attorney for Legal Aid of Marin, which is representing some residents. “It’s not like Blair Witch Project terror—Matt Davies is real.”

Last month, Sullivan won a case on behalf of a couple that Harmony was trying to evict. The couple, who has lived in their modular home at the RV Park of San Rafael for more than two decades, was up to date on their rent. Years ago, they hired a contractor to install a kitchen, but failed at the time to get the necessary sign offs from the state agency governing mobile homes.

The judge ruled against Harmony in the eviction.

However, that’s likely not the end of the couple’s troubles. Although the state has now signed off on the kitchen, the park refuses to provide its approval, which is also required to be in complete compliance.

“Matt Davies has repeatedly made it known that the park is not going to cooperate,” Sullivan said. “In every contract, there’s an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. My clients are on a lease. Harmony is breaching that covenant by refusing to sign off when the state and the tenant agree they’ve remedied.”

Another park resident, Alex Vernimmen, 70, finds himself in a similar situation. Vernimmen, who lives with his 96-year-old mother, was also the defendant in an eviction lawsuit brought by Harmony.

In a settlement reached with the park in April, Vernimmen agreed to pay back rent and get state approval for a cabana he had built 18 years ago. Done and done. But the park has not signed off, causing Vernimmen to miss the deadline to file the legal paperwork.

Vernimmen, who is out of money and can’t afford to pay his private attorney for another legal battle, says he’s suffering from depression because of his experience.

The end game seems to be forcing out the current tenants, who benefit from rent control. Several long-term tenants left the park—and the homes that they owned—before the city and Harmony reached the settlement.

“Some did self-evict,” Sullivan said. “They had vulnerabilities, like immigration status. Landlords that are aggressive know that and are rewarded for their aggressiveness. Harmony is trying to chip away at the close-knit community.”

Sherrie Johnston, Harmony’s chief operating officer, declined to answer any detailed questions from the Pacific Sun. Instead, she sent an email criticizing the paper for its previous coverage of the park and a statement declaring victory in the lawsuit with the City of San Rafael.

At the heart of the lawsuit was the question over whether the RV Park of San Rafael is a mobile home park or an RV park. Legally, it’s an important distinction because mobile home park residents are offered more protections than those living in RV parks.

Mobile homes aren’t actually very mobile. It’s extremely expensive to move them and damage often occurs. Many parks don’t even accept used homes. These factors leave mobile home owners exposed to the whims of park management, prompting laws that allow owners to sell their homes in place and capping rent increases.

The state classifies the RV Park of San Rafael as a mobile home park, regardless of its name. And the city’s settlement agreement doesn’t change this fact, nor did it try.

“In this settlement, the city has agreed that the RV Park of San Rafael is in fact an RV park and is in fact exempt from the rent control ordinance,” Johnston wrote.

However, the city does not agree.

“I do not read those provisions [in the settlement] as agreeing that the Park is an RV Park in any way—although they [both parties] do agree that RVs are not subject to rent control under the City’s ordinance,” said von Loewenfeldt, San Rafael’s outside counsel.

It might be easy to laugh at the Harmony team for their misinterpretations and child-like stubbornness—if they weren’t in control of the homes of thousands of low-income people across California, Oregon and Nevada.

Still, Davies, who sports a man bun in his photo on the company website, doesn’t mind making a mockery of his leadership role. In documents obtained by the Pacific Sun, Davies’ email signature includes his title: “The Dude/El Duderino/His Dudeness.” Multiple news outlets have also reported on the company’s practice of responding to inquiries using a prank name with a sexual reference—”Heywood Jablóm.” 

All of this seems to justify the concerns of the residents at the RV Park of San Rafael.

“Harmony will continue to harass us one by one,” Vernimmen, the park resident, said. “Your fence is too high. Your cabana is not legal.”

Opposition growing against Marin City housing project 

The fight against a controversial affordable housing development planned for Marin City has gained momentum since the for-profit developer made insulting remarks about community members.

The fallout was swift for real estate developer Alexis Gevorgian, of AMG & Associates, who told the Pacific Sun last month that residents of the historically Black neighborhood are communists wanting free handouts. Gevorgian also dismissed concerns that the five-story, 74-unit development with only 24 parking spots will tax the overburdened infrastructure of the densely populated area.

Elected officials and residents across Marin County denounced Gevorgian and the development at 825 Drake Ave., which received county approval in November 2020. The day after the Pacific Sun article was published, Gevorgian turned the reins over to another partner in the project, Caleb Roope of The Pacific Companies.

On April 12, Roope met with the Marin City community for three hours. While Roope apologized for his partner’s behavior, he also blamed Gevorgian for all of the project’s alleged faults: bad design, insufficient parking, unaffordable rents and poor community relations.

Roope has been associated with the project almost since its inception, although he claimed that he didn’t pay attention to the details until after Gevorgian’s significant faux pas. The partners have worked together on 40 projects, and there has never been a problem before, according to Roope.

“I just got involved 10 days ago,” said Roope, whose company is based in Eagle, Idaho. “Normally, all this [the architectural planning and community engagement] is done, and we show up and move forward.”

Many residents and their supporters remain skeptical. 

“Roope is just lipstick on a pig,” said Barbara Bogard, a Marin City advocate.

Efforts are now underway on several fronts to stop the project. Save Our City, a group formed to oppose the development, would like to work out an amicable resolution with Roope and the county, but has attorneys standing by.

Assemblymember Damon Connolly isn’t surprised that Roope wasn’t able to drum up any support.

“I have told the developer in no uncertain terms that they have poisoned the well with this community by demonstrating racial animus and a failure to understand the history and needs of this community,” Connolly said in an email. “…After listening to the community and hearing their perspective, I have significant doubts that this project will move forward.”

The development presents bigger problems than Gevorgian, according to critics. It’s downright dangerous to add 182 new residents—a population increase of 6.2%—to Marin City, a neighborhood rife with serious infrastructure issues.

Not only is 825 Drake Ave. in a state-designated high fire hazard zone, but the area is also prone to flooding. Public safety issues are compounded because there’s only one road in and out of Marin City.

An outright purchase of the property, preferably by the county or a nonprofit, would be the quickest way to put the brakes on the project. Or the county could do a land swap with the developers.

AMG & Associates, Gevorgian’s company, ignored inquiries by a local nonprofit to discuss buying 825 Drake Ave. When the Pacific Sun contacted Gevorgian via text message to ask about the issue, he responded, “I’m no longer involved.”

However, Roope confirmed that Gevorgian’s company still owns the one-acre property, which it purchased for $2.5 million.

Roope says his firm, The Pacific Companies, has a contract with an option to purchase the property from Gevorgian for $2.5 million. But Roope will only buy the property if his financing from multiple sources comes through.The development is projected to cost nearly $57 million.

So far, so good for Roope. The Marin County Board of Supervisors recently approved the issuance of $40 million in tax-exempt state bonds for the project.

But therein lies the rub in selling the property to the county or a nonprofit. Roope competed with other real estate developers for the tax-exempt bonds. If he doesn’t build the 74 affordable housing units, the state will penalize him on future applications to finance other developments, according to Roope.

A 1031 exchange, more commonly known as a land swap, could possibly work for Roope, allowing him to use the state financing on a project located elsewhere in Marin County. Stephanie Moulton-Peters, the county supervisor representing Southern Marin, is interested in the idea. Even so, both parties acknowledge it may be difficult finding an appropriate property where Roope could build a similar housing complex.

“My first choice is to try to figure out how to make this project work,” Roope said in an interview with the Pacific Sun. “Unfortunately, I didn’t have the window on what was happening at the local level, and that’s my fault. What I have now doesn’t really work for the local community and I’ve got to figure out what I can do to make it better.”

Roope is exploring building underground parking, with a goal of providing one parking space for each apartment. Still, he doesn’t know if he can swing it financially.

He also recognizes that the project is too far along to change the size of the building and reduce the number of units. Major modifications to the project could place the financing at risk, which is the reason Roope repeatedly stated during the Marin City meeting that he doesn’t think he can make the community happy.

“There’s also this substantial silent majority of people that…need this housing,” Roope told the Pacific Sun. “On the one hand, I totally get all the concerns in the community, and I’m going to try my very best. On the other hand, I consider one of my jobs to find the people you’re not hearing from and get them housing. That’s how I view my role in solving the housing crisis.”

In the meantime, community members aren’t holding their collective breath for an easy solution. This week, they filed paperwork to prevent the Marin Housing Authority from providing 25 project-based Section 8 vouchers to 825 Drake Ave.

Each voucher is like a bar of gold to the developer because the government guarantees market rate rent for the apartment. The 25 vouchers cover more than one-third of the units in the building, helping the development pencil out financially. 

If the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approves the vouchers, it equates to $463,728 in annual rental income for the development. 

“That revenue stream helps the financing of the project for sure,” Roope said.

Marin City resident Marilyn Mackel, a retired attorney and Los Angeles County court commissioner, feels confident that HUD won’t release the vouchers for a variety of reasons, including “no sunshine for seniors.” The new five-story building perched on the hillside property will cast a literal shadow over the existing two-story, low-income senior housing complex just 60 feet away.

The development at 825 Drake Ave. will negatively impact the character of the community in other ways, too, which could influence HUD’s decision. The rents, though considered affordable based on the area median income (AMI) for Marin County, are out of reach for most Marin City residents.

The county AMI for an individual is $116,000. However, Marin City’s AMI is just 28% of the county’s figure—$32,847 for an individual—based on the most recent Census Bureau data.

The influx of people with higher incomes could lead to higher rents throughout Marin City, which is home to the largest Black community in the county. This might price some residents out of their homes, leading to gentrification.

Roope says he is looking at the rent structure and hopes to make some adjustments.

However, Marin City has more affordable housing than any other area of the county, which is another fly in the ointment. Last month, state officials rejected the county’s mandated plan for new housing, noting the need for “more housing choices and affordability across greater geographies throughout the county,” to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities.

In other words, stop placing most of the county’s affordable housing in Marin City.

Legitimate questions arise about the county’s motivations and actions with regard to the Drake Avenue development, especially when considering the high concentration of affordable housing that already exists in Marin City.

The county maintains that it was forced to approve the project due to Senate Bill 35, a 2018 state law restricting local governments from rejecting multi-family residential developments that satisfy specific criteria. Unincorporated Marin County is subject to SB 35 because it has not built enough new housing to meet the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which aims to resolve the housing shortage. 

But SB 35 author, Sen. Scott Wiener, opines that “when local communities refuse to create enough housing—instead punting housing creation to other communities—then the State needs to ensure that all communities are equitably contributing to regional housing needs. Local control must be about how a community meets its housing goals, not whether it meets those goals.”

Clearly, Marin City has not been “punting housing creation,” which could have given the county a reason to reject the development.

Even assuming that the county had to approve 825 Drake Ave., it had no obligation to facilitate the project financing. Yet, the county provided a greenlight for the issuance of $40 million in tax-exempt bonds and then bestowed the gift of 25 housing vouchers.

The development kills two birds with one stone for the county. First, the 74-units help the county reach its RHNA goal for housing.

It also provides a solution to “overhousing” at Golden Gate Village, a public housing project in Marin City that is operated by the Marin Housing Authority. Overhousing refers to residents who live in units larger than necessary, which is a violation of HUD regulations.

HUD has been exerting pressure on the local housing authority to find new homes for the residents of about 35 overhoused units at Golden Gate Village. It’s quite convenient that the housing authority allocated 25 housing vouchers to the Drake Avenue project–a huge step in remedying the thorny overhousing issue.

Mackel, the retired court commissioner, believes the county’s actions, along with other issues, provide a strong legal basis for a temporary injunction—effectively stopping the developer from breaking ground until a judge rules on claims brought forth in a lawsuit.

As a last resort, the community is prepared to participate in peaceful civil disobedience to prevent the construction of the building. They hope they don’t have to.

“We’d rather the developer cut his losses and walk,” Mackel said.

Mobile crisis intervention program launches in San Rafael

The “subject down” call came into the San Rafael police dispatcher on Thursday morning at 10:22 a.m. A passerby reported that a man was lying on the ground at the corner of Second and A.

Instead of dispatching paramedics or the police to assess the situation, San Rafael’s new mobile crisis intervention team, Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE), responded to the call. On March 29, San Rafael became the first city in Marin County to launch a mobile crisis program. Several such programs already exist in Sonoma County.

Two civilian first responders, specially trained to provide services for vulnerable community members, found the man prone and groaning on the sidewalk. Priscilla Ferreira and her trainee, La Tasha Knighten, noted the smell of alcohol on the man, but also saw that he had head injuries.

Under gentle questioning from Ferreira, the man explained in Spanish that he had been robbed and beaten the previous evening. Ferreira, who is fluent in Spanish, said that SAFE would take him to the hospital in their rig, and he readily agreed.

However, the man kept falling back down when Ferreira and Knighten tried to help him up. Equipped with police radios and tied-in to the 911 dispatchers, they called for paramedics to transport the man to the hospital.

Within a few minutes, five paramedics from the San Rafael and Central Marin fire departments were on scene. Perhaps it was the presence of the large group or a moment of confusion, but the victim suddenly changed his mind about receiving services.

“I want to die,” he yelled. “Leave me alone.”

Ferreira, who had established a rapport with the man, spoke with him again. He calmed down, cooperated and was soon on his way to the emergency room in the paramedics’ ambulance.

It was a typical call—if there is such a thing for a mobile crisis unit—with the desired outcome.

“He could have just walked away, but we got him the medical attention he needed,” Ferreira said. “It feels good.”

My assignment this particular morning was to observe the San Rafael SAFE team in action. While I wasn’t permitted to accompany Ferreira and Knighten in their vehicle, I did a ride along with Sergeant Justin Graham of the San Rafael Police Department. Graham and I shadowed the crisis response team.

“SAFE is a separate entity,” Graham said. “It’s the fourth leg of public safety in San Rafael, alongside police, fire and medical.”

It is unusual for the police to follow a SAFE team, SAFE director Aziz Majid said. The teams respond alone to 80% of the calls, with the police dispatched only when a safety issue arises. 

After just three weeks, the program is already having a positive impact in San Rafael. The SAFE teams have handled 10 to 14 calls during each 12-hour shift, allowing the overburdened police and emergency medical personnel to focus on situations requiring their expertise.

“We don’t work for the police—we work with them,” Majid said. “Our team doesn’t carry weapons or handcuffs. We have radios and come armed with empathy.”

SAFE primarily serves the homeless community, which accounts for 40% of their calls, and people with mental health and substance use issues. In addition to de-escalating crisis situations, team members provide a variety of services, including transportation, referrals to other organizations and harm reduction methods, such as needle exchanges.

The City of San Rafael signed a three-year contract with SAFE for $750,000 annually, according to Majid. The program currently operates seven days a week, from 8am to 8pm. 

Ferreira and Knighten had responded to two calls prior to helping the man with the head injury. They began their morning by assisting eight homeless people who were being evicted from an unauthorized encampment on private property. Although the campers declined transportation, SAFE gave them clean clothes, food and information about services in the area.

The SAFE duo also went to The Pink Owl, a downtown coffee shop, in response to a public disturbance call. A man known to have mental health issues reportedly entered the shop and accused staff of poisoning his coffee. The man was gone by the time Ferreira and Knighten arrived; however, they checked on the baristas to ensure everyone was OK after the incident.

It wasn’t even 11am, and Ferreira and Knighten were preparing for their fourth call of the day —one that this reporter couldn’t attend. They would be meeting with the Downtown Streets Team, a nonprofit organization with programs for homeless people, to discuss the confidential needs of a specific client.

SAFE launched in Petaluma in July 2021. Since then, it has expanded to Rohnert Park; Cotati; Sonoma State University, making it the first mobile crisis program on a California state university campus; and now San Rafael. All of the SAFE teams are under the auspices of the Petaluma People Services Center, which runs more than 70 human services programs.

Majid, SAFE’s director, likes to say that there is “no call too small” for SAFE. Teams can transport a homeless person to St. Vincent’s for a free meal or hand out bottles of water. Then there are the more challenging calls, like a three-hour family mediation.

“A lot of these calls are mental health or substance related—nonviolent,” Majid said. “Police officers are trained for violent or criminal issues. SAFE provides trauma informed care. We watch gestures and body posture, won’t overact and respect personal space. We sit there, listen, give empathy and take our time on a call.”

SAFE employs 34 people across Sonoma and Marin counties, most working in the field as first responders. The needs are different in each community that SAFE serves. In San Rafael, every shift is staffed with a bilingual, Spanish-speaking person. Bilingual SAFE team navigators follow up with clients and refer them to resources in their area.

All team members have a background in the mental health or behavioral fields. Upon joining SAFE, staff go through two weeks of SAFE classroom training and five weeks of field training.

Recently hired, Knighten, who is completing her field training in San Rafael, has more than 13 years of experience working with youth on probation and managing diversion programs. She’s also attending school to become a licensed therapist.

Ferreira started with SAFE a year ago in Petaluma and has transferred to work in San Rafael’s new program. Her psychology and sociology degrees helped prepare her for the job, as did her experience working with autistic children and at a domestic violence shelter. Ferreira is currently working on her master’s degree in conflict resolution and negotiation.

Majid onboarded to the first SAFE team in Sonoma County as an EMT. The Marin native previously worked at San Quentin teaching financial literacy.

The varied expertise of the team members is beneficial because of the wide range of calls they receive. A team could go from working with a family on a dispute about child custody, to an eviction call, followed by responding to someone attempting suicide.

“Then there are those calls where a person doesn’t want to engage,” Majid said. “We respect that. It might take four or five calls to break the ice and make a connection with someone in need, but we keep trying. As long as we’re building rapport, it’s a success.”

Guaranteed income of $1,000 a month changed the lives of Marin moms and their families

A couple of years ago, I heard about the launch of a fascinating program in Marin. A group of 125 low-income moms would receive $1,000 a month for two years to spend on whatever they wanted. No strings attached. I opened my calendar, flipped forward 24 months and made a note to call the organizer in May 2023, when...

Lacking transparency: San Rafael adds insult to injury in police ‘use of force’ case

Almost 11 months have passed since the unprovoked use of force by two San Rafael police officers landed a Latinx gardener in the hospital with severe bodily injuries. The July 27 incident, caught on the officers’ own body-worn cameras, consisted of a series of aggressive maneuvers to take down Julio Jimenez Lopez during questioning about an open container of...

UPDATED: San Rafael police officer involved in violent beating out of a job

Editor’s Note: This article was updated with additional information on Tuesday, June 13, at 1:30pm. It’s not much of a surprise that one of the two officers involved in the unprovoked bloody beating of a local gardener no longer works for the San Rafael Police Department. After all, Daisy Mazariegos was still on her probationary period as a new employee when...

Marin City pastors stage “intervention” with private developer over unwanted housing project

In front of a room crowded with concerned residents, two Marin City pastors had a come-to-Jesus meeting last month with an Idaho real estate developer who is planning a controversial affordable housing project. Rev. Rondall Leggett and Rev. Floyd Thompkins did not mince words. If developer Caleb Roope, CEO of the The Pacific Companies, proceeds with the five-story, 74-unit apartment...

Tick Talk: Blood-sucking arachnids spread disease in Northern California

What the heck is that thing in the photo? A hazelnut? A small dumpling with eight legs? Perhaps an odd seed pod? Nope. Behold the engorged tick, swollen with blood stolen from its host. Not only do the little suckers feast on our vital red fluid, but they can also leave behind parting gifts, including the bacteria that causes Lyme...

‘Posh’ Marin and its homeless residents capture attention from tabloids

Marin County became the hot tabloid topic this month with three sensational stories splashed across the pages of the New York Post and the Daily Mail. The trio of articles scream about “posh” Marin allowing hundreds of “vagrants” and “tweakers” to live in recreational vehicles on Binford Road in Novato, bringing crime, drugs and devastation to the area. The New...

Richardson Bay anchor-outs consider offer of housing on land

A new program launched this month offers subsidized housing on land for people currently living aboard boats anchored off the shores of Sausalito. Most of the scrappy sailors, known as “anchor-outs,” don’t want to leave the free anchorage and their nautical lifestyle to become landlubbers. But the promise of long-term housing seems to be softening the blow, at least for some....

San Rafael legal settlement keeps residents in their homes—for now

A settlement reached last month between the City of San Rafael and a mobile home park owner requires the park to remain open for the next decade, ending 16 months of litigation. But residents, who own their homes and rent the lot underneath, remain fearful of becoming homeless. At first blush, their fears seem unfounded. After all, the RV Park of...

Opposition growing against Marin City housing project 

The fight against a controversial affordable housing development planned for Marin City has gained momentum since the for-profit developer made insulting remarks about community members. The fallout was swift for real estate developer Alexis Gevorgian, of AMG & Associates, who told the Pacific Sun last month that residents of the historically Black neighborhood are communists wanting free handouts. Gevorgian also...

Mobile crisis intervention program launches in San Rafael

The “subject down” call came into the San Rafael police dispatcher on Thursday morning at 10:22 a.m. A passerby reported that a man was lying on the ground at the corner of Second and A. Instead of dispatching paramedics or the police to assess the situation, San Rafael’s new mobile crisis intervention team, Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE), responded...
3,002FansLike
3,850FollowersFollow