Corrections & Method Advisories

Bay Evidence retracts its October 31 statement that the RFQ had moved to a closed procurement stage. A current City of Oakland page capture now displays November 10, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific time, after the page, procurement record and Addendum 01 had displayed October 30.

The November 10 date is PARTIALLY VERIFIED because an accessible cached page and the previously reviewed addendum still show October 30 and an updated addendum was not retrieved. Qualification remains distinct from a contract award, appropriation, expenditure, service output or outcome.

The October 27 Ashby BART east-lot archive item has been upgraded from DOCUMENTED_CLAIM to VERIFIED after Berkeley posted its official annotated agenda recording adoption of Resolutions 72,500-N.S. and 72,501-N.S. by all ayes.

The verification upgrade confirms the development-team selection and fee reservation. It does not establish execution of an exclusive-negotiating agreement, financing, entitlements, construction, occupancy, or outcomes.

The September Bay Area pass-through ledger and the October 27 Fremont brief now identify AB 113 (Chapter 248, Statutes of 2026), not SB 113, as the enacted Budget Act of 2026 amendment.

The measure identifier and source links were corrected. The reviewed appropriation amounts and item-level directions did not change. Existing stable record IDs containing “SB113” remain in place to preserve published relationships; those opaque IDs no longer assert the legal citation.

The existing News Archive record has been updated from the original October 13, 2026 submission deadline to October 30, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific time.

The current City RFQ page and Oakland procurement record agree on the extended deadline, and the City page links Addendum 01. This changes the procurement timetable only. Qualification does not constitute a contract award, appropriation, expenditure, service output, or outcome.

The local data record has been corrected from 9,200 to 8,201 using the county's initial-results sheet.

The previously cited regional article contains inconsistent caption and body values. This correction applies to the shared local record and its charts. The county still labels the release initial; the standardized HUD series is separate.

Public links to the Homeless Data Integration System, the Cal ICH action plan, and the HHAP program page used bcsh.ca.gov paths that now redirect to the Cal ICH homepage and drop the specific page. Those links were not the underlying records.

The HDIS page is https://calich.ca.gov/hdis.html. The 2025–2027 action plan is https://calich.ca.gov/action_plan.html. HCD now publishes the HHAP program at the linked page; earlier rounds were administered by Cal ICH. Spending-ledger dollar figures were not recalculated. The California open-data demographics link now uses the current data.ca.gov address, which the old dataset path permanently redirects to.

New signups and downloads were paused after document-integrity review found that the public PDF was structurally malformed and omitted substantive content on two detail pages.

The withdrawn file should not be treated as an authoritative or complete guide. Bay Evidence retained the underlying source work for repair and will restore the download only after content, rendering, link, accessibility, and data-protection checks pass.

The public presentation now identifies the work as a descriptive evidence brief under a method advisory. It does not treat visible street reductions as demonstrated longitudinal housing retention.

Point-in-Time counts are cross-sectional snapshots. The brief does not contain person-level retention data, cannot attribute category changes to specific interventions, and should not be cited as evidence of durable housing exits. The downloadable July PDF retains its original subtitle while the interpretive framing is under revision.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision on June 28, 2024.

The holding should be characterized narrowly: enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The decision did not establish that every encampment operation is lawful under every constitutional, statutory, disability, property, due-process, or state-law doctrine.

Proposition C should not be characterized as a real-estate transfer tax.

The 2018 measure used tax mechanisms directed at large businesses to raise dedicated homelessness funding. Contemporaneous political reporting should be read alongside authoritative descriptions of the measure's actual tax structure.

The report was reissued to remove Appendix A, which publicly cataloged candidate bibliography entries that were excluded because they could not be verified as written.

The authoritative bibliography now contains only sources retained for publication. The bibliographic-verification rule is a standing methodology control, and Pure Street™ is identified as the report publisher. The removed appendix was an editorial audit trail, not evidence supporting the report's findings.