If you want to know why the city of Berkeley seems so dysfunctional these days (potholes, homeless encampments, deteriorating public buildings, etc. etc. etc.) you really should watch the last hour and a half of last week’s Berkeley City Council meeting. It lasted until about 12:15 a.m., so only the hard core civic watchdogs and crazies like me were still awake to watch it on Zoom.

Councilmember Wengraf dropped off at 11 p.m. She’s always been an early-to-bed gal—when we were both on the Landmark Preservation Commission around the turn of the millennium she’d go home about ten, even though the meetings often lasted to midnight.

Councilmember Davila’s obvious frustration with the way the mayor was running the meeting seemed to cause her to skip the last few minutes on camera, easier to do on Zoom without actually leaving the room.

I was pretty frustrated myself, but to my regret I watched the whole embarrassing boondoggle right through to the end.

What was it about? Well, it was what George H.W. Bush called “the vision thing”. 

You can see the recorded version at your convenience here. Fast forward until 4 hours 17 minutes to reach the relevant presentation and vote, then watch until it ends at 5:41. If you’re not that masochistic, you can start at about 5:25 to view just The Final Struggle. 

Here’s the agenda item: 

Adoption - Civic Center Vision and Implementation Plan (Staff report and resolution)
Complete Item (Including Vision and Implementation Plan)
Presentationh
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving Berkeley’s Civic Center Vision and Implementation Plan, and declaring Council’s intention to support the vision and preferred design concepts articulated in the plan. 

What, you say? Some readers may remember that Berkeley has adopted, in living memory, both a General Plan, a Downtown Area Plan and many more. All of these involved lengthy citizen meetings of special committees and the Planning Commission before final adoption by the Council. But none of this has happened to my knowledge for this one. 

My wakeup call about this agenda item was from Kelly Hammargren, the very model of a model civic watchdog, who has assigned herself the impressive retirement project of exhaustively documenting all the meetings and events that are supposed to add up to how Berkeley’s governed. It’s Kelly who assembles from the agendas and minutes of the city’s wide array of disparate boards and commissions and agencies of all kinds the invaluable weekly document which is published here as “The Berkeley Activist’s Calendar” and on at least two other sites, including Sustainable Berkeley Coalition and the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council. 

She’s gone to almost every meeting of the City Council committee which sets the agenda for the following City Council meeting, but she’d missed the last one because of a doctor’s appointment. So where, she asked me, did this “vision” item come from, and what was it all about? 

If she didn’t know, how should I? 

With some effort I dredged from the deep recesses of memory a tour of Berkeley’s Civic Center that I’d gone on sometime last fall. Back then I was a member of the Landmarks Preservation Commission,and had been assigned to a subcommittee which was supposed to attend the tour and report back to the full commission. So I went on the tour. 

I’ve been in all of the buildings in the Civic Center sometime in the 40+years I’ve lived here, but I was saddened to see how much the city mothers and fathers had presided over their demolition by neglect. 

Just one quick example: In the Veteran’s Building, since I was dealing with a bad knee I followed posted signs, which led me to an elevator with a disability icon on the door where I pressed the button and waited. And waited. After what was easily ten minutes, a client of the men’s shelter which now uses the building told me “that thing hasn’t worked for 20 years.” 

Surely ADA must have something to say about that? At least they could take down the incorrect signs. 

I also remembered one informal meeting in a City Hall conference room where some stylish people with charming Italian accents showed us pictures of places they liked and had worked on around the world. They appeared to be fancy international consultants who had been retained to help us hicks here in Berkeley figure out what kind of a Civic Center we need. 

Later, I learned that this advice was to cost the taxpayers something like a half million dollars. 

I also remembered having a long phone conversation sometime in December with a COB Economic Development staff member who was working on the project, but like much else in what the young are now calling The Before Times, that talk has faded from recollection almost nine months later. And in early February I was removed from the LPC by the mayor, who had appointed me, so I assumed that was why I hadn’t heard about subsequent committee meetings. 

When I searched my old email I did find a general announcement of a public tour of the Civic Center on March 7. But that happened to be the very moment when the world was waking up to the danger of COVID19, perhaps the very week Berkeley’s State of Emergency had been proclaimed by the mayor, so the tour might not have happened after all. Me, I was already Sheltering in Place by then and certainly didn’t go. 

So I checked last Monday with many sources on the City Council, the Planning Commission and the LPC, including my former committee colleagues. For good measure I also checked with the non-profit advocacy organization Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, since there are many designated historic structures in the Civic Center. 

. By and large, these were people who had put in days, months and years serving the city of Berkeley, and they had been appointed to their respective commissions by councilmembers elected to serve the public. 

I learned that none of them were aware that anything like the agenda item was proposed for adoption last Tuesday. Some were downright shocked to hear about it. 

A number of them called and wrote to City Council members and other officials. Several told me that they’d been assured by said parties, and even higher up officials, that despite the agenda description nothing was going to be adopted that night. 

So if I’d had any sense I would have watched the Zoomed meeting from a comfortable chair at home and gone to bed at the usual time. 

But I’m kind of a political junky. If there’s a somewhat contentious meeting on my small screen, I sometimes just watch it for entertainment the way some people watch sports. When meetings in The Before Times were in person downtown in uncomfortable chairs, I seldom went to them and went home early if I did. 

I’ve learned that most all of Berkeley City Council policy can be explained by one rule: if it’s important enough to attract a crowd of concerned citizens, it will be heard very late, at the end of the agenda, and each citizen commenter will be limited to one minute, half the usual time, to speak. That rule goes back to the Tom Bates regime, and the current mayor has enthusiastically embraced it 

And Zoom à la Berkeley makes it so much easier to enforce. 

The faces, names and even numbers of attendees who sign on the speakers’ queue at online City Council meetings are not shown to the home audience, so no one can work the crowd. 

Shills can call in anonymously from, for example, Sacramento, to promote a Berkeley decision that touches on one of their personal hobbyhorses, e.g. Weineroid Yimbyism. 

Speakers who exceed their meager minute can be kicked off the call with no mercy if the mayor doesn’t like what they’re saying, or extended if he does. 

So, fast forward to the last Berkeley City Council meeting, which started in the wee small hours of Tuesday night and spilled over into Wednesday morning. 

Why do I suspect that this late finish was a planned outcome? 

Two things: first, an item which involved lengthy personal statements from a passel of appealing teenagers, safe at home though they were, was moved up in the agenda to be heard before the Vision Thing. This guaranteed that many of the grown-ups waiting up at home to hear about it would have gone to bed. 

Second,, Councilmember Lori Droste, who is increasingly the Mayor’s best budd, was the first member recognized for an effusive opening sally that well exceeded the announced limit on each subsequent councilmember’s’ comments. This meant that every quarter of an hour the councilmembers were required to vote to extend the meeting time, finally until 12:15 a.m. 

I have neither time, nor space, nor energy to discuss the merits of the proposal itself, which featured lots of pretty pictures and elicited lots of flowery gush from the councilmembers who had voted to pay for it in the first place. Like those of many such documents, its individual elements were good, bad and just plain silly (putting a roof garden on top of the Veterans’ Building, cutting down the two beloved giant sequoias to build a fancy pop-out council chamber…) 

What was most annoying, as is frequently the case in Berkeley lately, was the procedure, which in some cases verged on Trumpery in its disregard for facts. The topic I knew most about was the role of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in the proceedings between early March and late September, which is to say approximately none. I checked carefully with several of my former colleagues to be sure. 

Never mind reality, one of the consultant’s Power Point screens triumphally boasted of working with both the LPC and Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association on the report. But BAHA President Carrie Olsen showed up to refute that claim in the 60 seconds she was allowed to speak. She pointed out that proponents said proudly that they’d talked to 300 people, which might seem impressive, but BAHA alone has at least 1100 dues-paying members (and many more fans). 

I’ve seen close to 300 people at a single City Council meeting. And those few this project polled were not systematically selected, but certainly skewed toward privilege. I think what happened is that when Shelter in Place occurred the consultants finished out their contract Zoomily, with no publicity and very little idea of who they were talking to. 

Somehow Steven Finacom, former president of both the Berkeley Historical Sociey and BAHA, long term member and former chair of the LPC, who had already written a detailed letter to the council explaining how the public had been left out of the Post-COVID consultant-led deliberations, was not allowed to speak in the wee hours of Monday morning. 

How could this happen, do you think? 

Said the Mayor: “I didn’t see Mr.Finacom’s hand raised. “ Oh suuure. 

And minutes or even seconds, later, on the edge of adjourning, someone made a motion with language adopting the whole deal, slambamthankyoumam, despite previous copious assurances that this wouldn’t be happening at that meeting. Only very quick thinking by Councilmember Sophie Hahn, who was grudgingly allowed by the Mayor to speak for just 30 seconds at the very end, got in a quick amendment which made the vote advisory instead of binding. 

But never fear. The three lavish proposals fronted by the international consultants are estimated to cost between about $50 million and about $90 million, and given the current state of the economy they’ll probably never happen. 

The half-million dollars or so that they cost the city, however, is money down the drain, money that might have been better used, for example, to house the people who now try to camp and hang out in the City Center because they have no place else to go. I imagine the quick vote was because the consultants wanted to get their final payment and leave town, though I have no evidence of that. 

Now it’s time for the arrogant officials who increasing dominate Berkeley governance to once again consult the many capable citizens who have volunteered their time for free to make this city work. Every time I look up a name on the roster of commissioners I am impressed by the caliber of free help this city manages to get for free. It’s about time to treat them with respect, isn’t it? 

Just a suggestion. 

I’m writing to support Steven Finacom’s recommendation that the Berkeley City Council NOT adopt a single “Vision” for the Civic Center, but, as he suggests, first hold a workshop to hear recommendations, thank those responsible, etc., and then move to the next stage which should include a general public review and comment, but especially, a review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the full Parks and Waterfront Commission. This pandemic time has not been a period when those of us interested in Berkeley’s civic development have followed or been able to attend city council meetings, but this issue of what happens at the civic heart of Berkeley seems important enough for the brakes to be put on while those most interested and responsible for the shape of Berkeley-to-come have a chance to digest the proposals more fully. Certainly Steven Finacom’s remarks about all the unused space in the Civic Center area, the shortage of public funds, and the importance to Berkeley’s future of planned civic development now should be taken into consideration given his architectural and land use expertise. I’m sure that if more Berkeley residents were aware of this rush to finalization of the Vision plan and its shortcomings, they would be as distressed as I am. Here’s the link to the Finacom article.

SB1120,the measure to turn any single-family lot into four units -- with zero affordable housing -- is the top of the Scott Wiener/Yimby agenda.

On September 9, I “Zoomed” a conversation between state Sen. Scott Wiener and New York Times reporter Conor Dougherty. The exchange was sponsored by the World Affairs Council of San Francisco.

At one point, Dougherty referred to SB 1120, the measure authored by State Senate President Toni Atkins that had died at 11:57 pm on the last day of the Legislature’s session. Dougherty called it a “duplex” bill. Wiener corrected him: “It’s actually a fourplex bill.”

That pricked my interest, because I’d always seen SB 1120 referred to in the media as a duplex bill. Indeed, that’s how Sen. Atkins describes it herself. I decided to look at the text of the measure. When I did, I discovered that it says nothing about “duplexes” nor “fourplexes.” Instead, it refers to housing “units.”

More precisely, SB 1120 requires cities “to permit ministerially”—no public process, no CEQA review—two things: first, a housing development “containing 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone;” and second, the subdivision of a parcel into two equal parcels (an urban lot split) within a residential zone. In other words: where a single-family home now stands, SB 1120 would require a city to allow four new residences—two on each newly split parcel. Which means that Wiener’s claim—that it’s a fourplex bill—is also misleading. 

Even more concerning, Atkins is describing SB 1120 as an affordable housing measure. On September 12, she tweeted thanks to former HUD Secretary Julian Castro “for recognizing the work we’re doing in California to create more affordable housing, and specifically my bill #SB1120.” Atkins linked to the September 1 online conversation about “creating more equitable cities” hosted by New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo where Castro had “applaud[ed] Atkins’ measure. 

In fact, SB 1120 specifies no affordability requirements for the four new housing units it would permit ministerially. Which is to say: the bill would require cities to permit without a public process four new market-rate units on a parcel that formerly allowed a single-family home. This is a recipe for gentrification and displacement, as Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager explained to the August 15 town hall organized by the South LA Alliance for Locally Planned Growth. Kamlager voted No on SB 1120. 

 

So did Assemblymember Laura Friedman from Glendale—for a different reason. SB 1120, Friedman observed, made no exemptions for new construction in the urban-wildland interface—a matter of some interest these days in California. Again, four units would be allowed where now just one is permitted. Referencing the huge Tejon Ranch development, Friedman told the Assembly that she’d voted for almost every housing bill in the past few years, but she couldn’t vote for this one. 

Atkins, Wiener, and their Yimby allies have made it clear that when the Legislature convenes for its new session on December 7, something very like SB 1120 is going to be introduced. No doubt, they’re drafting that bill right now. If it’s similar to its predecessor, it will face the same opposition.

When the pandemic shutdown hit Berkeley, its first moves framed its values: a majority of the citizen commissions were shut down. There were a few exceptions, such as commissions tasked with marching developers bravely forward. But despite all events and groups, including the city council, meeting only virtually, certain commissions were unplugged claiming health concerns. It's something certain city leaders have dreamed of for years. Consider it the upside of the global pandemic; streamlining development by sidelining and sidestepping tedious, time-consuming traction with the public -- they're so out of the loop.

Development isn't all that's being streamlined. The Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA), the unaccountable, unelected property owners' lobby with a budget of public money floating at around 2.8 million, decided to create a program to arm its "hospitality ambassadors" with the "right to arrest", batons, handcuffs, and pepper spray. But that's not all, reassures DBA CEO John Caner. They have forms which, after using their pepper spray, have little boxes saying that the use was either "effective" or "ineffective." Who gets to decide whether the use was effective or ineffective? That's easy. The guy holding the pepper spray. Not the dead guy. That's how the Berkeley police do it, so what's not to love. 

With certain voices out of the way, and despite no crime surge cover, this initiative has skipped through toward the finishing line of its 90-day pilot program, including the acquisition of two $20,000 "T3 Patrollers", white electric tricycles the "safety ambassadors" with the handcuffs, batons, and pepper spray get to ride. Because it's so dang exhausting walking around the quarter-mile area considered the "premium" zone where a pepper spray spritz is already in use to underscore the DBA's creative take on the First Amendment. 

This is the organization whose "hospitality team" beat up two homeless guys who were well out of anybody's way in an alley behind the CVS: if you've never seen it, take a look on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sQ8nNr03cU. This is the organization which honestly thought - and may still think - they could make content-based decisions about what could and couldn't be posted around downtown. This is the group that repeatedly tried to outlaw panhandling, then sitting down, and finally got the majority of the current council to agree to 3-foot-square rules and two-hour rules on belongings for the poor all of which are just convenient paper. Because when push comes to pepper spray, they've cleared their "premium" shopping area free of panhandlers by force, intimidation, and the sweet sleep of the Berkeley voters who are still re-watching Game of Thrones and shaking in their shoes when the take-out is delivered. 

The "effective" and "ineffective" boxes are particularly entertaining to those who remember that oleoresin capsicum, if properly and professionally used, according to one UCSF study of police encounters, is only considered "effective", or useful, less than half the time. Another ratio of people sprayed with it appear to be unaffected, while another slice get even more aggravated and angry after being sprayed. And then there's that pesky ratio who die. When you die, that's...effective? Ineffective? Who decides that? Oh, that's right - the guy holding the pepper spray. 

No such findings were in the DBA's pepper spray, baton, and handcuff initiative's foundational information. There was no information regarding the lethal potential of the weapon, especially for the vulnerable population the DBA has targeted for years with their anti-homeless, anti-poor legislation these unelected, uninformed bigots cook up in the back room. Kate Harrison, City Council representative for District Four, which includes the downtown, knows all about it. Mayor Jesse Arreguin knows all about it. And now you know all about it. Be sure you ask any candidate running for office how they feel about it. Just so you can watch them wonder whether you think killing a vulnerable old vet with pepper spray is effective or ineffective. It's so hard to tell. 

Years ago, former Mayor Shirley Dean stated plainly that the Downtown Berkeley Association, having originated with generous public funding and mandated property-based fees, should of course transition their merchant lobby to voluntary fees, like any other interest group. But the DBA hates having to give up mandatory, property-based fees, including fees on all public property including UC property and federal property such as the post office. It's so tedious trying to explain the efficacy of using public money to hold politicians by the balls. 

They're unelected. They're unaccountable. And now they're armed. Pepper spray use isn't just an admission of failure, although it is surely that. Take a hard look at this one. It isn't just our values which are at stake. It's our democracy. 

# # # 

If we are to believe our not very reliable media, some or even many of our fellow citizens, raised in what we once thought to be a civilized country, apparently are believers of incredible conspiracy theories such as Qanon. This is both puzzling and deeply disturbing.

How has this happened?

The relentless Republican defunding and denigration of public education and of teachers (who still understand the benefits of unions) has been all too successful, especially in economically-marginalized parts of the country. As state and federal support retracts, the costs of higher education are driven to absurd heights, making it almost impossible for students from middle- and low-income families to attend college without acquiring debts that will take decades to repay and limit their future employment choices.

TV, the opiate of the people, was designed, in the U.S., to breed consumers and serve capitalist profits. Besides addiction to mindless, or vicious, social media and dumb TV, addiction to drugs and unhealthful food are driven by the constant flow of false promises delivered by TV and now Internet commercials. Cellphone addiction distracts users from the real events that threaten and raises concern about electro-magnetic radiation and cancer, but such concerns are marginalized by all those who profit from these addictions, manufacturers, marketers, and even users themselves. And further money is to be made by promising solutions to them. 

Chemical and other environmental pollution, which damages fetuses in the womb as well as the rest of us who breathe toxic air, polluted water, and eat food “products” grown in intensely poisoned soil long since depleted of nutrients and minerals. Ongoing scientific research, much of it funded by our tax dollars, has demonstrated repeatedly that the developing human brain, as well as children’s bodies, are damaged by the introduction of many of the thousands of chemicals introduced into our environment in the past 75 years. The chemical companies enjoyed their profits from nerve gas and other chemical weapons during World War II and they decided domestic uses could be found and sold to gullible U.S. consumers. Ten years ago scientists found more than 200 chemicals in infants’ cord blood. No doubt they’d find many more now. Few of us escape the cancers traceable to these chemical disruptions of our physical systems. Not to mention the wonders of plastics, the fallback product for the oil corporations once we really do cease to poison our environment with their primary product. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newborn-babies-chemicals-exposure-bpa/ 

The bought media, that is, most of the mainstream media, owe their profits to serving their advertisers, not their readers and viewers. In the 1970s scientists began making public their concerns about the devastation that would be wreaked by human-induced climate disruption, especially the mining, transport, and burning of fossil fuels. But most media were not conveying these concerns to the public, and the oil corporations that supported the media corporations hired pseudo-scientists to refute them and confuse the public. It is only in the past year or so that mainstream media have dared to use the term climate change, let alone global warming, or the climate crisis. 

Meanwhile, the governor of California purports to be showing the way to a green future but has already signed many more oil and gas fracking leases than he did last year. And the president works to incite civil war. 

“He who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit violence.” —Voltaire

The current Bylaws were drafted by a group headed by Carol Spooner after the 1999 crisis. At the time it was felt that all-elected Boards were the preferred governance structure.

However, it became evident that the way the current Bylaws implemented the elections resulted in dysfunctional Boards. National Board Directors are elected by the Local Board, which is akin to our Electoral College, and the National Board Officers are elected by the majority on the National Board, so they are twice removed from the members.

Here are some of the problems resulting from the chronic dysfunction of Pacifica’s National Board.

1. Pacifica has failed every audit since 2015.

2. Pacifica was just kicked out of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Before that, Pacifica’s Board had forfeited nearly $7 million dollars in CPB grants since 2013.

3. Pacifica has no money to pay a $3.2 million loan payment due April 2021.

4. Pacifica has no financial reserves and is close to financial collapse.

----- 

Disinterested but knowledgeable third parties have been saying for years that Pacifica needs to change its Bylaws. 

Previous Pacifica’s auditors, Regalia and Associate, said in in 2018: 

“It appears Pacifica is unable to map out an effective and safe strategy due to the disjointed nature of its various governance Boards which appear to be working at cross purposes… As auditors, we strongly recommend an end to the infighting and unproductive arguments which we have witnessed by listening to and reading Board minutes. The organization’s ability to continue as a going concern is directly related to its ability to follow a rational plan and financially sensible strategy.” 

Current Pacifica’s auditors, Rogers & Company, said in 2019: 

“As has been communicated by the predecessor independent auditors, we also agree it would be beneficial for the Foundation to review its Bylaws and consider any revisions to simplify them and encourage more productive meetings….” 

“…it appears that the Foundation and its several stations would benefit from changes designed to achieve a more productive governance process. We believe that all divisions should restructure their Boards with fewer members, which would hopefully reduce the number of disparate voices and result in more effective governance. Bylaws should be re-written to be more effective, restrict voting participation, and restrict impediments to efficient Board actions and procedures. The current process lends itself to protracted and unproductive discourse between participants....” 

Current Pacifica CPA said in 2019: 

“Going back to the governance issue. I think part of that concern, and this goes back, this recommendation goes back to probably 2012, with CPB’s recommendations. They been uncomfortable with the structure, and would like to see something little more conventional, and where divisions can be made just in more business like fashion.” 

—---- 

A group of people, in early 2020, put a referendum for a new Bylaws which was soundly defeated. 

The drafters of the new Bylaws focused on getting people with experience and expertise on the Board, and many voters felt that it impinged too much on the listener democracy. 

However, the need to change the Bylaws remain, so another group, with some members from the first effort, drafted a new set of Bylaws, learning from the short comings of the first effort, and incorporating many of the advice of the disinterested but knowledgeable third parties. 

--- 

Following is a key summary of the New Day Pacifica Bylaws. 

1. The National Board size is reduced from 24 to 15. 

2. 8 Directors represent each of the stakeholders (the listeners of 5 stations, the paid staff, the volunteer staff, and the affiliates). 

3. 4 Board Officers are directly elected by the full membership, instead being elected by the Board, for increased democracy and accountability. 

4. 3 Directors are selected by the 12 elected Directors, to bring to the Board experience, expertise, and diversity that Board members might lack, but the Board needs. 

5. To remove the over lapping governance structure that have led to grid lock, governance power is removed from the Local Station Board, which now does the work of the CPB mandated Community Advisory Board. 

 

—--- 

Carol Spooner, co-author of the current Bylaws, supports the New Day Pacifica Bylaws: 

“The New Day Pacifica Bylaws will correct excesses of the present bylaws by reducing the size of the board, getting the Local Station Boards out of station management, and having direct elections of National Board Members, rather than our present, baroque two stage voting process.” 

------- 

Pacifica members can learn more about the New Day Pacifica Bylaws at: https://www.newdaypacifica.org 

If you agree that Pacifica needs new Bylaws, please sign the petition at the site.

Frustrated by peaceful demonstrators marching up and down the streets of Seattle, Attorney General William Barr threatened to bring charges against the mayor of Seattle for allowing a police-free protest zone. Infected by his close proximity to the Trump virus, Barr seems have lost all his objectivity. This once highly respected lawyer seems to be on a downward spiral of moral decay. His ascendancy in Trump’s inner circle has been quite remarkable. He is now the undisputed chief of the swamp discharged with the task of crowning his lard and master “king for life.”  

Sadly, Barr seems to have a very selective memory. I seem to recall “tough guy” Trump threatening a protester who tried to storm the stage in Kansas, with physical violence. "I'll beat the crap out of you," he snarled. He then lamented "Part of the problem ... is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore." 

Barr even threatened to charge peaceful protestors, with sedition adding momentum to autocratic rule. Many of the country’s leading attorneys denounced Barr’s comments but few would go public fearing retribution raising concerns of a hostile takeover of our democracy. 

Abandoning all presence of objectivity, Barr noted that the Supreme Court had determined that the executive branch had “virtually unchecked discretion,” providing legal cover to the criminal enterprise of Trump Inc. I wonder if this absolves him of the needless death of 200,000 Americans to Coronavirus.

About a month ago Wayne Hsiung, mayoral candidate challenging Mayor Jesse Arreguin, knocked on my door. He presented himself well. I agreed with his issues positions. And he obviously believed he could or would win. I told Wayne I would vote for him, but I also gave him my opinion that he had little chance of unseating Jesse, who has the backing of the Democratic Party establishment. Perhaps Wayne took my assertion as a negative sign since neither he nor his team have asked me for money or to put up a lawn sign (maybe I told him my financial contributions are reserved for more important races, like ending the Republican control of the Senate which is of critical importance to our futures). But I've just recently decided to write to say why I'll vote for Wayne. 

Jesse Arreguin ran as an anti-establishment progressive against the traditional Berkeley machine that held the mayoralty for decades. And yet over the past two years Jesse could not muster the courage to oppose the relationship that brings equipment from the U.S. military to our police department or the (formerly) racist training scenarios and programs run by Sheriff Ahern, nor the national police data base of license plates that is totally beyond any civilian control and thus susceptible to abuse on the basis of race, politics or whatever. Even when our County Board of Supervisors courageously decided to end its support for the Urban Shield trainings and military equipment transfers, Jesse couldn't pull the plug on this wrong approach to criminal justice and law enforcement. Showing up at various protests, whether in defense of the Post Office or Black Lives Matter can't obscure that our current mayor was willing to so badly betray the interests of our city and citizenry. At least that's my opinion. And I hope you agree.

We are familiar with the recent tragic decision, mainly engineered by the Republican Party, to reduce the supplement to unemployment insurance from $600 per week to $300. The supplement has not only provided more purchasing power to unemployed workers. Economists generally agree that the spending power of millions of workers has played a critical role in sustaining the economy, So the 50 percent reduction is certainly bad news. Even the $300 weekly check will be expiring soon. By depriving almost 30 million workers of millions of dollars to spend is deepening the economic decline,

Moreover, the new legislation, in addition, reduces the number of workers who would benefit by excluding from eligibility those whose weekly unemployment checks are less than $100. For example, in Colorado, 28,000 jobless workers cannot collect the supplement because the checks they receive are regarded as too small. Isn’t this incredible! Since unemployment benefits these workers receive is small, they should be receiving a large supplement rather than none at all.

For those of you who are interested in learning about the budget in each state google the following: “State Budget Cuts in the New Fiscal Year Are Unnecessarily Harmful”. Among the discouraging problems we learn about is the assault on affordable health care,`which is especially a problem for the poor. So far, at least 20 states have made deep cuts in health care programs. These cuts impact low income children, seniors and adults with disabilities. 

The cuts in California have been brutal. California is cutting state funding for Med-Cal (the state’s Medicaid program) by over $1.6 billion. Among those adversely affected are an estimated 565,000 children. 

In addition, at least 12 states so far, including California, have cut taxes on behalf of the corporations and the business community. Several states, including California, in a less visible way have reduced their budgets by allowing taxes to expire without taking formal action. When budgets are reduced jobs are often cut as well. In about 16 states cutbacks in public programs have resulted in substantial layoffs. Within the last decade, state and local government have eliminated almost 600,000 jobs, 

Also worrisome is the possible termination of the Affordable Care Act. As you know, the purpose of the law is to reduce the cost of health insurance for low income individuals and families. As the San Francisco Chronicle notes, California could lose as much as $25 billion a year in federal aid that makes it possible for more than 5 million low and moderate income residents to obtain health insurance, 

Since Ruth Bader Ginsberg is gone. President Trump is most likely to appoint a judge that would allow a majority of the Supreme Court Justices to abolish the AffordableCare Act. Obviously, we must do whatever is possible to prevent this from happening, 

President Trump, Do Not Attempt To Appoint a Supreme Court Replacement Until After The November Election!

It didn't attract much attention, but over the last few days, Joe Biden has crafted an effective economic message. In a voter town hall in Scranton Pennsylvania, and in subsequent speeches, Biden crystallized his powerful argument.

Although a majority of voters are worried about the Coronavirus pandemic, there is also deep concern about the economy: jobs, everyday bills, and healthcare costs. Joe Biden is addressing this with a comprehensive plan (https://joebiden.com/build-back-better/#), while Donald Trump offers a set of bromides.

Until the last few weeks, when compared on a range of issues, voters saw Trump as better than Biden on only one issue: the economy. But recently, the gap has narrowed. The September 2nd, Quinnipiac poll ( https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3671) found Biden and Trump tied on the question "who would do a better job handling the economy."

Now Biden has found the perfect way to demonstrate to voters that Trump isn't the one they should trust to handle the economy: Biden is making it personal. "Guys like Trump who inherited everything and squandered what they inherited are the people that I’ve always had a problem with, not the people who are busting their neck... I really do view this campaign as a campaign between Scranton and Park Avenue." "Like a lot of you, I spent a lot of my life with guys like Donald Trump looking down on me. Looking down on the people who make a living with their hands. People who take care of our kids, clean our streets."

Biden's message is one of deep equality: "One of the lessons my mother taught me... it’s one that you probably were taught too... She said, 'Joey, remember nobody’s better than you, but everybody’s your equal...' You don’t measure people by the size of their bank accounts. I don’t respect people based on how big the house they live in is. I don’t look down my nose when people are busting their necks just making a limit, nor do any of you." Biden is identifying with working folks, the ones who have been left out of Trump's economy.

Based upon this perspective, Biden is directly attacking Trump's fixation on the stock market. "Trump says... everyone’s in the stock market. That’s why he cares about the stock market. What the hell is he talking about? People, I grew up in Scranton, Claymont, they don’t have money in stocks. Every penny we made was to pay the bills and take care of the families, putting clothes in the back, and a roof over our head." 

There are several important elements of Biden's message. One is raising the minimum wage. "[It's] about time we start to pay essential workers for the fact that they’re essential. Blinders have been taken off the American people. I think they’re ready. They’re ready to insist that the minimum wage be $15 an hour." 

Another is emphasizing "work not wealth." [My] entire campaign is built upon a simple concept. It’s time to reward hard work in America, not wealth. Reward work, not wealth... it’s the opposite now. Reward wealth and not work. We’re going to have to rebuild an economy in the wake of COVID-19. And as we do, we have an incredible opportunity to make long overdue investments for working families. To make sure the wealthy, the very wealthy and big corporations finally began to pay their fair share. I’m not looking to punish anybody, just pay your fair share." 

Buy American: "[My plan] starts with a pretty basic idea. When the government spends taxpayers’ money, we should spend that money to buy American products made by American workers in American supply chains to generate American growth and opportunity." 

Rebuild America: "During my first term alone, we’re going to invest $400 billion in federal money... to invest and purchase products and materials our country needs to modernize the infrastructure, to replenish critical stockpiles, to enhance our national security." "My infrastructure plan is going to revitalize American infrastructure so the future is made in America." 

Protect workers: "I’ll fight for workers and unions at every step requiring all federal infrastructure projects to, one, pay prevailing wage, two, prioritize project labor agreements so collective bargaining is in place before the project starts, [employ] workers from registered apprenticeships... Pass the PRO Act to crack down on employers who are trying to block or break unions." 

Tax Fairness: "Look, I’m not looking to punish anybody, but dammit, it’s about time the super wealthy and corporate America start paying their fair share." Biden's plan raises taxes for those who make more than $400,000 a year. "You have nothing to worry about if you make less than 400... If you make more, you’re going to start to pay your fair share. No who makes less than 400 is going to pay a single penny more in taxes under our administration. In fact, tens of millions of middle class families are going to get tax cuts when they need it most, while you’re raising your children, while you’re trying to get affordable healthcare, buying your first home or saving for retirement" 

Healthcare: In Biden's "Build Back Better" plan ( https://joebiden.com/build-back-better/#), he promises to expand healthcare: "[Biden] will pass universal paid sick days and 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. And he has a plan to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care, by providing a public option and lowering costs for care and for prescription drugs." 

Sex Discrimination: In Biden's "Build Back Better" plan, he promises to address sex discrimination: " Biden will also address discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act as the next step in efforts to ensure women are paid equally for equal work." 

Just in time for the debates, Biden has found his economic message: "Guys like Trump who inherited everything and squandered what they inherited are the people that I’ve always had a problem with, not the people who are busting their neck... I really do view this campaign as a campaign between Scranton and Park Avenue." 

---

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