Elizabeth Warren is an American missile aimed at the heart of the economic and social injustices perpetrated by laissez-faire capitalism. She is a mixture of hard headed realism, eminent pragmatism, and passionate idealism: articulate, personable, engaging, and completely focused on the ills of this country and how to solve them.

Warren’s demeanor when she spoke at Laney College on Friday was natural and unassuming as she recounted her early life and her career: teaching disadvantaged children, studying law, and teaching business and banking law at the university level. Getting fired from her job teaching children by a male principal for being visibly pregnant. Running for office; winning her Senate seat.  

She described the glee of Republican Congressmen giving each other high fives for passing legislation to deprive tens of millions of Americans of health care. An unnamed senator advising her to ‘ask for less’ in her campaign speeches; advice she disregards, because what she is asking for is precisely what hundreds of millions of Americans urgently need: 

Pre-school, free or at reasonable and affordable cost, for all children. Free education for all children. Free college education for all citizens; erasing student debt for the majority of recent graduates now laboring under an obligation that was not imposed upon senior Republican leaders in their time. 

How to pay for this (and more)? By levying a two-cent tax on every dollar above 50 million earned or held in assets by the 75,000 richest families in America. 

She said more: that America must sequester atmospheric carbon if we are to survive. That our ‘Dreamers’ and long-time foreign citizens (our strength) must have paths to citizenship. And she said that every accumulation of vast riches was made by using others’ labor and others’ tax monies spent on the roads, sidewalks, government services, and every other appurtenance of the American society that made collecting those fortunes possible. 

The only difference between Warren and her supporters, and the Republicans and corporate Democrats who oppose her, is that as the latter enjoy the fruits of this country’s socialist institutions, they refuse to acknowledging or give back to their benefactors—while Warren wants to even the economic playing field with a two-cent tax to give everyone a chance to succeed. 

Is she electable? The crowd of over 10,000 East Bay residents at her Oakland Town Hall clearly thought so. Warren’s clarity of vision and firm commitment to issues that others either soft-pedal or step around puts her head and shoulders above every other Democratic candidate. 

Strike Debt Bay Area, a small activist group devoted to abolishing unjust debt, has achieved its initial goal of being able to eliminate $1,000,000 of medical debt owed by low and no-income East Bay residents.

Medical debt is a particularly pernicious form of debt. Savoring the pun, it is akin to rubbing salt into an open wound. Those unfortunate enough to be stricken with cancer, to have their child need expensive medical care, or to get into a debilitating accident frequently then find themselves with the added, impossibly stressful burden of an insurmountable debt, harassed non-stop by debt collectors seeking to squeeze anything they can out of someone already down and out.

Medical debt in America is a staggering problem: almost one out of every five Americans has unpaid medical debt on their credit report (https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/1-in-5-americans-has-crippling-medical-debt-476579013.html). In 2016, hospitals across the United States were facing about $38 billion in uncompensated care (https://www.apnews.com/98cc9c1e9eca4fa28f4a5623b2a02e91). Behind every single unpaid medical debt is a human story. And behind every unpaid medical debt is a collection industry whose sole source of profit is, and whose continued existence relies on, a sufficiency of such debt and human misery.

If you're unfortunate enough to be a person who gets calls about unpaid bills, here's what you may not know: those calls very likely don't come from the person you owe. Instead, they usually come from debt collectors who bought your debt from its original source. In the case of medical debt, hospitals and doctors' offices generally sell the debt as soon as they've determined that you're not going to pay promptly. They sell it to "high end" debt collectors, who will harass you and see if they can get you to pay. If they can get you to pay then they get all the money you owe, minus the money they spent to buy your debt. If they can't get you to pay - usually because you simply don't have the money - they'll sell the debt further down the debt collector chain -- for less money -- and someone new will start harassing you and see how successful they are at getting you to pay. So they have fewer successes, but they paid less for the debt, so they get to keep more of whatever debts they do collect.

Unless you are a business set up exactly by specific rules, you can't buy your own debt that way. And you can't buy Aunt Fatima's debt that way either. That's where RIP Medical Debt comes in. 

RIP Medical Debt is a national non-profit that wipes out defaulted medical debt by buying it up for a penny or less on the dollar on the open market (you read that correctly, a penny or less on the dollar, 100:1). They both collect donations on their own and partner with locals – churches, schools, newspapers, activist groups - who go out into their own communities to find donations. 

 

Strike Debt Bay Area (SDBA) and its local partner's campaigns (here and here), working through RIP, have collectively raised more than $10,000 already - enough to buy up and literally rip up $1,000,000 or more in medical debt. The more raised the more debt that can be abolished, and now the target is $15,000 for $1.5 million. 

 

In Berkeley, the McGee-Spaulding Neighbors in Action neighborhood group has endorsed the effort and its members have contributed time and dollars to making it a success. Regionally, Public Bank East Bay, the Alameda County Green Party and First They Came for the Homeless have also endorsed the campaign. An item is coming soon before the Berkeley City Council to allow Councilmember Kate Harrison to make a contribution from her discretionary council fund, and other councilmembers will have the opportunity at that time to do the same.

Greg Jan, one of the coordinators of Strike Debt Bay Area's campaign, noted
 

"Donating to abolish a neighbor's medical debt is particularly satisfying - knowing the relief from stress that a small amount, leveraged 100-fold, will bring to someone, while at the same time rubbing our hands because some debt collector somewhere has been denied their pound of flesh."
 

No one should have medical debt. Period. No one should die for lack of money to buy insulin. Period. While so many people are working so hard to make this be reality, it is not yet that way anywhere in our fifty states. By carrying out this campaign, Strike Debt Bay Area hopes to not only help those in need, but to call attention to the absurdity of GoFundMe's and debt relief as society's systemic answer to the vicissitudes of disease, infection and injury.

The campaign target is $15,000, which will initiate RIP’s process to buy up and erase a bundle of local debt. To find out more about the campaign, the market for medical debt and the history of medical debt relief, SDBA has prepared an FAQ.

A 36-year-old woman killed in a crash Friday night in Berkeley has been identified as Luvette Monarque of North Hollywood, the Alameda County Coroner's Office said Saturday. 

The crash, reported at 11:47 p.m. in the 2200 block of Haste Street, was triggered by a speeding Tesla that hit a Ford Fiesta and a Dodge pickup truck, police said. 

The Fiesta was pushed into two parked cars and caught fire. Monarque was one of four passengers in the Fiesta and was sitting in the back seat, officials said. 

Both Monarque and a 32-year-old woman sitting next to her had to be extricated from the car, authorities said. The other woman was in critical condition on Saturday. 

The two other passengers in the Fiesta were also hospitalized.  

In addition The Tesla had five people inside and one was hospitalized after the crash, according to police. 

Alcohol or drugs were not considered factors in the crash, but police said speed contributed to the collision. 

The driver of the Tesla was cooperating with investigators.

The third migrant child to die in U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody in the last six months died last week sounding a national note of alarm. Around the same time Consider the Homeless Director Barbara Brust's informal count of homeless deaths in the past year on Berkeley's streets reached at least thirteen, one for every million dollars spent on the recent BART plaza renovation, and her grassroots outreach group held a candlelit memorial in their name May 14th on City Hall's steps. Her group took care to share their names, tell their stories, and dignify their lives.

That count just reached at least fifteen with addition of two more deaths, including that of William Barclay Caldeira, former commissioner on the Commission on Homelessness, who died May 20th, according to initial coroner's office statements, of natural causes in an ambulance on the way to a hospital. Friends including his appointer Councilmember Cheryl Davila held a memorial for him Friday, May 24th near City Hall to mourn his loss. 

Known to his friends as "300", Caldeira was an independent thinker and a steadfast council watcher who knew both the players and the game. Sitting with him at a council or commission meeting was often a riotous narration of a back story threaded with invention, comedy and invective. District 4 Councilmember Kate Harrison offered this quotation regarding 300's death; 

"William Barclay (affectionately known as 300) spoke up not just for himself but for others who were left behind by our cruel, money-centered society. His comments at Council meetings often made me sit up and think about problems in a different way. Not to mention he always bothered to learn everyone’s middle name, sometimes to the amusement and sometimes the embarrassment of the person he was addressing! We failed him and he will be missed. Our city is poorer without him." 

But Harrison, along with the rest of the city council present at the May 28th council meeting, voted to "take no action" to avoid supporting Councilmember Cheryl Davila's resolution for a moratorium on the use of the "three by three" ordinance[1] requiring homeless people to have no more than a small 3'x3' square footprint of belongings on a sidewalk. Davila pleaded with her fellow councilmembers to recognize the untenable burden the ordinance places on vulnerable people, often too disabled or ill to manage constantly having to move belongings to avoid getting tickets. "We have 58 storage units," she reminded the council, adding the city currently has just under 200 shelter beds, not enough for the approximately 1,000 people sleeping on Berkeley's streets on any given night. The council gave itself the usual pat on the back for the "millions and millions" it spends on "services" and sat on its hands. 

300 had recently lost his battle for housing, and it left him in despair. Davila and I were among the many people who checked in with him several times a week before his death bringing him food or just sitting with him awhile listening to the sound of an intelligent, articulate man whose level of stamina for Berkeley's hypocrisy was all but gone. 

Berkeley has lost at least 15 unhoused people on its streets to death in the past year under Mayor Jesse Arreguin and the current city council's watch, an administration now brimming with Measure O and P funding. And with the shining exception of Councilmember Cheryl Davila, they refused the clearest, most obvious opportunity to do something more practical than continue to harass and criminalize the poor on the street. They whispered together unselfconsciously through Councilmember Davila's cogent remarks on the need for immediate, practical help for those dying slowly in plain sight on Berkeley streets. Consider the Homeless Director Barbara Brust's critical remarks from the floor during the council's congratulatory back-slapping session about how much they do and how much they spend! earned her a threat from the mayor to have her removed from the council chambers. 

Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani came the closest to echoing Councilmember Cheryl Davila's elegant reduction of Berkeley's status quo to simple math: 1,000 homeless people on the street minus less than 200 shelter beds equals death. Kesarwani noted the 43% increase in homelessness countywide and stated that "the 1,000 person plan" others were citing as "turning the ship around" (Councilmember Sophie Hahn) was in fact "not enough."  

Unless, of course, death is just part of the plan. They're natural deaths, after all. As Berkeley has systematically converted older, low-income, rent-controlled housing to sparkling new unregulated high-end housing, the habitat for low-income people is almost completely gone. What little margin this college town used to use to help harbor people on the margins is now soaking up short-term rental money. This is the new face of compassion, according to Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and most of the Berkeley City Council gives it a bold, bald thumbs-up. 

300's last few weeks struck me as having everything in common with the burrowing owls trying gamely to survive their threatened status at the inland edge of Cesar Chavez Park among off-leash dogs, drones, and people clueless about habitat. It's not that people can't hang by their fingernails, as 300 had done for years. It's just that a growing ratio of them, at some point, can only hold on for so long. Our city's willingness to house only the wealthy has racial and cultural implications, to be sure. But for 300, unlike for all but one of the Berkeley City Council on May 28th, 2019, it seemed personal. 

300 was a graduate of Berkeley High. He was more able than most to express his thoughts, to write, to articulate his ideas. He had no difficulty recognizing the inadequacies and the indignities which seem larded into every inch of the city's current "services" presumed to be a path out of homelessness. With all due respect to the difficult job of the city staff lined up to explain how many 3x3 citations (14) have so far been issued to how many people (12) since the ordinance's enactment on April 22, 2019, William Barclay Caldeira's voice is the voice the mayor should have paid more attention to. His life and death, in this city ranked by Bloomberg News in 2014 as among the top ten in the nation in income disparity, is proof to those with common sense that our city, for all its sense of its own generosity, is doing something terribly and utterly wrong.  

My Chronicle this morning included a photo of a billboard ad at 4^th and Townsend for Elizabeth Warren exhorting us to “Break Up Big Tech”, complete with a texting address where you could add your assent to this sentiment. Unfortunately, this only adds to my conviction that Senator Warren was surely a great law professor, is an excellent senator and would be a terrific president, but she’s not the world’s most skillful politician.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve taken at least one of the courses and read at least one of the books and enough reviews of said books to convince me that anti-trust law is A Good Thing in principle. I could construct a narrative something along the lines of “anti-trust scrutiny of IBM made way for Microsoft and Microsoft’s anti-trust scrutiny made way for Google, but now Facebook seems to need some observation as an irresponsible monopoly” and so forth…but I won’t.

I could also argue the other side: that telephone service has gone to hell since the breakup of The Real AT&T (as opposed to its ineffectual namesake which is really Bell South) , and that AT&T’s monopoly position allowed Bell Labs to become a remarkable research center…but I won’t do that either.

Let’s just say that “Break Up Big Tech” is an excellent theoretical position with which I might even agree, but it’s a lousy South of Market billboard slogan. Many of those who will see it, Democratically inclined folks who work for those Big Tech companies and don’t know much about antitrust theory, might perceive it as a threat to their jobs. Many more might just wonder what it’s talking about.

If you have billboard bucks to burn, how about “Health Care for All”? Or “End Student Loan Debt”? or “Affordable Housing Now”? or “Free Child Refugees”? . “Break Up Big Tech” is not a wedge issue. 

Speaking of possible game changers, Senator Warren was one of the first Democrats to land on the impeachment bandwagon with both feet. I must confess I can’t exactly remember what her twitter said and don’t want to look it up, but it was something about no one being above the law, as I recall. 

I agree that the Mueller report supplied ample evidence of laws being broken, especially as regards obstruction of justice. Mueller’s heavy hints, backed up by his recent press conference, pointed toward impeachment as the appropriate remedy. 

Where he (and she) left me was the assumption that Justice Department policies carried constitutional weight—that the U.S. Constitution says anything about prosecuting a president. What I remember from law school many years ago is that the Constitution trumps (sorry) administrative regulations. 

What seems to be going on with Mueller and Barr is the influence of the Old Boys Network, a phenomenon not covered by antitrust law, though it should be. Mueller is an old-school upper class Republican, a classmate at the toney St. Paul’s boarding school of Senator John Kerry and other privileged notables. He appears to be reluctant to openly break with his similarly situated old friend Barr—he’s someone who’d prefer Congress to deal with the dirty laundry. 

For whatever reason, the Justice Department won’t act, so Congress has to do it. I get that. But marketing and timing are everything. Nancy Pelosi, a wizard at both, is right on this one. 

Consider an old vaudeville routine, an early prototype of Ted Talks. A guy appears on stage with a donkey, under a sign: “Teaching Donkeys to Read”. He picks up a big stick and whacks the donkey on its behind, eliciting a loud hee-haw. A lady in the first row jumps up saying, “Why did you hit that poor donkey?” 

“First you have to get their attention,” the guy explains. 

As someone who spent 16 years in Small Tech selling an arcane technology to people who had no idea why they wanted it, I can attest to the truth of that analysis. 

The voters are like that donkey. Currently, the polls do not support impeachment, so in order to win the 2020 election, first you have to get their attention. 

There’s ample ammunition in the Mueller report for shooting down Trump, but the most effective way to get the electorate engaged is through lengthy televised hearings into all the sordid particulars. Consensus among thinking people (those, i.e., who agree with me) is to open an impeachment inquiry first, only following up with the impeachment itself after the dark deeds have been illuminated , preferably close to election time. 

Remember, impeachment given the current Senate will not get rid of Trump—only the election will do that, unless he resigns. But he is no Nixon, who with all his flaws was pretty smart and might even have had a slight sense of shame, the remnants of his Quaker upbringing. Trump won’t be guilt-tripped into quitting. 

All the rest of the contenders for the Democratic nomination have nonetheless come out for impeachment—Senator Warren is no worse than the others. What she lacks in political acumen she makes up for in brains and temperament. 

She’s one of the three contenders I’ve met in a small group environment with plenty of time for questions. When she was first running for Senate I saw her in a LeConte neighborhood garden, the home of someone who’s run for City Council a couple of times but lost to more progressive-signalling candidates. Many hard questions were asked, and her answers hit them all out of the park. She’s one smart, articulate woman. 

I met Kamala Harris when she was running for Attorney General, at the home of a Claremont African-American power couple, at least one of whom was part of a very big-time national law firm. She is absolutely loaded with charm, but the attendees were on their best behavior at question time, so I couldn’t evaluate her rhetorical prowess. But she looks pretty darn good in the Senate. 

Bernie Sanders has another brand of charm—he’s the grandpa you always wish you had, though few do. You expect his pockets to be loaded with peppermints. 

I met him long ago, when he was diving for dollars. All Eastern Democrats come to the Bay Area to raise money, especially to Berkeley. I suppose he needed the money for his senate campaign, though his whole state has fewer people than San Francisco. 

Hosts at an elegant luncheon were Tom Bates and Loni Hancock—can’t remember which was Mayor and which was in the legislature at the time, since they rotated the family seats. The venue might surprise you: Chez Panisse restaurant, as I remember co-hosted by the proprietress herself. For all his populist affect, ol’ Social Democrat Bernie knows which side the baguette is buttered on. 

What will beat Trump? Brains, charm, political acumen? Where does an impeachment vote fit into the calculus? 

If I knew the answers to those questions, I’d let you know. I’m glad the primary is not until March, so I can make up my mind who and what to support. 

On the other hand, and I think I’ve said this before, I’d gladly vote for any one of the 20-something announced Democratic candidates, or, still, for my old yella’ dawg if he gets the nomination. The current president is a raving lunatic, so there’s nowhere to go but up. 

 

In the wake of the postponement of a vote on SB 50, until January 2020, there has been a flurry of articles lamenting its fate. But, I’ve yet to read one in the mainstream media that says anything negative about the bill itself. Their focus is pretty much about placing blame and shame on those who opposed it.

In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, The revenge of the suburbs: Why California’s effort to build more in single-family-home neighborhoods failed, reporter Liam Dillon concludes that the reason SB 50 failed was due to opposition from “suburban homeowners” (the new dog whistle to allege rich, white elitism). His title is eye-catching, but is without substantive facts or understanding of the underlying issues and economics (it reads as if Liam may be an aspiring screenwriter).

Am I implying that everyone opposed to SB 50 has noble motives or reasonable arguments? No. Am I saying that there aren’t people who are elitists or are just categorically against all change? No. Am I saying that there isn’t selfishness or racism in the world? Of course not. You don’t have to look too far to find xenophobes, homophobes, phobo-phobes, or worse. But, to conflate all that with middle class, suburbanites is just laughable and sophomoric.

The LA Times article conveniently avoids mentioning that SB 50 was officially opposed by numerous inner-city, community groups and the state’s two largest cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles, who have more political clout than all the suburban towns combined. The city councils and planning departments of other large cities such as Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, and San Diego, also did not endorse SB 50.[1] At the same time, it was also opposed by many small cities and counties, evidenced by the fact that the League of California Cities opposed it.

These are not minor considerations. In fact, the major support for SB 50 came from Senator Wiener’s political allies and his funders in tech, real estate and trade unions, all of whom stood to benefit, directly.

That is why SB 50 failed. It didn’t solve the problem, the majority of those in local government knew it, and it probably would have made things worse. It’s really that simple. 

Senator Wiener has lost sight of the goal that started this whole conversation decades ago: providing affordable housing for those most in need, not for those who believe that affordable housing in the most expensive locations, is somehow a constitutionally protected right – or even more selfishly that our top housing priority should be that the children of suburban parents are able to live in Marin County or San Francisco. 

Similarly, Farhad Manjoo of the NY Times wrote an opinion piece, apparently based on nothing more than Twitter-ish, soundbite hyperbole, entitled, America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals. He subtitled the piece, “The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.” He describes the streets of San Francisco as “a plague of garbage and needles and feces, and every morning brings fresh horror stories from a “Black Mirror” hellscape.” (another aspiring screenwriter?). 

In response, Susan Kirsch, founder of Livable California, and I penned the following letter to the editor of the NY Times: 

Many California cities, low-income neighborhood groups, middle class homeowners and renters, professional planners, the League of California Cities, and both the San Francisco and Los Angeles Boards of Supervisors opposed SB 50. Their conclusion: it was a blunt instrument, top-down measure that trampled on the powers of locally elected government and benefited real estate developers and institutional financial investors without solving California’s housing crisis. Worse, it likely creates even greater vulnerability of displacement for low-income residents and those most in need of affordable housing. 

Senator Scott Wiener and his YIMBY (yes in my backyard) supporters want to dismiss the general public’s reasonable concerns and are intent on labeling suburbanites NIMBYs, but the facts remain. SB 50 is an historic over-reach by state government to strip locally elected city and county government’s land use, zoning and planning powers, in violation of the California State Constitution, and hand those powers over to unelected, politically appointed state agencies.  

My bet is our letter will never see the light of day. Crafting realistic public policy solutions is hard work and filled with a myriad of inconvenient details that can’t be wished away for political convenience. 

The demise of the middle class 

According to current political fashion, traditional middle class goals about raising a family in a suburban community are now considered something to be ashamed of. Doing one’s “fair share” now goes far beyond paying taxes, giving to local charities, volunteering at schools and for sports teams, being engaged in local community affairs, or your investment in pride of ownership. In fact, we now hear single-family homeownership itself being described as “institutional racism” and considered grounds for labeling homeowners as elitist, NIMBYs and worse. Why not try some obvious solutions before we stoop to that? 

It's all "sticks and stones" as far as I'm concerned, but I find it disturbing, because this tendency to attack a messenger with a differing point of view is coming from highly-educated and very well-funded individuals and organizations. 

Social media seems to be the cesspool for the gestation of this, but mainstream media and local newspapers are no better at getting to the underlying issues and are arguably worse, because they have a substantial readership and by indolently parroting unsubstantiated assertions as fact, they give credence to false narratives about the need to end local control of land use, zoning and planning. Or perhaps, they really don’t care to look too close, because the complexity of what’s really going on won’t make a neat, sensational story about good guys and bad guys. 

Today in California, the assault on single family homeownership, small business owners, the self-employed, and just about everything that has been traditionally defined as “middle class” continues unabated. 

Wage increases are too slow to keep up if you’re in anything other than tech, law, big real estate development, or finance. Meanwhile, regressive taxation and fees continue to skyrocket (sales taxes, school bond fees, bridge tolls, business fees, parcel fees, utility fees, special district impact fees, etc.), with legislation in the works that will soon add dozens more. And let’s stop kidding ourselves. All taxes and fees assessed to housing or other property or businesses get passed on to renters and consumers. If it’s not passed on, then the condition of the housing deteriorates and the businesses close their doors. There’s no magic here. That’s how markets work. 

The plain truth is that so-called housing “solutions” such as SB 50, AB 1487 and the CASA Compact are built on increasing control from the top and regressive tax and fee schemes that hurt the working poor and small businesses the most. In fact, MTC / Wiener’s entire vision is built on regressive taxation and fees paid by those most in need of affordable housing and most vulnerable to the legislation's negative impacts. And, our own Marin County Senator, Mike McGuire, has now become one of their head cheerleaders. 

But, what if I were to tell you that the fundamental arguments against SB 50, or SB 827 that came before it, or whatever incarnation comes next, are not really about housing at all? What if I were to tell you that what the media and Senator Wiener would like to have us all believe is at best highly questionable and more likely beside the point? And that in the case of the CASA Compact, its rationale is pretty much made up out of whole cloth so that certain special interests can fatten their bottom lines or continue their rapid company growth and hiring, but lay off the costs and impacts on taxpayers. 

Knee-jerk decision-making based on sound-bite false narratives 

The SB 50 crowd keeps intentionally framing the argument as being for or against “housing,” rather than acknowledging (or even knowing?) that the basic arguments against SB 50 are not really about that. What’s at stake are the precedents that would be set by SB 50, which are actually separate from the issues surrounding housing or development. 

It’s similar to the argument currently being fought in Washington D.C., regarding the subpoena powers of Congress. It’s essentially irrelevant if it’s a subpoena for testimony or a tax return or a stained blue dress. What’s at stake are the principles regarding the respective powers and roles of the legislative branch and the executive branch of our government, not whether Deutsche Bank did or didn’t make a stupid loan or investment (something they’ve been known to do for decades). 

In California, the arguments in opposition to SB 50 and CASA are first and foremost about the respective powers and roles of locally elected city and county governments, and the state. It is those arguments that have to be addressed and settled before we can craft a housing bill that has any chance of producing a significant amount of affordable housing. In the ideologically-driven zeal of both reporters noted above and Senator Wiener and his cadre, awareness of this seems to have been lost, if it ever existed in the first place. 

Under AB 1487, for example, MTC and its CASA Compact Committee of private, self-appointed and self-anointed corporate and special interests, and political insiders are attempting to create a regional government agency, disguised as a “special district,” that can unilaterally assess fees on residents and businesses, and propose new, regressive tax measures. 

This is essentially a new, “mezzanine” form of government, manned in theory by a percentage of elected representatives, but in practice is so many steps removed from any local control or reasonable public oversight that for all intent and purposes, it’s a black box. Its opacity pretty much guarantees it becoming yet another trough from which special interests and political insiders can feast without taxpayer knowledge. 

It is simply a reincarnation of the regional development authorities that were struck down and dissolved by the California Supreme Court in 2013, for being grossly corrupt and ineffective money pits. Its powers are destined to be abused because it ignores the shortcomings of human nature and provides no checks and balances. 

Markets matter 

It’s been recently reported that the SF Bay Area has the highest construction costs in the world. At the same time the City of San Francisco now has more billionaires per capita than any other city in the world. On top of that, on average, San Francisco residents are now paid the highest salaries in the world. Could it be that all of this is somehow an impediment to building anything but luxury housing here? Don’t you think that anyone sincerely trying to understand housing in the San Francisco Bay Area would want to take these factors into consideration, before we start penalizing cities for not building housing -- which they don't actually do, anyway? 

Housing prices cannot rise unless there are people who can afford them. Perhaps this sheds some light on the demand side. Are people being left behind? Absolutely. So, then which types of fixes have worked in the past and which have not? 

This brings me back to an argument I’ve made before that cannot be emphasized enough. In an article entitled Affordable housing solutions: more government, less government, or smart government?, I wrote: 

All real public wealth is the result of the efficient utilization of private manpower and capital (the tax base), which is measured as “productivity.” The efficient utilization of capital is absolutely critical to addressing any large scale, systemic challenge such as affordable housing. And, capital is always limited. 

This is fundamentally important, but is being summarily ignored. Why? Perhaps, because our elected representatives in Sacramento don’t care and are only looking out for their own benefit, or they don’t really understand what it means, much less the implications of ignoring it? 

As a case in point, I met with Senator Mike McGuire in March of this year, at his invitation, to discuss affordable housing. As a former and current affordable housing developer, for over an hour I tried to lay out relevant facts and arguments that needed to be considered. He was very earnest and tried to act attentive, and he was highly complementary, but it was apparent he knew little about real estate, affordable housing, financing, tax credits, the related history, or government programs. Bottom line, I felt like I was talking to a middle-schooler. He was ignorant of the facts at hand and in truth, seemed disinterested in knowing too many details. He didn't ask any questions. 

I was not talking to a person capable of coming up with realistic, socially equitable, and economically and environmentally sustainable solutions that would result in significant affordable housing creation. Yet in spite of his handicap, according to news reports, "McGuire vows to push forward with” SB 50. 

The business of selling solutions versus solving problems 

The proponents of SB 50 and now AB 1487 appear willing to go to great lengths to create a narrative that fits their ends. A day after SB 50 was shelved, California YIMBY released results of a poll conducted by a Washington DC-based company they had hired, Lake Research Partners (LRP), which suggested that the bill was wildly popular among California voters. 

According to LRP, 66 percent of California voters supported SB 50, whereas only 18 percent opposed it. First off, polling only 1,200 random people is not much of a sampling and we have no idea where they lived or what their personal situation was. Secondly, the polls questions were designed to get the responses sought. 

For example, people were asked if they supported a bill that would “allow developers to build new apartments near transit and jobs if they also include affordable housing for moderate to low income workers?” Who wouldn’t endorse that? It fails to note that the affordable in lieu provisions are already the law and fails to explain the true density impacts. Or, they were asked about a bill that will “reduce car traffic and pollution by allowing more housing to be built near public transportation like trains and buses.” Sounds nice doesn’t it? Too bad there’s no funding to improve our lousy public transit system. Or, how about to “allow communities to protect themselves against gentrification,” even though SB 50 does no such thing? 

The way they “explained” SB 50 it sounded like a community protection act, not the developer giveaway it really was. So, of course, if you define SB 50 that way, everyone will say yes. But, that has nothing to do with what it would actually do in each community, urban or suburban – which is why the City of San Francisco opposed it. 

I have some questions I'd like them to ask. How about... 

If you worked really hard and saved till it hurt to afford to be able to move your family into a single-family home with a small yard, in a quite neighborhood, and you fixed it up and did it within all the onerous restrictions on height and setbacks and parking and so on, and then someone comes along and builds a 4 story fourplex on the lot next door, and the tenants have 8 cars that ended up parked all over the street in front of your house (because unlike you, they have no parking requirements), and their windows look down into your once private backyard, would you vote for that? 

Or... 

If you have to commute to work in San Francisco from Hayward, but drive to the BART parking lot near the station, because you live a mile away and have to carry a lot of stuff to work. But, then BART cuts a deal with a developer to make extra cash to cover their unfunded pension liabilities, and they eliminate the parking lot to build an 8 story building, are you good with that? 

Just wondering how those results might change. 

If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth 

It’s ironic that here in our one party state, the very same people who probably (rightfully and understandably) loathe the Trump Administration’s complete disregard for democratic norms and principles and its attempts to rule by top down edicts, seem to have no problem whatsoever, when those same tactics and lack of principles are employed to accomplish their own personal agenda and political policy goals. 

How is it that the Wiener / YIMBY / Governor Newsom crowd cannot comprehend that the majority of those arguing against legislation like SB 50, AB 1487, and a slew of other bills in the works, are pushing back to preserve the powers vested in their own elected representatives, the powers SB 50 wanted to hand over to unelected, politically appointed agencies and self-appointed “stakeholder” cabals like CASA. 

When President Trump calls his opponents slanderous things and gives them insulting nicknames, he's called a sociopath, a narcissist, and a man-child. But when progressives call people racists, NIMBYs, elitists or whatever, they claim they're noble and fighting for a just cause. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you’re just "good people on both sides" or you're pretty much the same, right? And, I’m pretty sure I'm right about Trump being both those things. 

Meanwhile, we continue to waste real opportunities to pass legislation that might actually have a positive impact on the development of affordable housing by tapping the power of private capital markets. 

Wouldn’t it be better to advance programs that are based on economic realities rather than wishful thinking? 

[1] Mayors of some of these cities supported SB50 but not with their city council’s or planning department’s support. 

Bob Silvestri is a Mill Valley resident and the founder and president of Community Venture Partners, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization funded only by individuals in Marin and the San Francisco Bay Area. 

When did California politics lose its common sense? first appeared in the Marin Post.

How Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan are funding a shadow government that’s shaping California and Bay Area housing policy

On January 24, 2019, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the limited liability company founded by Dr. Priscilla Chan and her husband, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and funded by a lifetime pledge of 99 percent of his Facebook shares (he’s given $3 billion so far), announced that CZI had helped to launch the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, “a new kind of public-private housing partnership….aimed at helping to solve the interconnected challenges of housing, transportation, and economic opportunity.” The website of the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative promotes charitable giving, although it’s really not a charity.

Joined by the Ford Foundation, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, other big philanthropies, and Facebook itself, the Partnership had already raised $280 million, with plans to assemble a total of $500 million over the next five years.

According to one account, the Partnership for the Bay’s Future “grew out of CZI’s interest in housing and an initial funding commitment” of $50 million. Ten of those millions will go to a “Policy Fund” led by the San Francisco Foundation that, the Partnership website says, will be disbursed to counties, cities, and community groups in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties to “protect families and individuals burdened by high rents…, preserve and produce affordable housing” and “enable more Bay Area residents to remain in their communities.”

Lost in the buzz of acclaim that greeted the Partnership’s founding was the fact that CZI had already donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to nonprofit organizations that have used their grants to shape public housing policy for the Bay Area. Those donations are not secret; they’re listed on the CZI website; and the foundation’s broader interest in housing policy has been noted in the media.

What hasn’t been reported:

Some of CZI’s biggest grantees are promoting policies that, stated intentions notwithstanding, will inflate land values, boost rents, and force many of the Bay Area’s most vulnerable residents out of their homes, while instituting and reinforcing undemocratic forms of governance that benefit Big Tech and Big Property Capital.

These CZI grantees often collaborate. They have clout in Sacramento, manifest in bills such as SB 50 (Wiener), SB 330 (Skinner)—both endorsed by Facebook—and AB 1487 (Chiu), endorsed by CZI, and their contractual and informal relationships with state agencies.

Public records we have obtained show that this shadow government is being facilitated by CASA (the Committee to House the Bay Area), the secretive, ad hoc entity that officially operated under the auspices of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission from June 2017 to December 2018, and whose members continue to lobby Sacramento, in at least one case with public funding from MTC. 

[Read the rest of the story on 48hills. com]

To the tune of "Oh, Suzanna"

oh, I come from Alabama to develop People's Park

and from what I've heard the chancellor say it's going to be a lark

well they brought me here to monetize these priceless public lands

and privatize your landmarks while your mayor sits on his hands



Chorus: oh, Suzanna, oh don't you cry for me

I'll be out of here as soon as I destroy your history

 

oh, the public-private partnership we use it to disguise 

a move which otherwise is known as pri-va-tize 

public resources belong you as people would agree 

but a little hocus-pocus and they all belong to me 

 

Chorus: oh, Suzanna, oh don't you cry for me 

I'll be out of here as soon as I destroy your history 

 

if the campus wants to save some dough I think it's pretty plain 

just quit playing football cause it messes up your brain 

try some chess or checkers let the students make the call 

they can really save some money unless they pick volleyball 

 

Chorus: oh, Suzanna, oh don't you cry for me 

I'll be out of here as soon as I destroy your history 

 

in 1967 there were houses on that block 

which they bulldozed and then walked away- the neighbors were in shock 

so the people built a garden so that everyone could share 

but the chancellor says development has got to start right there 

 

Chorus: oh, Suzanna, oh don't you cry for me 

I'll be out of here as soon as I destroy your history 

 

I'm an out of town developer and I am not to blame 

it's the chancellor and the regents setting up this dirty game 

since UC makes nuclear weapons it's embarrassing for sure 

to have People's Park - a symbol of resistance against war

The US and much of world is sinking into what the Hindus call Kali Yuga, the period when the “World Soul” is Black in hue; only one quarter of virtue remains, which slowly dwindles to zero at the end of the Kali Yuga. People turn to wickedness; disease, lethargy, anger, natural calamities, anguish and fear of scarcity dominate. The Trump administration is a good example of Kali Yuga.

They continue to dishonor the basic tenets of Christianity by punishing “good Christians” who are helping the poor. The Good Book is replete with aphorisms of helping the poor yet the US border patrol has declared war on those who provide humanitarian aid to migrants. 

Scott Warren, an activist with the Tucson-based “No More Deaths”, is being charged with allegedly “harboring” undocumented immigrants. His crime - providing water, food and clean clothes to two undocumented migrants crossing the Sonoran Desert in southern Arizona. If convicted Scott Warren could spend 20 years in prison. 

For years volunteers with, “No More Deaths” and other aid groups have left water and food tin the Sonoran Desert to assist migrants survive the blistering heat. 

Recently, the anti-Christ U.S. Border Patrol agents intentionally destroyed more than 3,000 gallons of water left out for migrants crossing the border. “No More Deaths” published a video showing border agents dumping out jugs of water in the desert. I urge readers to tweet @POTUS and his avowed Christian Vice-President, Mike Pence (@mike_pence) and demand US Border Patrol halt their inhumane activities.

Zoos allow human beings to keep species alive that have become extinct or nearly extinct in shrinking and disappearing habitats in the wild, and where many of them are also subject to poaching.\ 

Zoos allow ordinary, non-wealthy families to get a look at creatures other than human, which (or whom) they would never otherwise see, hear and smell. Not everyone can afford the expense or the time off from work to go to South America, Africa, or other places. Many of us who occasionally visit zoos could never conceive, or financially afford to travel.  

Modern zoos have mostly improved compared to the not so distant past in how animals are treated, and in what their environments and living conditions are. 

In the 1980's, I visited the San Francisco zoo and saw that a lion was caged in a small enclosure and was quite agitated. Yet, in the 2000's, I visited the replacement zoo, and it was vastly better.  

Additionally, creatures able to live in the wild are better off if they are not bothered or harassed by human spectators.

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! 

Learning to have a better quality of consciousness is a great aspiration. Doing this adds to the collective level of consciousness on our planet and contributes toward the possible survival of life on Earth. If we lacked mindfulness on our planet, and if we lacked other disciplines to improve the mind, such as psychology, people would be stuck in primitive, archaic and violent patterns, even more so than we are now, and we would not have made it this far without destroying ourselves. 

When embarking on the pursuit of meditation, environment makes a massive difference. People can not pursue meditation when there is an onslaught of aggression toward them. When people are excessively in one's face, when they won't allow a person to have somewhat of a peaceful environment, when they are manipulative, deceitful and sabotaging, it is extremely difficult to attempt mindfulness. 

Zen temples, and other places of meditation and/or spiritual practices, are meant to be peaceful places. Being in a peaceful place is good for you. If you are a soldier, you can't follow the ethic of non-killing. If you are incarcerated, fellow internees will force you to defend yourself. 

In some contexts, meditation practices simply won't help you. In other situations, meditation isn't practicable because people won't let you exist in peace. 

Tibet has been under Chinese occupation for numerous decades. According to a simple web search, more than a million Tibetans have been killed. The Dalai Lama is from Tibet and is an amazing leader of Tibetan Buddhists. He exiled himself from Tibet a very long time ago and can't go back. China has committed atrocities against meditation practitioners and others. Mindfulness, at least on the physical plane, doesn't fix that. 

Evil people, evil corporations and evil governments would like it if no one was permitted to live in peace and raise their consciousness. They feel a need to dominate everyone. When under such rulers, you can't meditate. 

On the other hand, mindfulness is collectively, absolutely needed if the human species is to survive the next few centuries. 

Albert Einstein was a "militant pacifist" until it became apparent that the Nazis were trying to develop an atomic bomb. Apparently, when he discovered Relativity, he had no concept that a bomb could be made with Uranium, with the physics that he had discovered in his mind. He contacted the President, and the Manhattan Project followed. 

Peaceful people have not found a good way to fend off predatory people. Predatory people aren't interested in helping anyone but themselves, and we don't have a good way of changing them. 

The human species is in a difficult predicament because of our human nature, because of advances in technology, and because human consciousness hasn't evolved enough to allow peaceful coexistence. Mindfulness will be an essential part of the solution. There are, however, some very big missing pieces to any possible solutions to the multiple threats to our continued survival. 

Any ideas? 

---

Jack Bragen is author of "An Offering of Power: Valuable, Unusual Meditation Methods."  

Just when we think that Donald Trump's behavior cannot become more bizarre, it does. On May 22, congressional leaders went to the White House, ostensibly to discuss a plan to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure; Trump walked out of the meeting, after throwing a temper tantrum -- saying he would not work with Congressional Democrats until they called off all investigations into his (alleged) high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats aren't going to call off these investigations and Trump isn't going to work with Congress. So where does this leave us? On the road to armageddon.

The Federal Debt Limit expired on March 1st and, at the moment, the Treasury Department is using accounting gimmicks to pay the nation's bills. Experts say that this will only work until sometime in September-October. What will happen then?

Forbes Magazine (https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/04/25/the-u-s-debt-ceiling-expired-on-march-1-and-nobody-cared-but-they-will/#57842bff6b3f ) explains: "When the [debt] limit is reached, the U.S. Treasury can’t borrow any more... severely impacting the real economy for fear the government would default on our debt.... Interest rates, already one of the fastest rising costs in the federal budget, will rise as the political crisis builds, because foreign borrowers will demand an additional risk premium. And rising interest rates will impact U.S. Treasuries, mortgages, credit cards, car loans, student debt, and corporate debt. If workers, households, students, and corporations can’t pay their bills because of the interest rate shocks, the economy could go into recession."

Judging by his increasingly erratic behavior, it's likely that Trump will hold the nation hostage over the Federal Debt Limit -- and the appropriations bill to keep government running (which comes due October 1st). Trump will issue an ultimatum, "Call off the investigations or I won't sign these bills." Even though his intransigence will be opposed by all congressional Democrats and most Republicans, Trump will refuse to compromise. In the process he will drag the United States over a financial cliff. 

Of course, the House Democrats could head off this turmoil by dropping all Trump-related investigations. But they are not going to do that because the Mueller Report concludes: (a) Trump committed crimes by obstructing justice and (b) the Russian government continues to meddle in our political affairs. Writing in the New York Review of Books (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/05/23/robert-mueller-report-trump-indictment/ ) David Cole (ACLU National Legal Director) observes: "The [Mueller] report dispassionately lays out the facts, which are an indictment in all but name." 

On May 29th, Robert Mueller made a brief public statement where he again noted: " If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so [in our report]." Mueller repeated that he and his associates did not indict Trump because such an action was against Department of Justice policy. 

Over the next three months, the Democrats will continue their Trump investigations. Given the unprecedented Trump Administration obstruction, the House is likely to instigate a formal impeachment inquiry -- which would strengthen its legal case to obtain key documents and testimony. 

Over the summer, the White House will likely initiate no new policy proposals or legislative action. Instead the Administration will continually rail against the investigations, call them "witch hunts." And, Trump will take trips: Next week Trump will go to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France for D-day memorial ceremonies. At the end of June, Trump will travel to Japan for the G20 Summit -- which will give him a chance to confer with his buddy, Vladimir Putin. In August, Trump will go to France for the G7 Summit. (In between, Trump will go to campaign rallies and play golf.) 

During this same period the House of Representatives will be hard at work. (Except, possibly, for the month of August, when it is scheduled to be in recess. Given the current circumstances, plus the desire of Democrats to prove that they can walk and chew gum at the same time -- investigate Trump (and the Russians) and also generate meaningful legislation -- it's likely that the House will stay in session during August.) 

In the past, faced with an extreme conflict, Trump has usually backed down. However, last December 22nd Trump didn't back down on his request for border-wall funding, he initiated a 35-day (partial) government shutdown -- the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Given this recent history, and Trump's desperation-fueled erratic behavior, there's no reason to believe that he will back down in September if faced with a combination debt-limit and appropriations conflict. 

We're headed for armageddon and Donald Trump doesn't care. Trump is focussed on protecting himself, not the United States. 

---