Extra

I write in reference to agenda items 18 and 19, regarding the banning of gasoline burning cars, and about item 29, regarding a resolution to end so-called exclusionary zoning in Berkeley. I shall not mince words in this open letter to you. I will focus on item 29 to start. 

The argument put forward in the zoning item rests on three feet: (1) a historical argument that the item proposes to combat racism by reversing some zoning law, (2) an economic argument that this will improve housing affordability, and (3) an environmental argument that this would be tremendous progress in meeting the challenges of the urgent climate emergency. 

Each of the three arguments made in the memo are not merely wrong, but are so wrong they force the question: is this incompetence or malice? 

You have, no doubt, seen the very beginnings of rebuttal to the historic arguments. These will not be my focus, others have got this. The ethnicity or race of co-sponsors is no defense. The recitation of history is at best wildly distorted and pointing at very silly conclusions.  

The economic argument for the proposed upzoning rests on a table that purports to report the median incomes of Berkeley households, broken down to the building typology (number of units) and year of construction of each household's residence. The source cited (incorrectly) is "Public Use Microdata Samples" from a Census Bureau American Community Survey ("ACS") 5 year data set. 

Facially, the table is an absurdity. The ACS data tables literally contain no information from which such alleged median household incomes, broken down to that level of granularity, could possibly be computed. The table is a textbook example of a complete statistical fabrication. Allegedly, at least 6 of you have reviewed this item, presumably with the help of your staffs. Allegedly it is the product of over a years work. Somehow, the total fabrication of that table - central to the argument in the memo, evaded your attention or concern? It's a breathtaking display of shear incompetence or malice - who can say for sure which. 

Of greater concern to me is the environmental argument put forward. Once again, YIMBY-oriented council members have cited a paper (Jones et al.) coming from the Coolclimate group at Cal. Once again, these members have misrepresented what question the paper tries to answer, and have advanced wildly over-reaching (and self-serving) interpretations of the paper. That this seems to be the beginning, middle, and end of Council's awareness of the climate emergency here in 2021 is mortifying. You people - and I do not use these words lightly - are helping to cause genocide. There is no way around that fact. 

Greenhouse gas emissions - and thus the actual extraction and burning of fossil fuel - must now fall very, very rapidly if even your own children and grandchildren are to have a future. If fossil fuel burning in this region is not very nearly over by the end of this decade, all hope is truly lost. Though old, I will likely live to suffer from your very bad choices. Several of of you will live long enough to lament your casual inattention to the greatest and most well documented of planetary emergencies of all time. Every child you know, you sentence to unspeakable horror. It is impossible to exaggerate how profoundly irresponsible, harmful, deadly, and criminal is the the lack of seriousness with which you approach this emergency. You are the city council that at long last, after all these years, that has finally forced me to give up any semblance of respect for you -- to in fact regard you as people engaged actively in a planetary scale genocide. 

Of course, in this context, both items that fantasize about banning internal combustion engine vehicles in 2045 are equally obscene. There is simply no way to read them but as the work of people who are either consciously attempting global genocide, or who are entirely oblivious to the incredibly massive amount of accessible, globally discussed actual science about the emergency we are in. Seeing your performance, I have come to better understand and appreciate why Greta Thunberg, given a global stage in 2018, said "Your house is burning. I want you to panic." Panic is not a breakdown. Panic is a clarity. When you are in a burning building, and you panic, you can finally become clear about what is and what is not of existential importance. We need leaders in that kind of woke panic. We don't need - and are greatly harmed by - your bullshit, bluff, and bluster about climate. 

See you in hell, Thomas Lord (District 2)