Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won 93.3% of the vote in Berkeley, or 93.7% if write-ins are not included. Donald Trump and his running mate received 4.0%, up from 3.2% in the 2016 election. 

Biden. 59,965 93.7% 

Trump. 2,555 4.0% 

Hawkins (Green) 672 1.1% 

Others 782 1.2% 

Third party voting was down sharply compared to 2016. In that year, 6.5% voted for third party candidates with Green Party candidate Jill Stein coming in second with 4.6% of the vote, putting her ahead of Trump. Third party votes and write-ins totaled only 2.7% this year. 

No city in the United States with a population over 100,000 recorded a smaller percentage of votes for Donald Trump than Berkeley this year. In 2016, Detroit edged Berkeley with 3.1% for Trump in Detroit and 3.2% in Berkeley. Detroit this year does have a slightly higher percentage for Biden. 

 

Berkeley Turnout and Winners 

in Presidential Elections 

 

Year	Ballots Cast   and turnout	Winner in Berkeley with vote and %
2000	54,684   75.6%	Gore   42,167 78.1%
2004	60,818   77.3%	Kerry   54,409 90.0%
2008	66,703   77.5%	Obama   61,134 92.5%
2012	60,559   73.7%	Obama   54,163 90.3%
2016	65,430   78.1%	Clinton   57,750 90.4%
2020	64,450   81.5%	Biden   59,965 93.7%
In 2000, Ralph Nader received 13.2% of the vote; and George Bush received 7.8%

 

 

Among cities with populations over 100,000, Washington D.C., Cambridge, MA, and Oakland rank third, fourth and fifth in smallest percentage for Trump. Seattle is the largest city in the U.S. where Trump received less than 10%. 

I have found only one city of any size with a percentage for Trump below Berkeley’s 4%. East St. Louis, Illinois’ Election Commission report that Trump received only 281 votes, or 3.3% of the total. 

Consistent with polls showing massive support for Biden among African American voters, cities with very large percentages of African American residents like East St. Louis; Detroit; Gary Indiana; Chester, Pennsylvania; and Inglewood in Los Angeles County, gave Biden huge margins over Trump. 

Where Trump received less than 10% of the vote 

 

City or town	% Biden	% Trump
East St. Louis, IL	96.0/95.8	3.3
Berkeley CA	93.7/93.3	4.0
Detroit MI	93.9	5.0
Washington DC	93.0/92.1	5.4
Gary, IN	93.2	5.8
Bolinas CA	91.6	6.1
Cambridge, MA	92.1/91.7	6.4
Oakland CA	91.1	6.8
Ithaca NY (city of)	90.5	7.2
Chester PA	92.0	7.4
Amherst MA	90.3	7.4
Emeryville CA	90.1	7.4
Albany CA	90.1	7.5
Evanston IL	90.9	7.6
Fairfax CA	90.0	8.0
Norwich VT	89.7	8.2
Calumet IL	90.6	8.3
Seattle WA	88.5/89.0	9.1/9.2
Inglewood CA	88.6	9.6
Where two numbers are given, first is percentage without write-ins; second is with write-ins included. It’s not known for all cities whether write-ins are included or not since counties do not report election results in a uniform way. I make no claim that this is a complete list of Trump’s under 10% cities. There are probably others, especially among smaller cities. Newark, New Jersey probably belongs on this list but Essex County New Jersey has not put a precinct/city breakdown of the vote online.

 

 

Northern Alameda County is one of the nation’s most anti-Trump areas. Not only Oakland and Berkeley, but also Albany and Emeryville gave Trump fewer than 10% of their votes. In Oakland, Albany and Emeryville, Biden topped 90%, which Hilary Clinton had failed to do in 2016. 

Cities and towns with large student populations whose major employer is a college or university also tend to be strongly anti-Trump and pro-Biden. In addition to Berkeley, Cambridge and Amherst Mass, Evanston Illinois and the city of Ithaca New York make the list of cities with under 10% support for Trump. 

If you look at cities where Trump got only 10-15%, you’ll find even more college towns, including Santa Cruz, Davis and Palo Alto in California; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Madison, Wisconsin; Boulder Colorado; Charlottesville, Virginia; Hanover, New Hampshire, and Burlington, Vermont. 

Other cities where Trump managed only 10-15% include San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven and Hartford, Connecticut; Richmond, Virginia, and Richmond, California. 

More votes for Trump 

Trump’s vote total in Berkeley this year was actually higher than in 2016 by 524 votes, but Biden’s vote total was 2215 votes higher than Clinton’s in 2016. In 2012, Romney managed to get 4.6% of the vote, while John McCain did a bit better in 2008 with 4.9%. George Bush won 6.6% running against Democratic candidate John Kerry in 2004. 

Higher Turnout but Fewer Votes 

Turnout this year was 81.5% of registered voters in Berkeley, up from 78.1% in the 2016 presidential election. The Covid pandemic, however, reduced the pool of potential voters as the UC student population is currently substantially smaller than normal. The number of registered voters was down from 83,778 in 2016 to 79,072 this year. But interest in the election was so strong that the number of votes cast dropped by only 980 votes. 

 

Turnout by Council District 

November 3, 2020 Election 

 

Council District	2016 Ballots Cast/Turnout	2020 Ballots Cast/Turnout
1	9,245/82.0%	9,690/85.4%
2	8,350/75.6%	9,044/80.3%
3	8,494/76.2%	8,721/79.7%
4	7,089/74.9%	6,608/77.4%
5	10,497/86.9%	11,015/88.4%
6	8,718/81.9%	8,621/84.7%
7	4,898/63.9%	3,126/64.1%
8	8,139/77.8%	7,571/80.6%
citywide	65,430/78.1%	64,450/81.5%

 

The number of votes cast and turnout both reached record levels in districts 1, 2, 3 and 5, exceeding 2008, when Obama was first elected, the year with the highest number of votes ever cast in Berkeley. The number of votes cast in the other districts, which include student neighborhoods, fell even though turnout was higher due to the reduced number of student voters. In District 7, the student supermajority district, only 3126 votes were cast, down from an already relatively low 4898 votes in 2016. The number of voters was two or three times higher in other districts. 

Turnout also reached record levels in Alameda County as a whole. The number of registered voters set a record, increasing by 8.7% compared to 2016. 114,970 more votes were cast, an increase of 17.2% as turnout increased from 75.4% to 81.3%. A major factor spurring higher turnout was the decision made by Governor Newsom in response to the covid pandemic to send a vote by mail ballot to every voter. The increase in drop boxes in Berkeley and the county also helped. In Berkeley, only 6% of ballots were cast at the polls. 

State Props and Regional Measures 

Berkeley voters voted by a huge margin, 84.4% to 15.5%, for State Proposition 15, the constitutional amendment that would have required that commercial and industrial properties be taxed based on their market value. Revenue would have gone to school districts, community colleges and local government. Countywide, the measure won 64.9%. Statewide, it lost 52% to 48%. 

Berkeley voters also strongly supported Prop 16 to repeal the ban on affirmative action. They strongly opposed Prop 22, the measure backed by Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies, who spent more than $200 million to pass the measure. The proposition overrides state law treating their workers as employees. 

Berkeley Continues to Support Rent Control 

Berkeley Voters also favored Proposition 21, 61.3% to 38.7%. This ballot initiative would have allowed local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago. In Berkeley, this would have meant that rent control could have been extended to cover rental units built between 1980 and 2005, and with the passage of time, on units first occupied in subsequent years. The measure passed in only two counties statewide: San Francisco and Alameda, and passed by only slim margins. It would have failed in Alameda County if not for the strong support it received in Berkeley. 

Berkeley voters also supported Measure MM by a 56.8% to 43.2% margin. This local Berkeley measure amends the city’s rent stabilization ordinance to establish emergency eviction limitations to address situations such as the Covid Pandemic; to authorize registration of rental properties exempt from rent control; and to limit the exemption of ADUs from rent control to owner occupied properties with a single family home and no more than one ADU. 

Measure MM was supported by Mayor Arreguin, by progressive councilmembers and rent board commissioners and by the Berkeley Tenants Union. It was opposed by District 1 councilmember Rashi Keserwani, by the moderate Berkeley Democratic Club, and by some former elected officials including former Mayors Bates and Hancock, and former mayoral candidate Laurie Capitelli. 

How Berkeley Voted November 3 2020 Election 

Selected State Propositions, County and Local Measures 

 

Prop or Measure	Description	How   Voted	Ballots cast	% YES
Prop 15*	Change Commerical Property Tax	YES	62,463	84.4
Prop 16*	Overturn Ban on Affirmative Action	YES	61,654	78.5
Prop 21*	Allow Local Rent Control	YES	60,625	61.3
Prop 22**	Uber Lyft Drivers as Contractors	NO	61,654	23.9
W	Alameda County Sales Tax Increase	YES	57,683	68.3
FF	Berkeley Emergency Services Parcel Tax	YES	58,977	74.2
GG	Berkeley Tax on Uber/Lyft Trips	YES	57,843	58.8
HH	Utility Tax Increase for Climate Fund	NO	57,787	47.0
II	Police Accountability Board	YES	59,356	84.7
JJ	Pay Increase for Mayor and Council	YES	55,315	64.6
KK	Ending Firefighter Residency Requirement	YES	55,639	75.1
MM	Prohibit Eviction during Emergencies	YES	56,342	56.8

* Defeated statewide. **Passed statewide 

 

How voted is how voters in Berkeley voted on the prop or measure. 

Ballots cast are total ballots cast Yes or No on measure. A total of 64,450 ballots were cast in Berkeley. On each prop or measure, some voters left the ballot blank. In the presidential race, 63,974 votes were recorded for candidates on the ballot; 311 wrote-in candidates and only 164 voters, or .3% voted for no one. 

% of vote: percent of vote for or against measure in Berkeley 

 

MM lost in Districts 5 and 6, both predominantly homeowner districts in the hills, falling short with 45% and 44% of the vote respectively. It passed by large margins in South, West and Central Berkeley, with 64% in District 3 (South Berkeley); 61% in District 2 (southwest Berkeley); 58% in District 1 (northwest Berkeley); and 69% in District 4 (central and Downtown Berkeley). These four districts have substantial tenant populations, especially Districts 3 and 4. District 7, the near campus student super majority district, gave the measure 77% of its votes, though the vote margin was smaller than in the abovementioned districts because of the very low turnout there. District 8 (Southwest Berkeley) also approved the measure 57% in favor. In District 8, precincts closer to campus and west of College supported the measure offsetting the majority opposing the measure in the hills above Claremont Ave. 

Rent Board 

Support for rent control can be seen in the outcome of the contest for five seats on Berkeley’s rent board. The Right to Housing slate, selected at the Tenant Convention this summer swept to victory over the Homeowners for Rent Board slate. Members of the Right to Housing slate received a total of 138,953 votes while their opponents received 71,662 votes. 

Members of the Right to Housing slate got more total votes in every council district, and won more votes than the opposing slate in all of the city’s 33 consolidated precincts, except for two precincts in the hills of District 6 where Homeowner slate member Bahman Ahmadi was the top vote getter. The top vote getter on the Right to Housing slate was incumbent rent board commissioner Leah Simon-Weisberg, Directing Attorney for the Eviction Defense Collaborative. The 31,924 votes she received is the highest vote ever received by a rent board candidate in Berkeley. 

The success of the Right to Housing slate and of Measure MM and of Proposition 21 among Berkeley voters is all the more remarkable given that there were fewer student voters this year due to the pandemic and voting was done in the areas that are majority tenant and historically most pro-rent control. The Homeowner slate was probably hurt more than it was helped by all the independent expenditures by outside real estate groups in support of their candidacies. Backing by special interest groups like the National Association of Realtors Fund, even when it’s unsolicited, has not produced the results those groups were seeking in recent elections. 

Too Many Taxes? 

Berkeley voters approved Measure FF, the parcel tax to fund Berkeley emergency services by an almost 3-1 margin, and approved Measure GG that taxes rides on Uber and Lyft. Berkeley voters also favored Alameda County’s Measure W. However, Berkeley voters rejected Measure HH which would have increased the city’s Utility Users Tax, which appears on everyone’s PG&E bill. The revenue would have funded a Climate Action Fund. The Measure, which required 50% to pass, gained only 47% of the vote. The measure did worst in District 6 which often records the lowest level of support for tax measures, but it also failed in Districts 1, 2 and 3, and in District 5. It passed in Districts 4 and 7 with 50.3% and 53.4% respectively, and in District 8 by a margin of only three votes. 

Measure W 

The large margin of votes in Berkeley in favor of Alameda County Measure W, helped offset the margins against the measure in much of the eastern and southern part of the county. The margin for the measure was 20,075 votes in Berkeley; the measure passed countywide with only a slim 1311 vote margin (50.09% to 49.91%). The measure increases the sales tax rate from 9.25% to 9.75%, and would fund county services including housing and homeless services. It was ahead at the end of election night, but it’s lead dwindled as more votes were counted, and briefly fell behind until the final batches of votes restored a slim lead. 

 

Easy Wins for Most Council Incumbents 

Incumbent Mayor Arreguin, and incumbent councilmembers Bartlett, Hahn and Wengraf, won re-election by large margins, with the mayor and Councilmember Hahn winning with a record number of votes for a mayoral or council candidate. 

While her colleagues won easy re-election, incumbent District 2 councilmember Cheryl Davila lost by a big margin. When Davila ran in 2016, she won 31.0% of the first choice votes. She defeated incumbent Darryl Moore, who had 39.7% of the first choice votes, by getting most of the second choice votes of the third candidate Nancy Armstrong Temple. 

This year, Davila received only 29.5% of the first choice votes; her successful challenger Terry Taplin received 39.3% of the first choice votes and was easily elected when ranked choice voting allocated the second choice votes of the other two candidates. Davila’s 29.5% is the lowest level of support that any incumbent councilmember seeking re-election has received since District elections were implemented in 1986. Terry Taplin was endorsed by all but one member of the City Council, along with other elected officials who represent Berkeley. 

Endorsements may have made the difference in the School Board race this year as the two winners, Laura Babitt and Ana Vasudeo, had the most support among elected officials and had the backing of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers. 

 

 

The appalling incompetence of California’s state housing agencies was recently a top story in the mainstream media. Documented in “California’s Housing Agencies,” a report issued on November 17 by State Auditor Elaine Howle, the dereliction includes the loss of $2.7 billion in bond money that could have funded affordable housing.

What the mainstream press mentioned only in passing, if at all, is that the report also issues a broadside attack on local land-use authority.

Contending that “[l]ocal opposition to housing development has long been a major obstacle in California’s efforts to provide affordable housing,” and that “state law and state oversight are not strong enough to ensure that cities and counties are doing their part to facilitate the construction of affordable housing,” the Auditor urges the state to

• create a statewide appeals board to rule on local housing decisions;
• condition local funding for transportation and other non-housing uses on local housing development;
• establish a statewide requirement for inclusionary housing in a local jurisdiction that has already met its goal for housing in the above-moderate-income category but not for affordable housing—which is to say, most jurisdictions;
• increase the existing default densities of 10 to 30 units per acre for affordable housing;
• “streamline”—meaning, no public process—approvals of “all eligible affordable housing projects;” and
• authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development to implement and enforce these and other draconian measures.

The auditor also urges that the provision of affordable housing rely less on “significant state resources” and more on “local and private investment.” The idea is preposterous. Local governments don’t have the money to build housing; and private developers won’t build below-market-rate housing because it can’t yield the returns on investment that they and their lenders demand. Are these recommendations embodied in bills introduced after the Legislature reconvened on December 7, and in the budget that Governor Gavin Newsom will propose in January? 

 

The Auditor’s questionable independence 

The mission of the State Auditor’s Office, posted on its website, is to provide “objective evaluations and effective solutions that enhance the transparency, accountability, and performance of California government for the people it serves.” The Office’s staff, we are told, conduct their reviews in a nonpartisan manner, free from outside influence, including that of the Legislature, Governor, and the subjects of their audits and investigations. California State Auditor staff base their findings, conclusions, and recommendations upon reliable evidence and will not allow preconceived notions or personal opinions to influence their work. The staff strictly adheres to the standards of the auditing profession and exercises the highest standards of ethics. This averral of independence would be easier to believe if the auditor weren’t appointed by the governor from a list of “three qualified individuals” submitted by a majority of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. State law makes the auditor “accountable solely to the California Legislature” and stipulates that the appointee “may only be removed from office for cause by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature.” 

Howle’s office made the housing report in response to a February 14, 2019, request that was approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on February 26, 2020. Authored by the committee chair, Assemblymember Rudy Salas of Bakersfield, the request’s “proposed scope of the audit” says nothing about local jurisdictions and affordable housing or HCD. Instead, it focuses on the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (the latter agency is the one that lost the $2.7 billion). 

But in its long preface, Salas blames local government for the state’s housing woes and cites Newsom’s crackdown on cities that are “bad housing actors:” 

Because local governments are often responsible for blocking new housing developments, the Governor has been aggressive in forcing cities to allow more housing. He sued the city of Huntington Beach for not planning adequately for new housing. Additionally, 40 cities have been placed on a list of bad housing actors, some of which have recently come into compliance with state law. The Governor has also threatened to withhold transportation funding from cities that do not meet their state-mandated housing goals. 

Housing policy is political 

Howle and her staff are CPAs. When their office ventured into housing policy, it entered an intellectually and politically contested field where accounting criteria are inadequate guides. 

It’s one thing to report that “the State does not have a clear plan describing how or where its billions of dollars for housing will have the most impact” and that the “approval process for the [housing] programs’ financial resources is cumbersome for developers who need state resources to support their project” (cover letter). These are issues of efficiency and good bookkeeping. 

It’s another thing to assert that local opposition to housing is a major obstacle in the state’s efforts to provide affordable housing. That claim is analytically disputable and indeed hotly disputed. The Auditor presents only one side of the argument, the side taken by the governor and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, whose roster includes the Legislature’s most conspicuously militant critic of local say in land use, Senator Scott Wiener. 

Where’s the reliable evidence? 

Has the auditor has supported her position with reliable evidence, which must be drawn from outside her profession? It’s impossible to answer that question today, because apart from a few passing references to a survey conducted by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, which is itself problematic (see below), the report does not specify the evidence that supports its claims. 

Appendix C of the auditor’s report lists the 13 tasks that Salas’s letter asked the auditor to investigate. Her consideration of local land use practices is apparently predicated on the twelfth assignment: “Identify any best practices that encourage the creation of additional affordable housing throughout the State [sic], including balancing the needs of high-cost and rural areas.” 

To address this objective, the auditor’s office says it: 

• Interviewed a selection of stakeholders—including a housing advocate, building association, and local government association—and reviewed an existing survey of local governments to understand statewide affordable housing problems and best practices.
• Reviewed existing affordable housing research from governmental and academic sources to compile a list of the main barriers to and solutions for increasing affordable housing development.
• Reviewed recent housing-related legislation to identify remaining gaps in state law that, if amended, could provide for more affordable housing development.

These are all generalities. I’ve sent the Auditor’s Office a Public Records Act request asking for specific citations and also for documentation of any communications between her office and outside sources regarding a variety of claims made by the report. 

The growing scholarly debate about regulation and housing affordability 

In arguing that local constraints significantly hamper the provision of affordable housing, the auditor has aligned herself not only with Newsom and some of the Legislature but also with the overwhelming consensus in the planning profession and academia. The criterion of analytical validity, however, is not the number of people who support a position but the soundness of the evidence adduced by its proponents. A growing number of scholars have applied that criterion to the leading arguments in favor of the state preemption of local land use authority and found those arguments wanting. 

An article appearing in Urban Studies in September 2019 posited that “there is no clear and uncontroversial evidence that housing regulation is a principal source of differences in home availability or prices across cities.” The authors, economic geographers André Rodríguez-Pose, who teaches at the London School of Economics, and Michael Storper, who teaches at LSE, UCLA, and Sciences Po in Paris, contended that 

[b]lanket changes in zoning are unlikely to increase domestic migration or to improve affordability for lower-income households in prosperous areas. They would, however, increase gentrification within metropolitan areas and would not appreciably decrease income inequality. 

After three of Storper’s UCLA colleagues disputed their claims and defended “the conventional argument that regulation drives up prices,” Rodríguez-Pose and Storper sharpened their critique in an article published in August, “Dodging the burden of proof: A reply to Manville, Lens and Monkkonen.” 

Meanwhile, the Winter 2019 issue of the Hastings Environmental Law Review included an article by three UC Berkeley legal scholars, Moira O’Neill, Giulia Gualco-Nelson, and Eric Biber, that concluded that although “the relevant research on the relationship between regulation and housing costs has found a strong connection,” that research has relied on inferences drawn from the gap between construction costs and sales prices or on surveys of planners [e.g., the Terner survey cited in the Auditor’s report] and other stakeholders about their understanding of the regulatory process. While some research uses mixed method case studies, the methods still limit generalizability.” 

A paper posted in July, “Superintending Local Costraints on Housing Development,” authored by O’Neill, Biber, and two other UC scholars, Chris Elmendorf and Paavo Monkkonen, flatly states that “HCD has no reliable data about the severity or prevalence of local governmental constraints” on housing.” 

In his book A New Model for Housing Finance, published in June by Routledge, San Diego-based planner and USC instructor Murtaza Baxamusa wrote: 

Studies on the impacts of land use regulations on housing are mostly biased. They evaluate the cost of the regulation to the developer but ignore the benefits of regulation to the public. 

Baxamusa’s objections to “one of the most commonly used indicators,” the Wharton Land-Use Regulation Index, also apply to the Terner study: 

It is a static model based on a point in time survey, whereas the variables that are being tracked, such as permits and prices, are dynamic. Even the political climate changes over time. The sample selection bias raises questions on who filled out the survey and when? 

Baxamusa called out the Wharton researchers’ question about the importance of “community pressure.” That question, he wrote, “is clearly leading, especially since there was not a balanced “developer pressure” in the choices.” The Terner survey has the same bias. 

Baxmusa’s reference to changing prices suggests another limitation of the conventional approach: it fails to gauge the relative effects of regulation and citizen pressure on the one hand and market variables on the other. The auditor acknowledges that “[c]onditioning nonhousing funding on local housing development does present challenges—the LAO [Legislative Analyst’s Office] noted that some factors—such as landowners’ decisions and the health of the economy are outside of local jurisdictions’ control but significantly affect home building.” Indeed they do. 

What’s missing, then, is any consideration of how much factors such as landowners’ decisions and the health of the economy—and exactly how is that defined?—affect home building; any comparison of those effects and the ones resulting from local land-use policies and practices; and most importantly, whether the effects of local control are proportionate to the auditor’s recommendation that the state effectively take over land use authority. 

For the Legislature or the Governor to act on that recommendation amidst the widening analytical debate would be an unconscionable state power grab.

Last Monday I walked to the mailbox. When I returned the path to my apartment was blocked by a crew of six or seven people wearing yellow "Downtown Streets" vests. I paused behind the crewmember directly in front of my only way forward and when he turned my way I saw he was wearing a mask - under his chin. Most of the crew, I realized, was doing the same. Masks under the chin, around the neck, below the nose, etc., and as he came closer I said could you please put your mask on?

He went from zero to sixty in a second, shouting "get your bitch-ass out of here, just keep walking." I was shocked, and just stood there dumfounded as he kept circling away and then back toward me without a mask, shouting that I was a white bitch. Another mask-free crew member joined him in saying I had no business being there, that I should get the eff out of there, that it was none of my business, that I was a bitch. One of them said that I should be wearing a mask, although I was fully masked. I asked who was their supervisor and they pointed out Pamela Frazier, who told them to watch their language, but took her mask off to do it. They kept insisting that I had no right to be there, that it was none of my f-ng business, etc. Pamela Frazier sat in a motorized chair as if this were routine.

I wasn't just being blocked from re-entering my home of over thirty years. I was paying for this learn-to-take-profanity-and-like-it program-- as are you if you're a Berkeley taxpayer. Although my District 1 Representative's aide speculated that private merchants had hired the crew, in fact the City of Berkeley is paying $225,000 to contract with a San Jose-based company to sweep leaves and litter, "abate graffiti", and perform "poster and advertising removal" according to a September 15, 2020 Consent Calendar item bumping them an additional $870,304. This program apparently makes sure that when you take a brief moment during the pandemic shutdown to mail a letter you'll get a shower of profanity, a face-full of irate aerosol from a mask-free crewmember, and a chance to watch your constitutionally protected fliers and community notices torn down by the city, who despite repeated reminders, still hasn't figured out that first amendment thing. 

My neighborhood knows we're despised by the police and city staff, many of whom will go out of their way to raise an eyebrow when they hear where we live. I've had a police officer offer say, "how do you like living in that neighborhood?" as though he wouldn't be caught dead there. If you're assaulted, as I technically was by being screamed at by the city-paid crew member on December 7th, 2020, the response implies that it serves you right just for living there. 

But our neighborhood is pretty good at recognizing that leaves dropping in the fall aren't really a problem. And that graffiti is a battle best engaged between the property owner and the artist in question. No city crew should be spending public money buffing up private property, let alone sweeping out their private parking lots as the unmasked crew I saw was doing. And that if city-paid employees aren't going to wear masks, urgent messages that the rest of us should have to wear them are put in stark, not to mention absurd, relief. 

There is no complaint system for this Downtown Streets group, whose representative assured me he would obtain the bank security footage of the incident and get back to me and then just didn't bother. Or, rather, it's probably a lot like the current police complaint process. Complain if you dare, and then any complaint is weaponized against you while some private company counts their money. You'll probably be a great joke traded around at their Zoom holiday party if the stories published about Downtown Streets' company scandals are any indication, scandals which the sexual harassment element alone should have precluded their hire. 

Enterprising local community members should note that what really runs this company is the facade of helping formerly or currently homeless people get job training, a concept which is so well-greased with guilt in Berkeley that it never matters who runs it or how badly it is run or who gets hurt. Because if autumn leaves falling really were a problem my neighborhood and I wanted help with it, I could round up a crew from the nearby tent community in a day whose names I know and whose work I trust. 

"Downtown Streets" is run by carpetbaggers posing as pious do-gooders exploiting the poor who perform maintenance work at what should be union jobs with real benefits. It's worth contemplation during this cold, difficult holiday time, that cuts in our own city's union jobs and union job hours are being redirected, through this poorly run program, right out of town. The profits sitting in pockets in San Jose are apparently not being missed by our city's administrators, whose own Zoom holiday party is coming right up.

"Everything was done in strict compliance with applicable law, under the advice of counsel and tax experts," said Alan Garten, the Trump Organization's general counsel, as quoted in the NYTimes (Manhattan D.A. Intensifies Investigation of Trump, Dec. 11, 2020).

That mantra is used to defend a man whose taxes and financial dealings are under investigation for fraud. That is the mantra for a self-proclaimed billionaire who is reported to have paid only $750 in taxes in some years, and nothing at all in other years. Although he may have stepped over the line of legal activity, clearly, it indicates a genius in ability to work every possible loophole for his personal advantage.  

Our electoral system is similarly rife with loopholes that Trump has been trying to exploit to reverse the resounding loss he suffered in November. Although he has failed, his efforts have exposed a previously unrecognized weakness. Nearly all elections have ended with the loser conceding to the winner. Both candidates shared a greater respect for our democracy than for their personal political victory. Not this time. Trump has tried every legal technicality, and many extra-legal strategies, including flooding us wth a tsunami of false disinformation that repeats lies that he won.  

We must close the loopholes in our election system before a more competent demagogue comes along and successfully perverts our democracy. First on the list is removal of the Electoral College, either by constitutional amendment or with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This time, not only did just a few states get all the attention during the campaign, but they also were the target of post-election maneuvers that nearly overturned the results. Every voter's vote should count equally, but the Electoral College gives small-state voters over 3 times the impact of large-state voters. That just ain't right. NationalPopularVote.com has a solution to this threatening problem.

Indian farmers are angry with Prime Minister’s Modi’s policies of neoliberalism and inequality. Hundreds of thousands marched in New Delhi demanding repeal of new laws that maintain agricultural products at historic lows. This is a complete betrayal of promises made to famers in the 2014 election.

In a bid to win over farmers, Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said in its 2014 general election manifesto that all crop prices should be fixed at a minimum of 50% higher than the production costs. In 2016, Modi promised to boost the country's agriculture sector with a target of doubling the income of farmers by 2022. Agriculture is the main source of income for more than half of India’s 1.3 billion people. Many farmers are no longer able to maintain a living wage and have been driven into bankruptcy and suicide. An estimated 250 million workers participated in the strike making it the largest strike in the world. Police beat back peaceful demonstrators, many in their late sixties and seventies, with lathes and water cannons in the freezing cold weather.

This comes as COVID rages through India, which has reported more cases than any country in the world outside the United States. India’s working class endorsed the demands of the farmers. 

Many artists and poets returned their civilian awards. Punjab’s famous athletes sent their medals to Modi in solidarity with the farmers. It was a tremendous show of unity and solidarity, when millions of workers were saying, “We are with the farmers.” 

With unemployment hovering around 27% many farmers are unable to survive. In just two years, from 2018 to 2019, over 20,000 farmers died by suicide. Meanwhile the richest man in India, Mukesh Ambani, made $12 million an hour since the lockdown began. The farmers’ agitation rattled the Modi government prompting them to imprison opposition leaders. The chief minister of Delhi, Mr. Kejriwal has openly come out in support of the farmers’ demands to roll back Mr. Modi’s agricultural policies. India’s tone deaf, Prime Minister, Narendra Modi dismissed the protests as a “conspiracy by the opposition.” Little wonder Modi and Donald Trump became such bosom friends. The autocratic Modi doesn’t seem to have learned from his heavy handed polices. Let us hope the powerful voices of India’s courageous farmers will change his mind. To introduce such unpopular polices during raging pandemic is excessive cruel and short-sighted.

A deafening silence by the western press greeted the brutal murder of Iranian scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Strangely absent from the reported killing was the word “terrorist”. Fakhrizadeh was the fifth scientist to be (allegedly) assassinated by the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Not even a murmur of outrage was reported in the western press following these brutal crimes. 

Israel never even bothered to deny they were responsible. Neither Democrats nor Republicans condemned the killing. President Trump, on a whim, in complete violation of International law, decided to renege from the 2015 Nuclear Treaty boasting that it would be replaced by a “tougher” agreement. Crippling economic sanctions followed causing enormous suffering to the Iranian people amid a raging pandemic. The Iranians still have long memories of the theft of their oil in a 1953 coup orchestrated by British Mi6 and the CIA.  

What happened to our sense of morality? 

These murders are acts of terrorism and should be described as such by the western media. Failure to do so will expose us to charges of hypocrisy and embolden Iranian hard liners to seek revenge. An eye for eye, lust for revenge will leave us all blind. The Netanyahu government has played President Trump and Pompeo like a fiddle smothering them with flattery while cementing their chokehold on the suffering Palestinians expropriating more of their land and claiming the Syrian Golan Heights as their own. 

These targeted killings of Iranian scientists not only go unquestioned but in the words of Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, are considered “treasonous” to even pose. 

Why does Israel always get a free pass? After Fakrizadeh was murdered, Agnes Callamard, a U.N. Special Rapporteur and Director of Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University, tweeted that the assassination was “a violation of international human rights law and a complete violation of the UN Charter that disallow the use of force extraterritorially in times of peace.” 

Yet it is Iran that continues to be targeted as a global threat. This, despite the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, repeatedly confirming in 2018 that Iran was complying with the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. So which nation is the greater threat to world peace? 

Simply stated, Iran today has zero nuclear bombs while Israel is widely believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and to have produced enough plutonium for 100-200 weapons, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. 

I wonder how the world press would respond if Iran assassinated an Israeli or US scientist? Public discourse on these state-sponsored acts of terrorism has historically been absent: Washington and Tel Aviv have had such a long-running alliance and shared intelligence regarding Iran that targeted killings not only go unquestioned but in the words of Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, are considered “treasonous” to even pose. So much for Israel’s claim to be a democracy.

Like most of you, I cannot wait until Donald Trump leaves the White House and the daily onslaught of Trump "news" ceases. Unfortunately, while Trump will move on to the netherworld, the political madness will continue. The most difficult 2020 election lesson is that Trump is not the cause of Republican insanity, he is its symptom.

In the 2020 election, more than 74 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. They chose crazy.

It's a deeply disturbing fact that millions of Americans voted for Trump. A fact that's important to consider, because Trump will disappear but Trumpism will persist. Many Trump voters will continue to support Republican irrationality.

Many pundits disparage Trump supporters; call them stupid, deplorable, or worse. I believe the most apt characterization of MAGA devotees is desperate. Trump supporters feel hopeless and have grasped Trump as a "lifesaver." 

This is the perspective expressed by UC Berkeley Sociology professor Arlie Hochshild in her 2016 book: “Strangers in Their Own Land.” Hochschild conducted a five-year study of Louisiana Tea Party voters who eventually became Trump supporters. Hochschild details their “deep story,” a narrative shared by her interviewees: “You are standing in a long line leading up a hill, as in a pilgrimage. You are situated in the middle of this line, along with others who are also white, older, Christian, and predominantly male… Just over the brow of the hill is the American Dream, the goal of everyone waiting in line. Most in the back of the line are people of color… Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you! You’re following the rules. They aren’t. As they cut in, it feels like you are being moved back… Who are they? Women, immigrants, refugees, public sector workers — where will it end?” 

The voters Hochschild interviewed had been screwed over for so long that they were profoundly disoriented. Grasping for a lifeline, they latched onto Trump. After January 20th, Trump may slink offstage, but the desperation experienced by Trump voters will not disappear. As a consequence, Trump voters will continue to support Republican irrationality. 

This is a perspective shared by New York Times columnist, David Brooks, who recently wrote (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/republican-disinformation.html? ): "We live in a country in epistemological crisis, in which much of the Republican Party has become detached from reality." [Emphasis added] Brooks explained: "In 1972, people without college degrees were nearly as happy as those with college degrees. Now those without a degree are far more unhappy about their lives... This precarity has created, in nation after nation, intense populist backlashes against the highly educated folks who have migrated to the cities and accrued significant economic, cultural and political power.... People in this precarious state are going to demand stories that will both explain their distrust back to them and also enclose them within a safe community of believers. The evangelists of distrust, from Donald Trump to Alex Jones to the followers of QAnon, rose up to give them those stories and provide that community. Paradoxically, conspiracy theories have become the most effective community bonding mechanisms of the 21st century." 

Brooks concluded: "Under Trump, the Republican identity is defined not by a set of policy beliefs but by a paranoid mind-set... Distrust and precarity, caused by economic, cultural and spiritual threat, are the source." 

The key question for the Biden Administration is what to do about this. How should they manage a situation where a substantial percentage of the populous not only did not vote for Biden-Harris but actually believes their election was illegitimate? 

Addressing this political and social divide will take time. There are several obvious steps. First, the message from the Biden Administration has to be one of reconciliation. In a recent speech, Joe Biden said, "“We are not enemies. We are Americans. This is the time to heal in America.” That's the right message, but many Trump supporters will not accept it; many MAGA devotees will hunker down within their paranoid communities. 

Biden has taken control of the "bully pulpit." Over the next four years, Biden has to use this communication advantage to promote a positive message of reconciliation and hope. The key is message consistency; if it's maintained, Trump supporters will succumb. 

The second step requires understanding that "the populist backlash" is a symptom of class conflict. Donald Trump, and other Republican leaders, have -- to further their selfish political agenda -- promoted a class war: the "deplorables" versus the "coastal elites." Listen to the language of Trump attorney Sidney Powell: "American patriots are fed up with the corruption from the local level, to the highest level of our government... We are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom.” 

In 2016, Trump's message to his supporters was: "The system is broken and I alone can fix it." Millions of Americans responded to Trump's message, because they believe the system is broken. 

The third step is to address the substantive grievances of Trump supporters, and millions of other Americans. They want a shot at the American Dream. 

In October, the Gallup Poll asked Americans: "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?" 80 percent of respondents said they were "dissatisfied." These Americans are dissatisfied with a lot of things: their jobs, housing, healthcare, and the education of their children. They are dissatisfied because they do not believe there is "a level playing field." They are dissatisfied because they believe that a seminal American mythic narrative is dead. A myth that Robert Reich (https://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/02/robert-reich-th.html) identified as: "The Triumphant Individual... the familiar tale of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself, and eventually gains wealth, fame, and honor." 

This dissatisfaction is not unique to Trump supporters. It's shared by many who voted for Biden-Harris. That's the silver lining in this difficult situation: most Biden supporters, and Trump devotees, ultimately want the same thing: a fair shot at the American dream. 

---

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that what happens to an individual is her choice, meaning that being forced to carry a fetus to full term violated a person's inalienable right do decide what is to happen to her body. Another way of saying it is, "Keep the government out of my (her) womb."

Forcing an individual to take psychiatric drugs could be seen analogously to anti-abortion laws that were struck down under the Supreme Court ruling. Forcing an individual to take psychiatric medication against his or her will could be seen as a basic violation of human rights.

But it is more complicated than that. To force medication on someone, often they are first judged incompetent. This means that a mental illness has wiped out an individual's ability to make a rational decision. That's one point in which the forced medication differs from Roe v. Wade. 

This is tangential: In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's decision was partly based upon the premise that life does not begin at conception, and this is where people on either side of the issue lose reason and where religious people sometimes resort to violence. This is an argument between science versus some sects of Christianity. Scientifically, it is obvious that a clump of cells isn't capable of suffering. However, some sects of Christianity believe that unborn human life is sacred. The Supreme Court of the U.S. assessed at what point a developing fetus has consciousness. 

(It would certainly confuse the entire argument on both sides if we had the technology to support an unborn fetus through mechanical means.) 

In the case of client's rights not to be forced into taking mind-restricting medication for the rest of our lives, this has been a major thrust of the Patients' Rights movement. The patients' rights movement is all but gone, at least in the East Bay, and I am unsure of the exact causes. 

The rationale behind forced medication is that the patient is being saved from a disease that ruins gray matter, and this disease is making the patient unable to judge and to discern that treating the disease is necessary. 

If a person who is believed to be impaired by a psychiatric condition can function and navigate the system, there are numerous legal and other avenues through which they could stop the system from forcing medication on her or him. Thus, intervention through a court or a Supreme Court decision would not be needed. 

On the other hand, what about someone who is temporarily insane and who could possibly recover from this with methods other than being medicated? A drawback of medication is that it will permanently change the brain, and if taken for a few years, can not be stopped for the rest of the patient's life. Some theorize that antipsychotics impair higher functions, and these are the functions that could allow a person to get well from their condition through nonchemical means. If not medicated, a patient could ultimately leave the system behind, and could build a real life. How do you counter this argument? 

And, what about the concept that being forced to take medication by authorities creates resentment and is itself provocative for attempts at going rogue. 

On the other hand, if someone can decide for oneself, as I did, that we can't keep playing Russian-Roulette with going on and off medication, it allows us to make a personal commitment to compliance that is not based on force, but which, instead is based on our own insight. And this is a developmental step that many people with mental illness never achieve. The continuous presence of being forced to comply to medication will probably block this development. When that happens, the patient again becomes noncompliant soon after the force is withdrawn, if it ever is. 

It is a sad way to live if, for the rest of our lives we live in a supervised situation. 

Forced treatment? In the short term it works. In my past, short term forced medication saved my life. However, ongoing forced treatment, mandated by government authorities, supposedly for my own good, I reject that notion for the above reasons. 

Does medication work to treat mental illness? It seems to. It seems to be a lifesaver. Before medication we had lobotomies and shock. We had state hospitals in which patients were subjected to horrible conditions. E. Fuller Torrey, well-known psychiatrist, and author of "Surviving Schizophrenia" (and highly vilified by many mentally ill patients' rights advocates) stated that we need to do more brain research for better medications. In an article, he argued that there have been no significant advances in treatment since the development of Clozaril, which was discovered more than thirty years ago. 

Better medications could revolutionize or even eliminate a large part of the dilemma of forced treatment versus the liberty and self-determination of individuals. 

---

Be sure to check out Jack's new fiction collection: "Jack Bragen's 2021 Fiction Collection." It can be found on Lulu.com or Amazon.com.

In 2012, then President Barack Obama by Executive Order the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA often called “Dreamers”), giving young unauthorized immigrants the right to seek work permits and deportation relief through the DACA program.

On September 5, 2017, with a stroke of a pen, Trump phased out over six months unless Congress stepped in with its own plan for these childhood arrivals, but gave the Republican-controlled Congress until March 6, 2018 to replace it. Trump promised to sign the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (Dream Act) that would have granted legal status to certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and went to school here. 

The Dream Act was first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, by Senators Dick Durbin (D- Illinois) and Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), and has since been reintroduced several times but has failed to pass. The legislative goal was to provide a means for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to gain a pathway to permanent legal status; provided those individuals achieved certain milestones. Because Congress failed to pass the Dream Act, that’s why Obama issued the DACA program by Executive Order. 

But Trump kept changing the rules in midstream by demanding a quid pro quo -- he would sign the Dream Act or other help for Dreamers if Congress provided money for a wall and limited visas for extended family members, which Republicans call chain migration, and cancelled the visa lottery program. 

Trump, however, kept changing the rules in midstream by demanding a quid pro quo -- he would sign a Dream Act or other help for Dreamers if Congress provided money for a wall and limited visas for extended family members, which Republicans call chain migration, and cancelled the visa lottery program.  

Trump knew or should have known that Congress was unlikely to pass the Dream Act by March 6 when several versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress since 2001, but never passed, and Democrats would not agree to Trump’s quid pro quo. Furthermore, bipartisan deals on immigration have eluded lawmakers and presidents for three decades.  

Trump then, turning truth on its head, Tweeted, “DACA is dead because the Democrats didn’t care or act, and now everyone wants to get onto the DACA bandwagon.” 

Although Trump once claimed a "great love for DACA recipients,” the death of DACA played to his base of supporters who were delighted with his continued anti-immigrant stance. Dreamers don’t need this kind of love. 

Federal District Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California had blocked Trump’s plan to end DACA, holding that the Trump administration must resume accepting renewal applications. And on February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court said it would stay out of the dispute concerning the DACA program for now, meaning participants will still be able to renew their status. The Supreme Court action meant the case would continue in the lower courts.  

On December 4, 2020, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf became the first lower court to fully restore the DACA program. The Court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to post a public notice by December 7, 2020, to accept first-time applications and ensure that work permits are valid for two years.  

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to fully restore the DACA program as soon as he takes office in January. 

I expect the DACA program will eventually reach the Supreme Court again. Until then, the Dreamers can breathe easier for awhile. 

Damn You, Autocorrect!

I noticed the SF Chronicle has posted an online list of holiday special events. One of the options garnered special attention owing to a Chron typo. A "Holiday Cookie Demo" featuring Charlie Farriér of Crumble & Whisk is set to screen at 5:30 PM on December 15. But the addition of a single letter makes the event sound a bit friskier than intended. The Invite line reads: "Join Crumble & Whisky."

Why You Can't Be a Christian and a Capitalist

A note, in passing, to the bottom-line prophets of the Prosperity Gospel: “No one can serve two masters. . . . You cannot serve both God and money." — Matthew 6:24-28.

When the World Is in Tatters, Look to the Heavens

NBC has come up with some good news for our wretched, cloistered times.

If you're looking for "a bright spot in a dark year," just circle December 21 on your calendar and prepare to lift your gaze to the sky. On this Solstice Night—the first day of winter and the longest night of the year—the planets Jupiter and Saturn will appear to merge into a single, brilliant "Christmas Star"—a sight not seen in 800 years.

The last time this planetary conjunction was visible in the night sky was in 1226—a year that marked the deaths of Louis VIII (the Lion King) and St. Francis of Assisi. 

The Pandemic Panorama 

Meanwhile, the careening coronavirus calamity continues to escalate. On December 9, the US racked up a record 3,000 Covid-19 deaths in a single day. That's more that the number of Americans killed during the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor; more than the number of Americans killed during the September 11 attacks that targeted the Trade Towers and the Pentagon. But, while the pandemic is raging in the heartland, paralysis reigns in Washington as the end of the year approaches without action to address imminent economic chaos. 

Specifically, Washington's failure to pass a significant new relief package would mean a sudden end to unemployment benefits for 12 million displaced workers while millions of American renters would face eviction from their apartments and homes. 

So why was Mitch McConnell so dead-set on striking a people-centric deal with the Dems? Like Pelosi, Schumer and Dr. Fauci, Mitch was concerned about "immunity"—just not the kind of immunity that protects millions of ordinary Americans. 

McConnell wanted to trade billions in federal relief spending only on the condition that the Democrats gifted the GOP with a promise of "corporate immunity" a scheme to save big business billions by ignoring the safety and suffering of workers, customers, and clients. Instead of requiring business to take steps to protect the health and welfare if its employees, the McConnell plan would let Corporate America continue to put the lives of its workers at risk without having to face any legal or financial constraints. The McConnell plan would also ignore state and local funding to support teachers and first-responders. McConnell has repeatedly rejected a new round of relief checks support to individuals and families. 

All this political perfidy begs a question: "Is there any chance Pfizer could come up with a vaccine that could inoculate people like McConnell and make them immune to greed and profiteering?" 

How Trump Profited from the Pandemic 

Why did Trump so flippantly dismiss the threat of the coronavirus, even as the deadly reach of the virus became increasingly evident? Did Trump perceive an opportunity to personally profit from the spreading contagion? An investigation of Small Business Administration loans has disclosed that the major beneficiaries of government aid were not small businesses but large businesses. The SBA's taxpayer-funded bailout included $3.65 million in Payback Protection Program funds sent to properties owned by Donald Trump and Jared Kushner. 

According to an NBC investigation (which required a federal lawsuit to compel the government to comply with the Freedom of Information Act), we now know that the SBA mislead the public when it claimed that 87% of its loans went to small businesses. In fact, NBC revealed, more than half of the $522 billion in SBA relief checks were written to 600 large businesses and corporations, including "more than 25 PPP loans [that] were given to . . . businesses owned either by the Trump Organization or Kushner Companies." 

One $2.14 million loan was handed over to the Trump International Hotel in New York. Two unidentified Trump Tower tenants each received a $100,000 SBA check while four tenants of a Kushner-owned Manhattan property were awarded checks totaling $816,000. The checks were meant to save jobs for scores of small business employees. So how many jobs were saved by this $1 million-plus Trump/Kushner bailout? Nine. Nine jobs. 

Also benefitting from the spread of Covid-19-driven checks: White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany's parents, whose Florida roofing firm received a $2 million check from the SBA. 

Trump's Threat to Torpedo the Pentagon 

The Daily Kos recently ran a story with this great lead sentence: "Impeached two-time popular vote sore loser Donald Trump apparently can't get enough of the losing." 

The article went on to note how Trump—despite seeing his legal team strike out on 53 different court cases contending that the presidential election was "rigged"—seems determined to fully sully his reputation by threatening to veto the National Defense Authorization Act — the holiest piece of legislation in the chapel of the Military Industrial Complex. 

So why is our Commander-in-Chief threatening to starve the "brave troops" who supposedly "protect America from attacks" (presumably by repeatedly attacking dozens of other nations on an ongoing basis)? 

The answer: Because Twitter is being mean to him. 

Yep. Trump's gripe is with the section of the Communications Decency Act that allows Twitter to post warnings on his White House Tweets whenever they contain falsehoods, fantasies, fictions, and random fascist follies. Trump is the kind of leader who would put the entire nation's security at risk in order to maintain the personal security of his petty, petulant tweet-storms. 

As the Kos put it: "calling a lie a lie is a bridge too far for a man whose primary mode of communication is lying." 

Trump Is Out to Kill. Literally 

Public Citizen notes that, over the past half-century, the federal government has only executed only three people. That ended in July 2020, when Trump's personal lawyer, US Attorney General William Barr, unilaterally quashed a 17-year ban on federal executions. 

Trump appears ready and willing to revive the federal death penalty. In the past few months since, Trump has signed off on the state-imposed murder of eight people. 

According to Public Citizen, the most recent execution, in mid-November, marked "the first execution carried out by a lame-duck administration in over 100 years." 

Trump and Barr have also endorsed the return of firing squads, electrocutions, and gas chambers. 

And "most sickeningly of all," Public Citizen notes, "Trump and Barr are trying to rush through five more executions before Trump leaves office. Four of the five people Donald Trump wants to execute while he still can are Black." 

As the BBC observes, Trump's killing spree will mark him as "the most prolific execution president in modern history." 

Public Citizen has posted the following plea: "We have to stop Donald Trump and William Barr from carrying out their vile, racist intentions to rush through more executions before Trump leaves office. Add your name now." 

This Just Might Be "The Ultimate Compassion Test" 

CODEPINK and Women for Peace & Justice are circulating a petition designed to spare Lisa Montgomery—a lifelong victim of cruelty and violence—from Trump's execution orders. 

According to the petition, Lisa Montgomery suffered through a childhood of "cruelty from mother, father, friends, strangers, via physical and sexual abuse, repeated rape by father and husband and gang rape and sex trafficking by her mother" and became “profoundly mentally ill” as a result. 

Montgomery's plight has been featured on Democracy Now! and even inspired a musical tribute called "Lisa's Song." 

Lisa Montgomery was set to be executed in December but her date of execution was postponed to January 12. 

Her supporters are asking people to undertake a simple act. "Write to Lisa!" 

Lisa's lawyer, Sandra Babcock, explains: "We are hoping that Lisa receives hundreds of messages for the holidays. The other great thing is that the prison copies all of her correspondence, so they will have to copy hundreds of well-wishes for Lisa. The prison will then likely send them to the Government, so the Government will see how many supporters she has.” 

Another benefit: "Lisa will finally receive, via the letters, overwhelming love and nurturing by many. This can only give her a bit of healing and comforting that she has been deprived of for too long." 

No cards, postcards, drawings allowed: Only words. Letters can be mailed to: 

Lisa Montgomery, #11072 - 031 

Federal Medical Center - Carswell 

Ft. Worth, Texas 76127  

Now for the compassion test: Why is Lisa on death row? Because, in her mentally damaged state, she strangled and murdered a pregnant woman and then used a knife in an attempt to steal the unborn child. 

That's your choice. You can take action or not. It's a personal decision. If your compassion permits, here's the petition to stop Lisa's execution. 

What To Do about Uncle Sam 

Matt Wuerker, one of our favorite progressive political cartoonists, has taken on a revolutionary challenge—revising (or replacing) the character known as Uncle Sam. 

Wuerker recently found himself wondering if "a tall, skinny, old white guy" is the best image to characterize 21^st Century America. 

For generations, Uncle Sam has been associated with overseas military adventures and empire-building—and look at how that played out. Wuerler believes it's long past time to ditch the guy with the top-hat, stripped pants, and 18^th century goat's beard. 

So Wuerker has joined forces with Politico to undertake a "reimagining" of a 19^th century icon who has grown long-in-the-tooth. Politico has begun producing a limited-run “Punchlines” series to explore different ideas on how to renovate—or retire—Star Spangled Sam. You can watch the teaser video for the series here. Politico promises to have the resulting episodes ready for broadcast during inauguration week. 

Here's one suggestion: Replace Uncle Sam with Aunt Em—that's "em" as in Mother, Matriarch, Miracle-worker. A Rosie the Riveter for the modern era—a visionary, a caretaker, a first-responder, and a doer-of-good. She can wear a dress, a smock, or dungarees as the situation warrants and I'm fine with the tradition of a costume that's distinguished with red-and-white stripes and five-pointed stars on a field of blue. 

We could call the result our "Star-spangled Aunt Em." 

Barbara Lee Wins the First Annual Quincy Award 

On December 4, the first ever Quincy Institute Award for Responsible Statecraft was presented to U.S. Representative Barbara Lee "for her advancement of ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace." 

Outside the Bay Area, Rep. Lee is best known for her solitary vote against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was supposedly aimed at targeting the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks. Instead, the AUMF was used to commence a "Global War on Terrorism" that has, to date, initiated US-backed "Forever Wars" in at least 19 countries around the world. 

The award was presented in a virtual ceremony that featured a conversation between Rep. Lee and Quincy Institute President Andrew Bacevich—with comments from Lee's colleagues and allies in the struggle "to end endless wars." Here is the video of the event. 

 

Nuclear Bombs Become Illegal in 2021 

On January 22, the world will celebrate the activation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). 

On this historic day, the International Peace Bureau is inviting friends and all peace lovers to "celebrate this historical step and deliver this great news with noise and fun in your countries all across the globe, as the road to a world free of nuclear weapons is now wide open!" 

The IPB is planning a virtual Zoom party to celebrate the "generations of activists that have tirelessly raised awareness about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945." 

"You can look forward to drinking one (or many) of our delicious signature TPNW cocktails in the company of fellow supporters of peace and disarmament. We have a couple of surprise virtual guests and activities prepared." 

You can attend by signing up to the event here: https://bit.ly/ipbprt 

The January 22 party will start at 1 PM Central European Time and runs until 3 PM CET. (You might want to exchange those cocktails for a strong cup of coffee since the event will be taking place from 4-6 AM local time.) 

Go Big, Joe 

In a recent article that appeared in The Hill, MoveOn Political Action organizer Rahna Epting urged our President-elect to "Go Big Joe!"
Epting's message was clear: "President-elect Biden needs a bold, ambitious agenda to meet the deep challenges of our time, and he'll need a strong, progressive, grassroots movement at his back to get it done. That's where we come in." 

Epting noted that "Solutions to the pandemic, expanded access to health care, clean-energy jobs, criminal justice reform, and other progressive approaches to governance don’t just help people, they’re also wildly popular. They are what the voters are demanding. . . . 

"[W]e can't go back to the pre-Trump status quo. America has never worked for all of us, so this is our chance to rebuild by building power for the people instead of corporations and the wealthy." 

To promote the message, MoveOn is running the following TV ad in the District: 

 

78 Peace Heroes Who Voted Against the Pentagon 

On December 8, Congress voted on H.R. 6395, the House version of National Defense Authorization Act. Typically, a vote on funding the Pentagon passes with near-unanimity. Not so this year. 

According to House Roll Call 238, 78 Representatives cast a "Nay" vote for passing the Pentagon's $740 billion budget. The bill was supported by 140 Republicans and 195 Democrats. More Republicans (40) voted against the massive spending bill than Democrats (37) 

Only seven California Reps (highlighted in bold) had the courage to vote against the Military's Billions. The dissidents included Bay Area Congresswoman Barbara Lee. 

Here Is the List of House War Resisters 

Justin Amash [I] Michigan 

Brian Babin [R] Texas 

Nanette Diaz Barragán [D] California 

Andy Biggs [R] Arizona 

Dan Bishop [R] North Carolina 

Earl Blumenauer [D] Oregon 

Suzanne Bonamici [D] Oregon 

Brendan Boyle [D] Pennsylvania 

Ken Buck [R] Colorado 

Ted Budd [R] North Carolina 

Tim Burchett [R] Tennessee 

Judy Chu [D] California 

Yvette Clark [D] New York 

Michael Cloud [R] Texas 

Warren Davisdon [R] Ohio 

Diana DeGette [D] Colorado 

Mark DeSaulnier [D] California 

Michael F. Doyle [D] Pennsylvania 

Jeff Duncan [R] South Carolina 

Adriano Espaillat [D] New York 

Russ Fulcher [R] Idaho 

Tulsi Gabbard [D] Hawaii 

Jesus Garcia [D] Illinois 

Louis Gohmert [D] Texas 

Lance Gooden [R] Texas 

Paul Gosar [R] Arizona 

Morgan Griffith [R] Virginia 

Andy Harris [R] Maryland 

Jody Hice [R] Georgia 

Clay Higgins [R] Louisiana 

Jared Huffman [D] California 

Pramila Jayapal [D] Washington 

Jim Jordan [R] Ohio 

Joe Kennedy [D] Massachusetts 

Ro Khanna [D] California 

Dan Kildee [D] Michigan 

Barbara Lee [D] California 

Andy Levin [D] Michigan 

Billy Long [R] Missouri 

Carolyn B. Maloney [D] New York 

Massie [R] Kentucky 

Brian Mast [R] Florida 

Tom McClintock [R] California 

Jim McGovern [D] Massachusetts 

Grace Meng [D] New York 

Alex Mooney [R] West Virginia 

Gwen Moore [D] Wisconsin 

Jerry Nadler [D] New York 

Joe Neguse [D] Colorado 

Norman [R] South Carolina 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D] New York 

Ilhan Oman [D] Minnesota 

Greg Pence [R] Indiana 

Scott Perry [R] Pennsylvania 

Mark Pocan [D] Wisconsin 

Bill Posey [R] Florida 

Jamie Raskin [D] Maryland 

Tom Rice [R] South Carolina 

David Rouzer [R] North Carolina 

Chip Roy [R] Texas 

Steve Scalise [R] Louisiana 

Jan Schakowsky [D] Illinois 

David Schweikert [R] Arizona 

José Serrano [D] New York 

Jason Smith [R] Missouri 

Adrian Smith [R] Nebraska 

Tom Tiffany [R] Wisconsin 

Rashida Tlaib [D] Michigan 

Nydia Velázquez [D] New York 

Watson Coleman [D] New Jersey 

Peter Welch [D] Vermont 

Ted Yoho [R] Florida 

"Senate Seats" by The Founders' Sing 

i

Despite all the legal scholars saying that the Texas lawsuit was frivolous without merit, I still worried. It was a relief to receive the news that the Supreme Court dismissed the latest bid to overturn the November 3 election. The mere fact that 17 attorneys general and 126 congressional Republicans signed on to the Texas suit should give all of us pause. A closer election could be the end of what is left of this democracy.

On page 352 in Isabel Wilkerson’s book Caste, she quotes Taylor Branch, historian of the Civil Rights Movement, “If people were given the choice between Democracy and Whiteness, how many would choose Whiteness?” The answer is staring at us.

On July 14, 2020, the Berkeley City Council passed the Omnibus Motion on Public Safety. This motion was to put into action policing reform in Berkeley. It follows by two years the release of the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) Report of disparate treatment of Blacks in Berkeley.

I fully expected Councilmember Bartlett’s proposal to develop a progressive police academy, called the George Floyd Community Safety Act, to fill the entire City Council Public Safety Committee meeting Monday morning, but the item was withdrawn as too expensive to pursue in this economy. The next item, the Ordinance Regulating Police Acquisition and Use of Controlled Equipment, was continued, with the City Attorney reviewing the ordinance before the next meeting in January, bringing the meeting to a quick end.

The two unscheduled items from previous Councilmember Cheryl Davila were left in abeyance. Her successor Terry Taplin had said prior to the meeting that he did not wish to advance provisions for less lethal weaponry and fire extinguishers for homeless encampments. It is not surprising that dealing with the controversial issues of tear gas, pepper spray, disorientation devices, etc. was left unscheduled, but it is unfortunate that a discussion of providing fire extinguishers is not coming forward. The total acres of land consumed in wildfires (over 4 million acres - 9,279 fires) in California in 2020 was more than double the previous record. This should make everyone receptive to considering all avenues to reduce fire risk. At least Fire Chief Brannigan was invited to the January Safety Committee meeting to provide information on evacuation plans. 

Early on in the Adeline Corridor planning meetings, I must have looked and sounded pretty naïve as an older Black woman took me aside to tell me how things really work in Berkeley. She explained it just a show, there would be lots of meetings asking for input and then they go ahead and do what they always planned. I stopped attending several meetings in after listening to the consultant presentation on how the Adeline Corridor should look like University Avenue in Palo Alto. 

Tuesday evening the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan was on the City Council agenda. Mayor Arreguin led the charge with his motion to discard recommendations from the Planning Commission that were the result of years of community work. 

Councilmember Hahn spoke to the cost of losing community trust, that a plan that took years shouldn’t be changed at the 12th hour; the trade-offs haven’t been studied. Harrison pointed out that the Mayor’s motion would water down the required inclusionary affordable housing. 

The Adeline Corridor is the formerly redlined area which has been the heart of the Black neighborhood and Black owned businesses. Now it is the target of gentrification. There was a substitute motion from Councilmember Ben Bartlett supporting the recommendations from the Planning Commission which gained only three supporters, Hahn, Harrison and Bartlett. 

In the end Harrison was the only councilmember who held to principle. The annotated agenda with the Mayor’s motion does not specify how many additional floors will be permissible and how that works out in the requirements for inclusionary affordable housing, but it is clear that developers and gentrification won the day, even if not every caller for more floors/bigger buildings understood their victory. The North Berkeley Neighborhood Alliance might want to take a lesson from Friends of Adeline. 

In the Tuesday 4 pm Council meeting, the tenant eviction protection emergency ordinance did pass. 

Early Wednesday afternoon my walk partner and I were passed by four police officers on bicycles. We saw them again at the North Berkeley Post Office talking to an older Black gentleman who was Stting While Black on the stone wall near the door. About a half hour later, on our swing back to our homes, when we reached the intersection of McGee and Hearst it was filled with police officers and police vehicles up and down the street, five cruisers and the crime scene van, five “meter maid” traffic vehicles and ten uniformed officers. We arrived well after the accident: A” meter maid” vehicle with a dented front end was sitting by a light post and knocked-over stop sign. 

What added interest to these citizen observation of police presence were the discussions, presentations and exchanges at the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group on Wednesday and the Budget and Finance Committee on Thursday. 

There was a testy exchange between the mayor and the police chief Wednesday as Chief Greenwood complained about budget cuts, as if the Berkeley Police Department was singled out for budget cuts. Mayor Arreguin responded that because of COVID-19 impacts on City revenue, all City departments were asked to cut 15%. The police department’s budget cut was 12% not 15%. 

On Thursday at the Budget and Finance Committee there was a lengthy presentation complete with charts by David White ending with police department overtime budget requirement of $6,313,890. $5,000,000 is included in the FY 2021 Summary of needs AAO (Annual Appropriations Ordinance). Andrea Pritchett asked the question I had been thinking, “what is the criteria for staffing?” The Mayor asked further questions about staffing. 

Chief Greenwood said the staffing from 11 am to 2 am was 16 beats, 16 officers, plus commanders, supervisors. You can listen to the details in the Policy Committee Audio files for December 10. Councilmember Harrison had a lot to ask and say about Overtime use. With the BPD taking up 45% of the City budget, digging into how the department is managed and staffed can’t happen too soon. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Home/Policy_Committee__Budget___Finance.aspx 

 

I have attended only the last two meetings, November 18th and December 9^th, i of the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group. As the group winds down and finalizes their report, there was a certain amount of frustration besides the exchange over the police department budget. 

Veteran civil rights attorney Jim Chanin stated that, in contrast to BPD, the Oakland Police Department started their own focus groups on disparate treatment. Chanin said, “I see no initiative from the department…there is no buy-in from BPD to look at disparities [why Blacks are stopped more often than Whites and way out of proportion to population].” He went on to describe BPD as stonewalling and obstinate. Later in the meeting he requested that the analysis from George Lippman be included with the report stating that not one shred of paper or report had been received from BPD. The section in the report on Compliance and Accountability remains. 

It is not possible to attend every meeting when a number of them are running simultaneously and others overlap. I missed the Commission on Disability, the Community Environmental Advisory Commission, the Community Health Commission and the Police Review Commission. I did attend the Parks and Waterfront Commission and as usual learned a lot. 

The Parks and Waterfront Department is responsible for the City’s trees, and per department head Scott Ferris, the department is in the process of planting 400 trees. I sure wish we had map of where they are going and what kind of trees we are getting. I’d love to know how they are picked and which birds will be attracted to make their nests in them. 

The other highlight of the meeting was the presentation by Erin Diehm. On the agenda was the 600 Addison research and development project across from Aquatic Park. Erin informed us there are 192 species of birds and that trees next to expanses of glass are actually more dangerous to birds. There is a misconception that bird safe glass isn’t needed when it is blocked by trees, but the opposite is true as the glass reflects the trees making it look like more trees to a bird instead of a wall of glass that they don’t see and fly into. 

I’ll give an update in next week’s edition on the Community for a Cultural Civic Center. The group will meet one more time this month, December 17th and then take a break until January. 

Enough for one sitting. 

I didn’t finish my reading for this week as I had planned so it will be another week with Stamped from the Beginning by Ibram X. Kendi and (ebook-Berkeley) It Was All a Lie by Stuart Stevens. There is so much dense information in Stamped from the Beginning that I am looking for a hard copy. How to Be an Anti-Racist by Kendi worked fine as an audiobook. If you are interested in President Obama’s new book A Promised Land, put in a hold request now. I think I am number 415. 

Worth Noting:

City Council Winter Recess is almost here beginning December 16, 2020 thru January 18, 2021.



What’s Ahead

Monday – Council is voting on the annual appropriations Tuesday evening. The last review by the Budget & Finance Committee will be at 9 am Monday. The Disaster and Fire Safety Commission is meeting at 7 pm to review the proposed amendments to the off-street Parking Zoning Ordinance.

CAG (Community Advisory Group for BART developments) meets at 6 pm

Tuesday - It is unlikely Council will get through all the action items on the December 15 City Council Regular 6 pm meeting agenda unless the meeting is extended to run past midnight. All the Councilmembers and Mayor will be tired from a steady run of meetings beginning at 3 pm.. Let’s hope Mayor Arreguin decides early on what should be postponed until January so we don’t have to hang on until 11 pm to get that announcement. Budget Items 42 and 43 and the loan forgiveness 44 all need to be addressed before recess.

Wednesday – The Planning Commission, 7 pm is holding a hearing on the baseline Zoning Ordinance and will be voting to adopt the Adeline Corridor Plan that was modified by Council on December 8.

Thursday – The Community for a Cultural Civic Center meets at noon. Email Johncaner@gmail.com to receive meeting announcements and links. This is an open community group – all are welcome. The Design Review Committee meets at 6 pm.



Sunday, December 13, 2020

No City meetings or events found

 

Monday, December 14, 2020 

City Council Budget & Finance Committee, 9 am – 12 pm, 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Home/Policy_Committee__Budget___Finance.aspx 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87092687380 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 870 9268 7380 

Agenda: 2. FY 2020 and FY 2021 Budget Update, 3. General Fund Reserves Replenishment, 4. Assignment of Unassigned General Fund Balance to Reserves, 5. Step Up Housing, $900,000 plus $32,975 Measure P funds, UNSCHEDULED: 6. Tax Equity 

 

City Council Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee, 10 am, - 12 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Home/Policy_Committee__Health,_Life_Enrichment,_Equity___Community.aspx 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89124447233 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 891 2444 7233 

Agenda: 2. Listening session Homelessness, 3a&b. A People’s First Sanctuary Encampment, 4. Service Animals Welcome Training (training for businesses in responsibilities and access rights of persons with disabilities and service animals), 5. Support Vision 2025 Sustainable Food Policies (movement toward replacing animal-based food with plant-based food) UNSCHEDULED: 6. Unhoused community program (resolution to support neighborhood volunteers adopting an encampment), 

 

Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, 7 – 9 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Disaster_and_Fire_Safety_Commission_Homepage.aspx 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/91264575427 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 912 6457 5427 

Agenda: 1. ADU Urgency Ordinance which expires end of December, 2. Changes to Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements, 

 

Youth Commission, 6:30 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Youth_Commission_Homepage.aspx 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/99813540082?pwd=QnFFL1pJSVpTMHFGZE0wUGtnSVpJUT09 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 998 1354 0082 Passcode: 004327 

Agenda: 11. Meeting Moratorium during Shelter in Place, 12. Discussion Trigger Warnings, Items 14 – 24. Subcommittee discussion, appointments and approval, 

 

Ashby and North Berkeley BART Community Advisory Group (CAG), 6 – 9 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/bartplanning/ 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/95548545979?pwd=NGF4RTNjMjE1UVJzZExsaDNzNnhGdz09 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 955 4854 5979 Passcode: 716555 

Agenda: 3. Introduction Zoning and Development Parameters for Building Form and Desired Uses, 4. Design Standards (Presentation + small group exercises), 5. Desired Uses, Community Amenities and Location (Presentation + small group exercises), 7. Public Comment 

 

Tuesday, December 15, 2020 

City Council 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/City_Council__Agenda_Index.aspx 

Closed Session, 3 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89994401971 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 899 9440 1971 

Agenda: Conference with Legal Counsel, 1. anticipated litigation, 2. pending litigation Sandoval v. COB RG 19016889, Moore v. COB RG 17 863897, COB v. Regents of University of California RG19023058 

 

Special Session, 5 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81127849616 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 811 2784 9616 

Agenda: 1. Confirm Results Nov 3, 2020 Municipal Election, 2. 2021-2022 Committee and Regional Appointments, 3. Appoint Droste VP Council 12/15/2020-12/15/2021, Appoint Harrison 12/15/2021 – 12/15/2022, 3. 2021 Seating arrangements Kesarwani, Harrison, Bartlett, Droste, Arreguin, Wengraf, Hahn, Robinson, Taplin 

 

Regular Council Session, 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81127849616 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 811 2784 9616 

Agenda 1. Swearing in newly elected officials, CONSENT: A. Updates COVID-19 Emergency Response Ordinance (tenant protections), B. Adoption Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, 1. 2^nd Reading BMC Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operation, 2^nd Reading BMC BESO, 3. 2^nd Reading Lease Agreement 1947 Center 5^th Flr, 4. Ratify COVID-19 Local Emergency, 5. 1444 Fifth Street Settlement, 6. Minutes, 7. Contract $270,000 1/1/2021-6/30/2022 with National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform to Manage and Lead a Community Engagement Process to Develop New Paradigm of Public Safety in Berkeley, 8. Amend Contract add $120,000 total $370,000 and extend 1 yr with BOSS for Mental Health Clients living at 2111 McKinley, 9. Amend Contract total $1,272,580 and extend to 6/30/2025 with Worldwide Travel Staffing for Nurse Registry Services, 10. Revenue Accept COVID-19 HHS CARES Act funds, 11. Purchase Software $165,000 12/16/,2020 – 6/30/2021 with Kovarus, LLC, 12. Accept Donation $700,000 from Friends of Tuolumne Camp for construction, 13. Joint Use Agreement between COB and BUSD, 14. Recommendations for T1 Phase 2, 15. FEMA application for $1,875,000 for South Berkeley Senior Center, 16. Accept $100,914 from Bay Area Air Quality Management District to support electrification of City fleet vehicles, 17. Grant Application $52,000 to Alameda County Transportation Commission COVID-19 for Healthy Streets, 18. Extend Workforce Agreement with labor organization to 6/30/23 for City capital improvement projects value >$500,000, 19. Continue Sole Source Contract Negotiations with Community Conservation Center, Inc and Ecology Center, Inc., 20. Contract with AC Transit for EasyPass bus pass program for COB employees 1/1/2021-12/31/2025 not to exceed $774,453, 21. Change vendors 3rd Party Administrator for COB Employee Commute Benefit program new vendor BRI (Benefit Resource, Inc), 22. $962,000 to Purchase three Model 600x Regenerative Air Sweeper, 23. $4,5554,575 to purchase 11 Side Loader Collection Trucks with Arata Equipment Co, 24. $327,000 to purchase One Vactor Combination Sewer Cleaner Truck, 25. Prohibition of the Resale of Used Combustion Vehicles in 2040, 26. Allocation $3,000,000 over 2 yr, FY22&23 to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, 27. Rocky Road: From Auditor Berkeley Streets (maintenance/repair) Significantly underfunded request report back from City Manager by June 15, 2021 and every six months thereafter regarding the status of audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by Public Works Dept., 28. Sponsor 10^th MLK Jr. Celebration, 29. Appoint Alexandria Thomas-Rodriguez to the Berkeley Housing Authority, 30. Establishment of Reimaging Public Safety Task Force follow-up to July 14, 2020 Council action on policing. 31. Resolution requesting state legislation for greater flexibility in traffic enforcement, 32. Deferral of Remaining Permit Fees $720,000 for 2009 Addison (Berkeley Rep housing project) for a period of 10 years, 33. Plaque recognizing childhood home of Kamala Harris, 34. Support calling on food companies to implement the requirements of Proposition 12 (Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act passed in 2018 with 12/31/2021 compliance date) as soon as possible by selling only cage free eggs and meat, 35. Procedural Request to Council for FITES committee to continue working on Master Paving Plan, 36. Earmark $2.5 million in Housing Trust Fund for Small Sites program, 37. Support Berkeley Baby Book Project, 38. Support S. 4571-extending census deadline, 39. Refer to City Manager to develop Outdoor Dining Program, ACTION: 40. Zoning Ordinance Modify Minimum Residential off-street parking, impose maximums in transit rich areas, 41. Home Occupation Ordinance, 42. Budget Update, 43. FY 2021Annual Appropriations Ordinance, 44. Support loan forgiveness to Berkeley Youth Alternatives, 45. Amendments of BPD Use of Force Policy 300, C. Urgency Item Local Law Enforcement Policy Pursuant to 11/19/2020 Limited Stay at Home Order and 12/3/2020 Stay at Home Order (curfew protections) law enforcement will not pull over drivers, bicyclists or pedestrians solely for suspicion of violating curfew 

 

Wednesday, December 16, 2020 

Planning Commission Special Meeting, 7 – 10 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Planning_Commission_Homepage.aspx 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/92849767287 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 928 4976 7287 

Agenda: 9. Public Hearing Baseline Zoning Ordinance, 10. Discussion Zoning Amendment Referrals – Research and Development (adds technological research, fabrication and assemblage), 11. Adeline Corridor Plan Adoption (as changed by Council to add stories) 

 

Ashby and North Berkeley BART Community Advisory Group 5:30 – 6:30 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/bartplanning/ 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/98986826168 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 989 8682 6168 

Agenda: Office Hours 

 

Thursday, December 17, 2020 

Community for a Cultural Civic Center (CCCC) 

A website is in process. Email Johncaner@gmail.com to receive meeting announcements and agendas. The Zoom link is the same for all of the Thursday meetings 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83640647988 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 836 4064 7988 

 

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, 7 – 11 pm, 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/rent/ 

Videoconference, Teleconference, Meeting ID, Agenda: not posted 

 

Design Review Committee, 7 – 10 pm 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/designreview/ 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/95290498965 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 952 9049 8965 

1. 2590 Bancroft Way – Final Design Review – 8-story, 97 units (including 5 very low income), 40 bicycle spaces, no vehicle parking, 

2. 3031 Telegraph – Preliminary Design Review – demolish existing commercial building, construct 6-story, 110 units (including 7 very low income units), 112 bicycle spaces, 29 vehicle spaces, 

 

Friday, December 18, 2020, Saturday, December 19, 2020 and Sunday, December 20, 2020 

No City meetings or events found 

_____________________ 

Public Hearings Scheduled – Land Use Appeals 

0 (2435) San Pablo (group living) ZAB - 1/21/2021 

1915 Berryman (Payson House) LPC – 1/21/2021 

1850 Arch (add bedrooms) ZAB – 1/26/2021 

1862 Arch (add bedrooms) ZAB – 1/26/2021 

Notice of Decision (NOD) and Use Permits with End of Appeal Period 

2580 Bancroft 12/14/2020 

1530 Buena 12/15/2020 

2708 Ellsworth 1/4/2021 

1262 Francisco 1/4/2021 

1437 Lincoln 12/15/2020 

460 Michigan 12/22/2020 

1921 Oregon 12/22/2020 

2422 Oregon 1/4/2021 

1828 San Juan 1/4/2021 

260 Southampton 1/4/2021 

99 The Plaza 1/4/2021 

1311 Ward 1/4/2021 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Land_Use_Division/Current_Zoning_Applications_in_Appeal_Period.aspx 

 

LINK to Current Zoning Applications https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Land_Use_Division/Current_Zoning_Applications.aspx 

___________________ 

 

WORKSESSIONS 

Feb 16 - BMASP/Berkeley Pier-WETA Ferry, Systems Realignment 

March 16 – Capital Improvement Plan (Parks & Public Works), Digital Strategic Plan/FUND$ Replacement Website Update, Update Zero Waste Priorities 

May 18 – date open for scheduling 

 

Unscheduled Workshops/Presentations 

Cannabis Health Considerations 

Berkeley Police Department Hiring Practices (referred by Public Safety Committee) 

Ballot Measure Implementation Planning 

Pedestrian Master Plan 

 

Removed from Lists 

Update Berkeley’s 2020 Vision 

Undergrounding Task Force Update – Will be presented as Information Item 

 

_____________________ 

 

This Summary of City of Berkeley meetings is the available published public meetings that could be found and they are important. This does not include the task forces established by the Mayor (those schedules are not available). If anyone would like to share meeting schedules including community meetings to be included in the weekly summary so we can be better-informed citizenry, please forward the notices to sustainableberkeleycoalition@gmail.com before Friday noon of the preceding week. 

 

If you see an error or omission that needs correction or wish to stop receiving the Weekly Summary of City Meetings please forward the weekly summary you received to kellyhammargren@gmail.com with your message. 

If you wish to stop receiving the Weekly Summary of City Meetings please forward the weekly summary you received to kellyhammargren@gmail.com,