Program Areas

• Education
• Employment
• Housing
• Policy Advocacy
• Transportation
• Other

Coalitions and Collaborations

Past Projects and Cases

• Affordable Housing & Community Development
• Community Benefits
• Climate Justice
• Williams v. City of Antioch
• Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton
• Osorio v. City of Pittsburg
• Fonseca v. City of Gilroy

Community advocates are raising their voices in city councils across the state to demand housing affordable to low-wage workers and their families. In Oakland, Gilroy, East Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Monterey, Pittsburg, and beyond, they are asking why developers of homes for the wealthy are favored over the dozens of non-profit affordable housing developers ready to build low-rent housing, and they are demanding that private developers and local public officials do their part to address the affordable housing crisis in California. Public Advocates helps these advocates unearth inequitable and unlawful city policies and challenge injustices in local planning. At the same time, we are successfully pursuing legal strategies to win affordable housing, such as our suit against Pittsburg, which will result in nearly 1,000 new affordable homes in this low-income East Contra Costa city.

Affordable Housing & Community Development

As urban areas are redeveloped, low-income residents and people of color are displaced when commercial projects or expensive condominiums and townhouses are favored over affordable housing. At the same time suburban communities often zone residential land for expensive single-family homes instead of higher-density, more affordable multi-family housing in an effort to “preserve local character.” Low-income families are squeezed between these two dynamics, pushed out of urban centers because of rising housing costs, but excluded from suburban areas by city policies.

Public Advocates is pursuing affordable housing in cities like Oakland and Concord and challenging injustices in local policies and planning in suburbs like Pleasanton. Our goal is to achieve equitable and sustainable development and growth that protects low-income communities and communities of color from displacement, while dismantling barriers to housing near quality jobs, education and services in affluent communities.

Housing Element Advocacy     Federal Advocacy

Community Benefits

In the East Bay, Public Advocates works in partnership with grass-roots, labor, faith-based, legal, and policy organizations to ensure that new construction creates affordable housing, quality jobs, and healthy neighborhoods.  As a member of the Oakland NetWork for Responsible Development (ONWRD), the Oakland People’s Housing Coalition, the Richmond Equitable Development Initiative (REDI), and the Community Coalition for a Sustainable Concord (CCSC), Public Advocates provides legal analysis, technical support, and counsel to help low-income communities win a fair share of the benefits of new development from cities and private developers.

On November 17, 2007, ONWRD and the Oakland People’s Housing Coalition organized Building Oakland for Everyone: A Summit on Jobs, Housing, and Justice.  Public Advocates helped to organize and facilitate the event, at which more than 400 residents and numerous elected officials came together to discuss their vision for an inclusive, healthy, and vibrant Oakland.  A short film made for the event, gives a flavor of the Summit. 

REDI is a broad-based coalition advocating for the incorporation of equitable development principles into the City of Richmond’s new General Plan.  REDI brings together grassroots organizations of low-income residents and youth with non-profit advocacy groups headed up by Urban Habitat.  Public Advocates is working with policy consultants on land use, economic development, and transportation to draft policy recommendations that address Richmond’s pressing housing needs and ensure that the local community benefits from future development.  

In Concord, Public Advocates is working with CCSC to shape the re-use plan for the Concord Naval Weapons Station.  This 5,000 acre area is the largest developable tract of land in the Bay Area.  We are assisting our coalition partners to make sure that the city adopts and implements a plan that addresses the needs of Concord residents and fulfills priorities for open space, affordable housing, quality jobs, vibrant neighborhoods, and environmentally sustainable development. The CCSC Platform lays out this vision in more detail.

Public Advocates comments on Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report 10/26/09
Public Advocates comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report 8/8/09

Climate Justice

Housing and transportation costs are devastating low income families throughout California. Priced out of both urban and suburban employment centers, low income workers are forced to move ever further from jobs and vital services.

California leads the nation in enacting legislation to combat climate change. AB 32 sets statewide targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generally, while SB 375 is designed specifically to reduce GHG emissions through regional land use and transportation planning.

Low income communities suffer the greatest risk of climate harms, and their interests are well-aligned with the goals of state climate change policy. The same land use patterns and inequitable transit systems that burden low income workers also create long commutes that cause half of our GHG emissions. So while SB 375 will be used to plan transportation and housing in a manner that reduces GHG emissions, the law should also promote increased availability of affordable housing and transit for low-income communities. The twin goals of equity and climate protection work hand in hand. Alongside this opportunity to promote social equity, however, there is a danger that low-income voices will be excluded and that reform will be accomplished at their expense. Environmental reforms have had that effect – environmental racism – in the past.

Through coalition building, state policy advocacy, and local administrative and legal action, Public Advocates works to ensure that GHG emissions are reduced by means that bring benefits, rather than added burdens, to low-income communities of color by increasing affordable housing and transit opportunities.

Public Advocates funder briefing paper on SB 375

Housing Discrimination Investigation and Lawsuit in Antioch

In July 2007, Public Advocates joined with Bay Area Legal Aid to investigate whether Antioch police are unlawfully discriminating against African-American families participating in the Section 8 housing assistance program. The investigation was sparked by numerous complaints from African-American Section 8 tenants of police harassment, unlawful searches, and attempts to terminate their housing assistance by the Community Action Team (CAT) a special unit of the Police Department established to address “quality of life” issues.

In December 2007, we published a report describing our findings and presented it to Antioch and Contra Costa County officials. The report reveals a disturbing pattern of the CAT interfering with the housing rights of low-income African-American families. Among other things, our analysis of Police Department and Housing Authority documents show that:

1. 40 % of CAT cases involve non-criminal activity
2. African-American families are approximately four times more likely than White households to be subjected to CAT investigations
3. Of the cases forwarded by the CAT to the Housing Authority for lease termination, half were determined to be unfounded. 70% of these unfounded cases involved African-American families.

The cases referred to the Housing Authority are not limited to removing a family from the neighborhood. They are designed to terminate the family’s housing assistance all together, essentially forcing these families onto the street. The result is that the CAT is interfering with the housing rights of law-abiding African-American families in Antioch.

The report includes several short-term recommendations Antioch public officials can take to address the issues identified in the report. Our hope was that public officials would act quickly to address the concerns raised in the report. Our shared goal should be to ensure that efforts to protect the safety of Antioch residents do not unfairly single out their law-abiding African-American neighbors.

Unfortunately, the city did not respond as we hoped. So on July 16, 2008, Public Advocates joined in a class action lawsuit against the City of Antioch, Williams v. City of Antioch. Joining Public Advocates in representing five clients are the IMPACT Fund, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

On September 9, 2008 Public Advocates, The Impact Fund, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California submitted written testimony to the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Los Angeles, California.

On September 11, 2009 a new expert report was released demonstrating that the City of Antioch specifically targeted Section 8 households comprised of African Americans. Nationally renowned criminologist Barry Krisberg, Ph.D., the President of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, reviewed data from case discovery documents to determine whether the activities of the Antioch Police Department have a discriminatory impact on Antioch's African American Section 8 subsidized housing recipients.

The report is the first time that data from the Housing Authority and Police Department have been analyzed together. By cross referencing these data, the actual racial impact of the Antioch police's so-called Community Action Team (CAT) can be measured.

Among Dr. Krisberg's findings: From 2006-2009, CAT activities were focused predominantly upon Section 8 households in general, and on African Americans in particular.

• Although Section 8 households make up only 5% of all Antioch households, and 20% of Antioch rental households, they were the major focus of the CAT. Since about half of Antioch's Section 8 households are African American, this means the CAT focus on Section 8 inevitably had a greater impact upon African Americans.
• The CAT targeted African Americans at an even higher rate than their presence in the Section 8 population. In 2006, for example, while 46% of Antioch's Section 8 households were African American, 67% of CAT's Section 8 targets were African American. Over the 2006-2009 period, 68% of CAT section 8 locations of interest were African American.
• Nearly 70% of the Section 8 households that Antioch Police referred to the Housing Authority for revocation of Section 8 status were African American. The Housing Authority only terminated 30% of these cases.
• Dr. Krisberg's findings validate the underlying claims of the lawsuit. They also confirm the findings of a 2007 report by Public Advocates and Bay Area Legal Aid based on less comprehensive and specific data.

Since July 2008 plaintiffs' lawyers have done extensive investigation and discovery in this case. They received databases and more than 20,000 documents from the Antioch Police Department and the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, have taken 15 sworn depositions and interviewed 50 witnesses.

The plaintiffs are represented by several civil rights organizations: Impact Fund, Public Advocates Inc., ACLU of Northern California, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area as well as the by the private law firms of Bingham McCutchen and Covington & Burling.

expert report    investigative report    lawsuit supporting documents    investigation supporting documents 7/07-12/07
press release- lawsuit filed     press release – investigative report released    press release – investigation announced 

Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton

Settlement Term Sheet     Pleasanton Non-Discrimination Resolution

Affordable housing advocates sued the City of Pleasanton challenging city policies and practices that exclude housing for lower-income families. Plaintiffs in the suit are Urban Habitat, a regional environmental justice organization, and Sandra De Gregorio, a Pleasanton resident. They are asking the Alameda Superior Court to order the city to lift policies that effectively ban affordable family housing in Pleasanton.

On March 12, 2010 in a major affordable housing victory, Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch has ruled that the City of Pleasanton’s Housing Cap violates state law. In the first ruling of its kind, the court also ordered the city to complete re-zoning that is required by state law so that it can meet its share of the region’s affordable housing. decision

On August 27, 2009 an Alameda County Superior Court judge rejected a bid by the city of Pleasanton to dismiss legal challenges by an affordable housing coalition and the state of California to the city's 1996 voter-mandated housing cap. The ruling by Judge Frank Roesch means that the three year old suit by Urban Habitat, recently joined by Attorney General Jerry Brown, will move forward to trial later this year.

On June 20, 2008, the California Court of Appeal reinstated that lawsuit, ruling that it had been improperly dismissed.  The decision by the three judge appeals panel will let plaintiffs pursue their claims that the City has failed to meet its affordable housing obligations.

On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied Pleasanton's petition for review of our victory in the court of appeal.

On May 8, 2009, the California Attorney General sent the City of Pleasanton a second strongly-worded letter in response to the city's proposed General Plan update and EIR. The letter follows up on a January 13, 2009, letter in which the Attorney General stated that the city's failure to plan for needed affordable housing "is not acceptable" and that "Pleasanton's environmental review shirks its responsibility to fully analyze and address the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from its proposed development plans and is therefore legally inadequate." 

The Attorney General's comments echo many of the same points that Public Advocates made in comments submitted December 5 on behalf of Urban Habitat, Greenbelt Alliance and TransForm (formerly known as the Transportation and Land Use Coalition). The proposed General Plan will increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions by over 40%, and worsen the City's jobs/housing imbalance. The letter addresses inadequacies, of which the City's Housing Cap is central.

court documents    

Attorney General's FEIR comment letter   our comment letter   Attorney General's Draft EIR comment letter
press release - suit filed    petition and complaint   press release - demand letter sent    press release - new city data
public records act request   Plaintiffs’ opening brief    press release- suit reinstated decision    decision

Osorio v. City of Pittsburg

With our coalition partners Pittsburg Better Together, ACORN, Contra Costa FaithWorks! and the California Affordable Housing Law Project, Public Advocates is making real progress in the fight for affordable housing in the low-income community of Pittsburg. When efforts to meet the community’s objectives short of litigation were unsuccessful, we filed suit in February 2004. The suit, backed by grassroots and coalition advocacy, persuaded the City Council to accommodate the need for lower-income housing in its amended General Plan, and to adopt the Housing Element of that Plan through a transparent public process. The Council also met another of plaintiffs’ demands, adopting the strongest inclusionary housing ordinance in Contra Costa County. Pending negotiations hold the promise of significant additional benefits for this low-income community.

press release - settlement    press release - suit filed    Housing Element Advocacy

Fonseca v. City of Gilroy

Cinco de Mayo 2004 was marked by the filing of our lawsuit against the City to demand that it do its share to accommodate affordable housing. Public Advocates, as lead counsel, argued that Gilroy’s historic housing policies have not only exacerbated the local and regional housing crisis, but specifically discriminate against the city’s large Latino community. Although the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development found that the city’s housing plan did not meet state requirements, the trial court ruled for the city. Undeterred, Public Advocates and co-counsel California Rural Legal Assistance, the Silicon Valley Law Foundation’s Public Interest Law Firm, and the California Affordable Housing Law Project have appealed.

press release - suit filed