The Berkeley City Council has voted by a narrow 5-3 margin to approve a resolution that orders the city's Police Department not to post photos of people arrested at protests unless they pose an immediate threat to the public's safety. 

Councilmembers Cheryl Davila and Kate Harrison proposed changing the Police Department's photo policy after the department released mugshots of anti-fascist counter-protesters who were arrested at an anti-Marxism rally in Berkeley on Aug. 5. 

Davila and Harrison wrote in a letter to the council that conservative news outlets publicized the names of the people who were arrested at that rally "to foment attacks against those who speak out against racism and fascism." 

Davila and Harrison alleged that by issuing the mugshots and names and addresses of those who were arrested the Police Department "contributed to 'doxing' people -- publishing personal information to be used to harass and threaten people at their homes and places of work." 

Davila and Harrison also said Berkeley should resist Public Records Act (PRA) requests for arrest photos and identifying information on people who have been arrested when doing so poses a risk to their safety as a result of threats against them.  

Their proposal did nothing to limit the restrictive policy to protest events.  

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin joined Davila and Harrison in expressing concern about the department's policy but at Tuesday night's meeting he offered a revised resolution limiting the new policy to arrests during First Amendment events, such as protests. 

No coherent definition of First Amendment events was provided in the revision.  

Councilmember Ben Bartlett opposed the change because he was concerned that interpretation and enforcement would be subjective. Bartlett, who is African-American, reminded his colleagues that the "racial element is always at play" in such decisions. 

Arreguin said in a letter to the council that he doesn't want the city to resist PRA requests because "the city currently has the power to withhold this information if there is a concern that its release will endanger a person." This is already city policy and state law, Harrison pointed out. 

After a lengthy debate the City Council approved a motion by Councilwoman Sophie Hahn that was similar to Arreguin's proposal in limiting the policy to barring photos from arrests at First Amendment events. 

Hahn, Arreguin, Linda Maio, Lori Droste and Susan Wengraf voted for that proposal and Harrison, Davila and Ben Bartlett voted against it. Kriss Worthington was absent. 

Arreguin's spokeswoman Karina Ioffee said today that the mayor didn't support the original proposal by Harrison and Davila because it was "too broad" and might have completely barred the Police Department from releasing photographs of suspects. 

But Harrison noted today that the original proposal would have allowed police to release photos of people who pose an immediate threat to the public safety of the community, such as being wanted for serial rape, homicide or felony assault. 

Harrison said she voted against the revised policy because it was "a significant change" from the original proposal.

At tonight's Berkeley City Council meeting, I urge councilmembers to reject the mayor's wording on Item D (Supp 2) that only restricts police doxing for "First Amendment Events."  

This vague wording will basically do nothing to prevent this deplorable behavior by the police in the future. The police should only be involved in enforcing the law -- not in doling out punishment. Police doxing should be banned in all situations unless there is a direct threat to the public by the release of a violent individual who is charged with a felony -- and this should only apply until the new bail system is in place, because at that point people who are violently dangerous will not be released after arrest. This backpeddling by the mayor, which is clearly designed to once again demonstrate his fealty to the police rather than to protect the public from this abuse of police power, should be met with a resounding NO!

Zoning used to be a total snooze. Arguments about building heights and density were the eye-glazing preserve of planning wonks and people whose next-door neighbors were contemplating two-story additions. In 2018, zoning got sexy.

The catalyst for the makeover was the fight over Senate Bill 827, introduced in the California legislature by San Francisco’s state senator, Scott Wiener, and drafted by Brian Hanlon, president of California YIMBY, an arm of the upstart pro-housing, market-friendly, millennial-led Yimby movement.

“Yimby” stands for “yes in my backyard,” a play on the better-known term “Nimby,” the “not in my backyard” tag applied to local opponents of development. Yimbys first appeared in the United States around 2014. They now have an international following. But it is in California and above all the Bay Area where they’re arguably most influential. YIMBY Action, a self-described “hub of membership” headquartered in San Francisco, claims nearly 2,000 members.

SB 827 drastically curtailed local authority over land use by restricting limitations on the height of residential development near major transit stops and suspending local parking minimums and density caps for such projects. The bill was endorsed by stalwarts of the state’s growth machine: the California Association of Realtors; the California Chamber of Commerce; the California Building Industry Association; the Silicon Valley Leadership Group; the Bay Area Council, which represents the region’s largest businesses; and more than 120 tech executives, including Nat Friedman (Microsoft), Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook cofounder), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Logan Green (Lyft), Jeremy Stoppelman (Yelp), Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Jack Dorsey (Twitter), and Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn cofounder).

Opponents included the Black Community, Clergy, and Labor Alliance; 96 cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles; and the Sierra Club; along with advocates for social equity, tenants’ rights, and local control. Though it died in its first committee hearing, SB 827 sparked a national debate over urban housing policy, transit-oriented development, democratic governance, and the neoclassical take on housing markets. 

SB 827 incorporated the tenets of Yimbyism: To ensure maximum opportunity and economic growth, everyone who wants to live in a place should be accommodated. Housing prices are determined by supply. Cities like San Francisco face a crisis of housing affordability because of onerous local regulations passed by elected officials kowtowing to Nimby constituents, who are primarily the owners of single-family homes. Local resistance to “densification” in the name of quality of life, aesthetics, fiscal constraints, or the environment is a sham; the real motives are the protection of homeowner property values and the exclusion of poor people of color from affluent single-family neighborhoods. To house everyone, the state must set residential building quotas for local jurisdictions and penalize localities that fail to meet their allocations. Otherwise, in hot markets, affluent consumers will buy homes in poor neighborhoods, bidding up real estate values, displacing existing residents, and sabotaging shared prosperity. 

Yimbys present themselves as insurgents; in fact, their position accords with the housing policies espoused by the American Planning Association. And SB 827 embodies another dominant paradigm in U.S. city and regional planning: smart growth, or transit-oriented development. The idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by getting people out of their private autos and onto buses, trains, bikes, and their own two feet. To be financially viable, mass transit needs ample patronage. As the theory has it, building denser development near transit hubs spurs greater transit use—hence the call to raise heights and densities, known as “upzoning.” 

Yimby support of smart growth is opportunistic. When the model facilitates more housing, as in SB 827, Yimbys push it. But in keeping with their “build baby build” agenda, they’re happy to pursue residential development whose accessibility to transit is minimal. In 2015, the Yimby legal affiliate CaRLA, short for California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, sued the city of Lafayette over a housing project at a site 1.7 miles from the nearest light rail station and on a bus route with hourly service. 

 

Darlings of Big Media and Big Tech

Like other political activists, Yimbys form political clubs, endorse candidates and ballot measures, raise money, run for office—CaRLA codirector Sonja Trauss is a candidate this November for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors—canvass voters, lobby, demonstrate, cultivate an online presence, and seek influence within established organizations, most notably so far, the Sierra Club. 

 

But Yimby politicking has also taken sensational turns. Start with the movement’s dizzying ascent, fueled by copious financial support from tech executives. Since its founding in summer 2017, California YIMBY has received $500,000 raised by Nat Friedman and Zack Rosen (Pantheon); $500,000 from the Open Philanthropy Project, mainly funded by Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna; and a million dollars from the online payment company Stripe. Equally impressive is the attention lavished on the young activists by the mainstream media, epitomized by the encomia churned out by New York Times reporter Conor Dougherty. These tributes ignore another distinctive aspect of Yimbyism: an aggressive political style that includes doxxing—online posting of private information about opponents—and in-your-face confrontation. In April, Yimby disruption of an anti–SB 827 rally provoked a near-riot on the steps of San Francisco City Hall. Amply documented by the local alternative press, the incident went unreported in the Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. 

By contrast, the major media showcase the Yimby claim that market-friendly re-regulation of land use is inclusive. For more than a decade, the gospel of market-guided inclusivity has been preached by neoclassical economists and their acolytes in universities, think tanks, planning consultancies, and public agencies. The Yimbys have given that doctrine unprecedented currency in the area of housing policy. What they haven’t provided is solid evidence of its validity, and for good reason: such evidence doesn’t exist. 

The primary cause of the Bay Area’s stratospheric housing prices isn’t regulation-constrained supply; it’s prodigious demand. The price of residential real estate has been bid up by a flood of wealthy tech employees and by international investors looking for high yields in a world of ultra-low interest rates. Between 1990 and 2015, households with an income greater than $150,000 constituted 80% of household growth in the Bay Area. In June, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defined households of four people in San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo counties with an annual income of $117,400 as “low-income.” 

 

The Trouble with Trickle-down Housing

Yimbys assert that the provision of new market-rate housing allows less expensive residences to “filter” down to people of modest means. But researchers at UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project say that such dispersion can take generations. Meanwhile, communities are being destroyed and lives shattered, as the most economically vulnerable residents are forced out of their homes. SB 827’s upzoning would have inflated property values and encouraged speculation, inviting private investors to buy relatively cheap land in poor “transit-rich” neighborhoods, typically populated by communities of color, and to redevelop it at prices and rents far beyond the reach of existing residents. Working with data generated by Zillow, Jeff Stein reported in the Washington Post in August that the luxury construction boom has coincided with rising rents for poorer city residents. 

 

The promotion of high-end housing in the name of inclusivity has rankled some rank-and-file Yimbys. In November 2017, CaRLA sued Sausalito for denying a homeowner’s application to replace the existing two-unit residence on his property with three condominiums. The litigation prompted an internal debate over the organization’s commitment to social equity. 

On an online discussion list, “Sterling” wrote: 

I thought the point was to cut red tape to build more units for renters and more affordable housing. If this home were rented, it would be about $10k/month....Seems completely contrary to [CaRLA’s] stated objectives... 

Sonja Trauss replied: 

The point is to build everywhere....I’d love to sue on behalf of an apartment project in Sausalito, but for now, apartments in Sausalito are illegal almost everywhere....The point is to make sure that wherever new housing is proposed, especially in the most exclusive communities, it can be built. What this means is that the resulting housing is going to be expensive sometimes. 

Sterling demurred: 

But no one said this property owner couldn’t build—it was simply about scale of the unit being built. The City denied a large home and said it needed to be smaller...The owner got pissed because he didn’t get everything he wanted. He brought you in to simply get his way with a much larger home so he could generate much higher profit—which he clearly stated in the hearings... 

After other Yimbys echoed Sterling’s objections, Robert Tillman, a developer, Sausalito resident, and plaintiff in the lawsuit, ended the exchange by laying out the “strategic purpose” of the litigation: 

to put all Marin [County] cities on notice that they are subject to the Housing Accountability Act, and can no longer ignore the law. The particular project was unimportant.... 

California’s Housing Accountability Act forbids a local agency from conditioning approval of a housing project on reducing the density of that project to less than proposed and otherwise permitted by law, unless the agency determines that, absent the reduced density, the project would have “a specific adverse impact on public health or safety.” Under the HAA, such an impact must be based on standards that are quantifiable, objective, and written. 

Enacted in 1982, the law was rarely used until the Yimbys seized on it. In September 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law another bill drafted by Hanlon, SB 167, which strengthened the HAA by raising the evidentiary standard for disapproving a project, increasing the fines for an agency found guilty of violating the law, and entitling “a housing organization,” e.g., CaRLA, to reasonable attorney’s fees if it prevailed in a lawsuit. 

Sausalito’s disapproval rested on the grounds that “the project’s maximum build out of the site is out of scale with the village like character of Sausalito and not in harmony with neighboring structures.” Neighborhood character is a subjective matter. CaRLA won. That was a victory for property capital, not “housing for everyone.” 

 

Real Supply-Side Constraints

A key culprit in the housing shortfall is the herky-jerky property-market cycle at large. Neoclassical economics holds that supply and demand exist in a self-regulating, price-mediated equilibrium. But as UC Berkeley professor of geography emeritus Richard Walker explains in his new book, Pictures of a Gone City, the supply of and demand for new buildings are usually out of sync. Unlike small consumer products such as cellphones, buildings—especially big ones—aren’t suited to quick-response manufacturing. It can take a long time to find sites—a challenge heightened in the Bay Area by hilly topography—arrange financial backing, and assemble contractors. During a boom, builders tend to “overshoot,” leaving a glut of new construction—excess space to be filled when the next upswing begins. Walker emphasizes that “the time lag exists apart from any delays in obtaining permits or planning approval—which get far too much of the blame for slow supply response.” Even after getting official approval for their projects, developers may not pull a building permit. Or, having pulled a permit, they may not build at all and instead try to flip their entitlements for a profit. 

 

Walker’s analysis doesn’t get traction among Yimbys, who blame pipeline delays in housing production on “exclusionary” zoning. In fact, all zoning excludes some kind of land use. The question is whether specific prohibitions are discriminatory. Zoning—specifically, bans on multi-unit housing that’s affordable to the least affluent—has often been used to keep poor people of color out of white residential enclaves and to box them into poor, segregated neighborhoods. Cities that categorically reject such housing can be legitimately charged with discrimination. 

None of the cities sued by CaRLA have enacted such regulations. Nor, outside of a few individuals, have local critics of projects whom the Yimbys target as “Nimbys” sought such laws. Rather, they’ve asked for refinements to entitlements and zoning regulations that make proposed developments more compatible with their environs. That usually means asking for reduced scale and more parking. But a project that’s beyond redemption——for example, George Lucas’s bid to plop 224 units of affordable housing into a remote Marin County setting with scant infrastructure—elicits wholesale opposition. 

That said, misguided public policy is a major factor in the affordable housing debacle. Private developers don’t build low-income housing because it doesn’t yield the returns that they and their investors demand. Hence, public funding is indispensable. It has also been desperately inadequate: Since the Nixon administration, the federal government has stinted on financial support for affordable housing. In California, Proposition 13’s limitations on property taxes have encouraged municipalities to pursue commercial development and to snub housing, which has a greater need for new services, particularly schools. Finances aside, the state’s Costa-Hawkins Act forbids California cities from imposing rent control on single-family homes, condominiums, rental units built after 1995 or the date of an existing rent control ordinance, and newly vacated dwellings whose former tenants left voluntarily; and its Ellis Act authorizes landlords to evict residential tenants in order “to go out of business.” In the Bay Area, as in other popular locales, many cities have allowed Airbnb hosts to freely deplete rental housing stock. (San Francisco is an exception.) 

Yimbys hate Prop. 13 because it deters cities from approving housing, and it privileges long-standing homeowners, whose property is taxed at significantly lower rates than those levied on more recent buyers. In July, YIMBY Action Executive Director Laura Clark told me that members of her organization have collected signatures to put an initiative to reform Prop. 13 on California’s 2020 ballot. The campaign is being run by Evolve California, a coalition of labor unions; civic groups, including the League of Women Voters; the California Democratic Party; and community and philanthropic organizations. The existing law calls for all property to be reassessed only when it changes hands. Since homes are sold much more often than commercial property, homeowners have shouldered the burden of the state property tax—just the opposite of what the law’s authors promised—and big property-owners have been let off the hook. The ballot measure would split the tax roll by requiring large, nonresidential commercial property to be assessed annually, yielding an estimated $10 billion in new revenues. It would also close a loophole that has saved big real estate investors millions of dollars: If no single owner has more than a 50% stake, a property is not reassessed when its sold. The measure specifically allocates the expected new monies to schools and “communities” and none to housing in particular. 

Clark called the “Evolve split roll...a powerful first step to reining in Prop. 13.” She added that Yimbys’ disagreements as to whether it will “further incentivize cities and towns to permit commercial [development] and not housing” and thereby “exacerbat[e] California’s jobs-housing imbalance” are more about strategy than philosophy. 

Meanwhile, in November a measure to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act, Prop. 10, will be on the California ballot. Last January, the Sacramento hearing on Assemblymember David Chiu’s bill to repeal Costa-Hawkins was packed with tenant activists from around the state. Just two Yimbys, representing East Bay for Everyone, spoke in support of the bill. Vehemently opposed by major real estate interests, including some endorsers of SB 827, AB 1506 died. A vigorous campaign led by Los Angeles–based Housing is a Human Right then put repeal on the ballot. Campaign director Damien Goodmon told me that to his knowledge no Yimbys had circulated the initiative petition. Writing in the San Francisco Examiner, Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez reported that at a provisional YIMBY Action endorsement meeting in early August, the several dozen members present split on Prop. 10. Clark argued for “no endorsement,” warning that “‘mount[ing] a campaign one way or the other will be extremely divisive within the organization.’” She also feared that in the wake of repeal, a debate over new rent control laws could see San Francisco “‘descend into madness’”—as if the insanity of the city’s and state’s housing markets doesn’t warrant a hard fight for strong tenant protections. The members of YIMBY Action apparently heeded Clark’s advice: In late August, the organization took a “No Consensus” position on Prop. 10, meaning that support for or opposition to the measure each got less than 60% of members’ votes. At the same time, Brian Hanlon joined the Leadership Council of The Two Hundred, a statewide coalition that purports to be “working in behalf of low-income minorities who have been affected by California’s housing crisis and increasing wealth gap,” and that opposes Prop. 10. 

Yimbys support publicly funded housing, preferably the mixed-income kind. That way, Clark told me, “we get more subsidized affordable units, cross-subsidized by market rate; we get way more total units; [and] we achieve a greater level of integration in this new housing.” YIMBY Action has called for San Francisco to build “permanently rent-controlled,” “city-owned social housing” comprising “mixed-income or middle income” homes on parking lots owned by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, with “predictable rent increases tied to inflation.” By contrast, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco’s longtime coalition of affordable housing developers and advocates, argues that public land should be dedicated to affordable housing, and that 100% affordable is financially feasible. 

YIMBY Action has endorsed a measure on San Francisco’s November ballot, Prop. C, that will fund homeless services by levying a tax of 0.5% on businesses’ gross taxable receipts over $50 million. Opposed by almost all of the Bay Area’s biggest tech companies, Prop. C will raise an estimated $300 million a year. Fifty percent will go toward the construction, rehabilitation, preservation, and operating subsidies of approximately 4,000 housing units affordable to low- and very low–income households; and 15% will go toward homelessness prevention, including eviction defense and rental assistance programs. The endorsement has to be read in connection with Trauss’s supervisorial candidacy: The measure will be very popular with voters she needs to win. 

 

Growth Machine Auxiliaries

Yimbys propagate the capitalist growth imperative. Using housing as a proxy for growth, they endow the limitless expansion of population with a seductive moral charge. “[E]veryone who lives in the Bay Area today,” writes Yimby pundit Kim-Mai Cutler, “needs to accept responsibility for making changes where they live so that everyone who wants to be here, can.” By this standard, current inhabitants who set limits to new housing are dodging their moral obligation to accommodate not only people fleeing oppression and brutality, but all would-be residents. 

 

The fuller import of the Yimby behest for open-ended hospitality becomes clear when that injunction is read in tandem with the expansionary agenda of the region’s growth coalition: If the Bay Area is to remain competitive in the globalized economy, they claim, it must keep growing fast. Limit growth’s speed, and the region will become a West Coast Rust Belt. 

In 2015, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI) warned that sustaining the current breakneck pace of growth in the region requires residents to give up their “‘parochial’ attachments” to their “appealing[ly] diverse towns and neighborhoods.” “Manifest in local opposition to new development,” such fidelity “fosters an insular mindset” that “won’t accept ‘that change is normal’ and thus can’t ‘recognize the new opportunities that are emerging’ or ‘adapt to a new context.’” 

We’ve seen this argument before in connection with the workplace: In the name of profit- enhancing efficiency, the enforcers of neoliberalism have busted unions, undermined worker solidarity, and shredded the social contract. The putative “normal” is arbitrary rule imposed from above, coded as “change,” while capitulation to that rule is hyped as the capacity to “adapt to a new context,” i.e., precarious employment. 

Now the so-called flexibility visited on the workplace is being foisted on land-use governance, as growth machine operatives train their sights on neighborhood activists and local elected officials. Authority over development must be scaled up to the regional and state levels, so market-friendly officials can take steps to ensure that, in the words of BACEI board member Laura Tyson, who chaired Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, the bases of the region’s “economic strength”—“the diversity of its innovative companies and its ability to attract the brightest from around the world”—are protected from democratic challenges at home as well as economic rivals abroad. 

The credibility of this program rests on three suppositions: Change is always for the better, growth is the essential guarantor of the general welfare, and cosmopolitanism is inherently beneficent. The first two are undercut by the recent history of the Bay Area, where rapid growth has not only decimated the middle class and devastated the poor, but also degraded the environment: Since 2010, traffic on the region’s freeways has grown 80%, and hellish commutes are routine. The third premise is disproved by the self-interested ruthlessness of the new global elite. The tech giants tout the worldwide connectivity they’ve afforded humankind; meanwhile, in their quest for market domination, they’ve trampled working people, cornered markets, ravaged privacy, and harbored pernicious hackers. 

Yimbys put a sympathetic face on the depredations of competitive cosmopolitanism by leveraging their generation’s economic disenfranchisement. That makes their alliance with the agents of disenfranchisement all the more dismaying. For now, they’re on a roll. In June, the Yimby-endorsed candidate for San Francisco mayor, London Breed, won, albeit by a 1% margin. As of this writing, CaRLA has initiated three new lawsuits. California State Senator Wiener says that next year he intends to bring back SB 827 with its market-based foundations intact. Meanwhile, other bills that supplant local controls over land use with state mandates are sailing through the California legislature. 

 

Fighting Back

Challenging the Yimbys and their allies is a formidable assignment. The growth machine is permanently mobilized—its cadres supported by vast financial resources, California law, and an asset even more potent than money: an ideological hegemony that transcends party divisions. The Spring 2018 issue of Evidence Matters, a HUD publication that purportedly “demonstrates [the agency’s] commitment to evidence-based policymaking,” identifies local regulatory barriers and Nimbyism as “the primary causes of restricted housing supply and rising housing costs.” The Obama White House took the same line, as does the Democrat-controlled California legislature. 

 

If evidence really mattered, blaming local regulations for the lack of affordable housing would be a butt of ridicule. The specious indictment owes its cachet to the suppression of public debate about the true sources of the housing crisis and their concomitant remedies. In 2016, then–Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt made a bold move for an elected official in the Bay Area: He declared, “[W]e have to do away this notion that Silicon Valley must capture every job available to it....We want metered job growth and metered housing growth.” He was pilloried in the national press. 

Burt was right. The sky-high price of Bay Area housing is primarily driven by inordinate demand: People are drawn to the region by the tech boom’s promise of jobs. To moderate demand, approvals of new offices should be minimized; tied to a commensurate amount of housing, services, and infrastructure; and guided by a housing strategy that reconciles legitimate state and regional concerns with distinctive features of each locale. While seeking to accommodate projected growth, the Council of Community Housing Organizations has compiled a useful list of such features: 

 

• existing density (urban, exurban, or suburban?)
• the current stage of the property business cycle
• the kind of land available for development
• land costs
• proximity to jobs and transportation

And, “most critically, factors related to communities’ privilege, power, and access”: 

 

 

• demographics of race, class, and level of diversity
• the current risk and stage of gentrification of displacement
• the tenure and stability of existing residents (renters with or without rent control and eviction protections? small landlords or large corporate landlords and real estate trusts? foreclosure risk for homeowners?)
• history of exclusion, investment or disinvestment, good school and educational/economic opportunities
• the experience local residents have had (or not had) in deciding the policies that shape the future of their communities

I’d add: a local jurisdiction’s financials, its vulnerability to sea level rise, the capacity of its schools, and the quality of its public transit. 

 

What’s at issue is more than distributive justice. Wiener amended SB 827 to require higher percentages of inclusionary housing—housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes. That didn’t satisfy the representatives of historically disadvantaged communities of color: they seek self-determination. Neither they nor the local governments, neighborhood activists, equity advocates, and environmentalists that also opposed SB 827 could stomach its assault on the local planning process. 

The goal is equity and democratically accountable power and authority. That goal can be achieved only if the public realizes that the top-down, market-oriented, one-size-fits-all, growth-to-the-max paradigm is the source of, not the remedy for, the Bay Area’s housing debacle. Given the growth machine’s grip on public discourse, fostering that realization may be the toughest assignment of all. 

---

ZELDA BRONSTEIN, a former chair of the Berkeley Planning Commission, writes about land use and transportation planning in the Bay Area and beyond. This article first appeared in the September/October 2018 issue of Dollars and Sense: Real World Economics. 

 

Did you find this article useful? Please consider supporting Dollars and Sense by donating or subscribing. 

Shortly after being re-elected for a second term Assemblymember Tony Thurmond surprisingly announced his candidacy in 2018 for California Superintendent of Public Instruction. He would become the heavy favorite to be elected statewide.

Thurmond left behind him an open Assembly seat, what looked to progressive Democratic elected officials in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as a chance to move up. Six of them would be on the ballot:

Judy Appel - Berkeley School Board. She would be be the strongest Berkeley candidate, with endorsers such as former Mayor/State Senator Loni Hancock.

Dan Kalb - Oakland City Council. Only Oakland elected official running; a strong contender. Endorsed by the Sierra Club.

Andy Katz - EBMUD Board Member. Environmentalist background, Berkeley attorney.

Jovanka Beckles - Richmond City Council. Part of the Richmond Progressive Alliance that fights Chevron. Likely to do well in Contra Costa County.

Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto - El Cerrito City Council. Tony Thurmond's choice as his successor.

Ben Bartlett - Berkeley City Council (District 3). The third Berkeley candidate, with less than two years on the Council.

In a normal year these six would be competing to finish first or second, under the "Top Two" system, which replaced normal party primaries. The Top Two, regardless of party, move on to the November ballot and a final showdown.

2018 would not be normal, thanks to an outsider: Buffy Wicks. 

. 

When "Buffy Wicks for Assembly" signs first started appearing in large numbers, I had absolutely no idea who she was. Few local people did, except for those who went to her extensive number of house parties; over 100 she asserted. A ton of Wicks mailers later gained her more name recognition than any other candidate. 

Wicks, newly arrived in Oakland, had worked for the Obama Campaign and Administration. Her literature prominently displayed pictures of Wicks with President Obama, while claiming a major role in helping elect him and pass the Affordable Care Act. She ran as a strong anti-Trump progressive. 

Clearly from Washington, D.C., likely a campaign consultant, her major endorsers were notable for their high offices: U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (a sure bet to become Governor). Wicks' occupation was somewhat in question, as she listed "Community Organizer". Never having held elective office, she lacked a voting record of any kind. Compared to the others, Buffy Wicks was a mystery candidate. 

But no one could argue with the massive, unprecedented amount of money being spent on the Buffy Wicks campaign, dwarfing her rivals. There would not be a level playing field. 

It soon became obvious that Wicks, regardless of her actual political views and intentions, was certain to finish first. Under Top Two, that left her opponents to compete for second place, and a chance to take on Wicks and her money in November. They chose a positive campaign, with none of the mailers I saw attacking Wicks. Some local papers in print and online expressed concerns over what special interests were financing Wicks. 

THE JUNE 5, 2018 15TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT RESULTS 

Buffy Wicks37,141 (31%) TOP TWO ON NOVEMBER BALLOT 

Jovanka Beckles 18,733 (16%) TOP TWO ON NOVEMBER BALLOT 

Dan Kalb18,007 (15%) 

Judy Appel 13,591 (11%) 

Rochelle 

Pardue-Okimoto 9,826(8%) 

Pranav Jandhyala 6,946(6%) 

(Republican) 

Andy Katz 6,209 (5%) 

Ben Bartlett 3,949 (3%) 

Wicks easily carried both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. 

In this case Top Two prevented Buffy Wicks from winning the Democratic nomination and ending the Assembly race; a benefit for progressives who grew ever more suspicious about where all that Wicks money came from. 

Finishing second, Richmond City Councilmember Jovanka Beckles ran to the left of her Democratic rivals. She relied upon labor union endorsements and support from the Bernie Sanders organization. Beckles was second in Contra Costa County, and third in Alameda County, trailing Dan Kalb. Kalb's loss resulted from a poor Contra Costa showing. 

Speculation over who would have been the strongest challenger to Wicks ended. The top four Democrats Beckles defeated all quickly endorsed her, forming a united front against Buffy Wicks. But Wicks picked up the most important single endorsement after the primary, despite literature falsely giving voters the impression Wicks already had it. President Obama formally endorsed Buffy Wicks for Assembly on August 3, 2018, along with 80 other candidates nationwide. 

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES 

Grand Total Individual Donors Independent Expenditures 

Buffy Wicks $1,318,483 $ 725,669$ 592,814 

Judy Appel 305,813 286,161 19,652 

Dan Kalb 254,190 254,190 0 

Jovanka Beckles 196,110 196,110 0 

 

In addition to contributions of $725,000 from individuals, Wicks was the beneficiary of another $593,000 from two independent Political Action Committees (PACS). The Govern for California Action Committee spent the most, followed by the California Dental Association. 

All of this money raised the question whether Wicks was the candidate of special interests, rather than the progressive crusader she claimed to be. The Govern California PAC was labeled a champion of charter schools, which Wicks strongly denied on her website. Meanwhile that PAC did radio ads, internet ads, and mass mailings for her. It was suspected by Wicks opponents that she was supported by developers, large landlords and other corporate interests. Wicks also denied having worked as a campaign fundraiser. Yet all that money rolled in, relatively little of it from the district, fueling a flood of Wicks mailers hailing her progressive politics and opposition to Trump. 

Jovanka Beckles getting to the November ballot was unexpected, on a meager $196,000 in contributions. Dan Kalb received $254,000 and Judy Appel even more at nearly $306,000. Those were trivial amounts compared to the Buffy Wicks grand total of over 1.3 million dollars, counting the PACs. Wicks by far paid the most per vote received, Beckles the least, in this comparison limited to the top four candidates. 

Now Beckles has a difficult task ahead of her, and is starting with house parties in cities like Berkeley to become better known. Wicks major vulnerability appears to be her hefty support from the Govern for California PAC, an organization reporters are likely to investigate as part of their November election coverage. 

---

David Mundstock is a longtime commentator on the political history of Berkeley and environs. 

 

Please affirm the landmarking of Campanile Way and the natural landscape element it was built to embrace which includes, but is not limited to a view that stretches from the natural entrance to San Francisco bay to our beautiful hills. I live on University Avenue, and the most beautiful thing about my neighborhood is the sweeping embrace of the natural elements in both directions which invite the eye and the spirit to connect with not just nature but the Campanile Way's inclusion of nature's wonders in its design. 

"Natural landscape elements" are codified in the Berkeley Municipal Code and and Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, a phrase which is designed to be inclusive, not exclusive, of a view or aspect of a site. The suggestion in the developer appellant’s Issue #1,echoed by city staff, that views somehow play no role in such decisions nationwide, is just silly. Although it is rare for any place in the nation to have such a spectacularly aligned
set of natural landscape elements as we have, it is far from unique, and not only deserves protection, it has protection under our BMC/LPO Section 3.24.060. 

Issue #2 is equally silly. This application does not preclude construction, and does not require revolutions in zoning and planning as city staff implies. It just limits the extent of the heights, profits, and impositions developers can impose, which is a reasonable thing to do. Staff may be in the tank for high-rise development these days, but neighbors like me are fine with our low-rise commercial buildings and any limitations which protect what is beautiful in our neighborhoods.
Issue #3 is kind of funny. Campanile Way is already listed on the National Register of Historic Places which is a multiple property designation and kind of shoots the appellant's argument in the foot. The whole place is registered because of that "natural landscape element", again, codified in BMC/LPO Section 3.24.060. 

Issue #4 is my second favorite. Especially since the Mayor's old roommate has been flacking for this appeal and against this landmarking effort from the beginning. It is lobbyists in the tank for developers with special ties to City Hall who have the conflict of interest here, which may be why city staff decided to tiptoe around this one. But don't think Mark Rhoades' journey into developer-land isn't a dream they
have every night about their own future. 

Issue #5 - my favorite. No CEQA! As if the preservation of the natural landscape elements posed any threat to the environment. The environment threatened here is the lucrative environment for developers who want to wreck their way through historic, beloved, natural elements in our city. 

Please uphold the landmarking of Campanile Way in full, and recognize that we owe a huge debt to the dedication of the applicant for the opportunity to protect this treasure for all generations for all time.

For the last couple of weeks I’ve been trying to figure out what the City of Berkeley’s policy on homelessness is. I’ve asked a lot of people: a couple of councilmembers, neighborhood activists in the areas with visible homeless populations, those invaluable civic watchdogs who go to all the meetings, some charitable souls who try to minister to the physical needs of those who live on the street with clothing, blankets and food… I’ve gotten the views of some of the thoughtful public citizens who think and then write about such problems, including some on this site. I’ve even been talking to a couple of friends who are part of the outdoor population. And now I’m more confused than ever. 

In general, I get one thing: a lot of Berkeleyans really don’t want to look at people who are obviously homeless. “Anywhere but here” is where homeless people belong, in the eyes of some. For an especially unpleasant demonstration of this, take a look at the nasty comments on a nice upbeat article on a local news site about the addition of some comfortable furniture to Berkeley’s main library. A disgraceful number of writers express fear and loathing at the notion that some homeless people might actually use the public libraries on occasion. 

A sample: “…these are our taxes, MY taxes, and yes, I don't want homeless people on our streets and in our public facilities.” 

If there’s something about the concept of public space that writers like this don’t understand, they need to acquaint themselves with the recent Ninth Circuit decision on the appeal of Martin v. City of Boise 

The opinion notes that “…the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one's status or being." 

And therefore “This principle compels the conclusion that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter…whether sitting, lying, and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human." 

Moreover, any "conduct at issue here is involuntary and inseparable from status — they are one and the same, given that human beings are biologically compelled to rest, whether by sitting, lying, or sleeping." 

As a result, just as the state may not criminalize the state of being "homeless in public places," the state may not "criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets.” 

The opinion doesn’t specifically cover access to public libraries, but they are public places too. 

As it happened, the following item was placed on the published agenda for last Thursday’s Berkeley City Council meeting by Mayor Jesse Arreguin: 

Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution setting enforcement priorities for the Downtown Berkeley BART Station Plaza (“BART Plaza”) prohibiting lying and camping and directing the City Manager to enforce Penal Code Section 647(e) at BART Plaza, Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.48.020 regarding unpermitted objects obstructing sidewalks, and Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.36 relating to lying on public property, in addition to all other applicable laws. 

Why did the Mayor put this item on the agenda? 

From the accompanying explanation: 

“Construction of the new Downtown Berkeley BART Station Plaza, on the west side of Shattuck Avenue between Center Street and Allston Way, is expected to be completed in September 2018. The $7.6 million project is designed to improve both safety and walkability, creating more open space and activating underutilized sidewalk space. The Plaza will serve as the main gateway for many people arriving to Downtown via BART, AC Transit, or UC Berkeley Bear Transit Shuttle, which combined has a total of 30,000 commuters daily at this location. To ensure the safety and promote a plaza that is welcoming to all, enforcement of the following regulations is needed:  

• California Penal Code Section 647(e): Unpermitted lodging
• Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.48.020: Items obstructing sidewalks
• Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.36: Persons obstructing sidewalks.”

Really? This obvious boondoggle, those banal little glass houses that they’ve built over the BART entrances, cost the public Seven Point Six Million Dollars? And we need to invoke the Penal Code to evict the homeless from this tacky little plaza? 

Just for comparison, how much affordable housing could have been built with the amount of money that went into this pork project? 

Well, here’s just one example of what could be done: All Souls Episcopal Church is hoping to build 37 affordable housing units for seniors on part of its Oxford Street property. There’s a possible outside source of government funding which could be tapped, but the church needs to demonstrate access to at least $6 million to qualify to compete for the grant. It asked the City of Berkeley to put up that amount, but the city didn’t have the cash at the moment. Disregarding for the moment the merits (or lack of them) of this particular project design, money that could have been leveraged by All Souls to provide needed housing was spent on redecorating the BART plaza. 

And now the Mayor proposes “to promote a plaza that is welcoming to all” by kicking unsightly homeless people out of the public space. 

Where’s Tom Lehrer when we need him? I can almost hear the satirical song he should be writing about this newspeak proposal: 

“Welcome to all, except just not to you!
Don’t think you’re at home, since it just isn’t true.
Don’t lie, camp or sit, don’t doze for a bit.
Or you're sure to end up in the stew…. ” 

Too bad the Ninth Circuit has rained on the parade. The item was pulled from the agenda at the last minute on Thursday, per advice of the city attorney, who referenced Martin v. City of Boise . 

When I started writing this I’d intended to talk about the ridiculous game of whack-a-mole the city has been playing with people struggling to house themselves on public property in tents and vehicles. 

I’d hoped to discuss the incredible vanishing shelter bed dance imposed on those who don’t even have tents. 

I intended to point out that every locality that I know well sincerely believes that its problems with homelessness are unique, the result of its uniquely generous public services which attract homeless clients from miles around. 

I was going to reminisce about the first homeless family in Ann Arbor, discovered in the late sixties out of work and living under a bridge, who became celebrities and were appointed to city commissions because they were so unusual. 

I recalled the first homeless person in the Elmwood, sometime in the 1970s, a nice guy named John, probably schizophrenic, who had a routine list of addresses he called on for help when needed. 

I thought of our friend Terry, developmentally disabled, dirty and drug addicted when he rang our doorbell in the 80s, who found a group home in Fremont where he could lead a dignified life. 

I remembered wise-cracking crack-damaged Betty Bunton, cheated by Wells Fargo out of part of her SSI check every month, who died of asthma trying to get to the Alta Bates ER. 

But there will be plenty of time to tell all these stories and more, because homelessness has become a permanent national affliction. The Berkeley City Council, like city councils everywhere, will continue to dilly-dally around with various “solutions” which don’t take into account the enormous diversity of those individuals we used to call “street people”. 

They end up on our streets for lots of reasons: mental illness, drugs, no family, no money, no job, but they still have the right to life, a term expropriated to protect fetuses but certainly applicable to full grown humans. 

The Boise opinion gets it right. Sitting, lying, and sleeping are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human and deserve protection as such. Unless the city of Berkeley can provide safe and convenient places for all of our human population to sit, lie and sleep, we don’t have the right to banish some of us from public areas. At the rate we’re going, that won’t happen any time soon.

Introduction

When the police violate the US Constitution, are they criminal? In what court can their conduct be judged illegal? For recourse against crimes against the people for violation of the Constitution, to whom can we turn?

We finally found out that it was illegal all along for the Berkeley PD to raid and disperse homeless encampments. It is a violation of the Constitution. So said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 4, 2018. But it has been going on for years. All those former raids were illegal, and those former arrests and confiscations of property were also illegal. Now, the Court has made it official. Can this be turned into anything but a civil suit. Can past victimization be turned into anything but money?

We suspect that Berkeley city government doesn’t care. On Sept. 5, 2018, the very next day after the Ninth Circuit Court decision, the Berkeley PD raided another homeless encampment. It was the one in front of old city hall, on a street named after Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who transformed an entire social ethic through civil disobedience. Berkeley City Council had passed an ordinance a couple of years back that said it was illegal to sleep on public property. That ordinance does not supersede the Constitution. The reverse is the case – has always been the case, but is now officially the case. The Ninth Circuit Court said that a city could not prevent homeless people from sleeping on public land if the city could not provide shelter for them. To do so is a violation of the 8^th Amendment.

But what does the 8^th Amendment have to do with homelessness? 

The 8^th Amendment

The 8^th Amendment says that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” That’s all it says. It doesn’t say “congress shall …” or “shall not…” It doesn’t point to courts or police departments. It doesn’t speak about "infringements" as do other statements of rights. It addresses government in general and says that in the US these things are outside the purview of government. Period. It is not about "rights." It is about "justice." 

The case that came before the court was originally called Bell vs. City of Boise – a later Martin vs. City of Boise, which is the case the Court decided. Some long-term homeless people sued the city of Boise back in 2015for violating the 8^th Amendment. The federal government (under Obama) wrote an "amicus" brief agreeing with the plaintiffs (the homeless who sued the city). 

Here in a nutshell is their argument. The fundamental principle involved in punishing a person for wrong-doing is necessarily to grant the person existence and choice in order to hold them responsible for their choice. To cancel recognition of their existence also cancels recognition of their choises. There can be nothing for which to hold them responsible. Therefore, what pertains to a person’s existence, or to their social status with respect to which they have no choice, cannot be prohibited, because it cannot be punished. If a person lives with or in some "condition" that is unchosen, then that condition belongs to that person’s status rather than to their "conduct." To hold a person responsible for their conduct, their status has to be first granted as such. A prohibition against that status cannot be legislated. Breathing, for instance, is part of being a live human being, and therefore cannot be prohibited or punished. One has no choice but to breath. Sleeping similarly is an essential part of being alive. Sleeping cannot be prohibited or punished. And if a city cannot provide shelter in which a homeless person can sleep, then that person cannot be prohibited from sleeping on public land. That also holds for sitting and lying down. In short, there are things government is constitutionally barred from outlawing. 

In short, if a government wishes to prohibit certain conduct, that conduct must be choose-able by a person first. Since sleeping is not choose-able (a person cannot exist without sleep), sleeping belongs to "status" rather than "conduct," and thus cannot be prohibited. 

Aspects of a person’s life that are conditioned by the economy are also included in their "status." Poverty, for instance, can not be punished. Those who end up impoverished because the society in which we live prevents itself from curtailing landlords’ ability to push rent beyond what some people can pay, those people cannot be punished for living on the street. Homelessness is a condition established by economic and political structures. People suffer from it. They do not choose it. The city cannot prohibit people from living on the street (public property) unless it can provide suitable space and shelter, viz. a place to live. That includes a place to sleep, to sit, to lie down and rest or eat and engage in social affairs such as holding a job and visiting with friends. If one has no other place to sleep or sit than public land because the economy has rendered one homeless, and the city fails to provide what is lacking, then one’s sleeping and sitting in public space cannot be prohibited or punished. 

When the police raided the encampment at old city hall on Sept. 5, at 5 am, they had no shelter to send those people to. There are over 900 homeless people in Berkeley, and only around 130 places in shelters offered, and only at night. During the day, those shelters are closed and thus not available to legitimize a police raid. 

Interestingly, the court, in its decision, applied this principle to alcoholics. If a person gets seriously ill without alcohol, then their comportment (conduct) in a public place when inebriated cannot be criminalized. That’s why there are rehab centers. 

This would also apply to those who walk around with serious cases of PTSD, and who go through emotional crises in public for arcane reasons. Those reasons could be anything, like having thrown a grenade into a Vietnames hut full of women and children and trying to live with that (which is what pushed Ron Kovic over the edge and made him a resistor), or like having dropped incendiary bombs on a wedding in Afghanistan and having looked back at what one had done, or like being forced to live on the street for years exposed to the elements. The police have ways of torturing PTSD people. They give them commands which the person in crisis simply refuses to recognize, and then throw him to the ground in order to wrap him in a body bag for disobedience. There is a video of the Berkeley PD performing this "procedure" in the streets of this fair city. The cops want tasers so they can tase a disobedient person until he is crawling abjectly on the ground begging for forgiveness. Kayla Moore died under the weight of the police as they tormented her for disobedience when she was going through an emotional crisis in her own home. 

To torture a person for going through an emotional crisis, which pertains to their status as living a traumatized life, would be to punish them for what that trauma had done to them. It would thus be a violation of the Constitution under Amendment 8. 

When the police raid an encampment without being able to provide shelter for the people in it, they are committing a crime. They call it "legitimate" because there is an ordinance that says sleeping on public proerty is illegal. That ordinance is no longer valid. But the principle it expresses is that property has priority over people. The city says that people complain that the homeless reduce real estate values, that they steal and make life uncomfortable, that panhandling is bad for business. The dehumanization of this “property-priority” doesn’t become clear until one is fired from a job or evicted from an apartment or imprisoned for having smoked a joint or for being the wrong color. It is the illogic of that “property-priority” that is the real reason there are homeless people. "Housing is a Human Right" has no standing next to a landlord’s right to raise the rent. And at present, as long as Costa-Hawkins remains unrepealed, no city has the ability to defend renters against those landlords. 

We have to be able to talk about what it means that the police violate the Constitution. They are not committing a crime against property. They are not committing feloneous assault when they torture people with tasers or pepper spray. But they are violating a lot more than the 8^th Amendment. They are committing a crime against "law" itself. 

Throwing the book at the police

But let us be more specific. When the Berkeley PD broke up the homeless encampment in front of Old City Hall on Sept. 5, 2018, they violated several terms of the Constitution – Amendments 1, 4, 5, and 8. 

Amendment 1 guarantees people (not only citizens) the right to petition government for redress of grievances. The two associations of homeless people in Berkeley called “First They Came for the Homeless” and “Consider the Homeless” have set up encampments in central public places in order to say to the government, what are you going to do about the injustice to which our existence testifies? The city’s police raids are the city’s answer. It is to commit a crime against the people by suppressing that statement. 

Amendment 4 says that a person (not only a citizen) is inviolable in his/her residence. Yet the police come and throw people out of their tents, and conficate those tents. For a homeless person, their place of "residence" is that tent, or their sleeping bag, or their cardboard pallet or yoga mat, etc. The city shrugs and criminally confiscates their entire place of residence. 

Amendment 5 guarantees due process, which means that those who will be deprived of anything, life, liberty, or property, must have a hearing in which the depriving power must prove that the deprivation is just, and legal, and moral, and in which the one to be deprived has equal standing to argue against that. Due process must come first, before deprivation, not afterwards. Afterwards, it is not due process any more but "appeal." That’s different. When the cops swoop down on a homeless encampment, they do it without there having been any hearings or democratic process. Due process is the essential social equalizer of individuals and institutions. Ignoring due process, more than anything, signifies that the police are the primary anti-democratic force in this society. 

And finally, there is Amendment 8, which we have reviewed, and which outlaws the ability of the police to punish people by removing and destroying their ability to sleep and reside and exist in the togetherness provided by the community of their encampment. It is their existence which is threatened by such raids insofar as confiscation of their property leaves them vulnerable to the elements and the possibility of sickness or death. Since they can’t depend on the city for anything but violence, their reliance on each other is all they have for survival. 

The priority of property rights

But aren’t property rights also guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, they are, very ironically so. The "real" law of the land is that property rights have priority over human rights – even when the defenders of property rights have to violate the Constitution, and have to commit crimes against the people. 

But where does the Constitution guarantee property rights? In only one place. In Article 1, section 10, clause 1, where it states, “No state … shall pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts.” That’s it! 

This clause, providing for the inviolability of contracts, was expanded and extended under Chief Justice Marshall at the beginning of the 19^th century into the foundation of all property rights and the sanctities of property. 

Consider the contrast! All property rights find their guarantee in that one single phrase. The entire rest of the Constitution is about the rights of people, the relations between people and government, and the standards upon which civic responsibility, justice, security, and participation are based. In actual practice, throughout US history, that one small phrase has dominated all other aspects of social life in the US. 

On the name of that phrase, cities find it feasible to commit endless unconstitutional acts in the interest of property. They will violate due process, the sanctity of the home, free speech, and even human status in the interests of property. Yet we have no real or juridical language in which to speak about this travesty. 

---

Endnote: For those who have an interest in the legal arguments referred to here, the DoJ’s amicus brief for Bell vs. Boise is here. 

 

Governor Brown recently issued an executive order to make California carbon neutral. That is, serious steps would be taken to prevent any increase of carbon dioxide into the air. If you are pleased with this new development, my advice is to hold the applause. The purpose of the executive order is only to avoid an increase but not a reduction in the already high level of current carbon dioxide emissions.

Moreover,- California is given until 2045 for the executive order to go into effect. This is 27 years from now. That is much too long a wait because many problems and barriers in the meanwhile can get in the way. But even if Brown's executive order survives and is taken seriously, it gives the business community 27 years to continue to spew even more carbon dioxide into the air.

A second recent environmental event is a federal court decision to throw out a California law that raises money for hazardous cleanups caused by accidents. The law allows California to charge railroad companies a fee per-car for carrying crude oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials into the state 

The railroads claimed that the authorized fees gave the trucking industry an unfair advantage. But the fees must be higher for these multi-car trains because they inflict far more damage than a single truck does. Train spills are very costly to the environment and the health of those impacted. 

In one railroad spill, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "19,000 gallons of gasoline flooded the Sacramento River, killing fish and vegetation for 40 miles and causing widespread local health problems." To address this problem required a major law suit, which cost the railroad millions of dollars. But the fines did not come close to fully reimbursing the community for all the damage that the spill inflicted. Without the ability to raise money to address environmental accidents, the environmental problems will increase. 

Among the most worrisome environmental developments is the plan to build a port for shipping coal abroad in West Oakland. About the community, the income of two thirds of the households is below the official poverty level. The majority of residents are African American. The air in West Oakland is very polluted. Health problems are widespread, and too many children suffer from asthma. And a higher than average death rate are among the penalties these poor residents pay for being forced to live there. 

Coal will make matters worse by increasing air pollution. The toxic pollution emitted by coal trains in the form of diesel exhaust is dangerous. These emissions can cause serious heart and respiratory problems, including lung cancer. The small particles of coal that residents will breath can get deeply imbedded in the lungs. 

Not just the health of West Oakland residents will be adversely impacted. The coal cars will be spewing coal dust on their route from Utah, where the coal is mined. Coal dust will escape into the air as the trains pass other states and communities on the way to Oakland. BNSF, which is the largest railway in North America, acknowledges that as much as a ton of coal and coal dust can escape from every loaded car. Because coal is inflammable, no cover is used on any coal cars in the United States. 

The company is interested in this issue because of liability concerns. The coal industry's main problem has been a decrease in domestic sales. So the industry hopes to compensate for the decline by shipping abroad. That is why it needs a port. Not surprisingly, the executives of the railway corporations are much more interested in the health of the industry then the well being of the residents.  

The West Oakland community has done an excellent job organizing against the planned project. They were able to obtain the support of organized labor, the religious denominations, and many influential politicians and citizens. As a result of the political pressure, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to oppose the project (one councilmember was absent). 

However, Phil Tagami, who would be the developer of this project, appealed the decision to a federal appeals court. Again, the many opponents of building a port expressed their concern and indignation. The one very important individual whose support was missing was Governor Brown. Despite his rhetoric claiming that he has a strong commitment to a clean and healthy environment, he remained silent on this issue. 

The governor's silence, in effect, was a message to the court that he would not be opposed to the court overturning the decision by the City Council. His support for the fossil fuel industry is appreciated. That's why Governor Brown has been able to raise almost $10 million in contributions from 26 oil, gas and power companies. 

The decision of the court, which in this instance was the ruling of just one judge, decided in favor of the coal corporations. The US district court judge, Vince Chhabria, ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that coal would be harmful to the health of the west Oakland residents.  

To just complain that the judge's decision reflected his conservative interpretation of the law is not enough. It is very important to recognize that his decision was dishonest. The evidence that coal dust is dangerous is unquestionable. According to the United Nations World Health Organization, there is no safe threshold for inhaling coal dust.  

Politically speaking there is something terribly wrong with a judicial system in which a judge, who like other judicial appointments, can override the public's concerns on spurious grounds and get away with it. Clearly, this is a serious assault on democracy. 

The decision has been appealed to the 9th circuit. Also, it is trying to discourage financial institutions from making loans to build the West Oakland port for coal. Since many residents in other cities and states will be impacted by the coal trains, they too must join with West Oakland residents to stop the project. A critic of the coal corporations appropriately asserted, "COAL TRAINS MEANS COAL DUST-- Period." 

For those of us who have attempted to carefully understand why the health issues of West Oakland residents have taken a back seat by the establishment, the crucial question is where is democracy hiding.  

 

 

 

 

The dark clouds hanging over Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination are growing increasingly menacing. His denial of attempted rape rings hollow given his conspirator, Mark Judge’s sensational book, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk. The book describes being an alcoholic in high school and even features a cameo by someone he calls “Bart O’Kavanaugh” who vomited in someone’s car and passed out on his way back from a party. The attempted rape accuser, Dr. Blasey Ford, identified Kavanaugh’s friend as the conservative writer Mark Judge. 

The book adds a few more nails to Kavanaugh’s coffin. More and more negative reports are being made public.  

According to Ryan Grim of The Intercept, Cyrus Sanai was the whistleblower who first called out Judge Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court who was accused of years' gross sexual misconduct. He was finally removed through a combination of media reports and the #MeToo movement.  

Kavanaugh, who clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski, claimed that he had no knowledge of his indiscretions which doesn’t pass the smell test given their very close relationship. Several Federal employees have offered to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee stating that Kavanaugh is lying about his lack of knowledge of the judge’s behavior. His lack of truthfulness is now central to the accusation of attempted rape by Dr. Blasey Ford. The Democrats must stand firm and resist the Republican’s efforts to ram through Kavanaugh’s nomination. We don’t want another sexual predator on SCOTUS.

I went straight to the City Manager's office. She's in charge, after all. The City Council advises her if they feel like it. But many of them have perfected the art of sitting firmly on both sides of an issue. Stopping the Downtown Berkeley Association's illegal practice of tearing down legally posted community fliers would seem like a no-brainer, but over the years only a few had even sympathized. And nothing had changed.

It matters. If you play at the San Francisco Fringe Festival or the Freight and Salvage as I do, every poster can reach hundreds of people, interested people if you're good at what you do. Posters that reach pedestrian traffic are crucial; a town that used to boast dozens of lively newspapers is down to a bare handful. Those ugly green metal "ped mount" fixtures empty of newspapers and covered with graffiti used to be full.

She was in. They're always in right before a city council meeting, so it wasn't unexpected. But they're busy before a city council meeting, so I was willing to wait. Which I hope people realize reflects a lot of patience after having this issue unaddressed for decades. You work hard making posters before an event, paying for the duplication at copy stores, walking the streets with wheat paste or tape. Your hall and your personal reputation lives or dies by the door, meaning the traffic that walks in, so getting the word out to a literary crowd in a nearly post-newspaper almost print-free town is a challenge. 

I am patient. I've waited decades for someone to get through to John Caner, CEO of the Downtown Berkeley Association, that you don't have to be a nonprofit organization to have the right to put up a poster. You don't have to be the City of Berkeley. You don't have to be affiliated with the University of California. You don't have to restrict your speech to DBA events he is personally promoting. But I can't seem to get through. 

The curious restrictions he uses to parse and selectively remove community fliers appear to be aided and abetted by divinations he makes from the arcane observations of previous city attorneys and public works officials some of whom have tried to make the case that fliers are a danger to public safety - they might jump off the pole and obscure a windshield! I am not joking. 

Again, I am patient. I waited at least half an hour for the City Manager to find a moment to learn that the DBA was at it again. I've worked with a crew to photograph and videotape the DBA crews' first amendment violations over and over again, but whatever word comes out of the city must either be tacitly encouraging them to keep it up or just isn't getting through. 

But hey, I'm not that patient. So I started putting up posters with packing tape on the fifth floor windows while I waited. I had pale yellow paper that looked festive across the back and side windows. I left plenty of room for the larger view of a sparkling fall afternoon. 

The lovely, helpful administrative staff person didn't notice until about the fourth poster and advised me that I was not allowed to post anything in the fifth floor's waiting room area, adding "nobody can." And I answered with a smile how I knew there were rules regarding the posting of fliers and agreed that it was so frustrating when you can't seem to get through to people like the DBA's John Caner about the dang rules. And kept putting up posters. 

And just like magic, the City Manager had time for me. Not only that, the City Attorney was there, too, so that after a little bristling and pawing the ground the case for the First Amendment being the presiding law of the land finally had a brief, private hearing. 

John Caner received a phone call after that meeting. And informed me later at the city council meeting that he and his crew would not be tearing down any more fliers. In fact, he denied having torn down any at all, which is pretty funny considering the photographs, videos, and the armful of torn down fliers I had brought personally to his office only months before, posters straight from the arms of the "ambassador" on his green-shirt crew who had just torn them down. 

But something got through, if temporarily. And it might have been the City Attorney, or the City Manager. But I think it was the yellow fliers decorating the fifth floor of City Hall. Imagine how that was received by a crowd steeped in the idea that a flier can be dangerous! Someone might set it on fire! It might distract somebody who then steps into traffic and gets hit by a car!  

They're in the thick of it now up on the fifth floor, having hired an unaccountable, out-of-control DBA gang to police and harass homeless people, control public space so as to avoid "problematic" behavior, shoo away pesky, unpermitted buskers singing their annoying hearts out, etc. Downtown businesses have no choice anymore about funding this gang; it's compulsory if they're in the footprint of the "business improvement district." That's the law! 

But it doesn't have to be the law. This arrangement can be reversed under Section 19 of the enabling legislation: 

SEC. 19. 

(a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances: 

(1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. 

The section goes on to describe that "each successive year of operation of the district" shall have "a 30-day period" to consider a petition of such concerns, and that if half the group wants to dissolve the unaccountable gang of homeless harassing anti-flier crews they're being forced to fund, "the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district." You and I are part of that group since the BID includes assessments on public buildings- which belong to us. 

The Berkeley City Council and the City Manager have been forgetting all about this part of the legislation. And that's not all they could do. They can revisit any business district's contract and make sure they're explicitly clear that they're not in charge of the town's posters and fliers, which actually help local businesses. And they could stop the current practice of assessing public buildings, which make taxpayers like all of us, you and me, participants in the DBA's First Amendment ignorance and anti-homeless cruelty. 

We're paying for the public assessments as taxpayers. We have a say in the existence, or the dissolution, of the "business improvement district." Especially if, as in Berkeley's case, it seems dedicated to advocating against human rights, civil rights, and common sense. I'm tired of watching the Berkeley City Council passively accept the idea that I should have to pay for the stamps and stationary of a group which advocated openly against not only the poor's rights to rest, sit, and exist in public spaces, but mine, too. 

The Downtown Berkeley Association can continue to exist if it wants to, as a voluntary group. But the mandatory assessment is unfair. Be sure to mention it during this election season to the candidates and contenders vying for your votes. And the best reason to suggest the dissolution of mandatory fees for unaccountable BIDs is that they don't improve business and they don't solve homelessness.  

Our commercial areas are worse than ever and there are thousands living under the overpasses. A recent report from the UC Berkeley School of Law about Business Improvement Districts (BID) points out the clear implication that BIDs make matters worse by promoting counterproductive anti-homeless laws while ignoring the effects of skyrocketing rents, empty commercial spaces owned by out-of-town or even out-of-state landlords, and the caustic effects of mixing nonprofit "social service" efforts with harassment. 

I've lived in Berkeley a long time, long enough to pre-date the DBA and its progenitors. Berkeley's downtown is a joke compared to the days when local businesses flourished because rents were reasonable. Local music and events were easy to learn about by just walking down the lively streets- because you could look at the event fliers and posters. Small comedy and music clubs didn't have to charge an arm and a leg and rent control was real instead of being decimated by Costa-Hawkins. None of that was rocket science, and it's easy to get back there. Boot unaccountability wherever you see it and take back this brilliant, vibrant city. 

Oh, and when the meeting with the City Manager and the CityAttorney was over, my fliers had been taken down. But I asked for them back, and the lovely administrative staff on the fifth floor gave them back to me. They're all over downtown now, and they say, among other things, "Defund the DBA." 

 

 

The Trump administration continues its overt policy of total unconcern for human rights by slashing funding of Palestinian schools and hospitals in the occupied Israeli territories. 

It has closed the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington as retaliation for the Palestinians’ efforts to bring Israeli military war crimes to the International Criminal Court. 

The war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza have been well documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Israeli organizations like B’Tselem, and Palestinian human rights organizations. In a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, Israel has persuaded the lawless Trump administration to trash the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague terrified of what it might uncover and further tarnish Israel’s image for its war crimes. The Palestinians who found no justice in Israeli courts were left with no other option but to appeal to the ICC. 

The war hawk, John Bolton, is also taking aim at the ICC lest they investigate the torture of victims in Afghanistan and black sites during President Bush’s reign of terror. Revelations would undoubtedly tarnish America’s image. 

Sadly, the United States has abandoned its former role as a champion of human rights, and upholding international law and is now shielding the perpetrators of war crimes. President Trump famously told his “friend”, Mohammad bin Salman “trade (weapons sales) will always supersede concerns for human rights”. How far America has fallen

As Hurricane Florence, bears down on N. Carolina, meteorologists warn that it could unleash life-threatening flooding across a wide swath of the East Coast threatening life stock and trigger poisonous spills from sewage treatment plants, hog waste lagoons and chicken farms which may end up into household drinking water. Even as the storm subsides thousands of animals are in mortal danger. 

NC is paying a heavy price for its short sighted decision ignoring warnings from climate scientists about rising sea levels six years ago. They ignored the devastating impact of Hurricane Floyd which dropped nearly two feet of rain on NC flooding the water lagoons elevating nitrogen and phosphorous levels. Perhaps even more ominous is the possibility of leaching toxic coal ash into the waterways. 

Twenty-four toxic coal ash containment ponds lie in the path of the storm and are at risk of flooding. NC is home to Smithfield Foods the largest meat packing plant in the world which is allowed to dump animal urine and feces in the surrounding area poising the air with its pungent odor. Although the storm has subsided the rising flood waters may inundate the MacDougall Correctional Institution, a medium-security prison about 35 miles northwest of Charleston that houses 651 inmates. 

Heathen at heart, I don’t think of myself as religious. But one summer Sunday, alarmed by firestorms, sudden floods, skies hung low with polluted air, and killer heat waves around the globe, I made a B-line for Northbrae, a church that grapples directly with earthly dilemmas—making this church a rare find.

Unlike conventional churches, Northbrae espouses no particular creed. Instead of affiliating with an established religion, this church stands firmly on its on. It holds as its mentors “Torchbearers” —twenty-six historical figures that embody the upward reach of human nature and the process of spiritual growth. Among these Torchbearers are Noah, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tse, Mohammed, Florence Nightingale—and Jesus. These figures, whose prophetic voices stand to inform our responses to the dire quandaries that confront us now, are depicted in a stained glass window that stretches the length of the chapel.  

Just beyond those Torchbearer windows, Northbrae has laid a circle of stones on bare earth to honor the Hutchin—Native Americans thought to be the earliest inhabitants of Berkeley. This Sacred Hoop Garden, named for the medicine wheel that symbolizes the never-ending cycle of life, also harbors a columbarium. Sheltered by gray stone walls, the gated garden invites quiet reflection and deep meditation. 

I went straight to Northbrae when the blazes raged this summer because I knew that this church confronts such disasters and their implications head-on. Elements of nature are often woven into the service, particularly by one of Northbrae’s trio of ministers. This senior minister recently chose Walt Whitman’s Song of the Open Road as the text for the Responsive Call to Worship that begins the service. Harking back to the oral tradition, she and the congregation speak alternate lines of the passage aloud. 

“Afoot and light-hearted, I take to the open road,” she says, reciting the first line. 

“I inhale great draught of space; the east and west are mine, and the north and the south are mine,” the congregants respond.  

“Whoever you are, come travel with me,” the minister intones. 

“However sweet these laid-up stores—however convenient this dwelling, we cannot remain here,” the congregants warn. 

“However sheltered this port, and however calm these waters, we must not anchor here,” the minister affirms. 

“We will go where winds blow, waves dash,” answers the congregation. 

“Onward! To that which is endless, as it was beginningless,” the minister confirms. 

“To know the universe itself as a road—as many roads—as roads for traveling souls,” the congregants conclude. 

In a riveting sermon on another Sunday, this same minister describes her compelling connection to elements of the Earth itself. “I have felt this connection in the Arctic where the vast spaciousness on barren gravel bars is humbling,” she says. “Equally humbling is to stand at Dead Horse Point in Utah looking down a cliff over a mile deep, with its multiple layers serving as witness to the eons that have gone before. 

“I am not alone in seeing nature as a mirror of God,” she says, speaking directly to the congregation, “but do we see ourselves as soul-mates, stewards, kin of the Earth? Do we listen? Do we hear?”  

Compelled by these questions to grapple with the urgency of Earth’s survival, I am struck by the words of the Hopi elder she quotes: “This is the Eleventh Hour,” he says. “The time for the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!” 

Yes, this is the hour. Time is short. Northbrae offers the rare sensibility, the sacred space, and the kinship heathens like me and those of more formal religions seek to listen, to hear—and to gather ourselves to tend to the survival of the earth.  

Northbrae’s services are at 10:30 a.m. on Sundays. The church is located at 941 The Alameda, Berkeley. http://www.northbrae.org. 

---

Emily Hancock is the author of The Girl Within (Dutton, Ballantine), and the founder of Moxie Magazine and its online companion, www.moxiemag.com. She is currently at work on a memoir.

The Catholic Church has been justifiably criticized both for the sexually abusive conduct of many priests and the failure of the church to adequately address this issue. However, Philip Jenkins, a leading scholar on religious institutions, claims that the Roman Catholic Church has been unfairly singled out by the secular media for failing to highlight similar sexual accusations in other religious organizations. He is absolutely right. Whether the media is biased or not, Jenkins is correct to point out that the problem is prevalent in Protestant churches as well as in Judaic and Muslim religious institutions.  

It is very difficult to accurately gauge the extent of the problem because most victims, an estimated two thirds, remain silent. Also, unlike the Catholic Church, which is a hierarchical organization that oversees all of its parishes, each of the Protestant churches are for the most part autonomous. The churches that are members of the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, are independent. So any figures on sexual abuse by the different Baptist churches are not totaled and therefore seem relatively small. 

According to one study that included a wide range of Christian churches, the extent of sexual misconduct in the various churches ranged from 1% to 38.5% percent of the clergy. The overall average is about 15 percent. But the number of youngsters that have been abused is much higher. That's because many pastors over time have abused several and in some instances a substantial number of youngsters. 

How do we explain the considerable moral misconduct in institutions that pride themselves on their religious and moral commitments? With regard to priests in the Catholic Church many scholars have attributed sex abuse to the requirement of celibacy. The priests must remain unmarried and abstain from sexuality. This commitment seems to attract many who are homosexualy inclined, which is estimated at on third of clergy. At least some of these clergy members are unable to resist temptation. So they tend to sexually prey on mostly male adolescents, which make up over 80 percent of the victims. 

But since celibacy is not required of pastors and staff in the protestant churches, there must be other factors that explain the temptation and effort to take advantage of sexual opportunities. Particularly important is the unequal status of priests and the young members of the congregations. The considerable power, influence, and status of clergy provide the opportunity and the incentive to exploit the young in one way or another. Many young people respect and admire their pastors , and some are even flattered by the intimacy of sexuality. Some are actually coerced. But even when the overtures are made with consenting youngsters, it is certainly no justification for making sexual advances. 

It is not just religious institutions that are guilty of sex abuse. Over the years there have been a substantial number of sex abuse instances in various secular institutions, including the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). According to one of BSA's executives, thousands of scouts have been sexually victimized in all 50 states. Apparently, wherever male leadership has contact with young people in a private setting, which is in most instances, their offices, the risk that some youngsters will be abused is high. 

Sexual abuse is a widespread problem that must be vigorously challenged. A major impediment has been the disinterest of public officials. Perpetrators of sexual violence are less likely to wind up behind bars than other criminals. Public pressure must be exerted to persuade government to take serious action. Sexual abuse is not just morally wrong. It is a criminal offense, which merits a jail sentence. For engaging in Inappropriate sexual contact with young, vulnerable people is a sexually violent act. 

In California, if the sexual abuse is considered a misdemeanor, the abuser can be jailed for up to six months. If it is a felony, the sentence can be much longer. Every state and the federal government have laws on sexual abuse. But too often they are not enforced. Most often, the penalty is imposing fines, which are often paid by the associated organization. That is tantamount to treating sexual abuse as a fringe benefit. 

So it is imperative that religious and secular leaders play an aggressive role to to successfully combat sexual abuse. It is imperative that the public sector be subjected to considerable pressure. Also, It is also necessary to demand that the media address this issue honestly and accurately.  

Also, both religious and secular institutions should adopt procedures that BSA has developed. Most important, one- on-one contact between only one adult and young person is not permitted. If a scout leader needs to meet with a youngster, another adult must be present. Also, the message must come from the very top that sexually abusive conduct is never justified and will not be tolerated.  

Finally, there is a very important psychological issue that deserves attention. Of course, both males and females have sexual urges. However, there is a major difference between the genders. Too many men are power oriented who need to dominate and control. So sexuality is important not only for the biological gratification that it offers. It is a way of reinforcing their masculine identity. 

But no matter what tempts anyone to sexually abuse others, keep in mind that it is a criminal act not only by those who have committed the crime. Also, they are often protected from retaliation by their superiors. That's a crime of complicity, which is at the expense of sexually abused victims -- past, present and future. 

Take for example a worrisome event at the highest levels of the Catholic Church. In a recent article about Pope Francis in the San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 9th), the caption in bold and large letters reads: Pope urges bishops to confront sex abuse, cove-ups. Sounds good. But it is misleading. Those who read the article will have a very different impression of the Pope's message. Pope Francis was accused by a high level priest of covering up for an ex-cardinal in the U.S. who has been accused of sexually molesting children as well as adults who are being trained to become religious leaders. The Pope has ignored calls from clergy and church members to respond to these claims. Instead he advised "there are times when silence and prayer are the best response". About praying, that's fine. But silence on this issue, absolutely not! 

 

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! 

Does the British Labour Party and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, have an “anti-Semitism problem,” or has the Party’s left wing been targeted by the Israeli government for its support of the growing boycott and divestment movement that challenges Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land? A group of Israeli lawyers and social activists would like to know the answer to that question and have filed a Freedom of Information action in an effort to find out.

Spearheaded by Israeli human rights activist Eitay Mack, the request targets Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to “verify that these play no part in the de-legitimization waged in recent years on the UK Labour Party and Mr. Corbyn.”

The Labour leader has been called an “anti-Semite and a racist” by one of the Party’s members of Parliament, and in a recent tweet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Corbyn of honoring Palestinians who took part in the attack on Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics. 

Corbyn has long been a leader in the fight against racism and played a key role in helping to bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa. He has also made it no secret that he makes common cause with the Palestinians and supports the Boycott and Divestment Sanctions (BDS) aimed at forcing Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories. 

In 2014, the Labour Party went through a sea change politically, moving away from the centrist programs of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and embracing left social democratic positions that Labour had not advocated for more than two decades. Corbyn resisted the endless austerity and privatization program of the Conservatives—many of which Labour had gone along with—and called for a robust program of re-nationalizing transport and energy, pumping money into health and education, and raising taxes on the wealthy. 

The platform re-energized Labour’s grassroots, and hundreds of thousands of young people joined up. At 600,000 members, the UK Labour Party is now the largest party on the European continent. In the 2015 election, Labour picked up 33 seats in the Parliament and turned the Tories into a minority government. 

Almost as soon as Corbyn took over the Party, the attacks that he was anti-Semitic—or at least tolerated anti-Semitism—started up. He was accused of comparing Israel to the Nazis. He was charged with honoring the Black September Palestinian group, whose 1972 attack in Munich resulted in the death of 11 Israeli athletes. He was denounced for backing a London street mural that had clear anti-Semitic images. 

Finally, the three leading Jewish newspapers in the UK jointly declared that there was a “crisis of anti-Semitism” in the British Labour Party and that Corbyn was “an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK.” 

But once one begins to unpack the charges it is hard to find much evidence for a “crisis.” Polls show the Labour Party is considerably less anti-Semitic than the Conservative Party, and it appears that anti-Semitism has declined since Corbyn took over. A number of the things Corbyn is accused of have been either distorted or fabricated. 

Corbyn did not compare Israel to the Nazis. It was Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer who did so in a 2010 panel discussion that the Labour Party leader took part. Meyer was upset with the 2009 Israeli bombing of Gaza—Operation Drop Lead—that killed 1391 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians. He was referring to the fact that Gaza’s residents could not leave the strip and compared it to Jews unable to flee the Warsaw Ghetto. 

Corbyn did not place a wreath to honor the Black September group. The event was to commemorate a 1985 attack on the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Tunisia by Israeli warplanes that killed 47 people and wounded 65 more. The attack was officially condemned by the UN Security Council with the assent of the U.S. The Black September members killed in Munich are buried in Libya, not Tunesia, although one of the group’s leaders, Salah Khalaf, is interned near where the memorial took place. 

On the basis of free speech, the Labour leader initially did defend a mural with anti-Semitic elements. But when he looked at the painting closely, he apologized and said that free speech should never be used to mask anti-Semitism. 

Lastly, Corbyn’s wing of the Labour Party is accused of resisting adopting an 11-point definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. Corbyn did resist parts of the definition because many Labour activists fear that the list conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Even the architect of the document, Kenneth Stern, said it was meant to be a “working definition,” not a way to curb academic research and free speech. “Yet that is how it has come to be used.” 

There is evidence that the Netanyahu government is trying to do exactly that by “de-legitimizing” Israel the growing boycott movement constitutes anti-Semitism, thus equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. 

A study by historian David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism at Birkbeck College, found that the overwhelming majority of charges against Labour Party members concerned statements about Israel, not Jews. 

Stephen Oryszcuk, foreign affairs editor of the leading Jewish newspaper, Jewish News, said that criticizing Israel “was not anti-Semitism,” and that the charges against Corbyn were “repulsive,” adding “This is a dedicated anti-racist we are trashing.” 

As the two-state solution disintegrates under the relentless expansion of Jewish settlements—one recent plan calls for reaching a goal of one million settlers by the end of this year—and the controversial move to favor Jewish Israelis over other citizens, Israel may indeed be more vulnerable to a boycott movement. It is hardly surprising then that the Netanyahu government would try to nip the BDS in the bud. 

Israeli lawyer Mack is looking for evidence that the campaign against Corbyn is encouraged and supported by the Foreign Affairs and Strategic ministries and is suspicious that a “crisis” exists in the Labour Party. “Israel is strengthening its relationships in Eastern Europe, with countries like Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, where they have problems with anti-Semitism. On the other hand you see the Israeli government making their political struggle with Jeremy Corbyn a main issue.” 

That suspicion is supported by a 2017 sting operation by Al Jezeera that uncovered a direct liaison between diplomat Shai Masot of London’s Israeli embassy and organizations like Labour Friends of Israel that are leading critics of Corbyn. Masot works for the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. And more than encouragement was exchanged. According to Al Jezeera, up to 1 million pounds ($1.3 million) were made available to fuel the campaign. 

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a cable from Israel’s London embassy complaining that Strategic Affairs was breaking British law by encouraging political activities by Jewish charity groups.  

In addition to the Jewish establishment newspapers, virtually every tabloid in the British Isles has joined the hue and cry. The publication ColdType counted more than 500 articles on the subject from July to August of this year. Nominally liberal publications like the Guardian have led the campaign. Most newspapers in the UK are more conservative than their continental—or American—counterparts, and, in the Guardian’s case, the publication is carrying water for the Labour Party’s rightwing. 

In short, Corbyn is up against a powerful alliance of the mainstream media, the Conservative Party, and “Blairites” in the Labour Party, with Israel in the wings. And Corbyn’s response to apologize—what for is not exactly clear—and to drum dissidents out of the Party has not quelled the fires, but added fuel to them. Labour finally adopted the 11 definitions of anti-Semitism. 

What about the effect of all this is on the electorate? 

According to You/Gov, many of the stories that “obsess the Westminster media” don’t resonate much with the wider public. In spite of non-stop and widespread coverage, only 6 percent of the public say they are following it closely, 20 percent fairly closely and 54 percent are either not following it or are unaware the story exists. The poll concludes that while the “affair may entrench existing negative views of Corbyn among those who already held them, it seem unlikely to do much to reduce his support.” 

Labour leads in the polls, but its margin is thin, drawing between 38 and 40 percent support to the Conservatives 37 to 38 percent. The Liberal Democrats are polling around 10 percent, and the racist United Kingdom Independence Party 5 percent. 

However, British polling has been notoriously wrong-headed in the past. Polls predicted Brexit would fail. It passed. The polls predicted the Conservatives would trounce Labour in the 2017 elections. The outcome was vise-a-versa. 

Labour did well in this year’s local council elections, although the media made it seem like a failure by puffing up the numbers the Party was projected to win. Labour picked up 79council seats while the Conservatives lost 35. The Liberal Democrats secured 77 seats, but that was largely a rebound from the disastrous showing in 2014 local elections that saw the Party lose 300 seats. 

According to a BBC analysis, if the local election results were replicated in a general election Labour would be the majority party in the Parliament with 283 seats to the Tories 280. While the Conservatives were down 3 percent of the vote over the 2017 local elections, Labour was up 8 percentage points. 

“People thought the general election was a fluke,” said John McDonnell, the Labour Party’s Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, “we’ve demonstrated it wasn’t. We’ve consolidated that and we’ve moved it forward in terms of percentage share of the vote.” 

Polls do show that anti-Semitic charges may have had an impact on the Jewish community, but those polls require perspective: the Jewish community in Britain tends to be conservative, and many were opposed to Labour in general. In 2017, some 63 percent of British Jews voted Conservative, while 26 percent voted Labour. 

Which doesn’t mean the controversy may not have an effect, especially if rightwing Labour supporters bolt and create a new party. That would drain some of Labour’s support and divide the vote in the next general election. Such a split would probably keep the Tories in power. There are some in Labour’s camp who would rather lose an election than have Corbyn and the left wing of the Party in power. 

And there is a danger that worries Mack: “Israel is claiming that Corbyn and the Labour Party are putting British Jews at risk. But the bottom line is that the Netanyahu government itself is actually enlarging the risk for the Jewish people around the world, because they are not dealing with real problems, just the artificial problems. They are not concerned with real anti-Semitism, they only want to fulfill their political agenda of taking the issue of the Palestinian people off the world stage.” 

And there are growing numbers of “real anti-Semites” in Europe and the U.S. who may not be a threat to Netanyahu, but most certainly are to Jews living outside of Israel. 

---

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 

Presidential elections reflect voter concerns, as well as candidate personalities. In addition, national election results often reflect changing American norms. While the 2018 mid-term election has been touted as the year of the woman, it also mirrors our collective concern about violence against women -- the rape culture. This heightened awareness has impacted the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

It's useful to consider how we got to this moment. The 2016 presidential campaign pitted two unpopular candidates: Hillary Clinton with a reputation for lying and calculated ambition; and Donald Trump with a reputation for sexual abuse and bullying. Crooked Hillary versus "pussy grabber" Trump.

In retrospect it would have been better if voters had pushed the "none of the above" button and left the US without a president until two more acceptable candidates were presented. Sadly, that wasn't an option and Donald Trump narrowly won the election. One way to interpret this outcome is that voters disliked crooked Hillary more than "pussy grabber" Trump. Whatever the reason, Trump, in effect, got a pass on his sexist behavior. 

608 days of a Trump presidency indicate that Donald hasn't changed his ways. He hasn't grown into the job as many voters hoped. He's still the same bully, liar, racist and sexist he was during the presidential campaign. He still has the same poor judgment and problems with impulse control. 

Since moving into the White House, Trump has coarsened the public discourse and normalized what most of us believed -- before the election -- was outrageous conduct. He's brought a whole range of deviant behaviors out of the closet and into primetime. Among these behaviors are varieties of sexual abuse -- Trump's interpretation of the rape culture. 

Many of Trump's defenders, when asked about a sordid Trump incident -- such as his "grab them by the pussy" comments or his affair with Stormy Daniels -- reply that because the events happened before the election they do not count. The GOP position seems to be that since Trump is now President his episodes of sexual abuse no longer matter. Republicans claim that Trump was redeemed by the 2016 election. 

This is the same logic used by the GOP to defend Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from accusations that, as a teenager, he assaulted a young woman. Republicans argue: whatever happened, it was a long time ago and Kavanaugh has been redeemed by his work as a lawyer and judge. 

As a liberal Christian, I believe in redemption. But not redemption by magic. Not the blanket type of redemption that says, "Jesus died for your sins and therefore, whatever you do, you are forgiven." (Redemption without repentance.) And certainly not the form of redemption that says, "The GOP forgives you and, therefore, all your sins are washed away." 

I believe in redemption through good works. First an individual acknowledges their sin or transgression or offense. Next they seek to make amends by, among other things, apologizing to the person they offended. 

This is the same process described in the AA twelve steps: 4.) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 8.) Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9.) Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 

I do not believe that Donald Trump has been redeemed. (This shouldn't be open for debate.) Trump is an unrepentant sexual predator. (Among other things.) 

When confronted with evidence of a transgression, Trump's modus operandi has not been to accept responsibility, but instead to aggressively deny the charges and attack the complainants. Trump has not made amends, unless one considers monetary payoffs -- such as those negotiated by Trump attorney Michael Cohen -- as amends. (They're not.) 

Donald Trump is an unrepentant sexual predator. (I know I'm repeating myself but I believe we should all be shouting this from the rooftops.) Rather than seek redemption, Trump has continued his deviant behavior, augmented by lying and bullying. He has not been redeemed and he doesn't deserve "a get out of jail free" card. 

Neither does his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. 

It's time to declaim the rape culture that normalizes sexual assaults on women. It's time for American men to call out sexual predators such as Trump and Kavanaugh. It's time to treat women with respect. And it's time for real Christians to stand up for the morality of Jesus of Nazareth. 

---

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