El Tímpano Hosts Panel on Oakland’s Lead Problem After Pulitzer Center-Supported Project

Image

Editor's Note: The following update was originally published in El Tímpano. The update and panel discussion were produced as part of the Pulitzer Center’s StoryReach U.S. Fellowship.

Experts consider potential solutions in the context of a city budget crisis and federal turmoil.

The first of El Tímpano’s in-person editorial events kicked off on the evening of Feb. 20, where Oakland and Alameda County leaders discussed the California city’s lead crisis and possible solutions while the city faces multiple budgetary and political challenges.

As reported in El Tímpano’s investigative and community engagement series, “Poisoned pipes and painted walls: Oakland’s pervasive lead problem,” all of Oakland’s predominantly Latino census tracts are considered high risk for lead exposure. Oakland estimates that 80% of its housing stock likely contains lead-based paint. Solutions to address this issue have been stymied for decades because of staff turnover and shortages, lack of budget and lack of trust between city and county officials. El Tímpano’s investigation also found that a sum of roughly $4.8 million that the city of Oakland received in 2022 from a legal settlement with paint manufacturers remained unspent as of August 2024.

Image

El Tímpano’s editorial team designed the panel discussion in the hopes of bringing together leaders and community members to discuss solutions. The panelists were Larry Brooks, former director of Alameda County’s Healthy Homes Department, and Marybelle Nzegwu Tobias, founder and principal of Environmental Justice Solutions and author of the Racial Equity Impact Analysis, a comprehensive study of Oakland’s pervasive lead problem that also included key recommendations. LaTonda Simmons, assistant city administrator for the city of Oakland, also joined the panel.

Underlying the solutions discussed during the panel — a Proactive Rental Inspection Program (PRIP); fees to landlords to fund lead abatement programs for the long-term; easier access to testing options; public/private partnerships; and the use of philanthropic endeavors — was the political and budgetary crisis the city of Oakland is currently facing, and the sudden cuts to connections and money at the federal level as a new Trump administration slashes spending.

The $4.8 million the city received from the legal settlement with paint manufacturers isn’t enough to support long-term programs to rid older Oakland homes of lead hazards. One upside, Simmons said, is that the money is tied to legal restrictions and is protected even as the city faces a $130 million budget deficit.

“There has not been this amount of money available as an investment to set forth this work to create a program until we got this opportunity,” Simmons said. “That’s why what we do with this little bit of money becomes so meaningful.”

Changes at the federal level have contributed to the city’s tumultuous economic and political crisis, Simmons added. “It’s been — volatile is a kind word — but it’s been terrifying what we’re seeing in terms of other resources that would contribute to this work. So it’s hard to answer what’s on the horizon in terms of other funding opportunities.”

Brooks, who was scheduled to visit Washington, D.C., at the end of February to meet with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials, said his trip was canceled because of the Trump administration’s changes to staffing and spending. HUD has provided grant money for lead abatement in Alameda County for decades, Brooks said.

“When you’re talking about those kinds of massive layoffs, then you can already guess that also means that the people at HUD are saying, ‘You know those grants that you’ve been getting over the last 30 years? You’re probably not going to be able to get them,’” Brooks said. “We now have to look at other ways in order to address the hazards, particularly in those communities that [Nzegwu Tobias] identified in her report.”

Image

Still, the panelists offered some hope and tips for community members before the event ended. For immigrants in Oakland who feel disempowered by Washington’s changes to immigration enforcement or don’t feel comfortable reporting code violations in their homes for fear of retaliation by a landlord, Brooks and Simmons suggested speaking out anonymously through letters, communicating their concerns with other public-facing activists, or speaking to city officials without disclosing their names—a right in California because of the Brown Act.

“I would like to see our community rise up and speak up,” Brooks said.

Nzegwu Tobias added that though there are significant budgetary constraints, she hopes the city could increase access to testing in affected neighborhoods, schools and other locations that are easily accessible. “My hope and wish is that as this moves forward, all different types of solutions can be put in place because there’s no one [silver] bullet [that] fixes it all,” she said. “We’ve got to throw everything at it, and I’m hoping that the city and county can work together effectively to make this happen.”

In her closing remarks, Simmons said she hopes affected community members will voice their complaints and concerns to city officials. “We acknowledge that government is slow,” she said. “Public representation to me is at the core, and it means that we don’t just get the good stuff, we get the bad stuff when we don’t do right because we need to be informed by that as well to help us know how to do it better.”