She was a muck-raking investigative reporter, a cab driver, a U. S. Senate press aide, a merchant seaman, and a mother of four who served on Berkeley's Waterfront Commission as well as two terms on the Berkeley City Council. She was briefly hospitalized, and died surrounded by family on June 7th, 2019 after a few years of declining health. She leaves a legacy of extraordinary work both as a journalist and as a Berkeley councilmember dedicated to serving District 5's neighborhoods.

Diane Woolley Bauer's father was a writer with MGM in Los Angeles, where she was born, but had been a commander in the British Royal Navy who served in World War I. He was called back for World War II and stationed in Jamaica, where Diane spent a portion of her young life. After the war the family moved to Washington D.C. where during her college years Diane took a two-week job as a vacation replacement for what was then called a copy girl at the Washington Post and her career as an investigative reporter began.

She became the youngest reporter in Washington D.C. Then-owner of the Post, Eugene Meyer, set aside the rule requiring that reporters have a college degree to put Bauer in charge of what is now called the Style section of the Post covering "politicians, diplomats and debutantes", as she put it, doing the layout and writing an advice column for college girls under her picture and byline. It should go without saying that women were an uncommon part of such workplaces.

She continued to work part-time as a young wife and mother writing ad copy, serving as a U.S. Senate press aide and a campaign director, but excelled as a self-taught journalist. She is credited for doubling the Washington Daily News' Maryland circulation with her hard-driving public interest stories, often scooping the full-timer reporters at the Washington Post and Evening Star. When the Daily News folded into the Evening Star she was one of the few reporters who were kept on. She wrote, investigated, and consulted for public interest research and law firms working special assignments for Newsweek, CBS television, panels, and documentaries such as ABC's "The Paper Prison" specializing in courts, police and prisons, juvenile detention, privacy and records-keeping, and medical ethics. One of her pieces on juvenile offenders' treatment provoked a letter from J. Edgar Hoover defending the FBI's procedures; she kept the letter.

Her work was so thorough it is cited in several books on civil liberties, behavior modification, privacy, and bioethics as well as some Supreme Court cases. Her writing is credited for playing a role in highlighting atrocities and instituting reforms at Maryland's infamous Patuxent Institution where she revealed an expensive behavior modification scandal. Author Nat Hentoff wrote a story about her tireless investigative journalism, including the illumination of "a hitherto hidden plan...to form a secret intelligence unit to combat organized crime" which her writing revealed arranged to violate, among other things, privacy laws. The unit had to be scrapped.

Diane Woolley Bauer left an indelible mark on her North Berkeley neighbors who knew her tirelessness in tracking down and fixing neighborhood problems:

"When huge gasoline tanker trucks rumbled unnecessary blocks through our neighborhood, Ms. Bauer, a grandmother, left her home late at night to follow them to their destinations, interviewed the drivers as to route problems, went to the city traffic engineering department to research, and advised and them cajoled public officials until the matter was cured." - Kiran Singh, President, King-Grove Neighborhood Association.

Singh, in a letter recommending Diane receive the Outstanding Berkeley Woman award, cites Diane as having organized a drive collecting over 500 signatures to win a change in bus routing, alerting the neighborhood to a chemical spill, spending hours helping a disoriented senior, and reorganizing the park sprinkler schedule so children at play wouldn't get wet. She took that sense of civic engagement to the City Council for two terms under the slogan "Results, Not Rhetoric", where she at times confounded both factions with her independence. She was unfailingly dignified and thorough in requests for clarification from the city manager or the city attorney even if the rest of the council was impatient to move along. Her remarks were eloquent, concise, and touched with a writer's wit. She created a newsletter just for her neighborhood called "The Neighborhood" with news specific to her district promoting benefits, connecting neighbors, and highlighting issues.

"She was the true independent on the Council," said LA Wood, whose work with Carolyn Erbele documenting two notorious groundwater contamination scandals earned Diane's admiration and in some cases her vote. "She would listen. She had respect for the public."

Most people only leave the Berkeley City Council when they're voted out of office, or are about to be booted. But Diane Woolley-Bauer resigned after two terms, something almost unheard of. Her letter of resignation in July of 2000 is full of kindness, thanks for the education on "the perplexities and complexities of city government", and ends with a comic "P.S. When you have a chance, ask the next Council to increase the budget for fixing the sewers."

She is survived by her siblings Marion Mattingly and Herbert Woolley, former husband Robert Moore, her four children; Marion "George" Moore, Kathleen Romero, William Bauer, and Mona Bauer, and her grandson Alejandro Romero. Memorial plans are pending. Contact: DWoolleyInMemorium@gmail.com

During my decade or two wandering in the wilderness, when I did both intellectual property law and marketing for the family high tech business, I went to a lot of trade shows and conferences. There I quickly learned that if I wanted to have an interesting and/or intelligent conversation with one of my fellow attendees, I should find an African-American or a woman to talk to.

Why was that? Because in those days (1980s-90s) if you were a member of a racial or gender minority you needed to be twice as qualified to get a job in big business, especially in tech. In our tiny software company, the path for some of us women was smoothed by family ties and our commitment to equal opportunity, but the big corporations we met in the marketplace had formidable barriers to entry for those who were not White men.

In a few cases, some of them (notably AT&T and IBM) had been compelled by various forms of government action to hire a few individuals from protected classes. Inevitably, kicking and screaming all the way, they hired the best and the brightest from such classes.

I was reminded of that experience as I watched the last two nights of what were called debates, but were actually, if you will, political versions of a county fair, a place where the Democrats could showcase and compare the products they might be offering to the electorate in November of 2020. It was apparent to me that here, as in my business experience, the women and the people of color were head and shoulders above the chorus, because they had to be in order to get on the stage at all. 

Reading the contributions for today from our regulars and our readers, and also checking online for the usual Very Serious People, a lot of them agree with me. The aspirants had a variety of virtues, but some looked better than others, and the best were either women or people of color. 

But first, let’s stipulate that Bernie Sanders richly deserves an honorable mention. He has performed an invaluable public service over the years, and especially recently, for articulating at top volume the Marxish economic ideas which have been talked about in the more daring academic circles for a good while now. He gets high marks for audacity, somewhat lower for empathy.  

He’s the professor many wish they’d had, the grandfather who has answers to all your questions. But sadly, he’s just a bit past his pull date, and seems a bit shopworn. 

He’s been the insider’s outsider in DC for too long but is short of experience in making things work. He (like me) is, frankly, too old for 8 more years of the presidency. Some of my most beloved friends are Old White Guys, but we just don’t need another one for president at this time—the current model has given the brand a bad name. 

Red ribbons for second place go to Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. They have very different personal styles, but both exhibit a winning combination of brains and passion.  

Booker, who comes from a comfortable IBM family, has a CV which features Stanford, Oxford and Yale Law, but he deliberately chose to settle in gritty Newark, among the people he chose to serve. He’s eloquent when he talks about them. 

Kamala Harris is also eloquent, but in an entirely different way. She’s a sharp prosecutor in the Perry Mason style, not inappropriate in a political situation where lies are the common discourse. She showed her empathetic side when she used her experience as a Berkeley schoolgirl, a contemporary of my BUSD-educated daughters, to challenge Joe Biden about his embarrassing recollections that he got along with ardent segregationists and opposed federally mandated busing for integration. 

Both of them looked very good on stage this week, but neither appears to have enough relevant experience to assume the presidency, or at least the office as it used to be before being trashed by the incumbent. Both deserve the second-place ribbon, and either would make a terrific candidate for vice -president.  

Julian Castro was also impressive, great for a cabinet slot. In fact, I'd cheerfully vote for any of them myself, against Trump. 

The blue ribbon, in my opinion, goes to Elizabeth Warren. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who’s seen the fading bumper sticker on my 2012 Prius: “I belong to the Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party”. It’s been there since I met her in Ces Rosales’ backyard in the LeConte neighborhood, sometime after 2012. I was there with my mother, whose 90s were informed by a lot of CSpan broadcasts of the Senate which made her a major Warren fan. After hearing Warren’s off-the-cuff dialogue with a typically demanding Berkeley audience, I became a fan too. Nothing I’ve seen since has changed my mind. 

An academic friend, well-known as a feminist, told me ruefully that after the 2016 election she’d never again vote for a woman—just too risky politically. But I think she’s wrong. It’s not as if Hillary Clinton didn’t win the 2016 election, it’s just that she and whoever was advising her missed the electoral college piece all together. That can be fixed—I’m sure Warren has a plan. 

Warren is a much better candidate than Clinton. She’s got both an excellent mind and the common touch, and is a vigorous, persuasive speaker. 

Unlike Clinton, she’s had real on-the-ground working class experience and has earned all the honors she’s attained on her own. Unlike, for example, Bernie Sanders, she has not only goals but, yes, detailed plans for exactly how she’ll meet those goals. After two terms, she’ll just be as old as he is right now. 

I also heard this morning from an African-American friend, a longtime Democratic Party activist in the Midwest, who was concerned about the possible consequences of Kamala Harris’s takedown of Joe Biden. She’s one of those older Black women currently beloved of the electoral strategists who have finally noticed their crucial role in turning out votes in their communities. She remembers Biden’s somewhat dubious early record, but also remembers that later he accomplished a lot for civil rights. Living in the Midwest, she thinks he might appeal more to her White neighbors. 

She has a point, but the fact that Biden has spent his whole life in politics could turn out to be more of a liability than an asset. He's had time to make a lot of mistakes that we haven’t heard about yet. Warren, on the other hand, had a real life before entering the political game, so that even though she’s older than some candidates, she’s a fresh face.  

I went to a couple of debate watching parties this week in Santa Cruz, and it looks like at least activists are ready to rumble. The first one, which was sponsored on behalf of Elizabeth Warren in someone's home, had about 40 people, some of them Sierra Clubbers and the rest assorted strangers attracted by public postings. Most of them were officially uncommitted. To a person, they cheered whenever Warren spoke, but they were pretty enthusiastic about Castro and Booker too. Women predominated perhaps 3 to 1. 

The second night, sponsored by the Bernie crowd, who were wearing his face on their tee shirts, was in a pizza and beer joint. There men were in the majority. These people seemed pretty set in their choice, but then again Warren wasn't on the screen. My question would be whether they represent a political movement, transferable to another candidate with approximately similar ideas, or if they're a cult of personality centered around Sanders.  

Some might say that we should wait a while and hear all the “debates” before choosing a horse for this race. I usually deplore endless campaigns, but circumstances have changed.  

The incumbent is of course beyond appalling, and the whole field of Democratic aspirants looks pretty darn good. The unselected ones should go home and run for the Senate and the House and statewide offices, and the rest of the county should get behind Warren and, e.g., Booker, and throw the rascals out. As the oldy but goody slogan has it, it's time for a change.

I am personally outraged that the San Francisco School Board has voted to destroy the Victor Arnautoff mural in George Washington High School which shows deplorable acts in the first president's life, including holding slaves and fighting against Native Americans. Clearly the school board members didn't understand that hiding history will not erase it. San Franciscans should not entrust the education of their children to such ignorant and ill-informed politicians. The full details are in this New York Times op-ed by Bari Weiss:San Francisco Will Spend $600,000 to Erase History

If you want to let them know what you think, here are their email addresses: 

San Francisco School Board Members

Mr. Stevon Cook, President
Email: StevonCook@sfusd.edu 

Mr. Mark Sanchez, Vice President
Email: MarkSanchez@sfusd.edu 

Ms. Alison M. Collins, Commissioner
Email: AlisonMCollins@sfusd.edu 

Ms. Jenny Lam, Commissioner
Email: JennyLam@sfusd.edu 

Ms. Gabriela López, Commissioner
Email: GabrielaLopez@sfusd.edu 

Mr. Faauuga Moliga, Commissioner
Email: FaauugaMoliga@sfusd.edu 

Ms. Rachel Norton, Commissioner
Email: RachelNorton@sfusd.edu 

Staff

A twin birth in China last October raised ominous questions. The baby girls had been genetically edited as embryos, with the untested methods providing no confidence in healthy outcomes. The subsequent fallout has been confusing: a blue-ribbon group of scientists and ethicists sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in late April recommending a moratorium, following a similar call in the scientific journal Nature. In both cases, the door was left open to clinical use if and when relevant stakeholders are satisfied it should proceed. And if the federal government won’t fund it, the tax-payer supported California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) could.

When the relevant science (developmental biology) is considered, however, it becomes evident that embryo modification cannot proceed safely. Time-buying measures such as moratoria are simply strategies to deny this reality and enable its eventual implementation. But the question of whether embryos can be safely engineered has long been settled: they cannot. This is clear from experiments on animal embryos, where altered genes are seen to behave in unpredicted ways, and in human population studies, where genetic mutations that had been found to cause disease in some individuals or groups turned out to be perfectly harmless in others. 

There are two kinds of genetic engineering of animals such as humans: somatic and embryonic. Somatic modification is modular, meaning it affects limited tissues or organs in an existing person who is ill. We take no issue with somatic modification provided it is carefully monitored as to medical need and conflicting commercial interests. With existing methods of embryo engineering, however, changes made, including mistakes, will be passed on to future generations via the reproductive cells or germline. In fact, every cell in the body of the new individual is affected, making that person something different from what they would have been without the intervention. By this measure, the engineered person is less a patient and more an experimental organism, not being treated by a medical doctor, but being designed by a scientist. 

Entrepreneurial scientists have eased the way to acceptance of embryonic editing by downplaying technical problems and by vague reassurances that they will not go too far, too fast. Yet they never explain what they mean by this. Members of the U.S. scientific and bioentrepreneurial community, including several at Stanford and UC Berkeley, knew about the work of their colleague in China but said nothing publicly, willing to have human embryo research move forward to the extent permitted here and elsewhere. A temporary moratorium on embryo engineering for full-term birth won’t stop laboratory research in this field. In the absence of a true ban any technical advance will be used to promote public acceptance of what is in essence a form of human experimentation. 

Other unsettling questions either minimized or ignored by industry-led discussion relate to health hazards to the producers of the raw materials required by these technologies. These are young egg providers, or as we might know them, our daughters, nieces and granddaughters. The long-term reproductive health of young women who undergo egg harvesting for this research is poorly understood. Nor is it clear that egg “donors” are given adequate information to know how their eggs will be used. 

Whatever line existed between academic research and commerce has worn thin. Researchers at universities and institutes who were once relatively shielded from business interests now sit on the boards of and own shares in biotech companies that are major sources of scientific funding and infrastructure. Scientists who overstep cultural norms or federal restriction rarely suffer consequences beyond the loss of their federal funding. In the U.S. private corporations and state agencies like CIRM can define their own acceptable practices regarding egg procurement and embryo engineering. Thus, how these entities define too far, too fast, is completely subjective -- a recipe for human disaster. 

There is no limit to the present and future havoc an overly enthusiastic researcher might wreak. The scientist who bioengineered the babies in China may have affected their intelligence or shortened their lives in the process of attempting to prevent HIV. Another geneticist may next decide to do this on purpose or make other errors. The faster science and technology progress, the greater the potential for misuse. 

We must ban, not simply pause embryonic gene editing before someone decides to forge the very biological nature of future generations, threatening their health and hijacking their identities before they are even born. 

**************************************************************************************************  

The writers are, respectively, Stuart Newman Ph.D, professor at New York Medical College, Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, and Tina Stevens Ph.D, lecturer emerita at San Francisco State University, Department of History. They are the authors of Biotech Juggernaut: Hope, Hype and Hidden Agendas of Entrepreneurial Bioscience (Routledge). ___________________________________

President Trump, the GOP members of Congress, and the business community claimed that the 2117 tax law, which substantially reduces corporate taxes, would create jobs and increase wages. Instead, jobs have been cut and shipped to low wage countries. Nevertheless, large sectors of the business community continue to insist that it is committed to increasing jobs or at least not making substantial cuts. So let's take a look at the brief employment record of some of the nation's large corporations.

Take for example AT&T's public announcement that it was providing a "special bonus" to over 200,000 workers. That's great publicity for the company. Isn't it? However, that "bonus" was actually severance pay to several hundred thousand workers who were being laid off since the Trump corporate tax law was enacted. 

Comcast too promised a bonus because it received $12 billion in tax cuts in one year from Trump's substantial reduction in corporate taxes. Yet the $1,000 bonus the company promised each worker in a press release was really severance paid to laid off workers. Sometimes, silence is preferred. As one article mentioned, Comcast also quietly fired over 500 sales employees right before Christmas. 

McDonald's is also among the companies that laid off thousands of workers. But the company's president announced that it was only "eliminating layers", which does not sound as severe. 

The profitable Bank of America has laid off tens of thousands of workers. Why? According to the CEO's absurd justification, "downsizing is all about protecting the bank from future losses". Yet the Bank has been earning very high profits. In the first quarter of this year it earned $7.3 billion. 

Typical of many businesses that lay off workers, Hewlett-Packard prefers to call it "restructuring". The recent plan of the company to " restructure" includes laying off by the end of this year 5000 workers. 

< Another company, the Carrier Corporation, received considerable publicity by announcing that in response to the corporate tax break the company would retain a few hundred jobs that it had intended to eliminate. However, just one year later, when the advantage of its PR campaign died down, Carrier shipped these jobs to Mexico. 

If corporate sales declined precipitously, it is understandable to many members of the public that retrenchment may be necessary. But many of these companies that are laying off workers are very profitable. Moreover, their thirst for profits is insatiable. So in the aggregate corporate America has shipped to low wage countries about 14 million jobs. 

Those of us who want to understand the trends in the American labor force should not expect the business community to provide you with the right and honest answers.

Beyond rhetorical zingers, there is a critical need for thoughtful, compassionate, courageous, honest, responsible leaders to regain the cockpit and reverse our country's descent into an abyss of disrespect, irrationality, incompetence, and corruption. Many candidates have the good will to do so. A few have well-thought plans for doing so. Some have the experience of actually getting positive changes done in Washington. Some have a life history that commits their soul to improving a middle-class economy for working people. Some have the fire to burn Donald trump. All candidates have some of these qualifications. Elizabeth Warren has all of them. 

She is real. She is qualified. And, she is natural enough to crack a smile while discussing important issues. She'll listen to you and then say something resonant from her own life. We need Warren to disinfect our government from the rotten stench of liars, cheaters, criminals, traitors and thieves.

I worked at the Clark Kerr campus for a couple years, and I take my dogs walking above the campus. I long ago noticed that there are numerous streets in the neighborhood north of Ashby, west of the Kerr campus, between Warring and College, that have prominent NO OUTLET signs on streets that have outlets. You make a few turns because of the barriers Berkeley put in in the 1970s, but you can get to College from Piedmont, Warring or Derby if you disregard the signs.  

Drive along Piedmont or College and check out these streets; Parker and Warring, Derby and Warring, Steuart and College, Derby and College,. They all have NO OUTLET signs. The only truly NO OUTLET block I found was Etna street, and I did only a cursory drive through. 

I contacted Elmwood/Claremont neighborhood Association and got no reply and sent this public records request to public works: 

This email is a public records request regarding any and all documents pertaining to NO OUTLET signs on streets in the Elmwood neighborhood, north of Ashby, east of College and west of Clark Kerr campus. Including but not limited to; Parker and Warring, Derby and Warring, Stuart and College, Derby and College.

All these streets are through roads but all of them have NO OUTLET signs. I am prepared to pay any fees accrued and pick up hard copy of these documents when produced. 

I heard back from City spokesperson Matthai Chakko who said his staff is looking into it. I told him I would go ahead with this editorial.  

So my question is, are these just a relic of the 1970s closure of streets in the Ashby corridor, signs no longer needed but neglected by the city, or are they a sign of city sanctioned protection of wealthy homeowners privilege? Do rich neighborhoods have the political clout to deceive drivers stuck in traffic? Does their entitlement allow them to surreptitiously divert traffic onto other folks streets? I am tempted to get a cutting torch and cut down every one of these signs, but then I’d have to deal with messy criminal charges and lawyers and all that. 

I get it, nobody likes traffic on their street. I don’t like traffic on my street. I live on 58th Street in north Oakland near the highway 24 off ramps. Two blocks south and one block north of mine are truck restricted.. My street has become a designated truck route with traffic apps describing it as such. For the last few years, we’ve had semis, containers and every other monster truck on our street. It sucks. But we all need to share the burden. So, Berkeley, it’s your call.

No one can watch the video of a dead asylum seeker lying face down with his 23-month-old daughter on the bank of the Rio Grande and not be outraged. President Trump is the architect of this grotesque crisis. He has demonized and created fear of those seeking asylum as “caravans of rapist and criminals” hardening attitudes and using Gestapo tactics to discourage new migrants. 

Many have walked thousands of miles to escape violence desperately seeking asylum to the “promised land”. Many have failed to reach the border and have perished in the unrelenting desert heat. Forgotten is America’s tradition as a welcoming nation. Children regardless of age are brutally separated from their parents and tossed into Trump’s concentration camps without basic necessities like soap, tooth brushes and diapers. They are given “noisy” metal blankets and concrete floors as bedding. 

The young children are inconsolable begging to be reunited with their parents. Their parents are devastated by the forcible separation. It is hard to imagine a more bizarre scheme to torture young children and their parents. Older children are expected to comfort babies and younger children. The stench of urine and feces is overwhelming. This heartless attitude is a deliberate scheme to torment migrants in the callous belief that this will deter others from trying to reach America. 

This a crisis of American values that cannot go unchallenged. I urge readers to contact their representatives and demand action. Children MUST be reunited with their parents and provided basic hygiene.

Laws such as AB 1487 and SB 330 and SB 592 intend to give unprecedented powers to regional agencies and unelected (read that as “politically appointed”) groups to levy fees and taxes to fund their own growth and housing priorities, and override local control of zoning and planning.

AB 1487, for example, proposes to create a unique "regional" government entity, using existing 'special districts' laws in a new way. As explained by Marin Post Contributor Sharon Rushton,

“The stated purpose of AB-1487 is to "establish the 'Housing Alliance for the Bay Area' in order to increase affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay Area by providing enhanced funding and technical assistance for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, and new affordable housing production." The bill authorizes the creation of a bay area regional housing finance agency. The agency would have the authority to impose region-wide special taxes (including parcel taxes, business taxes, and transactions and use tax), issue bonds, incur and issue debt, buy and sell land, and allocate funds, among other powers.

“It is unclear how many of the measures that generate revenues would require voter approval pursuant to the California Constitution. Proponents of the bill hope to raise $1.5 billion annually.”

Since our state legislators began to move forward in earnest with an almost endless variety of these “housing crisis” remedy bills such as SB 828, SB 50, AB 1487, SB 330, and others, Community Venture Partners been questioning the constitutionality of their efforts to wrest control of zoning and planning away from duly-elected local governments -- See State Housing Laws: Questioning the Constitutionality of Recent Legislation.

In the past two years others are, increasingly, questioning the constitutionality of all these laws and have begun to present legal arguments in the courts and elsewhere.

In January of 2019, the City of Huntington Beach, California filed a lawsuit against the State of California to overturn Senate Bill 35, a 2018 law which streamlines processes for building new housing developments. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Huntington Beach’s lawsuit contends that the state’s Constitution grants charter cities exclusive authority over local land use and zoning.”

Recently, Nicholas Waranoff, a retired attorney who lives in Orinda, sent the State Assembly Committee on Local Government and State Senate Governance and Finance Committee letters challenging the constitutionality of AB 1487 and SB 330 and SB 592. Those letters are attached below. His letters make a compelling argument that both proposed laws violate the California State Constitutional “right that cities have to control land use within their boundaries.” 

In his letter to “Oppose AB 1487,” Waranoff writes,[1] 

“I. AB 1487 violates Article IV, Section 16 of the California Constitution because any shortage of funding for affordable housing is not unique to the San Francisco Bay Area, and because the housing crisis is no more acute in the Bay Area than in certain other areas in the State. The bill’s assertions to the contrary, in its attempt to justify its lack of statewide effect, is not supported by the facts. 

“II. AB 1487 violates Article XI, section 11, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution, which provides that the Legislature may not delegate power to levy taxes to a “private person or body.” AB 1487 would create a new state agency, the Housing Authority of the Bay Area (“HABA”). The delegation of the taxing power to HABA (or to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”), which could assume the powers and obligations of HABA) violates this provision of our Constitution, because each is a “private person or body” – neither would be composed entirely of elected officials. AB 1487 would allow “taxation without representation.” [Emphasis added] 

“III. Any tax imposed by HABA or MTC would only apply in counties whose electorate approved the tax.” 

You can read his letter, here, for a full explanation of his legal arguments. 

In his letter to “Oppose SB 330,” Waranoff writes, 

“Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution, provides, “A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” SB 330 is constitutional only if it is a “general law.” SB 330 is not a general law, because it does not “apply statewide;” instead, it distinguishes between counties with more or fewer than 700,000, and between cities with a population of more or fewer than 100,000 in counties with a population of 700,000 or less. [Emphasis added] 

“SB 330 is also invalid because it violates the equal protection clauses of the California and United States Constitution by making those distinctions.” 

This then raises a fair argument about “equal protection” clauses in both the California and the U.S. Constitution. 

Waranoff argues, 

“SB 330 is also invalid because it violates the equal protection clauses of the California and United States Constitution. (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, § 7.) As explained in Britt v. City of Pomona (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 265: 

“Both the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution and article I, section 7 of the state Constitution prohibit denial to persons of the equal protection of the laws. These constitutional provisions require that persons who are similarly situated receive like treatment under the law and that statutes may single out a class for distinctive treatment only if that classification bears a rational relationship to the purposes of the statute. Thus, if a law provides that one subclass receives different treatment from another class, it is not enough that persons within that subclass be treated the same. Rather, there must be some rationality in the separation of the classes.” (Citation omitted.)”[Emphasis added] 

You can read his letter, here, for a full explanation of his legal arguments. 

Finally, in his letter to oppose SB 592, Waranoff writes, 

"For the reasons that follow, SB 592 it is unconstitutionally vague and denies procedural due process. [Emphasis added] 

"SB 592 is unconstitutionally vague because it requires that, if a local government imposes conditions on a “housing development project” (which is broadly defined), it must make findings about whether the conditions will cause the project to be “infeasible” and about whether the conditions will cause a “substantial impairment” of the “economic viability” of the project. These terms have no ascertainable meaning. 

"SB 592 denies procedural due process because it requires that, if a local government imposes conditions on a “housing development project,” the local government must make certain findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. The constitutional due process infirmity is that the local governments do not have, and are not provided, the tools needed to obtain the necessary evidence to be able to determine, for example, whether the conditions will cause a project to be “infeasible” or whether the conditions will cause a “substantial impairment” of the project’s “economic viability.” Furthermore, the very short time frame to develop the evidence is plainly insufficient. These problems are all the more significant because the penalties if a local government makes an incorrect decision are severe, including substantial fines." 

We contacted Mr. Waranoff and raised several issues to test his legal arguments AB 1487 and constitutionality in general. Among those was this comment and question. 

“There are many laws that one could argue are general laws that do not apply to all locations or all residents of California. For example, voting laws and drinking laws exclude large numbers of people (young, incarcerated, etc.). Other state laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act, provide for exemptions that cities, counties, and agencies can claim under certain circumstances. And finally, local zoning laws and planning approval exempt various public and government agencies and state universities in many instances. So, my question is how does this correlate with your argument about "general laws?" Is CEQA not a general law?” 

In response, Mr. Waranoff wrote. 

“General laws: Article IV, Section 16, of the California Constitution provide: 

(a) All laws of a general nature have uniform operation. 

(b) A local or special statute is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made applicable. 

“I think the best approach is to consider each bill separately, because the issues are different.” 

Re: AB 1487, Mr. Waranoff writes, 

“Assembly member Chiu recognized that this section of the constitution was an issue because section 2 of AB 1487 attempts justify the bill as a local or special statute. Sec. 2 states, “SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the uniquely severe shortage of available funding and resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing and the particularly acute nature of the housing crisis within the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay area region.” If statement is not true, AB 1487 violated Art. IV, Sec. 16. 

“Assembly member Chiu is co-author of SB 50. In that bill, which is currently on hold, there are numerous legislative findings that the housing crisis is statewide. I don’t think the folks in Los Angeles would agree that the San Francisco Bay Area’s housing crisis is worse than theirs.” 

In response to my questions about CEQA and other laws that deal with excluding groups of people or organizations, Waranoff commented that in his opinion “Article IV, Section 16 only addresses location, not groups of people.” Adding that 

“CEQA applies generally throughout the state. If CEQA only applied in Northern California and not in the rest of the state, there would be an issue under this constitutional section.” 

“In terms of laws that differentiate between groups of people, I don’t think Art. IV, sec. 16 applies, but in addition I would argue that the law applies to all people. The analogy would be if there was a different voting or drinking age in Northern California v. Southern California.” 

In response to my questioning him about SB 330 violating the California State Constitution, he replied, 

“The analysis [v. AB 1487] somewhat different, because Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution, gives a city a constitutional right to regulate land use such as zoning or parking restrictions in connection with development. This constitutional right is only subject to “general laws.” So, a law may not be a general law and yet may still be valid if it satisfies Article. IV, section. 16, as discussed above, but a non-general law cannot trump zoning or land use laws or decisions of a city.” [Emphasis and clarification added] 

Mr. Waranoff’s arguments are well-founded in citations of case law and in his well-reasoned explanations detailed in the “Discussion” sections of his letters, which I encourage readers to review. But his arguments have another quality that deserves attention. 

They have the unavoidable ring of making good common sense—something that we don’t find in the convoluted and ideologically-based ‘marketing messaging’ approach to legislation that Senator Wiener and Assembly Member Chiu embrace. 

The June 26 and 27 Democratic presidential debates served two purposes: to introduce the twenty top-tier candidates and to determine who was best suited to take on Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. The results were somewhat unexpected; on both debate nights the winners were women: Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Watching a two two-hour debates, each featuring 20 candidates, is like speed dating. Blink and you'd miss a clever quip or an awkward response. There were chaotic periods and many missed opportunities to explain progressive policies to the voters. 

Nonetheless, the net effect was to "cull the herd." The marginal candidates, such as Marianne Williamson, got less attention and when they did get to speak, quickly demonstrated why they had been regarded as long-shots. In my eyes, there were no breakthroughs by the ten candidates who came in polling at less than 2 percent. 

On the other hand, there was movement among the ten top-tier candidates: Beto, Booker, Biden, Buttigieg, Castro, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren. The big loser was Beto O'Rourke who seemed flat overall and the clear loser in an immigration tussle with Julian Castro. (Castro was the big surprise of the first night.) 

The other loser was former Vice-President Joe Biden. After sailing through the first half of the second debate, Biden was confronted by Harris about his voting record on school busing. When the conversation turned to race relations, Harris turned to Biden and said: "It was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bussed to school every day. And that little girl was me." When Biden struggled to explain his voting record, Harris continued: "Vice President Biden, do you agree today -- do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose bussing in America then? Do you agree?" Biden stammered that he did not oppose bussing, in general, "What I opposed is bussing ordered by the Department of Education." And Harris nailed him: "There was a failure of states to integrate public schools in America. I was part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California, public schools almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education... So that's where the federal government must step in." 

Two things jumped out from this exchange: the first is that Kamala Harris is a terrific prosecutor and, more than any other Democratic candidate, can be counted on to skewer Donald Trump in a debate. The second is that Biden should have known that this encounter was coming and been better prepared. (After the debate, Biden's team accused Harris of helping Donald Trump.) 

It's a long road to the February 3rd Iowa caucuses, but at the moment the Democratic field is led by women: If your perspective is which Democrat is best at taking on Trump, the leader is Senator Harris. If you are inclined to favor the Democrat who has given the most thought to straightening out America, the leader is Senator Elizabeth Warren. (Warren skated through the first debate night as the clear winner: interesting ideas presented concisely -- like the master teacher she is.) 

Before these debates, the national polls showed the ranking of candidates as: 1. Biden, 2. Sanders, 3. Warren, 4. Buttigieg, 5. Harris, and 6. O'Rourke. After these debate, the BB poll shows Harris and Warren tied for first, Biden and Sanders tied for third, and Buttigieg and Booker tied for fifth. That leaves Castro, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Beto (at number 10). 

I believe Biden will be damaged by his lackluster debate performance; he'll probably lose support among black voters -- this should help Harris in South Carolina. Before the debate, Bernie Sanders was already losing support as progressives switched allegiance to Warren; Sanders did nothing to reverse this trend. 

"Mayor Pete" Buttigieg got a good opportunity to show everyone how capable he is. Senator Cory Booker had a solid performance in the June 26 debate. They've forged ahead in the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination for vice-president. As has Julian Castro who was the surprise of night one. Klobuchar and Gillibrand were solid but don't have enough "star power" to move up in the herd. And Beto is fading. 

There's been a debate among Democrats about what they want most from their 2020 presidential candidate: a fighter or an ideas person. Both Harris and Warren are fighters and both have lots of good ideas. It will be fascinating to watch their interaction over the next eight months. 

Before the debates, some Democrats favored Biden because they perceived him to be "most electable." Biden was damaged in the June 27th exchange. I bet that more voters now believe that Harris and Warren are as electable as Biden. 

By the way: the next round of Democratic candidate debates happens on July 30 and 31.