Editorials

Manufacturing consent: It’s a great concept, so intuitively powerful that it figured in Walter Lippman’s seminal 1922 book Public Opinion and was recycled in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, and then was the title of a 1992 film about Chomsky. I might have read the Chomsky book, but if so I can’t remember it, but what’s stuck in my imagination is the title, which is easily capable of quick application in the never-ending quest for how to make government work for the people instead of for the powerful.

This week’s lesson offers a stellar example of how it’s done these days in the Berkeley context.

Exhibit A was proposed in early March by Berkeley councilmembers Droste, Bartlett, Robinson, and Kesarwani, starting with this agenda item: 

“Refer to the City Manager to prepare a report to the Council of examining methods, including potential revisions to the zoning code, that may foster a broader range housing types across Berkeley, particularly missing middle housing types (duplexes, triplexes/fourplexes, courtyard apartments, bungalow courts, townhouses, etc.), in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services. Given the range of requests included in this referral, it is expected that responding to the referral will require a combination of field research, consultation with design professionals and other cities and agencies, and community outreach and engagement. Council requests that staff initiate this work as soon as possible. Financial Implications: See report.” 

This proposal first appeared on the agenda for a March council meeting that also included a very controversial RV ban, so it was postponed until next week’s meeting. It’s on Tuesday's agenda, now with numerous incorporated and proposed revisions from other councilmembers. 

“Manufacturing consent” being attempted here is the city of Berkeley’s contractual use of a commercial application called “Berkeley Considers”. Here’s the pitch for the product, found by Google on the City Manager’s website: 

“Berkeley Considers is an online forum for civic engagement. Read what others are saying about important Berkeley topics, then post your own statement. Comments will be submitted to City officials as part of their decision process. 

“Berkeley Considers is run by OpenGov, a non-partisan company whose mission is to broaden civic engagement and build public trust in government. “ 

What’s not to like about that? But then it gets a bit gnarly: 

“When you post your first statement, you will be asked for your name and home address. This confidential information is used only by OpenGov to identify statements from residents in and near Berkeley - so that users know which statements are from local residents. They will keep your information confidential, they do not accept advertising, and they will not share contact information, as noted in the company's Privacy Policy. The City of Berkeley does not currently require participants to show their name in order to participate. All Berkeley residents, regardless of immigration status, are welcome to provide feedback.” 

So you don’t have to show your name to the public, but you do have to give your name to the city officials and presumably also to their corporate supplier. Just mentioning immigration status is enough to scare off some would-be responders. 

Figuring out how to get to the next step from this screen in order to register my opinion was not at all easy, even though I’ve been using computers since 1968 and have an in-house computer scientist to advise me. The interface to the whole process was one of the worst I’ve ever seen. 

Next, there’s this information: 

“This topic has 503 visitors and 279 responses. That's 14.0 hours of public comment @ 3 minutes per response. It is now closed to participation.” 

And here we have the first misleading statement: public comment @ 3 minutes per response? 

In what parallel universe would we find this? Not here in Berkeley, where comments at City Council meetings are now limited to 1 minute, and councilmembers often leave the dais while citizens are addressing them. 

So now the whole process is closed to public participation? When was it closed, and who closed it, considering that the Missing Middle scheme’s details were open for amendment proposals right up until yesterday? 

There are two glaring faults with using this proprietary program as a guide to public opinion. 

First, it’s junk science. 

The city of Berkeley occasionally pays for genuine professional surveys with samples selected by accepted techniques, but this kind of pseudo-scientific polling is worthless, and worse than worthless, easily manipulated. 

If any hypothetical advocacy group—YIMBYs, e.g.—wanted to dominate the votes with fabricated voters, it would be dead easy, trust me. How about just posting some local address and using a made-up name? 

I won’t reveal my methodology, but let’s just say that despite my longtime computer use I’m no pro, but it took me less than four minutes to use a faux identity to join the surveyed cohort when the topic first appeared despite this claim: 

“When you post your first statement, you will be asked for your name and home address. This confidential information is used only by OpenGov to identify statements from residents in and near Berkeley - so that users know which statements are from local residents.” 

. Local residents, indeed. In your dreams. 

And anyway: 279 responses? In a city with 100,000+ residents? Even if all 279 are real people, that’s nowhere near enough data on which to base important decisions. This method also biases the results in favor of well-off computer-savvy respondents with functional equipment. 

Spending public money to collect this tiny bit of worthless information is just foolish. 

The second problem is that we’re being asked to donate our data to a company which is, yes, “non-partisan”, but is certainly not non-profit or even non-commercial. It is, however, non-regulated, and do you know what they’re doing with your data? Or who they are? 

Most honest citizens will supply their genuine personal data to OpenGov. How can they be sure that it’s not used for other purposes? 

From the corporation’s website: 

“The company is backed by notable names including … a venture-capital firm started by Joshua Kushner, brother of White House adviser Jared Kushner.” Does that give you confidence? 

Listed as a member of OpenGov’s board of directors is Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist partner of Ben Horowitz, son of David Horowitz, the rabid ultra-conservative crony of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. 

In all fairness, we should note that Ben and his siblings, who went to Berkeley High with my daughters, don’t seem to share Dad’s screwy politics. But it should not be necessary to entrust your personal data to an entrepreneurial tech startup with dubious connections in order to make your voice heard in Berkeley. 

And those are only the names that I recognized on the OpenGov site without further research, but they’re enough to make me wonder. 

There’s no reason to believe that this company will protect your privacy any better than Facebook notoriously didn’t. They’re currently embroiled in legal controversy over confidentiality beefs with a similar government information start-up, by the way. 

Which brings us, now out of time and space, to considering the merits of the “Missing Middle” proposal. Let’s just say that if the City Manager or City Council bases any major rezoning project on sketchy information like what’s offered by “Berkeley Considers” mistakes will certainly be made. 

Doing a good job on a sweeping research project like the one the sponsoring councilmembers optimistically contemplate is way beyond the capacity and the budget of the city manager’s office. For starters, somebody should have told them that it breaches the rules of Berkeley’s existing General Plan. 

The discussion should instead start with the Berkeley Planning Commission, which traditionally has had an excess of smart, capable citizen commissioners offering excellent free advice. The process should allow for extensive genuine opportunity for open public comment, both oral and written, before making any big moves. Berkeley citizens should be given the first chance to contribute their ideas, though expert consultants are also welcome to present their theories. Meetings should be scheduled to maximize public participation--discussion should not have to be shut off because the clock runs out. 

Three minutes to speak, anyone? And also,could you write a letter to your councilmembers? Who knows, they might read it.