Nirav Tolia, co-founder and CEO of the neighborhood social networking site Nextdoor.com, met with a group of Oakland activists today to discuss concerns about racial profiling on the website. As I investigated in a recent cover story, “Racial Profiling Via Nextdoor.com,” Nextdoor has evolved into a virtual neighborhood watch in Oakland with members frequently using the Crime and Safety section of the site to post unsubstantiated “suspicious activity” warnings about Black residents who aren’t doing anything wrong. Throughout the city, Nextdoor posts have labeled Black people as suspects simply for walking down the street or driving a car. In an effort to combat these kinds of offensive posts, a group of activists called Neighbors for Racial Justice — made up of white residents and people of color (some who have been profiled in their own neighborhoods) — is now pushing the San Francisco-based tech company to make concrete changes to the site. 

Earlier this month, Tolia responded to the Express article with a blogpost on Nextdoor.com outlining the company’s plans to curb racial profiling — including potential new training initiatives and changes to the site’s guidelines. Today at the co-working space Impact Hub Oakland, Tolia and three other Nextdoor representatives met with five members of Neighbors for Racial Justice, which invited me to sit in on the meeting. The activists — including Upper Dimond resident Shikira Porter, who I featured prominently in my piece — presented Nextdoor with a number of proposals aimed at eliminating racial profiling on the site. In addition to Tolia, the meeting included Kelsey Grady, Nextdoor’s head of communications; Gordon Strause, director of neighborhood operations; and Maryam Mohit, director of product. 

[jump] Tolia told the group that Nextdoor plans to add a “racial profiling button” to the site, which means users will be able to flag posts for racial profiling. Currently, users can flag comments that they believe are inappropriate or abusive, but there’s no way to specify racial profiling. “We want to create that very specific signal for us,” Tolia said. In the current system, when users flag a post for any reason, neighborhood “leads” — who are volunteer citizen moderators — can review the post and decide whether it violates Nextdoor’s guidelines, which prohibit discriminatory posts and profiling. The problem, according to Neighbors for Racial Justice, is that the leads sometimes do not take those concerns sincerely, and, on the contrary, have even gone so far as to censor posts calling out racial profiling in some Oakland neighborhoods. Users can reach out to the company directly if they are not satisfied with the lead’s response, but some have said that this process is difficult.

In addition to the new racial profiling button, Grady said after the meeting that the company is committed to revising the guidelines to better address concerns about racial profiling, but has not yet decided on the specifics of those rewrites. The guidelines currently say: “Racial profiling is the act of making assumptions about a person’s character or intentions based on their appearance or identity rather than their actions.”

Today, Neighbors for Racial Justice proposed a number of more substantive initiatives — changes that Tolia and the others agreed to consider. The group suggested that Nextdoor adopt clear restrictions on how people post about crime, including prohibiting the use of racially offensive “code words,” such as the “AA” label — which, I have seen, people frequently use to describe “suspicious” African-American people on Nextdoor’s Oakland pages. More broadly, the group requested that Nextdoor consider banning posts that describe “suspicions,” since those are subject to people’s implicit racial biases, and instead direct users to only post crime and safety warnings when they witness actual illegal behavior. 

Within those crime posts, Nextdoor should ban descriptions of suspects that are vague, such as “young Black man,” the group said. As one of the activists, Bedford Palmer, wrote in a handout he gave the Nextdoor reps today: “These descriptions are directly responsible for the harassment of neighbors that ‘fit the description,’ and places them in danger of negative police interactions.” 

And if users do want to post about a crime, they should have to fill out a specific form, according to Neighbors for Racial Justice. Porter brought this document to the meeting as an example: 

In other words, members would have to specify the criminal behavior they witnessed and describe a wide range of physical characteristics — which can include “perceived race.” If users can’t specify those other descriptors — meaning if they are only going to post “tall, Black man” — then they should not be allowed to post at all, Porter explained. The group also suggested that Nextdoor more actively track and monitor crime posts — and zero in on specific users or messages that attract multiple flags for racial profiling. 

Neighbors for Racial Justice also proposed “multicultural competence” training for neighborhood leads, so that the moderators would be better equipped to understand and recognize posts that are racist, offensive, or oppressive in some way. The group further suggested that Nextdoor contract with social justice experts to help address the problem. 

The Nextdoor representatives seemed receptive to many of the ideas, and Tolia asked the group to follow up with suggestions of specific local racial profiling and training experts that the company could consider for possible partnerships. Tolia told me after the meeting that he would seriously consider adding some kind of form like the one Porter presented.

During the meeting, Tolia noted that in exploring these kinds of changes, the company would, however, have to also consider its mission to protect the privacy of users. Currently, Nextdoor only reads posts when the company is responding to some kind of complaint or conflict — and doesn’t have any proactive monitoring in place. “We don’t sign into these neighborhoods and read what the discussions are,” Tolia said. “If we are choosing to look at a post … we need to have a really good reason why.” He added: “Because we don’t give a lot of explicit guidance when people post things, the thing we’re trying to think about is, how do we start to provide that education?” 

Tolia also pointed out that there are challenges in getting people to shift their approach to crime reporting: “With the suspicious behavior thing, there is going to have to be some unlearning of behaviors that people have in their mind and then a relearning of what is appropriate. And that’s what we’ve got to try to influence. But it’s not easy, because people have different senses of what is suspicious behavior and what is appropriate.” 

The Neighbors for Racial Justice members emphasized the ways in which racial profiling on Nextdoor makes people of color feel less safe and welcome in their own neighborhoods. And Tolia repeatedly said he took those concerns seriously — and that profiling and the resulting harm runs counter to the company’s broader objectives. “One of our missions is to actually create very constructive dialogue that leads to safer neighborhoods where people feel like they belong,” he said. 

Stories you shouldn’t miss:

1. The Oakland Raiders remain at an impasse with officials from the City of Oakland and Alameda County over a new stadium because team owner Mark Davis continues to demand that he receive free land in the deal, the Chron$ reports. Oakland Councilmember Larry Reid, who is on the Coliseum Authority board, said “there is no way that the city and county are going to agree” to give the Raiders taxpayer-owned property for free. The city, however, is offering to spend up to $120 million on infrastructure upgrades around the Coliseum site. The revelation about the Davis’ demand comes just before the NFL will hold a town hall at the Paramount Theatre concerning the Raiders desire to move to Southern California if they don’t get what they want in Oakland.

2. Uber will pay the City of Oakland’s $1 million affordable housing fee as part of the company’s deal to purchase the old Sears building in Uptown and expand its headquarters to the city, the SF Business Times$ reports. Oakland charges the impact fee for warehouse and office development in the city — and it’s dependent on the size of the development. The city does not have an impact fee for market-rate housing development, although it has been studying the issue. The $1 million will only pay for three to four affordable housing units.

[jump]
3. California students continue to perform miserably on standardized tests, the Mercury News$ reports. The latest results from the nation’s report card showed that just 27 to 29 percent of California fourth- and eighth-graders were rated as being proficient in math and reading. California tied for 39th among states nationwide in fourth-grade reading, and was 44th in eighth-grade reading, 46th in eighth-grade math, and 50th in fourth-grade math.

4. The state also continues to do a horrible job in closing the racial divide in K-12 education, particularly when it comes to Black students, the Bay Area News Group$ reports, citing a new analysis from the Oakland-based nonprofit, Education Trust-West. A few school districts, however, have made some progress, including Oakland Unified, according to the report.

5. And Anthem Blue Cross has agreed to refund $8.3 million to about 50,000 customers as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement, stemming from illegal fee hikes by the giant insurer, the LA Times$ reports. Anthem also agreed to stop its unlawful practice of “raising deductibles and other yearly out-of-pocket costs on individual policies in the middle of the year.”

In the wake of the financial crisis, cities throughout California attempted to hold banks accountable for their predatory practices. Oakland, for example, tried to leverage its lucrative municipal banking contract to force banks to be more transparent about their impact on the city’s communities, especially low-income neighborhoods where toxic subprime mortgages have caused thousands of foreclosures and a sluggish recovery. Oakland also asked banks interested in doing business with the city to make bigger commitments toward community investments, such as new housing and small business loans. But it’s unclear if the city’s efforts to force banks to treat the city’s low-income communities fairly, and to reinvest in Oakland, have paid off.

Foreclosures continue to blight the city’s flatlands. Usurious payday lending storefronts are more abundant in many neighborhoods than bank branches. And it appears that city staffers disobeyed the council last year by omitting key transparency requirements from the city’s most recent banking contract with JP Morgan Chase, meaning that Oakland may have a difficult time obtaining detailed lending and investment data that city leaders demanded. All of this has city councilmembers and community advocates asking whether it’s actually possible to hold banks accountable.

• 

• 

• 

“It’s frustrating,” said Councilmember Larry Reid, whose district encompasses deep East Oakland, which was devastated by predatory mortgage loans. Between 2007 and 2011 — the nadir of the foreclosure crisis — there were more than 10,000 foreclosures in Oakland. Predatory mortgage loans were all too easy to obtain in the early and mid-2000s in Reid’s district. And deep East Oakland is also under-banked when it comes to higher-quality financial products and services. There are few actual bank branches accessible to residents who want access to quality loans, savings accounts, and other financial services. Reid complained when JP Morgan Chase closed its only branch in his district earlier this month.

“There aren’t a lot of banks out there,” he said about the long stretch of International Boulevard from roughly 69th Avenue to the San Leandro border. “Now, my residents have to go all the way to San Leandro to do their banking.” Reid said he recently contacted Chase and asked about the closure of the branch at 10800 International Boulevard in the Durant Square shopping plaza, but he couldn’t get a straight answer. “The branch always seemed to be busy, more than the Chase in San Leandro.”

There are, in fact, no bank branches on International Boulevard along the entire stretch that runs through Reid’s district. There are a few ATMs operated by major banks, but they’re hidden in liquor stores, and charge fees to anyone who is not a customer of the particular bank that owns the ATM. By contrast, there are numerous check cashing stores in the area — two are within walking distance of the now shuttered Chase branch. There are at least five more check cashing outlets along International Boulevard in Reid’s district, as well as gold buyers and pawn shops.

Chase’s closure of the Durant Square branch has Reid questioning why the city gave Chase the contract to handle the city’s hundreds of millions in deposits and payments. Late in 2013, Oakland put its depository banking services contract out to bid. Five banks — Wells Fargo, Unionbank, US Bank, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase — submitted bids for the $275,000-a-year, three-year contract. But the Oakland City Council wanted more than the lowest bidder: It wanted to select a bank that could demonstrate that it was doing the most to invest in Oakland and reduce foreclosures. Councilmembers were urged on by community activists like Richard Speigelman, a former-board member of Oakland Community Organizations. “We’re of the opinion that Oakland needs a bank that’s invested in the community, and we need the data to represent what that investment is,” Speigelman told the council’s finance committee in December 2013.

Liana Molina, a staff member with the California Reinvestment Coalition, said virtually all the major banks have done damage to cities like Oakland, but that Oakland could use its bank contracts to hold financial institutions more accountable, and to obtain useful data on how banks impact specific neighborhoods or demographic groups. “We have a vision to move a responsible-banking agenda forward,” said Molina in an interview. “It’s just very slow and the banks are very influential. They oppose these types of local ordinances, and stronger state regulations. They’re very well-organized and powerful as a lobby.”

Reid and Councilmember Desley Books wanted to pick Wells Fargo for Oakland’s banking contract because its representatives had recently agreed to work with local housing officials to try to lower the number of mortgage defaults that the bank was foreclosing on. Wells Fargo also reported to the city that it had made $76.7 million in small business loans to Oakland-based companies in 2012. By contrast, JP Morgan Chase extended a mere $800,000 in small business loans that year.

“We ought to look at how these banks reinvest back in the city of Oakland,” said Brooks at the 2013 finance meeting. “Chase had a significant number of foreclosures in the city of Oakland, but in that time, what is it they’ve done, more than just be here and take deposits from our people?”

City staffers recommended picking JP Morgan Chase, partly because Wells Fargo’s municipal banking services had declined in recent years, they said. At the city council’s final meeting in 2013, Councilmember Dan Kalb, who also preferred to give the contract to Wells Fargo, offered amendments to the resolution selecting JP Morgan Chase as the city’s new banker. Kalb’s written amendments directed staffers to negotiate a contract with the bank that would require Chase to “provide information on their lending, services and investment activities, specific to Oakland, especially in low and moderate income communities including business loans, home loans, media outreach and branch locations for historically undeserved communities.”

“The city has a right to ask for something in return from its bank, besides just paying some money for the services,” Kalb said in a recent interview. “There’s a longstanding history that banks and financial institutions were absent when it comes to providing services and opportunities to lower- and moderate-income residents, and in Oakland, that’s particularly true for people of color.”

Kalb’s amendments, which were approved by the full council, also required that lending, investments, and other data be provided down to the zip-code or census-tract level in order to allow the city to see how the bank had been treating lower-income households in the flatlands. Peter Villegas, then the vice president of corporate responsibility for Chase, promised the council just before the vote that Chase would hand over this data.

But it appears that city staffers never included terms in the contract to require Chase to provide this information. A copy of the contract obtained by the Express includes no clauses requiring Chase to provide the type of data specified in the council resolution. “If the council mandated it, where is that reflected in a signed document between the city and the bank?” said Kalb.

Oakland’s treasurer Katano Kasaine said that despite the absence of these requirements in the contract, Chase will still provide Oakland with data on its local activities so that information can be presented to the council. The city attorney’s office, which assists in drafting city contracts, did not respond to questions about the absence of these requirements in the Chase contract.

Suzanne Alexander, a representative for Chase bank, wrote in an email that Chase is “working with the city staff to provide the information so they can prepare a report for the council for early next year.” But neither Chase nor treasurer Kasaine elaborated on what exactly Chase will provide to the city.

Paul Cobb, publisher of the Oakland Post, doubts the bank will provide the specific data requested by the council. Cobb pointed to the council’s requirement that the bank reach out through local media to historically underserved communities as one reason for his skepticism. “They never did take out a single ad,” said Cobb about his newspaper, which is the largest Black news publication in Oakland and the East Bay. “I didn’t want to make it seem like it was just a play for ads,” said Cobb, “but they have been absolutely rude. They said Oakland is too small to focus on.”

“It’s like pulling teeth — trying to get the banks to disclose this info,” said Molina about the Oakland’s contract with Chase. “We believe the banks have this information and it would be as simple as developing a software platform to report it to cities,” said Molina. “But so far, it seems like they’d rather keep things hidden.”

Kalb said he hopes that Chase will make good on its promise to hand over the data, despite the absence of such a requirement in the city’s contract. “It’s no shocker here we’d want this info,” he said.

As to why Chase closed its deep East Oakland branch, Alexander wrote that the location was redundant. “Over the years, we have increased our branch network through acquisitions,” wrote Alexander. “Sometimes that has led to branches with overlapping market areas. In this instance, there are two additional Chase branches less than one mile away.”

Granted, it’s early. But Oakland’s 2016 election season is quietly taking shape and surprisingly loaded with intrigue, including the possible return of ex-Oakland Mayor Jean Quan to vie for Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan’s At-Large council seat and a potential challenge to Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney by former longtime West Oakland Councilmember Nancy Nadel.

In addition, veteran Councilmember Larry Reid may retire next year and there could be a rush to fill his East Oakland’s District Seven seat. Also, former Oakland mayoral candidate Bryan Parker is set to give Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley his strongest challenger yet, making him the most credible threat to a sitting county supervisor in more than two decades.

Speculation about whether Quan might take on Kaplan in 2016 began almost immediately after the pair finished third and second last year, respectively, in the Oakland mayoral campaign behind Libby Schaaf. A stat often offered by Quan supporters is the 1,100-first-place-vote advantage that Quan had over Kaplan in that race. However, Kaplan ended up in second place after the ranked-choice tabulations, thereby indicating that she has stronger overall support among city voters.

Other 2014 mayoral candidates may also be eyeing a chance to challenge Kaplan. Parker said some community groups urged him to run for the At-Large council seat. And Joe Tuman, who finished fifth in the 2014 mayoral race, may consider a run as well. But Kaplan appears to be taking Quan’s potential challenge the most seriously, sources said. In an interview, Kaplan said she’s focusing on the many challenges facing the city. “It’s not just about her,” Kaplan said of Quan. “It’s about all the work to be done in Oakland.”

For Kaplan, facing a reelection battle against a former colleague with extensive experience is nothing new. In 2012, Kaplan soundly defeated former Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente for the At-Large seat. “This situation is not particularly shocking given what happened last time and voters are going to have to make a decision on where we are as a city,” said Kaplan. “We have a major housing crisis and someone has to do something about it.”

A close supporter of Quan’s previous campaigns said the former mayor’s interest in the At-Large seat is due in part to a perception that Kaplan is not hardworking. “I think Jean would be happy if this made Rebecca be more productive,” the supporter said, adding that “Jean still thinks she has something to offer city government.” Quan, herself, declined to comment for this report.

Reid, meanwhile, is wondering how much he has left in the tank after five terms on the council. But even Reid acknowledged that speculation about whether he will seek reelection is a time-honored tradition in Oakland politics. “For the last five times I’ve ran, I have always said I wasn’t going to run,” Reid admitted. During his last run in 2012, Reid said he seriously contemplated retirement after two heart surgeries and major back surgery. Although he’s in good health today, he added, “I’m not getting any younger. I’ve worked for this institution for 32 years and I think I deserve to enjoy whatever life I’ve got left on this earth. So, yeah. I’m thinking.”

A major difference this time around is the potential candidacy of Reid’s daughter, Treva Reid, an aide for former Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, who is running for state Senate next year. In February, Treva Reid filed an intention to run for her father’s council seat with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. “My daughter is ready and she’s smart and she wants to run for the right reasons,” said Reid, “not like others who want to run just to have a title.” Most observers believe Reid’s retirement would trigger several candidates to jump into the race, some who have waited nearly two decades for the seat to open up.

The absence of an incumbent three years ago in Oakland’s District Three is a reason why Gibson McElhaney ran for the council seat left vacant by former office-holder Nadel. In short order, Gibson McElhaney assumed the council presidency and many observers doubted that she would face serious challenge for her seat in 2016. But Nadel is open to the idea of returning to the council, and said her decision depends on whether Gibson McElhaney deals with important issues facing the city.

“I won’t be tempted to run if the issues I hold dear for District Three are a high priority of my representative: sustainable development (economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental enhancement), restorative justice, affordable housing policy requirements, and budgeting, especially for the homeless, and the conditions raised by Black Lives Matter,” Nadel wrote in an email to me. “I am watching carefully how the Army Base coal issue is handled, as well as some real action on affordable housing.”

As Gibson McElhaney was rushing to get into her car, following an Oakland City Council committee meeting last week, she said, “I’ve been so busy working that I don’t even know who else is running.”

The one Oakland-based race that is officially set is a June primary campaign between Alameda County Supervisor Miley and Parker, who finished sixth in last year’s fifteen-person Oakland mayoral election. During the past two decades, many candidates have shied away from the idea of running to unseat a county supervisor, but few have the fundraising ability of Parker, who raised more than $220,000 for last year’s mayoral contest, in addition to $130,000 of his own money. Miley, whose district extends from East Oakland to Pleasanton and includes unincorporated areas, including Castro Valley, said Parker’s fundraising ability makes him credible, but that he also expects to amass his own warchest. “I always expect a challenger, but maybe not Bryan Parker,” he said. “I’m perplexed why he’s running. It’s baffling to me.” Miley, later added, “If he thinks he has the gravitas to beat me, then, by all means, he should try.” Miley said his strategy is to run on his record, which includes balancing huge budget deficits without laying off county employees and his prescription drug disposal ordinance, which passed in 2014. “That was big,” said Miley. “That was national.”

For his part, Parker said voters over the next few months are going to see clear differences between the candidates. “With Supervisor Miley, maybe there’s not as much energy as there once was, and with this campaign, you’re going to get something that is more responsive,” said Parker. “Let’s face it, it’s time for change. He’s been in office 25 years and [the district] still looks the same.”

There are clear signs that Parker is already putting his money to good use. He recently hired political consultant Lisa Tucker, who engineered Congressman Eric Swalwell’s upset of Pete Stark in 2012, and ran the state Senate primary campaign of Bob Wieckowski when he defeated Mary Hayashi last year. When I asked Miley whether the endorsements of Swalwell and Wieckowski could be in play, he expressed confidence in attracting the backing of every major Tri-Valley official. “I would be flabbergasted if he got their endorsement.”