Extra

Landlord and Real Estate Money at Work

A new low in hit pieces can be seen in a mailer attacking Nikki Fortunato Bas, candidate for County supervisor, with an image of her holding a sign saying “Defund the Police”. There’s an asterisk for a footnote in smaller print at the bottom that says “This image has been manipulated.”

So, apparently, hit pieces can include fake images as long as they acknowledge doing so with a footnote. Who is paying for this? The California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Committee with funding from real estate industry groups. They probably don’t like Nikki Bas’ positions on rent control, tenant protections and support for affordable housing. 

Measures BB and CC 

Here in Berkeley, a landlord group is opposing Measure BB and supporting Measure CC. A mailer has appeared from the “Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition Sponsored by Berkeley Property Owners Association”, with major funding from the National Association of Realtors. 

Measure CC is an attempt to hijack a portion of the funds generated by Measure U-1, which was passed by a large majority of Berkeley voters in 2016. 

Measure U-1 money is intended to fund construction of below market affordable housing by non-profit housing developers and has been used for that purpose. It also funds Berkeley’s Housing Retention Program that has helped tenants remain in their homes. Local U-1 funds leverage state and federal affordable housing funds, allowing the city to add truly affordable housing for low and very low income households. 

Measure CC would divert a chunk of this money into the pockets of for-profit landlords. It also weakens eviction protections. Measure CC made it on the ballot because of the large sums spent on paid signature gatherers who sometimes misrepresented what the measure would do. They certainly did when I was approached by them more than once outside the Berkeley Bowl. 

Why Buffy Wicks Doesn’t Deserve Re-election  

Berkeley’s Assembly rep Buffy Wicks has shown herself to be beholden to special interests. Given a choice between incompetently run PG&E and their shareholders, and utility consumers, Wicks chose PG&E. 

In May of this year, Wicks took the lead in the Assembly in killing AB1999. AB1999 was introduced by Democratic assembly members to undo provisions that were snuck into legislation in 2022 that would allow PG&E and other investor-owned utilities to impose a fixed monthly fee, basically a utility tax, on utility consumers. 

AB1999 would have capped the fee at $10 and limited future increases to the rate of inflation. With the defeat of the bill, the new utility fee/tax, which will start at $24, will take effect by 2026 and, in the absence of any cap, will undoubtedly increase in future years. 

This measure affects people with solar panels on their roofs, who often generate more excess electricity for the grid than they get from PG&E. To encourage conservation, what you pay should be based on how much you use (with lower rates for people with low incomes). Fixed fees not tied to consumption will have a negative impact on efforts to address climate change. 

For the gory details, see this account by the Solar Rights Alliance. 

Missing Middle Debacle  

Then there is Wicks’ letter to the Council on Missing Middle Housing. 

On July 23 of this year, the extreme Planning Commission version of proposed Missing Middle zoning changes was brought before the Council, with little public notice, at a special weekday afternoon Council meeting, when few people would be able to attend. When the Council began discussion of Missing Middle, the idea was to consider allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in areas currently zoned for single family homes. 

The Planning Commission ignored much of the early public input about missing middle housing and came back with their extreme proposal to allow demolition of existing homes and their replacement with an unlimited number of units in buildings of up to three stories (or higher with a state density bonus), with 4 foot setbacks and no backyards, no offstreet parking required, and all of it allowed by right with no public hearings or right to appeal. And it would apply throughout the city including in the city’s fire zones, with their narrow, winding streets. 

Buffy Wicks wrote to Council in favor of the Commission’s zoning amendments and wanted the Council “to finish the job on July 23^rd”. In the week before the meeting many Berkeley residents wrote to the Council to oppose the Commission proposal and ask for an opportunity to learn more about the proposed changes which they had only just heard about and not had the time to digest. The number of residents contacting the Council in opposition was higher than on any other issue before the Council in recent years. 

Apparently Wicks doesn’t see a problem to adding density (more people, more cars) in areas where evacuation during a fire would already be difficult enough. Apparently citizen participation in planning for the city’s future is not something she cares about. Whatever developers and speculators want to do appears to be OK with her. 

The Council, fortunately, did not follow her advice and rejected part of what the Planning Commission was proposing including applying changes to fire zones, and calling for opportunities for public input before a vote is taken (which may not happen). 

Record amounts of outside money from wealthy donors helped Wicks to get elected to the Assembly in 2018, so perhaps it’s not surprising that she acts to benefit special interests. Details on who funded her first campaign: here. 

Berkeley Mayor – Does Experience Matter? 

Two of the candidates running for Mayor, Kate Harrison and Sophie Hahn, have extensive experience on the City Council and have demonstrated familiarity with Berkeley’s adopted plans, zoning, ordinances, environmental and housing policies, etc. and, in fact, have helped shape policy in Berkeley in recent years. (This writer favors Harrison because of her leadership and record on affordable housing and addressing climate change.) 

Then there is a third candidate, Adena Ishii, who has never held elected office, or served on any of Berkeley’s major commissions or boards (e.g. Planning, Zoning, Housing, Transportation and Public Works, Rent Board). 

Her only real experience in local government is as a member of Soda Tax advisory panel that recommends how Soda Tax revenues should be spent. She has also been active in the local League of Women Voters. It’s admirable that she has volunteered her time, but does that qualify her to be mayor? 

This writer heard Ishii speak at candidate’s forum at St. John’s Presbyterian Church and was not impressed. She started out by describing herself as “a leader in local politics” for the last ten years. Really? She has also exaggerated her role in passing Measure O, the affordable housing bond measure in 2018. Both Harrison and Hahn played a bigger role. 

She wants a “reset” at City Hall. But what kind of reset would she bring? 

Asked a question about whether a bond or parcel tax measure was best for repairing Berkeley’s streets, she didn’t, unlike her opponents, show any understanding of the difference. 

Asked about giving the public a vote on Missing Middle changes, she was against, while both her opponents were for it. She was afraid voters might reject the changes, and they probably would if they were voting on the extreme version the Planning Commission proposed. 

Who’s Funding These Mailers?  

Many more mailers will arrive at Berkeley homes in the next few weeks. It’s always a good idea to take a look at the small print at the bottom of one side that tells you who is funding the attacks and often misleading statements. Don’t be surprised if you receive mailers pro or con candidates or measures funded by the California Apartment Association (big landlords), California Building Industry Association, and various real estate groups, and probably other special interests as well. Candidates who support rent control, tenant protections, and public funding for housing affordable to people with lower incomes will be the main targets. 

Rob Wrenn is a former Planning Commissioner who has been analyzing elections in Berkeley for 30 years.