DATE: March 26, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Russell City Reparative Justice Project: Work Session to Receive the Recommendations from the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council: 1) receives the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee presentation on recommendations for reparative justice actions; 2) reviews supporting documents including the Ceres Research Group’s report, San Francisco State University’s research, and outcomes of the community ranking survey to prioritize recommendations for reparative justice actions, and 3) directs City of Hayward staff on next steps and a timeline for further analysis.
SUMMARY
The Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP) is the City of Hayward’s response to a recommendation of its Community Services Commission, which called for the City to work with former Russell City residents and descendants to determine reparative justice actions for the City of Hayward’s involvement in inequitable treatment and the forced relocation of Russell City Community members. The Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee was developed to facilitate a community-led engagement process which resulted in the development of reparative justice recommendations. There were various phases of community engagement, research, and public input, which informed the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee recommendations being shared for Hayward City Council consideration.
BACKGROUND
• June 17, 2020 – July 21, 2020 – Hayward Community Services Commission (CSC) called for further action by the City of Hayward in its commitment to anti-racism and began to draft an apology.
• September 18, 2021 – Hayward Community Services Commission (CSC) approved a draft of an apology to Black, Indigenous, Californio, Mexicano, Latino, Latinx and other
community members of color for racially disparate impacts and inequities resulting from past City policy and decision-making, and recommended City Council work with the survivors and descendants of Russell City to determine appropriate restitution. • November 16, 2021 – The Hayward City Council voted unanimously to approve the resolution to apologize to Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and people of color for the City’s implicit and explicit role in perpetuating institutional racism. • January 29, 2022 – During the City of Hayward Strategic Roadmap prioritization session, Council directed staff to work with the survivors and descendants of Russell City (regardless of race) to determine appropriate restitution through a communityled process. • September 2022 – November 2022 – During the Pre-Work Phase, the City of Hayward secured San Francisco State University (SF State) consultants to conduct factfinding and academic research. City staff and SF State researchers identified former residents and descendants. Following, the Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP) Steering Committee governing structure was developed. • November 2022 – July 2023 – During this phase, the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee created a leadership and decision-making framework.
Additionally, the committee selected Ceres Research Group to synthesize academic and community-based research, advise on reparative justice models, and provide project management support.
• June 2023 – March 2024 – During this phase, the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee directed the community-led process to engage Russell City stakeholders in development of recommendations for appropriate reparative justice solutions.
• March 26, 2024 – The Russell Justice City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee will share their recommendations, and community members will be invited to make public comments.
DISCUSSION
For over a year, Russell City residents and descendants have worked collaboratively with City of Hayward staff and consultants to identify reparative justice solutions in response to Hayward City Council’s unanimous decision in 2021 to apologize for the City’s role in perpetuating systemic racism. Input from community-led and data-driven processes was used to generate recommendations on repairing harm caused to Russell City residents and descendants.
The Ceres Research Group was selected by the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee to support the community-led process. Ceres Research Group took direction from the RCRJP Steering Committee to complete a series of outreach, engagement, and analytical tasks to support the creation of recommendations. These included:
hosting a planning retreat where a harm reduction framework was created, analyzing public records and media data from the San Francisco State University consultants, and
conducting a statistically significant survey of Russell City residents and descendants (n=377) which led to the creation of the twenty-six (26) recommendations noted in Attachment II (List of Recommendations) and Attachment IV (Reclaiming Russell City Report).
From January 2024 to March 2024, the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee engaged in a series of meetings and exercises to prioritize recommendations on reparative justice solutions. These included discussions on the findings in a series of meetings and the completion of a prioritization exercise in February 2024, noted at the end of Attachment IV (RCRJP Steering Committee Work Session Presentation and Supporting Documents). This baseline feedback on prioritizing the recommendations was used to inform prioritization exercises with the public.
To further validate the input from the RCRJP Steering Committee, community input was sought out through a public meeting and ranking survey. On February 21, 2024, the RCRJP Steering Committee hosted a public meeting attended by 60 people where the 26 recommendations were discussed. Additionally, the City of Hayward took direction from the RCRJP Steering Committee leadership to administer a ranking survey between February 16, 2024, and March 1, 2024. A total of 198 people took the survey (of which 101 respondents ranked the list of 26 recommendations). Attachment III (Recommendation Ranking Survey Results) visualizes the responses to the ranking survey.
Overall, recommendations related to restitution and compensation were top priorities of the RCRJP Steering Committee and the 101 survey respondents. Free education, scholarships, and the development of a community fund were also identified as high priorities in the ranking survey. See page 13 of Attachment III (Recommendation Ranking Survey Results) for more details.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
This item delivers on the of the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Strategic Roadmap projects. Under the Enhance Community Safety and Quality of Life strategic priority, within the Strengthen Justice and Belonging section, initiative Q27 is to, “Work with the survivors and descendants of Russell City to determine appropriate restitution.”
EQUITY IMPACT
This project centered on equity in all aspects of its work. The Russell City Reparative Justice Project worked to assess the City of Hayward’s role in perpetuating systemic racism and used community-led and equity-centered approaches to develop recommendations.
The community-led process was informed by a series of training and project management supports which aided the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee and other stakeholders with understanding foundational equity information, such as:
summaries of the United Nations and other frameworks for reparations;
definitions and historical reviews of structural racism (including the roles of structures and processes in creating disparate outcomes);
historical reviews of public policy and private institution actions that produced racial segregation in the United States;
historical reviews of the initiation of racial segregation of Black, Latinx, and Native American people in urban areas driven by policy and migration timelines; and reflections on best practices in crafting reparative justice solutions that are holistic and sustainable.
FISCAL IMPACT
Receiving and reviewing the Russell City Reparative Justice Project recommendations has no fiscal impact. There will be fiscal impacts related to the various recommendations presented.
However, these will not be known until staff pursues further research and analysis based on Council direction.
PUBLIC CONTACT
There has been extensive community engagement since September 2022 to ensure the voices of Russell City residents and descendants were centered in developing reparative justice recommendations. Once created, the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee led community input and public contact efforts with support from City of Hayward staff and consultants. Past public meetings are posted online (found here).
Most recently, there was a February 21, 2024, Russell City Reparative Justice Project Steering Committee Public Meeting attended by 60 members of the public. Further, from February 16, 2024 to March 1, 2024, there was a survey to prioritize potential recommendations which resulted in 101 people ranking the proposed recommendations. A stakeholder list of hundreds of people is contacted periodically with project updates.
NEXT STEPS
Following the March 26, 2024, work session at City Council, the project will transition to the implementation phase where City Council action and direction to staff is needed to move forward with recommended reparative justice actions.
Prepared by: Josephine Ayankoya, Equity and Inclusion Officer Recommended by: Regina Youngblood, Assistant City Manager Approved by:
_______________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CERES
RESEARCH GROUP REPORT
Used for Community Ranking Survey
Administered Tuesday, February 16, 2024 – Friday, March 1, 2024 198 Respondents, of which 101 Respondents Ranked the 26 Recommendations The United Nations framework for reparations was used to group twenty-six (26) recommendations in to five (5) unique categories. These categories describe different forms of reparations and are defined below. Please rank the categories with one (1) being the most important and five (5) being the least important.
Compensation
Guarantee of Non-Repetition
Rehabilitation
Restitution
Satisfaction
Compensation involves providing financial reparations for economic damages or losses resulting from violations of human rights. [1] (Ex. Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents, Free Education for Descendants, & Establishment of a Community Fund).
Guarantee of Non-Repetition (or Non-Recurrence) are meant to, “[prevent] future violations of human rights and [reinforce] the rule of law, respect for human rights, and contributing to sustaining peace and development.”[2] (Ex. Policy Changes, Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies, & Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance).
Rehabilitation, “should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.” [3] (Ex. Environmental Justice and Health Initiatives, Educational Scholarships and Support, Russell City Community Center, & Employment and Economic Opportunities).
Restitution involves reparations that, “whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred.” [4] (Ex. Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City, Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative, & Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base).
Satisfaction includes, “the cessation of continuing violations, truth-seeking, public apologies, judicial and administrative sanctions, memorials, and commemorations.”[1] (Ex. Official Apologies and Acknowledgment, Revitalization of Russell City's Heritage and Community Spaces, & Memorials and Commemoration).
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CERES
RESEARCH GROUP REPORT
Used for Community Ranking Survey
Below are the twenty-six (26) draft recommendations. Using the arrows, rank them in order of priority with one (1) being the most important to propose to Hayward City Council, and twenty-six (26) being the least important.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location. Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
Environmental Justice and Health Initiatives: Promote environmental justice and overall community health through specialty clinics. Mental health resources tailored to address historical and current challenges.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes: Advocacy for changing laws and policies aims at preventing the recurrence of the injustices that Russell City faced.
Russell City Community Center: Establishing a community center within the old Russell City boundaries to foster community development, well-being, social interaction, education, and recreation.
Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City: For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, compensation must be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action.
Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property: Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases. The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base: The term 'infrastructure' encompasses more than tangible assets like sewers or roads. It includes the backbone of a thriving community: schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and other social amenities.
Historically, Russell City faced not just a physical but also a socio-cultural infrastructural deficit, impacting generations. Lack of essential services like sewers magnified the social and economic divide, making it an issue of generational wealth. Hence, proper restitution for these systemic denials is not just desirable but necessary.
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: Create a Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness.
Education and Documentation: Create a dedicated documentary and textbooks that preserve the community's story and legacy.
Memorials and Commemoration: Memorabilia and monuments to honor the memory and contributions of Russell City's residents.
Official Apologies and Acknowledgment: Government apologies of the wrongs committed.
Recognition of Russell City Luminaries and Documentation of Contribution: Celebrate the contributions of Russell City's veterans and servicemen, athletes, entertainers, activists, and other distinguished figures through a comprehensive, permanent historical archive.
Supplement with a dedicated website displaying audiovisual testimonials from surviving community members.
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CERES
RESEARCH GROUP REPORT
Used for Community Ranking Survey
Revitalization of Russell City's Heritage and Community Spaces: Reinstatement of Russell City's original street names. Development of green spaces or parks to serve as recreational hubs, cultural centers, and educational centers.
Russell City Cultural Heritage Preservation Commission: City of Hayward should establish an independent Russell City Cultural Heritage Commission (RCCHC) to oversee preservation efforts, ensuring representation from Russell City descendants and cultural specialists. Key initiatives would encompass cultural mapping, designating a Russell City Cultural Heritage Month, founding a dedicated cultural center, and incorporating Russell City's heritage into Hayward's educational curriculum.
Transparency and Accountability: A dedicated platform that isn't controlled by the City of Hayward will ensure transparency and accountability plus safety to have trauma-informed conversations, providing information about the ongoing efforts in real-time to former residents and their descendants.
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RUSSELL CITY REPARATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CERES
RESEARCH GROUP REPORT
Used for Community Ranking Survey
[1] United Nations, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law | OHCHR
[2] United Nations, Guarantees of non-recurrence | OHCHR [3] United Nations, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law | OHCHR
[4] United Nations, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law | OHCHR
[5] United Nations, Reparations | OHCHR
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
YES 183 ( 92.42%)
NO 15 (7.58%)
TOTAL 198 Rresponses
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Yes
183
No
15 Answered: 198 Skipped: 0
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE CITY OF HAYWARD SHOULD
FUND ANY OF THE (26) REPARATIVE JUSTICE
RECOMMENDATIONS?
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
1 - highest Priority 2 3 4 5 - lowest priority
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Compensation
Guarantee of Non-Repetition
Rehabilitation
Restitution
Satisfaction
Answered: 137 Skipped: 61
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE CATEGORIES
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND FIVE (5)
BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #1 Priorities
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City: For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, compensation must be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes: Advocacy for changing laws and policies aims at preventing the recurrence of the injustices that Russell City faced.
Education and Documentation: Create a dedicated documentary and textbooks that preserve the community's story and legacy.
Memorials and Commemoration: Memorabilia and monuments to honor the memory and contributions of Russell City's residents.
23 Votes 63 Votes
4 Votes
2 Votes
1 Vote Each
2 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
3 Votes Each
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #2 Priorities
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City: For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, compensation must be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: Create a Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property: Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases. The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base: The term 'infrastructure' encompasses more than tangible assets like sewers or roads. It includes the backbone of a thriving community: schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and other social amenities.
Historically, Russell City faced not just a physical but also a socio-cultural infrastructural deficit, impacting generations. Lack of essential services like sewers magnified the social and economic divide, making it an issue of generational wealth. Hence, proper restitution for these systemic denials is not just desirable but necessary. 19 Votes
19 Votes
7 Votes
12 Votes
16 Votes
5 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #3 Priorities
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base: The term 'infrastructure' encompasses more than tangible assets like sewers or roads. It includes the backbone of a thriving community: schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and other social amenities.
Historically, Russell City faced not just a physical but also a socio-cultural infrastructural deficit, impacting generations. Lack of essential services like sewers magnified the social and economic divide, making it an issue of generational wealth. Hence, proper restitution for these systemic denials is not just desirable but necessary.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City: For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, compensation must be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action.
Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property: Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases. The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City. 26 Votes
15 Votes
14 Votes
7 Votes
6 Votes
6 Votes
4 Votes
4 Votes
3 Votess
2 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #4 Priorities
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property: Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases. The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City. 20 Votes
71 oV
et s
11 V
ote
9 s
Votes
7 Votes
6 Votes
5 Votes
4 Votes
3 Votess
3 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #5 Priorities
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: Create a Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location. Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City. 22 Votes
12 Vo et s
11 Vote
9 s
Votes
6 Votes
6 Votes
5 Votes
4 Votes
4 Votes
3 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #6 Priorities
Community Land Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement. and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits..
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: Create a Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college. 24 Votes
9 Vo et s
9 Votes
8 Votes
7 Votes
5 Votes
4 Votes
4 Votes
3 Votess
7 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #7 Priorities
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Transparency and Accountability: A dedicated platform that isn't controlled by the City of Hayward will ensure transparency and accountability plus safety to have trauma-informed conversations, providing information about the ongoing efforts in real-time to former residents and their descendants.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
24 Votes
12 Vo et s
9 Votes
8 Votes
8 Votes
8 Votes
8 Votes
5 Votes
5 Votes
3 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #8 Priorities
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: Create a Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination. 24 Votes
17 Vo et s
14 Votes
9 Votes
6 Votes
5 Votes
4 Votes
4 Votes
3 Votess
2 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #9 Priorities
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location. Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes: Advocacy for changing laws and policies aims at preventing the recurrence of the injustices that Russell City faced.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
28 Votes
11 Vo et
s
10 V
otes
9 Votes
7 Votes
6 Votes
5 Votes
4 Votes
4 Votes
3 V
otes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
3 Votes Each
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
Top #10 Priorities
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location. Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Recognition of Russell City Luminaries and Documentation of Contribution: Celebrate the contributions of Russell City's veterans and servicemen, athletes, entertainers, activists, and other distinguished figures through a comprehensive, permanent historical archive.
Supplement with a dedicated website displaying audiovisual testimonials from surviving community members.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
26 Votes
15 Vo et
s
14 Votes
8 Votes
7 Votes
5 Votes
Answered: 101 Skipped: 97
USING THE ARROWS, PLEASE RANK THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH ONE (1) BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TWENTY-SIX (26) BEING THE LEAST IMPORTANT.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects.
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location. Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
Environmental Justice and Health Initiatives: Promote environmental justice and overall community health through specialty clinics. Mental health resources tailored to address historical and current challenges.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes: Advocacy for changing laws and policies aims at preventing the recurrence of the injustices that Russell City faced.
Russell City Community Center: Establishing a community center within the old Russell City boundaries to foster community development, well-being, social interaction, education, and recreation.
Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City: For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, compensation must be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action.
Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property: Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases. The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base: The term 'infrastructure' encompasses more than tangible assets like sewers or roads. It includes the backbone of a thriving community: schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and other social amenities. Historically, Russell City faced not just a physical but also a socio-cultural infrastructural deficit, impacting generations. Lack of essential services like sewers magnified the social and economic divide, making it an issue of generational wealth. Hence, proper restitution for these systemic denials is not just desirable but necessary.
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: Create a Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness.
Education and Documentation: Create a dedicated documentary and textbooks that preserve the community's story and legacy.
Memorials and Commemoration: Memorabilia and monuments to honor the memory and contributions of Russell City's residents.
Official Apologies and Acknowledgment: Government apologies of the wrongs committed.
Recognition of Russell City Luminaries and Documentation of Contribution: Celebrate the contributions of Russell City's veterans and servicemen, athletes, entertainers, activists, and other distinguished figures through a comprehensive, permanent historical archive. Supplement with a dedicated website displaying audiovisual testimonials from surviving community members.
Revitalization of Russell City's Heritage and Community Spaces: Reinstatement of Russell City's original street names. Development of green spaces or parks to serve as recreational hubs, cultural centers, and educational centers.
Russell City Cultural Heritage Preservation Commission: City of Hayward should establish an independent Russell City Cultural Heritage Commission (RCCHC) to oversee preservation efforts, ensuring representation from Russell City descendants and cultural specialists. Key initiatives would encompass cultural mapping, designating a Russell City Cultural Heritage Month, founding a dedicated cultural center, and incorporating Russell City's heritage into Hayward's educational curriculum.
Transparency and Accountability: A dedicated platform that isn't controlled by the City of Hayward will ensure transparency and accountability plus safety to have trauma-informed conversations, providing information about the ongoing efforts in real-time to former residents and their descendants.
KEY
KEY
RECOMMENDATION PRIORITZATION
RECOMMENDATIONS MOST OFTEN PRIORITIZED
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Establishment of a Community Fund. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects
Free Education for Descendants. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education, scholarships, and living stipends for academic pursuits.
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest.
Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
Ranked 5 or more times in the top 10 priorities
Russell City
Reparative Justice Project
Steering Committee Presentation
Hayward City Council Work Session
Tuesday, March 26, 2024
Russell City
Reparative Justice Project
Steering Committee Presentation
Hayward City Council Work Session
Tuesday, March 26, 2024
The Russell City Reparative Justice Project
Steering Committee Members agree that Reparative Justice for the former residents and descendants of the Russell City community includes:
Addressing the harm inflicted
Holding everyone who caused the harm accountable
Placing all options for reparations and restitution on the table for consideration
Correcting the historical record
In the final analysis, for the former residents and descendants of Russell City, Reparative Justice means:
Repairing the Harm. Restoring the Land. Repaying the Debt.
Circle Up,
SF State Research,
Ceres Policy
Research Group
Work Sessions, Public
Meetings, an RCRJP
Retreat
Community Survey, 26 Draft Recommendations,
RCRJP Priority Rankings & Input, and Community
Outreach & Feedback
Repair
the Harm
Restore
the Land
Repay the
Debt
The Path to Justice for the
Russell City Community:
Multidisciplinary and involves multiple
stakeholders
Requires additional timely research,
dedicated staff and resources
Serves as a blueprint for an inclusive
future that prevents injustices from
happening again
Please rank from 1 – 26 (1 being the highest, and 26 being the lowest) each of the recommendations that the Ceres Research Group put forward in their report “Reclaiming Russell City: A Comprehensive Approach to Reparative Justice and Community Renewal”. Using the framework of the Five (5) Pillars of Restorative Justice, the Ceres Research Group presented a total of twenty-six (26) distinct and identifiable recommendations which are highlighted below.
There were four (4) recommendations presented in the Restitution Pillar, three (3) recommendations presented in the Compensation Pillar, six (6) recommendations presented in the Rehabilitation Pillar, seven (7) recommendations in the Satisfaction Pillar and six (6) recommendations in the Guarantee of Non-Repetition.
The results of the ranking of these “recommendations” will be used to qualify the effective priority of the recommendations that have been presented to the Steering Committee for our consideration.
CERES RESEARCH GROUP TWENTY-SIX (26) PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS # RANK Restitution RANK Compensation RANK Rehabilitation RANK Satisfaction RANK Guarantee of Non-Repetition 1 Property Restoration and
Fair Compensation in
Russell City
Establishment of a
Community Fund:
Infrastructure
Development:
Official Apologies and
Acknowledgment:
Policy Changes:
2 Restitution for Denial of
Infrastructure and
Community Base:
Compensation and
Support for Russell
City's Former
Residents:
Environmental Justice
and Health Initiatives:
Memorials and
Commemoration:
Education and Awareness
Programs:
3 Human Rights and
Restoration of Property:
Free Education for
Descendants:
Employment and
Economic
Opportunities:
Transparency and
Accountability:
Community Engagement and
Accountability:
4 Russell City
Comprehensive Housing
Initiative:
Educational
Scholarships and
Support:
Education and
Documentation:
Publication and Storytelling:
5 Preventing Recurrence
and Legal Changes:
Recognition of Russell City
Luminaries and
Documentation of
Contribution:
Community Land Trusts and
Housing Policies:
6 Russell City
Community Center:
Revitalization of Russell
City's Heritage and
Community Spaces:
Revised Eminent Domain Law and
Community Governance:
7 Russell City Cultural
Heritage Preservation
Commission:
Restitution
1. Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City:
Addressing the historical injustices faced by property owners in Russell City requires a multifaceted approach. For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, it is imperative that compensation be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action. Beyond the land itself, the county must recognize the inherent value of the homes and structural investments made by residents. In instances where direct property restoration is not feasible, compensation should reflect both current market values and the historical significance of these properties. All reparative actions should be undertaken with transparency, and it's crucial to actively involve the affected descendants in decision-making to ensure a truly equitable and just resolution.
2. Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base:
The term 'infrastructure' encompasses more than tangible assets like sewers or roads. It includes the backbone of a thriving community: schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and other social amenities. Historically, Russell City faced not just a physical but also a socio-cultural infrastructural deficit, impacting generations. Lack of essential services like sewers magnified the social and economic divide, making it an issue of generational wealth. Hence, proper restitution for these systemic denials is not just desirable but necessary.
3. Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property:
Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases.
The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
4. Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative:
In light of the historical adversities faced by Russell City residents, the City of Hayward should explore a dual-faceted housing approach. Central to this consideration is the Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness. This policy suggests collaboration with developers to allocate specific units for eligible parties, supported by thorough documentation processes and continuous community consultation, all under the guidance of a specialized oversight committee. Alongside this, the introduction of semi-permanent and permanent housing options should be evaluated to meet the essential housing stability needs of both former Russell City residents and their descendants. Collectively, these proposals aim at addressing historical injustices, enhancing community relations, and ensuring a sustainable future for the legacy of Russell City.
Compensation
1. Establishment of a Community Fund:
For consistent community support, a stable financial foundation is essential. The City of Hayward could consider creating a Community Fund, which would be financed by a portion of local taxes and proceeds from the sale of community lands. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects. By directing revenues from these sources into the Community Fund, it may allow for dependable funding for the community's needs. The projected annual revenue from these sources could be instrumental in maintaining and enhancing the initiative's effectiveness.
2. Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents:
The forced evictions in Russell City left lasting impacts, both tangible and intangible. Beyond the physical property loss, these evictions represented a significant infringement on the residents' civil rights, dignity, security, and overall well-being. It is vital that any compensation provided accounts for both these tangible losses and the broader civil rights violations with long-term societal implications. An effective approach to address this can be the introduction of a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City. Drawing inspiration from successful models like the Stockton, California's basic income pilot, a GBI could have profound benefits on recipients' overall quality of life. However, the challenge lies in securing adequate funding. A multifaceted funding approach, leveraging governmental resources, philanthropic contributions, and private sector collaborations, is advocated. Initially targeting Russell City's living former residents ensures immediate redress to those directly impacted, with a potential to expand coverage later. This GBI initiative, beyond financial assistance, stands as a symbol of acknowledgment and reparation, aiming to benefit all individuals affected, regardless of their current financial standing.
3. Free Education for Descendants: Generational wealth is not just property; it's education. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education and scholarships. This education fund would be a cornerstone in leveling the playing field and opening doors that were unjustly closed to previous generations.
Rehabilitation
1. Infrastructure Development:
Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
2. Environmental Justice and Health Initiatives:
Addressing Russell City's health and environmental challenges necessitates acknowledging the link between environmental factors and community wellbeing. This suggests a need for clinics specializing in environmental hazard testing, in light of the community's ongoing and past environmental concerns.
Utilizing tools like the Total Quality of Life Index can provide a broader understanding of community challenges. Given the substantial youth demographic, the integration of the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) framework is essential, emphasizing the lasting impacts of environmental and psychological strains. Mental health resources tailored to address historical and current challenges are vital. This recommendation, deeply informed by various insights, strives to promote environmental justice and overall community health.
3. Employment and Economic Opportunities:
Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location. Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
4. Educational Scholarships and Support:
Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
5. Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes:
Advocacy for changing laws and policies aims at preventing the recurrence of the injustices that Russell City faced.
6. Russell City Community Center: Community centers serve as nodes of social interaction, education, and recreation. Establishing one within the old Russell City boundaries would serve as a beacon of community development and well-being.
Satisfaction
1. Official Apologies and Acknowledgment:
No reparative justice is complete without acknowledgment of the wrongs committed. The government must issue formal apologies and symbolic gestures like restoring Russell City's original name and borders.
2. Memorials and Commemoration:
Memorabilia and monuments serve to honor the memory and contributions of Russell City's residents, providing not just acknowledgment but also a form of community pride.
3. Transparency and Accountability:
A dedicated platform that isn't controlled by the City of Hayward will ensure transparency and accountability plus safety to have trauma-informed conversations, providing information about the ongoing efforts in real-time to former residents and their descendants.
4. Education and Documentation:
Accurate documentation of Russell City’s history is vital. A dedicated documentary and textbooks can ensure that the true story is told, preserving the community's legacy.
5. Recognition of Russell City Luminaries and Documentation of Contribution:
Celebrate the diverse contributions of Russell City's veterans and servicemen, athletes, entertainers, activists, and other distinguished figures from both past and present through a comprehensive, permanent historical archive. Supplement this with a dedicated website displaying audiovisual testimonials from surviving community members, ensuring that the Russell City narrative is authentically chronicled, preserved, and disseminated by its very people for forthcoming generations.
6. Revitalization of Russell City's Heritage and Community Spaces:
Prioritize the reinstatement of Russell City's original street names to reflect its rich history and foster community pride. Complementing this, develop green spaces or parks that not only serve as recreational hubs but also as cultural and educational centers. Such initiatives, paired with educational scholarships and business grants, will promote both community cohesion and socio-economic advancement for the descendants.
7. Russell City Cultural Heritage Preservation Commission:
To address the potential loss of Russell City's significant cultural heritage, the City of Hayward should establish the Russell City Cultural Heritage Commission (RCCHC). This independent commission would oversee preservation efforts, ensuring representation from Russell City descendants and cultural specialists. Key initiatives would encompass cultural mapping, designating a Russell City Cultural Heritage Month, founding a dedicated cultural center, and incorporating Russell City's heritage into Hayward's educational curriculum. With the advent of technology, digitizing the heritage is crucial for broader access. Funding in the form of grants can support grassroots projects, while partnerships with cultural institutions can enhance the narrative's reach. Through these efforts, the commission aims not just to preserve, but to connect future generations with their rich history, fostering community identity and respect for its past.
Guarantee of Non-Repetition:
1. Policy Changes:
Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities. This includes the implementation of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), and Community Land Trusts (CLTs) as mechanisms for reparative justice in the City of Hayward.
2. Education and Awareness Programs:
In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice. Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
3. Community Engagement and Accountability:
Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decisionmaking. Advocate for specialized training for county and city officials on the history and needs of Russell City, and demand public apologies and accountability from communities complicit in historical injustices.
4. Publication and Storytelling:
Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries. Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
5. Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies:
Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership. Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
6. Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance:
Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City. The quest for reparative justice in Russell City is fueled by a relentless commitment to redressing historical wrongs while crafting a future that embodies dignity, fairness, and community well-being. The initiative is designed to incorporate principles that resonate on a national and international level through the Five Pillars of Reparative Justice Mean1 Median2 Mode3
1 RESTITUTION Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City 2.58 1 1 1 - 17 2 RESTITUTION Human Rights and Restoration of Property 4.33 2 2 1 - 18 3 RESTITUTION Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base 4.75 3 3 3 - 10 4 COMPENSATION Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents 8.00 6 2, 6 2 - 16 5 RESTITUTION Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative 9.92 5 4 2 - 25 6 REHABILITATION Educational Scholarships and Support 10.00 9 5, 11 5 - 18 7 COMPENSATION Free Education for Descendants 10.83 7 6 5 - 21 8 COMPENSATION Establishment of a Community Fund 11.33 8 4 4 - 26 9 REHABILITATION Employment and Economic Opportunities 11.67 10 10 5 - 19 10 REHABILITATION Environmental Justice and Health Initiatives 13.42 13 18 3 - 22 11 REHABILITATION Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes 13.75 12 13 5 - 26 12 SATISFACTION Transparency and Accountability 14.92 14 14 5 - 18 13 SATISFACTION Education and Documentation 16.17 17 7 7 - 25 14 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION Education and Awareness Programs 16.50 17 8 6 - 25 15 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies 16.58 16 8, 16 8 - 24 16 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION Community Engagement and Accountability 16.75 15 15 6 - 25 17 SATISFACTION Recognition of Russell City Luminaries and Documentation of Contribution 17.67 16 10, 15, 22 8 - 23 18 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION Policy Changes 17.75 16 16, 22 3 - 23 19 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION Publication and Storytelling 18.00 19 9 1 - 26 20 SATISFACTION Revitalization of Russell City's Heritage and Community Spaces 18.33 19 19 11 - 21 21 SATISFACTION Russell City Cultural Heritage Preservation Commission 19.08 17 22 11 - 22 22 REHABILITATION Russell City Community Center 19.58 20 20 6 - 25 23 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance 21.08 22 23 8 - 26 24 REHABILITATION Infrastructure Development 21.25 24 26 9 - 26 25 SATISFACTION Memorials and Commemoration 21.33 21 21, 24 7 - 25 26 SATISFACTION Official Apologies and Acknowledgment 22.83 24 26 2 - 26 1 MEAN - The most common expression for the mean of a statistical distribution with a discrete random variable is the mathematical average of all the terms. To calculate it, add up the values of all the terms and then divide by the number of terms. 2 MEDIAN - The median of a distribution with a discrete random variable depends on whether the number of terms in the distribution is even or odd. If the number of terms is odd, then the median is the value of the term in the middle. 3 MODE - The mode of a distribution with a discrete random variable is the value of the term that occurs the most often. It is not uncommon for a distribution with a discrete random variable to have more than one mode, especially if there are not many terms 4 Rank
RANGE - The range of a distribution with a discrete random variable is the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value. For a distribution with a continuous random variable, the range is the difference between the two extreme points on the distribution curve.
Average Score
Range4 Pillar CERES Research Group Proposed Recommendations Mean1 Median2 Mode3
1 RESTITUTION 5.40 3 2.5 2.5 - 12
2 COMPENSATION 10.06 10 4.67, 6 4.67 - 17.33
3 REHABILITATION 14.94 13.67 11.5, 15.17 10.17 - 17.5
4 GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION 17.78 14.67 18.83, 21.33 10.5 - 21.33 5 SATISFACTION 18.62 18 18.57 11.86 - 19.71
1 MEAN - The most common expression for the mean of a statistical distribution with a discrete random variable is the mathematical average of all the terms. To calculate it, add up the values of all the terms and then divide by the number of terms. 2 MEDIAN - The median of a distribution with a discrete random variable depends on whether the number of terms in the distribution is even or odd. If the number of terms is odd, then the median is the value of the term in the middle. 3 MODE - The mode of a distribution with a discrete random variable is the value of the term that occurs the most often. It is not uncommon for a distribution with a discrete random variable to have more than one mode, especially if there are not many terms 4 RANGE - The range of a distribution with a discrete random variable is the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value. For a distribution with a continuous random variable, the range is the difference between the two extreme points on the distribution curve.
Rank Pillar Average Score Range4
MEMBER # 1 2 3 4 AVG 1 2 3 AVG 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AVG 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVG 1 1 6 5 17 7.25 4 2 8 4.67 23 3 7 9 26 12 13.33 24 18 15 25 10 11 13 16.57 19 20 21 22 16 15 18.83 2 1 3 4 2 2.50 5 6 7 6.00 9 13 10 11 12 14 11.50 20 21 18 19 15 17 16 18.00 22 23 24 25 8 26 21.33 3 1 3 2 15 5.25 7 4 6 5.67 24 14 10 11 13 22 15.67 26 25 5 18 23 20 21 19.71 12 17 16 19 8 9 13.50 4 1 3 4 2 2.50 5 6 7 6.00 9 13 10 11 12 14 11.50 20 21 18 19 15 17 16 18.00 22 23 24 25 8 26 21.33 5 1 6 3 17 6.75 23 2 9 11.33 24 4 15 12 5 6 11.00 19 7 15 10 8 11 13 11.86 22 20 21 26 16 17 20.33 6 1 3 2 4 2.50 13 11 6 10.00 26 18 12 5 10 20 15.17 25 24 14 7 21 19 22 18.86 16 8 15 9 17 23 14.67 7 1 3 2 4 2.50 14 15 6 11.67 26 18 10 5 17 20 16.00 25 24 12 7 22 19 21 18.57 16 8 11 9 13 23 13.33 8 1 4 2 5 3.00 10 8 21 13.00 26 18 11 12 13 25 17.50 24 20 14 19 22 16 15 18.57 3 6 7 17 9 21 10.50 9 1 3 2 4 2.50 8 7 5 6.67 9 10 12 6 13 11 10.17 26 16 14 17 20 19 22 19.14 23 18 15 21 24 25 21.00 10 1 3 2 4 2.50 13 11 6 10.00 26 18 12 5 10 20 15.17 25 24 14 7 21 19 22 18.86 16 8 15 9 17 23 14.67 11 1 6 5 17 7.25 4 2 8 4.67 22 3 7 9 13 23 12.83 26 21 14 24 10 12 11 16.86 18 25 19 20 16 15 18.83 12 3 4 1 25 8.25 26 6 20 17.33 5 7 19 18 10 23 13.67 2 22 12 15 16 21 17 15.00 9 14 11 13 24 8 13.17 13 17 10 18 3 12.00 4 16 21 13.67 26 22 5 6 11 25 15.83 12 13 14 7 9 19 20 13.43 15 8 2 1 23 22 11.83 Sub-Total 31 57 52 119 64.75 136 96 130 120.67 255 161 140 120 165 235 179.33 274 256 179 194 212 220 229 223.43 213 198 201 216 199 253 213.33 Average 2.58 4.75 4.33 9.92 5.40 11.33 8.00 10.83 10.06 21.25 13.42 11.67 10.00 13.75 19.58 14.94 22.83 21.33 14.92 16.17 17.67 18.33 19.08 18.62 17.75 16.50 16.75 18.00 16.58 21.08 17.78
RESTITUTION COMPENSATION REHABILITATION SATISFACTION GUARANTEE OF NON-REPETITION
A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
REPARATIVE JUSTICE AND
COMMUNITY RENEWAL
RECLAIMING
RUSSELL CITY
ATTACHMENT V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
THE CITY OF HAYWARD'S ROLE IN FORCED
RELOCATION
REPARATIVE JUSTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
REPARATIVE JUSTICE AND RUSSELL CITY: A
HOLISTIC BLUEPRINT
APPENDICES
02 05
09 15
33 37
Ceres Policy Research extends heartfelt thanks to the City of Hayward and the Russell City Reparative Justice Steering Committee for their invaluable partnership on the Russell City Reparative Justice Project. The City of Hayward's commendable acknowledgment of its historical injustices through a formal apology has set a profound precedent for transparency and restitution. Our sincere appreciation also goes to the former residents and descendants of Russell City who have shared their family narratives, enriching our research and understanding of the community's heritage. Ceres Policy Research is proud to contribute to this significant endeavor and remains committed to fostering a future where the lessons of the past pave the way for an equitable and inclusive society.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The story of Russell City is fraught with complexities, often marked by numerous atrocities that its residents and their descendants have faced over the years. Adding to the issue, the history of this community has been regularly shrouded in misinformation or silence. Recognizing the need for careful documentation and analysis, this report is committed to uncovering the truth behind this multifaceted narrative. One of the primary goals is to facilitate reparative justice by comprehensively understanding the nature and extent of the harm that has historically and currently impacted the community.
To provide a complete picture, the report has several key focuses. The first is the documentation and comprehensive analysis of the impact of the harm experienced due to the forced relocation prompted by the Russell City Redevelopment Project enacted by the County of Alameda in collaboration with the City of Hayward from 1963-1968. The scope and severity of the harm inflicted upon the residents of Russell City and their descendants will be thoroughly evaluated not just within the relocation period itself but a full analysis of daily life in Russell City and the aftermath of the lost community of Russell City. This report will include an overview of the historical wrongdoings and ongoing challenges the community faces in the aftermath of forced relocation. The objective here is not merely to recount the struggles but to serve as a foundational study that can help measure and redress the impact.
INTRODUCTION
02 The report also aims to rigorously review existing research on Russell City, leveraging primary and secondary sources. This review presents a comprehensive historical account intended to serve as a factual foundation for future policy discussions and decisions. Overall, the authenticity and accuracy of this report are crucial for representing the history without any distortions or omissions.
In light of the intricate and often misunderstood history of Russell City, this report extends its focus beyond easily quantifiable impacts like material losses or physical mistreatment. It also delves into the subtler yet profoundly damaging effects on the emotional and psychological well-being of the residents and their descendants, as well as the economic hardships and loss of a sense of community that have been endured. Recognizing these nuanced dimensions is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by the community both as individuals and as a collective.
INTRODUCTION
03 In terms of actionable outcomes, this report will present specific recommendations for reparative justice, aligning with current national trends. These recommendations stem from a thorough analysis of the collected data and extensive consultations with various stakeholders, including community leaders, policy experts, and Russell City residents. The overarching goal is to delineate a comprehensive strategy to address the longstanding injustices and inequalities that have impacted the Russell City community, ensuring remediation and alignment with broader contemporary movements toward reparative justice.
This report aims to be a comprehensive resource synthesizing diverse research findings, from statistical data and historical records to personal testimonials, to offer a holistic understanding of Russell City's complex history and current challenges. Through its rigor, the report serves as a foundation for informed future actions and advocacy and seeks to spark meaningful dialogue and inspire enduring positive changes in the community. In doing so, it aims to be a significant milestone in the ongoing, lengthy journey toward justice for Russell City's residents and their descendants.
INTRODUCTION
04 On November 16, 2021, the City of Hayward’s City Council issued an apology that served as an acknowledgment of a painful history—one steeped in racial injustice, forced evictions, and financial hardships that have left a lasting impact on the Russell City community. This public act signaled a willingness to delve into the complexities of institutional discrimination, particularly as they reverberate into the present day. The legacy of Russell City is a haunting tapestry of social and economic inequities that, in many ways, have not been fully accounted for.
Preliminary research, notably done by Dr. Elizabeth Brown and Dr. George Barganier of San Francisco State University, offers a window into the struggles that plagued Russell City’s residents.
From fights for essential services like water and sanitation to standing against systemic discrimination, the community had faced it all. While the research has illuminated key concepts like racial segregation, economic disparities, and environmental injustice, it is not exhaustive. Multiple dimensions require a more nuanced understanding and interdisciplinary approach for comprehensive assessment. For example, quantifiable data is still lacking on the economic sectors that benefited from the dislocation of Russell City, which would throw light on the irreversible loss of human capital.
BACKGROUND
AND CONTEXT
05 There’s also a vital need to evaluate the social and cultural toll of forced displacement, an aspect often overshadowed by economic considerations. The breaking apart of community networks, the loss of family services, and the erasure of cultural heritage are less tangible but equally devastating repercussions that have not been adequately explored. These gaps in our understanding prevent a full grasp of the multifaceted impacts of Russell City's tragic history.
Emerging from the ancestral territories of the Jalquin Ohlone[1], the forebears of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Russell City experienced demographic shifts, transforming into a racially diverse community by the 1940s. This community became home to a mosaic of residents, including African Americans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos. Available records and accounts present a dual perspective: on the one hand, some depict Russell City as a thriving community; on the other, there are indications of economic challenges and infrastructural shortfalls. While considering policy implications, it's essential to assess both viewpoints objectively.
Historical evidence underscores the residents' resilience in seeking equity, from securing basic amenities like water to advocating for broader civil rights. Concurrently, there were evident challenges surrounding property rights and community cohesion. It's imperative to consider and balance these narratives, offering a nuanced understanding of the community's history and challenges to contextualize the harm of redevelopment further.
06 The redevelopment of Russell City was marred by controversies, often around unfair financial practices and land acquisitions. It was initiated in the early 1960s and spanned through the late 1960s, ironically under the banner of 'eliminating a slum area.' The county significantly exceeded its initial cost estimate of $1.423 million for land acquisitions, eventually spending a whopping $2,442,000[2]. Such discrepancies, including the notorious purchase of the Santucci Hog Farm for $510,000—far more than its assessed value of $24,075[3]— prompted widespread scrutiny and suspected grand jury
investigations[4].
07 The City's approach to relocation exacerbated the problem. Initially, federal funds were consciously avoided to sidestep relocation requirements, such as compensation for residents to assist in their transition out of Russell City[5]. When it became apparent that federal funds would be needed, the city claimed that relocation expenses would be covered but provided no concrete plan, eliciting criticism from figures like Oakland Mayor John Houlihan[6]. He warned that such inadequacies could result in displaced residents moving to already stressed neighborhoods like West Oakland, shifting the problem rather than solving it.
Moreover, the redevelopment process alienated the community it was claiming to help. Despite forming a Citizens’ Advisory Committee[7] and holding public hearings, the residents’ voices were largely marginalized. Their pressing concerns about displacement, broken social ties, and the future of their community were raised but largely ignored.
The area was sold to developer Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes for $2.45 million by the County of Alameda[8], and the City of Hayward rezoned Russell City for industrial use after the process of annexation in 1968.
This transaction fulfilled the city and county's vision but at a devastating cost to the residents who called Russell City home. Russell City became a harsh lesson in the consequences of sidelining community voices and prioritizing financial gains over human welfare.
In conclusion, the story of Russell City serves as a stark cautionary tale.
It teaches us that ignoring the human and cultural aspects of a community can lead to displacement and a ripple effect of financial and social crises that question the integrity of public planning and governance. It underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of these factors to genuinely begin the long journey toward restitution, healing, and restoration.
08 The City of Hayward's role in the forced relocation from Russell City reveals a detailed account of government actions, resolutions, and planning initiatives that directly impacted the community.
At the heart of these actions was the Hayward City Council's decision, as outlined in Resolution No. 67-002. This amendment to Hayward's Master Plan explicitly targeted the West Hayward Shoreline Area, laying the groundwork for Russell City's redevelopment. The proposal for this amendment, an orchestrated effort by the Alameda County Planning Department in tandem with the City of Hayward Planning Department, was crafted and meticulously documented in maps and papers under titles such as "Use and Development Standards for Industrial Development of Russell City Area (West Hayward Shoreline Area as amended)."
In an attempt to facilitate transparency and legal compliance, a public hearing was scheduled for January 3, 1967, at Hayward's City Hall. While this gesture ostensibly offered a platform for public discourse, the subsequent events revealed a different narrative. Notwithstanding the absence of formal objections during the hearing, the City Council moved decisively, adopting the proposed plan as an official amendment. This hasty progression underscored a pre-decided agenda with little room for divergent views or reconsideration Digging deeper into the city's archival records, another pivotal government action emerges, Resolution No. 63-117. Through this resolution, the Hayward City Council authorized and endorsed the Redevelopment Cooperative Agreement for the Russell City project. This wasn't a mere administrative move.
It symbolized the city's commitment to an extensive collaboration that involved multiple governmental bodies, including the County of Alameda and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Alameda. The City of Hayward's City Manager was even granted authority to sign this agreement, underscoring the city's vested interest and active role in the redevelopment.
THE CITY OF HAYWARD'S ROLE IN THE
FORCED RELOCATION FROM RUSSELL CITY
09 An in-depth analysis of the "Proposed Use and Development Standard for Industrial Development of Russell City Project Area and Environs" report reveals the meticulous planning behind the redevelopment. Crafted by the Alameda County Planning Department and the Hayward City Planning Department, it set forth specific objectives and standards to guide the area's transformation. This document wasn't just a proposal; it was a blueprint, a clear and detailed roadmap of how the governmental bodies envisioned Russell City's future.
The planning sessions, reviews, and endorsements, whether through joint meetings with the Planning Commission, Industrial Commission, or Public Services Commission, weren't merely procedural formalities. The city's actions demonstrated a thorough and deliberate approach to redevelopment, ensuring every aspect was considered. The emphasis on periodic reviews, as advocated by the Planning Commission and endorsed by the City Council, offered an illusion of oversight. Still, in reality, it further strengthened the government's hold over the project's direction and pace.
In conclusion, the City of Hayward's government actions, from passing resolutions to endorsing plans and actively collaborating with county agencies, played an instrumental role in the wrongful seizure and consequent harm that befell the residents of Russell City. The series of planning, agreements, and endorsements indicates a government leading in directing Russell City's redevelopment, which resulted in the relocation of its longstanding residents.
THE CITY OF HAYWARD'S ROLE IN THE
FORCED RELOCATION FROM RUSSELL CITY
10 THE CITY OF HAYWARD'S ROLE IN THE
FORCED RELOCATION FROM RUSSELL CITY
The image above juxtaposesthe City of Hayward'sindustrial park in 2020 with the rural-residential landscape of Russell City in 1954. Together, they underscore 66 years of Hayward's urban evolution and the complete destruction of the Russell City community. (Courtesy of the City of Hayward)
1 1
"Harm Impact"is a comprehensive framework to understand the multifaceted damages inflicted on individuals and communities due to racially discriminatory or unjust actions and policies. This term encompasses tangible and intangible damages, such as economic loss, psychological stress, social disintegration, and health disparities. It is particularly relevant in the context of wrongful seizure of properties and assets, often seen through the lens of racial segregation and structural racism in the United States.
Wrongful seizure of property imposes multiple types of harm on the affected residents and their descendants. One of the critical issues is inadequate compensation. Often, the financial restitution provided—if any—is woefully insufficient to cover the losses endured by these individuals or communities. This exacerbates existing cycles of poverty and limits opportunities for upward mobility. Moreover, residents are frequently not given proper notice before their properties are seized or their neighborhoods are gentrified. This lack of transparency leaves them with few relocation or legal recourse options.
Additionally, decisions related to land seizure or changes in community resources are often made without meaningful consultation or participation from those most affected.
This lack of representation underscores the inequity in decision-making processes.
Furthermore, many instances of wrongful seizure blatantly disregard established legal procedures, denying affected individuals due process rights guaranteed by law[1]. Even when relocation does occur, it is often carried out without any assistance, straining the financial and emotional resources of displaced people.
Several factors contribute to these harmful impacts in the case of Russell City.
Structural racism is at the forefront, as it creates an environment conducive to wrongful seizures, often without consequences. Economic inequality also plays a role; those with limited resources cannot afford to engage in legal battles or seek alternative solutions. A lack of political representation further exacerbates the situation, as communities most affected by wrongful seizures often don't have the political influence to drive systemic change.
COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF
HARM IMPACT: WRONGFUL SEIZURE
12 The consequences of wrongful seizure aren't confined to the present generation but ripple through time to affect future generations[2]. Children in these communities may face reduced educational opportunities due to financial instability and loss of property.
The psychological trauma associated with the loss and displacement can manifest in stress-related disorders in future generations[3]. Furthermore, health inequities often arise from forced displacement, resulting in decreased access to healthcare and increased exposure to environmental hazards.
Understanding the harmful impact of wrongful seizures requires an acknowledgment of the historical and current contexts surrounding racial segregation in America.
Discrimination isn't an isolated act; it is systemic and deeply rooted in American society.
For example, racially restrictive covenants emerged in the 1920s across the country to prevent homeowners from selling or leasing properties to certain racial groups[4]. These private contracts circumvented public laws and contributed to racial segregation.
The real estate industry’s role in endorsing and implementing racially restrictive covenants can't be overstated. These practices remained prevalent until the 1960s, with the federal government indirectly endorsing such covenants by requiring them for federally-funded housing in new suburbs[5]. Establishing the first all-white neighborhood in Berkeley, California, was a landmark event facilitated by these racially restrictive covenants[6].
The Great Depression of the 1930s further complicated matters. Economic hardships slowed specifically Black migration from the South to the North, and the federal response was to introduce housing programs like mortgage insurance, which were predominantly accessible to white Americans. This further widened the gap in racial inequalities. Subsequently, the practice of redlining emerged, with neighborhoods categorized based on their racial composition[7]. This appraisal system effectively denied mortgage insurance and loans to communities labeled as 'hazardous,' furthering the economic divide.
COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF
HARM IMPACT: WRONGFUL SEIZURE
1 3
07 The era post-World War II brought significant changes. War-related job opportunities led to an increase in Black migration from the South to the North. At the same time, the federal government's investment in suburbs, mainly for the benefit of white families, encouraged "white flight"from urban centers[8]. Unethical practices like blockbusting and contract sales exploited Black Americans, who were already excluded from federal home loan programs.
The legacy of housing discrimination in the U.S. has deep-seated roots, affecting minority communities profoundly. Many of these communities, compelled by circumstances, engaged in exploitative contract purchases. These unscrupulous practices drained billions of dollars from minority neighborhoods from the 1940s to the 1970s. Further exacerbating the issue was the introduction of public housing. While federally funded, these units, overseen by local entities, were frequently racially segregated and in disrepair, thus perpetuating cycles of poverty, unemployment, and violence.
Such patterns of discrimination were not confined to a single group. Minority groups, especially Latinos, faced challenges akin to Black Americans. The post-1950s saw a significant migration of Latinos to urban regions, influenced by discriminatory housing policies and the allure of opportunities like the Bracero program[9]. However, federal"urban renewal"funds sometimes aggravated the problem, displacing many Latino communities[10]. And while legislative milestones like the Civil Rights Act of 1964[11] and the Fair Housing Act of 1968[12] were established, housing and lending disparities endured. The challenges from housing discrimination and racial segregation, coupled with the effects of programs like Bracero, hindered their seamless integration into American society.
Examining specific areas, such as Russell City, within the broader context of Hayward illustrates a localized representation of these widespread national challenges. Here, geographic segregation became an insidious tool, allowing institutions to discriminate without overt racial profiling subtly. Present-day zoning policies inadvertently perpetuate such divisions. Using Russell City and Hayward as case studies, this section emphasizes the necessity to confront and redress the deep-rooted issue of segregation in the U.S. To craft impactful policies, it's paramount to grasp the multi-dimensional consequences of these practices, aiming not just to amend past wrongs but also to pave the way for a just and inclusive future.
COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF
HARM IMPACT: WRONGFUL SEIZURE
14 REPARATIVE JUSTICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The concept of reparative justice aims to address historical injustices, striving to restore affected individuals and communities to a state of dignity and wholeness. This aligns with broader nationwide movements advocating for restorative justice and governmental accountability. In the U.S., numerous organizations are championing policy changes to rectify systemic inequities, especially those adversely affecting marginalized communities[1]. Our framework for reparative justice is enriched by international guidelines, notably those set by the United Nations[2].
These guidelines provide extensive protocols for reparations for communities impacted by forced displacements and other injustices. We have determined the inclusion criteria for reparations based on historical data, self-identification, and other verifiable means to ensure a fair approach.
Incorporating insights from various research findings and surveys, which echo the lived experiences and perspectives of the affected community, we've delineated our recommendations under five key pillars: Restitution, Compensation, Rehabilitation, Satisfaction, and Guarantee of NonRepetition. Each pillar comprises specific action items targeting the restoration of dignity and justice to the descendants of Russell City.
Collectively, these recommendations aim to present a comprehensive and inclusive approach to reparative justice.
To formulate effective and relevant policy recommendations, the Steering Committee of the Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP) generated a word cloud. This visual tool captured key terms highlighted by community members and stakeholders, such as "Repair," "Harm," "Land," "Value," and "Restitution." Using the insights from this collective voice, the word cloud served as a foundational guide to shape recommendations that align with the community's specific needs and aspirations. 15 REPARATIVE JUSTICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
9 16
The image is a word cloud with emphasis on themes of "harm," "repair," and "restore," related to property and historical injustices. Termslike "accountability," "land value," and "descendants"suggest a focus on reparations and restoring lost value or rights. (Courtesy of the Russell City Steering Committee)
REPARATIVE JUSTICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
One of the recurring terms in the word cloud was "Repair and Restore." This suggests an urgent need to heal the emotional and physical scars left on the community. Solutions may range from reviving dilapidated properties to facilitating community dialogues that can address emotional trauma. These restorative acts serve the dual purpose of acknowledging harm and taking palpable steps toward healing.
Another set of terms that stood out were "Harm" and "Loss." This drives home the need for a reparative framework that comprehensively accounts for both tangible and intangible forms of harm. Whether it's the loss of land, economic opportunities, or emotional well-being, each facet warrants meticulous evaluation and redressal.
Emphasizing the material aspects of justice were the terms "Land" and "Property." They point to the community's demand for concrete restitution, perhaps in land returns. There is also a call for the just valuation of properties, ensuring that any monetary compensation fairly reflects the value of land and assets lost.
"Value" and "Fair Compensation" prominently emerged in the word cloud, underscoring the community's demand for equitable treatment in various facets of reparative justice. Whether in the valuation of land, acknowledging emotional harm, or compensating for loss, the term "Fair" emphasizes that justice should not only be served but also be visibly recognized. Further, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
17 REPARATIVE JUSTICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The term "Descendants" appeared frequently, indicating that any reparation should extend beyond the immediate victims to their offspring. This recognizes that the impact of injustices often trickles down through generations, affecting the life chances and well-being of descendants in ways that demand redress.
Flexibility in financial compensation was signaled through terms like "Monetary," "Paid," "Money," "Quarterly," and "Monthly." These terms suggest that lump-sum payments may not be the sole option and that more sustainable, ongoing forms of remuneration could be considered to meet individual and community needs better.
The appearance of "Education" and "Scholarships" in the word cloud denotes a focus on long-term, sustainable interventions. Investments in educational opportunities could serve as a pathway to generational wealth and social mobility, addressing long-standing cycles of inequality and disadvantage.
18 11
REPARATIVE JUSTICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
Another element captured by the word cloud was "Accountability." This term's prominence suggests a strong community desire for transparent processes and public acknowledgment of past wrongs by government bodies at various levels. In addition, terms like "Full Accountability" and "Not Revisionist History" clarify that the community seeks a truthful recounting of past injustices, free from historical whitewashing.
The term "Generational Wealth" echoes the idea of looking beyond immediate remedies to construct long-term solutions that provide financial security for future generations. Whether through property rights, educational scholarships, or other avenues, the focus is on sustainable wealth-building.
Finally, "Effective Legislation" and "Ensure" were also key terms, emphasizing the need for enforceable laws that guarantee the implementation of these recommendations. It’s not enough to make promises; they must be codified into law and rigorously monitored to ensure ongoing compliance and effectiveness. 19 11
The RCRJP Steering Committee, in association with Ceres Policy Research, conducted a detailed community survey involving 377 participants to delve into Russell City's historical narrative. A rich diversity of respondents spanned ages from 12 to over 80, with a pronounced representation of females (58%) and racial diversity including African American/Black (51%) and Latinx/Chicanx/Hispanic (36%). Remarkably, 37% were former Russell City residents, and 90% were direct descendants, majorly from their parents (61%) and grandparents (57%).
Following forced relocations, residents faced difficulties assimilating into new environments. Alienation and discrimination became commonplace, intensified by racial disparities, housing segregation, and unfair lending practices. Environmental challenges like poor air quality and inadequate infrastructure further burdened the community. Despite this, communal bonds remained strong, a beacon of hope.
A consistent theme throughout the survey was the call for reparations.
Respondents sought symbolic gestures like public monuments and tangible redressals such as financial compensation and property restitution. The community expressed a clear desire for solutions addressing past wrongs and future precautions. Within this framework, respondents emphasized incorporating Russell City's history into academic curriculums and erecting enduring monuments.
The survey shed light on deep emotional wounds, revealing stories of economic hardships, strained family ties, and generational trauma.
Environmental adversities, such as contaminated water sources and pollutants, were also underscored, hinting at the community's physical and mental health challenges.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY SURVEY INSIGHTS ABOUT THE
LEGACY OF RUSSELL CITY'S HISTORICAL DISPLACEMENTS
20 11
Statistical findings revealed that 84.7% of respondents were still awaiting moving assistance from Alameda County. A substantial 89% experienced financial setbacks, primarily from moving expenses and loss of property. Health issues were rampant due to the city's environmental conditions, while 78% reported significant financial hardships from the relocation.
When exploring details around relocation, responses varied, with some highlighting personal challenges and experiences. The aftermath of the eminent domain application was particularly revealing. Several respondents expressed uncertainty or dismay over compensation, with comments highlighting limited or nonexistent assistance.
The profound loss of land or businesses resonated deeply. One respondent's father, for instance, faced health issues due to the resulting stress. These losses also led to emotional, psychological, and economic repercussions, significantly impacting familial and community bonds.
On the topic of reparations, there was a unanimous call for public acknowledgment, including initiatives like museums or commemorative installations. Financial compensation for property losses and support for descendants also stood out as pressing concerns. The feedback highlighted aspirations for rebuilding, encompassing communal spaces, and addressing environmental racism. Emphasis was placed on integrating the history of Russell City into educational systems and creating educational foundations.
This survey paints a vivid picture of a community's resilience despite facing significant adversities. Their experiences provide invaluable insights into the complexities of displacement and underscore the urgent need for reparative justice and acknowledgment.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY SURVEY INSIGHTS ABOUT THE
LEGACY OF RUSSELL CITY'S HISTORICAL DISPLACEMENTS
21 11
Drawing from the in-depth insights of the community survey, the Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP) Steering Committee is charting an ambitious yet evolving pathway toward reparative justice. This roadmap is anchored in restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction. Engaging in a continuous dialogue with various stakeholders, the intent is to address and amend historical wrongs, simultaneously laying a solid foundation for achieving future equity. Recognizing the plan as an instrumental step forward, it remains pivotal to be cognizant of the intricacies and challenges that await. This collective initiative aspires to redefine Russell City's legacy, harmonizing its rich history and envisioning its future in a concerted journey toward justice and equity.
Now, turning to the specific initiatives and recommendations under each pillar:
FIVE PILLARS OF REPARATIVE JUSTICE:
RESTITUTION, COMPENSATION,
REHABILITATION, SATISFACTION, GUARANTEE
OF NON-REPETITION FOR RUSSELL CITY
22 11
Restitution addresses not only the restoration of unethically seized lands but also the much-needed overhaul of the community's neglected infrastructure.
Compensation and Rehabilitation are the foundation for sustained community programs and infrastructure development[1]. Compensation extends beyond financial remedies, targeting emotional and social healing. Concurrently, rehabilitation efforts aim to rejuvenate the community’s physical and societal structure, with programs like an education fund and health initiatives designed to break cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Satisfaction captures the essence of formal government apologies, restoring original community names, and erecting memorials that pay tribute to the history and residents of Russell City.
Lastly, the Guarantee of Non-Repetition envisions policy alterations, educational endeavors, and legal revisions, especially around housing and eminent domain.
These proposals have been carefully crafted in consultation with the RCRJP Steering Committee Members and aim to address the complex layers of injustices faced by the Russell City community. Our discussion begins below:
23 11
Restitution
Property Restoration and Fair Compensation in Russell City: Addressing the historical injustices faced by property owners in Russell City requires a multifaceted approach. For owners unable to reclaim their lands due to existing infrastructure or businesses, it is imperative that compensation be provided at the full 2023 market value. Additionally, for lands currently under lease to companies, redirecting leaseback payments to the original owners or their descendants is a just course of action. Beyond the land itself, the county must recognize the inherent value of the homes and structural investments made by residents. In instances where direct property restoration is not feasible, compensation should reflect both current market values and the historical significance of these properties. All reparative actions should be undertaken with transparency, and it's crucial to actively involve the affected descendants in decision-making to ensure a truly equitable and just resolution.
Restitution for Denial of Infrastructure and Community Base: The term 'infrastructure' encompasses more than tangible assets like sewers or roads. It includes the backbone of a thriving community: schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and other social amenities. Historically, Russell City faced not just a physical but also a socio-cultural infrastructural deficit, impacting generations.
Lack of essential services like sewers magnified the social and economic divide, making it an issue of generational wealth. Hence, proper restitution for these systemic denials is not just desirable but necessary.
Recommendations Based on Human Rights and Restoration of Property: Tying restitution to universally acknowledged human rights as defined by the UN assures that the recommendations transcend local politics and biases. The focus is to achieve a universally fair and just outcome that values human dignity and liberty.
24 11
Restitution
Russell City Comprehensive Housing Initiative: In light of the historical adversities faced by Russell City residents, the City of Hayward should explore a dual-faceted housing approach. Central to this consideration is the Housing Preference Policy, which emphasizes affordable housing for descendants affected by the Russell City Redevelopment Project (1963-1968) and those currently experiencing homelessness. This policy suggests collaboration with developers to allocate specific units for eligible parties, supported by thorough documentation processes and continuous community consultation, all under the guidance of a specialized oversight committee. Alongside this, the introduction of semi-permanent and permanent housing options should be evaluated to meet the essential housing stability needs of both former Russell City residents and their descendants. Collectively, these proposals aim at addressing historical injustices, enhance community relations, and ensuring a sustainable future for the legacy of Russell City.
25 11
Compensation
Establishment of a Community Fund: For consistent community support, a stable financial foundation is essential. The City of Hayward could consider creating a Community Fund, which would be financed by a portion of local taxes and proceeds from the sale of community lands. This fund could provide a continuous financial basis for community programs and infrastructure projects. By directing revenues from these sources into the Community Fund, it may allow for dependable funding for the community's needs. The projected annual revenue from these sources could be instrumental in maintaining and enhancing the initiative's effectiveness.
Compensation and Support for Russell City's Former Residents: The forced evictions in Russell City left lasting impacts, both tangible and intangible.
Beyond the physical property loss, these evictions represented a significant infringement on the residents' civil rights, dignity, security, and overall wellbeing. It is vital that any compensation provided accounts for both these tangible losses and the broader civil rights violations with long-term societal implications. An effective approach to address this can be the introduction of a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for living former residents of Russell City.
Drawing inspiration from successful models like the Stockton, California's basic income pilot, a GBI could have profound benefits on recipients' overall quality of life. However, the challenge lies in securing adequate funding. A multifaceted funding approach, leveraging governmental resources, philanthropic contributions, and private sector collaborations, is advocated.
Initially targeting Russell City's living former residents ensures immediate redress to those directly impacted, with a potential to expand coverage later.
This GBI initiative, beyond financial assistance, stands as a symbol of acknowledgment and reparation, aiming to benefit all individuals affected, regardless of their current financial standing.
Free Education for Descendants: Generational wealth is not just property; it's education. To rectify past educational discrimination, descendants of Russell City should receive free education and scholarships. This education fund would be a cornerstone in leveling the playing field and opening doors that were unjustly closed to previous generations.
26 11
Rehabilitation
Infrastructure Development: Restoration requires more than just returning lands; it calls for equipping those lands with modern amenities and services to ensure residents and their descendants can build a prosperous future.
Environmental Justice and Health Initiatives: Addressing Russell City's health and environmental challenges necessitates acknowledging the link between environmental factors and community well-being. This suggests a need for clinics specializing in environmental hazard testing in light of the community's ongoing and past environmental concerns. Tools like the Total Quality of Life Index can provide a broader understanding of community challenges. Given the substantial youth demographic, integrating the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) framework is essential, emphasizing the lasting impacts of environmental and psychological strains. Mental health resources tailored to address historical and current challenges are vital. This recommendation, deeply informed by various insights, strives to promote environmental justice and overall community health.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: Grants for entrepreneurship should be extended to descendants irrespective of their location.
Concurrently, businesses operating in the Industrial Park area of Hayward should be encouraged to create job opportunities specifically for these descendants.
Educational Scholarships and Support: Scholarships and living stipends for academic pursuits can act as catalysts for community upliftment, breaking cycles of poverty and discrimination.
Preventing Recurrence and Legal Changes: Advocacy for changing laws and policies aims at preventing the recurrence of the injustices that Russell City faced.
Russell City Community Center: Community centers serve as nodes of social interaction, education, and recreation. Establishing one within the old Russell City boundaries would serve as a beacon of community development and well-being.
27 11
Satisfaction
Official Apologies and Acknowledgment: No reparative justice is complete without acknowledgment of the wrongs committed. The government must issue formal apologies and symbolic gestures like restoring Russell City's original name and borders.
Memorials and Commemoration: Memorabilia and monuments serve to honor the memory and contributions of Russell City's residents, providing not just acknowledgment but also a form of community pride.
Transparency and Accountability: A dedicated platform that isn't controlled by the City of Hayward will ensure transparency and accountability plus safety to have trauma-informed conversations, providing information about the ongoing efforts in real-time to former residents and their descendants.
Education and Documentation: Accurate documentation of Russell City’s history is vital. A dedicated documentary and textbooks can ensure that the true story is told, preserving the community's legacy.
Recognition of Russell City Luminaries and Documentation of Contribution:
Celebrate the diverse contributions of Russell City's veterans and servicemen, athletes, entertainers, activists, and other distinguished figures from both past and present through a comprehensive, permanent historical archive. Supplement this with a dedicated website displaying audiovisual testimonials from surviving community members, ensuring that the Russell City narrative is authentically chronicled, preserved, and disseminated by its very people for forthcoming generations.
Revitalization of Russell City's Heritage and Community Spaces: Prioritize the reinstatement of Russell City's original street names to reflect its rich history and foster community pride. Complementing this, develop green spaces or parks that not only serve as recreational hubs but also as cultural and educational centers. Such initiatives, paired with educational scholarships and business grants, will promote both community cohesion and socio-economic advancement for the descendants.
28 11
Satisfaction
Russell City Cultural Heritage Preservation Commission: To address the potential loss of Russell City's significant cultural heritage, the City of Hayward should establish the Russell City Cultural Heritage Commission (RCCHC). This independent commission would oversee preservation efforts, ensuring representation from Russell City descendants and cultural specialists. Key initiatives would encompass cultural mapping, designating a Russell City Cultural Heritage Month, founding a dedicated cultural center, and incorporating Russell City's heritage into Hayward's educational curriculum. With the advent of technology, digitizing the heritage is crucial for broader access. Funding in the form of grants can support grassroots projects, while partnerships with cultural institutions can enhance the narrative's reach. Through these efforts, the commission aims not just to preserve, but to connect future generations with their rich history, fostering community identity and respect for its past. 29 11
Guarantee of Non-Repetition:
Policy Changes: Champion legal reforms and policies that prevent recurrences of past injustices. Tools like Community Benefits Agreements and Inclusionary Zoning should be meticulously defined, ensuring that they serve as effective safeguards against potential inequities. This includes the implementation of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), and Community Land Trusts (CLTs) as mechanisms for reparative justice in the City of Hayward.
Education and Awareness Programs: In collaboration with statewide partners and educational agencies, develop school curricula that integrate the history of Russell City, forced displacement, and racial injustice.
Concurrently, implement public awareness programs to promote a broader understanding of Russell City's history and the implications of forced displacement.
Community Engagement and Accountability: Create community advisory groups consisting of Russell City descendants, residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for participatory decision-making. Advocate for specialized training for county and city officials on the history and needs of Russell City, and demand public apologies and accountability from communities complicit in historical injustices.
Publication and Storytelling: Disseminate the history of Russell City through various media, including publications and documentaries.
Advocate for mandatory inclusion of Russell City's history in educational curricula from grade school to college.
Community Land Trusts and Housing Policies: Support and fund community land trusts for affordable housing and community ownership.
Encourage the adoption of inclusionary housing policies and renter's protection ordinances.
30 11
Guarantee of Non-Repetition:
Revised Eminent Domain Law and Community Governance: Reform eminent domain laws to ensure community protection. Establish a governance body, representative of Russell City's diverse demographic, to oversee and ensure that land acquisition aligns with community welfare and interest. Advocate for legal and policy changes aimed at preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and protecting communities like Russell City.
The quest for reparative justice in Russell City is fueled by a relentless commitment to redressing historical wrongs while crafting a future that embodies dignity, fairness, and community well-being. The initiative is designed to incorporate principles that resonate on a national and international level through the Five Pillars of Reparative Justice. 3 1
The pursuit of reparative justice for the Russell City community emphasizes addressing systemic injustices experienced over generations. A central pillar in this approach is the eligibility criteria. Setting clear and just criteria is essential for identifying rightful beneficiaries and ensuring the reparative process remains transparent and fair. This criteria acts as a guiding framework, directing efforts towards deserving individuals. It plays a crucial role in recognizing and addressing the needs of Russell City's descendants and survivors. Thus, establishing comprehensive eligibility criteria is more than a procedural step; it's integral to the success and integrity of the reparative justice initiative.
Eligibility Criteria
Property Ownership: Verification through Redevelopment Agency records, including deeds. Direct descendants of owners can also be verified similarly.
1. Displaced Residents and Descendants: Individuals directly displaced between 1963-1968 due to the Russell City Redevelopment Project, and their direct descendants, qualify.
2. Other Forms of Evidence: Records such as census data, voter registration rolls, birth certificates, marriage licenses, etc., may establish residency or business ownership between 1907-1968.
3. Residency Duration: Individuals should have lived in Russell City for at least three years. Descendants qualify if a direct parent or grandparent resided for at least two generations.
4. 5.Prioritization: Elders, with verifiable proof of residency, will be prioritized in the reparations process.
Documentation Process
Identification and Verification: Claimants must provide evidence as per the criteria. Redevelopment Agency records will be key for property ownership verification. The submission of sworn affidavits, proof of heirship or legal representation, and clarification of spouse/widow distinctions versus bloodline may be necessary.
1. Application Process: A structured application demanding information, historical documentation, and supporting evidence should be developed.
2. Review Process: A committee with experts in historical research, legal fields, and community stakeholders will assess and validate applications.
3. Ownership Claim: After approval, claimants should receive appropriate reparations. If a claimant has passed away, the City of Hayward should establish a policy that follows the state's estate planning and succession laws, ensuring that benefits can be transferred to eligible heirs or beneficiaries.
4. The detailed eligibility and documentation criteria serve as a foundation for the reparative justice efforts in Russell City. By defining the parameters for qualification and ensuring transparency throughout the process, it instills confidence in the community, ensuring that justice is not only done but also perceived to be done.
For the descendants and survivors of Russell City, these criteria affirm their rightful place within the reparative dialogue. As we move forward, it is imperative that these guidelines are upheld, refined if needed, and consistently applied. Only then can the journey towards true justice for the Russell City community, one that rectifies past wrongs and provides a clear path to healing, be fully realized.
Guidelines for Eligibility and Documentation:
Ensuring Transparent Reparative Justice for
Russell City
32 The path to justice in Russell City demands a holistic approach, addressing systemic injustices endured by this community over generations. The vision encapsulated within this document builds upon Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter's "Radical Reparations" concept, presenting a comprehensive, multi-dimensional reparative framework, with implications at both national and global levels.
Grounded in seven core tenets, this reparations framework and approach seeks transformative solutions across political, intellectual, legal, economic, social, spatial, and spiritual domains:
● Political Reparations: Emphasize inclusive representation, championing direct descendant participation in governance, evidenced by initiatives like the Russell City Reparative Justice Project.
● Intellectual Reparations: Celebrate Russell City's legacy, exemplified by proposed museums and annual cultural events.
● Legal Reparations: Advocate for restorative justice through policy reforms, transparency measures, and community-driven oversight mechanisms. ● Economic Reparations: Encompass community funds, job creation, entrepreneurship support, and educational provisions.
● Social Reparations: Blend formal acknowledgments, commemorative projects, and infrastructure development.
● Spatial Reparations: Highlight geographical restoration, inclusive of original property and infrastructural restoration.
● Spiritual Reparations: Promote community healing by establishing sacred sites and reintroducing indigenous ceremonies.
Reparative Justice and Russell City:
A Holistic Blueprint
3 3
The focus remains not just on past redress but future protection for the Russell City community. Thus, education about Russell City’s history, policy revisions, and establishing community advisory bodies are paramount. This Harm Analysis took a multi-faceted approach to understanding the impacts of forced relocation on this community. Underpinned by interdisciplinary research, including archival studies, legal analyses, and community surveys, this report proposes:
● Financial Restitution: Compensation based on rigorous economic models. ● Community Reinvestment: Emphasis on local development projects. ● Historical Commemoration: Cultural hubs capturing Russell City's essence. ● Legal Amendments: Reforming zoning and eminent domain policies. ● Healthcare Commitment: Ensuring healthcare for former residents and descendants.
● Beneficiary Continuation: Ensuring reparative benefits extend to future generations.
Reparative Justice and Russell City:
A Holistic Blueprint
34 A cohesive strategy requires concrete steps in order to keep the work moving forward. The following action steps can begin the process to create a future characterized by justice and community empowerment:
Outreach Ambassadors: To maximize the program's reach and effectiveness, designated ambassadors familiar with the community's history will be tasked with identifying and contacting former residents and their descendants. These positions are stipended.
RCRJP Coordinator: Reporting to the currently vacant Race Equity Officer position (Class Code: U340) within the City of Hayward, this individual will act as the central contact between the initiative and the community. Their primary responsibility will be to maintain open communication and ensure the program is consistently implemented as intended.
Implementation Oversight and Advisory Body: This volunteer body will act as an additional layer of accountability to ensure that the reparative measures are executed as intended, without compromise or misunderstanding.
Data Acquisition Coordination: A coordinated effort between local governmental agencies such as Alameda County and the City of Hayward will aim to acquire critical historical and current data, ensuring that the initiative is grounded in empirical evidence without barrier to access.
Russell City Descendant as a Designation: Inspired by similar programs, this administrative measure would prioritize descendants of Russell City for various city services, institutionalizing the reparation process.
Reparative Justice and Russell City:
A Holistic Blueprint
35 Future Research: Ongoing studies will be necessary to adapt and update the initiative's recommendations, ensuring they remain timely and effective.
Community Feedback Mechanism: A system will be established to continually gauge community response to reparative measures, facilitating necessary adjustments.
Legal Provisions and Policy Changes: Consultation with legal experts will inform necessary changes to laws surrounding eminent domain and community governance.
Public Awareness and Education: Awareness campaigns and educational programs will educate the broader community about Russell City's history and contributions.
Financial Allocation and Planning: A dedicated committee within the City of Hayward will determine the financial feasibility of the recommendations and identify avenues for additional funding.
In essence, the RCRJP Steering Committee's strategy serves as both redress and a forward-looking blueprint for equitable urban development. It underscores the importance of learning from historical oversights, paving the way for a future where all community stakeholders benefit from a just and inclusive approach.
Reparative Justice and Russell City:
A Holistic Blueprint
36 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Russell City: A historically rich community known for its racial diversity, which faced significant challenges, particularly during the 1963-1968 redevelopment project.
Reparative Justice: A method of addressing and mending historical injustices to restore dignity and integrity to affected communities.
Resolution No. 67-002: A City of Hayward resolution central to the redevelopment project that targeted the Russell City community for industrial transformation.
Harm Impact Framework: A conceptual framework introduced to quantify the extensive damages resulting from racially biased actions and policies.
Restrictive Covenants: Legal provisions in property deeds preventing certain groups, often based on race or ethnicity, from buying or occupying property.
Redlining: A discriminatory practice where services like loans or insurance were denied or priced higher for residents in specific areas, often due to racial or ethnic composition.
Blockbusting: A tactic where real estate agents and developers encouraged white homeowners to sell their houses at a loss, preying on fears of racial minorities moving into the neighborhood.
Jalquin Ohlone: The indigenous ancestral inhabitants of the land that eventually became known as Russell City.
Five Pillars of Reparative Justice: The five foundational principles for reparative initiatives: Restitution, Compensation, Rehabilitation, Satisfaction, and Guarantee of Non-Repetition.
Eminent Domain: The right of the government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
37 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Descendants: Refers to the family members who come from a particular ancestor, in this context, the original residents or property owners of Russell City.
Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter's "Radical Reparations" Concept: An approach to reparative justice that addresses systemic injustices across various facets, aiming for holistic redressal.
RCRJP Coordinator: Refers to the Russell City Reparative Justice Project Coordinator, a central liaison between the initiative and the community.
Community Fund: A proposed financial reservoir supported by taxes and land sale proceeds, dedicated to aiding community endeavors.
Guaranteed Basic Income: A periodic cash payment delivered to eligible individuals without work requirements or conditions.
Environmental Health Initiatives: Efforts to understand and address health concerns that arise from environmental factors or conditions.
Cultural Heritage Preservation Commission: A proposed commission to oversee the preservation of Russell City's cultural and historical heritage.
Outreach Ambassadors: Designated individuals responsible for identifying and connecting with former Russell City residents and their descendants.
Community Land Trusts: Nonprofit organizations developed to create and oversee affordable housing, community gardens, civic buildings, commercial spaces, and other community assets.
38 APPENDIX B
SURVEY RESULTS
The following appendix provides a condensed overview of the results from the Russell City Community Survey. In this document, for each question, we detail the percentage of respondents (n=377) who answered and offer a thematic breakdown of the responses. SECTION I: WHO ANSWERED THE SURVEY? These are all important descriptors of who answered the survey. It also provides a sample of who is a former resident versus a direct descendent. Age:
12 - 18 | 2%
19 - 29 | 5%
30 - 45 | 19%
46 - 64 | 37%
65 - 79 | 27%
80+ | 9%
Ethnicity:
Latinx/Chicanx/Hispanic | 36%
African American/Black | 51%
Indigenous/Native American | 1%
White | .6%
Other | 8%
Missing/Failed to Answer | 2%
39 Sex/Gender:
Female | 58%
Male | 41%
Missing/Failed to Answer | .8%
Are you a former resident of Russell City, CA?
Yes | 37%
No | 59%
Missing/Failed to Answer | 4%
Are you a direct descendant of someone who lived in Russell City? *If your parents, grandparents, or great-grandparentslived in Russell City, and you are directly related to them, then you are their direct descendant. Yes | 90% No | 3%
Missing/Failed to Answer | 6%
40 If you answered yes to questions 8 and 9, please indicate how you are related to the person who resided in Russell City: (You may select multiple options.) Parent | 61%
Grandparent | 57%
Great Grandparents | 28%
Self | 16%
Other | 13%
SECTION II: Full Population Insights
This section provides a distilled overview of the impacts of displacement from Russell City, highlighting that a vast majority of families faced significant financial and emotional hardships without adequate support. The statistics illuminate the community's struggle with health risks, psychological distress, and the disruption of social and economic stability. Recommendations for reparations suggest a community eager for rectification, encompassing financial, property, and educational redress, as well as mental health support. An overwhelming majority express a desire to engage in ongoing dialogues with the city, indicating a strong commitment to influencing future policies and outcomes.
My family has had:
Difficulty re-establishing a new home or business: 51.3% Emotional or psychological stress: 62.1%
Family cohesion deteriorated due to financial strain: 46.2% Loss of standing and relationships in the community: 48.7% Impediment to building intergenerational wealth: 43.7%
Full Population (%/s):
My family did not receive any moving assistance from the county of Alameda:
84.7%
The forced relocation resulted in financial costs (e.g., moving): 89% The loss of land or business impacted your family's integrity: 84% Types of emotional or psychological distress from relocation:
PTSD: 35.9%
Anxiety: 52.6%
Depression: 54.6%
Trauma: 52.6%
41 Recommended reparations:
Financial compensation: 68.2%
Restoration of Property Rights, meaning the land is returned: 37% Return Russell City to its original boundaries before annexation: 24.8% Educational scholarships and stipends: 37.9%
Healthcare benefits for former residents: 35.4%
Programs for Community Development: 24.2%
Arts and Cultural Spaces: 28.8%
Business support and grants: 26.2%
Job training and employment opportunities for descendants: 31.5% Mental health and counseling services: 31.8%
Mortgage Forgiveness: 33.4%
Homeownership Grants (e.g., low-interest loans and down payments): 39.8% A commemorative gate or archway at a key site to mark the community: 32.9% Official Russell City Holiday and Recognition by City Council: 29.8% Designated Community Center for Russell City: 28.1%
Relocating from Russell City has caused major financial hardship:
Loss of property or land: 67.5%
Loss of income or wages: 49.3%
Loss of business or employment opportunities: 37.6%
Loss of educational opportunities: 36.8%
Unplanned expenses were a burden: 56%
42 Health impacts of living in Russell City:
Exposure to polluted air: 40.7%
Exposure to polluted hazardous materials: 46%
Limited access to clean water: 45.4%
Limited access to emergency services: 52.9%
Noise pollution: 39.6%
Lack of basic services: 50.7%
Limited access to health care: 46.5%
Food desert: 41.5%
I would like to be a part of ongoing discussions with the city: 85.1% SECTION II: Policy Considerations
This section distills the core themes from a range of open-ended responses. These responses were elicited to shape policy suggestions and to gain insight into the lived experiences of our respondents. We have synthesized the predominant themes for each question posed, pinpointing these by meticulously reviewing and noting the repetitive concepts across the responses.
#12: Official government records show thatthe relocation of Russell City residents began in 1963. Were you or any family members residents or property owners in Russell City atthe time this official relocation process began? (Other)
Specific Years Provided: This question encompasses responses where respondents mentioned specific years, ranges, or narrow timeframes. Examples:"1960","1962","1963-1964", "Between 1963 & 1965","1964-1967", etc.
1. Uncertainty with Specific Year Mentioned: Many respondents expressed uncertainty but still provided a potential year or timeframe. Examples:"1963 + not sure","Could have been the end of 1963","I am unsure but my great grandmother was the last resident to leave. I believe it was between1966-1967","I believe my parents and my siblings moved out of Russell City around 1962 because I was a teenager still and was not married until 1965 so this was before then", etc.
2. General Uncertainty: Responses where respondents expressed that they did not know or were unsure without specifying a potential year or timeframe. Examples:"Do not know the year", "Don't know yet","Don’t remember","I do not have that information","idk","Not sure", "Unknown", etc.
3. Negative Responses: Responses where respondents indicated that they or their family were not residents or property owners during the timeframe, or the question was not applicable to them. Examples:"n/a, I was not a resident of RC and forced to relocate","No", etc.
4. Additional Context or Story Provided: Responses where respondents shared a deeper context, story, or other circumstances related to the relocation. Examples:"I am not quite sure of the year, I know there was talk that their home was burned","My grandparent's house was burned down","My great grandmother was the last resident to be forced to leave Russell City","Not sure when they left. Mom and I had to leave earlier due to my schooling and transportation issues. We knew we would have to leave. I think we left in 1959. My father took no responsibility for us so we kids were scattered. One went to the Marines… Mom and I rented rooms with welfare help. Father eventually gave me 40 dollars a month but I was an adult and married to have a permanent way of life", etc.
5. 43
#13: If you answered yes to the previous question, were you or any family members forced to relocate from Russell City due to the implementation of eminent domain? If so, which year did this occur? (Other)
Definite Year or Year Range: This question captures responses where respondents provided a clear year or a range of years, indicating a definitive period of relocation. Examples:"1960","1962","1963-1964","Between 1963 & 1965","1964-1967", etc.
1. Uncertainty with Year Mentioned: This question includes answers where respondents expressed uncertainty but also indicated a potential year or timeframe for the relocation. Examples:"1963 + not sure","Could have been the end of 1963","I am unsure but my great grandmother lived there between1966- 1967","I believe... around 1962","I do not know what year, unfortunately. It would be before 1965", etc.
2. General Uncertainty/No Specific Year: This question captures responses where the exact year or timeframe of relocation is unknown or unspecified by the respondent. Examples:"Do not know the year","Don't know yet","Don’t remember","Dont know","Exact date unknown","I don't know the year","idk", "Not sure","Unknown", etc.
3. Additional Context or Narrative: This question had responses where respondents shared more detailed personal stories, background, or added context about the relocation. Examples:"I know there was talk that their home was burned","My grandparent's house was burned down","Not sure when they left. Mom and I had a hard time finding a permanent way of life","My family was forced to relocate from Russell City, but unclear of the early 60's timeframe", etc.
4. 44
#14: If you or your family were residents or property owners in Russell City, did you move out before the land was converted into an industrial park? Alternatively, if you answered "No" to question 12, was your land or business taken over by Alameda County and the City of Hayward? (Other)
Definite Relocation: This question captures responses where respondents clearly indicated they or their family were forced or had to relocate, whether prior to or after the industrial park development. Examples:"Forced to move and then the building began","kicked out before the industrial park","Of course we had to move out, we were forced out with no money","One of the last to get forced out","We had to move out", "We were forced to move out & sell our property","Yes, was forced to leave", etc.
1. Uncertainty about Relocation: There were responses that expressed doubt, ambiguity, or a need for more clear information about the process of relocation. Examples:"Don't know yet about that of my family","Don't know. I believe my father and his parents moved to Hayward when there talks about it","I don’t know","I’m not sure of what happened to the business of my brothers in-laws","not sure","Unknown","Unkown", "Unsure","We did, but I do not know the specifics","Unknown but will do my research", etc.
2. Specifics of the Experience: There were responses that provided particular details or events surrounding the relocation process, such as dates, personal anecdotes, and circumstances. Examples:"My grandmother was the property owner and they were forced to leave. My grandfather was passed on at this time","They had to relocate and family members had to take residency in different locations misplacing my family","We were the last residents to leave Russell City","YES, NOVEMBER 1961","Yes our home was burned down", etc.
3. Involvement of Authorities: There were responses that specifically mention the involvement or actions of Alameda County and the City of Hayward. Examples:"Taken over by Alameda","yes for my parents, but I was no longer resident", etc.
4. Disconnected from Experience: Responses that suggest the respondent was either too young at the time, was not directly affected, or was distanced from the event due to other circumstances. Examples:"I was too young to know anything","yes for my parents, but I was no longer resident","I’m not sure of what happened to the business of my brothers in-laws but I can find out since it was a big one. My brother work in it but I was transferred with with military husband and lost touch", etc.
5. 45
#15: Following the implementation of eminent domain, did you or any family members receive any form of relocation assistance, either monetary or in-kind, from Alameda County or the City of Hayward? (Other)
Uncertainty or Lack of Information: This question captures responses where participants expressed doubt or needed more concrete knowledge about any assistance received. Examples: "Not sure what they paid the man I called my stepdad", "Not sure. It would have gone to my grandmother", "UNKNOWN", "Unknown", "unsure", "Unsure if any relocation financial assistance was received", "Was too young I don't know if parents did or not", etc.
1. Definite Absence of Assistance: Responses where participants indicated they or their family members did not receive any assistance—examples: "NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF", etc.
2. Minimal Assistance: This theme highlights responses that suggest the assistance provided needed to be more substantial or insufficient. Some responses indicated that some assistance was given, but the exact nature or amount needs to be specified.
Examples: "Very little", "Very little money was given to my family", "Very little", "we only got the eminent domain amount", etc.
3. 46
47 #18: How has the loss of land or business impacted your family's intergenerational wealth? (Other)
Health and Well-being Impact: This question captured responses that indicate a significant toll on the physical or mental health of family members due to the loss of land or business. Examples: "My father took sick, very stressed and died from a heart attack", "father depressed and not able to recover", etc.
1. Professional and Economic Displacement: Responses suggested that former residents had to shift in their professions, economic status, or needed to find new jobs or professions due to the loss.
Examples: "MY FAMILY WERE FARMERS, AND LARGE LAND
OWNERS. THEY HAD TO GO AND FIND NEW HOUSING AND FIND A
NEW PROFESSION", "had to find a new job", etc.
2. Direct Loss of Generational Wealth: In this question, responses directly state or imply a considerable loss of wealth that would have been passed down through generations—examples: "Loss of Generational wealth", etc.
3. Family Cohesion and Displacement: This question provided responses that reflect the emotional and relational impacts on family cohesion, unity, or living situations. Examples: "It broke our family apart, we could not live together", etc.
4. Lack of Knowledge or Distance from Experience: In this question, responses indicate that some respondents lacked direct knowledge about the impact or were too young at the time to fully understand. Examples: "I'm not sure I was young my parents would know", "I do not have enough information to know", etc.
5. 48
#19: What specific challenges have you or your family faced as a result of losing land or a business? (Other)
Financial Hardship and Instability: This theme captures responses that indicate significant monetary difficulties or setbacks experienced by respondents and their families due to the loss. Examples: "With my fathers business barely starting to grow we did not have much money as a large family to relocate..Losing both my family home as well as my grandmothers home caused immense stress on our family not just financially but emotionally as well.", "My grandmother was also forced out of her home when it was burned down...", "My third great grandmother owned a restaurant...", "My grandparents owned a home, a store, and a service station...", "Great mother lost her business and houses", etc.
1. Emotional and Mental Strain: Responses to this question highlight emotional distress, feelings of being mistreated, depression, or other mental health challenges resulting from the loss. Examples: "Losing both my family home as well as my grandmother's home caused immense stress on our family not just financially but emotionally as well", "Felt mistreated and abandoned", "Divorce, My dad was very depressed as a child, and said he was suicidal as a boy", etc.
2. Displacement and Loss of Community: Responses to this question encapsulated feelings of displacement, the loss of connection to one's community, and the challenges faced in new environments after being forced to relocate. Examples: "i lost all connections with my friends. our sense of community. we were not welcome in the new city...", "From what was shared with me as an adult by another family member, Russell City was a vibrant, close-netted community", "Destroyed our culture and connection to family", etc.
3. Racial Discrimination and Prejudice: Responses indicating experiences of racial hatred, discrimination, or prejudice stemming from their relocation from Russell City or loss of community. Examples: "we encountered racial hatred and discrimination in the new town", "Felt mistreated and abandoned. Mother was illiterate and spoke Spanish. I was treated as a minority Puerto Rican and as a black inferior person", etc.
4. Uncertainty or Lack of Information: Responses to this question suggest that respondents either needed more direct knowledge or are unsure about the specific challenges faced. Examples: "Not sure", "unknown yet", "No.", "n/a, I did not own land or have a business in Russell City", etc.
5. 49
#20: Have you or your family experienced any psychological or emotional distress due to the historical injustices? (Other)
Mental Health and Psychological Disorders: This question captures responses directly mentioning mental health conditions, psychological disorders, or specific ailments attributed to historical injustices.
Examples: "Alcoholism", "At the age of 25, the State of Ca. Declared me disabled... I’m currently on anxiety meds. Have ADHD and Bipolar disorder. Severe insomnia. Agoraphobia...", "Father was very depressed", "Major Depression and other Mental Health issues", "Three suicides of uncles", etc.
1. Cultural and Racial Tensions: Responses to this question include experiences related to racism, cultural displacement, or prejudices arising from historical injustices. Examples: "Racism, never felt while living in Russell City...", "My grandmother told me not to speak to white people", etc.
2. Uncertainty or Distance from Experience: Responses suggest respondents either needed to gain direct knowledge, was too young at the time, or are unsure about the specific psychological or emotional challenges faced. Examples: "It is difficult to know", "N/A", "n/a, I was not a resident of RC...", "no", "Not sure", "Too young to be shared with", "Unknown", etc.
3. Financial and Economic Impact: Responses expressed the emotional distress or psychological impacts stemming from financial hardships or economic challenges directly or indirectly related to the historical injustices. Examples: "Financial stress, had new higher mortgage", "My great grandmother lost her estate after several decades residing in Russell City", etc.
4. 50
#21: How would you describe the long-term psychological and emotional impact of the historical injustices on yourself or your family members? Please provide a brief description below:
Traumatic Experiences and Mental Health Challenges: Respondents mentioned specific mental health issues or traumatic experiences as a direct result of the historical injustices. Examples: "Became withdrawn. No interest in anything", "Deal with anxiety and PTSD", "Depression, PTSD", "emotional and financial stress", "flashbacks, difficult relationship", "generational mental anguish", "It was very draining on my mother", "It has given my family anxiety, depression and emotional trauma", "Long term anxiety and depression", "My mother endure racial hatred and discrimination", "Papa grew bitter and didn't like the neighbors being so close", etc.
1. Family Disintegration and Strained Relationships: Responses mentioned families breaking apart, strained relationships, or issues stemming from the loss or displacement. Further, references related to physical and emotional displacement, loss of homes, community, relationships, or identity, and the resulting feelings of alienation or abandonment were present. Examples: "Broke the family up and suffered mentally from it", "Broke up the cohesive family unit", "Family was divided", "fathers drinking would affect family", "Grandparents and my mother did not know where they would live", "It ripped our family into pieces", "It was very dramatic, to relocate", "It’s still with my siblings and me", "Our family was split and spread all over the state. We lost our family identity", "It stays with generation after generation", "My ancestors dream and hard work was taken away from them", "We lived in fear of racial tension", etc.
2. Economic Struggles and Displacement: This question captures mentions of financial hardships, loss of properties, and the challenges of relocation.
Examples: "Cause financial stress", "Dues to these historical injustices, my family has not been able to thrive in the Bay Area", "family had anxiety/depression and hardship trying to find a place to live", "Finding somewhere to relocate, money hardship", "It has held our family back", "It’s held my family back from gaining generational wealth", "Lack of stability, homelessness, intergenerational trauma", "My family suffered extreme poverty", "My family suffered trauma and economically hardship", "We do not have a home to return to", "We were forced to relocate and start all over", "Our family was lost", "When I was born, my mother was essentially homeless", "When my dad was alive, he had a saying", etc.
3. 51
#21: How would you describe the long-term psychological and emotional impact of the historical injustices on yourself or your family members? Please provide a brief description below: (CON’T)
Loss of Identity, Community, and Trust: Respondents highlighted a loss of personal or communal identity, broken community bonds, and a lack of trust in larger institutions or systems. Examples: "Loss of identity and opportunities I cannot imagine", "Feeling that it could happen again", "Feelings of abandonment", "Feeling that at any time you can be uprooted and that your voice and community, particularly a community of color, does not have value or worth", "Helplessness in the ability to receive justice", "Lack of trust of Government", "I feel a deep sense of pain and injustice", "Feeling that at any time you can be uprooted and that your voice and community does not have value", "Our family was displaced and can never return to the family home", "My mother's family was large. This created housing challenges", "Our Family would have most likely stayed there", etc.
1. Distrust, Fear, and Lasting Trauma: Further descriptions of enduring mistrust towards institutions or individuals, fears about the recurrence of similar events, or continuous traumatic memories were central in the responses. Examples:
"Scared to purchase property in rural areas due to fear of history repeating itself", "My uncle lived in a trailer on my grandparent’s property after his property was taken", "Still have flashbacks about the fires", etc.
2. Generational Impact and Inherited Trauma: The responses indicate that historical injustices have had effects that span multiple generations, from the direct victims to their descendants. Further, responses mention the trauma and emotional distress passed down through multiple generations, highlighting the prolonged nature of the impact. Examples: "generational trauma", "generational trauma, family separation", "generational mental anguish", "I feel a deep sense of pain and injustice when reflecting on the long-term psychological and emotional impact of historical injustices on my family members", "The generational trauma passed down through stories and experiences", "It has created a stressor that at any moment the government will come and take everything", "It destroyed future generations hope for success", "The traumatic events have caused a generational emotional duress", "We were in a new environment and culture", "The family farm was lost", "The impact on my parents was very difficult they lost their bus.", "We owned the Baptist church and lost our place of worship", etc.
3. 52
#22: How did the environmental conditions in Russell City impact you and/or your family's health? Please select all that apply: (Other)
Direct Health Impacts: Responses indicated specific health issues, diseases, or conditions caused by the environmental conditions in Russell City. Examples:
"Horrific. A car accident...", "leukemia", "Rodent infestation", "Rodents infestations", etc.
1. Living Conditions and Infrastructure: Some respondents detail their experiences of poor living conditions, infrastructure issues, or lack of basic amenities in Russell City. Examples: "Inside house concrete floors and no concrete outside only dirt fields", "It was rodent infested prime and pump outhouse", "Lack of paved roads", "No grocery stores", "our house burned down in around 1954 we had to rebuild", "We also had to dig holes for the outhouse", "WE LIVED ON A FARM, WE RAISED MOST OF OUR FOOD", etc.
2. Educational and Developmental Challenges: Respondents mention a need for educational opportunities or obstacles in educational attainment and personal development due to environmental conditions. Examples: "Lack Education", "Lack of education", "walk to school- walk over train tracks to school. School was outside city boundaries", etc.
3. #23: If you experienced health harms due to the environmental conditions in Russell City, please provide a brief description of your experiences:
Direct Health Impacts: Responses indicated specific health issues, diseases, or conditions caused by the environmental conditions in Russell City. Examples:
"Horrific. A car accident...", "leukemia", "Rodent infestation", "Rodents infestations", etc.
1. Living Conditions and Infrastructure: Some respondents detail their experiences of poor living conditions, infrastructure issues, or lack of basic amenities in Russell City. Examples: "Inside house concrete floors and no concrete outside only dirt fields", "It was rodent infested prime and pump outhouse", "Lack of paved roads", "No grocery stores", "our house burned down in around 1954 we had to rebuild", "We also had to dig holes for the outhouse", "WE LIVED ON A FARM, WE RAISED MOST OF OUR FOOD", etc.
2. Educational and Developmental Challenges: Respondents mention a need for educational opportunities or obstacles in educational attainment and personal development due to environmental conditions. Examples: "Lack Education", "Lack of education", "walk to school- walk over train tracks to school. School was outside city boundaries", etc.
3. 53
#25: What types of financial losses has your family incurred due to historical injustices in Russell City? (Other)
Loss of Property and Assets: Responses to this question mentioned the direct loss of homes, land, personal property, or contents of homes due to external forces or actions, such as fires. Examples: "Loss of home contents due to the home being burned down,” "Loss of personal property due to the house being set on fire,” "Loss of priceless land and personal property,” "They had to sell their house,” etc.
1. Economic Displacement and New Expenditures: Respondents mention having to start over financially, incurring new expenses, or facing hardships due to relocation or loss of property. Examples: "Moving to another area was so expensive. My mother had to work outside the home", "My parents were well established and had to start over! They were made to go into debt to buy another house, which they shouldn't have had to do", "Need to buy land and build another home", etc.
2. Loss of Income and Livelihood: Responses highlighting the loss of regular income, businesses, or means of livelihood because of historical injustices.
Examples: "Loss of farm income and homes,” "My dad lost all 3 of his business due to this injustice", "my dad was a mechanic who rebuilds cars and sold them, which was a large part of our income,” etc.
3. Educational and Developmental Setbacks: Respondents mention loss associated with education, personal growth, or developmental opportunities. Examples: "Lack of education growth,” "Loss of Education,” "No access to transportation to and from school, etc.", etc.
4. Uncertainty, Lack of Knowledge, or Distance from Experience: Answers to this question indicate that the respondent either does not have direct knowledge, was too young at the time, or is unsure about the specific financial losses faced. Examples: "I was around 10 years old. So I don't really know", "N/A,” "Not sure,” "Not being a resident of Russell City myself, I can only see and understand that these financial losses could occur,” "Not too sure I was too young,” etc.
5. 54
#29: Are there any other expenses or damages incurred due to the forced relocation that you would like to report? Please provide a brief description.
Loss of Property, Assets, and Investments: Respondents spoke of tangible and intangible assets lost during the relocation, including homes, businesses, and other possessions. Examples: "All our belongings were taken away,” "Land in and around Russell City,” "my parents owned a store,” "We had over 200 chickens and sold eggs", "Lost of intangible items like photos, cultural and family treasures,” "WE LOST A LOT OF SENTIMENTAL AND FAMILY HEIRLOOMS,” "Family Legacy was destroyed,” etc.
1. Emotional and Psychological Impact: Responses mention trauma, distress, mental issues, and other emotional and psychological impacts of the forced relocation. Examples: "Emotional trauma and decreased lifespan cannot be quantified,” "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA/DISTRESS,” "There were definitely emotional and mental tolls,” etc.
2. Economic Strain and Additional Expenses: Respondents mention unexpected costs, increased living expenses, lost wages, and financial hardships because of the relocation. Examples: "Higher cost of rent", "storage expense", "The cost of living increased significantly", etc.
3. Breakdown of Family and Community Ties: Responses highlight the separation of families, loss of community support, and the scattering of people. Examples: "broke apart family", "family was forced to live in very poor living conditions,” "Oh, yeah, there were lots of friends because most of them I don't know where most of them went,” "Psychological; hardship; depression; family disconnect/separation,” etc.
4. 55
#30: We want to hear your thoughts on what reparations would feel like justice to you. Please select all preferred forms of reparations from the following options: (Other)
Public Recognition and Education: Respondents mention the need for the broader community to acknowledge the injustices, remember the history, and educate future generations. Examples: "A museum dedicated to telling the story,” "Designate an area, i.e., commemorative gate,” "Highly publicized acknowledgement of wrongdoing,” "Development of education modules,” "Permanent Historical physical accounting by Russell City Residents,” "Apologize publicly,” "Those individuals that deliberately worked to force Russell City out of existence should be made public,” "we are entitled to all of this and more,” "My big regret is that my children cannot experience what I was fortunate enough to experience,” etc.
1. Financial Compensation and Economic Initiatives: Respondents desire monetary reparations, property returns, business development funds, or other financial support mechanisms. Examples: "compensation of the true value of the property,” "Financial help for the children,” "create a dedicated fund to support & develop minority-owned businesses,” "student loan and debt forgiveness,” "free tuition and stipends,” etc.
2. Restorative Community Initiatives: Suggestions related to rebuilding the community, creating communal spaces, and implementing programs that address broader injustices were mentioned. Examples: "Care for the elderly:
retirement homes,” "Create a Community development fund,” "Legal initiatives to address environmental racism and forced relocations,” "Establishment of 501c3 to receive and disburse funds", "Have a Russell City Day in Hayward,” etc.
3. Land and Property Restitution: Some responses highlighted the desire for land or property returns or recognition of former property rights. Examples:
"Land or property given to former residents and descendants,” "Relocate Russell City Church,” "Return the naming of streets to their original names,” "Russell City needs to be Russell City again,” etc.
4. 56
#31: Do you have any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for reparations in Russell City? What would you like to see happen to repair the harm? Educational and Public Awareness: Respondents emphasize integrating the history of Russell City into educational curriculums and creating educational foundations. Examples: "Include this story in schools of Hayward,” "Establish a permanent exhibition and collection in the city library,” "Establish an educational foundation that supports scholarship,” etc.
1. Monetary Compensation and Economic Opportunities: Responses prioritized financial reparations, support for business opportunities, and other forms of economic compensation. Examples: "Pay the descendants based on the current value of the assessed growth,” "Compensation to those family members,” "appropriate financial repercussions to families and heirs,” "Financial compensation for all affected,” etc.
2. Public Recognition and Commemoration: Respondents expressed a desire for public acknowledgment, commemorative sites, and events to ensure that the history of Russell City is not forgotten. Examples: "A commemorative sign letting people know that a once thriving and loving community existed,” "Establish the Russell City Blues Festival as a permanent art and cultural event,” "A Declaration by the City of Hayward,” "historical monument,” etc.
3. Restitution and Property Rights: Some responses revolved around the concept of returning land and property or granting property-related benefits to the descendants. Examples: "Return the naming of streets", "Give back to the R.C. original families", "Restoration of Property Rights", "rebuild a new community", "Give people their money and pieces of property", etc.
4. Community Development and Support: Suggestions related to rebuilding the community, creating communal spaces, support mechanisms, and programs that benefit the descendants were primary concepts discussed. Examples: "Create and support a Russell City park if one is not already in existence", "scholarships for all the younger descendants", "Business opportunities", "Healthcare and education", "Support the families impacted by the forced removal", etc.
5. Appendix C:
Endnotes
57 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. (2023). Historical Overview. Available at:
http://www.muwekma.org/historical-overview.html
1. County hires Russell City appraisers, Oakland Tribune, 5/29/1963, p. 19; Hog Ranch: Negotiations said proper, Daily Review, 7/10/1964, p. 1; Redevelopment Agency of Alameda County. (1963). The Redevelopment Plan. Alameda County. Located at Alameda County Recorder Office, Digital Reel, Book 1905, page 435.
2. 3.Hog Ranch: Negotiations said proper, Daily Review, 7/10/1964, p. 1.
The Santucci Hog Farm received the most compensation out of all the property owners in the Russell Redevelopment Project Area. Santucci received $510,000 for their parcels, which would be equivalent to $2.4 million in today's dollars. This amount translates to $255,000 per lot at that time. The total redevelopment budget for property acquisition was $2,788,883. Out of the 700 lots and 200 acres in total, Santucci owned 35 acres. The compensation Santucci received accounted for a majority of the budget. Specifically, the property acquisition budget was $2,442,000, with $159,373 allocated for agency salaries and $78,510 for maintenance. To determine the amount per lot that all families should have received equally in the past, we can consider the compensation received by Santucci. If Santucci received fair and just compensation, it can serve as a benchmark for the amount per lot for all families.
4. Russell City to Talk Annex, Daily Review, 11/17/1956, p. 1; Russell City Annex 'Rush' Fear Calmed, Daily Review. 11/20/1956, p. 2.
5. 6. Support For Russell City Plan Arises, Daily Review, 10/16/1961, p. 1.
Russell City Plan Sent to Supervisors, Daily Review, 4/24/1962, p. 9; Board to appoint Russell City Unit, Daily Review, 5/3/1962, p. 33.
7. 8.Russell City Site Bid By Developers, Daily Review, 8/17/1967, p. 1.
Background and Context
58 Walter E. Block."Eminent Domain: A Legal and Economic Analysis." Property Rights: The Argument for Privatization (2019): 219-229.
1. Hollis, Adrienne L."Eminent Domain and Compensation-From the Trial of Tears to Hurricane Katrina: Is it Just." Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 8 (2006):
349.
2. The psychological and systemic repercussions of racism, classism, and disenfranchisement significantly impact marginalized communities.
Notably, structural racism manifests in various institutional mechanisms like residential segregation, perpetuating health disparities. Intersecting with classism, it exacerbates challenges faced by marginalized groups in attaining optimal health outcomes. Disenfranchisement, a byproduct of systemic racism and discrimination, can further compound psychological distress. Such systemic obstacles negatively influence not only immediate well-being but can also impede early childhood development and perpetuate generational trauma as noted by the Harvard Center on the Developing Child.
3. Jones-Correa, Michael."The origins and diffusion of racial restrictive covenants." Political Science Quarterly 115, no. 4 (2000): 541-568.
4. Rose, Carol M., Richard RW Brooks, A. Brown, and V. Smith."Racial covenants and housing segregation, yesterday and today." Race and real estate (2016): 161-76.
5. Lorey, Maya Tulip."A history of residential segregation in Berkeley, California, 1878–1960." The Concord Review 24, no. 2 (2013).
6. Fishback, Price V., Jessica LaVoice, Allison Shertzer, and Randall Walsh.
Race, risk, and the emergence of federal redlining. No. w28146. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020.
7. Comprehensive Definition of Harm
Impact: Wrongful Seizure
Appendix C:
Endnotes
59 8. “White flight" refers to the large-scale migration of white populations from urban areas to suburban areas, predominantly observed in the mid-20th century in the United States. This migration was spurred by various factors including desegregation policies, perceived increases in crime, and the desire for more homogeneous communities. As a result of white flight, many urban centers experienced demographic shifts, economic downturns, and decreased property values.
9. The Bracero Program (1942-1964) was a series of bilateral agreements between the United States and Mexico permitting Mexican laborers to work temporarily in the U.S., primarily in agriculture. Initiated to address World War II labor shortages, the program influenced Mexican urban migration patterns, offering many Mexicans economic opportunities but also drawing criticism for exploitative conditions and affecting U.S. labor dynamics.
10. Santizo, Natalie. Critical Latinx Foodways: Racial Formation, Regional Identity, and Placemaking in the San Gabriel Valley, 1900—1968. University of California, Los Angeles, 2022.
11. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark U.S. federal legislation that aimed to end segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Act served as a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement, addressing longstanding racial injustices and laying the groundwork for subsequent anti-discrimination policies.
12. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is a key U.S. federal law that prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. Enacted as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this legislation was a critical step in combatting residential segregation and ensuring equal housing opportunities for all Americans.
Comprehensive Definition of Harm
Impact: Wrongful Seizure
Appendix C:
Endnotes
60 Reparative Justice Recommendations
Restorative justice emphasizes understanding and addressing the harm caused to individuals and communities by criminal actions. This comprehensive conceptual justice framework places emphasis on fostering understanding, empathy, and repairing harm rather than solely focusing on punitive measures. In the U.S., the drive for restorative justice is echoed in the efforts of numerous organizations advocating for systemic change to address long-standing racial and social inequities.
Groundbreaking initiatives like the reparations programs in Evanston, IL and Asheville, NC exemplify this commitment at the local level, as communities actively seek to redress historical injustices like redlining, slavery, and Jim Crow laws. Efforts across the nation underscore the importance of both acknowledging past wrongs and striving for a more equitable future.
1. Additionally, throughout history, various nations have implemented mechanisms for reparative justice to redress past injustices. Examples include: Rwanda's Gacaca courts, addressing the 1994 genocide; Colombia's Land Restitution Program for communities affected by armed conflict; South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, confronting apartheid-era violations; the U.S. Native American Reparations Fund of 1978; Brazil's Community Reparations for Mothers and Children program; Japan's Reparations Movement for wartime "comfort women"; Germany's compensation for Holocaust survivors; New York City's Slavery Reparations Task Force; Canada's program for residential school survivors; and New Zealand's Māori Land Wars Tribunal. These efforts exemplify the international commitment to restorative justice and underline the importance of addressing systemic inequities and historical wrongs.
2. Appendix C:
Endnotes
61 Five Pillars of Reparative Justice:
Restitution, Compensation, Rehabilitation, Satisfaction, Guarantee of Non-Repetition for Russell City
Infrastructure development refers to the planning, construction, and maintenance of foundational services and systems crucial for a society's economy, welfare, and overall functioning. This includes transportation (e.g., roads, bridges, railways, airports), utilities (e.g., water supply, electricity, sewage treatment), telecommunication networks, and public institutions, among others. Effective infrastructure development supports economic growth, enhances quality of life, and ensures the sustainable operation of a region or country.
1. Appendix C:
Endnotes
Reclaiming Russell City: Uncovering History, Addressing Injustices, and Envisioning a Future of Restoration
Kerby Lynch, PhD
Aisha Canfield, MPP
Ceres Policy Research
Attachment VI
Community Survey Insights
• Instrument Development Process:
– June 2023 Steering Committee Retreat
– July 2023 Steering Committee Meeting
• Outreach and Collection Process: Word of Mouth, RC
Reunion Picnic, Listserv, Online and Phone Surveys,
plus Mail-In Options
• Purpose of the Survey: To share key findings and
illustrate the current sentiments and desires of the
Russell City community and its descendants for
reparative justice.
• The sample size for the Russell City Community Survey was 377 respondents.
Visualization of Impacts
Word Cloud of Community Priorities
for Reparative Justice
Sentiments on
Reparations and Initiatives
– "Highly publicized acknowledgement of wrongdoing.”
– "Permanent Historical physical accounting by Russell City Residents and Descendants about what happened, how it affected them and/or their families and what they feel the solution would be to prevent a reoccurrence of this travesty in Hayward.”
– "Create a Community development fund; create a dedicated fund to support & develop minority-owned businesses; legal initiatives, support state legislation to address broader injustices like environmental racism and forced relocations.”
– "Have a Russell City Day in Hayward including schools to teach children re Russell City.”
– "Return the naming of streets to their original names when Russell City existed.”
– "Designate an area, i.e., commemorative gate and list the family names of those who were forced out of Russell City."
1 Russell City Redevelopment
George Barganier and Elizabeth Brown
Final Report to the City of Hayward
May 15, 2023
Revised June 12, 2023
Redeveloping Russell City: Alameda County, the City of Hayward, and industrialization Russell City was an area in unincorporated Alameda County, whose land today lies in the city of Hayward. From 1963 to 1967, Russell City underwent a period of redevelopment, whereby the residents of the city were displaced, the area razed, and sold to a property developer. This report is the reflection of our investigation into this redevelopment period and represents a partial telling of the actions that were taken by the city of Hayward and the county of Alameda during this time.
Below, we provide a narrative recounting of the redevelopment period in Russell City, as seen through the documents and articles we collected; in the appendix, we detail the various sources we consulted for this research and the results of our endeavors.
As we discuss below, the land called “Russell City” that was subject to redevelopment was subject to contestation, violent displacement and settler colonialism practice from the outset. The area that constituted Russell City was the homeland of the Jalquin Ohlone (Chocheño) ancestors of the present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.1 Colonialism and Catholic missionization brought the first displacements by Western forces to this area in the 1700s, thus by the time it was christened at Russell City in 1854, violent displacement had been established as a legitimate practice in the eyes of the state. In this context, Russell City “redevelopment” that occurred in the 1960s in Alameda County is part of a longer tradition of white supremacy and settler colonial practice, and the buying of land, relocating of residents, and transformation of the area from a residential community to private industrial park is one episode in this history.
The Russell City that underwent redevelopment in the 1960s was also the site of another practice at the intersections between state power and geography: the creation of it as a residence for those in Alameda County who were unable to live elsewhere. This inability stemmed not from the residents, but from the practice of white supremacy embedded in US real estate that created racial covenants, steered nonwhite residents from white neighborhoods, and fostered racial residential segregation.
Initially inhabited by Danish immigrants, by World War II, the area was home to shipyard workers and braceros pulled to the area by military industrial development.
The 1960 census placed Russell City in the HA-56 census tract. According to the census, this tract had 1,549 people in the area, with 64.75% listed as white, 31.96% listed as Black and 3.29% listed as “other race.”2 This contrasts with the surrounding census tracts that ranged from 97.76% white to
99.81%. In the 1960 census, the city of Hayward was 99.6% white. Most residents in Russell City were under 18 (50.17%), with 19.82% of residents between 18 and 34, 24.4% of residents 35 to 64, 1 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. (2023). Historical Overview. Available at : http://www.muwekma.org/historicaloverview.html 2 During this time period, it was common for Latinx communities to be included as “white” on the census. In a report from the school superintendent in 1954, it was noted that the racial composition of the area was “Mexican 57%, Black 24%, with the balance largely Americans who came from hill country… and a few Puerto Ricans.” From “Meeting with Wilda Mette”, May 7, 1954, in Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency.
Attachment VII
2 and 5.62% of residents over the age of 65. Of the population 14 years and over, 30.22% were single,
55.43% were married, 4.57% were separated, 6.74% were widowed, and 3.04% were divorced. The majority of residents had completed elementary school (52.11%), with another 31.2% attending high school, and 5.32% college; 11.27% of residents had no school years completed. Only 48.04% of the population 14 and older was listed as in the labor force, likely reflecting the prevalence of informal labor amongst poor communities. Residents whose occupations were listed were 27.9% in “operatives and kindred workers, including mine” category, with 16.1% “laborers except farm and mine” and 15.2% in “craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers.” Median income in the area was just over $4,000, compared with $7300 for the city of Hayward.
Due to pervasive racism and classism, Russell City was a place where the poor and people of color, who were not welcome in other spaces, could live. Because of this, it was also a place that was the recipient of blame from surrounding communities. For instance, in 1949, in what was likely an example of racial violence, Alameda county youth were reported to have descended upon Russell City in an effort to “clean-up” the area; this effort started “shortly before midnight”, and consisted of beating up local Russell City youth, such as Henry Garron who received a badly lacerated left eye.3 In a less violent, but nevertheless revealing episode, youth from a Christian congregational fellowship descended again upon Russell City in 1959, in an effort to again “clean-up” the area and create “productive ways of meeting racial problems.”4 These two seemingly disparate events demonstrate how Russell City was seen as the site and source of what some in Alameda County defined as its “problems,” including “racial problems”, rather than as we demonstrate below, the recipient of broader community inaction, neglect, and disregard. In these instances, racism, classism, and other intentional actions to exploit Russell City area residents were commonplace. Further, the negative stereotyping of the area, along with biased new and political reports, led many in surrounding communities to blame Russell City for community conditions, and in some instances, appointing themselves to “clean up” the area.
Precursors to Redevelopment: Public health and government responsibility Contestation over the land in Russell City started from the founding of the city, as Frederick Russell was quickly embroiled in multiple legal conflicts over the development of the area. East Shore and Suburban Realty sued Russell in 1909, arguing that their contract to sell land in the area was undermined by Russell’s actions of selling lots at greatly reduced rates. 5 Russell’s problems deepened
in 1912, when tax assessments of lots were valued at $200, but lots themselves were only selling for between $20-25.6 Eventually in 1912, the lots had a levy placed on them in response to the lawsuit from East Shore and Suburban Realty.7 By 1945 when we locate the beginnings of redevelopment, however, the lots were sold to individual owners and Russell City was part of unincorporated southern Alameda County. Located next to the city of Hayward, beginning in 1945, Russell City citizens endured two decades of legal wrangling over their efforts to get surrounding municipal entities to deliver water and sewer services to the area. These efforts resulted in the redevelopment of the area in 1968, which finally led to water and sewer lines supplying the geographical space that was, at that point, the place where Russell City once stood. 3 Six Hurt in Riot at Russell City Dance Hall Café, Oakland Tribune, 1/31/1949, p. 6. 4 Russell City: Clean Up Slated, Daily Review, 3/21/1959, p. 5. 5 Legal Fight Begun Over Valuable Realty, San Francisco Call, 12/23/1909, p. 8. 6 Lot Owner Opposes High Tax Assessment, San Francisco Call, 7/23/1912, p. 5; Hot Air Peddled in Russell City, San Francisco Call, 7/25/1912, p. 4. 7 Attachment Levied for Alleged $520,000 Debt, San Francisco Call, 9/22/1912, p. 25. 3 Media and Political depictions of Russell City in the 1940s Descriptions of Russell City during this time describe a vibrant community who lacked municipal services, including water lines, sewer service, and road maintenance. One article from 1946 offers an insight into the community by reporting on a meeting between Alameda County Supervisor George Janssen and city of Hayward Mayor George Mays. Mays “pointed out that the county authorities had taken the stand that the property value in Russell City would not warrant extensive grading or paving of the roads.” Kenneth Garcia, a resident of Russell City at the time, noted that “‘If the county would even gravel the roads it would make the streets accessible in the winter time. At the present time’, Garcia continued, ‘with the exception of Washington Avenue, the streets are absolutely inaccessible in the rainy weather.’”8 Six months later, roads were so bad that the Russell City road was closed by order of the county health department.9 It was in this first meeting between the county and the city that one of the first mentions of redeveloping the area for industrial purposes appears in local newspapers, as it was “suggested that the county planning commission in the proposed land use maps regard the Russell City property as industrial rather than residential property.”10 It is also here that we see a recurrent theme—that the tax base of Russell City would not support service provision; in essence, that Russell City residents were too poor to warrant service provision.
There were no water and sewer lines extended to the area due to its development prior to the requirement for such services. The city of Hayward first considered extending water service to Russell City in 1945, when it tasked the water department superintendent with “investigat[ing] the feasibility of extending water services”;11 this was done at the request of the fire department, whose failure to save homes was often the direct result of the lack of water availability in the area.12 During this period, residents received water from a series of wells, or buying it as many reportedly did, and septic tanks were the main source of sewage disposal.13 In periods of dry weather, wells would run dry and during these periods, septic tank waste would sometimes seep into the water supply. This was the case in 1949, when there was a dysentery outbreak in the community, that killed a 20- month-old baby and sickened 13 others.14 Described as the result of “deplorably unsanitary conditions” by the county health officer, the area was sprayed and underwent a “general sanitary cleanup.”15
Further, while Russell City was not itself designated as an industrial community, it did have several industrial businesses surrounding it. Several garbage dumps, scrap metal yards, and agricultural businesses surrounded the residential community. Garbage dumps were one type of business that located in the area, and often caused negative environmental conditions for the residents. A study of the Russell City dump by the Alameda County Garbage Study Committee “resulted in the 8 Chamber Meeting Held At Ashland School, Daily Review, 6/13/1945, p. 1. 9 Chamber Asks Road Openings, Oakland Tribune, 12/12/1946, p. 18. 10 Chamber Meeting Held At Ashland School, Daily Review, 6/13/1945, p. 1. 11 Hayward Has Four-Point Plan, Oakland Tribune, 2/18/1945, p. C2. 12 Eight Flee as Fire Sweeps Grocery, Living Quarters, Oakland Tribune, 2/17/1947 , p. 4. 13 Supervisors Refuse to Help Remedy This!, Daily Review, 9/13/1949, p. 1. 14 1 Dead, 11 Sick of Dysentery in Bay Area, Oakland Tribune, 6/21/1949, p. 1; Russell City Dysentery Outbreak Under Control, Oakland Tribune, 7/17/1949, p. A23 15 1 dead, 11 sick…, 6/21/1949. 4 conclusion that 'present conditions of all dumps observed were found unsatisfactory.”16 Locating industrial businesses, particularly unpleasant ones, in Russell City is just one example of how the state not only neglected to provide services to residents, but also willingly subjected residents to land uses that were often not allowed elsewhere in the county.
Despite state neglect, from the outset, it was clear that Russell City residents made considerable efforts to improve their community. A community clean up in 1947 was sponsored by the “Russell City Improvement League” in order to raise money from salvageable materials for a new fire truck.17 An extensive editorial in the Daily Review titled “Russell City-the community that knows how!” described Russell City as a “a model which the entire area could adopt with profit.”18 The article describes the road conditions in the area, recounting how the Board of Supervisors “ignored” residents’ pleas for help. Residents then formed the Russell City Improvement League, which compiled all the evidence as to how the lack of sufficient roads in the area impacted health, garbage, postal service, and children attendance at schools. With this evidence, the county authorized improvements on a few main streets. Further, the article recounts how the supervisors also told Russell Cityans that they did not have enough votes for county-funded improvements, which resulted in “the residents of Russell City—black, and brown, and white—registering in unprecedented numbers.” Further, the article reported that meetings, to accommodate the needs of all residents in the area, were conducted with interpreters. A boy’s club was also formed, demonstrating the commitment of area residents to youth development, and it also had an official interpreter, which the article writes is a sign that “Russell City believes in organizing ALL its people for worthwhile projects.” The article concludes by listing the residents who served as officers for the boys club in 1947: Buster Brooks, Phil Day, Demetrius Kimble, Sam Barrett, William Ouiroz, George Feliciano, Rufine Perez, Edward Brown, and Dupree Pryor Sr. Leona Alves, Evetta Brooks, Carmen Martin, Joe Melia, Mytice Brown, Jay Clyde Brown, and Garnet Thomas (listed in order of article).
“No legal authority”: Dysentery, water, and city and county responsibility The dysentery outbreak in 1949 in Russell City also prompted the first documented effort to extend water lines into the aera. Just one month after the dysentery outbreak ended, in August 1949, Hayward City Councilperson John Haar suggested extending Hayward water lines, and asked the city engineer and public works administrator to study the cost.19 He also indicated that Supervisor Janssen had said the county would finance the cost. Despite Councilperson Haar’s declaration, the county “rejected” supplying water to the area.20 Hayward Councilperson William O. Wilson decried the county’s decision, saying that an epidemic does not have geographical boundaries and that “what affects them affects us.” At this point, the city of Hayward was already planning on extending a water line to a new National Guard installation on the airport land near Russell City. The city asked the county to pay for the cost of increasing the size of the water line from 6” to 12”; this would accommodate servicing both the National Guard and Russell City. Hayward council then suggested that another 3000-feet of 6” line could be installed—either at the cost to the residents, the county, 16 Hearing is Sought on Permit for Oakland Scavenger Dump, Oakland Tribune, 12/23/1948, p. 9. 17 Russell City Turns Out for Clean-up, Oakland Tribune, 2/17/1947, p. C15; Russell City Buys Fire Truck, Daily Review, 5/17/1947, p. 1.
18 A Lesson in Community Effort, Daily Review, 4/4/1947, p. 7. 19 May Extend City Water to Russell, Daily Review, 8/18/1949, p. 14. 20 County Will Reject City Council Plan to Supply Russell City Water, Daily Review, 9/3/1949, p. 1. 5 or a special assessment district—that ran from the National Guard to Russell City residential area.21 Supervisor Janssen, however, indicated the county “cannot go along” and the county refused to provide the needed water line infrastructure.22
Despite the county’s refusal, the city of Hayward, residents and area groups continued to pressure the county. Mrs. J.G. Gonzalves, resident of Russell City, noted that the area was “in dire need of water services” and began organizing area residents to put further pressure on the county.23 Editorials in the Daily Review worked alongside residents to implore the county to provide water to the area, decrying the county line that it had “no legal authority” to provide water to the area.24 Russell City Community Council, Hayward Carpenters Local 1622, Hayward Merchants Association, and federated improvement club, such as the Eden Improvement Club, all asked the county to reconsider its refusal, to no avail.25 Eden Improvement Club brought attention to the high cost of water that residents of the area already paid; by having to buy water from Oakland for drinking, Russell City residents paid a higher cost for drinking water than the average Hayward resident paid for the entirety of their water usage.26
At this point in the historical juncture, it appeared as if all the local agitation had convinced the county to provide the line. An article in the Daily Review recounted how the board of supervisors offered the city of Hayward a proposal, that if Hayward went ahead and laid the line to Russell City at the same time as it laid one to the National Guard, the county would reimburse. The article wrote that “Although the county cannot directly pay for such a line, [Supervisor Harry] Bartell said that the supervisors are willing to give the city additional aid in other fields where the board has legal authority which will repay the city in full for extra expenses of the Russell City line.” Reportedly, at this meeting, Supervisor Bartell said, “‘If the city can find a way to lay the line, the supervisors will see that the additional county funds make up the difference.’”27 Meanwhile, community conditions were going from “bad to worse”, and Mrs. J.G. Gonsalves reported that surface wells were running dry.28 Wells on one street had already run dry and others were getting there. Despite these conditions, Supervisor Bartell took issue with a Daily Review editorial calling for county support for the water line saying it “wasn’t fair to the supervisors.”29 In response, a Daily Review editorial published Supervisor Bartell’s letter alongside another editorial which recounted how the county had taken the stand that it had “no legal authority” to aid Russell City. The editorial implored the county to take “responsibility” for the area, given that the whole of the county is impacted by epidemics. Instead, Supervisor Bartell responded that the “Board of Supervisors has taken action so that never again in Alameda county can the condition that now exists in Russell City again occur in this county.” While it is unclear what actions Bartell is referring 21 County will reject…, 9/3/1949; Russell City Water Fight Takes Shape, Daily Review, 9/8/1949, p. 1. 22 County will reject…, 9/3/1949. 23 Russell City Water…; 9/8/1949; 100 sign request for county aid, Daily Review, 9/9/1949, p. 1. 24 Russell City and Water, Daily Review, 9/8/1949, p. 24. 25 Russell City Council Sets Water Talk, Daily Review, 9/10/1949, p. 2; Russell City Plea for Water Grows, Daily Review, 9/12/1949, p. 1; Supervisors Refuse to Help Remedy This!, Daily Review, 9/13/1949, p. 1; More Help in Russell City Water Fight, Daily Review, 9/14/1949, p. 1; Russell City Wins Round in Fight, Daily Review, 9/20/1949, p. 2. 26 Support to Russell City, Daily Review, 9/14/1949, p. 1. 27 Supervisors offer to help city on Russell City Water Problem, Daily Review, 9/15/1949, p. 1. 28 Russell City Conditions Going from Bad to Worse, Daily Review, 9/16/1949, p. 1. 29 Editorial: To the supervisors, Daily Review, 9/17/1949, p. 16. 6 to, it could be in reference to an emerging decision by the county health department to deny all building permits in the area until water and sewer service was provided (more on this below).
Supervisor Bartell continued that the Board knew of “no authority by which it can change the present condition” and would “be glad to have you, or any other citizen” recommend legal actions the board could take. Supervisor Bartell continued:
In many portions of Alameda county, there are serious water conditions and there is no authority to use the funds of all the taxpayers of Alameda county to correct conditions in any particular area… Let me assure you very definitely that the board of Supervisors is not unmindful of the unsatisfactory condition now existing and the time may come when drastic action will be taken, if the people affected in that area do not clear up the conditions themselves, which is their obligation and not that of the Board of Supervisors (emphasis added).
The county’s position reveals an important insight into the governance of Russell City—a theme of neglect, refusal, and disavowal of the community, despite numerous efforts by the community to, as the Board of Supervisors suggested, “help themselves.” This theme, that the residents were ultimately responsible for shouldering the cost of water and sewer lines recurred repeatedly during the period of redevelopment, and frequently relied on the low cost of tax assessments in the area as a reason for denial of these services.
Residents contested these claims by the county.30 Through their attorney, T.I. Foley, residents pointed out to the county that the supervisors could use their “police powers”, that included “jurisdiction over health and safety in the unincorporated areas of the county” to provide the lines.
Foley further countered the Supervisors claims, saying
It might be wise to point out that should the county find that such is the case--they might legally aid Russell City through those powers, then there should be no other hurdle. The county need not fear setting a precedent which might work to its disadvantage at a later date.
By their own claims, the supervisors say that the situation at Russell City cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the country.
Residents’ arguments to the county were backed by the Hayward City Attorney, who provided the county with the legal mechanism to pay for the water line.31 When the city laid the water line to the National Guard, it did install a 12” line. According to the article, the line was city paid and county financed, writing that “Negotiations between Hayward and the board of supervisors reportedly have ironed out a legal technicality that previously blocked county agreement to handle the Russell City line in this manner.”
Despite county commitment, by May 1950, water still had not arrived in Russell City. An editorial in the Daily Review reminded the county about the “promise” it made to Russell City and southern Alameda County, and that summer meant the return to water and health problems. Community groups began agitating again for the county to provide water and sewer service to the area. Eden 30 Editorial: Work out an answer, Daily Review, 9/21/1949, p. 8. 31 Work Starts on Water Line to National Guard Installations; Good Tidings for Russell City, Daily Review, 12/21/1949, p. 1.
7 Council for Civic Unity sent a letter to both the Hayward City Council and the Board of Supervisors with three questions: “Is it possible to say when the new water main to Russell City will be completed? What authorities have jurisdiction for issuing building permits in Russell City? Is there a reason for the refusal of such building permits in Russell City at this time?”32 Eden City Council however did not get the answers it sought and made a second appeal to both the city and the county.33 They wrote:
The impression is that responsibility for such an extension to Russell City by the city of Hayward when, through its official representative, it accepted a large sum of money from the county board of supervisors for road projects as an ‘assist’ in underwriting the Russell road water main project. According to the report, at the time of accepting the above mentioned financial assistance, a statement was made which in effect assured the citizens of Russell City that funds would be used to extend the Russell road water main to their town.
Part of the reason for the county’s refusal for laying the line to Russell City had also to do with what it said were road funds allocated to Hayward in order to compensate the cost of the pipeline.34 Yet, the city of Hayward disagreed with this characterization in a four-page letter sent to the Eden Council by Hayward City Manager Lohn Ficklin.35 Ficklin wrote that there was no connection between county road funds and the city and the water line. Like the supervisors before him, Ficklin also cited legal issues, writing that it would be “impossible for either the county to give, or the city to use such funds” and that the “city never was part of such an agreement.” Ficklin further recounts how the money received by the county was only $30,000, was for its own “merit”, and was not accepted by the city with any intention of extending the water line to Russell City. He wrote further:
As a matter of fact, the board's action was taken at a date considerably later than the completion of the 12-inch line to the National Guard area. At that time the chairman of the board of supervisors sought to prevent the allocation of the money to the City of Hayward on the grounds that the city council had not cooperated with the board of supervisors on an entirely different matter, which also bore no relationship to the general purposes of the county road fund, and that was the question of bridge toll collections for the construction of the approach structures for the San Francisco bay bridge. (emphasis added) The county disputed these claims, writing in a letter to the Eden Council that the county had in fact provided $50,000 in road funding to the city, and that the city had accepted it.36 Though this dispute happened in 1949 and 1950, this exchange did not necessarily end when newspapers stopped reporting on it. In 1953, Supervisor Bartell again revisits this conflict, noting that the most recent allocation of road funds for the improvement of 3 streets that it would “allow Hayward to use its own money to extend water mains from Russell City” since the city had reported the issue was funding.37
32 Group Wants Facts About Russell City, Daily Review, 7/11/1950, p. 2. 33 New Appeal for Russell Water Plans, Daily Review, 8/14/1950, p. 1. 34 Group wants facts…, 7/11/1950. 35 Water Supply for Russell City is County Supervisors' Responsibility, City Manager Tells Eden Civic Group, Daily Review, 8/19/1950, p. 1. 36 Bartell answers Willetts, Daily Review, 8/31/1950, p. 1. 37 County grants Hayward $50,000 for Road Jobs, Oakland Tribune, 10/7/1953, p. E31. 8 The series of above exchanges between the city, county, and resident and community groups demonstrate just how Russell City was caught between the politics of the city and the county, with neither taking responsibility for assisting Russell City residents with obtaining sanitary community conditions. As one editorial in the Daily Review called it, it was a “kids’ game” of “somebody else is ‘it.’”38 As this game played on, Russell City did not get water; but as the editorial noted, it did get a hog range, a polluting industrial business that both San Lorenzo and Warm Spring rejected, when the Board of Supervisors provided a permit for it to operate on the outskirts of Russell City. This was in far contrast to how the residents of the area were treated; as the Eden Council asked, the county had routinely denied building permits to anyone in the area since it passed its uniform building code in 1945.39
Russell City residents did not just ask the city and the county for help, though. They also contacted state authorities. In a campaign began by Ruth Manwarren, residents contacted state authorities, and particularly Governor Earl Warren’s office, for help in the matter. While state authorities “indicated…interest in the problem”, they also suggested that it was a matter in which the state “has no jurisdiction.”40 Mrs. J.G. Gonzalves also wrote Warren, describing how wells were already at mud stage or dry in fifty percent of homes.41 E.S. Oie wrote about having to buy drinking water, and how wells were in danger of contamination from cesspool seepage; Oie foreshadowed typhoid or diphtheria epidemics and concluded that the “people of this area feel you are the only to whom they may look for help.”42 Manwarren reflected these sentiments, when writing, in response to the accusation that Russell City was the “worst shantytown in the nation” that… I, as a resident of Russell City for the past five years, only agree with you on one point--the fear of a plague breaking out due to sanitary conditions. I have been trying to put that idea across for the past four years but our state and county officials. never agreed with me… As for being a ‘shanty town’, the worst in the nation…we do have some very modern homes here; the rest did not get theirs finished before the county building inspection office…put those restrictions on us, so how can we can we improve our homes? In the second place, what chance have we for improvements, such as water and sewage. We got to Supervisor Janssen with our problems and he gives us the run-around and then takes a vacation. Then to Mr. Bartell, the head of the Alameda county board of supervisors. He is ‘not in the right frame of mind to discuss our problems:’ I write to Gov. Warren; his secretary refers us to Berkeley, they in turn refer us to Oakland, then back to Janssen.43 With the city and county bickering over who had responsibility for extending the line from the National Guard installation to the residents—just 3,000 feet of line—the residents began looking towards other options.
Russell City: Annexation, Service District, Incorporation and the continued quest for services
38 Editorial: Kids' Game, Daily Review, 8/26/1950, p. 8 . 39 Group Wants Facts About Russell City, Daily Review, 7/11/1950, p. 2. 40 State Health Department Into Russell City Water Conditions Investigation, Daily Review, 9/23/1949, p. 1. 41 Crusader for Water Gets Help, Daily Review, 8/23/1950, p. 2. 42 Epidemic Danger in Area Told, Daily Review, 8/30/1950, p. 2 . 43 Answer Sent on Russell 'Shantytown', Daily Review, 10/17/1950, p. 12. 9 With both the city and the county refusing to extend the National Guard line to Russell City, over the next decade, residents undertake various measures to try and secure water and sewer service to the area themselves. These efforts ranged from establishing a range of community organizations to seeking services alongside neighboring communities to establishing a service district able to assess fees on property owners. Each of these endeavors met with their own challenges, and none were successful in bringing water and sewer lines to the area. At the same time, this period also saw considerable action on the part of city and county officials, who sought not to bring water and sewer services, but rather to redevelop the area altogether into an industrially zoned area Annexation and the Oro Loma Sanitary District election
The city of Hayward was not the only provider of water and sewer services. Oro Loma Sanitary District was formed in 1911 and provided sanitary services in Alameda County. In 1951, Oro Loma created a proposal for annexation of an area in southern Alameda County that would service Russell City, along with other communities.44 The district would encompass 1,635 acres and run from Russell City Road to San Mateo Bridge Road, and from Hesperian on the east, about a mile and a half west. This area would include 611 homes, 40 business, and hundreds of acres that could be used for industrial and residential development. Alleviating the conditions in Russell City was part of the selling point of the idea.
In a meeting with Russell City residents, Oro Loma managers outlined how property owners could get sewers for less than $1/month.45 Oro Loma further suggested that property owners would save by annexing to it, since the city of Hayward would charge $25 versus their rate of $7.50 for the same services.46 At a subsequent meeting, opposition to the plan began to emerge. It was raised by the owner of Jackson Hospital in Mt. Eden, that annexation by Hayward would provide a better deal because individuals could choose whether or not to be part of it, and services would be available quicker.47 201 people presented written protests to the board, asking to be excluded from the plan.48 A Russell City-Mt. Eden Taxpayers’ Committee organized to oppose annexation to Oro Loma.49 At a public meeting, “several Mt. Eden residents voiced reluctance to stand in the way “progress” but claimed that their area cannot be saddled with responsibility because a need exists elsewhere.” 50 One resident voiced concerns about double taxation, and while another noted that Mt. Eden owners were largely rural land, so would not benefit from annexation.Another resident indicated that Mt.
Eden was well served by septic tanks, a solution that did not work for Russell City due to its low elevation.
Oro Loma Sanitary district pushed forward with the plan to hold an election to decide. In the meantime, the city of Hayward also protested inclusion in the plan, indicating it did not want any of its property included and would not say whether it would allow a sewer easement.51 Further, the city outlined a potential site for a sewage plant that could service Russell City and Mt. Eden, and adopted a resolution declaring that there was a need for such services, that the costs were within the ability of 44 Russell City and Mt. Eden Study Made, Daily Review, 2/14/1951, p. 1. 45 Sewer study meet tomorrow, Daily Review, 4/5/1951, p. 2. 46 Annexation Issue Held Over to January 8, Daily Review, 12/5/1951, p. 1. 47 Annexation Costs Still Are Puzzling, Daily Review, 4/7/1951, p. 2. 48 Annexation Issue Held Over to January 8, Daily Review, 12/5/1951, p. 1. 49 ‘Final’ Sewer Meeting in Russell City, Mt. Eden, Daily Review, 4/14/1951, p. 1. 50 201 Protest Annexation to Oro Loma, Daily Review, 12/5/1951, p. 1. 51 201 Protest Annexation…, 12/5/1951. 10 the properties to pay based on assessed valuations, and that the city council would aid residents in securing the services.52 Even with 201 people protesting annexation, 359 people had signed the petition for annexation, so the Oro Loma plan to hold an election on annexation continued ahead.
Despite Oro Loma’s intentions, the Russell City-Mt. Eden Taxpayers’ Committee sued to halt the election.53 This lawsuit depended on whether the annexation benefited “the Southern Pacific's slender right of way connecting the Sanitary District and the area under dispute.” Oro Loma indicated at the hearing that it was not of any consequence to it whether the annexation happened, and several property owners testified that it would provide no benefit to them. After the hearing, the judge in the case ruled in favor of the Taxpayers’ Committee and halted the election. The opinion rested on the inclusion of the property of Southern Pacific. Writing the decision, Judge Agee argued that “Inclusion of a part of the rail line’s right of way did not make the Oro Loma district contiguous to the proposed annexations once the railroad would not benefit by installation of sewers.”54 Arguments about drainage made by Oro Loma for the inclusion of Southern Pacific land were countered by the judge, who eventually concluded that Oro Loma “abused its discretion.” Oro Loma annexation briefly reappeared again in 1959, when two groups who appeared “wrathful towards the directors” of the community services district went public with their opposition to another proposed Oro Loma annexation.55 Property owners reported that they were “not ready for sewers and will not be for five years”; Louis Camenzind said that he would “fight this annexation as far as we can go… Even if it breaks me.” While over seven years on from the first annexation attempt, the mere suggestion of the possibility of annexation again revealed that there were some property owners who were steadfastly opposed to bringing water and sewer services to Russell City, especially if it meant impacting their properties.
Community services district
When the Oro Loma annexation failed, the residents of Russell City once again sought another way to bring water and sewer services to their families and community.56 Organizing the Russell City Committee for Adequate Utilities, residents next sought to form a community services district.57 Headed by chairperson Robert Kennon (identified in Daily Reivew as a Berkeley resident and Russell City property owner), the committee also included Mrs. D.M. McInahon (vice chairperson), Mrs.
E.C. Kingwell (recording secretary). Mrs. R. Manwarren (corresponding secretary) and Mrs. T.L.
Burse, treasurer. Also assisting were Rev. Celso Moran, Rev. H.O. McCormick, Mrs. Leona Alves, Mrs. J.G. Gonzalves, Mrs. Emma Perry, Frank P. Arellano, C.D. Pryor, Loney Smith, and Floyd Huey (spelled Hughey elsewhere). Together, this group of residents sought once again to bring water and sewer service into the community, and their first step was petitioning the county for the formation of a community service district.58 Signed by 81 residents in the area, the letter proposed a district bounded by Clawiter to Madison, between 1st and 6th streets. 52 City Offers Russell City Sewer, Water Connections, Daily Review, 1/22/1952, p. 1. 53 Election Proposal for Oro Loma Annexation Rests with Judge Agee, Daily Review, 1/26/1952, p. 1 . 54 Court Denies Oro Loma Election, Daily Review, 2/9/1952, p. 1. 55 Oro Loma Sanitary Board Says Mt. Eden Protest 'Premature'; 250 sign it, Daily Review, 3/29/1959, p. 3. 56 Russell City Improvement Meeting Set, Daily Review, 7/10/1953, p. 1. 57 Russell City Mass Meeting Plans for Water and Sewers, Daily Review, 7/11/1953, p. 2. 58 RC Service Area Request Considered, Daily Review, 9/30/1953, p. 13. 11 Part of the argument for the district stemmed from the very issues created by the county of Alameda’s ban on building permits in the area.59 Without the ability to improve their homes, Robert Kennon warned that “wholesale condemnation proceedings” would result and the “entire population of approximately 4000 people [would] face economic ruin by being driven from their property.” Despite the arguments of some residents, opposition to the service district emerged from petitioners saying that Russell City would not benefit from an independent district.60 Instead, the petitioners advocated annexing to Hayward. Others argued that the assessed valuation of the area was not enough to support the district, and several property owners asked to be excluded from the district altogether.61 Opposition, however, did not deter this election, and the goal to use the district to provide Russell City with “sewers, water, police and fire protection, streetlights, garbage disposal and mosquito abatement” moved forward.
Before doing so, another issue arose, this time from the city of Hayward. The city planned to annex a “large portion” of Russell City, which would remove residents of a 150-acre section between Clawiter Road and the Southern Pacific tracks on either side of Russell City road from the district.62 Further, H.J. Tomlinson, a Russell City building contractor, spoke for 28 petitioners who also asked to be excluded, but also did not want to be annexed by the city. Tomlinson further noted that Russell Cityans should seek annexation by the city of Hayward, but Buster Brooks objected that Russell City had not been encouraged to do so by the city.
When the final election took place, a 150-acre section of the Hayward Airport was excluded, as was a section bordering Russell City road between Clawiter and the railroad tracks.63 The original boundaries were 300 acres, 314 voters, and an assessed value of $186,000; with the reduction, the service district was less than half the original size at only 143 acres, contained approximately 250 voters, and had a 25% drop in assessed tax valuation.64 While the Committee urged supervisors to deny the exclusions, in a 3-1 vote, they passed. Only Supervisor Bartell dissented, noting that the assessed value of the final area was too low to support service district assessments and that the disputed land would have benefitted from the services.65 According to the Daily Review, plans were “already afoot” for the city of Hayward to annex the excluded areas.
During this period, an anonymous letter was sent to Russell City owners that warned “against possible legal difficulties for property owners who favor withdrawing” from the service district, and noted that legal action would be taken against the Board of Supervisors for the exclusion of areas “on the grounds of annexation to the City of Hayward.”66 Tomlinson responded to this letter, writing that they were excluded because those services were already available for the properties that had petitioned the city of Hayward for annexation, and that duplication of the services was the basis for exclusion. Tomlinson further wrote asking the anonymous letter writing if they could “imagine the condition in which it would place our properties if we were unfortunate enough to end up in a Russell City Service District or in the so-called town of Russell City in which the present time no construction is allowed?” Tomlinson’s letter illustrates the plight of Russell City perfectly—deprived 59 Funds Available for Russell City, Kennon Reports, Daily Review, 6/15/1954, p. 9. 60 Service District Opposition Grows, Daily Review, 11/6/1953, p. 11. 61 Supervisors call for Russell City Service District, Daily Review, 2/10/1954, p. 13. 62 Services District Action Blocked; Annexation Due, Daily Review, 2/17/1954, p. 1. 63 Russell City Vote Set for April 13, Daily Review, 2/23/1954, p. 1. 64 County readies April Vote on Russell District, Daily Review, 2/24/1954 , p. 13. 65 Russell City Vote Set for April 13, Daily Review, 2/23/1954, p. 1. 66 Anonymous letter on Withdrawal from Service District Criticized, Daily Review, 3/6/1954, p. 8. 12 of water, sewer, and the ability to build and improve their homes by a freeze on permits in the area, few communities were willing to ally with Russell City and one of the poorest communities in southern Alameda County was forced to fend for itself once again. Despite the exclusion, the anonymous letter, and the threat of lawsuits, the election was held on April 13, the services district passed, and a slate of directors—Bernice Kingwell, Raoul Joseph Lopez, and Chauncy D. Pryor-- were elected.
Though the community services district election was successful, the district itself was ultimately not successful in bringing water, sewer, or any other service to Russell City residents. Robert B. Kennon, the chairperson of the Committee, was named the secretary-manager of the district and a series of articles just six months after the election, in October and November 1954 in the Daily Review, demonstrated that the establishment of said district did not satisfy Russell City’s service needs.
Instead, Kennon and the directors—Kingwell, Lopez and Pryor—were soon embroiled in a public conflict resulting in Kennon’s firing or disputed resignation, depending on the party telling the story, and a series of letters in the Daily Review condemning the actions of the board.
Conflict over redevelopment ultimately caused Kennon and the board to part ways. Kennon wanted to pursue the use of state chapter 1551 funds, which was intended to “aid areas with low assessed valuation obtain the needed sewage and water mains thereby increasing their valuation.”67 The state would loan the area funds, and the area would repay with 2% interest. This proposal was endorsed by two engineers, as well as the Oro Loma Sanitary district head, Gerald Worthley. In a meeting in Fall 1954, the Daily Review reported that the board and Kennon “exchanged verbal barrages” after the board announced it would be meeting with county officials to discuss redevelopment, rezoning and relocation. 68 Residents took the idea of relocation as a “bombshell”, which was further reinforced by Kennon who noted that the “area was being ‘suppressed’ by ‘outside forces’” buying and reselling properties to industrial developers. Kennon further noted that the City of Hayward Master Plan of Area Development69 had identified Russell City land for industrial development, and the plan claimed most lots in the area were assessed at only $500. Kennon warned that they would buy property for $500 and then sell it for much more (the article notes, however, that assessment figures run about 25% of the market value of a home).
Kennon also criticized other actions of the board, such as the board’s decision to hire a lawyer, Frank Dubovsky. According to Kennon’s letter to the Daily Review, he requested managerial control over the district so that he could “see to it nothing funny is put over on the people of Russell City, like the recent hiring of a lawyer before a program has worked out where funds to pay him are coming from.”70 Kennon further criticized the board for failing to hold meetings when people could attend, and choosing a lawyer “whom the masses of voters resent.” Dubovsky, however, contended that Kennon was turning residents against him, and that he was not paid for his services.71 Despite this claim, the ending accounting of the service district shows one of its few payments was for attorney services.72
67 Russell City Disputes Operation of Community Services District, Daily Review, 11/8/1954, p. 2. 68 Russell City Disputes…, 11/8/1954. 69 A search of the city of Hayward Laserfiche public portal site for historical documents did not result in locating this plan, but multiple sources from Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, provided by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, refer to such a plan. 70 From our readers: Robert Kennon Denies He Resigned, Daily Review, 11/3/1954, p. 14. 71 Russell City Disputes Operation of Community Services District, Daily Review, 11/8/1954, p. 2. 72 Russell City Dist. Taken Apart, Daily Review, 3/27/1958, p. 13. 13 Coverage of the conflict culminates around Kennon’s departure from the service district. Called a ‘resignation’ by the board, Kennon disputed this and called it a firing, and wrote to the Daily Review that the board’s claim that he “asked to be released” from duties was “an absolute falsehood.”73 Kennon also noted that recall petitions for the board were circulating particularly targeting Bernice Kingwell. Residents wrote to the Daily Review imploring their neighbors to support the service district and Robert Kennon in particular. Carolyn Martinez wrote in a letter published October 1, 1954 that this was the “one and I do believe, last chance to help better our homes” and that residents should attend the meetings of the district and give Kennon their “fullest SUPPORT” (emphasis in original).74 Martinez wrote a published letter again on October 18 providing “thanks and appreciation” for Kennon, and criticized the “president’s high-handed methods in discharging you as secretary.”75 Leona Alves wrote that it was “time we people of Russell City wake up, and try to do something about the mess our board we voted in are doing to us.”76 Alves wrote further that the “majority want [Kennon] back.” Mr. and Mrs. Earstine Hughey agreed with Alves, writing that they would like to “see a recall election, a new president, a complete new board.”77 Hazel Singleton also wrote in saying that “running us in debt, hiring a lawyer, and also a secretary is no way to get things started.” Martinez, Alves, Singleton, and Hughey all noted that it was the hiring of the lawyer and putting “the taxpayers in debt” that ultimately shaped their judgement of the board.
In 1957, an article about the board notes that the district has “been impotent”, citing an assessed value of $248,370, which resulted in a “bonding capacity [that was] practically nil.”78 Alameda County budget provided just $1200 annually to the service district, of which $1,000 went to salaries and the other $200 for maintenance.79 As an editorial noted, “it is not anticipated the $200 will bring noticeable improvements” and instead “all are waiting for the someday, the someone, the something to spring up in what has become a petrified forest of dreams.” 80 In recommending redevelopment of the area, the 1957 Alameda County Grand Jury report noted that it had “studied the minutes of meetings held by the governing group of the district” and that these “fail[ed] to disclose that any useful purposes has been accomplished by it.”81
In 1958, the pros and cons of the district were discussed at a local meeting, with Oro Loma District Manager Gerald Worthley noting that he felt “strongly the district should be abolished” given its tax assessments did not support the cost of the projects.82 In 1958, it was noted that over three years, the district collected $2,467.28. A Daily Review article noted that $965 of this amount when to attorney fees, $720 went to fees for the directors (Pryor, Lopez and Kingwell), with $156.21 for director travel, $240 for a secretary manager, and $46 for an annual audit and legal publication.83 The district was up for a vote in 1959, and the Daily Review advocated voters “should chop it down without hesitation. The Russell City Community Services District was born in hope, but 73 From our readers: Robert Kennon Denies He Resigned, Daily Review, 11/3/1954, p. 14. 74 Letter to editor, Daily Review, 10/1/1954, p. 10. 75 From our readers: Robt. Kennon Praised by Readers in R.C., Daily Review, 10/18/1954, p. 8. 76 From our readers…, 10/18/1954. 77 From our readers, Daily Review, 10/21/1954, p. 10. 78 Russell City's Outlook Bleak, Daily Review, 2/8/1957, p. 13. 79 Editorial: No Stirring in the Forest, Daily Review, 10/21/1957, p. 12. 80 Editorial: No Stirring…, 10/21/1957. 81 Alameda County Grand Jury. (1957, December 30). Report of the 1957 Grand Jury County of Alameda: Russell City.
From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency. 82 Services Dist. Airing Friday, Daily Review, 9/17/1958, p. 4. 83 Russell City Dist. Taken Apart, Daily Review, 3/27/1958, p. 13. 14 disappointment has been its handmaiden. It is an almost perfect example of the fiction that reaction of a governmental agency automatically takes care of a community's ills.”84 Only board officer expenses for travel and attorney fees were paid, with none of the fees collected over the years—41 cents for each $100 of valuation in 1959—going to sewer or water service in the area.85 It was not until redevelopment was already almost completed that the district was dissolved in 1966.86 Annexation to Hayward
On the heels of the redevelopment proposal, county planners sought to zone Russell City for industrial use.87 Representatives of the Community Services District however argued against this designation, suggesting that change would “discourage homeowners who sought to improve their properties and could hinder installation of sewer and water service.” Some suggested that the area be classified as agriculture, but it was noted by the county that this was in conflict with the Hayward Master Plan at that time which designated the area a “light industrial zone.” This began a severalyears process by which the city “studied” annexing Russell City and residents similarly studied the city’s plans for their community.
The water and sewer plight of Russell City was one reason used by Hayward to justify its industrial expansion into the area. In 1956, the Hayward city manager pitched Hayward expansion into the area as the city “com[ing] to the aid of Russell City”, and that the provision of water and sewer lines into the area now “seems more solvable”, with the cost of providing services to residents and industry just $200,000.88 The conditions that led to illness outbreaks in the 1940s continued well into the 1950s, and in 1956, Eden Taxpayers’ Association used the conditions in Russell City to argue that the city of Hayward should adopt into East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), thereby making it possible for EBMUD to service Russell City. This could further push industrial development in the area, generating enough taxes to pay for the services.89 Hayward city officials however “rejected” this suggestion to join EBMUD, and claimed it was engaged in a study of its own on bringing services to the area.90 Eden Taxpayers’ Association President, J. Paul Roberts, responded to the city by saying that failing to adopt EBMUD water—and instead relying on Hetch Hetchy supply—would stymie industrial development in the area as developers would not want to pay for more expensive Hayward services.91
Russell City clubs also discussed annexation with city officials. In a meeting between Russell City Civic Club and City Manager S.D. Smith, residents were told that annexation to the city was likely.
When residents discussed the possibility of federal urban aid for the area, Smith “told the group that in his opinion RC is in an industrial location. It has facilities for industry, and the Hayward master plan puts it in an industrial use category.” 92 According to Smith, the “best thing” for Russell City 84 Time for an End to Futility, Daily Review, 1/19/1959, p. 14. 85 Time for an End…, 1/19/1959; Editorial: Ambition in Russell City, Daily Review, 8/18/1959, p. 11. 86 Russell City Service Area Superfluous?, Daily Review, 2/7/1966, p. 15; Old Water District Dissolved, Oakland Tribune, 4/20/1966, p. 16. 87 Planners Decide Not to Change Zoning in R.C., Daily Review, 11/23/1954, p. 9. 88 Council Spurs Hayward Growth, Daily Review, 6/5/1956, p. 1. 89 Russell City Health Threat Drive Begins, Daily Review, 8/14/1956, p. 11. 90 Officials Refuse Water Aid Plan for Russell City, Daily Review, 8/15/1956, p. 1; see also city of Hayward council records from
91 Questions Arise on Russell City Water Situation, Daily Review, 8/16/1956, p. 9. 92 Russell City Annex Move Decision Due, Daily Review, 11/15/1956, p. 1. 15 was the relocation of residents. The executive board of the Community Services District also met with Smith, where residents reportedly were fearful that they were being rushed into annexation by Hayward and emphasized that federal funds could be used to “improve housing in Russell City without forcing people to leave the community.”93
Despite resident opposition early in the process, the city and county continued to pursue industrial development for the area. In 1957, county supervisors restated their policy to block all building in the area. They would support city of Hayward city officials in seeking to redevelop the aera, noting they would “grant the city whatever jurisdiction it requires to proceed.”94 Residents, however, also sought to use federal redevelopment funds, but not for relocation and industrial development, but to better their home and community. To qualify for federal urban renewal funds, however, residents had to seek residential zoning for the area, something that the county refused to provide. Russell City leaders met with city officials repeatedly to discuss annexation and improvement of the area, meeting with county, federal and sanitary district representatives to discuss urban renewal programs.95 Residents further resisted city of Hayward annexation, as the city reportedly made it clear that if they did annex the area, they would relocate the residents.96 Lacking water, tragedy again strikes Russell City
Russell City had long relied on a local entrepreneurialism, and not the county, to provide fire service in the area. In 1950, a local resident, Jack Reynolds, housed and serviced the Russell City Fire truck that residents had raised funds to buy.97 Reynolds eventually lost his home in a fire, in part because of lack of funds to repair the truck.98 Less than a decade after the dysentery outbreak spurred local interest in Russell City conditions, in 1957, another tragedy brought home the consequences of continuing to fail to provide for water for residents when a fire broke out. Four children of local resident Marie Riller, ages 1-3, died in a fire that destroyed their and a neighbor’s home.99 To quell the fire, it took almost thirty minutes for fire trucks to arrive (though the fire chief reported 7 minutes after the first call), and the work of local residents and Oakland Scavenger company employees, who worked to fill local dump trucks with water to keep the fire trucks, when they did arrive, supplied with water.
While there was dispute as to when the fire trucks finally arrived, it was clear that the lack of nearby fire service in the area, as well as the lack of water, led to the tragedy. Immediately following the fire, local residents again found themselves the subject of renewed attention. The Daily Review noted that the residents had for 12 years tried to create a workable plan for water, sarcastically writing that the “county has recognized its responsibility and discharged it commendably” back onto the community.100 The nearest county fire department was over eight miles from Russell City, and the lack of water in the area hampered every effort to quell fire when it broke out. Further, the lack of 93 Russell City to Talk Annex, Daily Review, 11/17/1956, p. 1; Russell City Annex 'Rush' Fear Calmed, Daily Review. 11/20/1956, p. 2. 94 Board Backs Russell City Clean-Up Job, Daily Review, 1/9/1957, p. 1. 95 Russell City Annex Parley Date to be Set, Daily Review, 1/19/1957, p. 6; Russel City Citizens Hold Key To Help, Daily Review, 2/7/1957, p. 9. 96 Russell City: Answer to Problem Seen in Relocation, Daily Review, 3/19/1957, p. 9. 97 Russell City Is Warned to Obtain Burning Permits, Daily Review, 6/29/1950, p. 8. 98 Side Views--End of Search, Daily Review, 1/27/1954, p. 13. 99 Four Children Killed in Blaze, Daily Review, 2/5/1957, p. 1. 100 Editorial: the county, and Russell City, Daily Review, 2/6/1957, p. 14. 16 improvements in the area— fueled by the county decision to withhold building permits—meant that the area was prone to electrical and gas fires. A letter to the Daily Review from R.L.S. in Hayward recounts how in the case of the four young deaths, fire fighters had to stick their bodies into a burning gas meter to try and shut it off, “but all this heroism, wonderful as it was, may not have been needed, nor would the coroner, had Russell City received adequate services in the past.”101 The deaths of the Riller children led to local outlets recounting the plight of Russell City and the failure of local leaders to address the water and sewer conditions in the area.102 The Daily Review described twelve years of residents attempts to remedy issues withing their communities, noting that there had “never been a permit issued for a new dwelling in Russell City” and that there had been no new homes since 1946 when the county uniform building code went into effect.103 The area was routinely stranded by floods in the area during years of high rain, and there was no adequate flood control in area. County streets in the area—of which there were only 5—were only minimally maintained. The volunteer fire department in the area did not have enough funds to keep up their equipment, and the only equipment the county had to quell the fire was a 15-year-old truck with a 300-gallon water tank. Despite this outcry, just a week later, three additional homes were destroyed in fires just four hours apart.104
As with water and sewer, both the city and county committed to studying the issue, and local organizations, such as the school board, called for placing an additional fire station in the area.105 City Manager S.D. Smith said Hayward would be limited in what it could provide by whether it would be compensated for its services and also what impact servicing Russell City would have on the city’s fire rating. Smith noted that the fire rating directly related to home insurance rates in the city and that an airport station already being built could service this area if another fire engine and crew provided. While visiting the board of supervisors and asking for funds from the county’s “hardship fund”, the city agreed to “cooperate in mutual aid fire protection” for Russell City from Harder Road station.106
County barriers to improving Russell City
As the above efforts make painfully clear, Russell City residents wanted their community to thrive, and were prevented in efforts for doing so by the lack of water and sewer service in the area. Other issues also impacted the ability of residents to improve their community, namely the types of uses to which land could be put, or what is more typically called zoning. Zoning impacts building permits, the location of businesses, and in the case of Russell City, urban redevelopment. Zoning of Russell City was a battle in which both the county and residents had a stake in the 1950s. When the county adopted its zoning map, Russell City was classified as an “U” zone, or “unclassified district.” This meant that the area was not zoned for industrial use, nor was it residentially zoned which impacted residents’ ability to fight for their area. As we show next, the legal regulation of building and businesses in Russell City contributed to the conditions identified by local authorities as ‘slum’ or ‘blight’ conditions.
101 Viewpoints by readers, Daily Review, 2/8/1957, p. 14. 102 Russell City---Forgotten Town, Daily Review, 2/7/1957, p. 9. 103 Russell City's Outlook Bleak, Daily Review, 2/8/1957, p. 13. 104 Fire Razes Three More Russell City Homes, Daily Review, 2/12/1957, p. 1. 105 Russell City, Mt. Eden Fire Aid in Sight, Daily Review, 3/12/1957, p. 1. 106 Hayward to Ask County road Funds, Oakland Tribune, 3/13/1957, p. E7. 17 Uniform codes, permits, and the residential character of Russell City As noted previously, the county did not issue building permits in the Russell City area, which prevented residents from improving their homes and putting in upgrades which would have increased the valuations of their properties. When Alameda County adopted the uniform building code in 1946, no new buildings could be erected in Russell City due to the lack of water and sewer service. A letter from Ruth Manwarren questioning permits issued in Russell City published in the Daily Review prompted the Board of Supervisors to instruct Marcus Carlson, Alameda County Building Official to respond.107 Carlson wrote that Manwarren’s “statement implies that dwellings under construction at the time the Building Ordinance became effective on October 19, 1946 were not permitted to be completed. Such is not the case. The law applies only to construction started on or after that date.”108 On or after that date, “proper sanitary facilities is of major importance” for permits for new construction, conversions, or additions. Carlson further noted that the health department advised on private sewage disposal systems and was bound by their decisions.
Objections to the building permit system ranged from residents to Eden Council for Civic Unity to the NAACP. In 1955, NAACP for south county organized a documentation of the ban to challenge it.109 Despite these objections, in 1957, the board made it an official policy to deny permits for Russell City “unless proper fresh water was available or sewage facilities available for the site of the proposed building” based on the advice of the Alameda County Health Department.110 The Health Department passed a policy in February 1957 that recounted how since 1946, the department had not issued approvals for any private sewage disposal systems in the area. 111 The policy further
recounted that no approvals would be given for any residences if they “aggravate[d] existing problems.” They did indicate that permits were available, but only if a resident could comply with existing building codes which many Russell City properties could not.
This denial of building permits was in part a motivating factor to create a new city in the area with Mount Eden.112 It further contributed to population decline in the area, as when property sold, it had to be rehabilitated before it could be rented and “because it is virtually impossible to rebuild present structures to meet county specifications the property remains without tenants.”113 Indeed, a county study of Russell City concluded that “'Strict enforcement of county building codes will probably bring about the disappearance of Russell City within a few generations, even though no other efforts are put forward.”
Industry, environmental conditions, and permits
Despite the freeze on building permits, however, there were business permits that were issued that also impacted the character of the neighborhood. Adjacent to Russell City were some of the more polluting industrial uses in the county, such as garbage dumps, wrecking yards and hog farms. In 107 Bartell answers Willetts, Daily Review, 8/31/1950, p. 1; Answer Sent on Russell 'Shantytown', Daily Review, 10/17/1950, p. 12; Our readers say…, Daily Review, 10/25/1950, p. 16. 108 Our readers…, 10/25/1950. 109 NAACP Unit in South County Organized; Russell City Plea, Daily Review, 11/7/1955, p. 1. 110 BOS minutes: Jan 6, 1957, Oakland Tribune, 1/17/1957, p. 35. 111 Alameda County Health Department. (1957, February 7). Policy Re: Housing and Sewage Disposal in Russell City.
From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency. 112 Drive to Incorporate Russell City Ignited, Daily Review, 8/6/1959, p. 1. 113 Russell City Development Cost Cited, Oakland Tribune, 4/28/1960, p. 77. 18 1950, the county permitted an industrial hog farm to locate in the area, even though this very same business had been protested and denied locating in San Lorenzo and Warm Springs.114 A permit application for a garbage dump in the city in 1953 led the Daily Review to lament that the “attitude toward the Russell City area is too often one of abandonment rather than corrective effort” and that “establishment of another garbage dump will add neither to the ease of that effort or to the health standards of a community already overburdened with risks.”115 Dozens of residents from both Russell City and Mount Eden, as well as the Mt. Eden School District, protested the dump, noting the traffic hazards to school children, smoke nuisance, odors and health hazards.116 Raul Ramirez, President of the Alameda county Community Service Organization wrote to the Alameda County Planning Commission that granting the permit would be “heaping insult upon injury” and would be “a nuisance and a health menace not only to the residents of Russell City but to a large proportion of the entire population of Southern Alameda County.”117 This time residents won their protests and another garbage dump was not permitted to be located in the area, but as these protests make painfully clear, Russell City was already the disproportionate recipient of undesirable land uses in its vicinity.118
While residents won this battle, the push to regulate industry, particularly polluting businesses, in the area continued. In 1954, Russell City again protested dump conditions in the area, with 18 residents signing a petition that East Bay Sanitation was not complying with health and safety regulations and was overrun with rats.119 The planning commission appeared sympathetic but told protestors that “under present law…the county is powerless to control such operations.” East Bay Sanitation responded saying none of the nuisances identified by residents were the consequence of the company and that a second petition, circulated by the dump owner’s wife and Ruth Manwarren, supported the company.120 In 1955, the Alameda County Planning Commission passed a resolution approving another dump in the area for the Oakland Scavenger Company, writing that the permit “will not, in the opinion of this Commission, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood.”121 Despite this characterization of dump practices, in 1956 the Eden Taxpayers’ Association identified garbage dumps in the area as a health hazard because they become “exposed cesspools” during the rainy season.122 The health hazards were allowed to continue through the actions of the supervisors who, for instance, permitted a variance to a dump owner to cover it only every 12 days instead of 7 as requested by the health department.123 While the health department could prevent individuals from obtaining permits to improve their homes, it could not prevent the dump in the area from getting a variance to a county health standard.
114 Editorial: Kids' Game, Daily Review, 8/26/1950, p. 8. 115 Poor relation, Daily Review, 6/22/1953, p. 8. 116 County Planners Hear Arguments on Refuse Dump at Russell City, Daily Review, 6/25/1953, p. 11; BOS minutes:
September 22, 1953, Oakland Tribune 10/6/1953, p. 53. 117 Ramirez, Raul. (1953, October 23). Letter to Board of Supervisors. From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency.
118 Russell City Wins Victory, Daily Review, 10/27/1953, p. 7. 119 Russell City Protests Dump, Daily Review, 4/7/1954, p. 11. 120 Proponents for Dump Operation Answer Petition, Daily Review, 4/9/1954, p. 13. From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency. 121 Alameda County Planning Commission. (1955, June 27). Resolution #1978. 122 Russell City Health Threat Drive Begins, Daily Review, 8/14/1956, p. 11. 123 Emergency zoning ordinance ordered for annex areas, Oakland Tribune, 12/20/1957, p. E14. 19 Russell City was also the site for location for several liquor venues in the area, which is a common geographical theme where activities often considered inappropriate for other spaces are located disproportionately in neighborhoods of poor people of color. For instance, the Russell City Country Club was a venue that attracted revelers from all over the county, bringing outsiders intent on doing activities they likely would not do in their home communities. Frequent reports listed the Club as the site of gambling, criminal activity, and other disreputable acts, with residents from nearby towns almost always listed as the culprits. This point was made by Russell School trustees who fought against the issuance of a liquor permit in 1957 on the grounds that there were “five booze emporiums already in the community of 1500 persons” and that “consideration of a sixth is a travesty on state liquor laws.”124 Trustees noted that gambling, loitering, and the harassment of young women made the area dangerous for the area youth. Residents also could not expect city or county support in dealing with the impact of entertainment businesses on their community; noting that dice games were frequently on the street corners, the Federal Improvement Clubs of Southern Alameda County contacted the district attorney noting that efforts of the Russell City Civic Club to contact the Sherriff about the conditions were met with no response.125 This is another example of how residents were unable to get state support for their community, and instead, were burdened by the state practice of locating problematic businesses in the area.
In 1958, the county health department investigated complaints by residents about odors that were created after recent warm weather. 126 The health department concluded that the Russell City dump, Hayward Sewage disposal, Russell City hog farm, an animal feeding farm, and the bay shore contributed to the smell. The Daily Review recounted sending a photographer to the area to document but said they “got downwind” and “had to beat a hasty retreat.” The report noted that Hayward’s Sewage disposal unit had a “sewage outfall line into the bay.” Further, the Chief Sanitarian for the southern district, Julio Juarez, noted that the dump created flies but that the “dump’s operators were complying with regulations under a variance granted by the board of supervisors.” The health department also foretold that the “days of hog ranching…may be numbered” since the operations failed to meet health requirements.
This did not come to pass, and the hog ranch continued to operate in the area, well into the razing and redevelopment of Russell City. Instead, the county continued to apply its approach to regulating the character of the area, by denying residents the ability to improve their homes while also permitting businesses that could not gain a foothold elsewhere in the county to locate in Russell City. In 1960, the Board of Supervisors even “scrapped” a ten-year old policy by the Board of Zoning adjustments preventing new development in the area and issued a use permit for Abraham Knowles to operate a wrecking yard at 2140 W. Winton Avenue.127 It is unclear what led the board to reverse its longstanding policy, but it is clear that the zoning and permitting process allowed some developments in Russell City and not others; sometimes this was on the advice of the health department, and other times it directly contradicted it.
In either case, as we discuss further below, redevelopment again changed how permits were issued in the area. In 1964, the Hayward Planning Commission urged the county to deny a dump permit 124 Reporters' Memos, Daily Review, 3/13/1957, p. 14. 125 Russell City Gaming Action Asked of D.A., Daily Review, 2/18/1957, p. 2. 126 Strong' Plight: Big Smell in Area Traced to Sources, Daily Review, 9/18/1958, p. 13. 127 Board scraps policy, OKs Wreck Yard, Oakland Tribune, 5/26/1960, p. 20. 20 because it would affect the redevelopment project adversely, and the hog farm also had to change the tenor of its operations in response to complaints by redevelopment agencies.128 The distaste in other areas for the industries that were allowed to locate in Russell City was evidence in the relocation of a junkyard operated by Forrest Brown in Russell City for 25 years. In this case, Brown sought to relocate his business somewhere in the area, as other operators such as the Santucci Hog Farm were given permission to do. However, the city of Hayward denied his permit to located to the city, arguing that “wrecking yards discourage development of a good industrial park and make it hard to attract high-class industrial growth.”129
Planning for redevelopment
All the while Russell Cityans tried to save their city through annexation, incorporation and creating a service district, the county was “studying” the area for industrial development, even touring the area with the Urban Land Institute in 1957.130 In 1954, John Jay Thomas, a county planning director, submitted a plan to redevelop the area into industrial lands with federal funds.131 This plan included relocation of residents and “no financial loss to Russell City property owners.” Shortly thereafter, a group of Russell City residents formed to fight relocation for industrial development and was named the Russell City and Southern Alameda County Defense Committee.132 Carolyn Martinez was named as president, with Leona Alves, Hazel Singleton and Robert Kennon as officers Resident opposition to redevelopment grew as the city and county continued to seek to industrially zone the area. In 1957, city Manager S.D. Smith told the Hayward League of Women Voters that “we feel it is industrial property” in response to questions about what is being done for Russell City residents. Further, he noted that “we don’t feel providing sewers and water is the answer” and that in his “opinion we have to convince the people they should be relocated. The decision should be theirs.”133 Despite this declaration of the resident’s autonomy in deciding about relocation, the implication of Smith’s words is that the city of Hayward viewed Russell City as a site ripe for industrial expansion and annexation and did not provide water and sewer service to pressure residents to leave the area. This policy was made explicit by the Alameda County Health Department in 1957, when it noted that “water, storm and sanitary sewerage systems should only be provided for the Russell City area if concurrent positive steps are undertaken to improve the existing housing to prevent perpetuation of slum conditions.”134 Thus, it is likely unsurprising that though the city of Hayward frequently “studied”135 the costs of providing services in the area, this was not actually done until the area was already undergoing razing and rezoning for industrial use in the 1960s. 128 Unanimously: Planners Nix Winton Ave. Dump Permit, Daily Review., 10/9/1964, p. 9; Hog Operation Permit Shortened, Daily Review, 4/18/1969, p. 13. 129 City Still Battling Junk Yards, Daily Review, 5/1/1966, p. 6. 130 County studies Russell City Development Plan, Daily Review, 10/28/1954, p. 1; Experts to Tour Sites for Future Industries, Oakland Tribune, 1/17/1957, p. 12. 131 County studies Russell City Development Plan, Daily Review, 10/28/1954, p. 1. 132 Russell City Committee To fight Relocation of Homes for Industry, Daily Review, 11/2/1954, p. 1; Russell City To Fight Relocation, San Francisco Examiner, 11/7/1954, p. 16. 133 Women Voters Given Answers By Officials, Daily Review, 2/20/1957 p. 2. 134 Alameda County Health Department. (1957, April 12). Recommendations relative to Russell City. From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency. 135 May Extend City Water to Russell, Daily Review, 8/18/1949, p. 14; Council Spurs Hayward Growth, Daily Review, 6/5/1956, p. 1; Officials Refuse Water Aid Plan for Russell City, Daily Review, 8/15/1956, p. 1; Russell City Annex Parley Date to be Set, Daily Review, 1/19/1957, p. 6; Russell City, Mt. Eden Fire Aid in Sight, Daily Review, 3/12/1957, p.
1. 21
The composition of Russell City residents—generally not as wealthy or as white as their Hayward counterparts—undoubtedly played a role in the neglect of basic services for the community. In further response to a Hayward League of Women Voters question about whether the city council should take a stand for “free integration” of residents into Hayward, city councilperson Wright noted that the city was “not going to throw anything in their way”, but certainly did not extend a hearty welcome to the residents the city was intent on displacing.136 Alameda County Grand Jury Report of 1956
Shortly after the fire that killed the Riller children, the Alameda County Grand Jury released its report for 1956, which officially branded the Russell City a “slum area.”137 The report described the area as follows:
The houses are nothing more than shells. There is no sewage or water systems. Septic tanks do not function owing to the low elevation and the flooding of the land in winter. The water supply comes from shallow wells and nearly all houses have outside privies, some with seat covers but most of them without. Animals are kept in some of the yards and very few of the houses have screens. The unsanitary condition contributes a serious health problem and will continue to do so as long as the residents are allowed to live under these conditions.
The report continued that there was no water, sewer, or fire protection, as well as frequent community health problems created by these unsanitary conditions. The report also noted the low tax assessment of the area, just $13,700 annually, as well as tax delinquency rates of 10%, and that there were 91 welfare cases in the area receiving over $8,000 a month. The report further suggested condemning the entire area and relocating the residents.138 This report painted the Russell City area as a net drain on the coffers of Alameda County and was pivotal in the justification for county officials to raze the area and relocate residents.
Following the report, Hayward City Manager Smith and County Supervisor Francis Dunn met to discuss the grand jury report. Dunn reported that the area has always been a “vital issue” but claimed that the “people have resisted” relocation which was “impossible.”139 This foreclosure of residents’ concerns about relocation came as city and county dreams for industrial expansion proceeded apace.
Relocation
Also in 1956, the Alameda County Planning Staff issued a report titled “Redevelopment Suggested as a Possible Solution to the Deep Lot Dilemma” that described how relocation for industrial development could take place. This report concluded that it was an “absolute requirement that all 136 Women Voters…, 2/20/1957. 137 Russel City Branded Slum Area, Oakland Tribune, 3/6/1957, p. 2. 138 Grand jury urges new aged home, Oakland Tribune, 3/6/1957, p. 1. 139 Russell City: Meet Set tomorrow For Plan of Action, Daily Review, 3/7/1957, p. 9. 22 families and businesses displaced by redevelopment be located to their satisfaction (usually means a selection of several - 3 or 4 places. And that these places must be decent, safe and sanitary, within reason economically, and within reasonable distance of the place of work cannot be overemphasized to citizens. No redevelopment can take place before this is done.”140 Despite residents’ opposition to relocation, city and county officials continued to press this plan. At a meeting with Smith, Dunn, US Urban Renewal Agency representative Arthur Hoff, Service District representatives, and the NAACP, Bernice Kingwell, district board president, noted that many of the Russell City owners are older people who did not want to assume the indebtedness of a new mortgage should they relocate.141 Further, they did not think they could raise enough money from their homes to move elsewhere. In response, Dunn continued to press that the community would not have enough money to provide services for itself, even with urban renewal, as they would have to raise one third of the estimated $200,000 cost. Further, Smith indicated that he would ask city council “to take a firm stand” and tell residents they must face relocation, as Hayward “would lose a big chunk of money if [it] redeveloped the area for residential use.”142 Relocation was strongly opposed by Russell City residents. A survey of families by the Russell City Civic Club found 175 families opposed to relocation, with only 7 willing families.143 In 1957, 236 residents signed a petition to ask the county to rezone the area residential so that it might qualify for federal urban renewal funds.144 Manuel Furtado, attorney with Newman, Marsh and Furtado sent a letter to the supervisors on April 18, 1957 that stated it was the “wish of the overwhelming majority of residents and property owners of Russell City that the area be rezoned so it would be predominantly residential.”145 According to the Oakland Tribune, “the citizens explained their appeal this way: ‘If we can become a residential community instead of a hodgepodge of everything, we will be able to stabilize land use and property values and qualify for financial aid under the Federal Urban Renewal program.’”146
At a meeting of Russell City Civic Club, many residents felt that there was a sense of bias in the selection of Russell City for relocation;147 a sentiment reinforced in a letter to editor from Patrick Hancock, of Hayward, who wrote that:
The 'question' of sewerless and waterless Russell City has been at the expense of the citizens of the area, kicked around for years. Once again, because of the desires of some, to wipe out Russell City and put industry in the entire area, the question of Russell City is again in the limelight. However, the wants and desires of the people in Russell City are more important than industry or profits. Russell City is their home. It has not been easy for a Negro or Spanish-speaking American to purchase a home in San Lorenzo, Castro Valley, or Hayward.
So they live where they have been forced by us to live--in Russell City.148 140 Alameda County Planning Staff. (1956, May 28) “Redevelopment Suggested As Possible Solution to the Deep Lot Dilemma.” From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency.
141 Meeting Tonight on Alternatives for Russell City, Daily Review, 3/18/1957, p. 2 . 142 Where we stand, Daily Review, 3/22/1957, p. 14. 143 Relocation Hit in Russell City, Daily Review, 3/26/1957, p. 1. 144 Rezoning Plea for Russell City, Daily Review, 4/23/1957, p. 1 . 145 Furtado, Manuel. (1957, April 18). Letter to Alameda County Board of Supervisors. From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency. 146 Russell City Launches Urban Renewal Drive, Oakland Tribune, 5/3/1957, p. E13. 147 Relocation Hit in Russell City, Daily Review, 3/26/1957, p. 1. 148 Letter to editor, Daily Review, 3/25/1957, p. 10. 23 Hancock’s recounting of the history of racial segregation in housing provides important context to the beginnings of redevelopment in Russell City. Residents sought to rezone residential in order to benefit their homes and community and many feared relocation because it would not only rip them from their community and home, but also because there was not many places in southern Alameda County with rents that they could afford.149 Hancock concluded by imploring the county to seek federal urban renewal funds to improve and benefit the residents of Russell City, but instead county actions placed the redevelopment of Russell City as another episode in the longer history of race, power, and the making of urban space.
The county, however, did not act on rezoning Russell City residential, and instead deferred the decision until the next Grand Jury report. According to the board of supervisors, “since rezoning is a method of encouraging specific types of land use and development, the commission believe there should be a comprehensive study of the county's intention or ability to relocate Russell City residents, clear the area, assemble individual parcels of land and assure utilities and improvements essential for industry.”150 Fred Dubovsky, attorney for Russell City Community Services District, “urged the board to refrain from ‘sending these people to Siberia,’ by forcing them to leave their homes to make way for industrial development in the area.”151 In June 1957, a letter from Thad McCarty, Foreperson of the Grand Jury, and W.A. Bender, Chairperson of the Russell City Committee of the 1957 Grand Jury, sent a letter to the Planning Commission recommending “that said requests of the residents of Russell City for single-family residence zoning, be denied.”152 Part of the issue with rezoning the area stemmed from the inclusion of the area in local master plans. In a report from the Alameda County Planning Staff in 1957, they note that both the master plan proposals of the City of Hayward and the Tentative Master Plan of the Alameda County Planning Commission “propose that the land be used for industry in this area in the long-range future.”153 The report surveyed the problems of the area, locating the consequences of structural issues such as racial residential segregation, land uses, and the issuance of permits in the area as the cause of its “blight.” The report identified the “factors which combine to make Russell City unsuited to continued residential use” as the typical lack of water and sewer that others had citied, but also “proximity to future and existing industrial uses, airport, main line railroad, hog ranches, refuse dumps”, “a ghetto-like area of racial minority groups that should be absorbed into other communities of their choice” and substandard housing. The report concluded that Even if there were a basis for conserving Russell City itself, its position as a residential community surround by industry would be untenable. The advantages afforded the area by the provisions of water, sewers, drainage, improved streets, even if financially possible, would be a mistaken reinforcement of a misplaced residential area. The first determination should be that of the appropriate, long-range land use of the area. Generally, the conclusion 149 Editorial: Russell City a Year After Tragedy, Daily Review, 2/6/1958, p. 10. 150 Russell City Zoning Plan Action Slated, Daily Review, 8/7/1957, p. 5; see also Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency. 151 Board Delays Zone Problem, Daily Review, 8/19/1957, p. 2. 152 McCarty, Thad and Bender, W.A. (1957, June 26). Letter to Alameda County Planning Commission. From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency. 153 Alameda County Planning Staff. “Russell City—A preliminary report of its problems and a consideration of procedure towards their solution.” From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency.
24 of agencies has been that the Russell City area should be cleared of its residential use and made available for industry.
In June 1957, the Russell City Committee of the Grand Jury issued a report to the Grand Jury noting that “it was the unanimous decision” that Russell City be developed into “an industrial site, rather than a residential one.”154 As the report concluded, the “major problem” was simply the “relocation of present residents.” Shortly after, in July 1957, the Planning Director for Alameda County, Robert Williams, sent the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors that the county “relocate and rehouse Russell City residents” and the Board of Supervisors “concurred” in the recommendations in August.155 Residents continued to press the board throughout 1957 for residential zoning to no avail, and through Manuel Furtado, an attorney for residents, the board was asked to hold a public hearing on the matter in October 1957. 156
In late 1957, the Alameda County Grand Jury report was released, and it again identified the “Russell City Problem.” In this report, however, it too did not side with residents and instead concluded that the area should be zoned for industry.157 The Grand Jury found that it would be “inadvisable to approve continuance of the slum conditions found, nor would it be to the best interests of the community for any additional residences to be permitted.”158 The report further pressed that “the current health situation is maintained by the constant vigilance of the health authorities at excessive cost and any relaxation thereof would undoubtedly be hazardous to the entire county.” Industrial zoning, however, was not necessarily a foregone conclusion; as the Alameda County Planning Department noted in its preliminary report on turning the area into a “planned industrial district” in 1958, the “developing residential neighborhood east of Clawiter Road” could be “maintained.”159 The city of Hayward’s study of redevelopment also focused on redeveloping the area into an industrial one, and relocating residents.160 By July 1958, the county concluded that the area would be rezoned for industrial use, and October 1958, the city and county were holding joint meetings to discuss industrial development in the area.161 At this point, at least one resident who had fought against relocation—Mrs. Buster Brooks—was slowly becoming resigned to relocation, reportedly 154 Russell City Committee of the Grand Jury. (1957, June 10). Report to the Grand Jury. From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency. 155 Williams, Robert. (1957, July 26). Memo: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Rezoning of Russell City Area. From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency; Schulze, Harold (1957, 8/8). Letter: Recommendation Re Russell City Area. From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency. 156 Russell City Airs Demand, Daily Review, 10/25/1957, p. 13; Russel City Fights Rezoning, San Francisco Examiner, 10/28/1957, sec 3, p. 12. 157 Grand Jury Urges Probe of Schools, Oakland Tribune, 12/30/1957, p. 1. 158 Alameda County Grand Jury. (1957, December 30). Report of the 1957 Grand Jury County of Alameda: Russell City.
From Russell City Petition Against Redevelopment files, Alameda County Community Development Agency. 159 Alameda County Planning Department. “Preliminary Report: Is a 'Planned Industrial District' a Feasible Development for the Area South of the Hayward Airport? From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency.
160 Russell City Study Gains, Daily Review, 2/7/1958, p. 2. 161 County Will Start Industry Zone Plans, Daily Review, 7/29/1958, p. 5; City Officials Tackle Russell City Problem Daily Review, 10/10/1958, p. 13; see also Strathman, Earl (1958, November 24). Letter to Robert Williams, Planning Director, Alameda County. From Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency. 25 saying in the Daily Review :“If it's to happen, let's get on with it. Naturally we'd like to keep our homes but what's to be is to be.”162
Mt. Eden and incorporation
Before redevelopment got underway, a third attempt by Russell Cityans to obtain water and sewer service began with a plan to incorporate into a city with the nearby Mt. Eden community. Similar to the Oro Loma annexation, this plan also did not result in water and sewer service and laid bare race and class tensions in the area. This plan apparently began with a “secret meeting” at the home of Bernice Kingwell of Russell City, with about 30 people representing most segments of area landholders.163 Proponents of the bid filed a letter with the Alameda County Boundary commission seeking to establish the boundaries of the new city, and Kingwell indicated that the “main purpose of the incorporation effort is to create an industrially-oriented city along the lines of Union City.” She further declared that “Hayward is gradually reaching out and getting a chunk here and a chunk there, and if that continues we'll be left with nothing.” Kingwell’s comments reveal the tensions between Hayward’s industrial plans and the residents of Russell City who stood in its way; it also revealed that others also sought to profit industrially from the surrounding area, or as one article put it, “where few residents would reap the tax advantages of lots of heavy industry, and at the same time obtain home rule...”164
Despite the seeming cooperation of some Mt. Eden property owners, “vigorous objections to the proposal” soon emerged.165 Herbert J. Kent, wrote to the Daily Review that “the residents of Mt.
Eden have no intention of surrendering their autonomy as an individual community to become part and parcel of some undetermined area.”166 Kent further lamented that though Mt. Eden was “deeply sympathetic towards Russell City”, Mt. Eden had “never been a backward community, never has reduced itself to the position that a slum label should be attached to it. We have always maintained our community as an individual area, asking favors of no one. As such, we expect to remain as long as possible.” Like the city and county, Mt. Eden property owners also blamed Russell City for the lack of sewer and water services in the area, deciding against allying with a community it saw as a “backward…slum.”
162 City Officials Tackle Russell City Problem, Daily Review, 10/10/1958, p. 13. 163 Drive to Incorporate Russell City Ignited, Daily Review, 8/6/1959, p. 1. 164 Hayward Silent on Proposal to Form New City, Daily Review, 8/7/1959, p. 9. 165 Hayward Silent…, 8/7/1959. 166 Opinions from Readers, Daily Review, 8/11/1959, p. 12. 26 Figure 1Map of Proposed Incorporation area
Russell City residents “pleaded” with Mt. Eden to stymie Hayward’s industrial expansion and create a new city that could benefit all.167 Some even spoke out against incorporation arguing that it would “end any responsibility for the county to continue trying to solve [Russell City’s sewer, street and water needs]; the job would be Russell City's alone.”168 Others argued that it would “deny its residents the benefit of thousands of dollars in sewer, street, and water improvements to be put in by Hayward.”169 Critics of the incorporation plan also argued that the assessed valuation of the proposed area at $2.8 million, with a population of 2-3000, would only yield about $28,000 in tax revenue per year and that the costs of water, sewage and storm drainage was five times the “bonding capacity of the area.”170 An editorial in the Daily Review concluded that though backers of incorporation seem to think this would fix Russell City problems, this was instead “a case of a poor area trying to impose political and financial ties on a neighbor which is not rich enough to do the job.”171 Ultimately, proponents of incorporation missed a deadline to move forward and the plan again failed to solve the water and sewer needs of Russell City.172 Federal Urban Renewal
After incorporation failed, the city and county again began to move forward with redevelopment. At a Hayward city council meeting, Councilperson George Oakes noted that “The Russell City people 167 Russell City Merger Plan Starter Told, Daily Review, 8/15/1959, p. 1. 168 Editorial: Ambition in Russell City, Daily Review, 8/18/1959, p. 11. 169 Benefits' Loss Seen in Scheme to Incorporate, Daily Review, 8/21/1959, p. 15. 170 Minor Changes Made in Move to Incorporate, Daily Review, 9/4/1959 , p. 13; Merger Plan Backers Cut down Scope, Daily Review, 9/10/1959, p. 11; Editorial: Poor Plan for a City, Daily Review, 9/10/1959, p. 14. 171 Editorial: Poor Plan…, 9/10/1959. 172 Club to Ask Russell City Union Status, Daily Review, 11/10/1959, p. 5 . 27 once felt quite militant about Hayward interference in their area. And let's not go in there like a bunch of do-gooders because those people don't think they're do-badders.”173 To address the plight of Russell City, Hayward city council recommended utilizing the federal urban renewal program.174 The city’s plan was to have the county name the city as the urban renewal agency; the city, under the guise of the agency, would then create plans for redevelopment, clear the lots, and sell them as industrial sites. Under the city’s plan, the displaced residents would be provided public housing or privately financed tracts on the Bay. The county ultimately approved an urban renewal plan in 1961 and set about gathering the needed data to apply for urban renewal aid.175 County authorities quickly got to work seeking urban renewal funds. The Board of Supervisors appointed a representative as well as the county planning director to work out a plan to meet the requirements of the federal grant and planned to provide one-third of the cost of the funding of the area. The county further sought to provide residents with federal mortgage assistance, by permitting families to purchase homes costing $10,000 on a 40-year mortgage. 176 The preliminary report from the county estimated the cost of buying land, absorbing tax loss, creating roads, and providing utilities to be more than $2.5 million. The county report noted that the area cost the county $91,330 in public welfare for 57 cases, which consisted of 248 people, 160 of them children.177 The report further described the difficulties with redevelopment in the area, writing that the legal owners of the 1,124 lots in the area would have to be searched and located.178 Further, the report argued that if the residents were not relocated, “strict enforcement of county building codes will probably bring about the disappearance of Russell City within a few generations.” The report described how when property sells, the property must be rehabilitated to code before renting; and because the county has a freeze on permits in the area and residents cannot rebuild to county specifications, many of the properties lacked tenants entirely. Once someone moves, according to the report, their home could not be sold or rented again, and thus, Russell City faced imminent decline.
Relocation soon emerged as an important issue with regards to federal urban renewal, first emphasized by George Herron, head of the county’s public works department in July 1961.179 If the county accepted federal urban renewal funds, they would be bound by federal requirements to relocate residents. An overview of federal urban renewal notes that federal authorities considers that an effective local government relocation program entails a relocation office in or near the project area; a family-by-family survey of the area to determine relocation needs and qualifications; family interviews to discuss rehousing possibilities; concerted efforts to find adequate housing vacancies; inspection of housing that site occupants find unassisted, 173 Russell City Tossed into Spotlight Again, Daily Review, 8/23/1960, p. 9. 174 Dual Action Proposed on Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 11/24/1960, p. 93. 175 Russell City Uplift Plan Under Way, San Francisco Examiner, 3/15/1961, p. 10; County to Seek Federal Aid for Renewal of Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 3/15/1961, p. 18; County Seeks Renewal for Blighted Area, Daily Review, 3/15/1961, p. 16. 176 County Seeks…, 3/15/1961. 177 Relocation plan: Russell City Report Set, Daily Review, 7/9/1961, p. 1; County Team to Give Report on Russell City Blight Study, Oakland Tribune, 7/12/1961, p. 56. 178 Russell City Development Cost Cited, Oakland Tribune, 4/28/1960, p. 77. 179 Agencies to Discuss Redevelopment of Blighted Russell City, Daily Review, 7/12/1961, p. 6. 28 with offers of relocation aid if that housing is not "decent, sanitary and safe"; and the use of eviction proceedings only as a last resort.180
Accepting federal urban renewal funds meant that the county would need a plan for the relocation of residents that would be overseen by the federal government. In October 1961, the county unveiled a new plan for redevelopment, this time entirely county financed, and while this would prove controversial, ultimately, the county decided to forego urban renewal funds and self-financing the project with local public agency funds.181 The county report on redevelopment noted that the “major disadvantages” of federal funds were the “heavy restrictions placed upon land use and development, the local agency many not dispose of the redeveloped lands in bulk to a private developer, and must install elaborate and extensive public improvements.”182 The Alameda County Board of Supervisors plan for redevelopment began by naming itself the redevelopment agency.183 Planned to take place over the next four years, at a cost of $2.25 million, the project outlined a 198-acre area bounded by Southern Pacific Railroad between W. Winton Avenue and Dunn Road, affecting 350 homes.184 The plan estimated a cost of $575,975 for road improvement, as well as $320,770 for sewer and water lines.185 To finance the project, the Board of Supervisors loaned the agency $700,000 that had been set aside for the purchase of voting machines, and planned to have the project “pay its own way” entirely in the end by a program of “increment financing…whereby increases in tax revenues routed to redevelopment are used to repay cash grants and grants in aid.”186 George Herron was named executive director of the project, and a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year was adopted.187 The plan advised that the redevelopment should consist of acquiring the property, provide minimal improvements to the area and then the area should be “disposed of speedily in bulk.”188 The cost of providing sewer and water to the area would be provided by the city of Hayward, while the county would provide new roads. In response to the plan, Chauncy Pryor, the chairperson of the Russell City Community Services District, said that residents would resist mass relocation, but did want some sort of redevelopment to benefit the community. Russell City would finally receive water and sewer services from the city of Hayward, but it would come at the cost of the residents.
189
While the Board of Supervisors tried to address the relocation problem in part through self-funding the plan, the approach was not without controversy. Shortly after the plan was unveiled, the Alameda County Mayors Conference—composed of the ten area mayors—released a resolution “firmly opposed to a supervisors’ plan to redevelop Russell City without the use of federal urban renewal funds.”190 The vote on the resolution was nearly unanimous, with a 9 mayors in favor and one opposed—the mayor of the city of Hayward.191 The mayors noted that they were not against 180 Johnstone, Quintin. 1957. “The Federal Urban Renewal Program.” The University of Chicago Law Review 25, 301. 181 Russell City's End Near in Renewal Plan, Oakland Tribune, 10/4/1961, p. 1. 182 County Acts on Changing Russell City, Daily Review, 10/4/1961, p. 14 . 183 County Acts…, 10/4/1961. 184 County Acts…, 10/4/1961; Few Tears Shed in Doomed Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 10/8/1961, p. 8. 185 Relocation plan: Russell City Report Set, Daily Review, 7/9/1961, p. 1. 186 Renewal Plans Advance, Daily Review, 11/18/1962, p. 3; County Acts on Changing Russell City, Daily Review, 10/4/1961, p. 14. 187 County Acts…, 10/4/1961; Few Tears Shed…, 10/8/1961. 188 County Acts…, 10/4/1961. 189 See city of Hayward city council minutes from 3/26/1963, 190 Russell City Plan Rapped, Oakland Tribune, 10/14/1961, p. 2 . 191 Russell City Plan Protest Up to County, Oakland Tribune, 12/10/1961, p. 28. 29 clearance of the area but opposed to doing so without the use of federal funds. For the Alameda County Mayors’, the issue was also one of resident relocation, but unlike the residents they were not opposed to relocation per se, but rather the impact of county financing on relocation. Critique of the county plan was especially vociferous from Oakland Mayor John Houlihan, who reported that the supervisors did not want federal funds because they did not want to relocate residents, and that Oakland taxpayers would shoulder 45% of the cost.
In response, county supervisors defended their plan.192 Supervisor Francis Dunn, from Hayward, said that Houlihan “goes into the Mayors’ Conference every couple of months and sounds off” and that the county was “following the successful example of San Leandro as compared with the unsuccessful example of Oakland in scorning federal aid.” Another supervisor indicated that the mayors had not even attended public hearings on the matter, and at a board meeting, supervisors complained that only one city—Hayward—had checked out the staff report on Russell City which the Board used to make its decision.193 In response to Houlihan’s accusation that the county could do redevelopment for ‘free’ with federal money, Vice Mayor Vernon Bilchfeldt of Hayward said that “federal and state money also are the people’s money.” Mayor Arthur Philips further charged that “waiting for the federal government might be waiting for the subsidy on bomb shelters.” The supervisors issued what was described as a “curt request” to the mayors to be more specific in their opposition to county plans.194
In response to county opposition, some in the Mayors Conference voted to send the redevelopment proposal to a committee to study.195 Houlihan objected, saying he would not participate in the “social and study groups” and reportedly threatened to walk out of the meeting if they rescinded the resolution.196 In response to the county, Houlihan outlined six objections: 1. the cost burden would fall mostly on the cities; 2. it was an estimated $2 million loss to taxpayers; 3. with federal participation, cities would not have to pay entire cost; 4. industrial use plan would compete with other cities and undermine the tax base of surrounding areas; 5. annexation to Hayward was unfair and preferential; and 6. it was further “unfair that the county does not assume responsibility for the relocation of the occupants of the 278 dwelling units...since federal participation requires relocation.”197
In a statement read by County Administrator Earl Strathman, the board took issue with Houlihan’s charges.198 Strathman noted “pointedly” that Oakland had no record of “expressing an interest in the source of funds solicited from the county for construction of a sports stadium” and denied that funding would come from property tax revenues.199 Instead, the county was planning to loan the plan money and then do a quick resale to make up the cost. 200 For services like roads, the county was planning to rely on “an apportionment from the State Highway Users Tax Fund” to pay for roads in the area, from which the county noted that Oakland itself gets $700,000 a year. The county 192 Support For Russell City Plan Arises, Daily Review, 10/16/1961, p. 1. 193 Support For…, 10/16/1961; Russell City Stand: Mayors' Thinking Unclear, Daily Review, 11/8/1961, p. 10. 194 Russell City Stand…, 11/8/1961. 195 Redevelopment Plan: Mayors to Restudy Idea on Russell City, Daily Review, 12/9/1961, p. 1. 196 Mayor Raps Motion on Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 12/9/1961, p. 1; Redevelopment Plan…, 12/9/1961. 197 Russell City Plan Protest Up to County, Oakland Tribune, 12/10/1961, p. 28. 198 Mayor Given Answers on Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 12/12/1961, p. 1; RC Project: Houlihan's Stand Lambasted Daily Review, 12/13/1961, p. 21. 199 Mayor Given…, 12/12/1961. 200 RC Project…, 12/13/1961. 30 argued that the deficit in the project will be closer to $44,000 than the $2 million charged by Houlihan, and that $24,000 of the deficit would be “prorated from the general or bond funds.” The idea that redevelopment would compete with other cities was “somewhat obscure”, and the supervisors said there was always competition with proposed development regardless of who has jurisdiction over the space. The county also said that Hayward was assuming some of the project cost and must support the in-tract developers once the city annexed the area. Finally, the county said it would provide for relocation of residents, and thus, Houlihan’s charge that the county was doing this to avoid the cost of relocation was incorrect. Supervisors and Hayward city councilpersons further called Houlihan “completely irresponsible”, “confused and mistaken”, and charged he was making “politics out of poverty.” 201 Further, the county noted that the plan breaking even was based on a resale of the land at $10,000 an acre, but that was likely an underestimate as other areas sold for $17,000 an acre.
202
In response, the Mayors’ Conference “reaffirmed its stand that the Board of Supervisors should give full consideration to the use of federal urban renewal funds.” With a unanimous vote, the Mayors’ passed a three-point policy: that they had no valid objection to redevelopment for industrial purposes; that they had no objection to annexation by Hayward “providing the burden of redevelopment is not carried by other Alameda County cities”; and 3. should defer fiscal commitments until “analysis of the alternative of federal redevelopment is made and presented publicly.”203 The Mayors proceeded to meet with federal authorities to discuss the possibility for urban renewal funds.204 The federal urban renewal expert cited “four major flaws” in the Russell City redevelopment plan: the time frame of 2-4 years was too short; there was no program for relocation of residents; land would likely sit idle given the “soft” market for industrial land; and that there would be hidden costs.205 In particular, federal authorities noted that the county would have to carry out a relocation program, granting each family $200 to relocate.206 Relocation was again at the heart of the conflict between the mayors, particularly Houlihan, and the county. Houlihan noted that it was likely Oakland would not only be burdened by shouldering the largest portion of the cost of the project, but that the residents of Russell City would move to West Oakland and “we’ll get all the problems of Russell City.”207 Instead, Houlihan advised the county to focus projects in incorporated areas, which paid most of the county tax revenues. In response to Houlihan’s claim that residents would come to Oakland, the Supervisors noted that residents could go anywhere in the county they could find rents, ignoring the history of racial exclusion and segregation that created Russell City in the first place. But, given the high cost of rent, increasingly appeared unlikely that these would be the places immediately surrounding Russell City.
Houlihan continued to denounce Oakland residents paying for redevelopment, arguing that they were paying as much for the redevelopment of Russell City as they were for projects in Oakland.208 Supervisors fired back that Oakland redevelopment was on a “disastrous course”:
201 RC Project…, 12/13/1961; Houlihan Hit By Hayward, Oakland Tribune, 12/13/1961, p. 15. 202 RC Project…, 12/13/1961. 203 Mayors OK Policy for Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 1/13/1962, p. 7. 204 County Termed overly Hopeful on Russell City, Daily Review, 1/25/1962, p. 13; Russell City plan Flaws Told Mayors, Oakland Tribune, 1/25/1962, p. 15. 205 Russell City plan Flaws…, 1/25/1962. 206 County Termed…,1/25/1962. 207 Mayor Calls Russell City Deal Phony, Oakland Tribune, 2/7/1962, p. 1 . 208 Mayor Hits Russell City Project Cost, Oakland Tribune, 5/13/1964, p. 16. 31 With reference to the latest attack by Mayor Houlihan on Russell City, we had a serious blighted slum area and we have cleared it. We have undertaken an orderly, efficient, and economical clearance program and are well on our way to converting a slum into an industrial park which will return not only all of the money spent, but by increasing the assessed valuation of the property, will benefit all of the taxpayers of the county, particularly the City of Oakland. What else would the mayor have us do, follow his own disastrous course and enmesh the whole redevelopment program in confusion and costly delay as he as done?209
The battle between Houlihan and the supervisors reveal the fault lines that shaped the redevelopment project. While Houlihan’s critique of relocation could be seen as siding with the residents desire not to be relocated, it in fact revealed how Oakland, the City of Hayward, and the County all favored industrial development over the desires of residents and were all reluctant to relocate residents to their communities.
The redevelopment survey indicated that only about 35% of families in the area wanted to relocate to Hayward; yet, George Herron, executive director of the agency, noted that “I don’t believe the number of people who want to relocate in Hayward can be accommodated there” as “there aren’t many homes available.”210 However, Herron thought that anyone desiring location assistance (estimated to be just 15-20% of people in other projects) would could be assisted “within the legal requirement that their new homes be ‘safe, decent, sanitary,’ (and) reasonably convenient to their employment and other needs, and at prices or rents within their means.” Harold Davis, the relocation supervisor, noted that residents had to be relocated within the county and could “go anywhere their pocketbooks will permit” and that for the “aged on pensions, there are special sections of the welfare code which will help finance relocation.”211 Redevelopment commences: From Russell City to an industrial park Despite objections from the residents, the mayors and federal urban renewal authorities, the county proceeded with self-financing the redevelopment of Russell City into an industrial park. Though reports throughout the prior decade had repeatedly deemed Russell City a “slum”, the “shame of Alameda County”, and an area of “blight”, the Alameda County Planning Commission made it official with a formal finding that Russell City was a blighted area in February 1962.212 In addition to the executive director of redevelopment, the county also hired Harold Davis, of Oakland, as a relocation supervisor.213
The county also began the formal proceedings necessary for redevelopment. Protests to inclusion in the project were scheduled, as were formal public hearings on the project.214 County workers began surveying Russell City residents to determine their housing needs and the board moved to appoint a 209 Supervisors Hit Renewal Program, Oakland Tribune, 5/14/1964, p. 1. 210 Redevelopment: Russell City Idea Pushed By Hayward, Daily Review, 11/6/1962, p. 13. 211 Hearing Held on Russell City Plan, Daily Review, 11/9/1962, p. 7. 212 Russell City Labeled Blighted Area, Daily Review, 2/20/1962, p. 13. 213 Russell City Relocation Chief Chosen, Daily Review, 1/24/1962, p. 21. 214 Redevelopment: Supervisors Order Russell City Study, Daily Review, 3/21/1962 , p. 15. 32 15-member Citizens’ Advisory Committee.215 Each supervisor was able to name 3 members to the committee, and only one of the members—C.D. Pryor—appeared to be from Russell City; all the rest of the members were from Livermore, Union City, Newark, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, and Piedmont.216 The task of the board was defined as a cross between a “liaison and watchdog to serve as buffer between the Russell City community, the rest of the county and the board of supervisors, to help develop a reasonable relocation program, to see that the redevelopment is handled in such a way that the county can recover its investment, and to keep a watchful eye on it so that it doesn't get out of hand.”217 Part of the committee’s responsibilities included keeping residents informed, by creating information sheets and hosting public meetings.218 Shortly after forming, the committee made four recommendations for the project: to “override the general objections to the project from those who would maintain…status quo” and proceed with zoning it industrial; “careful consideration” of exclusion requests; property prices should be based on independent appraisals; and the committee should “continue its services as liaison” to the people of Russell City. The citizen’s committee did not present any opposition to the redevelopment plans.
However, public meetings revealed that opposition to the project continued to be strong. A public meeting in spring 1963 had 230 attendees and filled the supervisors’ chambers; the meeting had to be stopped after 45 minutes and rescheduled to accommodate the overflow.219 At the follow-up meeting, for which a transcript of the meeting is available, residents and property owners questioned relocation plans, payments for properties, as well as whether some areas could be excluded from redevelopment, such as properties that were not substandard or industrially zoned land north of Winton Ave.220 Two Oakland landlords said that there was “no compatibility” between their lots and Russell City “proper”, and that their land had access to sewers and water and thus should be excluded from redevelopment.221 Residents spoke of the hardships that relocation presented, from the cost of new housing to replacing the community ties that they had built with their neighbors.
Many revealed that they did not know where to go. Floyd Hughey’s response to relocation was quoted in the Daily Review:
I came by it honest…I've worked hard, like a slave all my life, and raised a pretty good sized family...eight children...and now I'm getting to be an old man. I don't want to sell. I don't know where to go and I'm too old now to think about getting into debt. I don't want nobody to relocate me no place. I’m man enough to hunt my own place. If they want my land and just got to have it, let them pay me enough to locate where I want to.222 Robert Kennon noted that the project was being “undertaken on the basis of what’s good for industry, when the primary consideration should be people”, while Hiawatha Robert called the boards’ actions “closing the barn door after the horse was stolen.”223 Another critic of the plan 215 Russell City Plan Sent to Supervisors, Daily Review, 4/24/1962, p. 9; Board to appoint Russell City Unit, Daily Review, 5/3/1962, p. 33. 216 Board to appoint…, 5/3/1962; Russell City Committee Will Be 'Charged', Daily Review, 7/11/1962, p. 7. 217 Russell City Committee…, 7/11/1962. 218 Russell City Details Readied for Mailing, Daily Review, 9/20/1962, p. 8; Russell City Group Sets 2 Meetings Daily Review, 10/18/1962, p. 13. 219 Big turnout at Russell City Airing, Daily Review, 1/9/1963, p. 7. 220 Hearing Held on Russell City Plan, Daily Review, 11/9/1962, p. 7. 221 Hearing Held…, 11/9/1962. 222 Protests to Russell City Plan Voiced, Daily Review, 1/16/1963, p. 7. 223 Board Hears Russell City Plan Critics, Daily Review, 1/23/1963, p. 13. 33 simply called out the racial power animating the project: “Too many Black people are losing too much property too cheap in this area.”
Despite this clear opposition to relocation and the proposed plan to turn the area into an industrial park, the meetings did not change the course of redevelopment and the razing of Russell City continued apace. Indeed, the plan was “‘warmly and enthusiastically’ received” by the city of Hayward, the public hearings were deemed a “legal requirement” to be met prior to implementation, and the plan to relocate residents was seen as a “major achievement” of the board.224 After the public hearings, the board met as the redevelopment agency to approve the redevelopment plan in February 1962.225 At the meeting, there were reportedly 25 residents in the audience, many of whom had “raised a long string of objections at two public hearings”, but the board approved anyways.
Attempts to remove areas from the boundaries were unsuccessful, and the plan was unanimously adopted. The board planned to begin purchasing the property in May.226 Relocating Russell City residents
By 1962, the population of Russell City had declined in part due to the inability of people to obtain permits to upgrade their homes, and the impact this had on tenancy.227 The redevelopment agency put the population of the area at 1,150 people, down from an estimate of 1400 in 1957, with 40% Black residents, 40% Latinx, and 20% Caucasian.228 650 residents were 19 years or younger, and the assessed valuation of the redevelopment area was $225,075; in 1960, it returned $19,446 in taxes.229 A survey carried out by the redevelopment agency found that in 1962, 32% of families living in the area owned their property “free and clear”, while another 8% were in the process of buying. 230 That left 60% of families as renters.
The redevelopment agency also surveyed 345 adults and found that 39% were fully employed with a median weekly wage of $85; 8% were employed part time, 15% were unemployed, and the rest were “retired, disabled, or receiving public assistance.” A preliminary report on relocation identified $91,330 in public welfare costs to the county, for 57 cases that covered 248 people, 160 of whom were children. 231 The survey also described the “80% substandard” conditions that existed in the area, including contaminated and lack of water, as well as a high volume of fire calls from the area.
According to the redevelopment agency, redevelopment would displace 205 families, 33 individuals, 13 businesses and 7 churches. 232
224 Supervisors to Discuss Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 11/21/1962, p. 20; BOS meeting: January 2, 1963, Oakland Tribune, 1/12/1963, p. 22. 225 Russell City Renewal Gets Board's OK, Oakland Tribune, 2/5/1963, p. 77. 226 Supervisors Adopt Russell City Plan, Daily Review, 2/6/1963, p. 9. 227 Russell City Development Cost Cited, Oakland Tribune, 4/28/1960, p. 77. 228 Renewal Plans Advance, Daily Review, 11/18/1962, p. 3. 229 Relocation plan: Russell City Report Set, Daily Review, 7/9/1961, p. 1. 230 Renewal Plans…, 11/18/1962. 231 Relocation plan…, 7/9/1961. 232 Renewal Plans…, 11/18/1962. 34 To relocate the residents of the area, the redevelopment agency carried out a survey of available housing in the county, finding that “there are or will be, available within the county an adequate number of permanent housing units to accommodate displaced” residents, and that that housing was “decent, safe, sanitary”, affordable, and convenient.233 To provide for the relocation of Russell City residents, the approved redevelopment plan said simply that it would “carry out a feasible plan…with a minimum of hardship.”234 This provided for “ relocation payments to or with respect to persons, families, business concerns and others displaced from the project area. Such payments shall be for moving expenses and direct losses of property for which reimbursement or compensation is not otherwise made, and in such amounts and under such conditions as the Agency may proscribe.
The redevelopment plan then describes the survey that found there were enough housing resources in the area and concludes that the housing families will find will be “decent, safe, sanitary, reasonably convenient, and at rents or prices within their financial means.” Despite the official plan and redevelopment agency assurances, the specter of Oakland loomed over redevelopment.235 At one hearing, Reverend Eugene R. Wolfe of the Oakland Citizens’ Committee for Fair Housing noted that Oakland was facing its own housing shortage; in response, Harold Davis said they did “not intend to concentrate displaces in Oakland.”236 Oakland Mayor Houlihan continued to warn Alameda County that “there is no room in Oakland for families…displaced by redevelopment of Russell City.” While Davis told supervisors there was “adequate and sufficient housing in Oakland”, Houlihan noted that he was “hardpressed” to find “suitable housing for our own people who are being displaced by our own redevelopment projects…”237 He further noted that if Davis was able to find suitable housing in Oakland, he’d be “happy” as he could “put one of our families in it.” Supervisor Chairman Kent Pursell responded to Houlihan, by saying that very few families wanted to move to Oakland, and that residents could “locate any place in the county…that their financial ability permits.”238
Supervisors repeatedly tried to address concerns about where residents would be located after redevelopment. Supervisor Leland Sweeney “put the board on record…with a guarantee that Russell City families will not be removed from one slum area to another.”239 At a subsequent approval meeting, supervisors “reaffirmed stand that residents be relocated from the area will not be moved into a racial ghetto.”240 Reverend Wolfe challenged the supervisors on this, noting that the relocation plan was “no solution whatsoever” and given that “89%” of all low-income rentals are in Oakland and northern Alameda County, “where are they going to relocate if they’re not going to relocate in northern Alameda County?”241 Hiawatha Roberts, attorney for the NAACP, reinforced this point noting that there was little low-cost housing in the south of the county and that “what there is will 233 Renewal Plans…, 11/18/1962. 234 Redevelopment Agency of Alameda County. (1963). The Redevelopment Plan. Alameda County. Located at Alameda County Recorder Office, Digital Reel, Book 1905, page 435, pp. 12-13. 235 Houlihan Angered By Housing Claim, Daily Review, 1/25/1963, p. 6. 236 Board Hears Russell City Plan Critics, Daily Review, 1/23/1963, p. 13. 237 No Housing Surplus—Houlihan, Oakland Tribune, 1/24/1963, p. 15. 238 Supervisor Chief Blasts Houlihan, Oakland Tribune, 1/25/1963, p. 15. 239 Supervisors Adopt Russell City Plan, Daily Review, 2/6/1963, p. 9. 240 Rebuilding of Russell City Asked, San Francisco Examiner, 2/17/1963, p. 29. 241 Russell City Plan Under Fire Here, Oakland Tribune, 3/27/1963, p. 14. 35 not be open to displaced Russell Cityans ‘because of their race and ethnic background.’”242 This point was also made in a special series of articles in the Oakland Tribune on the redevelopment of Russell City.243 The article wrote about how Black residents “would like to stay in the suburban atmosphere” and were familiar with Black communities in Oakland but “prefer to live elsewhere.” The article also noted that if the project had proceeded under federal urban renewal, housing for residents would have been mandatory, but “Nobody, except the Negro residents, wanted a public housing project built in Southern Alameda County.”
Despite the supervisors’ assurances that residents could locate anywhere in the county, area cities were not welcoming of Russell City residents. As noted previously, the city of Hayward did not think that there would be enough affordable units to relocate residents to their town; Oakland also said that it lacked available housing. Newark refused to answer when asked by Redevelopment Committee member Carl Horsey whether it “would look kindly towards receiving 200 families to be resettled from the…area.”244 Supervisors had “strong resistance” to creating any type of public housing program, with Supervisor Robert Hannon arguing that “public housing breeds ghettos any way you do it” and that they would have to locate it in an unincorporated area, thus resulting in residents being “isolated once more in their own ghetto.”245 The supervisors continued to emphasize that they were not “driving” anyone into Oakland, that residents would not be forced into any specific area, and that the county was only offering relocation assistance. Harold Davis further accused Wolfe and Roberts of “selling Russell City residents short on their ability to pay their own way.”
Amidst these objections, the onset of redevelopment was delayed by several weeks. During that time, it was noted that Davis could not relocate families until final approval of redevelopment plans.246 Davis indicated he had 50-75 homes available for relocation but could only offer counseling and ideas about relocation aeras. Davis estimated that already 15-20 families had left the area independently and 80 families indicated they wanted assistance in resettlement. Davis did expect some resistance to families due to racism, but said that they do not intend to operate as block busters; we do not want to put people in embarrassing situations. In our survey of available housing, we are also trying to determine neighborhood attitudes, racial makeup in given neighborhoods, and we have a pretty good idea where we can put our families most comfortably for the best adjustment.247 Relocation assistance included not just an assessment of “comfortable” areas and places for relocation, but also assistance with negotiating house sales, help with loan qualifications and other bureaucratic hurdles, and up to $200 for the transportation of goods. Davis also promised follow-up surveys to determine if “they really have bettered themselves through the project.” To move ahead with the project, the county retained appraisers for $29,500 to evaluate the 200 acres of homes and properties. The estimate was that the county would spend $1.85 million to buy land, install utilities, and make improvements under the redevelopment plan; $1.423 million of this total 242 Board Considers Proposition on Russell City Slum Clearance Program, Daily Review, 3/27/1963, p. 9. 243 Where to Live But Russell City?, Oakland Tribune, 5/23/1963, p. 4 244 Committee Man on Resettlement, The Argus, 3/20/1963, p. 3. 245 Board Considers Proposition on Russell City Slum Clearance Program, Daily Review, 3/27/1963, p. 9. 246 Success Seen in Placing Families, Daily Review, 3/31/1963, p. 8. 247 Success Seen…, 3/31/1963. 36 would go to just land purchases.248 Alameda County also hired Marvin Casalina and Company of Oakland to act as land purchase agents, who would receive $55 for each of the 580 parcels closed (a later article noted that Casalina received $105/parcel).249 In November 1963, the purchase of land in the area finally had begun, and the board started with approving 8 properties for sale for an agreed upon $34,000.250 In the first three months of the project, the redevelopment agency purchased 46 properties from owners and an additional 35 under delinquency tax proceedings.251 By September 1964, fewer than 100 families remained in the Russell City area.252 153 families had left the area, and out of these 153, the Redevelopment Agency tracked or checked 138 of these families. Of the families, 55 had relocated in Hayward, 32 in East Oakland, and 20 out of the county.
Other families located in North Oakland, Central Oakland, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Union City, Castro Valley, Fremont, Newark and Livermore. Despite this tracking, however, in February 1965, the redevelopment staff “discovered 20 more families and businesses…than it thought were there.”253 George Herron, executive director of the agency, had reported 47 families and businesses at the end of December, but field surveys showed 67 families and businesses remaining. Herron noted that many of these were people who were on the property to prevent vandalism and was not “obliged” to offer relocation aid but would do so. By February 1964, 86 families had relocated in Hayward, 38 in East Oakland, and 28 in North Oakland. Remaining families relocated in Fremont, Castro Valley, Livermore, Newark, San Leandro, and Union city, as well as San Lorenzo and outside of county. The cost of acquiring the Russell City land ultimately cost the county $2,442,000.254 From our collection of the records from the Board of Supervisor meeting minutes during this time, we were able to account for 96% of the reported property cost in payouts to owners in the area.
Based on our review, we estimate that the median payment per deed owner was $2,133.33. Many owners, such as the case we detail next, received considerably more while some owners received as little as $250. A per lot calculation resulted in a cost per lot range of $107.14 to $4750, with a median price paid per lot of $1,356.83.
Santucci Hog Farm
Perhaps the highest profile property acquisition was the Santucci Hog Farm, which had the highest purchase amount at $510,000.255 Only one other property appears to have reached into the six 248 County hires Russell City appraisers, Oakland Tribune, 5/29/1963, p. 19; Hog Ranch: Negotiations said proper, Daily Review, 7/10/1964, p. 1; Redevelopment Agency of Alameda County. (1963). The Redevelopment Plan. Alameda County. Located at Alameda County Recorder Office, Digital Reel, Book 1905, page 435. 249 County Hires Buying Agent For Russell City Renewal, Oakland Tribune, 7/4/1963, p. 10; Hog Ranch: Negotiations…, 7/10/1964. 250 Agency to Buy Properties in Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 11/6/1963, p. 15. 251 Russell City Land Bought, Daily Review, 1/2/1964, p. 11. 252 Russell City Population Shrinking, Daily Review, 9/24/1964, p. 13. 253 New Russell City Residents Found, Daily Review, 2/18/1965, p. 14. 254 A search of property transfers between the Redevelopment Agency and Russell City property owners generated over 361 unique deeds, transferring hundreds of parcels of land. Exact payment for all properties could not be located.
However, based on media records, resolutions from the board of supervisors, and some legal documents, payments for properties ranged in price from $250 to $510,000. Using the board of supervisor records, we were able to account for $2,339,431.25 paid to property owners, 96% of the amount paid to property owners in the area. Most properties were not paid anywhere near $510,000 and most received just a few thousand dollars, often for multiple lots of properties. A detailed breakdown of payments and property owner estimates is provided. 255 Hog Ranch: Negotiations said proper, Daily Review, 7/10/1964, p. 1. 37 figures, and that was the Jose Mateos farm property which a judge ordered the redevelopment agency to pay $100,000 to acquire in 1966.256 The Santucci hog farm put a “spotlight on government spending…at a time when the cost of buying the Russell City land is far exceeding original government estimates.”257 This editorial also asked for the “supervisors to make public all the prices paid for land”, but this was not found.
Of particular concern with the Santucci hog farm was that the county had assessed the value of land and improvements for tax purposes at just $24,075, and “more than half of that was personal property not covered in the $510,000 purchase.”258 An investigation by Oakland Tribune noted that agency records showed that negotiations for the property started on November 21 and ended on November 26; which according to the article, undermined the county’s claim that several offers and counteroffers happened before acceptance of the final price. The appraisal for the land placed the value of the land and improvements at $550,000, with replacement value at $413,000 and depreciated to a final value of $186,000, including the personal property that could be relocated.
This valuation was in “sharp contrast” to the estimated $44,000 market value identified by the Alameda County Assessor, and far in excess of the $11,250 assessed valuation for the land, and which was the rate on which the owners’ paid taxes and which the county used to determine the bond capacity of the area. While assessments are often lower than market value, and the Daily Review indicated it should be about 25% of market value, the valuation of $11,250 with a purchase price of $510,000 suggests that the property had been undervalued on the county’s tax rolls and could have helped the area to support a larger tax bond valuation. While the District Attorney denied that the purchase was the target of a grand jury investigation, the board of supervisors did appear before the grand jury for two hours for a “routine overview of project.”259 The Redevelopment Agency defended the sale and said that the operation of a hog farm was “unique” and that the owners would have “difficulties…in relocating it.”260
By July 1964, the county was already up 33% over the first estimate for acquiring the property, and in the end, ended up spending $2,442,000 to acquire all the land, compared to an initial estimate of $1,423,000. The Santucci purchase represented 21% of this total amount. The purchase was also part of a controversy related to former Hayward Mayor Rudolph Dettenrieder. Dettenrieder helped negotiate the sale of the hog farm and received $35,810 for his role in the sale.261 George Herron noted that Dettenrieder “approached him on several occasions asking when the agency planned to start negotiations with the Santucci’s.” Dettenrieder was ultimately arraigned on tax evasion charges for his involvement.262
Though the county bought the hog farmland in November 1963, by 1965, the business was still located in Russell City. In April 1965, they were granted a two-week extension for removing the operation to the new location in Brentwood.263 They continued to operate 36 acres past that date, as a “central hog fueling station,” and in April 1969, the permit for the ‘hog slop’ was shortened from 5 256 Judge sets $100,000 Value on Lercara Land, Daily Review, 7/2/66, p. 20. 257 Editorial: Open Sesame, Daily Review, 6/28/64, p. 12. 258 Hog Ranch: Negotiations said proper, Daily Review, 7/10/1964, p. 1. 259 Grand Jury: No Comment on Hog Ranch Deal, Daily Review, 10/9/1964, p. 1. 260 Ex-Hayward Mayor to Face Tax Charges, Daily Review, 12/29/1966, p. 1. 261 Ex-Hayward Mayor…, 12/29/1966. 262 Ex-mayor's tax charge arraignment, The Argus, 1/23/1967, p. 10. 263 Extension Granted Hog Ranchers, Daily Review, 4/15/1965, p. 7. 38 years to 2 years when the industrial developers complained.264 The permit allowed the Santucci’s to use the area as a place to transfer food waste from local restaurants into hog slop, which was then fed to their animals in the Brentwood location. The industrial developers—Cabot, Cabot and Forbes—had requested that the permit go to a year-by-year permit, with an “absolute termination by the end of 1970.”265 Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes were upset that the operation was “in plain view of the tract”, which the board called “awful” and “terrible.” Supervisor Emanuel Razeto declared:
We spent a lot of tax money to clean up slum conditions and imposed strict regulations and restrictions on Cabot, Cabot, & Forbes. Then the first thing we do is give their neighbors a permit to haul wet garbage for transporting to a hog farm. We're creating the same kind of conditions we tried to clean up. We shouldn't blame Cabot, Cabot, & Forbes if they didn't exercise their option… 266
The Santucci’s lawyer responded that they should be subject to a “inverse condemnation”, but Supervisor Razeto responded that “Santucci got a heck of a high price for his hog farm…and now we’re revealing ourselves as an easy tough by continuing his non-conforming use at the expense of Caobt, Cabot, & Forbes.” Ultimately, a two-year extension was passed, and in response, the Santucci lawyer promised the operation would “be beautified with some greenery over the next two years.” Like water and sewer service, it took industrial development to get the county to more forcefully regulate polluting industries in the area.267
Property demolition and the fires that destroyed Russell City In March 1965, the first demolition of the homes in Russell City was scheduled to begin within two months.268 Local arsonists had other plans. By the end of the property acquisition stage of redevelopment, arsonists had destroyed more than 100 structures in the area, eighteen in a single night.269 One article described these events writing “During the redevelopment agency's lengthy program of acquiring property in the area, Russell City has remained a playground for vandals who have set fire to one dilapidated building after another.”270 Fires in the Russell City area started even before the redevelopment plan was finalized. In January 1963, when the public hearings on the redevelopment plan were taking place, an arsonist struck the area with the sixth fire in a week. 271 Fires regularly impacted Russell City as previously discussed, but the rampant arson in the area coincided with the advent of redevelopment. Sometimes the houses were abandoned, but other times, it destroyed people’s entire homes with all their belongings, as in the case of the Stinson family of 11 that was forced from the home they rented by fire in March 1963.272 In 1964, an abandoned home on Louisiana street burned entirely to the ground; in response, 264 Extension Granted…, 4/15/1965; Hog Farm Irks Developers, Oakland Tribune, 4/18/1969, p. 13 . 265 Hog Operation Permit Shortened, Daily Review, 4/18/1969, p. 13. 266 Hog Operation…, 4/18/1969. 267 See further city of Hayward documents 12/17/1963, 5/28/1964, 8/13/1964, 10/8/1964, 4/8/1965, 6/17/1965. 4/10/1969, 1/22/1970 and 3/10/1970. 268 Russell City Demolition to Start Soon, Oakland Tribune, 3/3/1965, p. 16. 269 Russell City Requiem… Few mourn its death, Oakland Tribune, 12/22/1966, p. 19. 270 Russell City Soon to be Marketable, Daily Review, 12/27/1966, p. 17. 271 Same Arsonist Hinted: Another Russell City Fire, Daily Review, 1/14/1963, p. 3. 272 Family of 11 Escapes Blazing Home, Daily Review, 3/13/1963, p. 1. 39 the fire marshal said that they found crumpled paper in the rooms, indicating arson. He further noted that a fire was happening every night in the area.273 During the redevelopment period, the local newspapers covered fire after fire in the aera. Fire destroyed the Russell City Country Club, which was part of a string of nine arson fires in ten days, all set in abandoned buildings.274 A smoldering automobile was found in a home attacked by arson, and a fire was set at Wheat’s Auto Wreckers.275 Arsonists sprayed flammable liquids around two abandoned homes, but as appeared to be the case with the other fires during this time, luckily no one was hurt.276 The Miramontes family home was destroyed, along with three other homes and a restaurant in September 1964.277 The day before, the Miramontes children were told by two unidentified youths that they met while playing that they should not be “surprised if your house is burning when you wake up tomorrow.” Local authorities repeatedly emphasized that the fires were caused by arson, but the only people who were reported to be caught were the two young women.
Authorities did see two people running from a fire in March 1965, but again, they were never caught.278 At the time, the youths were likely planning more fires as fire accelerant was found on the floors of two additional houses. While immediate investigations were ordered in both cases, there was no further reporting on whether anyone was identified.
Investigators did identify two young women, 14 years of age, who were arrested for running away and confessed to setting three of the fires for “kicks.”279 This, however, was in May 1964, and the fires continued to be frequently set, at the rate of two houses per week in July 1964.280 Indeed, this led the county to create a plan to demolish homes to combat the arsonists by invoking an emergency provision of the health and welfare codes. Another proposal sought to save money by allowing the fire department and civil defense crews to use the buildings for practice exercises. Harold Davis supported the idea saying that “practice crews could raze a building immediately after it is vacated instead of risking extension of the recent arson attacks on homes, which could jeopardize adjacent occupied dwellings.”281 Twenty fires happened in Russell City between January and April 1965, with five between the period of April 12 and 30.282 One arson instance destroyed 16 buildings, all but two of which were vacant, in a fire that “roared” through three and half square blocks.283 This blaze started as a grass fire, and the fire chief thought it was probably set by children. Just two months later, though, this fire was eclipsed in severity by one that burned 17 structures and blackened 23 acres.284 Stiff winds at the time meant it was difficult to control. This blaze also meant that at this point, over 50% of Russell City had been burned.
While fires during the redevelopment period did not have injuries or death reported, they did cause considerable property damage. Hazel Singleton estimated the cost of her house destroyed (which 273 Fire razes House in Russell City, Daily Review, 5/20/1964, p. 11. 274 Landmark destroyed in Blaze, Oakland Tribune, 5/25/1964, p. 16. 275 Another Case of Arson, Daily Review, 6/8/1964, p. 6; Newark Fireman Injured; Russell City Fire Quelled, Daily Review, 7/5/1964, p. 3. 276 Arsonists in Russell City Hit Twice, Oakland Tribune, 9/21/1964, p. 9. 277 Russell City Fire Destroys 4 Buildings, Oakland Tribune, 9/24/1964, p. 15. 278 New Blaze in Russell City Home, Daily Review, 3/3/1965, p. 17. 279 2 Girls Confess 3 Fires, Daily Review, 5/28/1964, p. 3. 280 Plea Made to Raze 100 Homes, Oakland Tribune, 7/7/1964, p. 21. 281 A Match For Russell City?, Oakland Tribune, 3/12/1965, p. 22. 282 Another Russell City House Fire, Daily Review, 4/30/1965, p. 6. 283 General Alarm Fire Ravages 16 Russell City Buildings, Oakland Tribune, 7/13/1965, p. 14. 284 Russell City Fire Razes 17 Buildings, Daily Review, 9/2/1965, p. 15. 40 was rented by the Stinson family) at $14,000; Norman Devine lost a $1,500 house trailer to fire.285 The local papers often reported several thousands of dollars of property damage at arson sites.286 Fires also threatened and displaced families, as though most of the buildings were abandoned, many families and individuals still lived in the area. The 17-structure fire, amidst high winds, threatened two occupied buildings, one of which was a house occupied by twelve people. Another fire destroyed the Russell City Hotel, which was still occupied by five boarders.287 Called the “do-ityourself demolition program”, ultimately the series of fires destroyed more than 100 structures, with a record 18 in a single night, and forty in a single week.288 The last family in Russell City—the Juana Feliciano family, who came to Russell City at its inception—were not spared the fire of arsonists.
While they were moving some furniture from Russell City in January 1967, they returned home to find their house in flames. They lost their dog and most of their possessions, a loss of more than $6,000.289
From Russell City to Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes Hayward Industrial Park By 1966, only 18 of the projects 205 acres were left to be acquired, and none of those acres contained buildings.290 The remaining acreage continued to be negotiated but would be subject to condemnation proceedings; it represented 9% of the total area. Russell City would finally get water and sewer, as the city of Hayward was preparing to finally lay a water supply main to the project area, and a sanitary sewer line from its sewage treatment plant, at the cost of $204,000.291 A later city budget allocated $302,000 for the project.292 Juana Feliciano, 87 years old, and one of the original Russell City “pioneers” was the last family to leave the area.293 City and county officials were concerned about ensuring the area would be attractive to industrial developers and to the city of Hayward. Harold Davis noted that “industrial growth in the area should complement the growth of Hayward” and identified wrecking yards and a garbage dump as hurting the agency’s ability to find buyers.294 Davis further recommended an oversight committee to ensure those businesses did not “degrade” the area. Like the hog farm, there appeared to be a greater willingness to consider the character of the community now that it was to be sold for industrial development than there did when people lived in the area.
To begin the process of converting the land to industrial use, the city and county began planning to put the area up for sale.295 Anticipating annexation, the city of Hayward provided recommendations 285 Family of 11 Escapes Blazing Home, Daily Review, 3/13/1963, p. 1; Russell City Blaze, Daily Review, 5/10/196, p. 7; Flames Take Russell City Landmark, Oakland Tribune, 3/4/1966, p. 24. 286 Russell City Home Razed By Fire, Oakland Tribune, 1/27/1963, p. 1. 287 Flames Take Russell City Landmark, Oakland Tribune, 3/4/1966, p. 24. 288 Russell City Requiem.. Few mourn its death, Oakland Tribune, 12/22/1966, p. 19; Fire Delays W.P. Train, Daily Review, 5/21/1966, p. 2. 289 Last Family Sees Home Burn Down, Oakland Tribune, 1/17/1967, p. 12. 290 Russell City's Final Days, Daily Review, 4/24/1966, p. 1. 291 $2.3 Million Works Budget is Proposed, Daily Review, 4/23/1965, p. 11; see also city of Hayward documents 4/26/66, 6/28/66 , 2/14/67, and 9/26/67. 292 Nine Street Projects in City Budget, Daily Review, 7/22/1965, p. 13. 293 Pioneer Last to Leave, Daily Review, 1/16/1967, p. 1. 294 Watchdog Unit Proposed for Redevelopment, Daily Review, 6/29/1966, p. 15. 295 Russell City Tops City-County Meet city of Hayward, Alameda County, Daily Review, 12/5/1966, p. 15. 41 to the county on how to develop the area.296 In 1967, the property went up for sale, and the county wanted a minimum $2.25 million “if cash investment in project is to be recovered”, although the county ultimately spent $2,788,883 on redevelopment. $2,442,000 was spent on property acquisition, with another $159,373 for agency salaries and $78,510 for maintenance and operation.297 The board set the minimum bid at $2.85 million.298 That price, however, did not include the costs of road development or the costs of to the city of Hayward.299 The entire project area was offered as a single package, but would be split into four parcels if no bids were obtained.300 The developer of the Hayward Air Terminal, and who ultimately ended up buying the Russell City area, was Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes.301 The first bid was short of the minimum. In September 1967, the developers offered just $1.6 million for the site and would spend an additional $300,000 to redevelop the area.302 The offer of $8,000/acre for the entire parcel “was almost identical to the peracre price it paid the city for the airport land” but well short of the $12,500 estimate the Board thought it could get when redevelopment began.303 If the area had sold at this initial bid, the loss to the redevelopment project would have been more than a million dollars.304 After further negotiations, a new offer in November 1967 from Cabot, Cabot and Forbes emerged that the Board accepted: $2.45 million, $850,000 more than they had originally offered. This area would be bought in stages over the next three years, with $1 million paid for the first 100 acres and $1.45 million for the second, with an option to extend the purchase date on the second unit for three years. If the option was granted, the developers would pay property taxes on the area. This offer was still $350,000 less than what was set by the board, but it was the only way, the developers said, to “work out where you can receive $12,000 an acre for the land.”305 Shortly after the offer, the city of Hayward “prezoned” the area for industrial development and the sale to Cabot, Cabot and Forbes was formally and finally approved in June 1968.306 Hayward had first asked the Board of Supervisors to zone the Russell City area industrial in 1947, and just over twenty years later, this goal was finally accomplished.307
Despite the net loss of taxpayer money on the project, the county continued to defend it. County administrator Earl Strathman said the purpose had been “not to make money, but to eliminate a slum area” and that the county was already “reaping benefits in reduced police and health department expenses.”308 Harold Davis concluded that it was still a savings to taxpayers as it did 296 Planners Set Limits for Industrial Park, Daily Review, 12/9/1966, p. 1. 297 Bids on Russell City will open Tuesday, Oakland Tribune, 9/1/1967, p. 32. 298 Russell City Soon to be Marketable Daily Review, 12/27/1966, p. 17; Russell City: Supervisors Bend on Bid Demand, Daily Review, 3/14/1967, p. 14. 299 Price tag placed on Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 4/14/1967, p. 38. 300 Supervisors Split on Land Disposal, Daily Review, 4/12/1967, p. 16. 301 Russell City Site Bid By Developers, Daily Review, 8/17/1967, p. 1. 302 Bids on Russell City will open Tuesday Oakland Tribune, 9/1/1967, p. 32. 303 Bids on Russell City will open Tuesday Oakland Tribune, 9/1/1967; 9/1/1967, p. 32. County Termed overly Hopeful on Russell City Daily Review, 1/25/1962, p. 13. 304 The Russell City Offer, Oakland Tribune, 9/11/1967, p. 16. 305 $2 million offered for Russell City, Oakland Tribune, 11/28/1967, p. 5; $2.4 Million Russell City Bid Made, Daily Review, 11/29/1967, p. 13; New Era Ahead in Russell City, Daily Review, 1/12/1968, p. 12. 306 Industry Zoning Approved for Land Near Hayward, Daily Review, 12/15/1967, p. 14; Russell City Sale OK'd by Board, Oakland Tribune, 6/18/1968, p. 48; see also City of Hayward City Council 12/15/1966, 1/3/1967, 5/29/1967, 7/20/1967, and 9/12/1967. 307 “Industrial Zoning Asked for Russell City Area.” Newspaper clipping from Russell City RC planned industrial area files, Alameda Community Development Agency.
308 Russell City Sale OK'd by Board, Oakland Tribune, 6/18/1968, p. 48. 42 away with special services in the area, including schools, health facilities, police and fire protection.309 Davis also contended that a survey of the displaces were “almost all better off since the move.” Once the area was sold, the Oakland Tribune concluded that “Russell City now is the unobtrusive center in industrial growth.”310
By selling the redevelopment project area, the board could now transition back to other county projects. While the board originally borrowed the money for the project from an allocation for voting machines, local newspapers at the time, as well as board of supervisor records, indicate that the first payment from the redevelopment offer did not return to voting machines. Rather, the county used the payment to buy the land of what is currently the Santa Rita Jail Site.311 This land housed a prison farm site and the original Santa Rita jail facility; the county had leased the land for the past twenty-five years from the federal government, who used it during World War II as a military base. As the Daily Review noted,
With the Russell City money in its pockets, the county will be in a better position to conclude its negotiations to buy the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center portion of what was formerly the Camp Parks Air Force Base... The county's preliminary budget for next year provides for the financial transfer of receipts from the Russell City sale to the Santa Rita purchase.
312
With the first payment from redevelopment, the county was able to purchase land that the federal government used as a military base, and which today houses the Santa Rita jail.313 County administrator Strathman noted that the jail need was predicated by a “drop off in the county jail centers”, amidst a cited 50% caseload drop.314 By 1972, the redevelopment project had been fully transferred into private hands, the area was now the Hayward Industrial Center, and Alameda County supervisors transitioned to new projects.
Conclusion
Ultimately, our task as researchers was to ascertain what happened in the redevelopment of Russell City, and this is provided above. As we have noted throughout the recounting, however, there are key points where what happened to Russell City hearkens to a much larger story about race, capital and state power fought over land and its “redevelopment.” This story recurs throughout this history through three themes about the power of money and profit over people; about the ability of people, especially poor and non-white communities, to impact the political process in ways that are meaningful to the material conditions of their lives; and a story of both state neglect and state development, which, for the residents of Russell City, meant a story of state-induced early death from higher susceptibility to disease outbreaks, fire, and reduced living conditions. Indeed, faced with a public health emergency, repeated fires taking lives of residents, and concerted resident effort to gain services, time and time again surrounding communities, the city and the county refused aid. 309 Taxpayer Saving Reported on Sale of Russell City Despite Low Price, Daily Review, 6/26/1968, p. 10. 310 Russell City Site Now Successful Industrial Park, Oakland Tribune, 9/10/1972, p. 46 311 Bigger Tax Bite Looms for County, Oakland Tribune, 4/23/1968, p. 1; Hearing Slated June 18 on Russell City Area Sale Daily Review 5/29/1968, p. 18. 312 Hearing Slated June 18 on Russell City Area Sale, Daily Review, 5/29/1968, p. 18. 313 2 Projects Will Have Big Impact, Daily Review, 12/29/1968, p. 1; Russell City, Santa Rita Will Have Great Impact, The Argus, 12/30/1968, p. 6. 314 2 Projects Will Have Big Impact, Daily Review, 12/29/1968, p. 1 43 Though residents fought relocation, the city and county declared an intention to industrially zone the area in the 1940s—and did not seem to ever entertain any other ideas than resident relocation and industrialization. Residents sought multiple legal areas to improve their community and were hampered at almost every turn by the industrial aspirations of the city and the county. This happened amidst a redevelopment project that ultimately did not recoup its expenses; the amount it did not recoup could have been used to provide water and sewer lines to the residents. The fact that it did not is a testament to the power of profits over people and the grip of white supremacy on the foundations of urban development.
44 Appendix
1. Research sources
The above recounting of redevelopment is based upon our research into this time period and represents specifically our understanding of the roles that the city of Hayward and the county of Alameda played in the conditions that led to the redevelopment of Russell City. Given our research focused on publicly available records, we do not provide in this recounting the many stories that residents and their descendants likely had about the area. This would provide another source of information about redevelopment, and would provide greater context to the events we document in this report. Below, we detail the various sources we consulted to locate the records used in the historical narrative of redevelopment we provide about Russell City. Researching Russell City entailed several difficulties in locating records, and thus, before we begin, we discuss our research process and why our research represents only a partial accounting of the likely records that existed at the time of redevelopment.
Currently, there is no centralized location for Alameda County records, such as a county archive. As such, our search for records entailed consulting a range of agencies. For property records, we consulted with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and Assessor offices. Alameda County ClerkRecorder assisted us with locating records relative to the redevelopment agency, and it was here that we located all of the deeds and property legal records submitted to the city of Hayward at the conclusion of this project. We consulted the Assessor office on the advice of the AC Clerk-Recorder office to try and determine prices paid for the transfer of property, which would provide insight into the total price paid for the property. Unfortunately, we were informed the Tax Collector’s records only go back until 1970 and there is no information to determine property payments on the deed transfers.
To locate further Alameda County redevelopment records, we also consulted a range of libraries and archives, including UC Berkely Law Library, Alameda County Law Library, Alameda County Library, City of Hayward Library, Oakland Library Special Collections, Hayward Historical Society, California Archives, the National Archives, and the Association of Bay Area Governments Librarian. We additional contacted the Alameda County Planner, Grand Jury, and city administrator’s office, as well as the general customer service of Alameda County. While everyone we consulted was eager to help, few could help us located redevelopment records. For instance, we contacted the Alameda County Grand Jury office to obtain the Grand Jury Report from 1956 that officially labeled Russell City a “blighted area”, necessitating urgent redevelopment. The office noted that their records only went back to 1960 and that the California Archive would have them; when we contacted the California Archive, they indicated that they were not in possession of these records and that the requirement for counties to submit to the state did not happen until after 1960. This was confirmed in subsequent follow-ups with the grand jury office, who indicated they were not clear on where to find the 1956 report.
Likewise, the Association of Bay Area Governments was very helpful, but their records only date until the 1970s. The Hayward Historical Society has records related to Russell City, but these are primarily a photo database and all documents are already available on their website. Further, the California Archive had no other records related to Alameda County and redevelopment during the period impacting Russell City. We also consulted the National Archives, who were extremely helpful in locating records related to Alameda County. As we detail above, Alameda County ultimately 45 decided against pursuing federal urban redevelopment/renewal funds, and thus, did not have to submit documentation to the federal government that would be housed at the National Archive.
The only records that existed at the National Archive were related to an initial inquiry into federal redevelopment submitted by Alameda County; no further records were located by National Archive staff.
The available records primarily locate residents who were property owners, as the original redevelopment records have not yet been located. Instead, the research below relies on three primary sources: the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder office where we located property deeds transferring ownership to the Alameda County Redevelopment Agency (ACRA); Board of Supervisors’ (BOS) Clerk’s office, where we located records of property payments; and a historical media search, using various databases available through local libraries. The BOS Clerk’s Office also contacted the community development agency on our behalf, to see if they could locate the redevelopment records, and we were provided an additional set of documents related to Russell City.
We detail next those sources and what we found.
a. Historical media search
The bulk of sources used to create the historical narrative of Russell City redevelopment came from our historical media search of local newspapers, primarily the Daily Review from Hayward and the Oakland Tribune. To conduct this search, we accessed historical newspaper databases available through the city of Oakland library: Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com. In addition, we also searched the California Digital Newspaper Collection, though their holdings are not as extensive as the other sources and resulted in primarily Oakland Tribune articles prior to 1960. These records were searched using the term “Russell City.”
Our search resulted in tens of thousands of records at each site, sorted by relevancy; however, upon review, we found that relevant articles were much less, and that much of what was returned was advertisements, people with the last name of Russell, and other non-Russell City related material.
These articles were excluded from our search. In addition, there were articles related to key historical moments that were not directly related to redevelopment—in particular, these include school annexation and Mayor Dettenrieder’s case. For these topics, we collected a sampling of articles in the case of school annexation and those that mentioned redevelopment in the Dettenrider case (there were a number of articles on sentencing that did not connect to redevelopment that we did not collect). Since our focus was on redevelopment, we did not do an extensive search of school annexation and collected only a sampling of articles under this topic. Further, there were many articles about fights or illegal activity at the Russell City Country Club; many of these articles we reviewed and collected, as they sometimes mentioned area residents. Ones that did not mention area residents and were just a few sentences long we excluded from our search.
As a result of our search, we collected 491 total articles about Russell City, the precursors to redevelopment and its final implementation. Each of these articles were collected, reviewed, summarized, and provided with keywords based on the primary ideas in the article. The length of summary generally reflects the length of the article—articles with longer summaries are longer form articles, and articles with shorter summaries often were articles that did not contain much information. Articles were found between 1909 and 1975, with the majority of articles located during the redevelopment period, and the single largest number of articles in a year found in 1957. 46 Newspaper # of articles
Daily Review 290
Oakland Tribune 181
San Francisco Call 4
San Francisco Chronicle 1
San Francisco Examiner 11
The Argus 4
Total 491
These articles also served a second purpose other than the retelling of one version of redevelopment in Russell City: the identification of area residents. Since we were unable to locate the original redevelopment agency records, we also had difficulty locating any residents in the area who were not property owners. To partially account for this, we also collected the names of residents in the area who were mentioned in local newspapers. This meant that these names were often sampled from people who experienced local traumas—an injury, a fire to their home, or some other calamity. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 1909-1946
19471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975 Number of newspaper articles by year
47 Other names came from those who were active in the community and may not reflect the average resident who was unable to fight for water and sewer access. From this search of articles, we collected 199 residents’ names; 79 of these residents did not seem to be related to any property deed, and another 70 who had the same last names as a deed owner but a different first name.
Does the identified resident have a deed with same
last name?
No 79
Yes 50
Yes, but different first name 70
Total 199
One complication with the list of residents is that these names appear from the late 1940s into the 1960s so cover a large area of time in Russell City. Additional options for collecting potentially nonproperty owning names in the area:
• A list of three newspaper columns of names submitted for the Oro Loma Annexation petition in 1951315
• 1950 Census schedules that list name and address for every person counted by the census in 1950
• List of 236 residents who signed petition in 1957 to rezone area residential found in Alameda County Community Development Agency file “RC petition against redevelopment”
Documents provided to the city of Hayward in this category include:
• Spreadsheet containing source, date, page number, title, keywords, and summary of each article
• PDF or JPG images of each source
• Spreadsheet containing list of residents, source of identification, and address if provided b. Grant deeds from property owners to ACRA
To located property owners in Russell City at the time of redevelopment, we utilized the “Digital Reel” database located at the public research room in the Alameda Clerk-Recorders’ Office. This database contains images of the historical property records from this time. The search function of the database is limited, as one can only search by keywords, and the search cannot be limited further.
Thus, searching “Russell City” brought back every property transfer that happened in Russell City; limiting to the search terms “Redevelopment Agency of the County of Alameda” brought back grant deeds exclusively related to the Russell City property transfers. Using this search term, we located 734 records related to the redevelopment of Russell City; all the records were from the years 1963- 1967, the period of redevelopment of the area prior to its sale.
From this search, we located 365 unique deeds, as well as 34 eminent domain lawsuits, 18 other legal documents, and a Board of Supervisor (BOS) record of tax deeded properties purchased for the 315 Petition for annexation of RC to Oro Loma Sanitary district, Daily Review, 11/19/1951, p. 15. 48 redevelopment agency. Of the 365 unique deeds, 353 reference private individuals; 8 others reference churches (one church had two deeds), 3 businesses, and 1 government agency.
BOS tax deeded property record generated another 39 deeds related to properties in Russell City.
These records contain the deed number, parcel number, the date the property was deeded to the state, the delinquent tax year, and the price paid for the property. All these properties were deeded to the state between 1943 and 1962, and prices paid for the property ranged from $45 to $900, with a median price of $67. Other legal documents included quitclaim deeds, orders approving compromise for demand against estates, executor documents, orders of condemnation, and several other document types. Nine of these documents indicated the prices paid for the property.
The documents collected from this research inform the creation of a map by the city of Hayward, which identifies the owners of the parcels at the time of redevelopment. This map is intended to be complemented by location data identified in other areas, as well as the self-reported accounts from former residents and descendants being collected by the city.
As part of this research, we were able to identify several records that led us to believe that though our records likely cover 96% of property transfers in the area, there are still some outstanding records. For instance, in our historical media search, a judge ruled that the heirs of the Jose Mateos property were to be paid $100,000 for their ranch in the Russell City area by the redevelopment agency. A deed transferring this property to the ACRA was not located despite using the original search term, as well as the search terms of the owner. Additionally, once the map is completed, there may be other properties that have not been identified or collected in the documents we found.
This is the case with the Charles and Isabel Sanders property, which has documents submitted by Antoinette Wynn. None of the documents supplied by Ms. Wynn are similar to the documents collected in our research; however, using those documents we were able to locate a final order of condemnation that served a similar function as grant deeds for the purposed of property transfer.
Despite using the search term on the document used in the original search, this search did not turn up the Sanders final order of condemnation until we searched using information in the document (lot description) provided by Ms. Wynn. Further, there were 15 property owners and parcels listed in BOS records that did not match a located deed; further search of these property owner names revealed an additional 4 deed records and 1 eminent domain lawsuit. Given this experience, we are not certain that our search has located every possible document related to Russell City redevelopment property transfers and thus, other documents may still be possible to be found once further former resident documents are received by the city. Given the extensive number of documents we found, however, we expect any missing deeds to be low.
Documents provided to the City of Hayward in this area include:
• Spreadsheet containing list of all deeds by owners name, with year, book and page number, as well as property description; this spreadsheet also contains o A second tab with a spreadsheet containing list of 34 eminent domain lawsuits located by named owners, with year, book and page number, as well as named properties
49 o A third tab with spreadsheet containing list of 18 other legal documents, identified by name, year, book, and page number with a description, and if provided, amount paid for property (if available)
• Images of all listed deeds, lawsuits and legal documents named by “last name year book and page number”
• Digital copy of 1907 Russell City map deeds are based on c. Board of Supervisor meeting minute records
As discussed in the narrative recounting of redevelopment in Russell City based on the historical media search below, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors was also the governing body for the redevelopment agency. During their meetings, they would “sit” as the redevelopment agency to do redevelopment business. Thus, the meeting records from the Board of Supervisors during this time provide some insight into the county’s approach to redevelopment. Unfortunately, the BOS meeting minutes do not provide a transcript of the meetings and provide very limited information about items in meetings. For example, an agenda item related to the redevelopment agency from 1963 says simply, “Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency—recommending payment in the sum of $150 to Title Insurance and Trust Company for services in the Russell City Project Area—approved and referred to the Auditor for payment.” No other record information is provided, and thus, the minutes provide little information about what was said in BOS meetings.
What the BOS meeting minutes do provide, however, are what are called “authorize payments” resolutions. These resolutions authorize payments to the title companies that facilitated the property transfers; the records do not list individual properties, but rather provide a group of properties with a total amount (see example image below). This appears to be the price paid for properties to the owners, as it does not reflect payments that are listed in minutes like the example provided above.
Instead, these resolutions are the only place where the property owners and these large amounts are listed in the BOS minute records.
These records provide a window into what owners were paid for properties by the redevelopment company, but do not provide exact amounts except in a few cases. Using these records, however, it is possible to calculate a per lot and per square footage average price paid for the properties in each group. To determine this rate in the case above, there are 6 parcel numbers representing 9 lots; we divided $11,620 by the 9 lots, to determine a rate of $1,291/lot. This was then used to estimate a per 50 owner price for the property. A per square foot price is awaiting the finalization of a map by the city of Hayward, that will allow for this calculation. Per lot payments were not estimated for properties that were not based in the Russell City grid system given these were often large, irregular lots.
Estimate square footage likely would provide a more accurate payment for these lots.
This method also allowed us to identify the price paid for some properties. In the next example, both Title Insurance and Guardian Title are listed as payees; in these cases, we identified the title company that processed the property transfer from the deed. This allowed for two benefits: (1) in cases where there was only one property owner who was processed by a title company, we were able to determine the price paid for those properties; and (2) split the group of property on the authorize payment resolution into two groups to determine per lot payment—one for those paid by Title and another for those paid by Guardian. For the example below, we were able to identify that Waldo and Lily Rivers were the only people paid by Guardian, and thus, we assigned a $650 price to the payment for their property.
As a result of this search, we found 83 “authorize payments” resolutions, and identified 297 payees, with a total payout of $2,235,681.25. With two records identified from the other sources (Jose Mateos land and additional 5 lots at $750 each), this puts the total amount of payments identified at $2,339,431.25. Further, we also used a handful of records located in other cases--legal documents, newspapers—to further narrow down the groupings used for the average.
We did not find records for every deed transfer. Initially, we searched for all board of supervisor records during the time period, paging through each microfiche page one-by-one, as that is the only way to search the records. We were guided in part by a search of the Oakland Tribune for “Board of Supervisor” and “Russell City” records. We also found that our searching of the microfiche resulted in more records than we found entries for in our Tribune search. Given this, we searched all board of supervisor records for the bulk of the time periods that payments were made to owners: 1963-1966.
Additional records were located using the Oakland Tribune search.
Once we collected the records, we reconciled this with the list of deeds and found 22 deeds were unable to be matched to a payment in the Board of Supervisor records; likewise, 11 Board of Supervisor payments were unable to be matched to a collected deed, though 5 of the payment record owners were listed in eminent domain lawsuits. To try to locate the missing payments, we reviewed the records collected to see where there were meetings or time periods where no records of property transfer existed; we then returned to the microfiche records and carefully examined 51 these particular gaps. Unfortunately, this process did not yield any additional records. To check a final time, we did another Board of Supervisor and Russell City search, this time concentrating on only “authorize payment” transactions; this again did not yield any additional records.
These missing payments and deeds impacted the estimated calculations for the property owners on the Board of Supervisor records. If we were unable to locate a deed for the payment, we were unable to determine what the property corresponded to and thus, could not complete the calculation. This impacted all the properties listed on the respective BOS resolution since inability to determine the title company or property impacted the calculation. For instance, in the below image we were unable to locate a deed for John D. and Hilda Boitano. In addition, three of the properties were processed by title and one by guardian, and it is unknown which title company processed Boitano’s transfer. Thus, for these properties, we were unable to calculate a per lot estimate.
In some cases, the missing property is listed in an eminent domain record, so we are able to match the parcel to the eminent domain lawsuit and determine property values; this occurred only in cases where all the properties identified in the BOS record were processed by one title company. If we did not have a deed, and the property was not listed in any eminent domain lawsuit we uncovered, as is the case with the Boitano property above, then we were unable to calculate a per lot amount.
From the Board of Supervisor records, we were able to find $2,235,681.25, 96% of the reported property payout during redevelopment. Of this amount, we were able to estimate a per lot calculation for $1,711,575.25 of the payout, 77% of the amount paid for property transfers. From this, we calculated an average payment per owner listing in the BOS records of $4,904.23 and a median payment of $2,133.33. Per lot estimates ranged from $107.14 to $4750, and the average estimated cost per lot was $1,524.91, with a median of $1,365.83.
Documents provided to the city of Hayward in this area include:
• Spreadsheet containing overview of Board of supervisor payments o Records on this spreadsheet are grouped by when they appear in an “authorize payments” resolution
52 o Records are identified by date, as well as reel and image number on microfiche of Board of Supervisor records available at the Alameda County Clerk Office o Records identify the parcel number and name of owner on the BOS record316 o Lots used for grouping
o Total prices paid for grouping
o Per lot estimate for grouping
o Per lot estimates for each owner on BOS record
o Highlighted records are those for which there is no corresponding deed • Spreadsheet containing an overview of tax deeded properties and prices paid for each • PDF images of BOS authorize payment resolutions (83 images in total) • PDF image of tax deeded properties resolution (6 pages in total) d. Other government document searches
In addition to we attempted to locate various government documents related to redevelopment. For Alameda County, though we consulted local libraries, besides the deeds and we only located the final redevelopment plan approved in 1963. The city of Hayward has a much more extensive online records availability, and here we found city council minutes and records used to bolster the historical understanding of redevelopment discussed in this report. Finally, we also consulted census records for the area.
Documents provided to the city of Hayward in this area include:
• Spreadsheet titled “RC assorted documents”
o One tab provides names, years, types and short descriptions for all resident sourced materials sent to the researchers
o One tab provides overview of all files contained in the folder “community development agency” files and provided by the Alameda County Community Development Agency
o One tab contains list of city of Hayward council minutes and descriptions of the topic the minutes addressed
• Images and files for all documents on the first two tabs of spreadsheet (city of Hayward are linked to the Hayward repository)
• Alameda County ‘Redevelopment Plan’, 1963
• Alameda County Statement of Institution of Proceedings to Redevelop the Russell City Redevelopment Project Area (1963)
• Census records
o 1940 census tract map including Russell City area
o 1950 census tract map including Russell City area
o 1960 census tract map including Russell City area
o 1940 census schedules
o 1950 census schedule
o 1960 data table overview
316 Listing of owner found in the deed office can vary slightly from the owner listed on the board resolutions; in these cases, we’ve listed the deed and any other variance in a “notes” column at the end. 53 2. Potential future research avenues
Given the lack of direct records currently available about the Russell City redevelopment project, we were unable to provide an extensive recounting of who the residents in the area were, beyond the approximately 40% of whom were likely listed on property transfer records. Below, we provide a few suggestions as to where future research might locate additional information about Russell City:
• Steering committee members requested a list of all property transfers in the area from 1948 forward. An initial search yielded over 3300 records, almost five times the number of property transfer records reviewed and collected for this report. Continuing this research could tell people more about who lived in the area, and who was likely forced out, prior to redevelopment.
• Steering committee members requested a search of all vital records for those who were born, died, or married in Russell City from 1948 forward. Birth records are available to the public starting from 1940, death records from 1960 and marriage records from 1971. To search records, a name and date is needed. A marriage certificate from one of the Russell City steering committee members also revealed that the certificate did not list “Russell City” despite being in that area of town; instead, it listed Hayward. A manual search would then need to use street names to find relevant vital records. • Yearbooks for San Lorezno School District, in which Russell School was located, are available back to the 1960s. It is unclear if Russell School in particular has any such yearbooks, as we were unable to follow up on this. For future research, one could potentially follow-up in this area.
• Genealogical research could be undertaken in order to identify additional residents by starting with the residents that are already known. There is an extensive library of digital vital records offered by the Church of Latter-Day Saints, which may be a starting point. We recommend if going this route to consult with a research who specializes in geneaology to understand more what this would entail.
• The local Church of Latter-Day Saints Temple in Oakland houses old bay area phone books; this may be one option for further research.
• To provide the most complete accounting of redevelopment, ultimately, the original redevelopment agency files should be located. From our research we found that this agency was located at the W. Winton Avenue county location; this location continues to exist and houses the current Planning Commission.
• Reconcile property map and list of non propertied residents with other lists of residents contained within the community sourced material file “RC 2023.2.13 Russell City Residents”
TO: Mayor Salinas and Members of the Hayward City Council FROM: Deborah Tolefree-Harris, former resident and descendant of a Russell City homeowner Good evening, Mayor Salinas and Hayward City Council Members. I’m Deborah Tolefree-Harris and lived at 25014 Adams Street in Russell City with my parents (Climmie and Octavia Tolefree), 5 brothers and 1 sister all my life until I married in 1962.
I applaud the City of Hayward for taking the lead in this reparation process, for apologizing for the atrocities inflicted on the Russell City community and for providing a budget for research by the Ceres Research Group as well as Dr. Elizabeth Brown and Dr. George Barganier of San Francisco State University. As a member of the Russell City Steering Committee Leadership Group, I support the research that has been done to formulate the proposed recommendations being presented today for your consideration.
I had a wonderful childhood, have many cherished and fond memories. I never considered Russell City to be a blight ghetto, in fact, I didn’t know any better. The first time I was introduced or heard the word “ghetto” was in my 9
th grade Social Studies class at Hayward High when my teacher referred to Russell City as such. I thought we were living our best life; I didn’t realize that we were being deprived of the basic amenities provided other communities. I felt protected because everyone looked out for each other and questioned strangers, so there was no fear interacting within the community. We lived as just a big family, more or less. My parents provided the best they could. Many life lessons were taught: how to treat and respect ourselves, authority, our elders, guests and neighbors. Not all these lessons were passed down to the next generation.
I felt honored to be a part of the Steering Committee and an ambassador for the community that I grew up in and to bring to the forefront the desires and wishes of the people who lived there. Of the 13-15 committee members, only 2 members lived in Russell City. Gloria Moore and I. Gloria and I are cousins and both attended Russell City Elementary, Hayward High School and college together. Many families lived in Russell City and, as the survey shows, have different opinions which have been narrowed down to 26 recommendations. The common theme of the 26 recommendations is “Reparative Justice.” Although I appreciate the City’s acknowledgment and ultimate written apology for the injustice committed, an apology is just words and does not repair the financial damage that was caused to my parents who lived without sanitation services for 20 years although they were taxed by Alameda County for services that were never brought to fruition. An apology does not repair the damage nor the insult endured by my parents being forced to move by eminent domain and given a measly amount to relocate and start their lives all over again in a new city. An apology does not make up for the financial harm and generational wealth lost. The City of Hayward and the County of Alameda owe a financial debt.
The residents who lived through the indignities of no sanitation, no sidewalks and no basic municipal infrastructure, are now 70-80+ years old. For those who lived through and survived these indignities reparations means monetary recompense, first to the living survivors and then to the descendants of those who have passed on.
Introduction to Addendums Submitted by Carolyn Johnson
This addendum addresses critical gaps and limitations identified in Reclaiming Russell City: A Comprehensive Approach to Reparative Justice and Community Renewal (Kerby Lynch, Ph.D. and Aisha Canfield, MPP). While the document provides valuable insights, this addendum addresses crucial issues, in my opinion, undermining its validity, reliability, and comprehensiveness. Specifically, the addendum critiques:
● Omission of crucial issues: This document critically assesses the limited focus on the essential issue of land restitution as a core consideration. ● Methodological shortcomings: Concerns surrounding data analysis highlight the potential for biased or incomplete results and raise concerns about the generalizability of findings.
The addendum aims to center the crucial issue of land restitution and ensure the voices of property and business owners are elevated and strives for an approach that centers the impact of the “land grab” by the government and its long-term effect on the wealth and wellbeing of Russell City Residents and their descendants. This Addendum also summarizes critical feedback provided to the authors that did not receive a response and thus is inserted here for the record. I believe this Addendum ultimately strengthens the foundation of the recommendations and presents a more robust and just framework for the Russell City community, ensuring that all voices are heard and critical concerns are adequately addressed.
Taking private property and businesses in Russell City had devastating consequences for the property and business owners and their descendants. The short-term hardships of displacement and economic loss were compounded by long-term effects that continue to impact them and their descendants today.
There are numerous negative Impacts from the forced sale or loss of property and businesses in Russell City, including but not limited to:
● Displacement and Disruption: Residents, often with deep community ties, were forced to relocate, leading to the break-up of established social networks.
● Loss of Homes and Businesses: Destruction of homes and businesses, causing immediate economic hardship and loss of wealth. ● Limited Relocation Options: Affordable housing options were scarce, forcing displaced residents to move to less desirable areas with lower-quality housing and amenities.
● Psychological Trauma: Witnessing the forced sale and destruction of their homes and neighborhoods caused significant emotional distress for residents. ● Generational Poverty: Displacement disrupted wealth accumulation and access to economic opportunities, creating a cycle of poverty that continues to impact descendants.