-more-

To: Mayor Arreguín and Councilmembers:

I write on behalf of Berkeley Citizens for a Better Plan (BC4BP) to ask that the City slow down any settlement of the proposed new UCB LRDP, first obtain UCB’s final Environmental Impact Report, and includeall of the necessary terms of any settlement in a legally enforceable document. BC4BP is sponsored by BAHA and many other organizations and individuals concerned about UCB’s proposed LRDP with its astonishingly damaging impacts on the City of Berkeley and its residents.¹

Between April 2019, the start of UCB’s 2021 LRDP preparation and April 7, 2020 when UCB held a scoping session for preparing an EIR², it engaged in forums, surveys, and other public relations events, but failed to comply with Public Records Act requests for documents and architect plans related to the draft LRDP.³ Concerned about UCB’s suspicious withholding of information and documents, BAHA began extensive online research and on August 26, 2020, wrote to the Mayor and then met with him, the Vice Mayor, and staff to explain that UCB’s plan for a huge increase in enrollment was likely to harm Berkeleyans by: “(1) imposing enormous added pressure on already strained city services with their attendant costs; (2) substantially increasing demand for housing while reducing the number of rent-controlled units available to city residents; and (3) destroying key cultural and historic structures, and negatively impacting other historic structures located near UCB’s new development project sites.”

The first time UCB provided the draft LRDP to the public was on February 23, 2021 and on March 8, 2021 it issued the Draft EIR (DEIR). Prior to the close of the comment period on April 26, 2021, less than two months ago, BAHA submitted over 5,000 pages of documents—a 160-page comment letter and appendices of the research documents it had collected. The City submitted a 65-page letter from its planning director. The next step in the CEQA process requires UCB to respond to the allegations, facts, and questions contained in these letters and any others submitted by the public.

The LRDP is shocking, not only in its negative impacts for all Berkeleyans, but in the arrogance of the Chancellor pursuing these development plans. For example, the LRDP combined with the research completed by BAHA and BC4BP demonstrates that the so-called student housing in the gateway planned luxury high-rise building (Anchor) is full of luxury suites and amenities consistent with a $750-1,500 per night hotel stay, including each student having a private bathroom and each apartment for up to four students having a full kitchen and laundry equipment, and throughout the building, multiple lounges with full-size televisions, billiard rooms, cafes, private gyms, and substantial commercial space to compete with downtown Berkeley’s business district. Tens of thousands of square feet that should be used for student beds has instead been squandered away in this lavish development. It also requires evicting rent controlled tenants of a building UCB intends to demolish just to enable the luxurious lifestyle of wealthy students residing in this building. -more-

The existence and growth of homelessness in the US and the world loudly imposes a question; how can housing not be a human right? How could a self-respecting society not provide housing for all the people composing it? There are a few Constitutions in the world in which housing is named as a human right (e.g. Venezuela). What is preventing it from being named a human right in most other countries? Is it not time to speak about this? Does the existence of homelessness suggest that human existence is not the primary concern for human society?

Rights

Let us begin with civil rights. The Constitution provides that government shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech, religion, press, the right to bear arms, security in one’s home, etc. When we speak about civil rights, we reason logically from these constitutional clauses. They describe relations between individuals and political (legislative) power. They represent how the Constitution, the source of political structure, sets limits on its own power. Nevertheless, those limits are often self-indulgent. For instance, the police have SWAT teams and no-knock warrants that are legally and existentially in violation of civil rights. If rights can be violated, then they exist only as politically bestowed. When the Constitution bans their abridgement, it implies that abridgement was imminently possible.

Human rights exist as characteristics of people, and thus of relations between people. The Declaration of Independence opens with a reference to human rights declaring them "inalienable." But the Constitution amends that to say, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If deprivation is possible under certain conditions, then the right is not inalienable. And again, life and liberty are violated by the police all the time. To handcuff a person without warranted arrest and without due process is a violation of human rights. When a cop shoots a man in the back, it is intentional murder. So what are we really talking about? To disrespect a person’s human rights is to demean their humanity. To demean the humanity of the homeless, as so many neighborhood home-owners tend to do, is precisely to invoke housing as a human right.

The right to property is more complicated. There is a contract clause in the Constitution that says. “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Contract is a relation of agreement between two people, or two legal entities, involving exchange and price. Pollution cannot be stopped without purchasing the polluter’s compliance. Sale of land cannot be rescinded except with negotiated compensation. All disputes over property devolve to issues of cost. To speak about the money expended when a marriage ceremony in Afghanistan is bombed by US airplanes becomes a way of not thinking about the many dismembered bodies.

When property rights crash against human rights, it is property rights that win. If a small town in Illinois decides that a black family should not be allowed to buy a house in it because that will reduce real estate values for all, the sale is voided. When property owners complain about a homeless encampment, it is the encampment that is razed, and not the owners penalized for harassing or illegally molesting the homeless. So how are we supposed to speak about "human" rights at all?

If property is a relation between contracting parties, is the same true for life and liberty? It is against power that the deprivation of life and liberty banned. Why is that ban of less concern or import than the sanctity of contract? How did that hierarchy come to exist? Either it represents a huge hypocrisy central to this society, or the sanctity of contract is a mistake. If property is a relation between people, then so is life and liberty. But they are not mediated by cash. Does housing relate to rights only through cash, or does it have a direct relation to life and liberty?

This problem extends deep into this society. Private prisons are institutions that assist government in depriving people of their liberty (with due process). They do it for profit, which transgresses rights insofar as property becomes the location of power, and not simply its instrument. They have transgressed the constitutional equity between human and property rights. Once power locates itself in property, property holds clear hegemony over the right to life and liberty. The police, who have established their insular power and impunity to kill on the street and get paid for it, have stepped across that boundary as well. How are we to rectify this transgression, to render this society a democracy and not an autocracy of property rights?

For housing to be a human right, it would have to stand with life and liberty, rather than with property. Nevertheless, housing has a cost. The act of making housing a human right would subordinate that contractual aspect to its human dimension; in other words, it would invert the hierarchy, and be an instance of giving human rights hegemony over property rights. It would undo the hierarchy that the sanctity of contract has imposed on life and liberty. Government would have to take responsibility for housing as it does for life and liberty. In short, it would produce a situation in which the recognition would be unavoidable that this society has yet to found itself on human rights. That is, it has yet to become a democracy.

The dichotomy between democracy and autocracy

The idea of government taking responsibility for housing has been the subject of this series articles (on SB-35). We have seen that, in terms of that law, the government of California has acted like a classical protection racket, while at the same time being in conflict with its own state Constitution. In that sense, it enacts an autocracy of property rights, which is in evidence all around us in the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. It is precisely that gap that people are calling in question by demanding affordable housing. Affordability is the nickname for that gap.

Confronted with the coincidence of two governmental systems, the autocratic and the democratic, what marks their conflict is their inversion of procedure. In one system, political decisions are made, and then there is outreach to explain those decisions to the people, and get feedback on what is already an accomplished fact. In the other system, there is outreach to the people first, with discussion on issues and on the resolution of problems. It produces thinking and awareness, and often consensus on the basis of which decisions can then be made. The first system is one of autocracy, government acting first and on its own, and then imposing itself on the people. The second system is that of democracy in which the people discuss what they need and expect elected representatives to manifest those needs as governmental enactments. -more-

We are now witnessing the darkest days of early Canadian history.The arrival of European traders, missionaries, soldiers and colonists changed the native way of life forever. -more-

In the private sector, being successful in your endeavors toward making money and achieving status are worshipped. The culture is often narcissistic, and it is all about promoting oneself and being the best at something. People compare themselves to others and try to see how well they measure up. People who've made a fortune are admired, emulated, and asked to do public speaking. In the private sector, ethics do exist. Sometimes they are overshadowed with the quest for more profit at any cost. But many companies are run conscientiously. Being an entrepreneur is generally a signal of status. And if a person can make their company successful, (which happens less than half the time) meaning the company is profitable and remains in business, more so. -more-

In a Senate procedural vote on whether to start debate on Senator Joe Manchin’s compromise For the People Act, which would add a nationwide voter ID requirement or other alternative like providing a utility bill receipt to prove identity; make Election Day a public holiday; along with an outline of about 24 other proposals that incorporate some of the original bill, including tighter campaign finance and ethics rules. The For the People Act ended as expected in a 50-50 vote along party lines. Sixty votes had been required to overcome Republicans’ use of the filibuster. -more-

The 100 Millionaires Who Make Mitch Rich

Minority Lynchpin Mitch McConnell likes to snort that his fondness for the Jim Crow-era filibuster is rooted in his concern for "protecting the rights of the minority." Of course, Mitch is not talking about any impoverished racial minority here. No, he's talking about a much smaller cohort — the very-very-very tiny minority that controls the political levers of this country.

Public Citizen President Robert Weissman recently exposed how small Mitch's Minority really is. As Weissman noted: "Just 100 donors are responsible for 70 percent of Super PAC contributions" that power the Republican Party. Call them the .00000001 Percenters.

Happy Birthday To You, Happy Birthday, You Twos

Thanks to the political fund-raising gambit of asking citizens to "surprise" elected political representatives by "signing a birthday card" addressed to the lucky individual, I was surprised to discover and am pleased to report that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) both share the same birth date—June 22.

Warren's emailed response read: "It was a busy day in the Senate, and we ran headfirst into a Republican filibuster, but reading notes like yours always gives me just the fire I need to stay in the fight…. PS: My best present yesterday? Going out to a birthday dinner with my sweetie." -more-

The week started with a roundtable discussion Sunday evening on TOPA, the Tenants’ Opportunity Purchase Act. I was surprised by the slick mailers in opposition to TOPA that were shared on zoom during the discussion. TOPA was passed out of the Land Use Policy Committee May 20 with Councilmembers Hahn and Robinson voting yes and Droste voting no. If I had to take a guess on the outcome, TOPA has not shown up in any draft council agendas, making it look like the opposition is the winner. Of course, the city is in full throttle to finishing the budget by Tuesday evening. If TOPA does happen to squeak by in a vote later this year, I doubt it will benefit more than a handful of tenants. -more-

Worth Noting:

Monday morning at the 9 am Budget and Finance Committee Mayor Arreguin will present his proposed budget for the fiscal year July1, 2021 – June 30, 2022.

Tuesday evening at 6 pm the City Council will vote on the budget for the fiscal year July1, 2021 – June 30, 2022.

Wednesday evening the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force meets at 6 pm.

Thursday evening the agenda for the Public Works Commission is not posted, check later.

Sunday the 4^th of July fireworks are cancelled.



Sunday, June 27, 2021 - No City meetings or events found



Monday, June 28, 2021 -more-