I just wanted to correct an implication in the public comment to BDP by "Berkeley Together" which made the following claims about SB 9:

"The bill’s rationale for this is based in trickle down economics, the theory that helping those at the top will help those at the bottom, a theory that has not panned out over time. In his address to Congress last month, President Biden said, "trickle-down economics has never worked", and "It's time to grow the economy from the bottom and the middle out", highlighting the need for progressive housing policies that benefit the underhoused and unhoused citizens of our communities." 

The article was posted anonymously so I don't know who to direct this op-ed to, but the implication is that SB 9, which would allow two-family zoning statewide, is "trickle down economics" and at odds with what the President supports. This is incorrect. Joe Biden is the first president in United States history to call for the abolition of single-family only zoning. His $2 trillion infrastructure and jobs plan(seen here on the White House website) states: 

"Eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies. For decades, exclusionary zoning laws – like minimum lot sizes, mandatory parking requirements, and prohibitions on multifamily housing – have inflated housing and construction costs and locked families out of areas with more opportunities. President Biden is calling on Congress to enact an innovative, new competitive grant program that awards flexible and attractive funding to jurisdictions that take concrete steps to eliminate such needless barriers to producing affordable housing." 

This has been widely reported on even before Biden won in November so unsure how the authors could have missed it. Senator Bernie Sanders in his campaign housing platform called single-family only zoning a "racist legacy of Jim Crow" and Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced a law ("The American Housing and Economic Mobility Act") to eliminate single-family only zoning. Democratic Socialist and author of the Green New Deal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has written a bill in the Congress ("A Place to Prosper Act") to go even further and withhold money from cities that refuse to abolish single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes and parking requirements. You can read a recap here. Or visit Section 8.3.D of her proposed law. 

Berkeley's efforts to allow citywide four-family zoning has been specifically heralded by former HUD secretary and former Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro. Among many praises, Berkeley has also been praised by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), the largest low income housing advocacy org in Washington DC, for Berkeley's historic vote to eliminate single-family only zoning. They also explicitly, by name, praised North Berkeley Now!, South Berkeley Now!, and More Student Housing Now! for pushing housing at the BART parking lots and multifamily housing in Berkeley to its nationwide membership. 

Those who oppose these national efforts are the Republican Party, who uses much of the same "local control" rhetoric commonplace here. Former President Donald Trump named defending single-family zoning among his top issues during the 2020 campaign after he gutted the Obama-era Fair Housing law which nudged cities to remove zoning prohibitions on apartments as "saving the suburbs." 

To quote Trump: "hey want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning. This forced rezoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low quality apartments into now thriving suburban neighborhoods." In addition, Trump and former HUD secretary Ben Carson wrote in the WSJ their support of single-family zoning and attacked upzoning as a "radical social-engineering project that would have transformed the suburbs from the top down." Trump also made reference to state senator Scott Wiener, one of the authors of SB 9, in the 5th paragraph regarding the "ultraliberal chaos" of allowing multifamily housing. 

Defending single-family zoning was repeated at the Republican National Convention by the Missouri gun couple: https://twitter.com/i/status/1299330654040027138 

By Trump at numerous rallies: https://twitter.com/i/status/1311483032784834562 

By Fox News pundits: https://twitter.com/i/status/1275875446484328450 

Many Fox News pundits: https://twitter.com/i/status/1318764159836647424 

By far-right wing host Tucker Carlson: https://twitter.com/i/status/1377796077013766146 

And multiple times by Tucker: https://twitter.com/i/status/1281641356008382464 

And it goes on. My point is not to accuse Berkeley Together or the opponents of SB 9 as being Republicans, merely I am correcting the record with respect to the claims that Biden or any Democrat or left-wing electeds in national politics would defend single-family zoning. Outside a few echo chambers in Berkeley, this is largely a Conservative opinion. Democrats are attacking exclusionary zoning in Washington and Sacramento because it has nothing to do with trickle down economics, a wholly unrelated disproven theory, it's just economics. California ranks 49/50 in homes per person. The Bay Area added 6 new jobs for every 1 new home last decade (far higher than the 1-to-1 recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency and the American Planning Association). According to the Department of Finance, from 2010 to 2020 Berkeley's population grew by 8.7% (9,784 more residents) while the housing here grew by half, 4.2% (2,069 more homes), in the last 10 years. 

There is no evidence whatsoever, empirical, peer-reviewed or otherwise suggesting that California does not have a housing shortage but unanimous evidence to the contrary. A recently published UC Berkeley paper compiled numerous academic and peer-reviewed research on gentrification and showed that more housing growth (both market and low income) was the #1 evidence-based way to curb displacement long term. In the short term, the best tools were tenant protections and rent control. And while California's population indeed shrunk for the first time in history, according to PPIC it is because middle and lower income families without degrees can no longer afford to live here. Not because people don't want to live here. So allowing two-family housing is a way to help alleviate this 50 year displacement crisis since duplexes already exist and look indistinguishable from single-family housing in Berkeley, as does four-family housing. 

---

Darrell Owens is a lifelong resident of Berkeley, former Housing Advisory Commissioner, former co-executive of East Bay for Everyone and employed as a data analyst at California YIMBY.

In his response to the Berkeley Together opinion piece Why We Oppose SB 9, Darrell Owens fails to address any of the specific arguments made. Instead, he attempts to link opposition to SB 9 to Donald Trump, and support for SB 9 with Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

When it comes to legislation, especially legislation related to zoning, the devil is in the details. General opposition to “exclusionary zoning” is one thing; support for the specific zoning changes in SB 9 is something else entirely.  

Bernie Sanders has endorsed local candidates and measures before but he hasn’t endorsed SB 9. It’s not likely that he would embrace the legislation’s attempt to force cities to set rear setbacks no greater than 4 feet or that he would support the absence of any inclusionary housing requirement. In Bernie Sanders’ home city of Burlington Vermont, where he began his political career as mayor, rear setbacks in residential districts are “in no event less than 20’ ”. Berkeley’s current rear setbacks range from 15’ in multi-family zones to 20’ in the single family zones that would be affected by SB 9.  

In Elizabeth Warren’s home city of Cambridge Mass., rear setback requirements are also “at least 20” feet both in areas zoned for single and two-family dwellings and those zoned for townhouses and multifamily dwellings (some single family areas require 25 feet). In Biden’s upscale suburb of Greenville, Delaware, rear setback requirements are even greater, and they are 20-25 feet in the neighboring city of Wilmington as well.  

To preclude cities from requiring rear setbacks greater than 4 feet is one of the extreme details of SB 9. Another extreme detail is requiring cities to allow lots as small as 1200 sq ft. Lots as small as 2400 square feet can be split in two. Sanders’ and Warren’s home cities don’t allow lots that small.  

Cambridge Massachusetts has a recently adopted innovative affordable housing zoning overlay that allows zoning standards to be adjusted to allow greater density for projects that are 100% below market affordable housing. Upzoning and greater density are tied to affordability. 

SB 9, by contrast, does not require that any of the up to six units that could be built on a single-family zoned parcel to be affordable to low or even moderate income people. SB 9 upzones without requiring any benefit to the community for the big jump in the value of the rezoned property. The Berkeley City Council in 2017 embraced the idea of “land value recapture”. When government action increases land values (e.g.from upzoning) then the city should share in the increased value. SB 9, by contrast, is just a straight giveaway to developers. 

Darrell Owens suggests that SB 9 will alleviate the displacement crisis, but it is likely to have the opposite effect since it does nothing to add affordable housing. The new units on the split lots allowed by SB 9 will rent at market rates, which are not affordable to low and middle income people. It will just mean more housing choices for high income people. 

SB 9 will drive up the price of single-family homes because speculators who want to demolish single family homes to replace them with four units on two small lots (with the possibility of adding an ADU and junior ADU) will compete with people who actually want to live in a single family home, thus making homeownership even more expensive and elusive. The greatest impact of SB 9 is likely to be in the single-family zoned San Pablo Park neighborhood where homes and lots are typically smaller than in other parts of Berkeley. Speculators will be able to buy these homes more cheaply than in single family areas characterized by larger homes on larger lots. When these homes are demolished, the lots split, and the backyards eliminated, the resulting newhigh rent market rate housing will have the effect of gentrifying the area. In Berkeley, older housing rents for less than equivalent sized newer housing. Rents in older rent controlled housing at vacancy (when any rent can be set) are lower than rents in newer housing built in the last 10-15 years. 

Demolishing existing older housing does not lead to greater affordability unless the new units are built affordable, i.e. required to be affordable to people defined as Low Income, Very Low Income, etc. Bernie Sanders has recognized that solving the housing crisis will require massive public spending on affordable housing. “End the housing crisis by investing $2.5 trillion to build nearly 10 million permanently affordable housing units”. Bernie is against “exclusionary zoning” but he’s also wants to combat “gentrification”, “segregation” and “speculation”. SB 9 would encourage speculation. Sanders supports “inclusionary zoning rules that require developers to set aside affordable housing on their projects”. SB 9 contains no inclusionary requirement. Sanders housing platform can be found here. 

Outside of Berkeley’s fire zone, most areas of Berkeley are zoned for more than one dwelling. It’s not the case that there aren’t many areas where duplexes, 4-plexes, and larger apartment buildings can already be built. Berkeley has more people living in multi-family buildings (myself included) than in single family homes. Tenants outnumber homeowners, and the tenant proportion of the population is growing. Statewide, homeowner households outnumber tenant households and single family zoning and single family homes are more prevalent than in Berkeley. 

The Berkeley City Council has voted in favor of allowing more multi-family zoning in place of single family zoning and has started a two-year process to do so. Berkeley should be allowed to decide what specific changes to make without state interference or preemption. Berkeley should decide on setbacks and other development standards, on minimum lot sizes, and on whether to allow lot splits. Berkeley should decide whether it wants to require affordable units as part of any upzoning as many people urged them to do when 4-plex zoning was being discussed. 

Berkeley should be allowed to exclude its fire zone from upzoning to prevent increased density (more people with more cars) interfering with safe evacuation of areas with narrow streets in the event of a wildfire. SB 9 does not exempt most of Berkeley’s fire zone from its provisions. 

Berkeley should be allowed to require public review and public input when new housing is built since replacing a single-family home with a new building with 2 or 4 units would have impacts. During the Council discussion of 4-plex zoning many people objected to the idea that such housing should be approved by staff without opportunity for public review and input. Berkeley has gotten better development by requiring a public process that often leads to modifications that reduce detrimental impacts and improve project design. SB 9 provides for ministerial approval of the four or more units that would replace the demolished single family home on a split lot. 

The devil is in the details and Berkeley should work out for itself what the details of zoning changes should be. It can do this once SB 9 has been defeated. 

---

Rob Wrenn has been a long-term member of the Berkeley Planning Commission. 

 

 

 

Berkeley Together’s opinon piece in the Berkeley Daily Planet (“Why we oppose SB 9 [Senate Bill 9]”, in the May 30 edition) opposes a state bill that would blindly upzone most residential parcels throughout California, with effectively no concern for site-specific concerns. A few of Berkeley Together’s key points can be summarized this way: 

• They write in support of a resolution by Council members Harrison and Wengraf to oppose SB 9.
• SB 9 doesn’t merely end single family zoning - rather, it removes local hearings or review for up to six units on nearly any residential parcel in Berkeley. Such projects, even where they violate several important objective provisions of local zoning code, will have to be approved with no input from residents affected. If a subdivision is permitted, up to 12 units can be built on parcels of less than the typical 3500-4000 square feet found throughout the Berkeley flats and foothills.
• SB 9 doesn’t address affordability, because it creates incentive for only market rate housing. The economic rationale given for the bill is a form of trickle down economics, which has a long history of never working. Even President Biden has spoken against “trickle down” theories in general.
• SB 9’s blind upzoning and pre-emption of local review means the bill’s protections against wildfire are inadequate for Berkeley.
• The bill’s entitlements will lead to the destruction of greenspace and urban trees.

Notably, Berkeley Together did not oppose the end to R1 zoning in Berkeley. Rather, the object of their concern is blindly decreed blanket upzoning that also preempts local governments from reviewing specific projects, from calling for environmental review, or from protecting greenspace. 

 

To all of this, California YIMBY employee and YIMBY celebrity Darrell Owens replies in this issue with an extended argument that, on the contrary, Joe Biden calls for an end to single-family housing zoning. Yes, and?!? You mean the President of the United States has taken inconsistent and hypocritical stances on some things? Quelle surprise. 

Owens rather gleefully recites how many big name Republicans use Democratic Party blanket upzoning proposals to encourage homeowners to vote against them, citing Donald Trump, Tucker Calson (cited twice!), and unnamed “Fox News Pundits”. 

He reassures readers that he is not accusing Berkeley Together of being Republicans (suppose some them are? then what?). He is merely “correcting the record” by comparing Berkeley Together to some vile, extreme, right wing folks. 

Biden does support upzoning single family zoning areas, Owens assures us, even though Berkeley Together never said otherwise. Berkeley Together came out not against upzoning, but in opposition to blind, blanket, contextually insensitive forced upzoning and pre-emption of local review and discretion, especially that blind upzoning that allows obviously ridiculously large projects on tiny parcels by right. 

This is, in my experience, typical of YIMBY discourse: leveling ad hominem attacks, failing to engage or even notice their critics’ arguments, appealing to the basest stereotypes and polarizations. These are some of the same characters who knock ever so politely on your door to campaign for Council members Droste, Kesarwani, Robinson, and Taplin (and perhaps Mayor Arreguín next) but then go on line and call many of their critics proto-eugenicists whose agenda is global and racialized population control, and greedy speculators who poison the market for decent people. (Scapegoating some outgroup for the inequities reliably produced in capitalist society has a long and murderous history. If we’re worried about what political faction is “proto-fascist”, YIMBYs should be on our radar.) 

Owens concludes with a few sentences rehearsing the pseudo-scientific arguments and how-to-lie-with-statistics typical of YIMBYs. 

For example, he mentions that between 2010 and 2020, Berkeley’s housing supply grew at slightly less than half the rate of population growth. Yet that seems appropriate: In 2010, Berkeley averaged 2.45 persons per household. In 2020, Berkeley averaged 2.39 persons per household. This is not to say that lower income people have not resorted to greater household crowding - many observably have. The distribution of housing, like the distribution of incomes, is more inequitable than ever. That is not a “housing shortage”, however - it is the harsh consequence of a changing demand for various kinds of labor playing out in a society where wage slaves are pushed around if they lack the particular skills suddenly in higher demand. 

Similarly, Owens makes unfounded claims that there is “unanimous evidence” (whatever that means) of a housing shortage. The evidence he cites is, of all things, a Wikipedia article - one of many that appeared with a YIMBY slant at around the same time. The Wikipedia Quality Assurance team give it a “C” grade, meaning that while it is substantial, it “is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some reference to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.” And so, “unanimous evidence” is perhaps not the best description. 

As appalling as is the anti-social and pseudo-scientific rhetoric of YIMBYs - especially those who get paychecks from large capitalist firms and investors - even more distressing is how five members of Berkeley City Council have fully embraced that logic and argumentation - as is the fashion in the Democrat Party these days. 

Our own Mayor Arreguín recently appeared on the NBC Nightly News to recite a cartoonish and racebaiting history of zoning in Berkeley (it’s rather more complicated than the YIMBY narrative would have it). Council member Droste somewhat notoriously tried to placate YIMBY critics with rhetoric that boiled down to saying “We’re not accusing you of being racists but….”. Council members Kesarwani, Robinson, and Taplin provide the other three voices in this five member council majority, all of whom engage about as well with critics as Owens has done. 

Whether those Berkeley elected officials are sincere or cynical in their embrace of YIMBY hardly matters. Several of them are rewarded with significant campaign support by real estate finance corporations and big money developers. The same is true at the state and national levels. 

This is not a rational approach to planning, especially with the urgent climate emergency upon us (did I mention, YIMBYs greenwash with pseudo-science too)? We can and must do better than politicians like these.

Recently the UC Berkeley student newspaper, the Daily Californian, had an excellent editorial pointing out that “Berkeley should take steps to mitigate the urban heat island effect.”

Sarah Siegel, writing for the paper’s editorial board, noted that:

“People of color are more likely to live in urban heat islands — one of the underlying causes could be Berkeley’s past discriminatory housing policies. In the 1930s and 1940s, the federal government redlined specific neighborhoods, denying mortgages and the possibility for homeownership to Black residents — these communities continue to be marginalized today. Efforts to map the trees in Berkeley reveal that tree density throughout the city is eerily reminiscent of redlining maps. The formerly redlined communities of South and West Berkeley have sparse trees and foliage compared to wealthier areas of the city.”

The piece does a great job of pointing out the twin causes of urban heat islands: too much concrete, too little greenery. It suggests that the City of Berkeley budget, originally scheduled to be finalized on June 15, should fund measures to correct these problems.

As well it should. But there’s another even more pressing equity issue which the Berkeley City Council should also take have taken a stand on at their June 15 meeting. The council’s consent agenda contained a resolution to condemn SB 9, the latest salvo in Senators Scott Wiener, Toni Atkins and Nancy Skinner’s ongoing campaign to ultra-densify already hyper-urban heat island zones like South and West Berkeley. If SB 9 passes into state law, this measure would allow six units with no yard on every single-family lot in California.

This proposal, and numerous others in a similar vein, would effectively paint a bull-eye on Berkeley’s diminishing stock of relatively inexpensive small homes with yards, most of which are in the South and West flatlands. Developers would be strongly motivated to cut down trees in order to cover now single-home lots with buildings, dramatically impacting the quality of life of current residents, both owners and renters, many of whom in Berkeley are, yes, people of color descended from families who moved there when they couldn’t find homes in other neighborhoods because of discrimination and red-lining. Urban heat would be only one of the problems up-zoning these Berkeley neighborhoods would cause.

Opposition to the Wiener/Skinner/Atkins proposals is already strong in Southern California’s historically Black and Brown neighborhoods.

Madalyn Barber, who lives in a single family home in Altadena, explains how this would happen in a good op-ed in Cal Matters.

She says,“I am a Black grandparent, homeowner and member of the Altadena Town Council. I grew up in a single-family home, and my husband and I have lived in our house in Altadena for more than two decades. Homeownership helped my family build wealth and provide stable, quality housing, and gave us our piece of the American Dream. But state and local politicians are threatening homeownership among the Black community by damaging single-family zoning laws. “

Altadena was a thriving integrated community when my own family moved to the area in 1953, and it still is. If speculators are enabled by the Wienerite measures, this could change.

The negative effects of the laws proposed by SB9 and SB10 are also discussed here by Los Angeles area residents: 

 

These proposals do not even mention affordable housing, let alone provide for it. And along with a number of similar others, they contain provisions designed to weaken environmental review of developer plans. 

Here in Berkeley, a developer recently bought an old house on a big lot on a street near the UC campus. He says he wants to tear it down and build 10 expensive townhouses. The city’s Landmark Preservation Commission refused to designate the 132-year-old house on the site, but even before the LPC or the ZAB had a chance to consider it the new owner cut down several large coastal live oaks on the property. 

Dohr Street, off Ashby in South West Berkeley, once home to many of Berkeley’s most distinguished African-American citizens, was once graced with a canopy of tall sycamore trees. They were cut down unceremoniously a few years ago, though they ought to have been protected by a Heritage Tree Ordinance like those in other cities. 

But even more trees will be lost if Sacramento’s ham-handed forced densification drive goes forward. I’m pleased that the Daily Cal staffers are looking after Berkeley’s trees, since their generation must care for them long after I’m gone. Now they should also take a hard look at the equally knotty zoning issues, which will create the world they’ll be living in as climate inevitably changes. 

---

UPDATE, June 21: Here's another great video on what's wrong with SB9 and SB10. 

 

 

On June 15, Councilmembers Harrison, Hahn and Wengraf authored a resolution opposing the two bills. But six Berkeley City Council members failed to take a stand, either abstaining or voting no on the resolution. At least two of the six know better, but lack the moral courage to do what they know to be right. Pathetic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Following the last Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America’s “unshakable commitment to Israeli echoed by Biden and all prior US presidents, is beginning to unravel. The images of wholesale destruction of Gaza and the slaughter of so many innocent Palestinians beaned unto our livings rooms has shaken many Americans and citizens world-wide. More and more Americans are asking why their country, rooted in fairness and democratic ideals, is propping up apartheid Israel? Why are we sending economic and military aid to subjugate and terrorize indigenous Palestinians from their homeland, much like the genocide of native American Indians? 

Israel’s rigid occupation is considerably worse than former white South Africa’s apartheid system. Israel is terrorizing Palestinians on a daily basis to fulfill their dream of creating a pure Jewish state. In the recent conflict, 30 Palestinians died for every Israeli fatality. About the same ratio of Palestinians to Israelis were injured. What makes this conflict different is the clashes within Israel, among Israeli Palestinians and Israeli Jews. No longer are Palestinians free to worship or live in their homes without being accosted by police and Israeli settler terrorists. The Biden White House and all prior US administrations have buckled under the relentless political pressures of AIPAC and other powerful Jewish organizations.  

Currently, Israel is the lone super power in the Middle East. In a recent GPS broadcast, Fareed Zakaria shared some startling statistics: “Israel's per capita GDP dwarves that of its neighbors. It is 14 times that of Egypt, eight times that of Iran, six times that of Lebanon and even double that of Saudi Arabia. Israel has built an industrial and information age economy that excels in highly sophisticated areas like artificial intelligence, aviation, computer aided design and bio technology. It spends 5 percent of its GDP on research and development. It has built up foreign exchange reserves of over $180 billion placing it 13th in the world just ahead of the United Kingdom”.  

For a nation of nine million people, it hardly merits annual US handouts. Israel exceeds Iran’s defense budget and has a powerful quantitative edge on most of its regional rivals. It remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East with 100 warheads. There is therefore a compelling case for immediately halting all economic and military aid to Israel and re-directing it to its second-class citizens, the Palestinians. The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross toured the Gaza Strip recently, finding neighborhoods devastated by Israel’s 11-day bombardment, including a road where 42 people were slaughtered. This follows the findings of the head of the Norwegian human rights organization who was horrified by the loss of civilian life and severe damage to Gaza’s infrastructure. Determined to scuttle Biden’s efforts to resurrect the Iran-nuclear deal it is highly that Israeli terrorist attacks were behind the recent devastating explosions experienced by Iran.

Ralph Stone's "Big Lie" rant missed the most recent and ironic iteration of the Lying Liar's Big Prevarications. He is feeding this to his hungry chumps: "the Big Lie is the Democrats' saying that I lost the election is a big lie." And those suckers just eat it up and ask for more.

On June 15, the City Council will discuss a recommendation from councilmembers Harrison and Wengraf to send a letter to state representatives opposing SB-9 as currently written.

Please send an e-mail supporting this recommendation and opposing SB 9 to the Council at: council@cityofberkeley.info

SB 9 would allow speculators to buy up single family homes, demolish them and replace them with up to 6 market rate units. While SB 9’s upzoning of single family zoned property would greatly increase the value of the property, there is no requirement that any of the units replacing the demolished home be affordable. Some cities like Cambridge Mass allow greater density if the developer builds affordable units on a site. But SB 9 gives away density while bringing no benefit to the community; just more units that only people with high incomes can afford.

SB 9 also lacks adequate tenant protections. Some older single family homes are being rented. If a speculator can get rid of the tenants, he only has to wait three years to develop the property and he can develop six units with no public input; projects would be approved ministerially by city staff. Parcels as small as 2400 sq ft can be split with two units on each, all of them market rate. In addition, an ADU and Junior ADU can also be built for a total of six units.

SB 9 targets backyards; cities would not be able to require a rear setback greater than four feet. Rear setbacks (i.e. backyards) often have trees, tree canopy, gardens, and greenery and provide play space for children. This will be lost when developers take advantage of SB-9 to maximize their profits by filling as much of two lots as possible with market rate units. Trees can play a significant role in addressing climate change and their removal should not be encouraged by poorly thought out speculator-friendly legislation. 

SB 9 will result in more displacement. One neighborhood that is likely to affected is the San Pablo Park neighborhood (between San Pablo and Sacramento between Dwight and Ashby) which has been zoned single-family residential since 1963. Homes here are expensive as they are everywhere in the area, but not as expensive as in most other parts of the city. The lots here and the homes on them tend to be smaller than in other parts of the city. They will be less expensive to acquire by speculators than housing elsewhere in the city. There will be money to be made by demolishing them and replacing them with up to six market rate units, none of which need to be affordable to the many low income people currently living in South Berkeley.

When you e-mail the Council in opposition, take a minute to also e-mail the Governor and your state reps.

For more information and more reasons to oppose SB 9, with links for contacting elected officials: https://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2021-05-30/article/49216?headline=Why-We-Oppose-SB-9--Berkeley-Together

In the previous article entitled “ABAG’s 9000”, we dealt with the underlying political economy of a recent state "requirement" that Berkeley build 9000 new housing units in the next 8 years. But a number of issues were revealed that need greater discussion. One is the real nature of the law driving it. Another is its constitutionality. And finally, there is the issue of housing as a human right. How do we make that idea real, today?

You’ve probably heard of MS-13 (it gets a bit of play once in a while on cop shows). The "MS" stands for Mara Salvatrucha. It is a Salvadorian gang that formed among Salvadorian immigrant and exile communities in California during a "proxy" civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s instigated by the US. Like any gang, it had its needs, and it imposed those needs on those it thought could possibly fulfill them.

Another one has appeared in California. The name it uses for itself is “SB-35.” It too is a political offshoot of a proxy war, a war between a landlord-financial corporate collaboration (see part 1 of this series) and communities of working people and low income families struggling against exile from their homes in the Bay Area. The economic issue of this conflict is the unaffordability of housing, an unaffordability created by rent increases and the corporatization of real estate. In a city like Berkeley, though renters are the majority, rent levels remain beyond regulation because of state laws. The political issue is that of local autonomy. The landlord-financial cabal has transformed housing into an “impoverishment machine.” And into this field steps SB-35. It is the driving force behind “ABAG’s 9000.”  

"SB" stands for “Senate Bill.” It was formed to “grease the rails” for the housing industry while pretending to foster “affordable housing.” Unlike MS-13, SB-35 is made of paper. But not unlike MS-13, it seeks power over cities in California through a form of political coup. The coups are "bloodless" because the homeless, who are the primary victims of its political war, die quietly on the street, without making too much of a mess.  

Like MS-13, SB-35’s method is to override a city’s local autonomy in order to establish political control. Like MS-13, it tells a city what that city "needs," by which it means “what it needs from the city.” And it has means of punishing a city for non-fulfillment. Unlike MS-13, however, which generally uses a variety of standard guerrilla tactics, SB-35 uses the courts, and imposes conditions it calls "sanctions" for non-fulfillment. "Sanctions" are tactics intentionally aimed at destroying a political entity’s autonomy and sovereignty. We have seen them imposed mercilessly on Cuba (for 60 years), Zimbabwe (for 25 years), and other nations. Their single purpose is to starve a nation (or a city) into submission. The starvation imposed by “ABAG’s 9000” will be more unaffordability, coupled with housing over-development. It effect will be to drive more non-elite, non-white, and non-bureaucratic people into refugee and exile status.  

Where MS-13 is open about what it needs, SB-35 hides what it seeks behind hype about fostering affordable housing. It claims to force cities to build, promising to ensure “access to affordable housing [as] a matter of statewide concern,” by “streamlining” established housing approval processes. But it has not the power to require affordability since those "approval" processes already favor for-profit developers who resist anything that isn’t “market rate.” Cities like Berkeley only provide miniscule requirements for affordable housing (20%), which they actually consider a "compromise" with the developers, while giving the developers the ability to buy their way out of providing affordable units with low “mitigation fees.” 

ABAG’s 9000 will only make this glut and imbalance worse. Market rate units will increase, apartments will remain empty, real estate financial corporations will make money simply from owning those empty assets, and ward-healers will dominate virtual City Council meetings chanting “build build build.” The people of Berkeley know that there is glut of market rate housing, and that low income neighborhoods need at least 80% of its developments to be affordable. And let us recall that housing "affordability" means a tenant pays no more than 30% of their income for rent. 

To summarize what is happening here, SB-35 calls upon the department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to do a housing assessment of the future. The algorithm, called a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), instructs the Assoc. of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to propose specific "allocations" for specific Bay Area cities. ABAG saddles Berkeley with 9000 units. Since ABAG invents these housing allocations for each city (they are inventions because imagined about the future), they border on the arbitrary. Though the allocations are computer projections, and computers don’t "imagine," programmers do. As the agency doing the programming, HCS now holds each city "responsible" for its allocation. Subtext: the city does not have the right to refuse. But without the right to refuse, a proposal is not a proposal, but a demand. Hence, SB-35 becomes indistinguishable from a gang. 

The purpose of all this? With due respect to lip service given to planning, when a city fails to take the requisite steps toward fulfilling its responsibility, the state will take the city to court, get court sanctions imposed, and win the power to issue building permits ministerially (which means, “by-right”), by-passing the city’s own zoning standards. That is the substance of the coup. The point of the coup, like the point of sanctions, is to destroy autonomy. Without autonomy, "real people" in real cities become wholly ignorable. The glut makes money; empty buildings make money; increased rents make money; and housing becomes a more inexorable impoverishment machine. 

Doesn’t this sound familiar? Remember all the stories about city cops visiting bars and restaurants and collecting protection money? It was big back in the 20s and 30s. Serpico wrote about it in the 70s. The cop would approach the bar owner and tell him, “you need protection.” It was a “proposed need.” And the bar owner would know exactly what he was up against. If he didn’t fork over some bucks, his joint would be robbed a few days later, with no cops in the area, by some strange coincidence. A few businesses would be driven into the ditch that way, and the rest would pay up. It’s a protection racket. When the city reports progress on its allocations to HCD, it will simply be making its payments to SB-35’s program. Failure to report will lead to court sanctions, giving the developers the power to “rifle the joint.” 

The court, however, is a problem. Which court will it be? SB-35 doesn’t say. Presumably it will be a civil court, since SB-35 doesn’t contain provisions for criminal charges. But civil court can only levy fines (aka money). To be able to impose sanctions, which amount to a deprivation of liberty, it must be a criminal court. This smells like something unconstitutional. And that would mean that SB-35’s threat of sanctions and loss of autonomy is hype, meaningless verbiage. (We shall deal with constitutionality in Part 3 of this series.) 

Why would it be reasonable to assume the state would allow racketeering like this? For the last 20 years, Berkeley has faced displacement of its people through rent gouging and impoverishment at the hands of rent levels. Yet regulation of rents has been banned by the Costa-Hawkins Act, and the state has done nothing to repeal it. It knows that the majority of a city’s residents are renters (in cities like Berkeley). Costa-Hawkins means city government is unable to represent the interest of a majority of its residents, who are renters. And the state, preserving that law, shows that it cares nothing about whether democracy is possible in its cities. So its protection rackets fit right in. Nobody need mention the issue of kickbacks. If the state can ignore the needs of the people, it implies it is attending to the needs of the developers. When it ignores the interests of democracy with respect to renters, it does so by refusing to ensure the building of affordable housing. 

The ethics of needs assignment

What SB-35 imposes on cities is a needs assessment. What does that mean? 

To have a need is to have a problem with something that creates that need. For instance, impoverishment is a problem because it is a condition in which one does not have enough money to live a healthy and safe life. To have to choose between paying a utility bill and putting food on the table for one’s kids (and there are people in Berkeley who face this) is a condition for which a living wage is a need, and not having a living wage is a problem. A need is the name for a necessity. It is not contingent. One cannot just watch it go by, or turn it into a "maybe." If a real need is not satisfied, something bad will happen. When the need of the homeless for affordable housing is not met, they slowly die on the street. 

So the real question is, whose need is it? Does it belong to the recipient of the assigned allocation, or to the one assigning? There is a relationship between them, and it is one of power, the power to assign. The act of assigning represents a need on the part of the one making the assignment. But as a “political need,” it is a need for the recipient to accede to it. It is what those who resist it call domination, or exploitation. It is criminal that a representationist government would engage in that. 

We see this in the way the police criminalize people on the street. They approach a person, tell the person to do something the person is not doing, like lie down on the ground, and as soon as the person ceases to obey, they are guilty of non-cooperation, or non-compliance, and can be charged and handcuffed and arrested. In circumstances like that, the person is lucky not to be beaten or tased or shot. But they have been dehumanized, and their life has been disrupted. SB-35 seems to take such police comportment as its role model. 

To assign a need, and punish non-fulfillment, is to invent a future for the other. In the case of ABAG’s 9000, the allocation appears as a proposal, yet acts like a requirement. It both invents a future for a city and obviates refusal through domination. By imposing the need to build housing, the need for affordable housing will be ignored. That is the meaning of gang rule. 

In short, assignment of a need, as a violation of autonomy, is not an academic question. It refers to real people needing affordable housing, and a real state needing housing whose character is different from what real people need. Real people need lodging. The state needs a supply of housing for political purposes (the state is not going to live in any of them). The banks need houses as assets to provide value for their securities trading. Lodging, housing, houses, and assets are all different kinds of things. And only one of those things is necessary for real people: viz. lodging. All the rest are contingent. The word "need" is used for them, but it is hype. For the structures named, the word "need" refers to both a lie and a contingency. The project advertised by SB-35 to bring new affordable housing units into existence is a sham. 

What this creates is a real need on the part of the city to get out from under the domination of assigned needs. 

In our economic environment, for-profit developers prefer to only build “market rate” housing. In our political environment, the majority of the people need affordable housing and cities cannot supply that. SB-35 didn’t go to the cities and say, “let’s negotiate some agreements whereby we can meet the state’s needs for housing in terms of its real people.” It didn’t set up a situation in which the cities could say what the people really need. It didn’t give the cities the chance to say that. Instead, the state turned the issue of housing into a protection racket. 

Somehow, it decided on its own that it had a need for housing. Or perhaps it was listening to the shills who were crying, “there is a housing crisis,” when there is no housing crisis, only an affordability crisis. 

The central problem of SB-35 is not the issue of housing, but the act of imposing a future on others, and pretending that this must necessarily be a good thing. That is not to say that SB-35 could not have been a beneficial law. It would have been had it addressed the economic side of housing affordability. Instead, it chose a political and authoritarian approach. 

This points to the need for democratizing the problem of housing. (See Part 4) The fundamental principle of democracy is that those who will be affected by a policy must be the ones who make the policy that will affect them. This has to be said again and again because it differs drastically from the representationist system that most people in this country think is "democracy." 

Gang rule is the opposite of democracy. And a representative City Council exists in between the two. Representationism is rule by an elite who become elite by winning elections. But those elections are governed by a need for enormous amounts of money to buy publicity time. Renters get no representation, and the needs of the people get reduced to TV promises. Democracy has yet to be instituted. Gang rule will have to be swept aside first.

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

The most recent Quinnipiac Poll (https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3810) illustrates how polarized the US has become: 66 percent of respondents do not want Donald Trump to (re)run for President. Nonetheless, 66 percent of Republicans would like him to run. (Not surprisingly, the same percentage of Republicans do not believe that Biden's 2020 victory was legitimate.) It's a dismaying and, somewhat, disheartening statistic that illustrates how divided the United States has become. To better understand this, it's useful to examine polarization in California. 

The May 26th poll by the Public Policy Institute of California (https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-may-2021.pdf ) confirmed the Golden State continues to favor Democrats. California Governor Gavin Newsom has an approval rating of 55 percent. 57 percent of respondents would NOT vote to recall him. Notably, 78 percent of Republicans would vote to recall Newsom. 

On issue after issue, California Democrats and Republicans disagree. For example, 62 percent of Californians agree that income inequality is a big issue. But they split -- by party -- as to whether government ought to do something about this: “Should the state government be doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and poor in California, or is this something the government should not be doing?" 83 percent of Democrats feel the government should do more, while 58 percent of Republicans believe the government should NOT do more. 

California has a budget surplus of approximately $38 billion. Governor Newsom has proposed that this budget surplus be used for stimulus checks. When poll respondents were asked: "Do you favor or oppose providing another round of stimulus checks with $600 going to Californians with incomes under $75,000 and an additional $500 going to those with children?" 70 percent of Californians approved of this; 86 percent of Democrats but just 42 percent of Republicans. 

When asked, “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Joe Biden is handling his job as president?” 66 approved; 88 percent of Democrats but just 21 percent of Republicans. When asked, “Do you think things in the United States are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” 53 percent of respondents believed we are going in the right direction. 68 percent of Democrats but just 17 percent of Republicans. 

Biden's handling of the Coronavirus pandemic is approved by 75 percent of poll respondents. 93 percent of Democrats approve but most Republicans (61 percent) disapprove. Everything about the pandemic seems to be divisive. 

Seventy-three percent of Californians say they have already received the vaccine (67 percent) or will definitely get the vaccine (6 percent). Seventeen percent of respondents say they will definitely NOT get the vaccine (12 percent) or probably not get the vaccine (5 percent). Republicans remain most likely to say they will probably or definitely not get the vaccine (38 percent). 

What accounts for this polarization? In California, this seems to be the result of the interaction of three factors: Party affiliation, race, and region. Obviously, there is a substantial difference in perspective between Democrats and Republicans. We can attribute this to the usual suspects: the two groups are in different media silos; for example, many Republicans get their political data from Fox News. 

Race is a key determinant of polarization. President Biden has the approval of 66 percent of all California adults, but there are significant differences based upon race: the PPIC survey found: "Across racial/ethnic groups, overwhelming majorities of African Americans( 83%), Latinos (77%), and Asian Americans (73%) approve, as do 54 percent of whites." 53 percent of respondents felt the US is going in the right direction, but there was a major difference in perception based upon race: "Majorities of Latinos (68%), African Americans (60%), and Asian Americans (56%) say right direction, compared to 41 percent of whites." 

In addition, there are important regional differences in California. The PPIC survey was taken in five distinct parts of California: Los Angeles, San Diego/Orange Counties, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Valley (Shasta County south to Ken County). and the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties). The Inland Empire is substantially more conservative than the four other regions; for example, when asked, “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gavin Newsom is handling his job as governor of California?” Only the Inland Empire has a net disapproval (37 percent approve to 53 percent disapprove).  

The Newsom recall petition had more than 1.7 million verified signatures. More than half of these came from the five Southern California counties: Los Angeles 328K, Orange 285K, Riverside 186K, San Bernardino 130K, and San Diego 238K. (By the way, in 2020 Joe Biden carried all of these counties.) The California Secretary of State (https://ktla.com/news/california/highest-support-for-newsom-recall-comes-from-californias-rural-northeastern-counties-final-state-numbers-show/) analyzed the verified signatures and found a disproportionate number come from rural counties. For example, tiny Amador County -- located east of Sacramento in the "Gold country" -- has 25,989 registered voters; 4966 signed the recall petition (19.1 percent). (Many recall signatories were unhappy with Newsom's handling of the pandemic; particularly the mandatory lockdown.) 

By the way, more men than women support the Newsom recall: "Men (48%) are more likely than women (32%) to say they would vote yes to remove Newsom." 

The most recent Public Policy Institute of California poll illustrates the extent of polarization in the Golden State and helps us understand it. California Republicans don't approve of Biden and don't like how he handled the pandemic. (They don't like masks and many of them will not get vaccinated.) These Republicans are predominantly rural white men. 

Resentful redneck Republicans. As columnist Leonard Pitts recently wrote: "“The decisive reason that white, male, older and less educated voters were disproportionately pro-Trump is that they shared his prejudices and wanted domineering, aggressive leaders …” (https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article211963789.html ) 

---

Bob Burnett is a Bay Area writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net 

Honoring the Dead (But Only Some of Them)

On Memorial Day, Joe Biden followed in the footsteps of other presidents and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier—and thereby promoted in a decades-long cover-up.

According to a Brown University study: "At least 800,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan." The casualties included "thousands of service members and… thousands of contractors" (read: "mercenaries") but "the vast majority of people killed are civilians. More than 310,000 civilians have been killed in the fighting since 2001." By some estimates, while 9.7 million soldiers have died in wars, around 10 million civilians have been recorded as "collateral damage."

If soldiers are "laying down their lives" (a phrase that makes a brutal death sound like an act of voluntary sacrifice) to "defend" human freedoms, why do we not also honor the majority of war's "fallen"—the innocent civilians whose freedoms are supposedly the justification for waging bloody conflicts?

What are the odds that a "Tomb of the Unknown Civilian Family" might be added to the architecture at the Arlington Cemetery? (It's more likely that Congress would fund construction of a "Tomb of the Unknown Military Contractor.") 

In the meantime, you can watch how Veterans For Peace spent Memorial Day in cities across the US. 

Chalk One Up for One-Upping Your Schoolmates 

A lot of chalk was expended recently to create a super hopscotch track over the asphalt in the playground area of the MLK Middle School along Hopkins Street. The hopping grid covered more than 50 feet of payment and, instead of the standard ten squares, it contained 40. Quite a challenge for young scotch-hoppers. 

The hyped-up hop-spot was further adorned with a colorful chalk declaration in large, block letters that read: "I'm COOLER than YOU!" 

And, underneath, some come-lately TikTok tyke had scrawled an addendum: "And I'm HOTTER, too!" 

Pentagon Papers at 50: Live Webinar with Dan Ellsberg on June 13 

Here's your invitation to join the Vietnam Peace Commemoration Committee at 4:30 PM on Sunday, June 13 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the release of the Pentagon Papers—and Dan Ellsberg's contribution to peace in Indochina. 

The publication of the Pentagon Papers torpedoed the government's case for war in Vietnam and helped scuttle the Nixon White House.  

Daniel Ellsberg will be the featured speaker on the June 13 webinar. Join in to honor Ellsberg, cohorts Anthony Russo and Senator Mike Gravel, and the newspapers that dared to publish the top-secret documents. 

Other speakers will include Noam Chomsky, Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, Gar Alperovitz, Barbara Myers, and moderator Jay Craven. 

For full program, speaker bios, resources and registration link, click here. 

Fighting Crime with Gift Coupons 

In a desperate ploy to convince the un-vaxxed to put their best arm forward and accept a Covid-fighting "jab," state officials have announced a $160 million plan to dole out cash and gift cards to California's unvaccinated multitudes. 

But there's more to this story! Governor Newsome's "pay for a poke" plan might just provide the model for a new era of kinder, gentler policing. Instead of "militarizing" police by giving them flak jackets, stun grenades and assault rifles, why not try "monetizing" them with pouches filled with cash and gift coupons? 

Perhaps it's time to try a switch from "Stop and Frisk" to "Stop and Gift." 

Here's how it would work. When police stop someone on suspicion of committing a criminal act, only to discover that the individual is innocent, the officer will apologize for the inconvenience, compliment the citizen on his or her innocence, and offer a complimentary $25 gift coupon to a local grocery outlet or popular bistro. (The program also would be a boon to local merchants.) 

This new policy could reduce the some of the friction currently involved in police-citizen encounters. With a "Stop and Gift" policy in force, citizens would no longer need to fear police encounters. Coupon-hopeful citizens would be on their best behavior. How transformative is "Stop and Gift"? If it works, innocent people might actually start looking forward to cop-stops! 

 

Tree Farts and Sea Snot 

Don't blame me for those narsty phrases, they're straight outta Steve Newman's Earthweek: A Diary of the Planet. And don't blame Newman for those tacky Nature-dissing phrases, they're straight from a couple of scientific studies cited by Earthweek. 

Researchers at North Carolina State U came up with the term "tree farts" to describe the fate of Eastern Seaboard trees that are being slowly destroyed by saltwater intrusion from rising seas. As the trees decay, they release invisible plumes of climate-roasting methane, nitrous oxide and CO₂. 

And "Sea snot" is a "mucus-like organic matter that threatens coral and the fishing industry in parts of the Mediterranean." The growing appearance of sea snot in the world's oceans is attributed to global warming, which is attributable to "tree farts." 

Do you see a pattern here? The media seems engaged in "blame the victim" reporting that dishes up servings of what might be called "bio-shaming" or "Earth-dissing. In both cases, reports of problems linked to unsustainable human activities—e.g., the burning of carbon—are construed to place the blame for environmental degradation ("smog," "wildfires," "birch burps," "sea slime") on victimized nature instead of on human nature. 

Name Your Fave Anti-War Super-Hero 

World BEYOND War has begun accepting its first nominations for the honor of being voted the "War Abolisher of the Year." Got someone you think is deserving of the title? (I nominated East Bay whistleblower Dan Ellsberg.) There's a short online form to fill out. Nominations are being accepted through July 31 at this link. 

Vote No on Planetary Extinction 

In the last week of May, Rep. Raul Grijalva (representing Arizona's 3rd Congressional District) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CN) introduced the Extinction Prevention Act of 2021 to provide "much-needed resources to protect some of the most imperiled wildlife species in the United States." 

"In a Congress this divided," Grijalva wrote, "it's important for us to show that this bill has strong public backing. So, I'm asking you today to add your name in support of the Extinction Prevention Act of 2021." 

As Grijalva notes: "More than one million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction—and species of all kinds are already disappearing at an alarming rate due to human activity. Among the species at the highest risk are those considered less 'charismatic' because support for the protection of these species has been underfunded for decades. 

"This bill will provide crucial resources for conservation projects that will protect, restore, and monitor four groups of species that are most at risk of extinction, which include North American butterflies, various Pacific Island plants, freshwater mussels, and Southwest desert fish. 

"The Extinction Prevention Act of 2021 will give these highly imperiled wildlife species a fighting chance to survive the extinction crisis. But we don't have time to waste." 

Leading conservation groups are already supporting this legislation. 

Why We Need an Independent 1/6 Investigation 

The January 6 invasion and violent ransacking of the US Capitol was propelled, to a major degree, by false information and a diet of hypnotizing conspiracy gumdrops doled out by social media mediums like QAnon and #RealDonaldTrump. 

In the absence of a through investigation and repudiation of "Big Lie" fear-fodder, smaller lies will just continue to crouch and pounce, frightening the unwary. 

Case in point: There is a foreign-linked trolling apparatus that I track (but will not promote by name) that routinely refers to "Supreme Socialist Leader Joe Biden" as head of "a Democratic Party that has fought against every major civil rights initiative." In one of its recent, daily dispatches, it informed its vast, global audience that the Dems have been "manipulating" the events of January 6. 

The truth, these trolls propose, is that the pro-Trump hoards were gathered peacefully outside the Capitol on January 6, only to be sucker-punched by "US Capitol police forces firing exploding flash grenades into crowds of men, women and children." 

When the besieged family members attempted to escape the clouds of teargas, they were offered an escape route by "US Capitol police waving them into the [Capitol] building." But that proved to be a trap since hundreds of terrified patriots invited into the Capitol soon found themselves "arrested and thrown into a hell-dungeon, where they're kept in solitary confinement, regularly beaten and starved." 

A thorough, transparent, bipartisan investigation would counter the persistent mental pandemics of Conspiracy Contagion. 

Remember Benghazi? 

In 2015, the GOP was gung-ho to endorse an investigation of an attack that left four Americans dead in Libya. The Benghazi investigation—one of the longest (more than two years) and costliest (more than $7 million) congressional probes in history—failed to find any evidence of misconduct or dereliction. The real purpose of the investigation, the New York Times concluded, "was specifically intended to damage [Hillary] Clinton’s presidential prospects." 

There is only one explanation for the GOP's objections to a fair and impartial investigation of the events of January 6 and it can be summed up in six words—words that should start appearing on handbills, T-shirts, bumper stickers, banners, and billboards across the nation: "What Have They Got To Hide?" 

"Stand Back and Stand By" 

The list of 400-and-counting citizens who stormed the Capitol Building includes members of the Proud Boys, a white rights gang famously praised by a certain former-and-twice-impeached president. The PeeBees are not pleased that they now face prison terms for exercising their Fist Amendment Rites. And when they go to court, their best defense is likely to be: "Trump made me do it!" 

Messages from Proud Boy Ethan Nordean to his sedition-minded scheme-mates (messages subsequently seized by the FBI) should be a cause for alarm for the Orange-hued Denizen of Mar-a-Lago. 

Here, courtesy of the FBI, is a snippet: 

"Alright I’m gunna say it. FUCK TRUMP! Fuck him more than Biden. I’ve followed the guy for 4 years and given everything and lost it all. Yes he woke us up, but he led us to believe some great justice was upon us … and it never happened, now I’ve got some of my good friends and myself facing jail time cuz we followed this guys lead and never questioned it.  

"We are now and always have been on our own. So glad he was able to pardon a bunch of degenerates as his last move and shit on us on the way out. Fuck you trump you left us on [t]he battle field bloody and alone." 

Meanwhile, several Proud Boys chapters (including Nordean’s Northwest group) have broken with the national organization—after discovering that the Proud Boys' national chairman was secretly working as a federal informant. 

 

Barbara Lee's Resolution to End Poverty 

Congressional Reps Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Pramila Jayapal (D-) have joined forces with the Poor People's Campaign to co-author a "People's Agenda" designed to "end poverty in the richest country on Earth." 

In 2020, more than 40% of American's were poor or low-income, living within $400 of winding up destitute and homeless. The pandemic made it worse, pushing the number of Americans living in poverty from 140 million to 148 million. 

"While vaccines may eventually contain the pandemic," Lee and Jayapal write, "our costly and ineffective health care system will still leave us with the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant and maternal mortality rates among our peer countries." 

Joe Biden's "American Rescue Plan" is welcomed but it won't rescue most poor Americans who will continue to be at increasing risk of hunger, crime, poor health, and police violence. Instead of "ballooning spending" on endless wars, Lee and Jayapal want to see the funds currently spent on militarizing the nation's police redirected to provide social welfare services, job creation programs and "a national, universal, single-payer health care program that puts people before profits." 

Getting the Real Goods 

Back in 1991, I was a big promoter of Read Goods, a California-based alternative-tech collective that once had a storefront on Shattuck Avenue). Real Goods, a pioneering solar panel/wind-turbine supplier began in a garage with a stash of less than $3,000 in operating capital and eventually opened two stores in Berkeley. 

Walking into the Real Goods store was like walking into Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalog. The shelves were filled with eco-tech gizmos like solar-powered flashlights and triple-bladed wind-turbines were on display overhead. 

When Real Goods because a publicly owned company, it sold $1 million worth of stock in less than four months. As Real Goods president John Schaeffer beamed, this marked "the fastest public offering of its type ever completed in America." Relying on grassroots investors instead of "banks, venture capitalists, or large corporations," Real Goods expanded to create an "Institute for Independent Living," a 12-acre Solar Living Center in Hopland, California, and offered prizes for new green inventions that could be built and sold in Real Goods stores. The only caveat was: "No Rube Goldberg, perpetual motion machines, auto mileage extension devises or crystal-powered pet rocks." 

 

I was so enamored by Schaeffer's vision that I actually bought 15 shares of Real Goods stock and—as frequently happens over the years—I completely forgot about the purchase. 

A few weeks back, a letter from the California State Controller's Office informed me that they had discovered some "unclaimed property" that I might want to claim. 

The property turned out to be the Real Goods shares from 30 years ago. There had been a merger and the shares were now in the hands of Gaia Inc. My imagination perked up with expectations of an unexpected financial windfall. After all these years, could I be sitting on an unclaimed treasure of hidden wealth? 

Well, not quite. After several cross-country phone calls, emails, and envelopes containing reams of small-print compliance requests, I discovered that the market value of my 15 shares of Real Goods stock was now worth a whopping $11.30—or 75 cents per share. (Much less than my original investment.) And it turned out that, in order to process my claim to this compounded wealth, I needed to provide a copy of my birth certificate, hire a notary, and pay a $50 administrative fee to a corporate administration firm in New Jersey. 

As I wrote in response to this request: 

"It looks like I have no positive financial reason to proceed further. Thus ends my one-and-only experiment in portfolio investing."

I am very disappointed in U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California's ruling overturning California’s ban on assault weapons, and his 2019 decision overturning California's ban on large capacity magazines, calling such restrictions a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This latter decision was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals although the 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc on June 22, 2021. In my opinion, Judge Benitez misapplied Heller by mischaracterizing the killing power of assault weapons.  

California’s assault rifle ban is modeled after the federal assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. 

Like most constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme in District of Columbia v. Heller, explained, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan upheld an assault rifle ban on the ground that AR-15s are not protected arms under the Second Amendment ruling that the civilian AR-15 is an “exceptionally lethal weapon of war” that is “like” the fully automatic military M16, and therefore not constitutionally protected. At least four courts have upheld such bans.  

I expect the cases will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which, as yet, has not ruled on these issues. Assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines resulted in far more deaths and injuries were disproportionately used in public mass shootings. While bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines will not end the gun violence rampage in this country, studies have shown that states with weaker gun laws and higher gun ownership rates have higher rates of mass shootings. For Judge Benitez to call such firearms: “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment” is absurd. I don’t remember any mass killings where the killer used a Swiss Army Knife 

Sadly, overturning these California bans comes on the heels of the San Jose mass shooting and while the Senate is considering reasonable gun control legislation. But in this violent nation of ours, there seems to be a disconnect between our Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" and the number of mass killings in this country.

The antithesis of human dignity could be humiliation. Many persons with psychiatric illness experience numerous humiliating situations in our lives. Being physically restrained, being forcibly medicated, being put in a courtroom in handcuffs, and, upon a semblance of recovery, being put in a minimum-wage, brainless job, with a job coach to tell you how to sweep a floor, are humiliating scenarios to which mentally ill people are subject. 

This adversely affects dignity. I am a grown man in my fifties, yet in the recent past, when I've needed family help to pay for car repairs, my mother in her eighties would show up at the car repair venue to pay for the job. This is a humiliating experience. It subjects me to the chuckles of managers of car repair places. Not so when I was young. 

In my late teens and early twenties when I worked, I paid for my own car repairs usually with my checkbook, sometimes with a credit card. This created a deep contrast in how self-esteem is affected. Additionally, having a job that is not within the help or the domain of the mental health treatment system, a job in which we are competing successfully among neuro-typical coworkers, does wonders for the dignity and self-esteem. 

A while back, I don't know if you remember this news piece, George Takei (formerly of Star Trek) called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "A clown in blackface." This is an attack on the dignity of Justice Thomas, but it is doubtful it affected the judge's dignity. Thomas believes dignity is transcendent of the circumstances in which we are living. He believes human dignity is "innate." (The interchange emerged because of the Supreme Court ruling that allows same sex marriage. Justice Thomas voted against.) 

Human beings are much more vulnerable than this. Dignity can be shattered when we are subject to too much humiliation in our lives. The human soul can be shattered--it is not immune to all things. The mental health treatment systems are full of "clients" who have surrendered their dignity and who live for some pizza, ice cream, cigarettes, and marijuana, or an extra dosage of benzos hidden in the dresser. 

It is when mentally ill people continue to have dignity despite having a psychiatric condition that we come under scrutiny and we invoke hard-knuckle, sometimes covert tactics of individuals who run the system, who consider us troublemakers and want to knock us down. And I've been knocked down a number of times. 

How people are treated in outpatient institutionalization seems to presume a lack of dignity. This is not extreme, but it is clearly noticeable. It doesn't compare with how Black people were treated during slavery and in recent history. And it doesn't compare with how the Jews were treated in NAZI Germany. Yet as persons with mental illness, we are presumed to be of below average intelligence. And it is obvious that we are presumed to be living in adult bodies but to have the mentalities of children. A flyer for a mental health event seemed to try to lure us in by offering free refreshments "...and punch." We were expected to flock to an event so that we could get a taste of the fruit punch. 

A poster on a wall of a mental health treatment building had a picture of a teddy bear in clown garb. The caption was "I just want to be taken seriously." I have seen similar posters to that. These are attacks on our dignity. The outpatient mental health treatment system believes that we should not have a sense of dignity. When we try to feel that we have it, we are therapeutically invalidated and mocked. 

Psychotherapists are expert in the realm of talk, and in the realm of writing clinical notes to prove anything that falls within an objective. However, many of them do not handle this power toward the well-being and express needs of their clients. Other objectives exist. 

The mental health treatment system in the view of its architects, should run like a well-oiled machine that eliminates all avenues of consumers bettering our circumstances and that eliminates sources of dignity. Mental health "clients" are considered inconvenient people, and the purpose of the system is to keep us neutralized and keep us from interfering with the lives of the good working people. If we attain dignity, it is the first step toward building better lives. This is not the objective of the architects of the treatment systems. The purpose of mental health treatment is to keep us managed, and to prevent us from becoming nuisances. 

Yet, we need to take advantage of any help that is offered. It is a choice between accepting some amount of help while at the same time occasionally looking over our shoulders, versus trying to buck everything; the latter simply will not work. The need to treat a psychiatric illness is real, regardless of how paranoid we are about the treatment systems. The systems offer treatment. We must accept that treatment. The alternative is not something you want. 

If you are suspicious of the motives of caregivers, be suspicious, and your approach ideally should be to keep them honest rather than attempting to go against them. They can be made to offer us real help. We just need to be persistent.

My husband and I were in Greece in August 1991 when we heard from a stranger on the street that there was a coup in the Soviet Union. The August coup failed, but by December 26, 1991 it was over. The Soviet Union was dissolved.

As I watch the reports of the ballot counts in Arizona, the entire spectacle is unsettling. No matter how ridiculous the conspiracy theories sound, there are masses that believe and cling to what is called the “big lie” : that Trump won the election. The results of the May 21, 2021 IPSOS/Reuters Poll were alarming. Even though the number surveyed was 2007, 30% of all respondents (53% of Republicans) believed Trump won the election.

The more centrist Democratic-leaning pundits started shifting their comments this last week to a much stronger cautionary message, a warning of being at a crossroads: democracy or authoritarianism. Thankfully, on Friday Facebook suspended Trump for two years, but that doesn’t stop the rumors that Trump and his followers believe he will be restored to the presidency in August. There is nothing that should be reassuring. I would argue that the reported trips of Republicans to Mar-a-Lago to “kiss the ring” of Donald Trump is to say “I am with you” not from some level of “fear” of Donald Trump.

Moving on from this unsettling picture: What has our local government been up to this last week?

At the Agenda and Rules Committee meeting this week with an expected return to some level of pre-pandemic normalcy, the discussion ensued about how to manage meetings: in-person, continue Zoom or some hybrid model? The City Manager said the technology is available for a hybrid model for council meetings at 1231 Addison (the school district board room), but not at the locations where commissions meet. Many of the rooms are small and all lack the technology for a hybrid model. 

Mayor Arreguin announced that he would schedule a special meeting on the commission reorganization proposal and settled on June 15 at 4 pm. The Wengraf-Harrison agenda item opposing SB 9 stayed on the consent calendar much to the relief of a number of attendees. 

There were no surprises at the Tuesday evening regular council meeting; the surprises came at the Public Works Commission on Thursday evening. The last item on the Tuesday evening council agenda, the resolution updating the city street maintenance and rehabilitation policy, was put off until July 13 with the assertion that the discussion would require extending the council meeting. The mayor said he had a recommendation he would be adding. 

The real reason for postponing action was learned Thursday. The recommendation that put an equity lens on street maintenance and repairs was opposed by one of the councilmembers. Bryce Nesbit said he knew who was in opposition, but he would not give the name. I suspect it is either Wengraf, Droste or Hahn who is insisting on “bringing home the bacon” in street repairs to their district, but I could be wrong. I have no inside information on this one. The old policy divided up street repairs so every district got a piece. 

The piecemeal approach was one of the issues cited in the City Auditor’s report. Some areas of the city suffer from greater states of disrepair and the piecemeal approach means those districts keep getting further behind.  

The audit report ( Rocky Road: Berkeley Street at Risk and Significantly Underfunded 11/19/20 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Auditor/Home/Audit_Reports.aspx ) calls for a plan like the one developed by the Public Works Commission and the Council Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment and Sustainability Committee (FITES), but someone doesn’t like the results. It looks now like the mayor will water the plan down until the resistance falls and then wave the flag of success. 

The other surprise from the Public Works Commission was the discussion on reorganization and merging the Transportation Commission and the Public Works Commission. Shane Krpata said he was totally supporting merging the two commissions, stating the Public Works Commission had not accomplished anything in ten years. Krpata was appointed by Councilmember Robinson to the commission January 7, 2019. Robinson is a co-sponsor of the commission reorganization along with Kesarwani and Arreguin. Droste is the author. 

Just to set the record straight on accomplishments of the Public Works Commission, Councilmember Wengraf described the commission work on the undergrounding plan as a value of $250,000 of free consulting. The Allston Way pavers is thanks to the commission. Vision 2050, Measure T and Measure M were all outgrowths of the Public Works Commission. Since I started watching the Public Works Commission meetings, I grade it as one of the most effective commissions in the City. Another that turns out terrific work is the Energy Commission. 

It is surprising that someone who thinks so little of the commissions wants to be a member all the while seeming to live in a complete vacuum of knowledge of work done. There were comments from other members; one complained there were too many retired people on commissions. Two of the commissioners are retired and the chair Margo Schueler was quick to point out that for most of the years she was on the commission she was working. Someone else complained about equity, saying something about the former redlined areas no longer representing poor Blacks. That caught my attention, as I just finished Whiteness of Wealth by Dorothy A. Brown on the disparate impact of tax law on Blacks, (a book worth reading). I suppose the members making those statements are relieved the meeting isn’t recorded so I can’t go back and catch their names. 

Resentments are much deeper than I thought. It is disappointing that the commission structure which provides the vehicle for so much innovation is hamstrung by pettiness, shortsightedness and the inability to see the contributions of others. There are commissioners who should consider leaving and councilmembers who need to take a hard look at replacing some of their appointees. 

There is so much talent in Berkeley, why are we not tapping it? The Droste proposal with co-sponsors Kesarwani, Robinson and Arreguin looks only at staff time and totally negates the time volunteered by commissioners, the free consulting Wengraf cited. 

Commissions shouldn’t be the place where ambition gets in the way, but it certainly is feeling that way in the approach to reorganization. Ambition is all about making sure whose name is recorded as the “idea” and which source of funding is stroked for the next election. 

Commissions that work on climate and the environment are going to recommend requirements that developers don’t want to do, like bird safe glass from the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC). How to kill that: Combine Zero Waste, CEAC, Energy and Animal Care commissions into one unwieldy 18 member commission. 

Public Works is turning out great work which some councilmembers apparently don’t like. How to kill that: Combine it with Transportation and at the same time ignore that the mayor wants a new transportation department BerkDOT. It is foolishness, but I expect those behind the reorganization are as dug in as Joe Manchin is to maintaining the filibuster and not supporting the Democratic voting rights legislation. 

The significant comments out of the WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority) are that WETA needs Federal support to continue. The FITES Committee passed Councilmember Taplin’s proposal for a Just Transition from the Fossil Fuel Economy with the leadership coming from Councilmember Taplin’s office. The ordinance to amend BMC 7.52 reducing the tax for qualifying electrification, energy efficiency and water conservation retrofits also passed, but that is a referral to the city manager, so it is likely to sit in the long referral list of inaction. 

I’ve finished several books in the last week, but the one already mentioned here Whiteness of Wealth: How the Tax System Impoverishes Black Americans and How We Can Fix It by Dorothy A. Brown, professor of law at Emory University, is worth reading. Some things we already know or should know, like agricultural and domestic work being excluded from social security until 1954. There are other things at least I never thought about, like how systemic racism limiting access to well-paying jobs means that Blacks who do succeed are more likely to be supporting parents and extended family members. 

This kind of support doesn’t get recognized. There is more to learn and ponder. I thought a lot about the movement denouncing single family homes as exclusionary and racist. Demolishing Black neighborhoods under the mantra of ending racism does the opposite. It denies Blacks the opportunity of building wealth through home ownership.  

Worth Noting:

Sunday June 6 and 13 at 10 am – 1 pm are the virtual East Bay Green Home Tours – pre-register with Eventbrite. Six homes (12 total) are featured each Sunday.

Monday at 5 pm deadline to submit questions for the Budget Town Hall on Tuesday.

Tuesday at 5:30 pm is the Town Hall with Mayor Arreguin on the City Budget. Council votes on the budget on June 29 which will go into effect July 1.

Wednesday the Redistricting Commission meets at 6 pm. The Homeless Commission, Parks and Waterfront Commission and Police Review Commission all meet at 7 pm.

Thursday the Council Budget and Finance Committee meets at 10 am. Reimagining Policing meets at 6 pm and the Zoning Adjustment Board at 7 pm has only one item on consent the new expanded location for ACME Bakery on San Pablo.

The Reorganization of Boards and Commissions is now scheduled as a special meeting at 4 pm on June 15. Both the City Council special meeting at 4 pm and regular meeting at 6 pm are available for comment email council@cityofberkeley.info. The agendas, reorganization of commissions charts and links follow the list of daily meetings.

The comment period to (Bayer Projects) the Bayer Healthcare LLC Development Agreement Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) ends July 6, 2021.

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/Bayer_Development_Agreement.aspx

Sunday, June 6, 2021

East Bay Green Home Tour 10 am – 1 pm

Tour schedule: https://www.eastbaygreenhome.com/schedule

Register Eventbrite: https://www.eastbaygreenhome.com/register

AGENDA: Features short video tours of 12 homes 6 on June 6 and 6 on June 13 with each tour followed by live Q&A with the homeowner/tenant. Extras include induction cooking, heat pumps, air quality, solar storage, power outages, rebates

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/electrification/

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CABERKE/bulletins/2e283bb 

Monday, June 7, 2021 - No meetings found 

Tuesday, June 8, 2021 

Budget Town Hall, June 8 at 5:30 pm https://www.jessearreguin.com/ 

The proposed budget from the CM (City Manager) was first presented at City Council on May 25. Use these links to access the 484 page budget and presentation to council. The deadline to submit questions is 5 pm Monday. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/05_May/City_Council__05-25-2021_-_Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 

 

38.	FY 2022 Proposed Budget and Proposed Budget Public Hearing #1 Revised Material (Supp 3) Presentation

 

Wednesday, June 9, 2021 

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Lease Breaking Webinar at 10 am 

Register in advance link in website 

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

Homeless Commission at 7 – 9 pm 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/96645301465 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 966 4530 1465 

AGENDA: 6. Possible input as to consolidation of commissions, 7. Update Homeless Services Panel of Experts, 8. Discussion Specialized Care Units, 9. Discussion Residents diplaced from 742 Grayson, 10. Discussion Possible Homeless Ombudsman, 11. Update Utilizing Homeless Management Information System, 12. Accessibility at Pathways and all programs. 

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

Independent Redistricting Commission at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86211911559 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 862 1191 1559  

AGENDA: 2. Adoption Bylaws, 3. Mission Statement, 4. Topics for Public Hearing #1 (on July 10), Subcommittee Reports 5. Outreach,6. Mapping outreach resources and timeline 2021-2022.  

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/redistricting/ 

Parks and Waterfront Commission at 7 – 9 pm 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/96974512296 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 969 7451 2296 

AGENDA: 8. Presentation Update on PRW Major Maintenance Projects, 9. Presentation Overview Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Project, 10. Update Pier Ferry/BMASP Projects, 11. Update FY 2022 Budget, 12. Update Santa Fe ROW Parks Project, 13. Discussion/Action: Bayer Development Agreement, 14. Consolidation of commissions. 

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

Police Review Commission at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87070468124 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 870 7046 8124 

AGENDA: 8. Subcommittee reports a. Outreach, b. Lexipol, 9. a. Recommendations to new Police Accountability Board about improving process for handling complaints against officers, b. Lexipol 324 – Media Relations, 804 Records Maintenance and Release, 337- Biological Samples, c. Whether commissioners may be allowed to observe police officers being trained, d. transition to new Police Accountability Board, e. Hate crime tracking recent and BPD response to recent anti-Asian hate crimes, 10. A. Recruitment new Chief of Police, b. Certificate of appreciation George Perezvelez (14 years), c. Commendation of BPD officers for their acts in capturing fleeing suspect on 4/30/2021. 

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

Thursday, June 10, 2021 

Council Budget & Finance Committee at 10 am 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81351873235 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 813 5187 3235 

AGENDA: 2. Discussion Proposed FY 2022 Budget, 3. Discussion Referrals to Budget Process, 4. Droste - Potential Measure P Allocations, 5. Parks & Waterfront Commission - Proposal to allocate revenues generated by the transient occupancy tax (hotel taxes) in the waterfront to the Marina Fund to avoid insolvency, 6. Harrison, Arreguin co-sponsors Robinson, Taplin - Establish A Pilot Equity Action Fund to assist low-income residents with transition to zero-carbon transportation and buildings. 7. Harrison co-sponsor Bartlett – Establish a Pilot Existing Building Electrification Incentive Program to assist new homeowners, renters and existing homeowners with transition to zero-carbon buildings. 

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

City Council CLOSED Session, 3 pm  

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84838540769 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 848 3854 0769 

AGENDA: a. City of Berkeley v. Regents of UC RG 19023058, b. Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, et, al v Regents UC, et.al. RG 19006256 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/06_June/City_Council__06-10-2021_-_Closed_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 

Zoning Adjustment Board at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/97292069130 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 972 9206 9130 

AGENDA: 2. 1634 and 1640 San Pablo (Acme Bakery) – on consent – demolish existing 5424 sq ft 1-story commercial building at 1634 San Pablo and provide new surface parking for 8 vehicles, construct 1768 sq ft addition to existing 2-story commercial building at 1640 San Pablo, erect 2 flour silos, construct accessory trash enclosure in required rear yard. 

2000 University / 2001 Milvia (Au Coquelet site) – recommend continue to June 24, 2021 ZAB meeting to correct public hearing notice – demolish existing commercial building and 2 rent controlled dwelling units and construct new 8-story mixed-use with 82 studio dwelling units, 1415 sq ft ground floor commercial space. 

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningadjustmentsboard/ 

Reimagining Public Safety Task Force at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81983354907 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 819 8335 4907 

AGENDA: Subcommittee Reports: Policing, Budget & Alternatives to Policing, Community Engagement, Discussion/Action: Meeting Schedule, Police Dept Overview, New and Emerging Models Report, City Wide Town Hall Discussion, Discussion about Whole Person Care – A Community Safety Model 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/RIPST.aspx 

Friday, June 11, 2021 - Reduced Service Day 

Saturday, June 12, 2021  

Berkeley Neighborhoods Council meets at 10 am. Check the website for agenda and zoom information https://berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com/ 

 

Sunday, June 13, 2021 

East Bay Green Home Tour 10 am – 1 pm  

Tour schedule: https://www.eastbaygreenhome.com/schedule 

Register Eventbrite: https://www.eastbaygreenhome.com/register 

AGENDA: Features short video tours of 12 homes 6 on June 6 and 6 on June 13 with each tour followed by live Q&A with the homeowner/tenant. Extras include induction cooking, heat pumps, air quality, solar storage, power outages, rebates 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/electrification/ 

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CABERKE/bulletins/2e283bb 

______________________ 

City Council Special Session, 4 pm, June 15 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/06_June/City_Council__06-15-2021_-_Special_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87908681987 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 879 0868 1987 

AGENDA: Droste, Co-sponsors Robinson, Kesarwani, Arreguin - Commission Reorganization for Post-COVID19 Budget Recovery 

New Commission Name (suggested)	Existing Commissions to be Merged
Commission on Climate and the Environment   (18 members)	Zero Waste, Energy, Community Environmental Advisory Commission, and Animal Care
Parks, Recreation, Waterfront (special Marina subcommittee)	Children, Youth, and Recreation and Parks and Waterfront
Peace, Justice, and Human Welfare  (mayor and council appointees only eliminates representatives of the poor)	Peace and Justice Commission and Human Welfare and Community Action Commission
Public Health Commission & Sugar Sweetened Beverage Panel of Experts	Community Health Commission and Sugar Sweetened Beverage Panel of Experts
Housing Advisory Commission  (Phase 1 priority consolidation)	Measure O and Housing Advisory Commission
Homeless Services Panel of Experts  (Phase 1 priority consolidation)	Homeless Commission and Measure P Homeless Services Panel of Experts
Public Works and Transportation	Public Works and Transportation
Planning	Planning and Cannabis
All other commissions will maintain their current structure: Aging, Library Board of Trustees, Civic Arts, Disability, Commission on the Status of Women, Design Review Committee, Disaster and Fire Safety, BIDs, Fair Campaign Practices and Open Government, Redistricting, Landmarks Preservation, Labor, Loan Adjustments Board, Personnel, Planning, Police Review/Accountability, Reimagining Public Safety, Mental Health, Zoning Adjustments Board, and Youth

 

Policy Committee Oversight	Commissions
Agenda and Rules	Fair Campaign Practices/Open Government Commission Personnel Board
Budget and Finance	(any legislation that requires funding)
Public Safety	Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Police Accountability Board/Police Review Commission Reimagining Public Safety Task Force
Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation and the Environment	Commission on the Environment Parks, Recreation and Waterfront with Marina Subcommittee Public Works and Transportation
Land Use and Economic Development	Measure O Housing Commission Planning Commission Labor Civic Arts Commission
Health, Equity, Life Enrichment, and Community	Peace, Justice and Civil Rights Health and Sugar Sweetened Beverage Panel of Experts Homeless Services Panel of Experts Mental Health Commissions (state/federal mandate) Commission on the Status of Women Disability Commission
Other Commissions: Zoning Adjustments Board (DRC), Landmarks Preservation Commission, Board of Library Trustees, BIDS, Independent Redistricting Commission, Loan Administration Board.

 

_____________________ 

City Council Regular Meeting, 6 pm, June 15 

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

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87908681987 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 879 0868 1987 

AGENDA CONSENT: 1. 2^nd reading Lease Agreement 2010 Addison (Center Street Garage) Lexie’s Frozen Custard, 2. 2^nd reading BMC 14.72.105 broader range of community facilities to be eligible for parking permits, 3. CM- Systems Alignment Proposal , 4. Temporary Appropriations FY2022 $50 million, FY 2022 Tax Rates items 5 – 16: 5. Debt service on Neighborhood Branch Library improvements, 6. Debt Service 2015 Refunding General Obligation Bonds Measures G, S, &I, 7. Debt Service on Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds Measure O, 8. Business License Tax on Large Non-Profits, 9. Funding Firefighting, Emergency Medical Response and Wildfire Prevention Measure FF, 10. Maintenance of Parks, City Trees and Landscaping, 11. Provision of Library Services, 12. Emergency Services for the Severely Disabled Measure E, 13. Debt Service on Infrastructure and Facilities General Obligation Bonds Measure T1, 14. Debt Service on Street and Watershed Improvements General Obligation Bonds Measure M, 15. Fund Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness Measure GG, 16. Emergency Medical Services Paramedic Tax, 17. Designate a Line of Succession for the Director of Emergency Services, 18. Revenue Grant from Alameda Co of $32,080 for Public Health Infrastructure Program (health promotion), 19. Housing Trust Fund Predevelopment Loan Advance for Maudelle Miller Shirek Community at 2001 Ashby of $1.5 million, 20. Withdrawn - contract with Easy Does It, 21. Revenue Grant $14,000 from State for Tuberculosis Program, 22. Accept Community Services Block Grant, 23. Contract add $100,000 total $150,000 with Renne Public Law Group LLP for Chief Labor Negotiator Services, 24. Contract add $53,000 total $102,999 thru 12/31/2023 with Bryce Consulting for Professional Classification Studies, Compensation Surveys, Desk Audits, 25. Contract add $215,000 total $665,000 with Sloan Sakai LLP for Chief Labor Negotiator Services, 26. MOU IBEW Local 1245 6/28/2020 – 6/30/2022, 27. Tentative Agreement SIEU Local 1021 Community Services Unit and Pat-Time Recreation Leaders Association related to inclusion of the Legislative Assistants into Unit, 28. Contract $61,215 with 20% contingency $12,243 total $73,458 with Get IT Tech for new electronic gate system at the waterfront, 29. Contract with Community Conservation Centers, In for processing and marketing services of recyclable materials 7/1/2021-6/30/2026 with 5 year extension option 10 yr total $30,080,793, 30. Contract with Ecology Center for curbside recycling collection 7/1/2021-6/30/2026 with 5 year extension option 10 yr total $54,528,752, 31. Contract add $50,000 total $250,000 and extend to 6/30/2023 with HF&H Consultants, LLC for study of providing commercial collection services and development and update of rate model, 32. Contract add $150,000 total $340,000 and extend to 6/3/2025 with Fairbanks Scales, Inc for preventive maintenance and repairs at CoB solid waste management and transfer station, 33. Zero Waste Commission - Support Assembly Bills 881 (closes loophole of Plastic Waste Exports counted as recycling regardless of ultimate destination), 1454 (bottle bill modernization helps recycling centers stay open), 1276 (expands restrictions on single-use foodware to upon request), 34. Bartlett so-sponsor Harrison - Support AB-279 Intermediate Care and Skilled Nursing Facilities prohibits facilities from terminating, transferring or significantly altering conditions of residential care services during COVID-19 also includes conditions of sale, 35. Wengraf & Harrison – oppose SB 9, ACTION: 36. Public Hearing Street Lighting Assessments FY2022, 37. City Council Comments on the FY 2022 proposed Biennial Budget, 38. Path to Permanence: Outdoor Dining and Commerce, INFORMATION REPORTS: 39. City Council Short Term Referral Process-Quarterly Update, 40. Update on the Implementation of the FIP (Fair and Impartial Policing Task Force) recommendations, 41. Animal Care Commission workplan, 42. Planning Commission workplan, 

______________________ 

Public Hearings Scheduled – Land Use Appeals 

2421 Fifth Street (construct two residential buildings) 6/1/2021 

2943 Pine (construct a 2^nd story) 9/28/2021 

1205 Peralta (conversion of garage) 10/12/2021 

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

600 Addison 6/15/2021 

1730 Blake (3-story single-family dwelling) 6/8/2021 

723 Delaware 6/17/2021 

2737 Durant 6/15/2021 

0 Fifth 6/17/2021 

770 Page 6/15/2021 

1634 San Pablo 6/10/2021 

3 Virginia Gardens 6/17/2021 

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 

July 20 – 1. Bayer Development Agreement (tentative), 2. Measure FF/Fire Prevention 

September 21 – 1. Housing Element (RHNA) 

October 19 – 1. Update Zero Waste Rates and Priorities, 2. Berkeley Police Department Hiring Practices (referred by Public Safety Committee), 3. Crime Report 

December 7 – 1. Review and Update on City’s COVID-19 Response, 2. WETA/Ferry Service at the Marina, 3. Presentation by Bay Restoration Authority 

Unscheduled Workshops/Presentations 

Cannabis Health Considerations 

Civic Arts Grantmaking Process & Capital Grant Program 

If you have a meeting you would like included in the summary of meetings, please send a notice to kellyhammargren@gmail.com by noon on the Friday of the preceding week. 

This meeting list is also posted on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website. 

http://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html and in the Berkeley Daily Planet under activist’s calendar http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com 

If you or someone you know wishes to receive the weekly summary as soon as it is completed, email kellyhammargren@gmail.com to be added to the early email list. 

If you wish to stop receiving the Weekly Summary of City Meetings please 

forward the weekly summary you received to kellyhammargren@gmail.com