Editorials

So, the dust from the national election has settled a bit, though we still don’t know exactly where we are. Much hinges on Georgia’s Senate seats, not to be decided until next year, and meanwhile the pandemic is even worse than it was in the first place. It’s a good time to stay home and pray for vaccine. There’s a lot of talk about how to force vaccination on QAnon science deniers and their ilk, but why do that? It’s a problem to address after everyone who wants the vaccine gets it, which won’t be for quite a while.

Meanwhile, wear masks and holler at those who don’t. No more nice guy.

All this time at home does provide ample opportunity to contemplate the future of democracy and/or Democrats. The bizarre Trump/Giuliani axis is trying hard to destroy the small-d version by pretending fair elections are fake, but perhaps the recent emergence of backbones in a few of Georgia’s Republican electeds will thwart that plan.

What’s to become of the big-D Democrats? As long at the barbarians are at the gates, they’re sticking together, barring an occasional spat or snide tweet. (Tell me one more time: Exactly what’s wrong with Neera Tanden?) But if things ever calm down, we can resume microanalyzing the Democratic Party.

Let’s start with California. In fact, let’s stick with our home state for today.

We have become a Democratic super-majority state. No one who runs for office in a super-majority of state legislative districts would dare to claim to be anything but a Democrat.

There’s been a bit of nattering in the daily press about how many kinda-sorta liberalish propositions went down to defeat just as the Dems continued to win offices, but that’s over-simplified. It’s well-known that if voters don’t understand ballot measures they vote no, and that explains much of this year’s results. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

In districts like ours in Berkeley, we’re all Democrats all the time. The real decisions are made in the primaries, where lots of people never vote, especially with the top-two rule that can end up with two “Democrats” opposed in the general elections. If we agree that voters are confused by ballot propositions, we can be sure that they’re also confused by candidates these days.  

There are many more hot-button issues that candidates in this area must agree on than disagreements. That’s why a cute blonde from out of town with a nice smile and an earnest manner can parachute into Rockridge from a national Democratic campaign career in order to end up representing her new home town in Sacto.  

As issues go, or would if they were honestly debated in primaries, the most controversial one, the one which thoroughly divides self-identified “progressive” “Democrats”, is how to handle development. There’s big money to be made in construction, no surprise there, and lots of pols are eager to have some of that cash sticking to their hands when projects are approved and contracts are executed. 

The San Francisco press is full of stories these days about city officials who’ve been bought and sold by development interests, and for embarrassingly small rewards: a trip to Hong Kong, free auto repair, that kind of thing. In most of these reports the name Walter Wong is prominent. Evidently he’s singing and they’re caught. 

What I find most shocking is that long ago, 15 or 20 years back at least, some people I knew were trying to remodel a South of Market warehouse into a loft to live in. They were told, way back then, that you couldn’t get permits in The City without an “expediter”—a fixer, preferably one named Walter Wong. And here he is, still around, still doing it after all these years. Even though all San Francisco supervisors might claim to be “progressive Democrats”. It’s not what you believe—it is, as ever, who you know. 

It’s even possible to “expedite” a San Francisco project without exactly breaking the law. The laws are pretty hazy. But, you say, big cities are always evil. Surely not Berkeley? 

If you have observed the permitting process in Berkeley for as long as I have(considerably more than 20 years) you will be aware that a large percentage of project proposals presented to deliberative bodies—the Zoning Adjustment Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Design Review Commission or the City Council--are represented by a small number of individuals. A couple of the regulars have longstanding connections with the City of Berkeley’s planning department. 

The best contender for the title of Berkeley’s Walter Wong is Mark Rhoades, now an independent “consultant” but once upon a time a City of Berkeley planning manager. Exiting through the revolving door, he’s represented quite a few successful projects plus a few that flopped. 

Let’s connect a few dots. In the recent city election, progressivish incumbents Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Councilmember Ben Bartlett were easily re-elected. But incumbent Councilmember Cheryl Davila, described on 48hills.org as a “progressive firebrand”, lost to Terry Taplin, a previously unknown candidate, who enjoyed generous contributions from a nested cluster of three organizations which advocate on one side of the most hotly contested issue in California’s single-party dominated government: Trickle-Down Housing In Your Back Yard. 

Their spiritual home is called YIMBYism—and its adherents are sometimes called Wienies, hommage to San Francisco-based State Senator Scott Wiener who’s backed innumerable bills aimed at wresting control of land use decisions from local governments. Berkeley’s State Senator Nancy Skinner has co-sponsored many a Wienie bill, most of which have been defeated as yet, and our very own Buffy Wicks carries Wiener’s water in the state legislature. 

The YIMBY/Wiener types believe that if you build a whole bunch of luxury housing priced for California’s inflated market, some of it will magically become available for the unhoused and ultra-low-income tenants. There are now a good number of academic studies disputing this theory.  

The way to get housing that low and very low income people can afford is to build it in the first place. Trickle-down just doesn’t. But that’s a complicated discussion for another time. 

Most Democratic voters don’t realize that they’re supporting this point of view when they vote in general elections. The secret is that in the general election in districts like ours, everyone needs to call themselves Democrats. In fact many are genuine Democrats, sincere adherents to much of what my mother, an early member of a California Democratic Club, used to call the Standard Liberal Position. They’re not bad on some other hot button topics. Nancy Skinner, for example, has in fact done some excellent work on police issues, which makes her collaboration with Wiener on pro-developer legislation especially regrettable. 

And here’s where we get into the weeds. In the November Berkeley Council District 2 elections both Taplin and another candidate, Alex Sharenko, received generous funding from a YIMBY-dominated San Francisco organization. 

Here’s how it appears on the Berkeley City website: BERKELEY NEIGHBORS FOR AFFORDABILITY, MAJOR FUNDING PROVIDED BY BAY AREA HOUSING ADVOCACY COALITION, SUPPORTING ALEX SHARENKO AND TERRY TAPLIN FOR DISTRICT 2 CITY COUNCIL 2020. 

An internet search on Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition produces this disclosure from the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition (SFHAC) website: 

“In 1999, we began calling for an end to our affordability crisis through creation of well-designed, well-located housing, at all levels of affordability as the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition (SFHAC). In the past year, we have taken our mission Bay Area-wide with a 501(c)4 advocacy arm, the Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition (BayHAC).” 

A 501(c)4 organization is what's often called “dark money’—making campaign contributions without donor attribution a lot easier. The money is put into an Independent Expenditure commitee--no strings attached. 

And what is SFHAC? 

Well, for brevity’s sake, let’s just quote from its website the bio of its executive director: 

” Prior to joining SFHAC, Todd [David] was the Political Director for Scott Wiener’s successful State Senate campaign.” 

Then, there’s this on their site: 

“ 'SFHAC has been an essential and effective partner in helping to further our pro-housing legislation in the Legislature,” stated Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).' ” 

Taking advantage of Berkeley’s ranked choice voting system by funding two candidates, SFHAC was pretty sure to be able to knock off Cheryl with one of them. 

In my investigative reporting youth I would have supported the conclusions here with a lot of numbers, but in my lazy old age I have to be satisfied with guessing what’s going on from small clues. 

In this locked-down world, with no reporters at my disposal, all I can do to keep the public informed is to pass along crumbs of gossipy information and allow readers to form their own conclusions. 

It seems apparent that San Francisco’s developer shills have their sights set on Berkeley now. Two alluring plums are the BART parking lots and the historically Black-owned single family lots in South and West Berkeley, which could be zoned for techy 10-plexes if the Wienies have their way this session. 

Two more crumbs : 

1) it’s rumored that Jesse Arreguin is planning to run for Nancy Skinner’s seat when she’s termed out. This might explain some of his recent endorsements, including his recent enthusiasm for the BAHAC candidates, since the organization has flexed its funding muscle around here. 

2) Each of the newly elected Berkeley councilmembers (Mayor Arreguin, Sophie Hahn, Ben Bartlett, Susan Wengraf, Terry Taplin) was allowed to invite a very small number of in-person spectators to the Zoomed swearing-in. Credible observers report that Mark Rhoades seemed to be there as Terry Taplin’s guest. Are they right? You figure it out. It's a small town. 

After all,they're all Democrats anyhow, aren't they? So why does it matter? 

And right on cue, just as I was asking that question, I got this email from a local reader who needs to remain anonymous: 

Not sure if you endured last night's Council meeting? They voted (effectively) 6-3 to overturn 6 years of work on the silly "Adeline Corridor Specific Plan," by glomming an extra story onto "Tiers 2–4" of the zoning.  

YIMBYs mobilized their members around a coordinated message. Clearly, at least 4 pro-growthers on the Council organized this astroturf turnout. Jesse very much in the lead. 

Harrison, Hahn, and Bartlett are the only remaining councilmembers with any integrity. All 3 spoke passionately against breaking trust with an already-suspicious South Berkeley community. 

Bartlett ultimately voted for Jesse’s bad plus-one-story measure, after his own substitute motion failed, with most pro-growthers "abstaining" because they lacked the courage to vote no on what they were killing.